Enough with the Sanders excuses.
It would have been lovely. Better than lovely, in fact, if Sanders had won the nomination. At least we could hope he'd plot an effective course back to the New Deal policies the Democrats had before the disease of neo-liberalism started growing under Jimmy Carter, a process refined and accelerated by the vile pieces of shit we call the Clintons. It wouldn't have been an especially forward-looking program given the glaring absence of a plan, however well disguised, to end the rule of capital. Rather, we were to settle for the notion that capital could be tamed, i.e., saved from itself until, one supposes, people with courage and vision came along.
And yet even this mild plan could not survive contact with the Clintonite Democratic party, a party of murderers and pathological liars who masquerade as "progressives" who "get things done". The obvious certainty of this failure was apparently lost on Senator Sanders, whose representatives are now expressing his "disappointment" at the news that the Clintonites rigged the primaries against him so his basket-of-kittens-level challenge to capital came to naught.
Well, yes. We're all "disappointed", Bernie; and indeed, someone must be held accountable.
Who would that be?
How about you, Senator, for the level of naivete that led you to think you could challenge a party of greed-driven liars and killers for access to the levers to power? Did you really think they would let you get anywhere close? And your supporters? After being baited and switched election after election by that same manifestly evil party, could they really believe you would end up anywhere but a dumpster behind the Wells Fargo Center in the early hours of Tuesday morning?
And as the final screw is driven in your neck with an electric drill that says CLINTON on the side, you'll endorse them anyway.
You will endorse the miserable fuckers anyway.
You could have offered a real challenge. You could have told the bald truth about their evil politics not just all the way to the convention, but all the way to the election and after. You could have planted the seeds of a political party that threatened the Democrats, siphoned off their cash and votes, given people hope that another path was possible, and made the Democrats understand that they will under no circumstances get the votes of your supporters. Ever.
You could have planted the human seeds of a new generation of activists and politicians who boldly reject the violence and lies that keep one of two evil parties in power over us and the world.
But you didn't do any of these things. You gave it up easy. No party building. No uncompromising challenge to the Democrats' obscene front of morality and concern for working people. No exposure of their global project of mass murder for power and money.
Nothing.
There would never be plain truth telling. That might have upset your chances of winning the nomination of a party that was never going to let you win, anyway. Anyone with the sense to pour piss out of a boot knew that...even if you didn't.
But hell, you got some folks on the platform committee! Neat! And guess what, now your supporters are being locked out and laughed at by the Clintonites. The super-delegates are having your liver for breakfast.
And why not? You mean nothing. Hillary didn't slap you and your supporters in the face with the Kaine nomination. To slap your face, she would have to give a shit what you and your supporters think. Unless there is an astounding turn of events, the Sanders supporters who were Democrats in the first place will stay Democrats and lay down for Clinton; the few who weren't reliable Democrats were discounted already; and any deficit the Clintonites sense will be made up when they go fishing for votes on the right. Their math has always been that for every vote they lose on the left, they gain +1 on the right.
So go ahead with your pathetic, self-mocking endorsement of the Inevitable Sociopath Monday night. It's really neither here nor there in the scheme of things. So long as you and your supporters are not explicitly and loudly making it clear the Democrats don't have your vote, you mean nothing.
All that's left is the hope that maybe some of your partisans, both the disillusioned and those who understood you were never anything more than a vehicle, will walk away from the debacle with a new commitment to build a real party of the left and consign the Democratic party to the dustbin of history. The Democratic party must be broken and discredited. It is the only way.
Comments
He told you, it's not about me
Not me but us. He told you the system was rigged. He pulled away the veil on the corruption for all of us to see. He told you a thousand times; three speeches a day for over a year. Didn't you listen?
He is not to blame for the anger you feel, no more than for the corruption he exposed. As you said, he was never more than a vehicle to show us the path, the rest is up to us. Stand up and fight, for you are not alone. We have something to build, since it is the only way. Are you coming?
I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance. - e.e.cummings
Not me, us.
I couldn't have said it any better. Thanks!
The path to what? The democratic party?
That's what its been all about the entire time, the democratic party. He told you many times, sometimes three times a day. For that he is to blame. I blamed him the minute he decided to run as a Dem. It was obvious to those who wanted to see he was playing a role for the Democratic party.
So what exactly are you going to build?
DING!
Ding, and more Ding, both you and Shirley below.
But they are still in mourning and many are not ready to hear the person they believed in (while telling us that it wasn't about him) was never going to launch a serious challenge to the system. How is that possible when you promise to support the monster you are allegedly fighting?
If the Sanders movement is serious, they will form a real structure with leaders who understand that the path to success does not go through the established parties.
The Sanders movement is serious about feelings, not about change.
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
I'd say the majority of Sanders supporters will vote for
Clinton and stay with the Dem party. The left leaning conferences and summits held recently as supposed continuations of Sanders revolution were the same thing, geared around the democratic party. Electing more and better democrats (i.e., progressives) while formulating the typical left leaning goals about issues that these new politicians will supposedly fight for, without challenging the power which is what a revolution should do.
Many will go Green, but there are 12 left leaning political parties (give or take) such as the Socialist Alternative party that many will also gravitate toward. Many, like me, have given up on the representative political system and will only work outside the electoral and representative system. There's a lot of fragmentation and differing goals and agendas making it difficult for the moderate to radical left to unite under common cause.
Sanders revolution in the Democratic party is obviously a dead end. Whether a real one emerges is yet to be seen. Evidently one person's revolution is another's waste of time.
Yes, he showed us the corruption. Now he's supporting it.
A slogan uttered by a servant of the system
He said he wanted to end with a political a revolution.
Where is the "us"? Where is the 13 million "To Hell With Hillary" movement? Where is the rush from the Democratic party?
Like Bernie Sanders the mild welfare state capitalist program he thought he could get past the killers in the Democratic party: nowhere. Slogans, excuses, bullshit.
And Tuesday night, he gives the Clintonites their money shot.
But people still have to "believe in" him. SMDH.
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
How the hell
did I miss Bernie's "To Hell With Hillary" movement?
Oh right. I didn't. That's only what existed in your mind. You have confirmed what I thought as soon as I read this essay when you posted it last night.
I could have posted the first comment but like a couple of days ago I decided to let this pig run before deciding what variety it is. Sir, you have run afoul of crossed purposes and misplaced anger due to unrealized expectations.
I don't know if Bernie thought he'd generate enough enthusiasm to get 13,000,000 votes for president in the primary. He's ridden this horse before without nearly that much success so I guess the answer is no. Thousands of times he has clearly stated his purpose for running. He wanted to start a political revolution to change how politics works in our country. It does not work for the 99% and he wants to change that. He's been banging on that drum his entire adult life although not in those words. His chosen vehicle was the Democratic Party. He could have chosen to run as an independent. I think there is a strong possibility he would have done well although I don't think he'd have gotten as many votes or brought out so many new voters. I am absolutely certain that as an independent he would not have so clearly and effectively exposed the rotten, corrupt core of the Democratic Party, HRC, and the Clinton corporate wing of the party.
None of the media dis-/mis-/non-information about Bernie would have occurred. The Clinton campaign nastiness and rat fuckery would not have taken place. None of the DNC/DWS collusion to rig the primary against a Dem candidate would have happened and been so deliciously documented in their Wikileaked emails. The voting fraud wouldn't have been necessary and thus wouldn't have happened. Want to add more to list? Go ahead. None of it would have happened. HRC and Trump could have easily laughed off Bernie as a 74 year old socialist fringe candidate from a small state. Completely ignoring him would have presented no problems because he could not have threatened their nomination in any way.
I don't know if this was his intent or he was the beneficiary of my favorite saying: No amount of planning ever replaces dumb luck. Given the corruption and nasty aggressiveness of the DNC hierarchy and the Clintons I think it's possible to have expected their reactions to provide more evidence of how bad they are for all of us. Regardless, his campaign exposed all we suspected and more. It's out there for all who will look and see it for what it is. The most important thing he did was reveal the intense corruption in the Democratic Party to the glaring light of public knowledge. That will do more to promote the political revolution he wants for us than anything other than if he'd succeeded at getting the nomination. That, right there - look at it, was his stated purpose. He has succeeded far beyond the wildest expectations of anyone including, I think, himself.
Is your obvious anger so intense that you cannot see any of this? Your essay said to me that your purpose was different. I could be wrong but I see your purpose is to keep HRC out of the presidency. I totally agree. Bernie didn't achieve that. Stein won't. Johnson won't. Trump of all people might. Bernie and Jill joining forces might keep Hillary out of the White House but it may be at the expense of getting Trump elected (already a possibility) or, a non-zero probability, some other actual card carrying Republican asshole gets the presidency if the election ends up in the House.
Bernie's second stated purpose was to keep Trump out of the White House. I don't have the fear of Trump that will allow me to support Bernie on this one. It doesn't matter the slightest what you or I or anyone think or want. He has set this as a boundary to what he will do for this election. Election. It has nothing to do with the political revolution that will continue with or without you or me.
We disagree, I think, on following Bernie as he moves forward with the movement. You've stated in different words that you don't respect him, don't trust him, and that he was a false leader who sold out to corruption. The reasons I get from your essay are that you and he had different purposes that you now blame on him for not fulfilling yours. You are now massively pissed about him not meeting your expectations. I hope you can see past the anger to realize how badly this serves you.
Me. I'll talk for me now. I'm 65 years old. I've never seen a politician the caliber of Bernie Sanders. There is nobody in the US who during my lifetime has a record of honesty, integrity, and principle like him. I know there are areas that I will disagree with him. I disagree with him about Trump. At the same time I have to trust his political sense and accept the path he's taken. The long, long overdue massive change to the political system I want right now isn't happening with this election. I know it would not have happened with a Bernie Sanders presidency either. There may have been some movement but I think it is far more likely the full power of both major parties and corporate media would have united to see Bernie was completely ineffective. Think Obama with two parties of no. They have too much to lose to let an old guy come from out of left field derail their gravy train. Stopping them is going to take more than one or two terms of a 74 year old democratic socialist president. It may happen in a generation but only if we work hard enough for it.
I think that right there is Bernie's point in doing this his way not yours, not mine. I'm coming to think of him as a Moses like figure who is destined to lead the 99% out of the wilderness of a neoliberal and neocon created hell but will never see it come to pass. I doubt I will ever see it. He's laying the foundation to build a political movement dedicated to the rest of America not in the 1% and may be the face of it for a time. But he's right, this is our movement not his. It isn't going to happen over night, or in one election cycle. It won't be easy. We will have to fight tooth and nail with the Clintons, both parties, and the oligarchs for every inch. The only way we succeed is to grow the fuck up, band together, and get down to work. There's no time to whine and cry and bitch that we didn't get what we personally wanted right the fuck now. It ain't happening. We need to get over it and follow the brightest light since FDR. It really is lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way time.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
I loved this part:
Meaning joining Sanders in his sad capitulation to monsters? When he could have spent all that time and money on a real challenge to the system? It amazes me not only how "believing in" politicians warps people's judgment, but that part of the warp is defining "grow the fuck up" as supporting the mass murderer to whom he's promised his best efforts.
I can only wonder what you'll be thinking tomorrow night as the brightest light since FDR hands what's left of his ass over the Clintons.
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
Still angry and can't see.
I expected nothing less.
I see that anger also ruins reading comprehension too . Believe is not a word I use or a concept I accept. Faith is another one I don't accept. I don't either believe in Bernie Sanders or have faith in him. I do see evidence of the beginnings of a political change in this country. Whether it ends up being revolutionary is yet to be seen. Time will tell. I do, however, know with a certainty brought from living a few 24 hours that if we don't get behind someone, come together, and get to work or we're going to exactly where we are now. Right this moment I see a herd of cats. So, please, toss aside the guy who brought so many together in the beginning of a movement able to closely challenge any major party leadership at the presidential level. (Only Trump did it better but then he didn't have the full weight of the RNC and media against him.) And do it for selfish reasons like you don't like his tactics or his strategy or him doing precisely what he told you he would do. It isn't his fault you couldn't hear or heard something he didn't say. It isn't his fault you don't see where he's going and lack the patience to see what he has for us going forward.
Nobody else has the number of progressive supporters or organization Bernie has. Jill won't come close to challenging either HRC or Trump. I say that even though I will vote for her in November. She is the best choice in this election who is on the ballot while she stands zero chance to win. There is growth in Green Party support as Bernie voters turn to her instead of Johnson or Trump. Where they go after the election is yet to be seen. The direction of the Greens will follow after the election is unlikely to be as advanced as Bernie's. Jill seems to have acknowledged she doesn't have the power to move forward like Bernie does. I do expect them to work together for progressive issues following the election. (I hope that Jill working with the sellout Bernie doesn't get too many panties bunched up.) The election and the revolution are two entirely different things. But I don't think that has occurred to you yet or you can't separate them. You remain focused on this election which is beyond your power to influence. Anger is a typical reaction for those who haven't worked through powerlessness.
My definition of growing up is finally learning that you are not the most important person in this world. So, yeah, I think learning to grow up is a noble idea. It's also needed right here right now.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
Thank you, vtcc, for your thoughtful message.
But I disagree that we should wait for Bernie's movement to bear fruit at a later date. We don't have the time. The world is coming to an end, at least as a habitable world. We are probably already past the point of no-return with global warming. I don't know enough about this, but suspect we're also past the point of no-return for the global economy. And for the state of continual global warfare. Some parts of these problems Trump will worsen faster than Hilary, and I believe Hilary will be much worse with wars.
But I do strongly believe that these are problems for the future of life on earth that only certain people are willing to face: Bernie & Jill Stein.
Hence, my feelings of urgency that Bernie walk out of the convention and take us with him to a third party run.
And thank you for laying out
why this election is important. It is desperately important for so many reasons. The two viable choices we have, HRC and Trump, are both the worst I've ever seen and bad simply because each in his or her own way will make things worse. My sense is that Hillary is worse but I can't in good conscience decide. We will be stuck with one of them with almost complete certainty. The country's voters are nowhere close to seeing the threats these two present like most of us here see. Bernie more than anyone has opened eyes but not enough to save this election cycle.
Your counter is that Bernie and Jill running on the Green ticket will beat HRC and Trump. Maybe and maybe not. I don't see it. The possibilities are HRC, Trump, Green, or someone else in the case where no ticket, the Greens, Trump, or HRC, win an electoral college majority. That someone comes from a vote in the house with virtually no limitations on who the almost certain Republican majority chooses. I used to think Bernie ditching the Dems made the most sense but the possibility of the election being decided in the House is a bigger threat to me and unworthy of the risk. You may think differently. I can't say you're wrong. I don't know if I'm seeing it clearly enough to choose.
As far as waiting decades goes, I don't think you have to worry about decades. Bernie and Trump, credit where credit is due despite despising that asshole, have changed the political landscape in ways unseen since the civil rights movement. I can't see it all disappearing after the election regardless of who becomes president in November. Bernie at 74 surely doesn't have decades to cement a mark on history if he wants to carry on. I see no sign of him quitting now either. For that reason I see the continuation of the progressive movement leading a political revolution that Bernie says he wants to be more important than any empty fuck off gesture to the Democratic Party like walking out on the convention. I want to see them break apart which I now think is as inevitable as it is for the Republicans. Whatever Bernie does is without a single doubt a better idea than some nobody on a blog thinks. I'm good with that too.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
You lost me at
Do you really blame Carter for the mess we have today?
If so, I ask you to build a house for someone else.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Carter may not have invaded countries like other presidents
But his hands aren't as clean as people like to believe. And remember who his SOS was during his presidency l
Here's Carter's legacy
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/18/jimmy-carters-blood-drenched-legacy/
It's true that after he left office he has been a great humanitarian, but he was responsible for the petrol dollar rule that has gotten so many leaders removed from office because they broke the rules.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
I don't get this part.
"he was responsible for the petrol dollar rule"
I can see it if you go after the banking industry "deregulation" ball that he helped to get rolling ... but even there, it was 20 years of Reagan-PresBush-Clinton that did the real serious damage.
But it was more than anything growing US dependence on imported oil that was responsible for petrol dollar rule, and of the seven Presidents in office since US peak oil, it seems to me that he was the one that did the least to increase US dependence on imported oil and the most to try to reverse it.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
Almost half a century later and we're still hearing the myth
of the Oil Embargo. The Saudis were the tool, the heart behind it was, and is Big Oil. Our government began making changes that they and their friends didn't like, so they veru nearly started WWIII just to show that they had the means to plunge the world into, well... this.
Ford had a choice to make and unfortunately his predecessor left such a media event in his wake that his wrong decision to knuckle under to the threats went almost completely without notice by the people it hurt and whom it still harms today.
As a result of the media circus surrounding the popular uprisings around civil rights and against the draft, they created and sold the popular narrative we still repeat today. But while we were watching all of that, hardly anyone noticed as they simply reversed over two centuries of precedent regarding who pays for what and started taking it all for themselves while simultaneously refusing to pay their bills.
This is a bit of a non-seqitur.
"Almost half a century later and we're still hearing the myth of the Oil Embargo. The Saudis were the tool, the heart behind it was, and is Big Oil."
This seems to be confusing the first oil price shock, which took place under Nixon, with the second oil price shock, which took place under Carter. The first oil price shock was the "Arab Oil Embargo" one ... the second one was not involved with an "Arab Oil Embargo".
In focusing on which participant in international oil markets to set up as the sole and solitary driver of the oil price shock, it is ignoring the more important point, which is that US Peak Oil resulted in the price making power for oil passing outside of the US.
And we would be remiss in bringing up Big Oil without recognizing the major difference that US Peak Oil made for Big Oil. Before US Peak Oil, oil prices were stabilized by the Texas Railway Commission by varying the quota for West Texas oil production. After the US passed peak oil, the quota was raised to 100%.
While the quota system was in place, with prices stabilized, the path to greater profit was through greater demand for petroleum, which meant economic expansion. So Big Oil was on the side of low unemployment, for purely pecuniary reasons, in the 50's and 60's.
When the quota system was rendered obsolete by declining US production in the face of rising US demand, the support of Big Oil for high employment policies went with it, and in well under a decade Big Oil shifted from being a supporter of the Democratic party establishment to being a supporter of the Republican party establishment.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
Not confused at all, and both were exactly the same people.
How is it that you imagine the Saudis developed the intestinal fortitude? Are you at all familiar with their history?
This is exactly the story laid out to rationalize this portion of the fundamental reordering of the American economy.
Step back for a moment and remember. Put yourself in the place of Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud at the time. Are you at all confident that Richard M. Nixon is going to let you get away what is the weakest bluff in the history of bluffing? That he is going to sit back and allow you to plunge his nation into economic turmoil, rather than simply walking in and taking it all? Nixon? Not without assurances amounting to certainty, you're not.
You're arguing over how many angels can dance on whatever. The point is that angels don't exist.
We've had insiders, historians, the press, academicians, mathematicians, former Presidents, even the guilty themselves, tell us how things are done, over the course of our entire lives. What is it going to take to convince us that the cake is indeed, a lie?
As expected. You seem nice enough, but you are the problem.
Just enough knowledge to sound like you might know what you're talking about, sufficient to impress a young girl at a party, but nothing to back it up when pressed. Did you actually copy/paste that last paragraph? If not, it's good, keep it.
There is an abundance of real knowledge out there, but none of it is going to present itself to you, it must be sought. Everything that you are presented with comes with a reason for the presentation.
Wow... Carter's blood drenched legacy?????
I'm really glad I'm not smoking what you're smoking. Maybe you just had a rough Saturday night. Check back in to reality when you can.
innatimm...
I see this is your first comment here. Just a little word of advice, this is not Daily Kos, we try to respect each other. If you feel the poster is wrong tell us why, educate us, without the personal invective.
Carter was my Governor during our stint living in Atlanta,
and he was ultra conservative fiscally--typical of Southern lawmakers from both major legacy parties.
I know little about what SD addressed. But, I agree with her that Former President Carter was/is a great humanitarian (in areas) today. Mr M has been an member or officer of Habitat For Humanity for years, in two locales. So, I applaud Carter's efforts in this endeavor.
In general, at his core, he's a decent man--more so than most politicians, anyway. In the early 90s, he had the temerity to challenge the rightward or conservative swing of the Southern Baptist Convention, and was one of the earlier supporters of an alternative to it--the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
But, he did help usher in neoliberalism. Most of his Cabinet members were trilateralists.
Including Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Carter National Security Advisor.
From Wikipedia:
Bill Moyers has interviewed the author of the book, Trilateralism. Her name is Holly Sklar.
Please check out the links, below. The Trilateral Commission was established to tamp down direct democracy, and the precursor to our current broken society (economically, for millions).
Trilateralism
The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management
edited by Holly Sklar, South End Press, 1980
Jimmy Carter and the Trilateralists: Presidential Roots
Mollie
“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)
National Mill Dog Rescue (NMDR) - Dogs Available For Adoption
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Jimmy Carter, AKA "Professor FRONK-un-shteen"
Like Thomas Jefferson before him, Jimmy Carter actually has achievements running far in excess of the value of his Presidency. In addition to Habitat for Humanity, other jewels in his post-Presidential crown include the elimination of Guinea worm infestation and his telling the Southern Baptist Convention to FOAD when they refused to race-integrate their churches.
Finally -- and most importantly for this discussion -- he's the one who has been telling us that the very conserva-Dems from which he came have colluded with Republicans to utterly destroy democracy in America. (one source -- there are many others) Veritably, "I fear that I [and those like me] have created a Monster!"
So both you and MrJayTee are spot-on the money here.
One other thing: if you go to the article I linked above, you'll read about some of Jimmy Carter's own disillusionments with modern American politics, some of which are very similar to many of ours.....
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Well said.
Second Galitisalie
I admire Carter for many things, his willingness to be public in his disillusionment being one of the two items at the top of my list.
Reading that I blamed Carter "for the mess we're in today" puzzled me. I noted that the Democrats' move to neoliberalism began under him, and indeed it did.
Odd, focusing on that one point as though it were inaccurate.
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
False.
Do you really blame Carter for the mess we have today?
You are mistaken. I placed the start of Democrats' cave-in on neoliberalism under Carter. That's a far, far cry from 'blaming him for the mess we're in today'.
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
Fair point.
The level of naïveté most apparent to me
Is that implication that a single messianic individual can create a revolution. Bernie Sanders was not the seminal origin of our dissatisfaction with the oligarchical status quo that powered his campaign, he was/is simply a visible expression of the seed of revolution already present.
The revolution does not stand on the shoulders of an individual. It is up to you and I and the rest who see the great deception to step up and do what we each can to make real change happen. Blaming a figurehead for our failure is a big waste of time.
“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024
Excellent point.
A leader can make a critical difference, but "believing in" politicians is adolescent, IMO, and Sanders had this kind of following. I blame Sanders for his naive choices and failure to build a durable alternative structure. He was making the chance for himself, but chose the accommodationist route in a pit of snakes.
I don't know what you mean by "our failure". There was no revolution in store with Sanders in the first place.
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
Well said. I agree.
If you meet the Buddha on the road
Kill him.
Bernie is not the Buddha- he said so repeatedly. His job, for better or worse, is inside the system. Like chairman of the banking committee if the Dems take the senate.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Suggestions for a Revolution
without a figurehead against the Clinton machine, our captured government, global governments and corporations? Anybody? Just one? Hello?
Sanders Excuse #1: believing in him
Yet pretending he was just a figurehead.
#2: Excusing the naivete of the Sanders partisans by acting like some kind of something will happen because enough people are angry with the Democrats.
#3: Pretending this "movement" really exists when, after the Candidate of Revolution didn't make it, the "movement" doesn't exist apart from Internet chit chat.
Where does "us" have their offices? Where did I see the coordinated effort to deny Clinton the nomination? Where's the new party, or at least the new structure?
"Us not him" is the laziest movement I've seen in a while. "Us not him" is about mourning, not activism.
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
The problem, as I see it, with this kind of firebrand
activist zeal is that--it reproduces the problems that gave rise to the zeal in the first place. The capitalist establishment has shown time and again that it knows how to co-opt the anger and fold this kind of sheer-opposition back in to existing ways of doing things. Remember what came of '60's activism, to name just one example.
That said, many of your observations and comments here are well-taken, especially your remarks about "revolution."
I wish it were possible to be BOTH a brilliant contemplative thinker AND a brilliant activist! And, in that context, I suspect that what you call "Internet chit chat" is actually more than just that.
Possibly I'm not following you, EyeRound.
What activist zeal do you mean? Starting an organization separate from the Democrats? Pissed off rants? If the latter, I can promise you this essay and accompanying remarks are not all I've done.
If you have evidence that the Internet chit chat is more than that, I'd love to be encouraged.
As to the 60's, I wasn't aware that that was the only model.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
Well, what counts as evidence
is often in the eye of the beholder, but I would point out that today, because of the internet, the amount of information about the political candidates, their policies, their past, their money donors, the connivances of political parties, the extent of political corruption, the contrast between more-corrupt and non-corrupt (or less-corrupt), etc., has been made available to a much wider and more extensive range of people than has ever before been the case. In short, people who want to be, are enormously better informed than ever before. And most people do want to have knowledge about their environment.
Here's a quote from Paul Mason's recent book called Postcapitalism (NY: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2015), which I mentioned in an earlier comment. This is from pages 24 and 25, where Mason discusses the dawning of the IT era:
"The promise was that new technology would produce an information economy and a knowledge society. These have emerged but not in the form envisaged. In the old dystopias--as with the rogue computer Hal, in 2001A Space Odyssey--it is the technology that rebels. In reality, the network has allowed humans to rebel.
"It enabled them first of all to produce and consume knowledge independently of the channels formed in the era of industrial capitalism. That's why we noticed the disruptions first in the news industry, in music and the sudden loss of the state's monopoly over political propaganda and ideology.
"Next, it began to undermine traditional concepts of property and privacy. Wikileaks and the controversy over the mass surveillance data collected by the NSA are just the latest phase of a war over who can own and store information. But the biggest impact of all is only now being understood [. . . .]"
Mason's book is not primarily concerned with the internet's function in raising political awareness per se; he is concerned with the knowledge-based economy rooted in the internet and its effect on a foundational feature of capitalism, namely the value-to-price relationship. What I am pointing out here is that the political effects of internet based knowledge--yes, in chat rooms but also in many other shapes and sizes online--are unprecedented. It represents an enormous growth in what might be called "general knowledge" which was a vital yet un-graspable concept for the people who founded the liberal state (i.e., the form of the state that we have today).
I couldn't agree more that the Internet has--and is
Transforming how people share knowledge and exploding the amount of information available. I actually do think this has vastly increased the chances of developing a genuinely leftist movement.
But the ease and volume of communication is does not guarantee the quality of organization necessary or the shrewdness of thought necessary or the balls-to-the-wall attitude necessary for a movement to succeed.
That's the difference between commiseration and a movement. What we have now is commiseration.
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
Enough With the Sanders History-Rewriting!
Come on, dude, we've been over this a bunch of times now.
Join us or don't.
We have been over it a bunch of times, yes.
And it's still meaningless.
Where is "us"? The Democrats now have a VP candidate as conservative as their presidential candidate, they're off to court the right, they still couldn't give a shit about the left branch of their party as proven by the status of Sanders and his supporters at the convention...
"Not me, us" is an imaginary pacifier. Without an organization or consequences for the Democratic party, it means nothing.
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
That's why I'm voting Green this year
I finally watched a few Jill Stein videos yesterday and now know all her "favorite catch phrases and crime fighting techniques". They are very similar to what Bernie proposes and the Greens have enough organization to create measurable consequences for the DNC. I'm holding off until the Green convention in Houston because I've blown my primary budget on Bernie and a meteor might hit Clinton later today.
Beyond that, either the greens get better organized going forward or we form a progressive party that is not afraid of wielding power. But that is for the next cycle.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Glad to hear you are taking your vote elsewhere.
This seems to be the problem. The people calling themselves progressives act like they want anything but power. Power takes organization, commitment, realism, and the killer instinct.
I have yet to see that the individuals involved have the needed qualities.
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
It only takes one person to start a political party.
That person could be you. Instead of aiming your anger at Bernie Sanders, why not start your own political movement that is exactly the one you want? That would be a productive use of time and energy, and if such a movement is viable, it could lead to a new and better America.
I suppose I could, but I don't think what we need
Is another leftist party. What we need is a more cohesive and realistic left that doesn't waste time on friendly ghosts like Sanders.
Sanders: the one who really had the chance to establish a moderately Social Democratic party that told the truth about the Democrats, but instead used tens of millions of dollars and 13 million votes to wind up at Hillary Clinton's feet.
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
What would it accomplish?
If Bernie Sanders started the Democratic Socialist Party today, what exactly would it accomplish? If 25% of his supporters switched to the DSP tomorrow, what would that accomplish? Would it keep Clinton out of the White House? Trump out?
I see your anger but I don't see the point. If he started the DSP next year and built up an organization that could successfully challenge and win the 2020 election, that would be wonderful. But the chances of such a win are infinitesimal.
It's great to tilt at windmills and wish things were better, but I'm not seeing any concrete value to having Sanders create a new party. I'm not saying correcting the Democratic Party from the inside is a workable strategy, but I am saying that building a successful 3rd party is not.
The Libertarian party has existed for 45 years. The Green Party for 20 years. Neither is close to viable. Even with Sanders, the Green Party would barely attract 10% of the electorate. Like it or not, the US has been a two-party nation for over 200 years and will likely remain one for the foreseeable future.
With so many willing dupes, maybe so.
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
Is your premise that there is no organization building going on?
"Without an organization ... it means nothing."
So, therefore, with an organization, it means something?
-- Virtually, etc. B)
What I've seen so far from the very limited
organizations Bernie has started (e.g. "Our Revolution"), I'm very skeptical. He clearly thinks the path to political power is through reforming the Democratic Party from within. These sorts of attempts have essentially always been subverted and cooled. It's more interesting because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how the Democratic Party functions that is surprising for someone who has been in DC for three decades. Or else it shows some level of complicity that is counter to the message he ran on. Something is just off about the whole thing. I've signed up for our revolution because I want to give Bernie the benefit of the doubt. He deserves it.
I appreciate what Bernie has done. He deserves respect and I would never call him a traitor or claim he betrayed anybody. But this is bigger than him, and on some things he's just wrong. He isn't a Messiah or omniscient. He can, has and will make mistakes. Just like the rest of us.
Well said. I am troubled by the turn he's taken and the
introduction of Sanders Institute, for example, sent up all kinds of flags from the art to the site registration, it just screams that something is not what it appears.
I've been a Bernie fan for some years before this run and I'd take him over Reid every day of the week and twice on Sundays, but I also never forget that he's been a successful politician for almost four decades. Mistakes and more than a few compromises were made in that time.
I'm still waiting to see what he does next, but I'm afraid the moment's gone and there is no clear indication of who next will pick up the baton. We are in a fluid state of surreal at the moment. The next few weeks are going to show us where to look next.
I don't follow this.
It seems to be explicitly a set of organizations to provide support for candidates from outside of the Democratic party establishment ... independent of and bypassing the DNC, the DCCC, and all the rest of the veal pen organizations.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
None the Democrats care about.
Of course I'm eager to be pleasantly surprised.
I would (sincerely) love to know where the movement behind Sanders, one that was willing to put so much money and emotion into a candidate who was bound to get royally fucked by the Clintons, is going. As I remarked elsewhere, Progressives seem to want everything but power, which takes a killer instinct and a willingness to say no to Democrats that they can't seem to summon.
Even in the face of the Democrats' outright contempt, they can't form a "No Hillary" movement, and the organization is already there. Ruined by Sanders and his pre-capitulation to the DNC. Given this behavior at the outset, I am not optimistic that they are going to form anything that won't be punked by the DNC again.
Strategic pre-capitulation may be the most Democrat-like thing about Sanders. The movement seems not to be far behind. But I could be wrong. There could be a massive anti-Clinton movement in the works among Sanders supporters. I would welcome it. Not holding my breath.
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
The precedent in the Republican party is that the ...
Republican party establishment didn't care about the outside organizations until they started being primaried. That's what forced them to sit up and take notice.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
The precedent in the Republican party is that the ...
Republican party establishment didn't care about the outside organizations until they started being primaried. That's what forced them to sit up and take notice.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
I don't think so
I know many life long Dems who are going Green. I'm one of them.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Me, too. First time in my life I'm not voting for the
lesser evil. It feels good.
Yea, I'm not either.
If there's more than a handful of us, where is the presence, where is the organization? The fuck-the-democrats contingent is microscopic next to the party itself.
It's like saying "Everyone I know is voting for McGovern." Nice bubble you've got there.
Now where's the movement "Us Not Him" is allegedly creating?
In Bernie Sanders' filing cabinet?
Powerful stuff.
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
I'm not getting it either
It's all just a bunch of people ranting on the Internet. At the end of the day, it's not a real organization, with enough local structure to achieve anything of note. And the complaint I hear from my Facebook friends about the Greens is that they essentially have no local presence or organization, either. They are just seen as spoilers for the Democrats (as if us progressives had an obligation to vote for the Democrats by default. Hah!). Until the Greens get their ground game up and running with our support, nothing will change. And I suspect that the fragmentation in our ranks will prevent that from happening.
I so hope I'm wrong, because if I'm right, we're screwed.
Exactly.
I'm a lifelong Democrat from a family of Democrats going back several generations. This year, though, I am not voting for the Democratic candidate for president. Or the Republican, for that matter. While I'm not switching to Green yet, I am seriously disgusted with the current two-party system.
I can't disagree with anything you've written.
Thank you for the very advanced and truthful critique.
I will wait until Sanders speaks and perhaps the convention is completed before I respond on the merits. I just want to be clear that "the merits" are a combined moral and strategic matter. Debs, under far more promising circumstances, failed to build a third party that could win the presidency in the U.S. The political system is hard-wired in the U.S. As much as some of the founding fore-racists decried the development of political parties, they arose, always in pairs that in various ways reached new combinations with assurance that the fundamental of rule by and for the powerful remained. Racism and sexism and prejudice against immigrants have always also been part of the divide and rule mix in the U.S.
I'm fine with the criticism, which as I said I can't really disagree with at this point, at least in a truly thoughtful manner, but I am not sure of the most moral approach because I'm not settled in my mind on the best strategy.
Thank you, as always, my Comrade
For a constructive and thoughtful response.
For the record, I don't hold Sanders or his supporters responsible for not achieving the goal of the nomination or the presidency. I hold them responsible for choosing patently naive goals that wasted an enormous amount of energy that could have been devoted to building something durable that pressed for real change in our toxic system.
The was no wisdom (hell, no simple common sense) in choosing a path that led inevitably to the time and place where Bernie Sanders will bow before the very personification of that toxic system. His sad little bow will take place tomorrow night, with the Clintons and their lackeys masturbating in the hall. Sanders will take the shot, get up with whatever passes for dignity when you endorse a monster, wipe off his face with a towel, and go home.
He didn't need to win today. He--and his followers--need to win tomorrow, and aside from slogans, they aren't doing dick to make "us not him" represent anything that threatens the party. Sign #1 that the Sanders movement is nowhere is that the Democrats simply don't care. If they did, they wouldn't be relegating Sanders to TV Siberia and Clinton wouldn't be busily moving rightward where she belongs.
The Sanders movement has ended up enabling the Clintonites, and that's the saddest part of all.
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
Tantrums on the Internet don't change anything
Only action changes anything. #DemExit? Some of us were there long before this.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I'm not mad at Bernie
He opened a lot of eyes to the rot behind the facade. Also a lot can happen in the next few days.
Jill Stein for President
Beware the bullshit factories.
What do you think is the "a lot" that could happen?
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
Reforming or 'revitalizing'
the Democratic party as Sanders has called for is impossible. However this movement the real one isn't Bernie's. It's a global movement. It's going to go on outside the duopoly here in the US. Following a party, a pol, a charismatic leader is a detour or a dead end. This time around the pol in question is looking to sheep dog the dissatisfied lefties and so called progressives into the veal pen of the Democratic party.
I'm not even disappointed in Bernie as I never invested my 'faith' or hope in him personally. He was too wimpy and his stump speech did not match what he advocated for policy wise. His 'foreign policy' made my hair stand on end. I never understood why he caucused with the Dems. in the first place. Everybody said he had to run as a Democrat otherwise ??????. I learned my lesson with Obomber 'don't follow leaders and watch the parking meters.' Symbolic revolutions inside a political party that is so corrupt is laughable.
I do however think your selling the movement he gave voice to, short. These people aren't going away they will grow in number as the oligarchical collectivists are going to go as far as humans will allow them. It is up to people to stop them. . They believe they are the rightful rulers of 'the world as we find it.' The Democratic party is going the way of the Dodo. Fear may win the day this cycle but how does it keep them in power when what you fear is the same damn evil wearing a donkey or elephant mask.
Reading the DNC emails over the last two days it struck me that along with how corrupt they are also clueless, arrogant and complacent. This combination will be their downfall as when they go too far, enough people do withdraw their consent and rein them in. At some point the movement will reach critical mass but it won't be inside the designated protest pens.
sorry, i'm not buying into the outrage
i will wait and see what transpires after the convention and see what Bernie's successor groups intend to do.