I was actually planning on laying off of the essays for a while, but I recently read a piece by Caitlin Johnstone, a writer I respect and enjoy quite a bit, regarding how Bernie is still important to the the forwarding of Progressive change.

It's here:

http://www.newslogue.com/debate/347/CaitlinJohnstone

While the piece is being met with supportive comments, my immediate impression of this sort of position is that it illustrates the incredible struggle by some Progressives to create a win-win out of the Bernie Debacle.

Any opinion piece which floats such a possibility would likely be met with glee by many Progs trying desperately to make sense of opposites.

You are correct, on the one hand. And you are correct, on the other hand.

Bernie messed up and abandoned us. And...

Bernie is still With Us.

When we are kids, we wanna create a win-win. If there are two things we want, even if their simultaneous existence is irreconcilable, we will do what we can and rationalize things to try to make it so. I want THIS. And THAT.

Realistically, however, as time marches on, we come to realize that the world is full of EITHER-OR.

And thankfully, as Bernie continues to wade deeper and deeper into the Dem cesspool as their official Mouthpiece....there is a growing realization by many Progs that his actions have been (to put it euphemistically) quite compromised, and his words very likely not worth much anymore.

Rightly so.

Ms. Johnstone follows a familiar path, taking the license to subtly characterize those who have realized Bernie's turncoatedness- and reacted critically - as those of us who "run as hard as he can toward the light, like many of us clear-eyed rebels".

We have heard this before, in a less subtle version...from Shillary Folk. They call us "Purists"; and not as a compliment. Uncompromising. Dogmatic. Not reality-based.

So, while people for Progressive Change are Die-Hard Rebels...Ms. Johnstone argues that Bernie is a "Shrewd Politician" who has a place, moving forward. The BEST case she makes for maintaining some faith and respect for Bernie is:

"he got there by being a shrewd politician, by picking his battles, shoring up alliances, and grinding his way through the muck and the mire of Washington to try and inch us toward what he sees as the greater good".

Read this excerpt twice..... and ask yourself....what is this describing ?

It is describing the concept of Incremental Change, is it not ?

So Ms. Johnstone lauds Bernie for his hard work to bring about Incremental Change, and goes further to remind us of the mysteriousness of the inner workings of our Legislative branch which we can never know of. All of which therefore argues he is "an important tool to have on our side".

I have two issues with this:

1) Bernie himself stated all through the Primaries that Incremental Change will not get us to where we need to go at this critical point in America (and on Earth).
Therefore, Ms. Johnstone asks us to have faith in Bernie's ability to maneuver for (at BEST) the kind of incremental change which he has himself admitted is insufficient.

2) Ms. Johnstone argues that we should value Bernie as an "important tool to have on our side".
Ironically, this is exactly how the Dem Establishment feels about Senator Sanders at this time.
So we have 2 completely polar sociopolitical positions, 2 'movements' seeking opposite goals- both convinced that the senator is valuable to their cause. Can one reconcile this ? (leaving aside the quantum physics notion regarding an entity's ability to occupy 2 different places or states simultaneously).
If Bernie is (wittingly) participating as a Sheepdog for the Dem Party (and he IS - this is unarguable), how can he simultaneously be a mechanism or force against the very sociopolitical policies which the Party pushes and represents ?

Some folks want two things at once. However, as time marches on one realizes that, oftentimes, it's an either-or...as opposed to an and-and.

Ms. Johnstone, exhibiting remnants of an unshakable Faith in The Persona, tries her best to get the "and-and". "He messed up, sure - but still has something important to offer and we should listen".

But the best argument she can come up with for us to maintain Faith in Bernie as a conduit of Change is that "he's a shrewd, experienced politician (wink, wink, nod, nod) who knows the inner workings and can tweak around the edges" - i.e the exact same gameplan which he himself admits (and we already know) is insufficient to address the National and Global problems which are currently crushing us all.

The argument which this piece intimates, and which many others make is that "well, he is still getting the message out there and keeping the Agenda in the Public Eye.....so he's driving the political discourse today"...is also quite specious.
At the end of the day, if you look at it - Bernie is simply continuing his stump speeches, tweaked a little, really. There is very little new in what he has been saying since November. Yes, it's fun to hear him strafe wall street, the pharmaceutical industry, the current administration. Brings back the good ol' days.

But he remains mute on the Elephant in the Room: the integrity of our Vote. So I personally find it difficult to laud him for 'taking teh fight to 'em" or "getting the message out there" when he is completely mum on the most important issue facing this country today.

Finally, in some exchanges on social media Ms. Johnstone and I have agreed that many registered Dems seem incapable of actually coming to terms with how the Party has abused and betrayed its supporters; and stick with the Party based upon their hopes that things will change next time (even though there are no actual signs that support such a faith).

This, we both observe, is frighteningly similar to being caught in a domestic violence relationship; one spouse repeatedly being beaten down/betrayed, while the other continually either 1) rationalizes how their abusive behaviour only seems injurious, but is actually for their benefit; or 2) just plain gaslights.

Sadly, Ms. Johnstone has taken this analogy and pretzelized it:

"We’re each seeing this thing from a slightly different angle but also —and this is important— those of us speaking from the outside have far more freedom to say what we see than those on the inside. It’s like telling a woman in an abusive relationship that she needs to just lay into him and leave. Sounds great and she knows you’re right but she knows better than anyone that doing so could get her killed, so getting mad at her for not standing up for herself is just victim-blaming. We can’t see the forces at play from the inside like Bernie Sanders can, and we don’t know what he’s up against. "

While at first-read this may seem to make a lot of sense, it is actually a non-sequitir argument.

It argues that: convincing a Bernie Die Hard that he has in fact abandoned the Revolution & therefore it does us AND the Prog movement little good to trust him any longer - is equivalent to telling an abused spouse to leave the tortured intricacies of an abusive relationship.

But is it, really ?

Because while arguing that in a "Spouse-Spouse" relationship "both spouses are on the Inside" is germane...
...in the relationship of "Bernie - Questioning Supporter", no such dynamic exists.

The Supporter is on the Outside already, while Bernie is on the Inside; and he and others use the Inside Argument to rationalize why the Supporter should remain in the relationship.

(there is also no fear of true physical harm, major disruption to your life, etc).

So yes - it is, in fact, already an abusive relationship; but we know very well what the issues and dynamics of that relationship are.
There is no "I cannot even IMAGINE what it must be like to be a Questioning Bernie Supporter, therefore I should not judge, question, or insist the Supporter leave".
Because the Questioning Supporter...is Us.

We know precisely what it's like.

Furthermore, we likely share at least 80% of the Supporter's moral compass.

It is an abusive relationship also because the ol' "Shrewd Insider Political Machinations" argument will always rely on accepting things the abused partner we will never KNOW - as Fact...and on Faith alone.
Again, a Rationalization for the Abuse which keeps the abused locked into the Dance.

But unlike a truly abused spouse, in this instance the Questioning Supporter is in a much more empowered position to research facts, converse openly, and make their own decision.

Once again, more than a bit of psychological and moral calisthenics is necessary to get to this win-win which Ms. Johnstone (and many others) want to convince us is achievable.

Human beings try very hard to reconcile the irreconcilable.

As the Registered members of the Dem Party continue to dwindle, and Bernie continues to pontificate about Policies Which Are Needed after literally having disempowered himself from being a path to achieving those policies...it does appear folks are slowly coming to recognize the Irreconcilable...all by themselves.

As always, thanks for reading. Comments welcome.