Bernie circa 1989 sounds just like many on C99P

Submitted by gjohnsit on Mon, 08/05/2019 - 1:26pm

I happened to run across this speech the other day, and it sounded so familiar that I thought I would share some quotes from it.

In some parts of the country there still exists a debate, I suppose, as to whether or not there are real ideological differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. In Burlington, very few people engage in that debate any more because the political reality of the city, demonstrated on an almost daily basis, shows that there is no serious difference between those two parties. When, in two straight mayoral elections the Democratic and Republican parties combine around one candidate; when, on almost every important issue facing the city, the Democratic and Republican members of the Board combine to defeat or water down progressive initiatives; when, with one exception in nine years, every Democrat and Republican on the Board combines to elect their own Aldermanic President; when, every year, the two parties combine their aldermanic strength against the progressive plurality to select city commissioners; when all this occurs, one begins to get the feeling that there is not much of a difference between these two parties.
In fact, increasingly in Burlington, the political factions are differentiated by two labels-the Progressive Coalition and the Conservative Coalition (Democrats and Republicans).

On this point there are few here on C99P that will disagree.
While suggesting this opinion is a banning offense on TOP, it's pretty obvious to those with critical thinking skills.

The "Reagan Revolution" was not brought about by Reagan and the Republicans. It was brought about by Reagan with the active support of the Democratic Party. It was a truly bipartisan effort. Democrats and Republicans working together protecting the interests of the rich and the powerful.

This is a slightly more bold of an assertion, but not one that is too controversial.
But this next quote is the one I want to bring attention to.

Winning elections tomorrow is important, but it's not necessarily the most important thing. In a country which has such a low level of political consciousness; in a country where the level of political "debate" is so pathetically low, it is absolutely imperative that the progressive movement raise the issues and the analyses which will educate the people of our nation to begin to understand what the hell is going on. And I honestly don't believe that that can take place within the Democratic Party.
...
To my mind, it is absolutely imperative that we build an independent, democratic socialist left which has the guts to raise the issues that all of us know to be true, but which are very rarely even discussed within establishment politics. Our major task is to change the entire nature of political discussion in the country. In my view that's just not going to happen within the Democratic Party.

Does it surprise you that Bernie of 1989 sound just like so many here on C99P?
And yet, Bernie of 2019 is leading the effort to doing what Bernie of 1989 says couldn't be done.

When he was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination that year, he told NBC's Meet the Press he no longer believed politics had to be changed from outside the Democratic Party. And, his stronger-than-expected challenge to Hillary Clinton showed that an insurgent, progressive movement could drive the conversation around policy and politics within the party.

Based on the 2019 debates, I think it is pretty obvious that the Overton Window is much wider today because of Bernie. In fact, I think that this isn't even a debatable point.
Now whether this turns into election victories is another issue entirely.

Tags:

bernie sanders

Vote

Comments

Submitted by gjohnsit on Mon, 08/05/2019 - 1:44pm

meanwhile

no, that's not the definition

The European definition of anti-Semitism is, loosely speaking, someone who singles out Israel and/or Jews negatively. Bernie Sanders does, so is he an anti-Semite?

There you go.
Criticism of Israel, even if factual = anti-Semitism, and thus anti-Jew
It's circular "logic"

As I mentioned before, Trump is not a racist. He feels warm and cozy about Blacks (and uneasy), so he doesn’t see himself as a racist. But he is ignorant on race enough to be manipulated by hard-core racists, and to use racist ideas (Mexicans are rapists) to attract others, seeing no harm in it. As a leaders, he spreads racism.

It seems to me that the same is true for Sanders. Sanders is not an anti-Semite. He feels warm and cozy about Jews (and irritated), so he doesn’t see himself as an anti-Semite. But he is ignorant on Jews enough to be manipulated by hard-core anti-Semites, and to use anti-Semitic ideas (Israel oppresses Palestinians) to attract others, seeing no harm in it. As a leaders, he spreads Jews’ hatred.

Form the above, we can only conclude that Bernie Sanders is an anti-Semite. He will feel offended because he intends no harm to Jews. But he does. Not only does he exhibit extraordinary animosity against Israeli Jews – that would be one thing. He also doesn’t give them a fair hearing. If – G-d forbid – he becomes president of the US, he will be the worst – and we had some bad ones – in the history of Zionism.

This picture is as insane as the story in the Scroll of Esther. The ruling slightly-bigoted US president has two Orthodox Jews on his side, and loves Israel. His competitor in the next elections is a non-religious Jew who is a staunch ally of women, Blacks, you name them, but the Jews. If it would be in a book, play or movie, we would call its plot unrealistic.

Like in the Scroll of Esther, we will escape danger. Sanders will never win from Donald Trump, as I argued before. Thank G-d for small favors.

So the entire concept of Israel oppresses Palestinians is an anti-Semitic idea, and thus irrational.
People, we are arguing against a religious cult.

Submitted by Deja on Mon, 08/05/2019 - 2:04pm

Bernie wins the nomination then

@gjohnsit
The author says it like it's a done deal. Bernie is the nominee, but Zionists will vote for Trump because he has 2 Orthodox Jews on his side? (Kushner is one I guess. Who's the other one?)

The ruling slightly-bigoted US president has two Orthodox Jews on his side, and loves Israel. His competitor in the next elections is a non-religious Jew who is a staunch ally of women, Blacks, you name them, but the Jews.

.
And a Bernie win would be the worst president in the history of Zionism? If Trump is only "slightly-bigoted", what is the author of this telling, linked article?

no, that's not the definition

The European definition of anti-Semitism is, loosely speaking, someone who singles out Israel and/or Jews negatively. Bernie Sanders does, so is he an anti-Semite?

There you go.
Criticism of Israel, even if factual = anti-Semitism, and thus anti-Jew
It's circular "logic"

As I mentioned before, Trump is not a racist. He feels warm and cozy about Blacks (and uneasy), so he doesn’t see himself as a racist. But he is ignorant on race enough to be manipulated by hard-core racists, and to use racist ideas (Mexicans are rapists) to attract others, seeing no harm in it. As a leaders, he spreads racism.

It seems to me that the same is true for Sanders. Sanders is not an anti-Semite. He feels warm and cozy about Jews (and irritated), so he doesn’t see himself as an anti-Semite. But he is ignorant on Jews enough to be manipulated by hard-core anti-Semites, and to use anti-Semitic ideas (Israel oppresses Palestinians) to attract others, seeing no harm in it. As a leaders, he spreads Jews’ hatred.

Form the above, we can only conclude that Bernie Sanders is an anti-Semite. He will feel offended because he intends no harm to Jews. But he does. Not only does he exhibit extraordinary animosity against Israeli Jews – that would be one thing. He also doesn’t give them a fair hearing. If – G-d forbid – he becomes president of the US, he will be the worst – and we had some bad ones – in the history of Zionism.

This picture is as insane as the story in the Scroll of Esther. The ruling slightly-bigoted US president has two Orthodox Jews on his side, and loves Israel. His competitor in the next elections is a non-religious Jew who is a staunch ally of women, Blacks, you name them, but the Jews. If it would be in a book, play or movie, we would call its plot unrealistic.

Like in the Scroll of Esther, we will escape danger. Sanders will never win from Donald Trump, as I argued before. Thank G-d for small favors.

So the entire concept of Israel oppresses Palestinians is an anti-Semitic idea, and thus irrational.
People, we are arguing against a religious cult.

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Mon, 08/05/2019 - 2:15pm

Criticism of Israel? I know Nothing!

@gjohnsit NOTHING! I was not here, I did not even get UP this morning... I don't want to be sent to the Internet Eastern Front! Do you have any Idea how creepy it gets on those boards?
/snark

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmzsWxPLIOo]

no, that's not the definition

The European definition of anti-Semitism is, loosely speaking, someone who singles out Israel and/or Jews negatively. Bernie Sanders does, so is he an anti-Semite?

There you go.
Criticism of Israel, even if factual = anti-Semitism, and thus anti-Jew
It's circular "logic"

As I mentioned before, Trump is not a racist. He feels warm and cozy about Blacks (and uneasy), so he doesn’t see himself as a racist. But he is ignorant on race enough to be manipulated by hard-core racists, and to use racist ideas (Mexicans are rapists) to attract others, seeing no harm in it. As a leaders, he spreads racism.

It seems to me that the same is true for Sanders. Sanders is not an anti-Semite. He feels warm and cozy about Jews (and irritated), so he doesn’t see himself as an anti-Semite. But he is ignorant on Jews enough to be manipulated by hard-core anti-Semites, and to use anti-Semitic ideas (Israel oppresses Palestinians) to attract others, seeing no harm in it. As a leaders, he spreads Jews’ hatred.

Form the above, we can only conclude that Bernie Sanders is an anti-Semite. He will feel offended because he intends no harm to Jews. But he does. Not only does he exhibit extraordinary animosity against Israeli Jews – that would be one thing. He also doesn’t give them a fair hearing. If – G-d forbid – he becomes president of the US, he will be the worst – and we had some bad ones – in the history of Zionism.

This picture is as insane as the story in the Scroll of Esther. The ruling slightly-bigoted US president has two Orthodox Jews on his side, and loves Israel. His competitor in the next elections is a non-religious Jew who is a staunch ally of women, Blacks, you name them, but the Jews. If it would be in a book, play or movie, we would call its plot unrealistic.

Like in the Scroll of Esther, we will escape danger. Sanders will never win from Donald Trump, as I argued before. Thank G-d for small favors.

So the entire concept of Israel oppresses Palestinians is an anti-Semitic idea, and thus irrational.
People, we are arguing against a religious cult.

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Mon, 08/05/2019 - 3:05pm

That is some definition of anti-Semitism!

@gjohnsit

Whose is it? Bibi's?

If you can find no reason ever to single out Israel negatively, you ain't honest. Of course, the same is true of every nation, as no two nations are exactly alike, but how many nations came into existence the way that modern Israel did?

It's far too convenient to label criticism of any nation's foreign and/or domestic policies and conduct as bigotry.

As far as Bernie, I'd be astounded if he had a bigoted bone in his body, especially an anti-Semitic one. He's a Jew as is his brother, as were his parents, as was his father's family, decimated by the Holocaust. Fake accusations of Jewish candidate as to alleged divided loyalty due to alleged dual citizenship and fake accusations of a Jewish candidate of anti-Semitism: The lying accusers of a Jewish candidate seem to me to be the anti-Semites.

no, that's not the definition

The European definition of anti-Semitism is, loosely speaking, someone who singles out Israel and/or Jews negatively. Bernie Sanders does, so is he an anti-Semite?

There you go.
Criticism of Israel, even if factual = anti-Semitism, and thus anti-Jew
It's circular "logic"

As I mentioned before, Trump is not a racist. He feels warm and cozy about Blacks (and uneasy), so he doesn’t see himself as a racist. But he is ignorant on race enough to be manipulated by hard-core racists, and to use racist ideas (Mexicans are rapists) to attract others, seeing no harm in it. As a leaders, he spreads racism.

It seems to me that the same is true for Sanders. Sanders is not an anti-Semite. He feels warm and cozy about Jews (and irritated), so he doesn’t see himself as an anti-Semite. But he is ignorant on Jews enough to be manipulated by hard-core anti-Semites, and to use anti-Semitic ideas (Israel oppresses Palestinians) to attract others, seeing no harm in it. As a leaders, he spreads Jews’ hatred.

Form the above, we can only conclude that Bernie Sanders is an anti-Semite. He will feel offended because he intends no harm to Jews. But he does. Not only does he exhibit extraordinary animosity against Israeli Jews – that would be one thing. He also doesn’t give them a fair hearing. If – G-d forbid – he becomes president of the US, he will be the worst – and we had some bad ones – in the history of Zionism.

This picture is as insane as the story in the Scroll of Esther. The ruling slightly-bigoted US president has two Orthodox Jews on his side, and loves Israel. His competitor in the next elections is a non-religious Jew who is a staunch ally of women, Blacks, you name them, but the Jews. If it would be in a book, play or movie, we would call its plot unrealistic.

Like in the Scroll of Esther, we will escape danger. Sanders will never win from Donald Trump, as I argued before. Thank G-d for small favors.

So the entire concept of Israel oppresses Palestinians is an anti-Semitic idea, and thus irrational.
People, we are arguing against a religious cult.

Submitted by k9disc on Mon, 08/05/2019 - 3:29pm

Nope. You Are Arguing With Theocracy.

When criticism of the State is blasphemous or hateful, I think you're talking about a theocracy, not a cult.

I do think there may be a way to have a religious nation without having theocracy, but it ain't claiming that criticism of foreign policy and inter-intra state violence are hate based attacks.

Equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is a teleological theocratic conflation; good luck arguing with that.

@gjohnsit

no, that's not the definition

The European definition of anti-Semitism is, loosely speaking, someone who singles out Israel and/or Jews negatively. Bernie Sanders does, so is he an anti-Semite?

There you go.
Criticism of Israel, even if factual = anti-Semitism, and thus anti-Jew
It's circular "logic"

As I mentioned before, Trump is not a racist. He feels warm and cozy about Blacks (and uneasy), so he doesn’t see himself as a racist. But he is ignorant on race enough to be manipulated by hard-core racists, and to use racist ideas (Mexicans are rapists) to attract others, seeing no harm in it. As a leaders, he spreads racism.

It seems to me that the same is true for Sanders. Sanders is not an anti-Semite. He feels warm and cozy about Jews (and irritated), so he doesn’t see himself as an anti-Semite. But he is ignorant on Jews enough to be manipulated by hard-core anti-Semites, and to use anti-Semitic ideas (Israel oppresses Palestinians) to attract others, seeing no harm in it. As a leaders, he spreads Jews’ hatred.

Form the above, we can only conclude that Bernie Sanders is an anti-Semite. He will feel offended because he intends no harm to Jews. But he does. Not only does he exhibit extraordinary animosity against Israeli Jews – that would be one thing. He also doesn’t give them a fair hearing. If – G-d forbid – he becomes president of the US, he will be the worst – and we had some bad ones – in the history of Zionism.

This picture is as insane as the story in the Scroll of Esther. The ruling slightly-bigoted US president has two Orthodox Jews on his side, and loves Israel. His competitor in the next elections is a non-religious Jew who is a staunch ally of women, Blacks, you name them, but the Jews. If it would be in a book, play or movie, we would call its plot unrealistic.

Like in the Scroll of Esther, we will escape danger. Sanders will never win from Donald Trump, as I argued before. Thank G-d for small favors.

So the entire concept of Israel oppresses Palestinians is an anti-Semitic idea, and thus irrational.
People, we are arguing against a religious cult.

—

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Submitted by gjohnsit on Mon, 08/05/2019 - 4:14pm

You say potato

@k9disc
I say batsh*t crazy lunacy.
Or more likely, intentionally dishonest smears.

Either way, they are abusing the word "anti-Semitism" in the same way Republicans abused the word "socialism".
So now people think socialism = government policies that help the poor.
And it's hard to oppose that.

Submitted by Fishtroller 02 on Tue, 08/06/2019 - 10:31am

Your comments point to the fact that the US is now a theocracy.

@k9disc

No difference between Israel and the US.

Since God is all tangled up in the flag and has been since the 50's, God belief equals Patriotism.

If you criticize Christianity, you are not a Patriot. The posting of signs in public schools with In God We Trust on them is not giving that message to our school students. Our local school system is even putting the motto on an American flag background. Christian Nationalists are doing everything they can to use government and public schools to promote God belief.

The reason Ilhan Omar and the others who are challenging our country are being criticized as un-Patriotic is because they are Muslim.

Our Supreme Court has declared the Christian Cross a "secular marker" in order to shoehorn it into governmental support and the claim that we are a "Christian Nation".

https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/13418 This represents the next steps planned for our country.

Read everything you can about Project Blitz.

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by Wally on Mon, 08/05/2019 - 3:04pm

Amazing how Antonio Gramsci could be so positive . . . .

. . . while imprisoned by the fascists and becoming increasingly sickly for over 11 years until he finally succumbed to arteriosclerosis, pulmonary tuberculosis, high blood pressure, angina, gout and acute gastric disorders making his teeth fall out and unable to eat solid food. He finally became too ill to move and died in 1937 at the age of 46 -- all the while scribbling away in his prison notebooks.

Gramsci's most memorable aphorism: “Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.”

As the Prison Notebooks advocated, his comrades outside the prison walls, despite the iron grip of fascism, needed to still engage at the level of civil society and popular culture.

/humorous silliness here/

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YCySD7GlKA]

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Mon, 08/05/2019 - 3:11pm

Did the Overton Window change, or did Bernie change?

And who decides?

The Overton window is the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse, also known as the window of discourse. The term is named after Joseph P. Overton, who stated that an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within this range, rather than on politicians' individual preferences.[1][2] According to Overton, the window contains the range of policies that a politician can recommend without appearing too extreme to gain or keep public office in the current climate of public opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

As far as policies, Bernie's been saying, for the most part, the same things since the 1960s. And those were many of the same things said by FDR and LBJ. IMO, the same people who would have called those policies extreme in 1989 are today calling them extreme, radical or incapable of realizing and put forward by Bernie only to get votes. So, I'm not sure how much the Overton Window has changed.

As far as Bernie's bio, 1989 was after Democrats combined with Republicans to try to defeat Bernie in the Mayoral election, but before Bernie went to Congress and became part of the Democratic Caucus, with Democrats agreeing not back any Democrat challenging Bernie. It is also after 1988, when Bernie opined that, after losing the Democratic primary race, Jackson should have run as an independent and Bernie's arrival in Congress, whereupon Bernie began campaigning for Democratic Presidential candidates and calling independent and newer party candidates "spoilers."

I'm not saying that his deal with the Democratic Caucus is the only reason that Bernie changed his mind. The change very well might have nothing to do with that. But he did change his mind, there can be no question of that.

As I've posted any number of times before, my primary vote will go to Bernie, but reality is reality.

Submitted by Snode on Mon, 08/05/2019 - 7:05pm

A 3rd party or work within?

I had come to the conclusion that only a 3rd party would work to break the 2 party monopoly. After watching Trump run as a republican and his mopping up the joint with his true republican rivals, I'm not so sure. If Bernie won, and stumped to the people directly his ideas, I can see the mushy democrats fold just like the r's did for Trump. So, maybe a socialist wolf in sheep dog clothing.

P.S. Thanks for the blast from the past. I knew he'd been thumping the same ideas for a long time, but the clear eyed view of "2" party politics was something else, ripped from the headlines of Iyesterday. f only we had some decent newspapers left.

Submitted by Deja on Mon, 08/05/2019 - 8:42pm

Maybe that's what he meant

@Snode
I mean, unless I totally misread, Bernie has been bashing the 2 party system for decades, but now (based on gjohn's posted quote -' the last one I think, unless it was changed since I initially read it earlier), thinks otherwise.

Maybe he thinks he can flip it like Trump. I had never thought of it like that, so thank you for that.

Too bad I no longer have faith in the voting machinery and the humans in charge of them, among other past votes by him and his 'party not party' candidates. I'd have some hopey changey feelings about that possibility, otherwise. Unfortunately, I can't unsee behind the curtain. Bernie showed me, in 2016.