Bernie Faith getting very Creative these days
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.
Comments
I lost my faith at the convention
So I guess I have a hard time understanding Ms. Johnstone's arguments for keeping the Bernie faith. It is too bad because Bernie did a great job during the campaign articulating what should be a vision for a new movement. Then he abandoned the movement before it began. So while I am grateful to him for what he did during the campaign, I know now that we must move beyond Bernie. Sadly it now appears that Ms. Johnstone is trying to sheep dog us back into the Democratic party fold.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
@gulfgal98 Wonder if "they" got to
Wonder if "they" got to her some way. This is the first time I've heard stuff like this from her.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I am beginning to wonder too
at how deep is the deep state and if we are actually living in a very surreal reality?
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
@gulfgal98
When there's so little good in government, can we afford to throw away the portions that remain because each is individually not enough to single-handedly overpower the vast and ruthless global machine few have even dared to challenge and which, when challenging from within, perhaps even fewer have survived some form of silencing?
The last time this attempt at a global corporate/military hostile take-over was made, there were those brave souls who appeared to be collaborating with the Nazi's while thereby managing to save some of the otherwise unsavable active Resistance members and others otherwise slated for extermination.
They did the only good they were capable of and suitable for doing under the current circumstances - and it helped. That time, we - the people of the world - won.
While some of Bernie's utterances have, to say the least, pained and discouraged me, he is keeping concepts in the public eye and mind which would otherwise have been kicked under the carpet to have the life quietly stomped out of them.
There is no way that any informed person is going to fall for all the crap spouted by either the Dems or the corporate media which very few Americans now trust and much of the rest of the world laughs at.
So, why is there such encouragement for progressives to denigrate and abandon the one person in government very publicly supporting at every opportunity provided by the position he holds certain essential goals and doing literally anything he can to continue promoting democratic ideas where they can reach The People who must themselves initiate and carry out this necessary People's Revolution?
The offered training under the Dem umbrella is obviously not for those people already aware and active and who will never fall for a corporate Dem again but for those who feel they are restricted to a 'choice' within the corporate Two-Party Trade-Off scam in giving them tools, abilities, concepts and skills to do with what they will. Abilities, concepts and skills which the corporate parties can't take back again if they leave those parties and which they would perhaps not otherwise have or even think of.
This demand to dump all that Bernie works toward smells like the sort of divisive propaganda campaign which has kept those seeking democracy in America down for so long.
It's always the same old, same old deal, continuing with the eternal Nadering of any candidate concerned with the public interest, the mere fact of their running blamed by Dems for everything including an election loss of a corporate Dem when the Republican was cheated in. It's yet another re-run tactic we've seen too many times to be falling for yet again.
When do we ever learn to stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater and to sort out what we actually need to keep and use out of what will always be an imperfect human package?
This has been suggested as the way to treat Trump - but this can't be extended to Bernie?
Why, because Bernie is still working away, refusing to be driven off the issues, doing what good he can from within an occupied government and TPTB still fear that the people are not to be any longer as easily manipulated as they'd hoped? The evil they enact can only be imposed and maintained if the people accept it as being 'legal' and submit.
This is not so much about the puppet parties TPTB use as cover or the battle among their various employees for advancement and increased funds to swell their bank accounts; it's about TPTB subverting democratic government and on the verge of extinguishing life on the planet in multiple ways.
We do not have time, people or assistance to waste; the planet could be effectively dead this year, within the decade, or within a few decades, depending on what estimates and scenario you go by - because we are dealing with suicidally murderous lunatics.
Some people are angry because Bernie is keeping the potential for and of democracy alive within the public vision, using the corporate media available to him because of his position among the Dems, accorded probably because it improved their optics; because Bernie's showing up the corporate Dems by contrast; because he's providing people with an opportunity to formulate/acquire clear, potentially achievable plans, goals and organizing skills, things required for successful revolution and things which travel within the people and are not rescinded when they leave an organization.
And on the other side, we're horrified because Bernie mouths the 'Russia' and other propaganda crap, much as occupied people were once horrified that people they'd once thought decent and who then appeared to be collaborators mouthed the 'Heil Hitler' and other propaganda crap of the Nazi's, while working away in the only way they could to help give their countryman whatever aid from within that they could.
If we cannot learn from history and are doomed to repeat it, this time, we are truly doomed - and complex life forming the life support system on the planet along with us.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
@Ellen North I think Bernie's a
I think Bernie's a good guy. But he's a good guy who is, to some extent, controlled by the bad guys. Since I don't know to what extent he's controlled, I have to look at the things he proposes on their own merits, neither automatically accepting or denying them.
Looking at Our Revolution and Brand New Congress, I'm not impressed. I see no merit in either effort, given that they have primarily electoral strategies with no focus on how to stop or subvert election fraud and voter suppression. Even if these organizations didn't want to spill the beans on how they were going to address election fraud, for obvious reasons, they should at least have talked in general about stopping it, and they haven't. Even after Debbie, the Sane Progressive, challenged them on it, the supporters of those orgs responded, not with any discussion of strategy, but with character attacks on Debbie. That, for me, is a dead giveaway. That's how Brock trolls and DC-consultant-created "movements" work. They have no real strategy toward goals anyone would actually want, so they can't talk sense. They haven't got lies big enough to cover up the damage their current policies are causing, so they can't effectively lie. All that's left is to discredit the questioner.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@can't stop the music
I agree about Our Revolution and the other group. It's the same old focus on coopting energy for corporatist ends. I believe Our Revolution even echoed the corporatist statement that if you didn't vote for hillary (or voted third party) you are partly to blame for trump. I can't find the quote, so it may have been falsely reported. Also, I can't see the value in any liberal group that has the gasbag Cenk at the helm. This is a man who argued vociferously for voting for clinton in CA. I don't trust his principles as far as I could spit on him.
I agree.
I believe we need to wait and see who gets elected at the DNC, and then watch what Bernie does from there.
It is possible to take over a party and oust the leaders. Party takeovers have occurred in the past.
I don't hold out much hope for the dems, but you never know, and Bernie has always been consistently underestimated while he defied odds.
Considering that he freed the progressives from the notions that the US doesn't support progressivism (or socialism) and that you cannot run without big money, I think we can at least give him a few more days to produce results instead of constantly trying to bury him.
Why don't we give him another week or so to start a third party in all 50 states, get candidates to run in all 50 states, force all the current Congress to resign so we can replace them with Bernie approved people, etc, etc.
Yep, a week or so ought to be plenty of time.
dfarrah
Not "constantly trying to bury him"
my comments aren't out to bury anything, I'm just doing constant reality checks on media outrage. Bernie endorsed Clinton, one of the most corrupt Ds alive, a mad bomber. He knows what side his bread is buttered on, so to speak. Speaking of bread this must be a mistake at opensecrets I hope:
it keeps going on and on, but right there between McCain and Cruz? c'mon man! But I knew that.
No peace, no justice
I believe that is called a "sandwich".
It costs extra for one of those. (so I hear)
Bernie's a gadfly.
Like Kucinich, he talks a good game, but don't count on him to back up his revolutionary rhetoric with revolutionary action. Basically, he's there to bark loudly and get tossed a few scraps from the status quo table.
Still, he is quite effective at articulating Progressive policies, so I suppose there is still some value as long as nobody takes him too seriously as a change agent.
That said, I could really do without this crap:
Sorry Bernie, but you squander your credibility on other issues with neo-McCarthyite claptrap.
Worst part about it, I know you know better.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Hey now!
It's not cheap to suck on the party teat. Gotta be a good boy or chucky will make life rough.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
I'm curious what he will do...
if the DNC selects Perez rather than Ellison as chair. Would draftbernie.org be more powerful?
He's out barnstorming... posted this link in the weekly watch
WV denys Sanders use of an Armory to hold his meeting. “If we can't find another building, we'll hold the meeting out in the streets," vowed Bernie. "That town meeting will be held. Poverty in America will be discussed.”
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/02/13/after-cancellation-sanders-v...
Here he is speaking Feb 2 in VA the crowd seems pretty enthusiastic. (30 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU0_LRLqnrE
I too wish he had walked out of the DNC and joined the greens. Reality is what it is.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
@Lookout
There is hope for the Democrats still. If a progressive third party is needed I'll go with it but I think we should give the progressive Dems a chance. Jimmy Dore's interviews with Sam Ronan and Tim Canova gave me hope as does Tulsi Gabbard's anti-war activism. There are good Dems out there, I'm willing to give them a chance.
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
@Azazello Been there, done that.
Been there, done that. Too many times.
Besides, I'm not sure about Ronan.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
That would only consume time, money and energy we could spend o
something else. There have been many articles, including by the awesome gjohnsit, that show the Democratic Party is not going to change. The will give lip service. They will give Elizabeth Warren a fake, meaningless title. However, they have become a corporate party, trying to survive by culture wars alone.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/165151-afl-cio-chief-amplifies-wa...
Who is this person anyway?
Sounds just like a democrat. I've just recently seen her referenced here. Whatever, for those that want to play that game (party politics), Bernie is still relevant. for those that don't, he's not.
The problem is, the Democratic party is a neoliberal wall street war party. That has been established clearly over the last 25 years under two eight year presidents.
Yep. Al From and Bill Clinton intentionally turned the
Democratic Party into a socially liberal, politically correct Republican Party. As a result, Bill, Hillary and Chelsea got very rich, while rank and file Democrats turned Republican.
In 2014, the Party saw a repeat of the midterm losses of 2010. Massachusetts Democratic Party members of the House, Mike Capuano (voted against both the Iraq War and the Patriot Act) and Stephen Lynch, suggested that the Party try something else. They were vilified. However, Lynch jumped on the Hillary bandwagon early and often, so figure out that one.
I'm not giving up on Bernie.
At the risk sounding naive, I still believe in electoral politics. There are some good people in the Democratic Party and I hope to see them take it over. Without hope we die, I still have hope.
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
Why does believing in electoral politics require you to believe
the Democratic Party can be reformed? It's not a matter of giving up on Bernie. Bernie will not become President or head of the Democratic Party. Heck, he won't even join it.
It's a matter of believing that the Democratic Party is capable of genuine reform.
Johnstone is dynamite--
I like your take on her article. Simply put, the way I see it is through the old adage, "You can't serve two masters." I can't give Sanders a pass on his support of the Democratic party -- at all. That being said, I love what he has done in raising the awareness (especially awareness of ourselves, the true left) of everything that could be great to exposing everything rotten, often at his own political peril, about the Democratic party. I'll never stop wondering what would have happened if he went with the Greens?
He's been in the game a long, long time. What worked for him during the brunt of his career, being the Amendment King, will matter little anymore. Schumer, the wall street darling boy who doesn't mind when Syrians are being wiped out right and left while Clintoon was SoS suddenly goes for the Oscar by shedding tears for detained travelers. He must go. Clueless Pelosi must go. All of the old rot must go, but by the time that happens the Democratic party may be a distant memory.
So, in the meantime we are stuck with a thoroughly demented strong man who has surrounded himself with what he hoped would be sycophants, which is more and more appearing to be a staff (excluding Pence and Bannon) of Deep State operatives. If that is bullshit then so be it but after firing Flynn, they certainly are not going to stick their necks out for him. I digress.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Tillerson cannot be fairly described as a deep state operative
if by that you imply that behind-the-scenes powerbrokers, aka Deep State, are pro-Hillary war hawks. Trump is still learning the ropes after less than 8 weeks on the job. If he can learn the job, then have no doubt he will create his own Deep State, which is quite different than the Clintonite-Soros deep state.
Is he or will he?
--I'm thinking that there is infighting within the Deep State. As I've heard it put, Oligarchs vs. Empire (intelligence community). Could it be that Trump (Bannon/Pence) may pit the two against one another? Destruction does seem to be this administrations primary goal. That might be a good thing.
I'm getting this in part from the Catherine Austin Fitz videos introduced to me by Nastarana.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
The title of Amendment King may not mean what many
assume it means. I know of three or four substantive amendments and one bill that Bernie authored that became law during 25 years in the House and Congress. http://caucus99percent.com/comment/237534#comment-237534
However, other members of Congress, including Hillary and Rand Paul, managed zero, so that may make Bernie king of amendments in comparison. Turns out Senators and members of the House accomplish even less than we've suspected.
http://caucus99percent.com/content/my-political-epiphanies-2016 I had that particular epiphany during the primary, when I started with the intent of comparing Hillary's legislative accomplishments with those of Bernie.
If anyone knows of additional substantive amendments (re-naming post offices is not substantive, IMO) that Bernie wrote that because law, other than those described in this post http://caucus99percent.com/comment/237534#comment-237534 I'd be very grateful if you let me know (preferably in a civil manner, but I'll take the info either way). Bill titles and/or bill numbers or a one- or two-sentence description of what the amendment was about would be appreciated.
I don't need links to articles making vague claims about Bernie's amendment prowess. I saw plenty of those during the primary when I was researching the subject and then saw more before I made this post http://caucus99percent.com/comment/237534#comment-237534. but specific info would be welcome.
"specific info would be welcome" How about Sponsored/Passed?
I know what you mean about that "amendment king" buzz it was kinda content-free. A quick search turned up this site for info: Legislation Sponsored or Cosponsored by Bernard Sanders
I selected "Became Law" and checked the box for "Passed", sorted by Date of Intro. 210 co-sponsored or sponsored bills became law. Only 7 of the last 100 are Post Office related, I didn't look at the other pages.
My conclusion is, pretty pretty good for a life's work. Very consistent for people before profits, or seemingly so. He represents Vermont, I wish he represented me in Calfornia to be honest. I voted for him, he came here to Cloverdale in fact. That should clue y'all to the poverty the existing wine-grape industry perpetuates.
Thanks
? IMO, "Co-sponsored" is not impressive in the least.
I worded my request purposefully because I had indeed done my research during the primary.
A bill (or amendment) someone wrote or co-wrote that became law is impressive, IMO, if it is both a substantive bill and a good one.
Even a bill (or amendment) that someone actually wrote himself or herself that went nowhere is not impressive to me. I could write at least one bill a day and not get it passed. Co-sponsoring a bill or amendment that doesn't become law is even less impressive to me.
Co-sponsoring a bill or amendment that does become law is not impressive, either. Usually or always, co-sponsoring is merely adding one's name to a bill that someone else wrote and is working to get passed (or faking). Co-sponsoring is only adding your name to a bill that someone else wrote and is trying to push (or faking). That takes little more than "Okay, sure, me, too." I don't know why that is impressive. However, if I counted co-sponsoring, I would have had to say Hillary's record was impressive, even though she never wrote a single substantive bill or amendment that became law.
For example, many times before Obamacare, John Conyers would introduce a bill for Medicare for All. At one point, Conyers bill gradually accumulated one hundred co-sponsors. I'm guessing Sanders may have been one of the one hundred. But, it was Conyers' idea and Conyers' work. And it never became law, anyway.
I don't think it's any accident that the self-serving information that we get doesn't distinguish between sponsoring and co-sponsoring. Mashing together sponsoring and co-sponsoring seems makes the legislator's record seem a lot more impressive than it is. You have to dig to for the significant info.
@HenryAWallace Often, yes.
Often, yes.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It seems you didn't follow the link but I was wrong!
you did ask 'How about?', and you answered, so thanks.
Edit to add: and it is me who cannot read! Sorry. It does too separate Co- from Sponsored, so 3 bills total and I agree that does suck.
Where you say
it sorta ignores what the link is to, "... selected "Became Law" and checked the box for "Passed". There is no separation between Co- and Sponsor in the database, probably because every bill always has both.Thanks
I had followed the link. I just did not check each of the
200 plus listings at the link to determine which ones Sanders wrote. I don't know why you would assume that I didn't follow the link.
My reply to you was not about the distinction between passed or not. My reply was about the distinction between co-sponsoring versus writing.
If someone else wrote a bill (including amendments) and it passed, it would not impress me if Sanders co-sponsored the bill. I am not sure why that was not clear from my first reply.
Again, I am looking only for a substantive bill (including an amendment) that Sanders wrote or co-wrote that became law and that I did not list in the post to which I linked.
ETA: Every bill does not have co-sponsors. IMO, they don't distinguish between writing and co-sponsoring in order to make each legislator's record look a lot more impressive than it is.
I just checked, too. All 210 entries.
I found the Veterans' increase, which my post had mentioned, and two post office naming bills. IOW, my post, citing 1 substantive bill and 3 substantive amendments in 25 years, was more complete.
While it seems to suck, it is still better than the records of others. All of which proves the original point of my post: My research during the primary produced the epiphany of how very little Congress does and how little we demand of our heroes..
@HenryAWallace It can be. The only
It can be. The only way to know is if you know whose staffers actually WERE doing the work on the Hill, who was actually fighting hard to promote it, etc. The problem is, it can mean a lot, or nothing. And that history is not well-kept, and rarely shared with the public.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I wasn't focusing necessarily on major contributions.
--as an independent, he has never had much hope other than getting his two cents in. Even small changes to a bill can alter the result of the legislation significantly.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Hmm. You cited "Amendment King" which does suggest
many amendments.
I replied, posting that the title does not mean what people may assume: In 25 years in Congress, all Sanders seems to have gotten passed is four substantive bills, which four include one complete bill that he co-authored with McCain plus all of three substantive amendments. His other bills were non-substantive, like re-naming post offices in Vermont--and there were not even that many of those.
My research began during the primary, when I wanted to write an essay bragging about Sanders' legislative accomplishments. I updated in January to make the post to which I linked you in my prior reply. http://caucus99percent.com/comment/237534#comment-237534. I also researched eyo's source today. http://caucus99percent.com/comment/243709#comment-243709 on this thread. It still looks like, in 25+ years in Congress, four substantive bills, consisting of one complete bill co-written with McCain and all of three amendments that became law.
This stuff is not easy to unearth, and IMO, that is intentional. Because it is not easy, my research may have missed one or two more substantive amendments, at most, but it doesn't look that way. I think three in twenty five years is really all of the amendments, small, medium or large, major or minor. Three. Inasmuch as Congress doesn't seem to do much, maybe only three amendments does earn one the title of Amendment King. After all, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. However, as stated, a total of three amendments is not what most people assume from the title Amendment King.
Those are the facts. Again, if you have specific info that would alter those facts, I would appreciate it, but your most recent comment does not alter my original response to you. If it make you feel any better, though, I think his three amendments in 25+ years were all good ones, especially his amendment to the ACA.
Sounds like she's trying to advance the idea
that a person can be compromised, and moving around in an environment dominated by his enemies, in which he's in constant fear for his own well-being, whether for his career or his life, yet still be internally in sympathy with those outside, the "rebels" against the forces that are manipulating and threatening him. Therefore, at some point or other, he might choose to act for "the rebels" rather than the Evil Empire. Yeah, sure, that could happen--there's actually nothing much implausible about it. But it's not like having a "man on the inside" who has to cooperate and make nice in order to survive, but whom we know we can count on when it counts. It's not like that because there's no understanding, there has been no conversation, between us, the Rebel Alliance, and Rogue One over there. If we're very lucky, it's more like the relationship between Han, Leia and Chewy, and Lando Calrissian. But I've gotta say, Lando's frustration level seems to be quite unequal to his fear in this case.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
On the other hand, she makes it very clear
that Bernie is not, nor should he be, our leader.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Re: Can't Stop, It's a valid Q (your initial one),...
It's a valid Q, but I would not say Ms. Johnstone is any sort of shill - I feel her writing is mostly quite, quite good. Her observations for the most part astute (if oen reads some other pieces she has written)
But in all of it I have always sensed the undercurrent of Bernie True Believer, which she finally has addressed straight out in this piece.
Fair enough to hold that position....but my issue with it is her arguments (and similar) really do not hold much merit when dissected.
~ How is Bernie sheepdogging Progs to the Dem Party helping a Progressive Agenda- at all ?
~ How is the 'inside' triangulating and working at the perimeter of a completely broken, false duopoly going to bring about any of the dramatic change the Earth requires ?
the answers to both are the same: it doesn't. So how exactly is Bernie a useful tool for the Prog Movement to have ? THIS is where I have a bone to pick with Ms. Johnstone.
Again, these sorta True-Believer arguments are Faith-Based; and I do not disparage Faith...I'd just like folks to analyze ....and admit that, yeah, pure Faith is what it is.
There is little in Bernie's actions since Nov. to support that he is empowered to do much beyond shepherding the herd into the Chutes... giving really good speeches which rile people up ...then suggesting the completely incorrect (historically dead-end) path.
@GeorgeJohn You make a convincing
You make a convincing case. Certainly I agree with your skepticism.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Re: Sojourns - A reply which I completely
A reply which I completely agree with, thanks for reading. I agree, Caitlyn is a good writer. She is often spot-on.
I agree...Bernie forced the veil to drop on the Estab as well as the Deep State, ultimately. For THIS, we owe him gratitude.
But it's been clear since July that his leg of the race is long over; and he only ever intended to run one leg while convincing America otherwise.
Indeed, conventional DC triangulating and a talent for backroom-dealing means sh#t in 2017, so you are correct...one of his main 'legislator strengths' is (simply put) completely MOOT in the current context.
I do find it worrisome that many people cannot separate the Agenda/Movement from the Persona, however. Because of this....it's difficult to form cohesion on the true Left. And the DNC darn well knows this - it's about the only thing they are masterful at - fracturing Progressive momentum.
Speaking of back room dealings
Bernie has a deal with the DP and has had it for decades. He agreed to caucus and gore with the DP on most issues and they agreed not to run or support a candidate against him, IIRC.
The other problem I have with Bernie was when he was asked if Hillary had won the primary fair and square and he said yes she did.
I also don't remember him fighting against the crap that the DNC and Hillary's campaign did to his supporters. Thousands of people were kicked off the voting rolls and had their party affiliation changed and what did he say or do about that? Or the shenanigans at the Nevada caucuses or when Bill was at the polling places in Michigan?
And finally what did he do when the exit polls didn't line up with the actual votes? After that tidbit came out the media quit doing exit polling.
I have been upset with him spouting the Russian bullshit since he first started it.
Very good essay, thanks for writing this.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
That is what I sorted out.
http://caucus99percent.com/content/my-inner-journey-sanders-date-phase-2 (written in August)
http://caucus99percent.com/content/spoiler-candidates-and-protest-votes-... (September)
There is no reason to hate Bernie, but also no reason to believe in reforming the Democratic Party from within.
The true left needs a focal point
--
And that is why losing Bernie, whatever his reasoning, is a great sadness.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Agree, but the left needs to get over that.
The left seems to love falling in love, esp. with a charismatic Presidential candidate. Maybe it has never gotten over the handsome, intelligent, witty JFK.
In any event, in the vast majority of cases, the most left officeholders in the country are center right Democrats, whom the right trounced in 2010, 2014 and 2016, with no one more charismatic heading the party than McCain, Romney and, heaven help us, Trump. We now have more rightist control, from the Oval Office and Governors' offices, down to Mayor's offices, than we've had since before the Depression, when Republicans were still perceived as the Party of Lincoln, the Great Emancipator.
Meanwhile, the "charismatic" presidents we've elected lately ended welfare as we know it, passed NAFTA where Poppy failed, lobbied hard for repeal of Glass Steagall and enactment of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, bailed out banks and health insurance
vulturescompanies and fast tracked TPP. At what point do we stop falling for great smile?IMO, we need to focus on legislation, including how to work with Republican rank and file to get it passed. After all, a lot of the union rank and file and the farmers who are now Republicans used to be Democrats. We found common ground with those groups once and can do it again.
I dunno Henry
-- The last presidential candidate that I truly liked (before Sanders) was George McGovern. Personable but not overly charismatic. There is that humanistic element but we need another actor in office like we need 350 new naval vessels.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Well, my post said "the left," not "sojourns."
Given how poorly McGovern did in the electoral vote, I would not say that many fell in love with him.
(Posted mostly tongue in cheek. As I've posted, no one but Nixon was destined to win that election. However, I do believe that McGovern's lack of charisma was one of the many reasons he lost.)
@Lookout, Azazello...
Aza...the only person in the triumvirate you mentioned who is an elected official...is Tulsi.
Sam Ronan will never be Chair, nor will he ever be able to win a Primary if he chooses to challenge an incumbent.
Tim Canova...has already proven this beyond a doubt.
The DNC is designed to Take Out Progressive candidates.
And as of right now... the Voting Apparatus in this country, which needs to be completely revised and altered...has been seized by Homeland Security (unconstitutionally, apparently).
So there is no real PATH available via the DemParty, @ Lookout. Regardless of who the new face in the Chair may be. Their structures are deep, their power players intransigent.
Yet... Bernie is out there, trying to convince folks that the Dem infrastructure IS the Path. "Change has to come thru the Dems"...how many times have we heard him say this in the past year ?
Thanks for reading, both of you, and thanks for chiming in, too.
@GeorgeJohn I absolutely agree.
I absolutely agree.
I felt Bernie's independent status/caucus with the Democrats was appropriate. I felt his running as a Democrat was appropriate.
As he has regained his independent status while encouraging others to cause change in a party he will not join until it DOES, just doesn't seem appropriate to me.
I will never be impressed by a Republican. I might be impressed by a Democrat.
I am not impressed by an Independent who is asking me to fix the crooked Democratic party.
One leads by example.
Bernie isn't even the leader of the "progressives".
He says so.
I am not listening to him much. I do respect him to a yuuuge extent. But I am not going into the chute because he advocates I do.
Loved the Canadian drug thingie. Hate it that Democrats (Cory Booker, you dick head!) ruined it.
I am now supposed to make Cory see the error of his ways?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
The main effect of your essay really is not really to criticize
Bernie but to illustrate a point which you, GeorgeJohn make elsewhere. This is that the Democratic Party cannot be reformed from the inside.
The rationalization of the "abused locked into the Dance" is precisely why so many democrats remain Democrats despite years of betrayal. They are the abused. The Questioning Supporter, as you put it, is the skeptic, who like me, very much strongly concludes that the Democratic Party is beyond repair. An honest Outside Supporter is one who may agree with the stated aims of the progressive wing but knows realistically such a change is impossible.
When the Democratic Party collapses (not IF the Democratic Party collapses) a hopefully viable NEW progressive party will arise.
And Tulsi was first elected in 2013.
Tulsi Gabbard OpenSecrets
Thanks, I have been following some of her speeches, really loved it when she sneaked over to Syria, but now I think meh. More of the same, because Navatek Ltd is right on top of her donor list.
War, I am so sick of it and it is what she knows. And unions are on her list, yes we need strong unions but not if they're pro-war or apathetic. NO. Since when have workers gone on strike for the environment? Long time or never. Big union management got corrupted just the same as every other CEO-type along the way, if you ask me. She looks very status-quo it is no surprise the Ds will let her rise up and raise more cash. Five and half million so far, not bad for a rookie.
PEACE
Nice essay, GJ. Thanks! EOM
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
The USS Bernie has weighed anchor and left the Progressive
port. He's now floating in DNC/Clinton waters and as far as I'm concerned he can stay there. When we were cheated during the primary, he didn't say one damn word about it. When we were told to go away, that didn't bother him a bit. But when it came time to vote, He was our BFF begging us to support the woman he described as being the candidate for all that is wrong for this country. I seem to remember something about a 'Better Way'. What a farce that turned out to be.
Let the DNC Dems have him. Why in the Hell would anyone he'd ever be an honest broker for Progressives when he's shown his true colors espousing the Regressives and all their policies? That makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
He endorsed his first Clinton in 1992. He has endorsed
and campaigned for Democrats at least since then. He is lesser of two evils and/or he likes the deal he made with the Democratic Party.
http://caucus99percent.com/content/spoiler-candidates-and-protest-votes-...
Yes, he has a history of supporting establishment Dems
in return for a guaranteed job. But I would have thought seeing those Dems rig a primary might have told him something. If he wasn't "in it to win it" why did he even bother? Now people like me are far more jaded and cynical than before November 2016. And millions of millennials have just said it. And I didn't need Sanders to know how horribly corrupt our political system is. I've known that since I was 14 and skipped school with Diane B. to egg Goldwater when he came to town.
(We didn't get anywhere near Goldwater AND we got caught skipping school. It was a totally futile gesture.)
EDIT: Can't handle the keyboard this morning. I somehow lost control and part of a word ended up in the wrong place.
Sanders isn't doing HIS 'legacy' any good with his playing both sides. It actually looks very self-serving.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
All I can say about why is what I said in my essays
http://caucus99percent.com/content/my-inner-journey-sanders-date-phase-2 (This essay includes the link to Part 1)
Like an idiot I didn't look at the date of that post of yours,
it describes the situation we're in like you posted it just this morning, so I put a response in there. I suppose I could delete it but I didn't want you wondering what I said that I had to delete.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
No problem whatsoever. The date is irrelevant. I'll go
look at your comment. Thanks for telling me.
Please don't forget to flush.
I confess to writing Sanders off after he endorsed Clinton.
However, did you all notice that the Our Revolution movement just took 650 seats out of 1150 of the CA state Democratic party? That they are currently targeting IA, FL, MI, CO in addition to CA. Then they are planning on moving on to other states using that as a foundation.
Now Sanders is refusing the Draft Bernie movement but if in 4 years, the progs have taken over more of the state parties then the DNC's ability to screw him out of the primary victory would be severely curtailed.
The activists are activating and taking over. Someone WILL step into the role in 2020 if Sanders doesn't.
"movement just took 650 seats out of 1150"
yes those are very welcome words. It is really expensive, costs a lot of money in California to even become a delegate for anything meaningful. Good for them, let's hope the Clinton machine does not now consume them, it is rooted pretty pretty deep here. We'll see action in 2018, eh? Will they still feel the bern, or will half of them cash in to move up? Because "That's the system." I no longer have any hope to change that shit pit from within. Rotten is as rotten does, maybe after the 25th there will be less of it, or not. Good luck Democrats.
PEACE
California Proposition 59, Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question (2016)
Approved Yes 53.18% - So of course,
California campaign spending broke records in 2016 — expect more of the same in 2018
Good grief,
you have to start somewhere.
Winning some seats in the power structure is a very positive development. I was very encouraged in Colorado win Berners ousted all of the Co DNC representatives.
So, now some significant progress has been made, yet the whining continues.
What exactly do you want and when do you want it? Is there anything that could happen that would please you?
dfarrah
Start somewhere? LOL!
Saying "whine" is saying "childish" (unless you can hear pitch over the Internets) that's kind of insulting, perhaps you want me to STFU. I don't say you're whining about travel proof or whatever. ~shrug~
Since 1992 I have been trying to get rid of Clintons in California, met Donna Brazile in S.F. late 80s, she is not right. My brother was a big Clinton supporter, I've seen too much sausage made for too long.
I don't believe the same old incremental approach toward electoral politics is working any more, because this is oligarchy not democracy.
I say finish off the the DNC forever, immediately. Do not recruit. Don't waste any more blood or treasure on the Clintons. Purge every super delegate that endorsed her, purge every surrogate including Bernie oh wait he re-exited already, pretty pretty sneaky smart that guy.
Let the whole D-Oligarchy ATM in California collapse, that might make me a little happier. It sure would make the planet healthier.
Peace
This column was not Johnstone's
best effort. I hope she gets back on her game soon. Unlike Johnstone, I never did fall in love.
As for Bernie, I take some comfort in the fact that Clinton, Inc. had to steal the nomination from him. I don't blame him too much; these are not nice people and they have ways of enforcing compliance. At least Bernie is still alive. What I don't understand is after Killary's miserable, incompetent performance in 2008, was she given a second chance at all?
Mary Bennett
IMO, she made a deal with Obama and other Democrats.
Game Change claims that Reid, who had been the first to encouraged Obama to run for POTUS, was set to freeze Hillary out when she returned to the Senate. And her dream of becoming the first woman President obviously had not died. So, I think she made this deal with Obama and other key Democrats.
My husband and I will get the PUMAs under control by supporting Obama to the hilt, at least publicly. I will not oppose him in 2012. In return, I will be Secretary of State, which will take care of my pretending to have been shot at in an airport to try to give myself foreign policy cred. Then, I will be the nominee in 2016, repeat, the nominee in 2016. Otherwise, I will have to "follow my conscience" for the good of the country and expand on "Senator McCain and I are ready for that 3 am phone call and Senator Obama is not." Oh, and that reminds me: anyone have Joe Lieberman's cell number? Hillary's getting to designate the head of the DNC may or may not have been part of the deal.
The press reported the super secret 2008 deal was between only Obama and Hillary, though Difi made her home available to them. The press said the deal consisted of Obama's promise to help Hillary pay off her campaign debt. To quote Bubba, "Give me a break." Raising money is not a Clinton problem. Getting the nomination was. IMO, that whole Difi-campaign debt story was "leaked" as a red herring to make people stop trying to figure out what the secret deal actually consisted of and who Hillary actually made it with.
After that report, Obama showed up at ONE fundraising event and sent his donors ONE email asking us to donate to Hillary (as if any of us was in a mood to do that at that point). She would never have settled for that little if money really had been all she expected of Obama.
@Nastarana A question that used to
A question that used to fascinate me.
There were at least half a dozen politicians I could think of that they could have put in a fancy suit and stood up in front of cameras to snow the American people while working for Wall St's interests, all of whom were better at campaign politics than Hillary (not hard). Any one of them would have done Wall St's bidding without question, and any one of them would have easily beaten Trump. How many would have refused to vote for, say, Claire McAskill if she were running against Trump? How many would have refused to vote for Biden? And that's if they didn't decide to do the truly intelligent thing: get Liz Warren alone, put the fear of God into her through some leverage or other, and run her while controlling her. Put a watchdog on her in the form of some more-conservative VP choice.
But they really really needed to shove Hillary down our throats. Why? Is it that the Saudis won't work with anyone but Clintons and Bushes?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yep it's nice that Bernie Sanders opened a bunch of eyes.
And I'm okay with Caitlin Johnstone and her position on Bernie. That having been said, he's a sheepdog. I think it would be fun if an actual socialist in Vermont challenged him for his Senate seat in 2018.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
I would donate to the campaign.
Though Vt is probably too far to get my "boots on the ground".
Great essay and terrific commentary
It is essays and the comments like the ones in this essay that make this place such a breath of fresh air. We have a real diversity of opinions here, all presented convincingly and without rancor. It is these types of exchanges that I personally find so enlightening and beneficial.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Did you miss the Dennis58 trainwreck?
@
My comment
is in regard to this essay, in particular, and to C99, in general.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
my mistake.
otra vez.
it's okay, irishking
IMO, this community showed enormous restraint in responding to that essay which was the third on the same subject in as many days. We may not always agree, but for the most part, this community has discussed most issues with a lot of maturity when it would have been easier to devolve. In this essay, I have read some comments that did not mirror my own thinking at first, but are worthy of consideration and further study on my part which was my reference point for my original comment on this subject.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
@irishking If you look at the
If you look at the first diary of that trainwreck, I was actually extremely impressed with about 98% of the commenters, who were, actually responding with diversity of opinion and without rancor.
The reason I got angry with dennis is that he had no appreciation of that.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
ok, thx.
Agree.
This board has an unusual number of good essays. Because it takes me a long time to put together one I am not ashamed to publish, I am especially in awe of how many essays some produce daily or almost daily, like Joe Shikspack and gjohnsits. They are not the only good essayists here, but they are among those who are both good and prolific. I can only bow my head in respect.
Well, I'm truly baffled. I've
Well, I'm truly baffled. I've never agreed with someone 100% in my entire 49 years of life, but that hasn't stopped me from respecting, admiring, loving, honoring, listening to, laughing with, hanging out with, criticizing, disagreeing with, questioning, etc. a bunch of people. Now, according to many on this site, I have betrayed (and am betraying) my progressive values by supporting Bernie. I'm naïve. I'm a sell-out. I've got blinders on. I'm drinking the kool-ade. I'm wearing the rosy glasses. And, now also, Tulsi Gabbard is unacceptable. Who am I allowed to support politically now? Seems to me it's getting awfully crowded under that bus.
I am not reading this
that way at all. I do not see Bernie or Tulsi or anyone being thrown under the proverbial bus. But I do think we should not put our full faith and trust in any one politician, but should glean the best from those with whom we mostly agree. The system is designed to punish those on the left, so in my personal opinion, we must work outside the system. Anyone here who has read my comments over the last two years knows that I am of the firm belief that most meaningful change comes from grass roots social movements. Once a social movement grows too big or too powerful to ignore, then only will the political establishment begin to change.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Did it stop you from voting?
you say "that hasn't stopped me from respecting, admiring, loving, honoring, listening to, laughing with, hanging out with, criticizing, disagreeing with, questioning, etc. a bunch of people." that you disagree with politically I guess.
I really don't care at all about those things, your choice. As is your vote, but do you vote for neoliberals and their supporters because they are D? Are you still voting to keep evil in power? Well go on, I am done and I am not going to shut up about what a disaster I think it is reaching out to prop up the status-quo. Nope. Remember this is oligarchy, not democracy, that is the framework we exist in. Some more comfortably than others.
Peace
@Live4Change First, there's this:
First, there's this:
Now, according to many on this site, I have betrayed (and am betraying) my progressive values by supporting Bernie. I'm naïve. I'm a sell-out. I've got blinders on. I'm drinking the kool-ade. I'm wearing the rosy glasses.
Who said betrayal? Who talked of selling out? And how are those things the same as being naive, or wearing rosy glasses?
In fact, who spoke of you, specifically, at all? What I saw was people saying they wouldn't trust Bernie, and discussing why.
Please show me where anyone made a character attack on you, rather than discussing their own feelings and thoughts.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@Live4Change Second point: we are
Second point: we are living in the age of corruption. The most pressing question when working under these conditions is "Who can you trust, and how much? (because it's not a simple yes-or-no question)"
People are disinclined to trust those who hold positions within the system. This is understandable, given that we are working against a political agenda that demands 100% compliance, and constantly tries to ferret out, destroy, or control, any divergent opinion. Look at what just happened to Bernie when he said publicly that he was "disappointed" in those 13 Dem senators who voted against his pharmaceutical bill. Ten years ago, that would have passed completely unnoticed. In 2017, he was ripped up one side and down the other, and practically pilloried in the press. For saying he was disappointed.
Somebody is looking for total control, and they are trying to twist, smash, or control all versions of resistance that exist. This is an insane aim, by the way. But more to the point, how do any of us know what compromises someone like Bernie or Tulsi would have to make to stay alive in that shark tank? And, not knowing what they might be forced to do for their continued survival within the system, how can we possibly trust them? Don't we have to take it on a case-by-case basis, and analyze each situation on its merits? Isn't that the best thing to do, anyway?
As for being under the bus, I've been under here a long time, and there's nearly 300 million people under here with me, some politicians, but most not, so you're right in your assessment that it's crowded.
P.S. Vote for whomever you want to.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Why's that? Because others stated their opinion on Sanders?
And who bad-mouthed Gabbard? She's one of the few Democrats with any credibility here and that's what was said about her in this thread.
I don't understand your post.
EDIT: changed a . to a ?
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Links to the posts you are talking about please?
I read here a fair amount now and I have not seen them.
Apropos of nothing, I once did literally wear a pair of rose colored lenses in my prescription glasses. I used the specs when I did not get around to my contact lenses. I noticed I really was happier the days I wore the specs. Maybe it was the power of suggestion, but who cares what caused me to be happier? Happier is happier and it's good enough for me.
For comparison:
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
@EllenNorth, I would argue that
Bernie is NOT actually to be lauded for 'keeping the Agenda in the Public Eye" because quite honestly, all he is really doing is parroting his old Stump Speeches.
Yes, it gives us a thrill, brings back the good ol' days.....but really, considering the most IMPORTANT threats to our "Republic" today...he isn't going anywhere NEAR them.
The issue of the Integrity of Our Vote....is the most important threat today.
That Bernie has remained completely MUM...I am sorry, but there is nothing respectable about that whatsoever.
His reconstituted stump speeches might sound good, but as he is operating from a position of Disempowerment (and...he put himself in that position, mind you) it is specious to suggest that what he is doing now is really effective at all (unless you are the DNC, which of course would find great value in what he's doing - regurgitating stump speeches to convince folks that there still IS a "progressive wing" of the DemParty and that the Party can be changed).
So while I appreciate your suggestion, I find the notion of "he's doing everything he can under the circumstances" a very difficult argument to float. "The circumstances" are something Bernie has helped create, and something which he has clearly decided is OK for now. (Maybe - in the microcosmic world of a Federal Legislator - that decision was a complicated one, a painful one....but honestly, I don't care how torturous it might have been for him. Because in the macrocosm, he's abandoned those he asked to Rise Up, and his duplicity does great harm to the causes he claims to believe in).
And unlike your Third Reich analogy, the current Establishment-Dark State takeover has been much more insidious, and successful; therefore arguing that using an old-school form of 'resistance to the best of his ability" will contribute to getting us out of this, just as that methodology sowed the seeds of resistance in the 40's....is, IMHO, Faith-based at best. The Estab is an entirely different enemy, IMHO.
Thanks for your commentary.
I voted for Jill Stein.
I voted for Jill Stein.
Me too and I don't regret it.
I voted AGAINST the SchumerDem stuffed blazer put forward for Congress in my district and I don't regret that either. I am for now, registered Working Families, so every election cycle the local secretary or whatever he is of the Democratic Party comes around for signatures to put Dem candidates on the WFP line of the ballot. I told him back last summer Mme.C would lose, and he didn't dispute it.
Mary Bennett
@Live4Change
As others have already replied, there is no judgment being made here. I have plenty of acquaintances who actually feel the Dems are salvageable, and Bernie was victimized, and he is 'doing the best he can'. I do not disparage their positions - but I will challenge those narratives at any given opportunity - particularly the Bernie Victim narrative, or the Bernie Helplessness narrative. I just do not see it that way.
As I noted in the essay, there is little point in alienating someone who shares the same moral/sociopolitical compass.
But even as Ms. Johnstone noted in her piece...this debate has to happen. And as you note, sometimes we gotta participate in convos which leave our safe zone.
If in essence you find Ms. Johnstone's article and points to be valid, that's fine.
Thanks for participating and again, do not feel insulted or judged.
@Eyo, @HenryWallace..thx for the research
and indeed, in the conventional DC triangulation scheme of things its fair to say, within that microcosm, Bernie as a Legislator did pretty OK.
I think the issue is....that was Then. This is Now. If people still believed the Narrative that the GOP and Dems are opponents going into 2016, that Premise needs to be jettisoned. I doubt many on this site believed that.
So I think the notion of Amendment King, the notion that (within the false narrative of GOP vs Dems) Bernie managed to work as a Frenemy to make right-wing legislation a little less reprehensible; to get the occasional dog bone thrown to constituents.....mitigate the harm.
All that is OK, we can have some gratitude for that; but in the long run - at the end of the day, all most Americans get is 'one step forward, two steps back". So overall, things do not improve for the 99%. Perhaps they just decline a bit more slowly.
That was my point in agreeing with Sojourns that the old 'legislative tweaking the edges' stuff which Bernie excels in...all it does is make the slide down the slope a little slower.
& in 2017 - that's no help to anybody, anymore. My 2 cents.
? Depends on your definition of "okay," and "excels," I guess.
I don't think one total substantive bill, co-written with McCain, and three substantive amendments passed, for a total of four substantivebills in 25 years, is an okay record for a legislator, especially given how freakin' expensive the federal government is.
And, most of the stuff Bernie got passed had to do with veterans. While I do think we should take care of veterans, I think the rest of us need help, too. I do think Bernie's amendment to the ACA was great. But, again, one total bill and 3 amendments in 25 years? Not great, even if it is comparable to the rest of them in Congress.
My point in the essay I wrote about this was how very little many members of Congress get accomplished and how little we expect of our heroes, not that Bernie's record was objectively a good one.
It takes resources to run a viable political party
You will need to hire staff, find and screen promising candidates, pay rents on offices, pay ads for your candidates, etc. The DNC spent over 360M in 2016. Even accounting for the fact that you don't need as much in non-election years, at least an independent political party that can compete with the two major political parties (and not just act as spoilers like the Green or Libertarian parties) will need a minimum budget of 50M/year to establish a political foothold and credibility.
That's not an insurmountable amount. If the millions of donors to the Bernie's campaign just chip in $2/month to the Our Revolution organization then that would be enough. If Our Revolution succeeds, that will be the foundation for a new party.
However, it's been very quiet so I suspect that most of the dedicated progressives don't contribute to Our Revolution so it's not doing well enough to be newsworthy. That would be a deathknell to any revolution, wouldn't it ?
Not all Democrats are bad so I don't see any conflicts in having an independent Our Revolution to replace the worst Democrats with progressives and compete with Republicans while building the foundation for a new political party at the same time.
If Our Revolution can get tens of million dollars in donation a year and still can't do a diddly squat then I will start to get disappointed at Bernie for not pushing more progressives into the government.
If Our Revolution can't raise enough funds to support even one paid staff in each state then I will be very disappointed at all the tough purist talks.
@CalvinV Before you raise money,
Before you raise money, you have to prove validity of concept, or at least produce something that waves generally in that direction. You have to get people to perceive the need for what you're selling, first, and second you have to get people to believe that what you're selling will work to meet the need.
All these orgs like Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress, Our Revolution have no problem getting people to #1--perceiving the need. Their problem is #2--getting people to believe their strategy will work. A lot of people think it won't. Making character attacks on the people that think it won't is unlikely to be helpful, except to the establishment, which is trying to stack excuses for its genocidal madness like a teetering pile of pancakes fifty high:
So when the Dems are in power, you get the excuse that nothing can be done from Hillary and Rahm and Obama and those types, who say "you fuckin retards don't understand how Washington works" and then it's election year, and Hillary and Rahm and those types say "we could stop the Republicans and have a bright new day in this country except that you purists/racists/sexists won't show up," and then you have the people who supposedly oppose them and want to reform the Democratic party, and they say "we could reform the Democratic party and save the country from Hillary and Rahm AND the Republicans, except that you purists won't show up and it's because of your prissy morality that our magnificent strategy will come to naught," and there's a lot of other pancakes in the stack I haven't mentioned, such as "that bad man over there stole the election from us, and if you're not mad at him, you're probably working for him, you traitor."
It really makes me want to find a beach and drink tequila. A lot.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal The agenda of Our
The agenda of Our Revolution is something I assume everybody has memorized by now. In case you need a reminder:
https://ourrevolution.com/issues/
And the accomplishments were the number of progressive candidates supported by Our Revolution in the last election and the recent success in the CA Dem election. It's more than just talk of an ideal party like Justice Democrats.
Whether it will become a credible political force or not will depend on the grassroot support. Even if it succeeds it will take a decade or more to build up the infrastructure to replace the Democratic party. By that time, Nernie Sanders probably won't be the one leading the new party. If you consider yourself a part of the "OUR revolution" then participate in it. It's yours, not Bernies'. He's been fighting for 50 years and he might want to take a rest.
Meanwhile, the Dem party will just have to hold the fort. Other than just criticism, maybe you can offer some practical opinions on how to run a new political party that can beat the two major political parties ? How long will that take ?
Pages