Waking up from the long sleep?
Gopal Balakrishnan:
On numerous occasions since the 90s the left has rallied to a center-right candidate to ward off the far-right and the results have been disastrous. Not only is the far right strengthened by bolstering its credentials as the only real opposition force to the establishment, the left is drastically weakened at the expense of the center-right.
Okay, so if the strategy of OMIGOD IT"S THE END OF THE WORLD IF YOU DON"T VOTE FOR THE NEOLIBERAL DEMOCRAT AGAINST THE EVIL REPUBLICAN didn't benefit the interests of the "Left," then why was it employed for so long?
Why are the nice liberal masses STILL (for the most part) willing to go to their political deaths under the Clinton/ Obama/ Kerry/ Gore/ Dukakis bandwagon? One obvious answer to that question is that the liberal masses have shown decades of a firm commitment to voting for the path of what Balakrishnan calls the "center-right." Obama is popular y'know, or so say the Clinton forces over at Daily Kos. Realism and incrementalism are way kewl, and so says the liberal voting record of the past thirty-six years. Jimmy Carter was actually the first big lesser of two evils in 1980, and if Michael Dukakis in 1988 wasn't a lesser of evils, I'm not quite sure what he was. Bill Clinton in 1992 and Barack Obama in 2008 actually promised us something for our tax dollars, but I'm not sure why they bothered, and those campaigns were blips on the screen. An ACA, a sequester, and a "free trade" campaign later, and Barack Obama who normalized the Bush regime had liberal opinion in his back pocket as of 2012, like he's had since forever. Today Hillary Clinton doesn't bother. With Clinton we're in a hurry -- hurry up and give her the Presidency. No time or sentiment for promises, and thirty-six years of voting pattern says the liberals won't mind. OMIGOD TRUMP IS A FASCIST! We'll prove this assertion by saying it a lot.
(Actually the far-right forces strengthened by the austerian, neoliberal conditions of Obama rule have been very busy "proving" Trump's fascism for him, but it's still rather likely at this point that Trump is just a bully and a Right populist, and not a fascist at all. And I seriously doubt that Trump will get much done in office if he is lucky enough to make it there. Clinton, on the other hand, will give you fascism, and make you like it.)
The Obama Presidency has strengthened the "far right" like no other Presidency since, I dunno, Woodrow Wilson? And we did it all for him, because OMIGOD A ROMNEY PRESIDENCY would have been the END OF THE WORLD y'know. In no other portion of post-World-War-II history has America experienced a far-right triumph such as what occurred in the elections of 2010 and 2014. 2009: Markos Moulitsas proclaimed on the Big Orange in his most boastful tones that the ONLY place where the Republicans were growing in numbers was Appalachia. Nearly two years later, those same "going nowhere" Repubs picked up 63 new seats in Congress and 6 new Senate seats out of thirty-four up for grabs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2010
Meanwhile all the nice liberals sat still while the Forces of Hype proclaimed the Barackstar the "greatest President in history." How 'bout those Shepard Fairey "Hope" posters? In 2012 I wrote this diary, in which I argued that America didn't have a Left:
https://cassiodorusblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/02/what-if-barack-obama-we...
At that point, I suggested, most of what counted as a "Left" in the US was all bark and no bite. Ignore what they say, and pay close attention to the people they put into office.
So along comes Bernie Sanders, last year, with his "gee, wouldn't it be nice if we actually HAD a 'Left'" campaign. Suddenly, after thirty-six years of sleep, the "Left" wants to be left again. Hell, we've even got people now who are #BernieOrBust, who proclaim in loud voices that they won't vote for Clinton in November. Sanders was greatly weakened by his promise to endorse Clinton if he "didn't make it," however. The Clinton forces know this, and have been busy stealing the primaries since. If they can get the superdelegates to stick with their promises to screw the mass public, we'll have a President Trump before you can say "we're idiots," or at least another President Clinton, which will amount to being the same thing.
Here's my question: what happened? Bernie Sanders, too, waited through thirty-six years of neoliberal governance before doing this. Did everyone wake up from thirty-six years of bad voting decisions to decide that okay now we're actually going to vote to get something from government? And are we really going to follow through on this decision if Sanders endorses Clinton at the convention? It's the Rip Van Winkle vote!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rip_Van_Winkle
I suppose that part of the genius that raised its voice last year is in Sanders' inside-outside strategy. The liberals have insisted, year after year after year, that their candidates run as Democrats, and the Democrats have supplied him with the databases he's needed to do phonebanking. There's another feature of thirty-six years of liberal voting for neoliberals -- the more the Democratic Party is the "only option," the more it becomes the only option. So Sanders did what he had to do -- he ran as a Democrat.
Personal disclaimer: Through most of the period in question, since 1992 at least, I've been a member of the Green Party, registering my futile and useless protest against the whole charade that has been thirty-six years of politics. I've felt helpless before the great mass of liberal voters for neoliberal candidates -- I didn't understand their motives, and I didn't understand what appeared to me to be their hopelessly naive views of the Democratic Party.
Help me out here.
Comments
Hillary is vastly worse than Obama
Hillary is a corrupt warmonger engaging in scorched earth tactics against her primary opponent. I do not agree with Obama on all things but I think he is sincerely trying to do good within what he views as the limitations of realpolitik. I know Hillary by the fruits of her actions and they are rotten.
I agree with you that Clinton is worse
But I can't agree that Obama is better. His bait-and-switch 2008 campaign did a great deal to delegitimize the idea of real political reform happening through the Democratic Party, and the 2010 and 2014 midterm losses are due to this fact perhaps more than any other. Serving Wall Street and Pete Peterson, letting the war machine and the domestic spying industry run amok, abandoning the vast majority of progressive political movements --it's hard to make much of a positive case for Obama.
Over time, delegitimizing the idea of reform through the Democratic Party might be Obama's greatest legacy. If there were any doubt, this year has killed it. The Sanders campaign shows that we may not even need the Democratic Party infrastructure in the near future. If we can run a Sanders-like campaign with a candidate who didn't feel the need to pay obeisances to the party, we might finally get somewhere.
Please help support caucus99percent!
We were PROMISED the 'most liberal prsident ever'
and that is very clearly NOT what we got.
He was definetly better than McPainlin or Rmoney, but that's faint praise...
Bernie was the first opportunity I have had to vote FOR somebody versus voting against republicans, which is all I have done since I began voting.
One thing that would be great for #BernieOrBust
is if we learned to distinguish between political personalities and political outcomes. Barack Obama, to all appearances, is a great guy. His term as President, however, promises to have a rather bad end.
"there's something so especially sadistic about waving the flag of a country that you're actively destroying" -- Aaron Mate
Obama: Zilch+ Clinton: Zilch -
I don't agree Obama is trying to make things better for those who only have their labor to sell to survive. I think Obama is trying to make things better for those who control the political economy of the world which equals more austerity for us and a bigger and better gravy train for the Wealthers.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Yes, Hillary Is Worse.
She doesn't need someone like Valerie Jarrett to tell her to tie her shoes and straighten her tie every morning like Obama does.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
The Clintons destroyed a lot of the infrastructure
that traditional opposition depended on with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Essentially, they saw exactly what would happen if a principled politician stood up in 1992 (Even if his principles were wrong) and had media attention, and they were determined to make certain the narrative was set.
They just didn't see the rise of the internet as anything other than an extension of the MSM. Because the MSM has greatly reduced power online, their tactics of controlling the vast majority of information was rendered moot. (Course, had they gotten their ORIGINAL 1996 bill through, they would have had all the tools necessary to shut it down. One of the few times I've agreed with the SCOTUS in the last few decades.)
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Right.
And now we're supposed to rally around these people, Clinton and her associates, for another four years of that. Well it appears that Rip Van Winkle has woken up.
"there's something so especially sadistic about waving the flag of a country that you're actively destroying" -- Aaron Mate
Spot on
And I am tired of being their serf. Thanks for the essay.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Thank you
for the excellent read! Much to the chagrin of many a HRC supporter, it's Bernie or bust, or Bernie or Jill Stein. No way am I voting for a corporate welfare loving, self interesting serving chicken hawk on the premise of her being "the lesser of two evils", what a shitty reason to vote for someone.
Gold is the wealth of kings; silver is the wealth of commoners; barter is the wealth of peasants; and debt is the wealth of slaves.
Was thinking about this this weekend.
It's like the DNC has quietly conspired with the "more rational elements" - if there are such things - in the GOP to create a center-right party essentially, with a hideous rightwing extremist party (The Party of Trump) and a more genuine leftwing party that Bernie has essentially kick-started (out of componenets that have been there awhile).
The entire time we have been BASHED for even remotely suggesting "both sides do it", there they are.... doing it. To us.
It was a disaster for the DNC to have had Bernie run against her. O'Malley ran but fizzled out ASAP: no message.
Bernie's message is ANATHEMA to this unholy DNC monstrosity. They wanted a 'millionaires vs billionaires' election which shoves MOST people under the bus (clinton fans as well as the rest of us)
I have been battling anti-Bernie moderation at Raw Story the past 24-30 hours. They too, like TOP, appear to have sold out for clinton. I NEVER have comments removed there (once in a blue moon) - I have had probably 10+ comments removed just because they were less than kissy-faced for Her Majesty. Other foul rants I have posted historically - well-recced or left alone. But today - holy shit.
When Bush ran for president his team went and bought a bunch of anti-Bush websites to shut them down. Clinton appear to have bought half the intertubes and paid them to support her and denigrate Bernie's message. I see over at TOP that there is quite a concerted effort to shit all over his message. Same thing goes on at disqus too and the moderators appear biased, too.
I am not sure what to do next: She's going to get the nomination and immediately will consider that a guarantee of 2 terms. She needs to be limited to the one term (she will spend the whole first time campaigning anyway) and we need somebody to run as a primary challenger for 2020 and get started soon.
I think Trump will win.
The email scandal will hurt a lot, and Obama will have to bail her out.
"there's something so especially sadistic about waving the flag of a country that you're actively destroying" -- Aaron Mate
It is going to boil down to who is disliked LESS
If Hillary wins, it will mean that people despise him more than her.
If HE wins... holy shit. Clinton will be less popular than transmittable diseases.
No lesser of two evils
I wish that we could vote for none of the above.
"None of the Above" would beat BOTH Her and T-Rump
and we can't have that, because we can't have The People rejecting the rulers chosen for them by their "betters".
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I think Trump will have a problem with both
his bankruptcies and his alleged dealings with the Mafia. I honestly don't know who is going to come out looking worse but ordinary people can understand a person declaring bankruptcy to stiff creditors.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
OTOH ...
Framing is everything. Ordinary people understand that bankruptcy helps people and companies dig out of a financial hole. Many big name companies have gone bankrupt; some are in the dustbin, others survive and thrive today. It's helpful to remember that in 2001 Hillary was for bankruptcy "reform" that stuck it to the little people.
Trump had bankruptcy laws that worked for him and other
rich people. The "ordinaries" no longer have the option to declare bankruptcy and start fresh. Thanks Clinton and the other leolibs.
Trump used companies that shielded his wealth from the courts and those hurt, a state of affairs not available to the citizens.
I think it might catch the eyes of voters....maybe anyway.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
I agree.
Trump screwed over a lot of other businesses and a lot of other people. But so has Clinton.
Some ordinaries are able
to avail themselves of bankruptcy, but not student debtors, some of whom have crushing loads that will never be paid off. Their social security will end up "garnished" - it's already happened.
I think maybe the answer is
it has taken
3648 years to find a generation that is ripe for the kind of change Bernie represents.I'm sure others sense this could be an historic election. In my own experience it has been that long since a major candidate espoused real change. It's my feeling that it almost died with Bobby Kennedy's assassination. Others will disagree, I'm sure, but that's my take. So, as I see it, we've been holding on for all that time to see the chance come again, and I think it's happening now.
Bernie's appeal to Millenials is the best evidence I can offer. Theirs is a generation raised on the world-wide web, so their view of the world (and the mess previous generations have made of it) is based on that global perspective. They see climate change and endless wars and all the other threats to their future, and Bernie's message resonates with their perception.
Their experience of the world has fertilized the ground where Bernie's not-really-radical ideas (and the ideas of the many good, progressive people who came before him) have taken root. In things like universal health care and tuition-free state universities, in living wages and in the repair of our infrastructure, in restoring our manufacturing base and in a dozen other issues they recognize that Bernie's policies will be a yuuuge investment in their generation and their children's.
I think we, the Gen Xers and Yers and Boomers like me, owe it to them. We should do everything we can to help the movement grow. That's why I'm for Bernie.
If everyone who has had a bankruptcy
or a foreclosure votes for Trump, he will win.
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
On Rip Van Winkle
Good essay! I want to come back to this part:
I don't think Bernie waited through 36 years of neoliberal governance. As we know, he had his own path through those years, first figuring out that he even wanted to be a politician, then working (and getting a lot done!) at the local level for a number of years, then serving time in the House and finally the Senate. During his years in federal office, he didn't sleepwalk; he worked his butt off to accomplish the most he could every day, within the system. My understanding is that he looked around a couple of years ago with a Clinton coronation looming, and he decided at that point that that there had to be an alternative. So, he went to the trouble of testing his message in the South, etc., before finally concluding that if he didn't give people an actual choice, no one would. So, a long way of saying: he didn't wait.
But I think you're right that the public has just awakened to the reality of 36 years of neoliberal governance and the Democratic Party's betrayal, in no small part due to Bernie's campaign and other well-timed events such as the publication of Thomas Frank's latest book. Zeitgeist, ubermensch, etc.!
Now, I need to ask: has Bernie ever actually said that he would endorse Hillary? This is an honest question, because I've been paying attention to this for a while now, and every time I see him asked what he'll do if he doesn't win the nomination, he gives a very precise, consistently worded response; for example, he said this today on Meet The Press:
I've seen a whole lot of articles and pundits refer matter-of-factly to Bernie's assurances that he'll endorse Hillary, but I haven't seen him say those words himself; maybe I've missed something. And if it were anyone but Bernie, I would say that "I'll endorse Hillary" is a fair interpretation of his statements. But one thing we know about Bernie is that he's very careful in the way he words things; and since I've been tracking this, I've heard people like Jeff Weaver express this in just the way that Bernie does. It's purposeful and deliberate. I'm just saying.
I think people really have signed up for the Political Revolution; we can't go back to not knowing what we're now so acutely aware of. And I have no idea what Bernie's planning to do if he doesn't get the nomination, but I'd be shocked if Plan B involves either endorsing Clinton or going back to his seat in the Senate and resuming business as usual. We can only go forward from here.
" I will do everything that I can to make sure that does not
happen" Sounds like "lesser of two evils" to me. On that day, I will part company with Bernie, because I believe Hillary is the greater evil.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Yes, if that is, in fact, what he means
I part ways as well. Frankly, I can't even imagine him endorsing her; she's the perfect embodiment of the very system he's running to change. In the meantime, I'm leaving the possibility open that he has something else in mind.
That could mean that he will fight with everything
he's got to win the nomination. Sanders doesn't think Hillary can beat Trump, but Bernie is sure he can. That seems to mean that the convention will show Sanders standing up for himself and us all rather than be shunted to the side.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
I agree there is something about his wording
that does not say endorsement. Sanders is very smart. He doesn't do something just for effect. However, so far, I have not been able to figure out what his plan is.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
I know! All I can think of
is an independent run, but that seems so impractical.
Then again, think of the language he's consistently used: early on, he vowed repeatedly that he would "not be a spoiler." Well, what's a spoiler? Someone like Nader, whose run permits the most abhorred candidate to win. People have interpreted that to mean that he's promised never to run as an independent in the general. But the way I see it, an independent run by Bernie is inherently not a spoiler campaign because he would win. Hmm.
Not an independent run.
He stated from the beginning that he would not do that, and I trust his integrity not to go back on that. Besides, it is effectively too late for him to make an independent run.
Though--new thought--it is possible that he might back someone else who is making an independent run. I wonder if there is anybody who has been quietly gathering signatures and other requirements to be on the November ballot in all states. LOL, maybe Jane.
PS. Nader is NOT why Gore lost.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
But did he say that?
All I recall him saying is that he "would not be a spoiler."
But your idea of him supporting someone else is an interesting one!
Yes, he said that
Sept. 14, 2015
Bernie Sanders on why he won't run as an independent
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
I think one thing that has changed over the last 16
years is that the success of the DLC/neolib/etc element at driving the Dems to the right forced the transformation of the GOP into what can only be described as a Loony Party. The subsequent absorption of the fleeing non-insane Republicans into the right wing of the Democrats is what created opportunity on the left. Electoral success notwithstanding, the GOP is a rump party -- half of the people who vote GOP, do so only because it's what they've always done, and a whole lot of them are going to be dead within 15 years. Similarly, half of the people who vote Democratic do so only because it's what they've always done. Many of them are also going to be dead in 15 years, and what happens next depends on whether the Democrats schismatize, or the young left seizes the party and drives the right back into the GOP.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
The race is not won
It seems that Alternet has joined GOS in slamming Bernie and his supporters. I live in NM and I just voted absentee for Bernie. Thank you Caucus99% for Articles like these by people like these.
FYI I have been receiving tons of requests for donations from it seems like every DINO in the country. What is going on? Is the Hillary cash train going off the tracks?
They keep it all for Hillary
I have read that her "party building" activities were really a scam to avoid the campaign finance laws. She "borrowed" 99% of the money for her own campaign. I will not donate to anyone endorsed by DWS' DNC. Currently, I am only donating to Bernie and Tim Canova (DWS' primary opponent).
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
I think we have been steadily going downhill economically
since Reagan and "trickle down economics". Even during Bill's years, overall the economy was better than under Repubs but anyone aware of the news was aware of the end of welfare, NAFTA, and so on, making lives miserable. The longer this goes on, the more people who are made miserable or know someone in dire straits, the more people want change. Obama ran on "hope and change" but did not give it to us. So we Occupied. When that didn't work, now we've rallied behind Bern. Until we turn things around, we'll have a stronger and stronger progressive movement. Because the rich have done the poor, now they're coming after the middle class. So more and more people realize we have to fight back. Too bad we didn't all stand up sooner, but people tend to be complacent until it's their own pocketbook issue.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
What made the economy better under Bill Clinton
Was the explosive growth of the PC into a household appliance and the spectacular growth of the internet, not neoliberal policies.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
What made the economy better...
What made the economy better was the collapse of the Soviet Union, which coincided with the accelerated exploitation of "developing market" nations.
In reality that growth turned into a death sentence for our middle class.
Progressive, Independent, Gnostic, Vermonter.
For all of my adult life this
For all of my adult life this nation has vacillated between socially liberal corporate war mongers and socially conservative corporate war mongers.
That cycle of the same ole crap needs to be changed.
Progressive, Independent, Gnostic, Vermonter.