Tag Archives: Bernie Sanders

Political Rants

Big tent, little tent.

The news of this week, campaign-wise, has been the minor uprising at the Nevada Democratic party convention. The reason for this, I’m sure, is that this is the story the Clinton campaign and its supporters wanted us to be talking about. For months they have been trying to frame Bernie Sanders and his supporters as aggressive, undisciplined, even violent political loose cannons. The protest in Nevada, as it was covered on television, appeared to conform to that narrative, helped along by the strategic release of some crank calls that came in to the voicemail of a party official. So, on a week when Sanders virtually tied Clinton in Kentucky and beat her by ten points in Oregon, the take-away will be that he can’t and won’t control his people.

Clinton's thin blue lineThis smells a lot like rat-fucking to me. The Clinton operation is pretty good at it, especially when they have the DNC and the entire party establishment in their corner. Then there’s the David Brock effort, using tactics that he once focused on the Clintons themselves. But beyond the specifics of this campaign, what we’re seeing is kind of a Democratic party tradition: piss on the activist left, even when it’s likely to cost you the election. When have they ever not done this? From the marginalization of black southern voices in 1964, to shutting out antiwar voices in 1968, to undermining the McGovern campaign in 1972, the Dems always find a way to keep the lid on the progressive box.

That is, until now. It’s one thing to shut Jesse Jackson out in 1988 when he had won 11 contests (including 7 primaries) and almost 7 million votes. But the Sanders phenomenon is even more imposing, and not really centered around a candidate so much as a set of policies and ideas. It is in many ways a generational uprising, like Occupy Wall Street 2.0, emerging from the landscape unexpectedly. It is the center of energy on the Democratic side, and as far as I can see, the Clinton campaign – which is winning – is making no effort to engage this movement in any meaningful way. The fact is, they are treating the Bernie folks with the kind of contempt the Democratic establishment has traditionally reserved for the party’s left flank. That won’t wash this time.

The Clintons may really blow this election. If they don’t start making an effort to establish a productive, cooperative relationship with Sanders supporters … to meet them a bit more than halfway … they are not only going to lose, but they will also squander the future of their own party. That’s the choice. We can’t afford to pick the wrong path, people. Too much at stake.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Unite or bust.

I don’t think it would be a surprise to anyone who reads this blog that I am substantially to the left of Bernie Sanders on a whole range of issues. That said, I am overjoyed that he has done as well as he has in the contest for the Democratic nomination. It is unprecedented in my lifetime that such a progressive voice could win a string of primaries and caucuses, and that bodes well for the next generation of voters (if they make it a habit to get to the polls).

One "luxury" we can't afford.What I have to say about the “Bernie or bust” tendency, however, differs from what a lot of people on the hard left are saying these days. Working to defeat Trump by, among other things, supporting Clinton if she’s nominated is simply not that hard a pill to swallow for me – a person for whom a vote for Bernie was a kind of compromise. I want to take a moment to look at some of the main contentions I have heard from Bernie or Busters, none of which (spoiler alert!) I feel has any real merit.

Contention #1: There’s no difference between the two establishment parties. Not true. There may not be a big enough difference, but there is a difference. Anyone who lived through eight years of W. Bush, six of which saw a GOP congress as well, would know that. That small margin is enough to justify the minuscule act of voting.

Contention #2: After Trump comes the revolution. Bullshit. This sounds like it was cooked up by the radical in Zola’s Germinal. It’s a millennial hope with no chance of being realized. Trump in the White House will just mean years of rearguard actions against reactionary policies.

Contention #3: We leftists need to stand up to the Democratic establishment. This argument goes something like this: The Democrats need the left, so we need to demand that they put forward a candidate of the left or withdraw our support from their nominee; otherwise they’ll assume we will just go along to get along. The trouble with this is that (a) it puts too much of a premium on elections  – important as they are, they should only be the smallest part of what we do to move our issues forward, and (b) it’s the kind of thinking that’s done by comfortable white progressives who have less to lose from a Republican presidency than people of color, the poor, LGBT folks, etc.

Face it: these people cannot afford four to eight years of Trump. Neither can the planet – we simply do not have the luxury to allow such a disaster to happen. Standing fast to some purist ideological notion with regard to national elections is like sitting back on the deck of a sinking ship, right next to the life boats. All the more vulnerable people are five decks down, far below the waterline already. We have to make choices with them in mind, not just our own privileged asses.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Before the fall.

It’s shaping up to be an election to remember. For one thing, the television coverage is so obsessive you couldn’t ignore it if you tried. But more importantly, I think, the selection is going to be … well … less than optimal, let’s say. All right – downright scary. Had to get that out there. The last group of northeastern states favored the front-runners pretty heavily, and it seems almost inevitable that we will be choosing between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. That situation will set in motion some strange dynamics that will likely cut across the standard notions of what each party stands for. I can picture, for instance, Clinton attacking Trump from the right on some aspects of foreign policy. Hard to predict what the effect of that might be.

The man to beat.The most disconcerting part of this likely scenario is the prospect of living through one, maybe two terms of rule by either an egotistical man-child-billionaire or a corporatist Democrat. Of course, I far prefer the latter, mostly because there is some opportunity to push Clinton from the left, but either way we are likely to see a more bellicose stance towards issues of war and peace. Either way we will be moving to the right of Obama along certain political vectors. And Obama is not even a standard progressive; he is a centrist, and very cautious at that.

What are the options to mitigate this? Same as always. Organize, organize, organize. Bernie Sanders may still be the nominee, but win or lose, he has done a tremendous amount of ground work organizing around core progressive issues – policies he terms socialist but which are much more like liberal FDR Democrat material. Regardless, we need to keep Bernie-ism alive even if Bernie is not the nominee, and that means pulling together on the local level. That’s how you bring these issues to the fore nationally. We’ve got the skeleton of a national organization, and there’s more than a little sinew on the bones. We should keep it marching forward.

I don’t think I have to remind anyone that the Republicans need to be beaten this fall, whoever wins the Democratic nomination. We have to do it to save the Supreme Court and to safeguard the vulnerable. But that doesn’t mean we can’t continue to make demands in a coordinated and effective way. This is the political revolution Bernie Sanders keeps talking about, it seems to me.

luv u,

jp