A Revolution; if you can sustain it

[cali]

Last edited Wed Feb 17, 2016, 11:42 AM - Edit history (1)

What Bernie's Revolution is and isn't.

It's an extension of Occupy and a coalescing of long time liberal/progressive aspirations around someone willing to give unapologetic, unadulterated voice to those aspirations.

It isn't new.

It's a long, tough slog. Bernie says this.

It isn't instant anything.

It hinges on changing the composition of statehouses and congress.

It isn't instant anything.

It entails expanding the the number of voters engaged in voting for liberal democrats who acknowledge the pernicious impact of big money and corporate influence on the body politic of the Democratic Party.

It isn't about purity tests.

Bernie doesn't need to win the nomination for this political revolution to keep going.

It doesn't hinge on one person.

It's here and it has already substantially changed the conversation

[Hortensis]

1. This describes Hillary too, you know.

Same as her, Bernie actually intends to spend his 8 years building the party and bringing the left together, to continue repairing damages inflicted on the nation by conservative policies, and to continue the evolution of America through progressive advances?

What's the "revolution" part then? Is there one? If it was just meant to excite interest, I must say I'm glad. The prospect of yet more tearing down of what our parents built did not appeal.

[cali]

2. Only is the broadest way and if you

forget big money, enthusiasm, civic involvement and things like lifting the cap (SS).


Hillary is a moderate and a neocon on foreign policy

[VulgarPoet]

3. +1, Cali.

For once, the cynicism that came after going to ground after Obama is just a bitter memory.

[Hortensis]

7. Your brush only pointed Bernie in the broadest way.

Your characterization of Hillary, i am afraid, can only be defended as an "I believe.". No knowledgeable person believes she is a "neocon" or would make a fool of himself by claiming that to sophisticated people. Perhaps a reminder of what "neocon" is would help?

Neocons are conservative militaristic nationalists who believe, as The American Neoconservative as flatteringly as possible puts it (not much to my mind),

"American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement."

It also explains at some length about the differences between neocon and "conventional" conservatives. Nationalism, with its too-often-evil manifestations, is a CONSERVATIVE phenomenon.

[Ed Suspicious]

22. She IS a neocon. No person with an ounce of education in international relations could deny that.

[stillwaiting]

25. On foreign policy, Hillary has the support of Henry Kissinger and Robert Kagan (neo-con).

That is horrifying.

[Hortensis]

31. Why? You want them recommending a GOP candidate?

You do understand this is about who directs our nation for at least the next 30 years, us or the GOP and the locust class, right?

[stillwaiting]

36. If you don't know why that should be troubling for people who vote for Democrats

then we have very little in common.

Not much use trying to understand each other to be honest.

[Hortensis]

40. That's right, liberals are even more immoral than we're stupid.

And that's a pretty good trick, right?

My own belief is the names so many here express outrage at are really just wannabe missiles to launch against Hillary. Daffy Duck and Yosemite Sam would be flying if it was thought they'd work better.

[cali]

46. You sputter outrage quite a bit. And you insist that opposition

to Hilary isn't grounded in reason, her history and her rhetoric, but in some irrational dislike of her.

That is wrong.

[Trajan]

35. This is where you are wrong

Google 'Henry Scoop Jackson' ... One of the founders of the Neocon school ... He was a 'moderate' democrat ...

Hillary's militaristic pronouncements have a distinctly neocon edge to them ...

My opinion? ... Hell yes it's my opinion, but that opinion is based on the comparative merits ... I am not alone with those opinions ...

You cannot be a war hawk and then deny the mantle ...

[H2O Man]

55. Correct.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a neoconservative. In the group's early days, the majority were Democrats.

It's sad to see people unaware of what "neoconservative" means.

[Hortensis]

57. Neocons despise her and charge her as an enemy. That should make you wonder.

[daleanime]

51. Right.....sure.......

backs away slowly.....

[H2O Man]

53. And what definition

might you have in mind?

The correct answer is that a neoconservative is liberal on domestic policy, and "strong" on national defense, with a primary loyalty to a specific nation in the Middle East.

[H2O Man]

56. Note: for an accurate

description of the neoconservative movement, I'd suggest that you read Taylor Branch's "At Canaan's Edge: America in the King Years 1965-68" (Simon & Schuster; 2006). Specifically, read pages 615 to 623. It's important information, no matter if you support Hillary or Bernie. Plus, there are distinct advantages to knowing the correct definition and history of neoconservatism in America.

Peace,
H2O Man

[Hortensis]

58. Excellent post, thanks.

[Maedhros]

54. This describes Hillary pretty well.

"American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement."

Evidence: "We came, we saw, he died."

[Skwmom]

4. If Hillary wins, the corruption of the Dem. Party will be so entrenched it will not be salvageable.

Many have been saying for a long time that it is not salvageable. They just might be proven right.

[RiverLover]

5. +1

This is it for the Democrats. There's no going back if Hillary takes it. Like you said, it'll be too entrenched.

We really will need a left wing party, a third party to counter the 2 RW parties.

[VulgarPoet]

6. And if proven to be unsalvageable

hopefully there are rational dems who can peel off and make a proper left wing. Otherwise, it'll be a good 10 to 20 years before we start seeing proper democrats, and all the while, the third-wayer no-better-than-republicans neoliberals will be lambasting us as traitors to the cause.

[Skwmom]

9. They won't be Democrats - it will have to be a new party. n/t

[Hortensis]

59. And Dickie Scaif smiles from his grave. Or Hell, some assume.

[Jefferson23]

8. A coherent description, so often I have tried to explain this is not about "free stuff".

The obstacles aka CORRUPTION is what we're fighting back against, which
will eventually then allow for a functioning democracy, we do not have that currently.

Politics will not be the same again, agree, even if Bernie loses..that is why
we see so much push back by the corporate media and the establishment
in DC.

Bernie Sanders equals game changer...sorry status quo beneficiaries, your days are
numbered.

Well done, cali.

[cali]

11. Thank you, jefferson

[Hortensis]

60. Obama equals game changer.

His successor, if Democrat, will keep control for democracy after a disastrous period of destruction.

[Jefferson23]

61. If Clinton were doing well on her own I don't think Obama would have felt the need to

endorse her, twice now. The last time was through a surrogate, now he seems
to be getting closer to full endorsement when he said he would be stay neutral.

The establishment is not too confident and I expect them all to go after
Bernie, his platform is about how the system does not work and why it
doesn't work. He's causing a disturbance, and that won't end even if
he loses.

[Hortensis]

64. I wouldn't be proud of promising "disturbance," Jefferson.

You might check with Bernie himself before making such a statement . We have an occult, anti-progressive attempted takeover going on on the right and we need everybody into the breach.

If what you mean is that he, like the rest of us, will be working to restore and advance our nation, yes. I think we all expect nothing less of him.

[Jefferson23]

65. No, I meant what I said, to disturb/to upset the complacent status quo and have them

fight to over turn CU and then fight for public funded elections.

We cannot have a functioning democracy with the level of money we have now
in politics, Sanders is best suited to fight that cause on the world stage as
POTUS. Nothing I said is controversial nor inappropriate.

[Hortensis]

66. Complacent status quo? I almost never say this, but

go turn on the TV.

[Jefferson23]

67. It's ok, we can disagree. We both want the same things, how we get there and who

becomes the representative is where we differ.

[Hortensis]

68. Sure.

[Jefferson23]

69. Yep

[libdem4life]

10. Yes, We Want Our Party Back. Pandora's Box has been opened, unfortunately

for the Corporatists and Third Wayers. Adapt or die.

The Momentum is on the restructuring of the Party...ground, i.e. people, up rather than the Oligarchy which is its own ground and to hell with the unwashed masses. What is important is what the Oligarchs think is good for themselves, first and foremost. The people, oh well, kind of sucks to be them.

No, No and No. Enough is Enough.

[Hortensis]

62. We HAVE our party back! Where have you been?

It's THEIR Party that is under the control of people even William F. Buckley described as "anarcho-authoritarian." That may seem like an oxymoron, but it isn't to those who plan plan to be the authorities doing what they want in an environment where regulation on business is almost nonexistent.

The American government that many plutocrats plotting in secret intend to reduce ours to would protect person and property, and little to nothing else. This is based on their self-serving belief that it is government that is causing all our problems/reduced profits, not uncontrolled greed and lack of wise public policy, and that we will all be far better off when government is reduced to an absolute minimum.

If you wonder what might protect your previous civil rights from them, well indeed you might.

If you think it would be difficult for them with control of the Supreme Court to make compulsory education unconstitutional, and taxation to pay for it, remember all they have to do is tweak the Bill of Rights to their service. People who manage to get religious rights for corporate entities will have no problem with that. IF they get control of the Supreme Court.

[Divernan]

12. Benjamin Franklin would so approve Bernie Sanders

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” (Benjamin Franklin)

Only today, the question would be, "What have we got, a republic or an oligarchy?"

[Helen Borg]

13. It's been brewing at least since the Occupy movement...

[Uncle Joe]

14. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, cali.

[Yavin4]

19. I see just the opposite happening under a President Sanders

Folks would get complacent and have high expectations. They would take his victory to mean that the hard work is done.

[zalinda]

30. Except that Sanders would remind them that they still have more to do

unlike Obama who said "I got this" and turned his back.

Bernie would use the bully pulpit as much as possible to get everyone he could engaged in the process. He has truly creative people on his team, and I'm sure as this thing evolves, only more will join to help make this a better world.

Z

[Orsino]

16. Yes. n/t

[PWPippin]

17. For the sake of our grandchildren

Having just read the Thomas Frank piece, listened to the clips of Christopher Hitchens and the interview with Bernie, Tina Turner, Killer Mike and Cornell West, all posted on DU, I am, if possible, more firmly in Bernie's camp. I am sending links to all three of these to fence sitters and Hillary supporters. Our country's future depends on turning our poor ship of state back towards it original values.

[Yavin4]

18. Your post is the exact reason why I'm against Bernie

If Bernie loses, folks will become discouraged and not do the things that you've listed. If Bernie wins everything, then folks are going to sit back and expect Bernie to deliver everything like a pizza. They'll say, "I voted for you. Where's my Single Payer?".

The most successful progressive movements in the 20th century were bottom up movements. FDR, Truman, LBJ, and even Obama all jumped on the bandwagon after much of the hard work was done on the local level.

Ironically, if Hillary wins, we would actually move towards the things that you want. Folks will be motivated to organize, challenge her, and put energy into a real movement. She wouldn't be able to ignore a progressive movement. Just like Obama was forced to accept marriage equality because the movement pushed him into that position.

[RiverLover]

20. You underestimate how badly people want change in this country. We will fight for it.

But we need people in power to help.

Remember Occupy? We needed a leader & structure but didn't have it. What do you think we have now, with Bernie?

We will continue to help Bernie help US. He is far, far from being alone as President Sanders.

[Jefferson23]

21. Perhaps a small precent, but not the majority. What you see now is only the beginning.

Support for Sanders takes a commitment and one that goes far beyond the voting
booth..we already know that who support him...at least most do which is
evident online.

Check out reddit and Sanders supporters sometime, and you will
see organization...all over the country. The more of us that organize
the easier to manage, people have lives to live and jobs, families, everyone
gets that, but the more who commit the less gaps we'll have across the country.

[Yavin4]

41. "Support for Sanders" does not translate into support for a progressive agenda

Again, voting for Sanders means nothing if these same people don't vote for progressives in their state and local elections. It's meaningless.

Too many folks will sit back and say, "I voted for Bernie. My job is done."

[Jefferson23]

42. It doesn't? Then please present evidence of such, right now you have an opinion,

a cynical one at that. I get why you would feel that way, but you're
presuming his supporters do not hear him when he talks about a
bottom up approach....he is not speaking exclusively about the presidential
race.

[Yavin4]

43. Most of the people following him are anti-Hillary, anti-establishment, wanting to be part of

a trend. They don't support his agenda. They just want to be in on his movement. Bernie just spoke in Eastern MI and drew a huuuge crowd. However, most folks from that part of the state voted for Rick Snyder twice as governor.

[Jefferson23]

44. There are two candidates on our side, both sanctioned by the Democratic Party.

People are deciding who they want, you seem to be of the impression
they are primarily anti-Hillary without substance, that would be a
mistaken conclusion.

One common denominator for Independents and conservatives is corruption
in politics...they're angry about it and some are listening to Sanders.

[2banon]

45. Huh?

Most of the people following him are anti-Hillary, anti-establishment, wanting to be part of

a trend. They don't support his agenda. They just want to be in on his movement. Bernie just spoke in Eastern MI and drew a huuuge crowd. However, most folks from that part of the state voted for Rick Snyder twice as governor.

You think Snyder's "election" is evidence of your claim that most Bernie supporters don't support his agenda? Seriously?

I suggest you challenge yourself with that logic. Might want to look into that election a bit more closely, and you might try to listen a little more closely to his supporters whom you think don't really support Bernie's agenda, they just want to be part of a "trend".

Ridiculous on it's face!

[Yavin4]

48. Look at the map from the 2014 MI Governor race.

You think Snyder's "election" is evidence of your claim that most Bernie supporters don't support his agenda? Seriously?

Awful lot of Snyder red from Eastern, MI.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_gubernatorial_election,_2014

[cali]

47. Baloney. You have zero evidence for your claims.

None. And Bernie supporters are supporting Bernie democrats all over the country and making plans into the future whether Bernie Wins or loses.

[Yavin4]

49. See my post at #48.

The same Eastern, MI people that went to see Bernie earlier this week, voted for Snyder in 2014. How do you reconcile voting for Snyder and then supporting a progressive agenda? Please elaborate.

[ALBliberal]

23. PERFECT synopsis, Bookmarking for future ref!

[cali]

28. thank you very much.

[mountain grammy]

24. I AM NOT

a teabagger! I understand and agree with everything you said, cali.

[SHRED]

26. It's about restoring The New Deal

The Clintons are only a part of the cause of its destruction.

Unfortunately, focusing on the money being mustered behind Hillary Clinton by various lobbyists and Wall Street figures misses this point. The problem with establishment Democrats is not that they have been bribed by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and the rest; it’s that many years ago they determined to supplant the GOP as the party of Wall Street – and also to bid for the favor the tech industry, and big pharma, and the telecoms, and the affluent professionals who toil in such places.

Consider the revolving door between Washington and Wall Street, which drew so much public outrage in the early days of the Obama administration … or the revolving door between Washington and Silicon Valley, which has been turning briskly in recent years without much public notice at all. Or the deal the pharmaceutical companies got as a result of the Obamacare negotiations. Or the startlingly different ways in which Obama’s Treasury Department treated beleaguered bankers and underwater homeowners.

http://www.theguardian.com/global/2016/feb/16/the-issue-is-not-hillary-clintons-wall-st-links-but-her-partys-core-dogmas

[Trajan]

37. +1,000,000 ... nt

[Volaris]

27. That's right.

The revolution doesn't exist because of Bernie...Bernie exists because the revolution. It was already there, on the ground. First Occupy was it's expressio, and then Bernie looked at it and determined that it was large enough now to maybe possibly sustain a real political challenge to the Established order.

[LonePirate]

32. It isn't about purity tests? Does DU know this?

[Duval]

33. Kicked and recommended. Thanks!

[workinclasszero]

34. Where was occupy in the last non presidential election?

Just asking

[Jefferson23]

39. OWS did not have a US Senate leader, among other organizational deficits.

It did identify the problem, corruption...the core of the campaign of Sanders
continues identifying the problem and the systemic negative consequences
it has had on society for most Americans, especially the most vulnerable
among us. Sanders is confronting corruption head on.

[First Speaker]

38. Excellent...this is the best post of the year in GD:P...

...it says, concisely and well, why I finally got off my duff and became a Sanders supporter...thanks

[azurnoir]

50. well said cali

[cali]

52. Thanks, azurnoir

[Utopian Leftist]

63. Thank you for helping change the conversation.

I remember after the history-making Jesse Jackson campaign in 1988, I attended a meeting of the local Rainbow Coalition Group in Los Angeles, to plan for what to go to work on, next. The results of that meeting were rather amusing: there was absolute chaos! No one agreed with anyone anymore. Every person there had a different pet issue. I wanted to focus on LGBT issues, but there were peace coalition members and feminists and homeless advocates and every other righteous issue one can imagine. I am not sure what exactly became of that group as I left that meeting early, as did several others, frustrated over the unwillingness of people to compromise or to maintain anything resembling the sort of coalition that had been built up around Reverend Jackson.

My point is that I hope everyone on the left will come together soon. It seems like forever since the left has been represented in a Presidential Election. I would argue that the last true leftist to get anywhere near the Democratic nomination was Reverend Jackson. So if we are now coalescing around Bernie, and the most recent polls still show the country moving in that direction, remember that we can't always focus on {fill in your pet issue} but that your pet issue will get a lot more serious attention from Bernie than you could ever hope for from Hillary or the CONs.

We on the left though have something more powerful than even Bernie. We have the truth. The science. The facts. The other side has only their fantasies and swagger. Remember that.