Blaming Sanders: Why Democratic Party Unity is Officially Impossible
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/03/blaming-sanders-why-democratic-party-unity-is-officially-impossible/I’m not going to suggest that people shouldn’t like Hillary Clinton if they adore her, and many do, but for her champions to continue the arrogant argument that she is anything more than a smug politician with a big stick, i.e., a cozy relationship with corporate America and the military industrial complex, is silly obfuscation. Such denial flies in the face of reality given Clinton’s attachment to and her unmovable faith in the neoliberalism of our age, which more-progressive thinkers—never mind the remnants of the Left—see as problematic.
The would-be pragmatists, the nose-holders who have embraced the “lesser-evil” mantra in the panic to stop Trump, have either forgiven her sins and moved on or never saw the sinner in the first place. Importantly, these people are settled-in and at ease with what were once called, when I studied them in school, “current events.” As a mass they cling to the “center” like a life preserver. They have an abiding faith in the way things are now playing out, have easily overcome any tinge of doubt about U.S. imperialism and our terms of perpetual war (are we winning?), the environment, and rampant poverty and inequality, to name a few of the things Hillary Clinton abhors talking about or glides over like an ice skater.
...As for Bernie Sanders, some portray his thinking as reckless “ideology,” with a pejorative usage here based on the rise among self-satisfied Americans who can’t distinguish between progressive policy and Hillary Clinton’s record. Or perhaps they can, but it doesn’t bother them. The point is that many voters are content with the way things are now; any and all suggestions that the status quo ought to be altered are dismissed out-of-hand. Neoliberalism has been kind to many while raping many others. Sanders’ thinking is frightening to a wide swath of comfortable middle-class voters—and not just Republicans—who have avoided the inherent disasters of recent policy decisions that have angered and outright economically ruined many in our country as well as large portions of the global population...Why, the usual power players, of course. They are Krugman, Feinstein, Reich, and others atop the pyramid. Great Pragmatists all. Believe me when I protest that none of these characters know poverty or oppression. If they’ve known it at any time, they’ve forgotten it by now.
...Stay in the thing, Bernie, for the hell of it. Clinton’s allies disrespect too many, take too much for granted, expect too many miracles, and act out too much like privileged children.
= new reply since forum marked as read
"and there is a better chance he will than "rational" people on DU think"
I try to be sensible, but something in my heart is senseless.
Thanks for being here - welcome to DU, GRhodes!
So, I'll opt for progress, thanks. 
I have no doubt that there exists a nexus between economic power and political power. That is probably true of every society that ever existed. And the two tend to feed each other - economic power provides certain advantages in gaining and exercising political power and, at the same time, political power can be used to yield economic advantages. I wonder if these facts are more or less unavoidable. They seem universal.
And there there is no question but that interest groups, including business groups, tend to exercise more than normal levels of political power, at least with respect to those issues in which they have a common interest. On the other hand, with respect to issues in which they are in conflict, then their power is of course more limited and diffused.
Personally, i believe that the "average citizen" power is often underestimated. When I look at the success that Trump experienced in the Republican primaries this year, I can't say that economic elites or interest groups carried the day. I think that Trump won in spite of the opposition of these groups. He was opposed by a ton of money. He was opposed by what the press styles as the Establishment. I think he won because a lot of very ordinary people got up off their butts and voted. And, they showed up at these crazy rallies. I think that Trump's campaign is an example of what can happen if a lot of ordinary citizens begin moving in the same direction. Of course, come November (hopefully), Trump may lose to some of these other forces, but they haven't beaten him yet.
If Trump can happen on the right, it can happen on the left. Sanders has run a hell of a campaign. I am convinced that ordinary people can run this country, but, people have to vote and then they have to come back and vote again, As your study points out, ordinary citizens are up against it in that there will be constant opposition possessing some powerful natural advantages. I ask, though - why can't voting become a habit? Why can't ordinary people appreciate and learn to exercise the power that they possess?
I don't know. But, I'll show up.
Thanks for sharing the article. I bookmarked it and I'll read it again. I'm too old and slow now to get it in one bite.
I hope that you will be able to join me.
Give em hell!
They have been doing such stupid wild things that when she actaully has a issue like the private email server, she can let it slide off. If GOP have not been so rapid over the years the email server would been a major issue from the start, instead it is just now poking it's head out like a turtle.
