Enough with the “political revolution.”

[bigtree]

Propane Jane ?@docrocktex26
Enough with Bernie Sanders https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/06/01/enough-with-bernie-sanders/?postshare=4801464821632990&tid=ss_tw-bottom … h/t @CecilyKeating


This is the place where a policy-oriented Washington commentator like myself is supposed to offer Bernie Sanders supporters some sort of olive branch. For example, I could point out that he has highlighted some real issues. I am angry about money in politics, too. I believe that income inequality is a problem, too. I think the safety net needs strengthening, too. In other words, I am supposed to indicate that I get why Sanders has a movement.

But the truth is that Sanders does not deserve a movement, and his losing campaign does not deserve unusual deference and concessions. His tale about American oligarchy is simplistic, his policy proposals are shallow, his rejection of political reality is absurd, his self-righteousness and stubbornness are unbecoming. And, yes, he has lost...

So, enough with the reality-denial. Enough with the sanctimony. Enough with the attitude that only Sanders’s agenda counts. Enough with the dream that his movement is broader and more powerful than it has proved to be at the ballot box. Enough with the paranoid conspiracy theorizing, the lazy attacks on the “establishment,” the platitudes about the right to health care and the right to free college without realistic plans to realize them, the delegitimization of those who disagree, the scorning of practicality, the outrageous negativity about the state of the country and the simplistic narrative of evil 1 percenters who are to blame for everything that is wrong. Enough with the excuses for half-baked policy proposals (It is the direction, not the specifics, that matter!).

Berners can accept reality or sink deeper into delusion. Only one of these options would be good for them and good for the country.


read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/06/01/enough-with-bernie-sanders/?postshare=4801464821632990&tid=ss_tw-bottom

my take:

Why a 'revolution' against the Democratic 'establishment' is abhorrent to me

Where's the Revolution?

[tonyt53]

1. It has to be all about Bernie, all of the time apparently. Starting to get spooky.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Why are Clinton supporters so angry?

[FSogol]

4. I don't think they are angry, they're already starting to celebrate.

[MariaThinks]

51. We pity bernie followers who can't see the hypocrisy in saying superdelegates are bad THEN saying

they should overthrow the will of the elected delegates - because that is now the only way Bernie could win.

[tabasco]

53. Because their television tells them to be angry.

Most of the American electorate has been brainwashed by the corporate media.

[LanternWaste]

66. I suppose I'd petulantly deflect as well if I were in second place.

I suppose I'd petulantly deflect as well if I were in second place.

[BobbyDrake]

74. Don't confuse "angry" with "fed up." We're fed up with the media helping Sanders lie endlessly. nt

[anigbrowl]

75. What do you think of the article?

I notice the writer gave reasons for her holding the opinion she does, but apparently you failed to read them.

[floriduck]

77. And why do they think the Bernie movement won't continue, even without him?

[deathrind]

3. Yes....

...Why hope for a better tomorrow when you can just settle for today...

/facepalm

[bigtree]

6. why pretend Hillary's victory doesn't offer that?

...or that only Sanders can usher all of that in?

Hillary supporters have hopes and dreams, as well.

[deathrind]

8. Its not pretend...

[bigtree]

10. it's an opinion

...and it's not shared by a majority of voters; especially Democratic voters.

[deathrind]

34. It is not opinion.

It is based on fact.

Your claim of "Democratic Voters" is dubious at best at least not in the traditional form that those voters existed.

Democratic voters traditionally would not support...


1- that healthcare for all is impossible.
2- war
3- fracking / keystone
4- bailing out banks
5- TPP
6- SOPA
7- border fence
8- offshore / arctic drilling
9- loss of civil liberties
10-economic inequality

A few of the glaring differences between the two.

If I am misinformed on HRC's position on these issue alone please enlighten me. But all the indicators I have seen show that HRC is about as far to the right as one can be and still be in the Democratic Party.

[bigtree]

41. you can't make a credible argument

...by misrepresenting the wishes and desires of Hillary supporters.

You're vibing off of your campaign's own false and self-serving narrative.

[deathrind]

52. Typical.

[bigtree]

16. no political movement can succeed without compromise

...in our political system, you can either compromise or argue.

There's little room to dictate your agenda or bully it through. A president is challenged to form the necessary coalitions of support to advantage their initiatives and ideals and advance them into action or law. There's isn't a shortcut in our democracy

[bigtree]

25. FDR was all about compromise

...even though he had a more compliant Democratic legislature.

And his New Deal wasn't all inclusive. In reality, it required decades of incremental progress to flesh it out to the point where we could credibly celebrate it today.

[bigtree]

39. I've addressed this before

Much has been written about Sanders' economics and its parallel to FDR's New Deal. Sen. Sanders and his supporters can confidently point to the legacy of Roosevelt in establishing a social safety net as they promote their candidate's own populist agenda - clearly influenced by a proud and thoughtful Socialist legacy - many facets of which, as he noted in a speech explaining his invented political moniker, are currently being practiced by successful, progressive economies around the world.

Yet, it should be remembered that FDR left a whole host of productive and worthy Americans out of his grand bargain... from wiki:

The New Deal programs put millions of Americans immediately back to work or at least helped them to survive. The programs were not specifically targeted to alleviate the much higher unemployment rate of blacks. Some aspects of the programs were even unfavorable to blacks. The Agricultural Adjustment Acts for example helped farmers which were predominantly white but reduced the need of farmers to hire tenant farmers or sharecroppers which were predominantely black... Some New Deal measures inadvertently discriminated against harmed blacks. Thousands of blacks were thrown out of work and replaced by whites on jobs where they were paid less than the NRA's wage minimums because some white employers considered the NRA's minimum wage "too much money for Negroes." By August 1933, blacks called the NRA the "Negro Removal Act."An NRA study found that the NIRA put 500,000 African Americans out of work...

And women were initially left out of the bargain as well...

At first the New Deal created programs primarily for men. It was assumed that the husband was the "breadwinner" (the provider) and if they had jobs, whole families would benefit. It was the social norm for women to give up jobs when they married; in many states there were laws that prevented both husband and wife holding regular jobs with the government. So too in the relief world, it was rare for both husband and wife to have a relief job on FERA or the WPA.[209] This prevailing social norm of the breadwinner failed to take into account the numerous households headed by women, but it soon became clear that the government needed to help women as well.

FDR's Social Security Act had similar exclusivity for white men... from wiki:

____ Most women and minorities were excluded from its benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.

Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.

These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service. Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.

Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security. At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”

It bears reminding that most legislative progress has been historically incremental (and progressively evolving), even with passage of sweeping initiatives. There's certainly much to be desired and demanded from our political process, but progressive change requires coalition-building, not tearing at the fabric of our party that many vulnerable and politically precarious Democratic communities are counting on to represent them. For many of these legislators (most minority legislators are in the House), they are, essentially, the voices of their communities or districts - voices unique to these communities and desperately needed.

We wage revolution against enemies, not allies. If we are to be successful in effecting progressive change, we'll need to build and repair bridges of support within our party as we continue to press for action. That's how change happens. There's no shortcut to be found by dividing our ranks.

[forjusticethunders]

56. "We wage revolution against enemies"

Wanna start a revolution?

?attredirects=0

Keep the red line where it is, and drive



Get the blue line to AT LEAST where the red line is.

Does this mean that Galbraith was right all along? Not exactly. The reason for the recent shift in the findings is not that the early studies were wrong, but that the preferences of voters and nonvoters are becoming increasingly divergent. In a paper published in 2007 and later expanded into a 2013 book, Who Votes Now, political scientists Jan Leighley and Jonathan Nagler found that wide gaps between voters and nonvoters have opened up when it comes to class-based issues. They argued further that the seeds of these differences were apparent in earlier data, but Wolfinger and Rosenstone overlooked the gaps by focusing on broad ideological labels (liberal or conservative) rather than specific policies. Voters, Leighley and Nagler found, are more economically conservative; whereas non-voters favor more robust unions and more government spending on things like health insurance and public schools.

Other data collected on the national and state level support Leighley and Nagler’s thesis. A 2012 Pew survey found that likely voters were split 47 percent to 47 percent between Obama and Romney while non-voters preferred Obama 59 percent to 24 percent, a 35 point margin. A 2006 Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) study found that non-voters were more likely to support higher taxes and more government-funded services. They were also more likely to oppose Proposition 13 (a constitutional amendment which limits property taxes), dislike then -Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and support affordable housing.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/income-gap-at-the-polls-113997#ixzz4ApFjoteA

Get the non-voters to vote, not just with one political campaign, but for the most left-wing person on the ballot, every 2 years, no excuses. Get Dems in power, and then you can start pushing them left. The Dems moved right because the GOP won, not the other way around.

You can't just Dial-A-Revolution; you have to do the groundwork and if you don't do the groundwork, you're going to fail and look ridiculous for doing it.

[bigtree]

64. you raised FDR as an example

...there were many aspects of his 'leadership' that weren't progressive at all.

The fallacy in your entire argument is your representation of Hillary and the Democratic party as obstacles to FDR-like progress. You misrepresent FDR and his government and you misrepresent Hillary and our Democratic party today to make your tortured and false analogies.

[bigtree]

72. you need to read more history

...and not just from the internet.

[anigbrowl]

79. You just joined DU today, and you are lecturing people on what is the 'proper' historical context?

Frankly, you strike me as shallow and somewhat ignorant. If you want to be taken seriously then maybe you should work harder on arguing your position rather than simply restating it.

[forjusticethunders]

49. FDR did many things that would have been verboten in 1960, let alone today.

[thucythucy]

81. Not really.

Social Security, his greatest achievement, was established by the Social Security Act of 1935, passed by both houses of Congress after two years of back and forth and yes, that awful awful word, "compromise."

Most of his other lasting achievements were also passed through legislation, while some of his executive orders were struck down by the US Supreme Court.

It puzzles me how FDR is held up as this amazing icon by people who today probably wouldn't spit in his shadow. Member of the 1%? Check. Part of a political dynasty? Check. Happy to accept the role of money in politics? Check. Willing to allow continuing discrimination against women and people of color and people with disabilities (though he himself was a person with a disability)? Check.

In the 1940 election FDR was condemned by some leftists (Woody Guthrie among them) as a war monger for pushing through Selective Service and Lend Lease. Not to forget his incarceration of Japanese Americans for the sole crime of having a different hue of skin.

FDR was the absolute epitome of what the Bernie or Bust crowd condemns today.

[thucythucy]

85. Sorry, but that's not quite accurate.

In the 1932 campaign he proposed cutting federal spending and balancing the budget, essentially the same thing Hoover was advocating, but with more pizzazz. Beyond that, FDR said little in terms of specifics.

And yes, we were at war with Japan, but FDR knew what he was doing was wrong, and did it anyway solely out of political expediency. Kind of like Clinton voting for the Iraq War Resolution after the 9-11 attacks on the state she represented, and Bobby Kennedy (who died 48 years ago today) voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.

[BlindTiresias]

38. The threat of stacking the SCOTUS

Enough said. Force works and compromise never produces sustainable gains on historical time frames.

[KPN]

28. Hahaha. Love it!

Yes, many folks are just plain old "settlers".

[uponit7771]

68. Hope for better tomorrow = support reality not Unicorns

[aikoaiko]

5. Another angry HRC supporter trying to minimize Bernie Sanders and his supporters.

Its hard to know who to take seriously from Team HRC.

Is it the blogster who says Bernie is threatening all humanity by staying in the primary?

Or this blogster who things Bernie and his supporters are deluded and meaningless?

[bigtree]

12. don't pretend there's anything she could say or do to 'earn' your vote

...your vote is your own responsibility.

Refuse to vote with the Democratic party and you'll be standing on the wrong side of history. Your choice entirely.

[bigtree]

19. those 'ideals' aren't going to go anywhere

...without a political vehicle to advance them in our democratic system of governance.

Without a coalition of support in our political system, they're little more than wind. That's what the party offers, a vehicle for advancing those ideals in our legislature to get them to a point where they can be considered, debated, and acted on.

[bigtree]

30. the idea of a political revolution is a curious thing

...in the wake of Barack Obama's successful presidency.

A Sanders presidency would do very well to match those successes and achievements.

[KPN]

32. Exactly! And succinctly.

[KPN]

31. Wrong side of history?

More like taking part in making history. Hillary may well make history by being the first woman elected as President. But the bigger story will be what comes after -- a return to FDR progressivism.

[upaloopa]

40. No you have to take responcibility for your vote and your decision. Nobody is going to come around

beg for your vote.

You know the stakes. stop blaming other people for your actions.

[Jack Bone]

9. It's not me...it's we!

as opposed to Hillary...Fighting For Us....


there's your difference.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!

[bigtree]

13. that's nonsense

...all candidates claim the election is about the people, because it is.

That's not some shocking revelation, from a candidate, it's pablum.

[Jack Bone]

37. no it's not...messaging matters!

Hillary is claiming the election is about her...

SHE'LL fight for us! we just need to keep shopping...she'll do all the fighting.

Many people warm to that, since they don't want to fight.

Bernie's about grabbing a pitchfork...REVOLUTION, and it speaks to a different audience...the one's that aren't afraid of a fight.

that's why Hillary's crew want this OVER yesterday..she WON! blah, blah,blah

and why Bernie's supporters want to keep fighting.


Just an observation.

[upaloopa]

42. Bernie is about going back to the Senate and working with Hillary to make things happen.

Your glorious revolution is in you and those who agree with you. You can keep working toward your goals or go sit out the rest of the election.

[Jack Bone]

48. if Hillary wins...Trump will be the 45th President

and Bernie will be one of the opposition.

[leveymg]

15. Why do reactionaries always sound so brittle and cranky?

Has the background hiss of a scratchy recording of a DAR Lady ranting against FDR and Bolsheviks.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. We're supposed to accept the "reality" of corrupt politics in a corrupt government.

No thanks.

[wendylaroux]

18. ENOUGH WITH THE RIGHT WING DEMOCRATS

[bigtree]

20. enough with the effort to divide our Democratic party.

...same effect as ANY right wing political effort, no matter who's pushing it.

[KPN]

35. We are not dividing it. You are.

But that's okay. We are going to be taking it back.

[bigtree]

46. right, the campaign of the independent-opportunistically turned Democrat

...whose entire effort has been railing against Democrats and the Democratic party - that's supposed to be the unifying force in this election?

What a crock.

[KPN]

86. Who said anything about this election or unifying?

Bernie's already won. He accomplished what he hoped to and more. While it does look unlikely he will get the nomination, he has laid down some pretty deep tracks on the Democratic Party landscape that won't be disappearing anytime soon. The Party is either going to change for the better or go the way of the GOP and become less relevant.

BTW, Bernie's entire effort has not been entirely railing against the Party, or railing against the Party at all. What he's been railing against is the corruption in our big-money infested governance and electoral systems. If you have problems with that, you must be okay with it or you're getting hung up on the fact that he's been an Independent up to now (never-mind that he has voted with Dems 98% of the time over his career, as opposed to the average Democrat who has done so only 80% of the time).

I am not going to be a lemming and vote for the Party nominee just because he/she is the Party nominee any longer. Criticize that all you want. I'm not going to continue to enable a corrupt system that is destroying middle class America.

[wendylaroux]

88. it is already divided

[davidlynch]

21. But...but...but I like the political revolution. n/t

[bigtree]

23. oh, go ahead

...but just for a few more days, 'kay?

[Live and Learn]

22. Good, I expect you won't be complaining while her policies allow the complete overtake

of our political system by privatization and corporate money. I also don't expect to see you complaining about private prisons and police brutality like you use to or environmental concerns, since you are voting for the person that will continue the erosion of the planet and will continue our unjust justice system.

You are voting to continue the status quo.

[upaloopa]

29. Stop, just fucking stop! You lost stop posting sour your grapes. Nobody cares about what you say.

you can't do anything anymore to change the outcome.

[Live and Learn]

36. I didn't lose a thing. The country is in danger of losing its morality.

Did you ever hear of ignore? Try it and save your sanity.

[upaloopa]

45. I had hundreds on ignore and took them off. We need to unite not devide if anything good is going

to happen. Take some time to grieve but help get a progressive agenda put together and make it work.

[Live and Learn]

50. LOL This is your way of uniting? You may need to try a bit harder than just telling me to shut up.

Actually, don't bother it won't change a thing anyway.

[phleshdef]

59. How drunk are you? I can practically hear you slobbering all over your keyboard....

....from across the internet.

[Lord Magus]

44. What would be nice is if you would stop lying.

You've invented a fictional version of Hillary Clinton and adamantly insist that it's the real Hillary.

[Live and Learn]

47. Nope, that is the real version of Hillary. What specifically do you disagree with?

[upaloopa]

26. Right fucking on target! Berners can accept reality or sink deeper into delusion.

[pandr32]

43. Simplistic, shallow, absurd, unbecoming, loser, deluded, sanctimonious...

...and on and on. Nailed.

[ancianita]

55. What broad brush, dismissive, delusional ad hominem cheerleading. There is no delusion in

over 100 economists' support for Sanders' economic plans for government-provided health insurance, free college tuition, the $15 minimum wage, stronger unions, higher gas taxes, guaranteed parental leave.

Thus, there is no delusional movement to obtain them with a Sanders presidency.

There is nothing delusional about Sanders’ plans to include higher taxes on the rich, strengthening unions, raising the minimum wage, supporting families, providing free tuition at public universities and cracking down on tax haven hoarding and financial crimes.

There is nothing magical or utopian about Sanders’s recommendations. He is advocating policies of decency long ago adopted by other prosperous high-income countries.

Clintonites are delusional to think that Sanders' supporters will roll over and play dead as we approach the party convention.

[phleshdef]

57. Christ, if I were as whiny and feckless as some Clinton supporters, I'd probably just...

...end my fucking misery.

[Trust Buster]

61. How foolish. We're not echoing, we're the one's winning. You sound ridiculous.

[phleshdef]

63. No, what is ridiculous is people are still whining about Sanders when we all know its over soon.

Bunch of fucking babies will never get over the fact that someone had the audacity to make Clinton work for it.

[ancianita]

60. Berners are realists who'll take 30% of something (Hillary) over 100% of nothing (Trump).

But don't call Sanders supporters delusional.

You want to get behind Hillary's market value-driven realism, more power.

That the Sanders wing don't have as much money, that they won't sell out to political capitalism in no way makes them delusional.

In their plans, candidate, and actions, their doing what they're doing makes them as realist as America gets.

But you're the delusional one if you think that the Democratic Party will become bigger thereby. Even the women's vote won't grow it, long term, if Clinton doesn't reward them for that vote.

I'm waiting to see what her plans are for her presidency, not just what she thinks of NoDrought Donald's character or plans.

[Orsino]

62. The movement predates Sanders' candidacy, and is what persuaded him to run...

...and join the Democratic Party.

The Establishment can defeat Sanders in 2016, but if no new progressive change is forthcoming and inequality keeps increasing, the party is just kicking the can down the road for a more able candidate and nominee.

Stupid Post Establishment apologist is stupid.

[bigtree]

67. Sanders is the 'establishment'

...for most people like me.

The idea that elevating him to the presidency is some 'political revolution' is ludicrous and insulting. If you want to see a real and sustainable political revolution, look to the folks who voted overwhelmingly for Hillary. They are the legacy of the Obama coalition. That's where real progressive change happened over the last two terms, and that's where progressive change is going to flow from in the future.

[bigtree]

76. Sanders voted almost identically with Hillary when she was in the Senate

...I'm a grocery worker.

To me, Sanders is the establishment. The question I have for him is the same I have for any politician. How effective will he be in enacting his proposals?

I think his 'people's revolution' is ill-conceived, naive (or disingenuous), clumsy and careless, and waged almost exclusively by Sanders and his camp against anyone daring to support his political rival in this primary.

Sanders can only dream of achieving the success Barack Obama has experienced.

The stuff about Obama disliking Hillary is pure bunk.

[LanternWaste]

65. 'Revolution' makes for good PR branding

'Revolution' makes for good PR branding, but I simply haven't seen anything which accurately fits the definitions of the word coming from any politician in my lifetime (or, since '66).

But, the word fits on a bumper-sticker allowing a lot of hipsters to pretend they're active and plugged-in.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. This out of the same paper that lied about Bernie blatantly all through the campaign.

Hillary supporters high and low fully immolated their own reputations this cycle. On DU and in the world, there is not one Hillary supporter I'd believe if they said the sky was blue today. Most dishonest, mud slinging bunch I have ever seen and the Washington Post gets credit for much of it. That whole 'It's not Bernie in those photos' thing was horrible, McCarthyist spark of the very sort that must be stamped out before it consumes the entire forest.

'Not Bernie in those photos, it's Bruce Rappaport' and 'chairs and bottles where thrown' and 'Ronald Reagan was the first AIDS activist' and a parade of deception that never stopped. They praised Reagan just to tell a lie for fun, to poke at LGBT like they like to do.

It's all an energy I am very familiar with.

[longship]

83. We can have Republican-lite forever, as long as we elect Democratic Party preferred candidates.

Either that, or presidential dynasties.

You pick. The DNC will decide.

[redstateblues]

84. Bernie's revolution is an empty bumper sticker slogan

No plan-nothing but envy and anger

[mcar]

87. K&R