Bernie’s big lesson: Socialists should occupy the Democratic Party, not abandon it

[DonViejo]

Now that the trail has been blazed, the next step for Bernie supporters is to take over the Democratic Party

DANIEL DENVIR

Bernie Sanders’ loss to a quintessential establishment candidate buoyed by near-universal support from superdelegates and Congress has for many confirmed a long-held belief: the Democratic Party, the argument goes, is inherently hostile to the left and a useless vehicle for transformational politics. First amongst those critics, of course, is Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, who last Wednesday spoke to a rapt crowd at the Socialist Convergence, a radical forum parallel to the Democratic National Convention.

“Bernie ran up against some limits for what you can do inside of a counterrevolutionary party, which is why we need a truly revolutionary party of the 99-percent,” said Stein, urging Sanders supporters to vote Green in November.

But Stein is wrong: Sanders’ experience shows the current limits of third-party presidential politics and the real possibility that the left can use the Democratic Party toward radical ends. If Sanders had run as a Green or independent, he would have traded in his revolution against the one-percent for the prospect of getting just one-percent of the vote—which is what Stein is currently on track to pick up. Instead, he won millions over to democratic socialism and into left politics.

The Sanders campaign began as a protest, was suddenly inundated with popular support, then shifted gears and rushed to duct tape together a campaign that would never quite catch up with the Clinton operation. The left almost took over the party by accident. If Hillary Clinton’s victory represents the best that Democratic Party counterrevolutionaries have to offer, then that’s really great news. History, full of spectacular electoral realignments, has made it clear that the two major parties aren’t inherently anything at all.

-snip-

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/01/bernies_big_lesson_socialists_should_occupy_the_democratic_party_not_abandon_it/

[DemonGoddess]

1. Feh

[Lil Missy]

2. no. go to the Green Party or start your own.

[geek tragedy]

4. I absolutely disagree, they should bring their ideas and their energy to our party

in a constructive way.

If they win primaries, that means their ideas were persuasive. If not, then they need to figure out what they did wrong.

[thesquanderer]

5. That would be a viable approach if our system wasn't so rigged in favor of the two main parties.

We would need to have things like "instant run-off" elections for any third party to begin to get traction. Some kind of assurance that a third-party vote wouldn't be "wasted" or, worse, inadvertently benefit the candidate you are most opposed to. However, since the Congress is controlled by the two parties, the possibility that they will support changes that could reduce their power is remote. So then the best way to support your agenda is to try to persuade one of the major parties to support it. And there's nothing wrong with that. Change can be a good thing. I mean, personally, I'm glad that the Dems are no longer the pro-slavery party.

[bluedye33139]

3. By the author of "We should cheer the boos: Sandernista passion is the party’s cure, not a curse"

and "Welcome to the nightmare election: Why Clinton vs. Trump is going to be about one thing — fear"

Salon has some great Bernie Sanders writers, and many of them are slightly modifyinig their anti-Hillary and anti-Democratic party rhetoric now that we're in the general and the primary is over.

When I hear that a group needs to seize control of the Democratic party and rule by decree, I am reminded by Obama's point that Americans are not asking to be "ruled."

[BobbyDrake]

11. Salon is 99% anti-Hillary, and their 95% staff of white males has everything to do with it.

If you're white, male, and have Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Salon will make a job for you if they don't have one available.

But your other point is spot-on: these factionists seem to understand that they can't win a majority of the vote, but don't think a little thing like democracy should get in the way of their plans for dominance. Very un-progressive behavior, in other words.

[frazzled]

6. Well, the movement's most visible leaders aren't doing that

Sanders has said he remains an Independent.
Cornell West has endorsed a third-party candidate.
Nina Turner has suggested she may run on that third-party candidate's ticket.

I'll be happy if all three remain true to their outsider status. I look at the example of the Tea Party purists (mostly all outsiders) taking over the Republican Party, and we see that party's complete decimation. I don't want that to happen to my party. We are a big-tent party that accepts a wide range of viewpoints, and I want to keep it that way. If you want to work within the Democratic Party to express your viewpoints, whether they agree with mine or not, I'm fine with that. Some of those views will succeed, others not. But if you are there to take over the party in order to negate my viewpoints and impose your views on others, I will not bend to it.

I respect people's differences of opinions on issues, but I am with those who feel that if you think your message is so pure and your strength so inevitable, form your own party.

[auntpurl]

7. If they can win an election for local dogcatcher, I'll be surprised.

From the display we saw at the DNC, they couldn't organize their way out of a paper bag. At the moment, they are not in danger of taking over a group of armchairs at Starbucks, much less the Democratic party.

However, if their ideas have merit and they can build a strong coalition and organize a real political movement, I welcome them.

[sofa king]

8. Why take 'em over when you can ally, align, and become coalition leader?

It's important to remember that the Democratic Party already is a coalition, which includes one Social Democrat (Bernie) and numerous members of the Minnesota DFL. So there is plenty of room for Social Democrats to form a strategic alliance with the Democrats, expand their base until they become the DNC's largest component member, and then begin plotting the overall political agenda.

This is different from "taking over" the party, like it's some sort of hostile act. It is adding to the Democratic Party until you're in a position to assert authority. It has the potential to happen more quickly without compromising the political power of the coalition as a whole.

[bluedye33139]

9. +1

[BobbyDrake]

10. This seems more appropriate for GD, as it has nothing to do with the GE.

It's off-topic re-fighting of the primary, if we're being honest.

[Orsino]

12. And maybe occupy every other party, too.

Parties can change.

[VulgarPoet]

13. This is just my take on the situation, but

as far as I've seen thus far, if you have any kind of even a small inkling of Socialist mentality, you're better off just avoiding American politics in general. Between the two-party system rendering any kind of meaningful third party effectively toothless, the fact that there aren't enough of us, and the fact that somehow, even the most sane of our number keep getting marginalized, both by the media and the party that claims to want us, there's really no point. If you're not a "practical" Democrat or a bat-shit, sister-screwing ammosexual Republican, there doesn't seem to be an open, useful place in American politics right now.

Not me trying to indict or tear down, this is just what I've seen through this cycle and the cycle prior.