(CNN) Sen. Bernie Sanders : 'Democratic brand is pretty bad'

[BainsBane]

255. People have sold a false narrative

and Sanders repeats it. He denounces Democrats as "liberal elites" and decries "identity politics" (ignoring that Trump's campaign was based on white identity politics). He insists we don't have the support of "working people"--which is obviously refuted by exit poll data showing that Democratic, and Hillary's, voters earn significantly less than GOP voters. At least once a week there is an article about he has blamed or lambasted Democrats for this and that. Right after the GOP House passed a GOP deregulation bill, he spoke at the people's summit decrying the Democrats--not the GOP's--relationship to Wall Street. He made no mention of what the GOP was doing to deregulate finance. Nina Turner then pronounced the Democrats were worse than the GOP on the issue.

I do not share your and Sanders view of politics as about selling products. I understand we live in a capitalist economic system. I know we live under a capitalist state. I've read and been greatly influenced by Marx. But it gets in my craw when people claiming to be socialist treat politics as a commodity. I also believe the focus on image and messaging over substance--which is what we see these days from many different perspectives--will only lead to making government as about entertainment. That is how we got Trump in office.

I don't claim to have answers about how to win, but I can say what I do and don't respond to. I don't want a show biz, commodified government. I want public financing of elections. I disagree with the way Sanders makes what should be an issue about reform of the law to one of supposed personal virtue. I dislike the way he has convinced his supporters to focus their ire on campaign finance exclusively on the Democrats and away from changing the law. I can't help but notice that he has shifted from supporting public financing of elections to saying that all candidates should raise money like he did, which is of course impossible since most candidates are at the local and congressional level and don't benefit from his celebrity. It doesn't address the fact that industry lobbyists write legislation. None of that is about whether or not someone engages in rhetoric about Wall Street or raises $225 million from individual donors. It's about a system in which money influences our government at every level, most strongly at the local and congressional level. I also find ideologically inconsistent that Wall Street is presented as the culprit while other sectors of the economy, like defense and guns, are given a pass or excused. The problem is capital--not one sector of the society or a tax filing as corporate, but capital.

The point about abortion rights came to a head over the Mello endorsement. Of course we know there are anti-choice Democrats, but Sanders singled him out as a "progressive" and the "future of the party." He, Warren, and several other Democrats then endorsed an anti-choice candidate for Gov or PA, who lost in the primary. Sanders gave an interview to NPR regarding his support for Mello over and above other Democrats who didn't meet his test as progressive enough.

"If we are going to protect a woman's right to choose, at the end of the day we're going to need Democratic control over the House and the Senate, and state governments all over this nation," he said. "And we have got to appreciate where people come from, and do our best to fight for the pro-choice agenda. But I think you just can't exclude people who disagree with us on one issue."

But that call for pragmatism doesn't mesh with the main message Sanders has been delivering this week: a call for a more aggressive and progressive Democratic party. In the same interview, he blamed Republican gains at the state and federal level on "the failure of the Democratic Party to have a progressive agenda, to bring people into this party, to mobilize people."

First, he's flat out wrong about the politics of abortion rights. A large majority of the population, including Republicans, support a woman's right to choose. I also can't help but notice, as the NPR piece observes, that he invokes practicality when it suits him--here regarding abortion rights and previously regarding gun proliferation--but not on issues he cares most about.

We then witnessed his supporters on DU working diligently to defend his comments. I saw some insist abortion rights were too "divisive" and should not be a priority. They insisted "economic justice" is what mattered, yet repeatedly ignored the point made to them over and over again that without access to reproductive rights, the poverty rate for women and children rises sharply. In Texas, childbirth and child death rates hate risen as a result of the closing of reproductive clinics. In talking to those members, I came to realize "economic justice" was not about equality or justice at all. It was about restoring the prosperity of white men at the expense of the rest of us. They do not articulate it that way, but that is the result of the priorities and policies they advocate, and no amount of evidence had any impact on their concerns. That was a turning point for me.

I have zero sympathy or respect for your fixation on ensuring Sanders not be criticized. In nearly every thread in which Sanders lambastes Democrats, we are told that if we object in anyway to his characterization, that we are being "divisive." Unity for some has become about enforcing fealty to one man, not forging common ground among voters or political factions. That is the opposite of unity. The idea that reverence for one man and the demand that we contort and twist ourselves to justify his every utterance is a prerequisite for "unity" or winning is deeply offensive to me. As I said, I find that elevation of members of the political elite--whoever they are--above the citizenry inconsistent with democracy.

It bothers me to see people across the political spectrum elevating particular politicians to hero status rather than treating them as representatives who work for us. It signals a conception of not just politics but a hierarchy of human worth that violates my core beliefs in equality. I understand my views aren't popular. Many people have no problem following someone's every word. I am not built that way. I may not be well suited to these times, but then these times--I fear--signal the end of representative democracy. Money certainly plays a role in that, but the principle cause, I believe, lies with the citizenry. I fear ours is not capable of sustaining representative government.

For the priority on white male voters, I direct you to Sanders own comments following Clinton's defeat and his series of primetime TV specials in red America.

You've made clear you don't see things the same way. That's fine. I will simply point out that your perceptions are not universal. Many of us feel offended by the repeated and ongoing attacks on Democrats. I view his comments as insulting, and I don't care for being insulted. That shouldn't be so hard to understand. You worry about Sanders being "demonized and dismissed unfairly," and I worry about the party and Democratic voters being maligned. We all have our priorities.