Why did Sanders wait until we have a black president to cast blame and start his "revolution"?

[cloudythescribbler]

114. Two Issues: First, timing -- why is Bernie Sanders Running Now? and Second, Bernie Sanders on race

On the issue of timing, Bernie Sanders is running in this election cycle, among other reasons, as the candidate for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party against the coronation of neo-liberal Hillary Clinton. Going back over the last three or four elections -- and it really has only been since the millenium that the issue of the radically rising proportion of income and wealth going to the top 1% has become such a salient issue -- you can see that there was, at least in the early campaign, a major standardbearer for the progressive wing of the Party that is the most logical base for Bernie Sanders' candidacy. In 2000, there was Bill Bradley, not a very strong candidate but in a lot stronger position than Bernie, who was at the time still only a relatively less-known member of the House. In 2004, Howard Dean -- who has since learned to get with the program of the Democratic Party more obediently -- was the main standardbearer against the Iraq War and for what he at the time termed "The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party; until his candidacy imploded -- or was imploded by a chorus of protestation in response to a slightly redder than medium rare red meat speech after losing the Iowa Caucuses -- he was clearly the main figure running for the progressive Democrats. After that 'implosion', there was only Kucinich, who I voted for in MA. Then in the 2007-8 election cycle, at first Hillary Clinton was seen as the inevitable nominee, with Barack Obama as the main challenger, clearly not an out-and-out brazen spokesperson for the progressive wing of the Party, but at least seemed to be (and said many things suggesting that he was) at least going to straddle the gap between the two wings of the Party, as distinct from Hillary Clinton, clearly a neoliberal Clinton Democrat. I supported Obama from day 1 in large part in the hope of getting a president significantly more progressive than the neoliberals (Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Hillary Clinton) who had dominated the national party until then. For example, all these, and Edwards, Lieberman, Biden etc had voted for the Iraq War resolution giving W the authority to launch a war, which Obama had vociferously opposed when it mattered. OK, Obama has turned out to be more centrist than many including myself had hoped, especially in 2009-10, though he has definitely been more progressive than President Clinton was. In 2012 there were some people urging Sanders to run, especially given the heightened consciousness of his signature issue with the Occupy Wall Street movement -- which rapidly faded.

But in this election year we again saw Hillary Clinton as the "inevitable" neoliberal nominee. There were no major progressive challengers to her (Chafee?) with any serious base, and many more people including myself who wanted him to run -- and to run as a Democrat in the primaries, as that could really reach a mass public, and likely engage many more millions of voters than running as an Independent. (Bernie himself suggested as much in pointing to the greater MSM exposure he got as a candidate for the Democratic nomination). He has done much better than many supporters, including myself, thought at all likely when he first declared. He is running on an issue -- the concentration of wealth AND political power in a plutocratic elite that has become quite salient, though he is making it moreso; this is not even implicitly a campaign against President Obama or his legacy (except I suppose if one views Hillary Clinton as Obama's 'heir apparent'). He has not attacked any of the reforms of the Obama years, tho Hillary Clinton has tried to portray him as seeking to undo the Affordable Care Act, rather than expand and extend it. (This is basically reducible to campaign rhetoric -- not at all true of Sanders' position).

There have been a number of candidates who have at least implicitly run against the record of a presidency of their own Party (McCarthy and Kennedy in 68), Reagan in 76, and Kennedy in 80 for example, but Sanders is not in that category. There is nothing in his candidacy that reasonably is a negative reaction to the Obama years; again, Obama himself was the candidate favored by many of the progressive wing of the party against Hillary as neoliberal in 2007-8.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the issue of race, I am not aware of ANYTHING that Bernie Sanders or any of his staff have said that suggested black voters should "automatically" support him based on his record back in the era of the Civil Rights movement. Sometimes on DU in response to the veracity of this true history being challenged, it may seem that way especially as a bone of contention. But it IS legitimate for Sanders & his campaign to raise IN THE CONTEXT OF HIS FAVORABLE RECORD FOR MORE THAN A QUARTER CENTURY IN CONGRESS. It is true that there are particulars (eg on gun control) that might be subject to debate, but on many issues both Congressman and then Senator Sanders, whether opposing many of the so-called 'reforms' of the Clinton era, although he did vote for the criminal justice reform in 1994 that had both positive and negative features as visible at the time. (The worst aspect of it was the political penumbra of how it helped to shepherd state-level policies in the so-called War on Drugs, pushed along with memes about 'superpredators' and such). Bernie Sanders is an (admittedly not perfectly pure) staunch figure in the progressive wing of US politics, not merely as a self-described socialist (I think Chomsky's characterization of his candidacy as more of a neo-New Dealer is on point) but as a progressive on a host of particular issues. Pointing out some positions on gun control that he has taken, or support for the F-35 production in his home state of Vermont aside, this is quite clearly the case, as it is also clear that the Clintons stand for neoliberalism.

But aside from this ideological conflict within the Democratic Party (which was quite pronounced with the Rainbow Coalition representing progressive politics and policies and both Mondale & Dukakis a more centrist vision, albeit not centrist/conservative enough for Clinton in 92) there is the reputation and regard for the Clintons in the black community. Those who, like myself, supported Obama from day 1 in the 2007-8 primary election cycle can remember vividly how month after month polls of African American voters showed Hillary leading Barack by double digits. It really looked like an uphill climb, especially with Super Tuesday scheduled so soon in the season. But after gradually rising in visibility and popularity generally (the fact of being super well-know being an advantage to Hillary against Barack in 07 just as it has been against Bernie (Bernie who?) in this election cycle, Oprah Winfrey not only endorsed but actively campaigned for Barack Obama in ways and early enough on to really shift matters effectively, along with others in 2007 like Chris Rock. And Obama himself was a very strong candidate tho many on DU trashed him mercilessly in favor of Hillary Clinton at the time. This election cycle, for many clear and less obvious reasons, Bernie Sanders is not as strong a challenger to Hillary Clinton. She does have the added plus of being closely identified with the Obama Administration at this point IN ADDITION TO the strong economic track record during the Bill Clinton Administration. That latter issue helps explain why she was running so strongly at first and for many months in 2007, and why she runs more strongly against Bernie Sanders today. Younger voters in general (those under 35) were mainly children during the Clinton presidency. They aren't going to remember how sluggish the economy was under Bush pere, or how the Clintons in office faced much of the same outrageous obstructionism that has been hurled at the Obama Administration. But these factors are NOT a basis for trashing Bernie Sanders, who today takes a much stronger position on the issue of the New Jim Crow, the so-called Drug War, and mass incarceration than Hillary does, (and has the very outspoken support of Michelle Alexander and others concerned with these issues) over and above his broad populist economic message, which (eg universal single payer & free public college tuition, etc) also stands to benefit communities of color.

All the negative trashing on both sides that you see on DU is really a distraction from all this. Sure, it's true Bernie as a candidate is no Barack Obama, and few people have been in US politics, but I would expect that, should Hillary Clinton be elected, there will be plenty of room for the emergence of a progressive opposition within the electoral & MSM arena, and that Bernie Sanders could be very much a part of that. And over time it would seem that the issues raised in this post would become secondary to that fundamental split between progressive Democrats and neoliberals

Sorry I do go on long but this issue in various forms has come up repeatedly and needs to be addressed