Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[Axiom_Blade]

But there's still the problem that a large portion of the population are allergic to even the mention of the word 'Socialism'.

Right. Which is why it's good to get a conversation about it started.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Right. Which is why it's good to get a conversation about it started.

That's true enough, but only if the Republican party is smart enough to reject their own elitists and proletariat and instead embrace a populist movement for small business as an alternative to socialism in the attempt to break the billionaires lock on our political system.

Then we could have a reasonable conversation that would actually mean something...ie Small business VS Socialism as a way to restore economic social justice.

One thing's for certain, backing huge mega corps "too big to fail", industrialists and entrenched megarich is not the way, we have multiple decades of proof of that.

 

[Trakar]

That's true enough, but only if the Republican party is smart enough to reject their own elitists and proletariat and instead embrace a populist movement for small business as an alternative to socialism in the attempt to break the billionaires lock on our political system.

Then we could have a reasonable conversation that would actually mean something...ie Small business VS Socialism as a way to restore economic social justice.

One thing's for certain, backing huge mega corps "too big to fail", industrialists and entrenched megarich is not the way, we have multiple decades of proof of that.

And its not even, necessarily an "either/or" situation. We have a mixed economy, which has proven to be the most adaptable and successful type of system, so it is more about how much and which areas of the economy need more public control and regulation and which sections are safe enough to loosen up regulations a bit and encourage more private control and opportunity to expand into.

 

[jakesteele]

Well the anti-Hillary vote will have to find another horse to back, and right now Bernie seems like the most obvious candidate for those people to back. Particularly for people who want someone more liberal and authentic. Or authentically liberal. So yeah, I expect him to surge in the polls. The question is, what's his ceiling.

I nominate Alan Grayson for prez.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQnSu0DG3Oo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s726kjPsfXY

 

[Red Baron Farms]

And its not even, necessarily an "either/or" situation. We have a mixed economy, which has proven to be the most adaptable and successful type of system, so it is more about how much and which areas of the economy need more public control and regulation and which sections are safe enough to loosen up regulations a bit and encourage more private control and opportunity to expand into.

Of course you are right. I spoke in simplistic terms. It is a false dichotomy to make it either/or. There are sectors of the economy where big industrial corporations are needed, and others where they should be severely discouraged.

The drought in California is a great example. A large majority of our fruit and vegetables are grown there. That leaves the whole food system vulnerable to things like a drought. So in this case, not only did moving production there cost many millions of jobs of local truck farmers and the rural communities where they lived throughout the country, it also put the entire country's food system in jeopardy. Centralization in this case is very risky. But it made a few mega-rich.

 

[Puppycow]

Sanders doesn't strike me as the most charismatic dude. In fact, he comes off as a grumpy old man.

Some people like that he seems to be an authentic person who actually believes what he says. As opposed to a politician motivated more by personal ambition who would say whatever he thinks the voters want to hear so that he can win the election. To me anyway, that's a kind of charisma that's more appealing than say, good hair and a handsome face (John Edwards or Rick Perry, say, guys who get by on their good looks).

 

[Trakar]

Bernie Sanders: What does it mean to be an advocate of socialist democratic policies?

Bernie Sanders: What does it mean to be an advocate of socialist democratic policies?

How Bernie Sanders Will Change Your Mind About The Label ‘Socialist’ –
http://elitedaily.com/news/politics/bernie-sanders-change-mind-label-socialist/1054723/

Democratic socialism, which these countries’ governments all practice to some extent, isn’t what we’ve gotten to know from Soviet spy movies.
It isn’t a nanny state that tries to police your every move. It isn’t even an arrangement in which the country’s citizens have no personal responsibility, as so many Republican candidates have claimed over the years.
It’s about support. It’s about equality.
…
His view that the increasing wealth gap is a huge problem in America is one that 63 percent of Americans share. A majority of Americans, like Sanders, believe money in politics is hurting the system.
Sizeable majorities believe higher education is too expensive and that student loan debt is a big issue.
He’s got a lot going for him: passion, early support and ideas for policies most of the country supports (even if some of those people would normally vote Republican). For all the Democrats who would have supported Warren’s fire over Clinton’s centrism, this is the guy.
(rest at above link)

Fact sheet on the Employ Young Americans Now Act–
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/060415-employamericansnowactfactsheet?inline=file

The Employ Young Americans Now Act that will be introduced in the Senate by Sen. Sanders will provide $5.5 billion in immediate funding to employ one million young Americans in summer and year round jobs; and will provide hundreds of thousands of young Americans with the job training and skills they need for the jobs of the future.
Under the Employ Young Americans Now Act, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) would provide $4 billion in grants to states and local governments to:

• provide summer and year round employment opportunities for low-income youth, with direct links to academic and occupational learning; and
• provide important services such as transportation or child care, necessary to enable young Americans to participate in job opportunities.​

Each state that would like to participate in this program would have to submit a plan to DOL that must include:

• strategies and activities to provide summer employment opportunities and year-round employment opportunities for low-income youth, including links to educational activities;
• identifying employment opportunities in emerging or in-demand occupations;
• identifying employment opportunities in the public or nonprofit sector that meet community needs; and
• an estimate of the number of youth expected to be placed in employment opportunities.​

Under this legislation, DOL would also award $1.5 billion in competitive grants to local areas to provide work-based training to low-income youth and disadvantaged young adults.
Through this bill, DOL will award grant applications to local areas that have the ability to:

• implement effective strategies and activities to provide unemployed, low-income youth and disadvantaged young adults with the skills needed for employment;
• provide opportunities for on-the-job training, and registered apprenticeship programs;
• provide connections to immediate work opportunities; paid internships; enrollment in community colleges; or basic education and training for low-income young adults; and
• develop partnerships with employers and employer associations, community colleges, and other postsecondary education institutions; community-based organizations; joint labor-management committees; and work-related intermediaries.​

I think it is important for this nation, regardless of the ultimate fate of Senator Sander’s presidential campaign this time around, to develop a clear understanding of what Socialism is and is not. Likewise it is important to understand how it has played a strong role in our social and economic history and present democracy as well as how it can and should impact the future of our nation.

 

[RandFan]

Thank you. Of course it is to some people's benefit to keep the terms mired in confusions.

IMO: The evils of communism are deeply tied to socialism and deeply rooted in the WWII and Baby Boomer generations. Sadly, more people are going to have to die in their ignorance before reason prevails.

 

[The Big Dog]

Bernie Sanders: What does it mean to be an advocate of socialist democratic policies?

How Bernie Sanders Will Change Your Mind About The Label ‘Socialist’ –
http://elitedaily.com/news/politics/bernie-sanders-change-mind-label-socialist/1054723/

​

Fact sheet on the Employ Young Americans Now Act–
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/060415-employamericansnowactfactsheet?inline=file
​

I think it is important for this nation, regardless of the ultimate fate of Senator Sander’s presidential campaign this time around, to develop a clear understanding of what Socialism is and is not. Likewise it is important to understand how it has played a strong role in our social and economic history and present democracy as well as how it can and should impact the future of our nation.

Ok, borderline spam, but ok.

Noted.

 

[shemp]

Ok, borderline spam, but ok.

Noted.

"Is that all you got George?"

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

As a Democratic Socialist, I find this thread incredibly ironic. I think Bernie and people like the author of the first article are confusing people even more.

Social Democracy in the Nordic nations is not Socialism, Democratic or otherwise. This has been an American Liberal meme for some years, and it is a lie. It is a curiously US-centric view to redefine these terms and the politics of other nations. It is a hilariously naive "international" perspective.

A famous and fairly recent example of just how ingrained this image is, is when the American comedian Jon Stewart of The Daily Show ran a sketch roughly five years ago where Sweden was referred to as a socialist nightmare. It ran as a response to how TV commentators and columnists had expressed concern that the US was turning socialist, or "becoming Sweden", after the government had taken partial ownership in car companies, banks and insurance companies in order to resolve their financial crises.

But how socialist of a country is Sweden, really? How much ownership and influence does the Swedish state really have over the economy? To find out, Radio Sweden's Markus Landén spoke to Swedish historian and author of several books on the Swedish model, Lars Trägårdh.

"I think Sweden is very much a market society... a capitalist society. Swedes like to own things," says Trägårdh.

While Sweden has "an extensive system for social investment or welfare measures", according to Trägårdh, he says that "to call that socialism is rather misleading."

Linky.

I spoke with Petter Nilsson of Sweden’s Left Party about social democracy in his country and its broader meaning. The interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Sweden is still seen by many around the world as a model for the welfare state but it has changed dramatically over the past couple decades. Can you give a quick summary of what it means to look at Sweden, as you’ve put it, “without illusions”?

There’s this joke on the Swedish left that everyone would want the Swedish model, and the Swedes would want it perhaps more than anyone. What’s considered to be the Swedish model peaked in maybe the late ’70s, early ’80s and has since gone through quite the same developments as the rest of Europe with the neoliberal wave.

Linky.

“Sweden has always been on the side of the market economy. This is not socialism,” says Olle Wästberg, director of the Swedish Institute in Stockholm, and a former Consul General to New York. “In many fields, we have more private ownership compared to other European countries, and to America. About 80 percent of all new schools are privately run, as are the railroads and the subway system.”

...

Jokes aside, Professor Palmer, who ran a controversial course on globalization at Harvard University from 2000 to 2004, believes that Sweden has been one step ahead of the US in adopting and extending economic reforms.

“To speak of Sweden as socialist today is pretty far off the mark,” he says. “Neoliberal reforms have gone much further here in some sectors than in the US. Sweden has become a sort of laboratory for privatization in a way that the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute could only dream of.”

Linky.

Bernie Sanders will accomplish one thing, sheepdogging leftists back to the Democratic fold for the election. Just like previous leftist candidates.

In July 2016, at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, after Sanders’ team meets with Hillary Clinton’s senior strategists but not the nominee herself, his campaign manager speaks to the media: “We are proud of all we accomplished, the millions of Americans who cast their votes for the Sanders 2016 campaign, and the issues we raised about economic inequality, the struggling middle class, and an economy rigged for the benefit of a few billionaires. Senator Sanders may not be the nominee in 2016, but the concerns he championed are front and center.” When asked about the closed-door meeting and Clinton’s $2 billion in campaign contributions from Wall Street and wealthy donors, Sanders’ manager says, “What we got from the Clinton campaign was a commitment to begin the process to talk about reducing income inequality. We've moved. They’ve moved. It’s truly unity in that sense. We are fully behind Hillary Clinton as our party’s presidential nominee for 2016, and are our only focus for the next 100 days is to make sure she is elected to that office. Thank you.” I’m not making this up. The above quote is paraphrased from the Dennis Kucinich 2004 campaign. He ran on opposition to the Iraq War, but by the convention Kucinich backed the nominee, John Kerry, whose position was to escalate the war, in exchange for vague promises. Every time a progressive challenges the mainstream Democratic candidates, such as Kucinich, Jerry Brown in 1992, Jesse Jackson in 1988, Ted Kennedy in 1980, even John Edwards in 2008, there is a pattern. If the insurgent campaign catches fire, it raises progressive hopes that the Democrats might finally have a presidential nominee more on the level of the party’s grassroots than C-suite executives. But the campaign is overwhelmed by money pouring into the coffers of whichever Wall Street Democrat clinches the nomination. Because the progressive standard-bearer ran in a process that is impossible for a real left-wing candidate to win, they were defeated before they ever began. But the progressive serves an important purpose. They energize the activist base and raise hopes that the Democratic Party is open to progressive ideas, even though the money, use of super-delegates and drawn-out primary limit the victors circle to establishment candidates. Sanders’ campaign will help divide the left and bind many of them to the Democratic Party. Over the next six months expect a stream of articles praising Sanders as the people’s, progressives’, the left’s champion, or attacking anyone who disagrees. Short of a mile-wide asteroid smacking into the earth, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party nominee. She needs challengers to enliven a primary that is more coronation than contest, and she needs the sparring to keep her in fighting shape for the general election. Plus, having a left-wing candidate allows her to appear as the responsible moderate who stakes out corporate-friendly positions slathered in progressive blather. By the time the convention is over, those progressives who hopped on board the Sanders train to nowhere will have reconciled themselves with supporting Hillary, whatever their misgivings. It’s basic psychology. Like investors who throw good money after bad, it’s hard to admit after spending more than a year of your life advocating for a candidate that lost, that maybe it’s time to stop investing in the Democratic Party.

This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address:
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/op...ad-About-the-2016-Election-20150507-0030.html. If you intend to use it, please cite the source and provide a link to the original article. www.teleSURtv.net/english

Linky.

WHILE MANY people today might consider this 30- and 50-year-old history to have little relevance, it's worth noting that much of what is being said on the left today about Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign was said about Jackson's campaigns in the 1980s. For those who would like a more contemporary example, consider how the 2000s campaigns of former Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich disappointed their left supporters.

Both Jackson and Kucinich ultimately delivered supporters to the more conservative Democrats against whom they had mounted their challenges in the first place. They did this so effectively and seamlessly that it must be said their campaigns aimed to do this from the start.

Candidates like Jackson or Kucinich occasionally flirted with the rhetoric of breaking with the Democrats, but their clear commitment in practice was to bring people disenchanted with the party into the Democratic orbit. And meanwhile, Sanders, for his part, won't even use the rhetoric--he has ruled out running outside the Democratic Party. History teaches us that the real impact of these inside-outside challenges was to, in the words of Jesse Jackson, "keep hope alive"--but in the Democratic Party.

For those who want to build a stronger left in the U.S., there is no substitute for the work--however slow and painstaking it might be--of building social movements and struggles at the grassroots and of organizing a political alternative independent of the Democratic Party.

Linky.

ISN'T RUNNING in the Democratic Party the only realistic way for Sanders to win?

THE OPPOSITE is the case. Sanders has no chance of winning the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

As he readily admits, the two-party system has been rigged by corporate power to exclude any real challenge to its agenda--and that includes the Democratic Party. Elections are a big business, where corporations sell brands (a.k.a. candidates) to consumers (a.k.a. voters).

This reality led two professors from Princeton and Northwestern Universities to declare in a recent study that the U.S. is not actually a democracy, but an oligarchy: "[E]conomic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."

...

BUT CAN'T Sanders at least articulate our issues and pull the Democrats to the left?

SANDERS WILL, indeed, talk about progressive policies and proposals that the Democratic Party's base overwhelmingly supports, but that get short shrift in the mainstream political discussion. To his credit, Sanders doesn't back away from his identification as a "socialist." If the media bother to cover his campaign, that at least will be a breath of fresh air.

But beyond this, there is little reason to hope that Sanders' campaign can pull either the Democrats or mainstream politics to the left.

It's worth pointing out that even mainstream Democrats speak out of the liberal side of their mouths during party primaries. In reaction to the Baltimore Rebellion, for example, Hillary Clinton criticized the New Jim Crow and called for an end to mass incarceration--a more radical position than Sanders adopted, in fact. Of course, Clinton will do nothing of the sort if she does become president. She is following the time-honored pattern of Democrats: Talk left during the primary campaign to win votes from the base, before "turning to the center" in the general election.

There is a reason why the Democratic Party establishment isn't angry, but relieved that Sanders is running for the party's presidential nomination. For one thing, his campaign has come along with a promise that he won't be an independent, third party candidate in November. But beyond this, the Democrats face a legitimacy problem with their base--and Sanders could help them rebuild some support.

...

So the Democrats desperately need their liberal champions like Elizabeth Warren, Bill de Blasio and now Bernie Sanders to give Democratic voters a reason to turn out and cast a ballot for a party that has disappointed them at every turn.

This is why Hillary Clinton welcomed Sanders into the race. She doesn't fear him as a serious rival, but she knows he can help her campaign and the party in general to continue its masquerade as the "party of the people." When Sanders does raise issues the left cares about, Clinton will be able to say, "Yes, you're right, Bernie, but I have a realistic plan, instead of just talking about them."

This is the problem with welcoming a Sanders campaign because it will "articulate our issues"--it will do so in the service of building support for the Democratic Party, which is committed to the exact opposite.

Linky.

 

[Trakar]

As a Democratic Socialist, I find this thread incredibly ironic. I think Bernie and people like the author of the first article are confusing people even more.

I'm not sure what you are saying here?

Social Democracy in the Nordic nations is not Socialism, Democratic or otherwise. This has been an American Liberal meme for some years, and it is a lie. It is a curiously US-centric view to redefine these terms and the politics of other nations.

Confusion indeed! Perhaps the problem is that we re using similar terms to describe different things? In my usage, I intend Social Democracy to refer to an ideology that is more centrist and supports a broadly Capitalist system, with some social reforms (such as the economic safety nets, public education systems, public health systems, etc.), intended to make it more equitable and humane. Democratic Socialism, by contrast, implies an ideology that is more left-wing and supportive of a fully socialist system, established either by gradually reforming Capitalism from within, or by some form of revolutionary transformation.
(...)

Linky.

Why does this link talk about what happened in July 2016 in the past tense?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'm not sure what you are saying here?



Confusion indeed! Perhaps the problem is that we re using similar terms to describe different things? In my usage, I intend Social Democracy to refer to an ideology that is more centrist and supports a broadly Capitalist system, with some social reforms (such as the economic safety nets, public education systems, public health systems, etc.), intended to make it more equitable and humane. Democratic Socialism, by contrast, implies an ideology that is more left-wing and supportive of a fully socialist system, established either by gradually reforming Capitalism from within, or by some form of revolutionary transformation.

I would recognise those statements. Then the difference must be that Sanders and the first author, amongst other liberals, are claiming Sanders and the Nordic Nations are Socialist, whereas I and other Socialists (esp. those in said nations) would call them Social Democratic, at best.

Sanders, Jon Stewart, et al. perpetuate the right-wing myth that any government action or regulation is Socialism. They are merely "reclaiming" this branding and painting it (Social Democratic policies) with a benign brush of prosperous Denmark or Sweden.

Why does this link talk about what happened in July 2016 in the past tense?

Rhetorical technique:

I’m not making this up. The above quote is paraphrased from the Dennis Kucinich 2004 campaign. He ran on opposition to the Iraq War, but by the convention Kucinich backed the nominee, John Kerry, whose position was to escalate the war, in exchange for vague promises.

 

[Trakar]

I would recognise those statements. Then the difference must be that Sanders and the first author, amongst other liberals, are claiming Sanders and the Nordic Nations are Socialist, whereas I and other Socialists (esp. those in said nations) would call them Social Democratic, at best.

I run into a similar issue with American conservatives calling our Democratic party, Communists. While I tend to call our Democratic party conservative-lite.

I'm afraid the majority in the U.S. are so unprepared for this discussion, that the distinctions we seek to clarify are meaningless word salads bordering on "No true Commie" arguments.

 

[Francesca R]

I think accepting "socialism" to be a smear is/was a big own goal for the Democrats.

But then disowning and demonising "liberalism" was a massive one for the republicans too.

However there is probably nothing to be gained in the presidential contest by raking over such stuff . . .

 

[Trakar]

Bernie Sanders: Call for 'Political Revolution'

Bernie Sanders: Call for 'Political Revolution'
http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/...revolution-is-about-mass-movement-not-me.html

As Sen. Bernie Sanders continues to attract overflow crowds, it was "standing-room-only" at a large community center in Keene, New Hampshire on Saturday where the presidential candidate continued to describe how a grassroots-driven "political revolution" is needed in the country in order to make real progress on debilitating levels inequality and student debt, the increasing threat of climate change, and the firm grip on the nation's democracy held by the billionaire class and corporate interests.
The Wall Street Journal reported that approximately "800 people squeezed" into the event, but a local newspaper put the number at over a 1,000 attendees, with many spilling out into the entryway and beyond.
"This is not about Bernie Sanders," the candidate said to the room filled beyond capacity. "You can have the best president in the history of the world but that person will not be able to address the problems that we face unless there is a mass movement, a political revolution in this country. Right now the only pieces of legislation that get to the floor of the House and Senate are sanctioned by big money, Wall Street, the pharmaceutical companies. The only way we win and transform America is when millions of people stand up as you’re doing today and say. 'Enough is enough. This country belongs to all of us and not a handful of billionaires.'"

As long as he doesn’t unleash a Deanish “YAAAAAAARGGGGGH!” he’s saying what needs to be said, and drawing a crowd!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Similar to Ron Paul in 2012. Or was it 2008?

 

[Brainster]

Bernie comes close to pulling off an upset in Wisconsin:

Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist and a long-shot for the White House, scored a strong second-place finish to Clinton by drawing 41 percent in a straw poll vote at the Wisconsin Democratic Party convention. Clinton won 49 percent.

This could get entertaining. One of the unique disadvantages of a party that disproportionately draws support from young people is the reluctance to learn lessons from the past.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

This could get entertaining.

What would actually be entertaining is if the Democrats and Republicans would debate other parties, instead of just each other.

One of the unique disadvantages of a party that disproportionately draws support from young people is the reluctance to learn lessons from the past.

Indeed. Hey, didn't Dennis Kucinich try this in 2004? And Al Sharpton before him...and Jesse Jackson...

 

[grunion]

Indeed. Hey, didn't Dennis Kucinich try this in 2004? And Al Sharpton before him...and Jesse Jackson...

All Democrats. Bernie's an Independent.