Why is fighting back for principles and values and goals always portrayed as bad?

[Armstead]

The Berniebro meme. All those "hateful" Sanders supports, and their "impolite" behavior.

Let me get this out of the way. Yes some Bernie supporters act like jerks sometimes. Some of them say things that are over the top. (And I know, sometimes I get a little carried away too.)

But there is no one stereotype that fits all of the millions of supporters of any candidate, or supporters of a movement.

Most of us Bernie supporters are just average people. Generally nice and civilized, with all of the complexities and curves and differences of any segment of the population.

But ohhhhhhhh the wailing and gnashing of teeth over us collectively. Rude Bernie Bros! bad! Sit Down!

People like that delicate bully Krugman complain that after insulting Sanders and his supporters, they have the nerve to actually angrily respond.... Horrors. Give poor besieged Paul a handkerchief.

An oncologist who has spent his life working for universal healthcare makes a slip of the tongue and suddenly he is the WORST PERSON IN THE WOOOORLDDDDDD (with apologies to Keith Olbermann).

And all of this "advice" and "concern" about how Bernie's supporters are driving people to vote for Hillary just because we are such unruly heathen who pee on the carpets.

And, of course, there's the ever present "We adults know what we're doing. Go to your room, kids."

The Clinton campaign and Democratic establishment is currently using those memes to make Sanders an "other" who is not one of "us." And (self-defeatingly) branding his supporters as rude know nothings, bullies, Trump lovers, Hippies, far left radicals....etc.

Sounds a whole lot like the GOP over the years, except it's coming from supposed Democrats who claim to be "progressive."

Pheh. Same crap,. Different year, different candidates -- same old deflection from the real causes of our systemic problems.

THAT's the big sin of the Berniebros -- Pointing out the issues that have been stifled, rekindling ideals, and pressing for change and reform. How awful.

[dogman]

1. It sounds like the GOP because the message makers are the same people.

Political operatives are just that. They used to be called media whores, but of course that is now taboo.

[JoePhilly]

2. Do you even read the stuff that gets posted on this site?

[Armstead]

3. Nay never....

Did you read my second paragraph?

[JoePhilly]

6. All you had to do was watch your own bro-Bernie OP sink like a stone.

As we saw in that little experiment ... reasonable Bernie supporters are being drown out by the nastiest Bernie supporters.

I just saw one of them post 4 very long anti-Hillary OPs, full of attacks and innuendo ... and angry Bernie fans flock to them.

The angry Bernie supporters probably are not a majority ... but they are putting out a majority of the message.

[Armstead]

9. I think that has more to do with the nature of discussion boards

It's quicker and more "fun" to take cheap shots, than actually give thoughtful replies to thoughtful posts.

That's basically true regardless of candidates or issues.

I remember in years past posting long posts about trade, that usually sunk to the bottom.

But just say "Free Trade Sucks" and it will get a flurry of posts saying either ""Yeah it sucks" or "Don't be so unrealistic about economic reality."

Likewise "Sanders sucks" or "Clinton sucks" will get a flurry of posts agreeing or disagreeing compared to a long post that explains "Here's why Sanders policy on climate change is vital"....(or Clinton's).

[ibegurpard]

4. Because corrupt craven opportunists

Don't want the Party to stand up for the working class. There's no money to be made there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. A little political analysis

Democrats are becoming the business friendly party they once were. It's to the point that business's friendly sensible republicans are seriously considering joining the Donkey's. The party sees this challenger as well the last gasp.

I expect the Ds to split, at the convention no less. Some of the shit locally should concern people. A dem is running with a PAC for a city council seat. Chew on that one.

[Armstead]

7. I actually don;t have a problem with business friendly....

But it's a matter of proportion and extent of influence and balance of interests.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. They abandoning labor. Did I have to spell it that clearly?

[Armstead]

14. yes....I just mean that there should be overall balance that is lacking

Democrats should be the labor party...and overall social and economic justice. But that does require 3 D approaches. Sanders knew this too in Burlington. He had his ideology, but he also worked with business on things they could agree on or could compromise on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. This is a party realignment

and it is time people wake up to the new reality. The Ds are not the party of labor, or the party of the poor, or the party of FDR... just like the Rs are not the Party of Lincoln. Yeah, I actually had to suppress a snicker but predictably that classic line made it's way to the Cruz Rally.

The sooner, the better for American democracy, whatever remains of it. Though I suspect with climate change, THAT CRISIS will soon enough overcome the silliness that is now part of our lives. Trust me, compared to that crisis, all this is silly. OF course it is one reason for that crisis, but humans are stupid.

[Dragonfli]

31. I believe you are correct that this is a party realignment, as will come to no surprise to you due

to some of our previous conversations.

Ironically I have been listening to Thom Hartmann today, who is rationalizing this away as being a case of "Clinton is beginning to see the light" and the New Democrat movement is dying, and soon, the party will come back to it's senses.

I don't doubt Thom's sincerity in such beliefs, but I believe he is whistling past the graveyard and not seeing the larger picture of the ever increasing control of corporate interests within the party which is driving the realignment.

He appears to believe we are seeing a party correction toward the party of labor that for a time in history it was, I find his conclusion delusional, but I feel this delusion is driven by wishful thinking and a very real and thus repressed dread that the realignment IS happening and the party likely will split over it.

We may be a minority in our belief regarding this (I honestly don't know), but I do know we have both come to this same conclusion on our own and separately, and much of it has to do with our understanding of the history of parties as well as the obvious policy changes that have been devolving the party the past thirty years to what appears to me to be leading it to an obvious and inevitable conclusion.


Just wanted Cassandra to know she is not alone.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. We are both cassandras.

Thom is not alone. And your diagnosis is on point

[Armstead]

37. Time will tell -- I think we need a four party system

Something more like Canada.

Even though we're not parliamentary, that would at least force some bargaining.

[reddread]

11. no surprise

thats where all that federal money comes dribbling out.
own some council members and a mayor and its all yours.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. I know

[reddread]

15. thank you for being there

those Chamber of Commerce types dont like heroes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. I just cover this shit

and those chamber of commerce types are one of the symptoms for greed.

[Punkingal]

10. Great OP!

[AZ Progressive]

12. The lack of principles and the pursuit of profit above all else is what's ruining this country

Winning at all costs as a routine strategy is disastrous.

[Armstead]

19. Especially for the party that claims to be the counterweight to that

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

18. You got it right. No one likes change. An alcoholic has to replace his lifestyle. The white-make GOP

is having 'murcia taken from them. The Democratic Party didn't see this coming. True, the largest caucus in within the Party is the Progressive Party, but they don't have the infrastructure of the DLC, so they're clinging tight to the establishment.

What will happen in 4 years is anyone's guess. Democrats are terrified of labels, and the new label to keep everyone in line is "sexist." And that's friendly fire. Can you imagine a "coup" occurring during the administration of the first female president. The Progressives will be kept in line for fear of being labeled sexist.

[ViseGrip]

20. Her slogan is 'no we can't' and she'll only nibble around the edges, of the edges.

[felix_numinous]

21. K&R The attempts to shame and blame

people for wanting basic human rights, a clean Earth and peaceful world have revealed their true nature.

[Fumesucker]

22. Short and sweet: Those things get in the way of bidness

[Armstead]

23. But why do so many rank and files buy into it?

Sure people are motivated by money. But you'd think that at some point, even self interest would lead more working and middle class people to a recognition that the status quo isn't working for them.

That's the part I find frustrating.

[Fumesucker]

24. Vast amounts of propaganda, it's everywhere once you start noticing it

Like anything else that gets repeated a lot the pervasive propaganda becomes background noise, you don't even notice it, you aren't supposed to notice it, it's just there. Always, like air.

[Armstead]

25. I know....I wonder why some have woken up from the illusion and other still buy into the propaganda

Hypothetical questions, of course...just frustrating to see basic common sense and common decency attacked by people who should know better.

(I am not speaking of differences in "strategies" or pace. Just basic goals.)

[KPN]

26. Becausew they have to do that

in order to ma9intain power and control.

First rule of order: control the minions.

[Armstead]

28. I'm talking about the minions buying it

You expect oligarchs to do that crap. I just wonder why so many echo it.

[KPN]

30. Understand. Just resp-onded to your header.

I have wondered that for most of my adult years. I have my theories, but it's hard to give answers here without offending someone.

[Dragonfli]

27. That is a very good question, but with a very complex answer I suspect. Generally speaking it is

part of a tactic used by many "identity politics" driven campaigns. If positions on issues, even good altruistic positions regarding those issues appear to have a possibility of harming the identity politician due to a lack of a counter position that would be viewed by many as being equally as good, even if different in approach, they have no other recourse but to attack the message, the messenger and ignore the actual policy positions that they fear that most would likely agree with.

The political identity painted as "better" by means outside of issues must be protected at all cost, defensively AND offensively. If the Identity image is not maintained as "better" just because of who they happen to be, the fandom that is counted on to drive the population and votes towards that identity will not produce the results that the campaign wishes.

One way besides attempting to silence the better policy(s) held by the issue oriented campaign via attack the messenger and attack (often by twisting) the message. Is to also find a minority of supporters among the issue orientated campaigns supporters that are guilty of objectively poor taste attacks against the identity and portray them as the majority of the supporters of that campaign even if, as is certainly the case here, such is a very small minority of supporters. If such "evil others" can not be found within the issue orientated campaign, they will be produced via "socks" claiming to be supporters and pointed at as the norm.

Above all, the criticisms of the identity politicians policies, must be discredited by ANY means necessary. Any "fighting back for principles, values and goals" must be demonized to limit the exposure of valid attempts to fight back as well as prevent others from recognizing such are fighting back against things that should be fought back against. If you can tie the opponents hands behind their back, they can win a boxing match using an unethical opponent that often puts lead in the gloves they wear even as their opponents hands are tied in an attempt to render them defenseless.



As I said however, the answer is I suspect very complicated, much more so than anything I have addressed in this post.

[Armstead]

29. Thanks...I'll have to ponder that one

[MisterP]

32. funny thing they all started out as Obama Boys in 08, screaming about Clinton the exact

same way they're screaming about Sanders now 8 years later! they were the ones that gave Obama's campaign the reputation for weeping, fooled-by-rhetoric, would-support-the-DP-for-firstborns-if-The-One-proposed-it, don't-ever-care-what-He-supports cultishness that stank up DU and DKos

such corrupt lackeys can't understand why we would want to stand on our own political feet rather than worship a Leader and accept nothing in return for total obedience and lash out at the Enemy without and within; they're worms that want to be dragons

[Armstead]

34. Kick in response to this shit.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511746409

[pat_k]

35. "New and stirring things are belittled because...."

"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled the humiliating question arises 'Why then are you not taking part in them?'"
-- H.G. Wells

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511744422

[Armstead]

36. Much truth in that

I think a lot of Clinton supporters (the reasonable ones) wish they could support the movement Sanders represents....but they feel they can't for pragmatic reasons.

[Armstead]

38. I'm gonna kick this because it seems relevant today