Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Comments on "Sanders and the Theory of Change: Radical Politics for Grown-Ups"
<SNIP>
Krugman's mistake is very basic. He's wrong about the Sanders campaign's theory of change. It isn't that a high-minded leader can draw out our best selves and translate those into more humane and egalitarian lawmaking. It is that a campaign for a more equal and secure economy and a stronger democracy can build power, in networks of activists and alliances across constituencies. The movement that the campaign helps to create can develop and give voice to a program that the same people will keep working for, in and out of election cycles. In other words, this is a campaign about political ideas and programs that happens to have a person named Bernie at its head, not a campaign that mistakes its candidate for a prophet or a wizard (or the second coming of Abraham Lincoln, who gave us the now-cliché phrase about better angels, but had no delusion that words could substitute for power).
<SNIP>
Entire article here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jedediah-purdy/sanders-and-the-theory-of_b_9057570.html
Friends' discussion on Facebook regarding the article:
B.E. Excellent post!!! Even Jesus Christ had John the Baptist before him.
In my opinion, change comes during a crisis, which loosens the financial and political power elite’s grip on power. At this crisis point, in a democracy, the electorate will lift their heads from grinding on their daily millstone activities, and choose a new leader. Perhaps, even join the new movement.
Obama had an opportunity to become that new leader in 2008, and blew it. He joined with Bush II and Hank Paulson in bailing out the Wall Street crowd BEFORE a reform agenda was ready for passage. Once Obama pulled the power elite nuts out of the fire, they were ready to obstruct not only financial reforms, but health reform, as well.
Krugman is the naïve one. The establishment is never going to reform itself by compromise and backroom deal making. The backroom deal making during normal times is to further the establishment’s hold on power and shift the financial burden to others and future generations.
R.H.E. Sanders is one of the few, if not the only, "mainstream" politician I've heard criticize Obama for failing to keep his 3 million active campaign volunteers mobilized and organized, to do the ground game work essential to pursue his agenda. Purdy is correct that power is essential to compromise effectively. If we elect Clinton, we will compromise in the space between the status quo and where the Republicans want to take us. If we elect Sanders, we have a chance to compromise, in the space between the status quo and Sanders' ideals.
B.E. Exactly, R.. Very insightful of you.
R.H.E. I was hopping up and down like a madman in 2009 about this issue. I couldn't believe Obama demobilized his campaign organization. He has to own that one.
If Sanders does not correct this massive mistake, it won't matter what he's trying to push. The real campaign is to get rid of as many bought and paid for Congresspeople as possible.
B.E. Correct.... It's one of the reasons I didn't support Obama in the 2008 primary. After working with his 2004 Senate campaign on corporate governance reforms, which he used in TV ads and editorial meetings, after his 2004 election, Obama simply walked away from the issue. Once again, what politicians actually do, is much more important than what they promise to do.
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
