Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumDoes the Democratic Party want what Bernie wants?
or just want what Bernie Sanders has?
Think about the tenth commandment.
If you need to
Just a thought.
LiberalArkie
(15,727 posts)the Bernie people will give up on what they believe. Give in to principles that disgust them and to follow what they see as the "dark side" because he said so. Bernie said it wasn't about him it was about the people.
If Bernie is not the nominee, I believe all the new people will either stay home or vote for Stein. The Democratic Party was a vehicle for his ideas, now if that vehicle decides not to carry them, well.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)name is purely incidental. I don't care if he puts a scarlet 'A' after his name as long as he stands for, and fights for, truly progressive values. My money follows Bernie. I know my money is peanuts compared to the DNC's billionaire owners , but if they want my money then they better re-think their Cheating For Hillary campaign.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)his supporters, his ideals, his enthusiasm but don't want what he wants
Article:
Ive written before about how the Hillary Democrats are running against hope, and how the Sanders campaign have outed them as frank corporate shills and enemies of even mild social democracy. But now even nominal liberals, or progressives, or whatever were calling them these days, have gotten in on the act.
Not content with merely saying No! to new programs like single-payer health insurance and free college, theyre highlighting the worst aspects of the New Deal in an effort to . . . well, what exactly? Promote Hillary? Fight Trump? Its hard to tell.
A few days ago, Jamelle Bouie, chief political correspondent for Slate Magazine and a political analyst for CBS News, tweeted this remarkable observation (since deleted):
Actually, that working-class movement had a lot to do with the Communist Party, which was an antiracist organization with a large black membership. Not only did it organize autoworkers in Flint, it organized black farmers in the South and black urbanites in Harlem. But saying nice things about the CPUSA is not the way to keep a job with CBS News.
Not long after Bouies ridiculous tweet came a longer instance of 1930s-bashing from Bryce Covert, economic policy editor at ThinkProgress and a contributor to the Nation. Covert identifies Donald Trumps pledge to make America great again as appealing to whites, especially men, longing for the days before the Civil Rights Movement and feminism ruined things for them.
Thats not a controversial point; it may be incomplete, but its not untrue. Coverts innovation is to locate much of that appeal in New Deal programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance, and postwar successors like the G.I. Bill.
This is rather odd, given the holy place that the New Deal once had in Democratic discourse. Coverts beef is that to get the votes of racist Southern congressmen, FDR had to craft his programs to exclude black workers. This is both true and awful, though its not clear how they would have gotten through Congress otherwise.
But instead of saying that the New Deal was a good partial model, something that should be built upon probably the only period in American history when a sense of the collective, and not competitive individualism, dominated our political thought she emphasizes only the exclusions, and identifies them as the source of the nostalgias that Donald Trump, not previously known as a friend of social programs, has been basing his campaign on.
Neither Bouies tweet nor Coverts op-ed makes any sense unless theyre trying to discredit an ambitious social agenda. That is precisely what the Hillary Democrats are doing to fight off the persistent Sanders threat that just wont go away. (That despite the fact that, as Gallup recently reported, a majority of Americans support a single-payer system. The least popular option is Hillarys position, keeping Obamacare largely as is.)
more;
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/democrats-hillary-clinton-new-deal-sanders/
I thought about asking my question after reading that article. So I know it was rhetorical in a way.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And I've seen it elsewhere often enough that I'm certain it has to be a directed effort from somewhere.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Rather than raise benefits for all she espoused just showing some charity towards those in the most desperate need. Some largess, in other words.
She's traded her ethics for great wealth, and is now willing to champion the idea of charity for the poor. That's different that bolstering the framework of programs Democrats fought so hard to put in place, and maintain.
It's a marker of many wealthy Democrats, imo. Once they've made it, they start looking down at the masses that want a piece of the pie. I see this as connected to the source of their wealth. They're getting their slice from the corporate pie, and they are jealous of it.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)It's now an emotional response, "Hulk smash", to what they can't have. We're going to see them run the whole gamut. "We don't need their support, they don't show up to vote, they're not really Democrats, they're Trump supporters in disguise, they need to grow up, Bernie was never with us, Bernie needs to work with us, etc."
For me the biggest lol is when Secretary Clinton compares Sanders to herself in 2008, and by implication, Obama in 2008 to her. Wow!
I saw Obama's campaign, and Clinton's doesn't resemble it. To think Sanders supporters are in a movement that resembles hers in 2008 shows a disconnect with reality.