Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumDemocrats Against Democracy, Self-Styled Progressives Against Progress
[font color="FireBrick"size="5"face="times new roman"]If it were the case that money had no influence on politicians, Frank once observed, "wed be the only human beings in the history of the world who on a regular basis took significant amounts of money from perfect strangers and made sure that it had no effect on our behavior."
In other words, when a candidate insists that they are not influenced by corporate cash, they are peddling nonsense.[/font]
In an effort to win elections, Democrats abandoned their working class base in favor the professional class and the riches of corporate sponsorship and, as a consequence, they have adopted swaths of the Republican agenda to appease, and prove themselves worthy of, this new, and far wealthier, base of support.
The Democratic Party is now, in short, doing out in the open what it has done behind the scenes for years: Shedding principled positions in favor of so-called pragmatic alternatives.
Democrats have abandoned democracy because it's inconvenient; self-styled progressives have abandoned progress because it's impractical.
---
While Democratic leaders present their party as one of openness, inclusion, and free thought, their attitudes toward independents those who pay no allegiance to either major political party are often condescending, scornful, and dismissive, revealing their distaste for those who don't walk the party line.
This distaste has gradually emerged throughout the primary process, as Democrats have chided Bernie Sanders for not rising to the standards set by "real Democrats" as if this were a scathing insult rather than a compliment.
And, needless to say, this hostility is often reserved for independents on the left, those who attempt to push the Democrats toward social democracy and away from the neoliberal consensus that has worsened deep poverty and inequality while providing the framework within which the wealthy can pursue their ambitions unhindered by countervailing powers.
Sanders has angered Democrats by pointing repeatedly to these trends and refusing to "tone it down" refusing, in other words, to walk back principled positions to salvage "party unity."
Another accomplishment of the Sanders campaign is that he has adjusted expectations upward, against the downward pressure exerted by Democrats espousing a philosophical approach to change that Matt Karp terms "fortress liberalism," an approach that, while shrouded in the garb of pragmatism, acts to "disguise what is effectively a right-wing retrenchment."
Because of these self-imposed blinders, establishment Democrats have, as Matt Taibbi puts it, viewed the movement Sanders has sparked not "as an honest effort to restore power to voters," but as an oddity to be dismissed.
"If the party threw its weight behind a truly populist platform," Taibbi argues, "if it stood behind unions and prosecuted Wall Street criminals and stopped taking giant gobs of cash from every crooked transnational bank and job-exporting manufacturer in the world, they would win every election season in a landslide."
Instead, they have chosen the path of comfort and opulence the path that flows nicely through corporate boardrooms and luxury galas and around the suffering of the millions the party has so flippantly abandoned.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/06/13/democrats-against-democracy-self-styled-progressives-against-progress
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)I saw a Clintonite call Progressives a dangerous cult online..
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)appalachiablue
(41,172 posts)Thanks for this great 'Common Dreams' article by Jake Johnson, "Democrats Against Democracy, Self-Styled Progressives Against Progress", June 13, 2016.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)"If the party threw its weight behind a truly populist platform," Taibbi argues, "if it stood behind unions and prosecuted Wall Street criminals and stopped taking giant gobs of cash from every crooked transnational bank and job-exporting manufacturer in the world, they would win every election season in a landslide."
blackspade
(10,056 posts)jalan48
(13,886 posts)Like many people, it's all about him I would guess.
merrily
(45,251 posts)jalan48
(13,886 posts)He has no interest in changing the political system. Like Hillary, he thinks he's a Progressive. I've realized many here on DU feel exactly the same way. It's useless arguing with them, they believe in corporate rule without being aware of it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Maybe you meant Frank got all he wanted out of holding office himself? I'm not sure he did. However, the Republicans re-districted him and he didn't think he should have to start over with a new district. Or so he said. Maybe he didn't think he could win?
As far as the word "progressive," I never describe myself that way. In fact, I pretty much try to steer clear of the word, except when I am discussing it as a word, as I am right now.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/127710158
https://www.google.com/search?q=progressive+is+a+meaningless+term&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
jalan48
(13,886 posts)If someone asks me now what my political affiliation is, I say Progressive or Progressive Democrat. I think Barney was always a corporate shill, that or he decided to go for the big bucks later in his career. Hillary and Bill have made tens of millions of dollars giving speeches to Wall Street and big banks after they left office. Barney seems like the same kind of person.
merrily
(45,251 posts)people assume it is a synonym or near-synonym for "liberal," but it isn't. New Democrats use it to describe themselves and their politics all the time.
jalan48
(13,886 posts)You make a good point about the meaningless of the term liberal in today's political environment.
merrily
(45,251 posts)KPN
(15,650 posts)Money corrupts.
Don't let anyone ever tell you/us otherwise, especially Party leaders.
Thanks much for posting this article.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)now you could work within the establishment as much as you wanted and show the critics you were both staying as radical as ever and getting things done
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/lanny-davis-puts-dems-to_b_804534.html
Im a liberal Democrat. Ive been a liberal Democrat all my life. I havent changed my values. But what am I supposed to do if the leader of a country comes to me and says he wants to get right with the world, and get right with the United States? Am I supposed to say no, and let him go on doing what hes doing?
by helping Gbagbo, Obiang Nguema, or Micheletti he's avoiding bloodshed, you see!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/31/world/31davis.html
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)ago. With her and Ryan in charge, the party's connection with labor unions, poor people, working poor, environmentalists, death penalty opponents, those who believe healthcare is a right, and anti war activists will be severed for good. And meanwhile the du conservatives will either cheer or offer ridiculous excuses. This is the end result when people have no principles, and get their opinions from politicians. Such people are called authoritarians. They used to be almost exclusively republicans, but have now contaminated my party to the point where it's almost dead and basically useless.