By Jim Miller
Whatever happens in today’s Iowa caucuses, one thing is abundantly clear—when confronted with a credible challenge from the left in the form of the Bernie Sanders, the response of much of the leadership of the Democratic Party and their allies in the corporate media has been to defend the status quo with great zeal even if it meant borrowing tropes from the right.
Whether it was red-baiting from Thomas Freidman or condescension mixed with an appeal to “realism” from Paul Krugman, the drumbeat was loud and consistent: Sanders’ agenda, with it’s direct ties to the legacies of Martin Luther King Jr. and FDR was simply an unrealistic option in the neoliberal era.
It doesn’t matter if it’s Clinton proxies stirring fears about taxes, terrorism, and government health care or commentators on CNN and MSNBC bloviating about how Sanders’ views are the progressive past to Clinton’s pragmatic future, the fix is in. After the last few months of the Democratic presidential campaign, it has never been more clear that Noam Chomsky’s critique of America’s political system being dominated by the “two wings of the business party” working in concert with a corporate propaganda machine is spot on.
More important than any of the specific issues involved, however, is the underlying ideological foundation of the anti-Sanders theme coming from the heart of the Democratic Party and the “liberal” media. By arguing that Sanders agenda is impossible in the current political landscape dominated by the political right, Sanders critics conceal their embrace of the current hegemony under the veil of pragmatism; they confuse naturalized ideology with reality and fence off the future, killing hope in the process.
In essence, what many anti-Sanders Democrats and corporate media pundits are saying is that any politics that fundamentally challenges the system that has created our historic level of inequality is not just impractical but also somehow dangerous. The same might be said of their rejection of Sanders’ bold stance with regard to climate change, healthcare, and education. From Nancy Pelosi to the Washington Post editorial page to Clinton herself, the response to Sanders’ ambitious proposals for profound climate action, single payer healthcare, and free college education for all has been a resounding, “no we can’t!”.
At base, the doublethink maneuver here is to suggest that it is not the current system’s inability to solve these catastrophic problems that is the looming threat but rather those who suggest that these problems might be solved by changing the system.
By serving as ideological policemen, these “critics” in what stands in for the opposition to the American right surrender the field to the right before the battle even begins—they decry Sanders “democratic socialism” as beyond the pale when, in fact, it is simply a rebirth of ideas that were quite mainstream during the New Deal era when, for example, tax rates on the rich were far higher and the notion that government might be able to achieve something big and bold was an acceptable proposition.
So, when put in historical perspective, there is nothing particularly radical about Sanders’ agenda. What IS historically noteworthy, however, is the extreme failure of the political imagination that his critics reveal.
In the Age of Acquiescence: The Life and Death of American Resistance to Organized Wealth and Power, David Fraser identifies the historical roots of this closing off of political possibility in the 1950s when the ideological seeds of the hard right where planted and any grand ideas about collective action became suspect.
Fraser chronicles what he calls “the long 19th century” of populist resistance to oligarchical forces in America and goes on to argue that what distinguishes this period from our own time is that from the era of the robber barons through the New Deal, the memory of a time before capitalism as we know it was alive in the culture whereas today most Americans no longer have any sense that there was or ever could be something other than our present system.
Key to this transition, Fraser argues, was the enshrinement of anti-communism at the heart of American politics during the McCarthy period: “A systematic ideological cleansing accelerated the tidal shift in the direction of the corporate commonwealth.”
And make no mistake it is the “corporate commonwealth” that the anti-Sanders chorus is defending against his call for a rebirth of thoroughgoing democracy that belongs to all of us.
The goal of the ideological assault on Sanders is to have us believe that the only acceptable terrain for political discourse is the neoliberal landscape that limits possibilities to what “the market” will allow. Thus, our unchecked oligarchy, ever-worsening climate crisis, and never-ending terror war need to be accepted as inevitable and unchangeable.
The humane folks on “our side” may only offer lip service and ineffective half measures but the barbarians on the right will surely put the pedal to the metal and drive us straight to hell faster than we can say Donald Trump!
So stop dreaming and be afraid America, be very afraid.
Abandon all hope ye who enter here .
Jim Miller
Latest posts by Jim Miller (see all)
- The San Diego Free Press Was a Gift - December 10, 2018
- Democracy Unchained: How to Win the Future - December 3, 2018
- Oligarchy Sucks: Billionaires Are Undermining Our Democracy and Killing the Planet - November 26, 2018
Are you the same person who railed long and hard that Nathan Fletcher would be the end of all Democratic politics when he ran for mayor as a Democrat and insisted that for the good of the entire city David Alvarez was the only one who could carry our water? What a joke that race turned out to be and Fletcher is still a good guy even after the loss. And now we have Faulconer doing the Rights business at every turn and there is no let up in sight. Lori Saldana is a credible candidate but with only a small chance to beat the establishment power in San Diego. And then you write this contrite article about Hillary Clinton as if she is Satan incarnate and has no business even running for president.I favor the person who has a realistic chance who can carry on the fight that Obama has generated, beat Trump, and continue the uphill battle with congress to keep the sanctimonious, self-righteous Republicans at bay. That is Clinton and she has my support if not yours. I do hope you will reconsider, after she wins the nomination, and throw all your weight wholeheartedly behind her rather than continue to beat the contrarian drums of sour grapes and ill tempered delusion as to what might have been, no matter how impossible and unachievable.
Hillary represents the status quo that the only way to stay in the same arena with the Republicans is to adopt their techniques and cater to Wall Street and the big money guys. Bernie Sanders has put the lie to this methodology. He has not gotten into bed with the billionaires and he’s shown how to be a viable candidate without doing so.
If the dynamics of shifting all the wealth and income to the upper 1% and exploding the inequality gap is to change, there needs to be a revolution in this country. Th revolution Bernie proposes is probably the one that is the gentlest and most considerate, one of revolution by making a few changes in the tax code from within the system. The alternative to that is violence outside the political system. Bernie’s revolution would leave the Constitution intact and bring the US into line with every other advanced industrial nation by tweaking the tax code and providing relief for student debtors, victims of Obamacare who have seen their medical and drug costs increasing due to flaws in Obamacare intentionally written into law by corporate interests Obama had to appease to get them to sign off on it. Cost containment is nonexistent in Obamacare.
Taxing the wealthy to make education affordable is perhaps the least violent way to address inequality. The billionaires, hedge funds and Wall Street are getting away with murder every day. And they pay a small price for the fraud they perpetrate. It’s just a cost of doing business.
Bernie has shown that a new style of campaigning is viable. Putting this country on a different track that will address the inequality gap will take an opponent to Wall Street not a Clinton who wants to play ball with them.
A decent article except the made up “fact” that Hillary Clinton wants to “play ball” with the wealthy and super powerful. Those wealthy folks do sway loads of influence and if THE President doesn’t work with them in some capacity to deflect the claptrap that comes from the Republican dominated congress then we are all in trouble from the bottom up. The only way to be effective is to include all parties in the conversation as Obama has done. To think that to do otherwise will work is naive at best and a disservice to the Democrats as well as one step lower than putting your head in the sand and hoping for a better outcome to ones plight. The “uber riche” will always be with us and to think WE can alienate them and then get our way is ignorant thinking and no way practical or reasonable. In a different world (bizarro) it might be plausible but not here on planet Earth.
I agree, John! We’re entering new territory now. The fight for the Progressive wing of the Democrats has never been more pronounced. That faction represents more of the American people than ever before. We are tired of the status quo that never quite trickles down to us. I supported President Obama and am proud of his accomplishments, but we need to fight on for the laws and rights that have been denied, either by a lack of votes or a lack of determination. I will not accept the current situation in Washington as being one that we need to continue. Current elected politicians dependence upon corporate money, lobbyist pressure, and lack of partisan agreement on things that matter to the people, not the party, are taking a toll on the well-being of the average citizen. I do not want more of the same! I do not want to accept the current “safe” guidelines for taxes, human rights, and healthcare. I want to push the limits in the time that I have to ensure that all inhabitants of our Country have an equal chance to the rights of clean, safe food and water, education, healthcare and all of this without the rights being jeprodized by politicians greed for money and power. I want change! I want a political revolution and right now the only one offering that to me is Bernie Sanders! We must start somewhere and soon!
I agree, Vi. Business as usual is government by lobbyists of, by and for the rich. They have set the rules which have increased income inequality. This needs to be changed. The uber wealthy need to be taken down a peg or two in order for the rest of us to have a chance at a decent life.
Business as usual will result in a society composed of two classes – the rich who will end up controlling everything and making all the laws which favor themselves and the poor who will be the servants of the rich – a neo-feudalist society.
Dana Levy has lurked around this site for a while.
And will continue to speak to truth as I see it. Jealous that you are not a lone voice crying in the wilderness? I hope to keep things in perspective and not just spout drivel and nonsense that won’t cut the mustard, as appears here from time to time.
Realpolitik (from German: real “realistic”, “practical”, or “actual”; and Politik “politics”, German pronunciation: [ʁeˈaːlpoliˌtɪk]) is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral or ethical premises.
Bernie’s biggest challenge now & especially if he’s nominated is to throw off the tar brush mantle of “socialist” that he has worn proudly but has never voted for. Bernie, in name at least, has accepted his opponents’ description of him while never really practicing what they say he preaches. Bernie is not a Socialist & he needs to make that clear because America will never vote for state owned enterprise & neither has Bernie. But millions of Americans either wrongly think he has or simply, equally wrong, believe that any government intervention to benefit the collective is “socialist.” Thus, the fruits of Republican anti-collective propaganda Bernie can no longer eat of the poisoned fruit, no matter how well it has nourished his political career.
You’ve obviously confused the term Democratic Socialism and Socialism. Bernie has always acknowledged he was a Democratic Socialist. The two have different intents. DS believes in the importance of the ballot box and fair elections. Most of the things we (you, too) enjoy on a daily basis are based on Socialism. To name a few….roads we drive upon, libraries, national parks, medicare, policemen, firemen…..All work for the people collectively. I believe Bernie, you, and me have voted for these things many times. Bernie’s biggest challenge is educating some voters on the meaning of something they have been practicing and didn’t know it!
Bernie’s political label on the ballot is “Socialist.” Repeating over & over that things we take for granted are “socialist” does not make them so. Bottom line is who owns the means of production? Refresh your Marxism. My only point is that Bernie continues to play into the hands of his opponents by trading on a despised ideology he wields as a brand.
Bernie Sanders is the political and economic HOPE we thought we were getting with Barack Obama. Hillary has never been interested in changing the system, only manipulating it differently…
Hillary’s campaign shifted quite successfully into attack mode on Bernie, and then began a letter-writing, tweeting campaign of her supporters who complained he’d initiated the attacks. ?! She grew back into her brittle, hectoring self until the campaign figured out that was too obviously calculated; she was losing points in the polling because of it.
Bernie and the breakaway movement he started face some heavy lifting against a “liberal” media. The NY Times ran for three days in a row, including today, its strange editorial endorsing Hillary but cut away the comments section — it was overwhelmingly positive toward Bernie. The WashPo editorial was even more embarrassingly unfair.
If, after all the “no he can’t” is decanted and Bernie finishes in Iowa with a strong showing — say within 5% against these nuclear attacks — the “no he can’t” recital will start to grow old and silly 9 months before the election. Wall Street will attempt to convert this embarrasment, maybe offer shares in Hillary and Bill.