By Frank Thomas
I’ve always thought it would be nearly impossible for Bernie to ultimately win over the establishment status-quo Democratic forces so typically fearful of genuine progressive change … so caught up in an incremental rear guard progress and presidential nomination campaign that is manipulatively, simplistically characterized as one of ‘idealism’ versus ‘realism.‘ So, the message in short seems to be, vote for the candidate of “lowered expectations.”
Rule by American Dynasty appears to be sinking deeper into our oligarchical democracy led by the anointed-to-be queen, Hillary … empowered by a pervasive political network built up during Bill’s presidency and her time as an NY senator and Secretary of State; helped by the corruption of ‘Big Money,’ a plutocratic biased media, the premature, nefarious endorsements of 500 superdelegates BEFORE the nomination campaign began.
The NY closed primary and voter purge pushed aside a TIDE of independents –125,000 in Brooklyn alone –one of NYC’s 5 boroughs –were taken off the rolls. Those, no doubt, would have voted for Bernie in high percentages. Nearly all upstate NY went to Bernie. Hillary won Wall Street and the greater metropolitan area where the rich, bankers, traders and top 5% live. Inequality becomes acute when the rules and opportunities apply differently to different people. When the system is gamed and manipulated by the few to their own advantage, social commonality is destroyed. Result? A society perilously divided and not at peace with itself.
Bernie’s honesty and originality on policies needed to regain our democracy, to redress working class inequality and to ensure working class progress have changed the public debate. His popularity has soared. And he has set a new political tone supported by millions. Policy-wise, that seems to have brought Hillary away from her ignominious, enriching right of center special-interest loyalties to a foot left of center. She’s coming around to Bernie’s version of almost everything. Whether she sticks to that path without timidly compromising is another question. I like how Bernie comes up with things that never were or are difficult, and asks, why not? Hillary looks at things and says, why?
Recently, she came closer to embracing Bernie’s $15/hour minimum wage, though as usual with caveats. Unfortunately, she wants to set limits on fracking (e.g., methane release and chemical pollution of water). She has been working to export fracking technology. Bernie wants no fracking at all. Could it be those high-priced speeches to the oil and other industries (e.g., pharmaceutical) are affecting her judgment? Hillary continues to hold our health care system captive of the super-pricey private insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
Hillary will defeat Donald handily – as would Bernie if nominated – especially when Bernie’s supporters get behind her. Trump’s resurgent supporters are similarly fed up with our nation’s corrupt, polarized, do-nothing-constructive on what the-people-want politics. The political establishment on both ideological sides has been ‘burned’ by angry voters empowered by Sanders and Trump. This is a whole new political world that requires new approaches on serious problems.
Hopefully, folks on both sides of the political establishment who have either ignored or orchestrated and directed the impoverishment of the middle/poorer classes will feel compelled to work together for the common good for a change.
Paul Krugman and Tom Hayden are among the late-in-the-game ‘enlightened’ ones belittling Sanders for his supposedly ‘unrealistic’ programs and ‘lack of specifics’ on how to achieve them. For them, moderate repair to systemically broken parts of our political-economic systems seems safer. That’s simply not true. That approach has been the root cause of our systemically broken political-economic- social systems (and Hillary’s major failures. See: “Is Hillary Clinton Qualified,” by Robert Parry, April 8, 2016).
Between 1991-2013, GDP increased significantly. But real U.S. incomes across the educational range stagnated. So where did the money go? The money went to CEOs and the top 5%. As someone noted, “We now live in a world of elite winners and vast numbers of precariously employed workers.”
Contrary to what Krugman and Hayden are saying, Bernie is a man of details as well as vision. He has a deep grasp of the issues and a 40 year legislative legacy as the “Amendment King,” always standing up for the working class and poor. He’s a quintessential example of the golden precept that public servants serve the public. Among their duties is to protect ‘the people’ from private forces that seek profit or advantage by exploitation of people and the commons we all rely on.
Similar bashing of Bernie comes from the right-wing surrogates of Hillary who chastise Bernie as a man promising the moon without specifying how to get there. These superfluous ad hominem attacks don’t come close to the scale of vile critique of Hillary’s personal and professional flaws – e.g., her inveterate trait of playing with the truth, of cleverly twisting things with words for opportunistic expediency. People think Bernie is the better candidate for following reasons that establishment Democrats, media, and pundits are labeling as fantasies, idealistic, messianic, impracticable, naive, immature, impressionable and mindless:
- highly consistent and dependable 40-year political track record as a legislator, demonstrating impeccable honesty and transparency
better judgment and greater electability against people like Trump or Cruz - raising minimum wage to $15/hour (vs. Hillary’s $12/hour), offering free public college/university tuition and sharply cutting student loan interest rate
- incorporating Obamacare step-by-step into Medicare for all
- spending a trillion dollars on infrastructure and pre-college education
- ending subsidies to fossil fuel industry
- reforming trade agreements and reversing the Citizen’s United decision
- reviving manufacturing and supporting unions
- setting higher taxes on the wealthy estates, imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on financial speculation.
- using above progressive ideas to shift the structure of the economy back to regenerating the disappearing middle class and toward reducing the expanding poor class. Working class Americans have seen their standard of living decimated by 30 years of supply side economics, job killing free trade pacts, exodus of manufacturing, outsourcing of jobs, tax cuts for the rich, tax avoidance paradises for corporations, threats to Social Security and health care, deregulation of finance.
Most of what is said about Bernie’s vagueness or capability to implement his policies is a combination of subjective, biased generalizations and some obvious tall tales … which, when repeated enough, typically become gospel in American politics. Very few of Bernie’s supporters, including Bernie himself, see him as the political “messiah.” From the start, Bernie has consistently been saying he needs the public involvement and massive turnout to apply political pressure to legislation, as does Hillary. Democratic control of Congress or at least the Senate is essential for both Bernie and Hillary.
Bernie is inspiring the public conversation and movement while Hillary is controlling the delegates. The grassroots working class movement fermented by Bernie is his unique initiative, not Hillary’s. This is the “political revolution” Bernie has so passionately forged, attracting huge numbers of enthusiastic voters in age groups below 30 and 30-45. He knows full well it’s a marathon uphill battle against the political establishment’s business-as-usual paradigm that has been step-by-step undermining the security and social-economic quality of life for working people for decades. Win or lose, I don’t think Bernie’s progressive movement will die out as some cynically say.
As is the culture of American politics, nonsense and lies become acceptable when repeated enough especially by people of exceptional minds like Paul Krugman. Bernie is quite aware that institutional interventions in the market – such as bluntly addressing income inequality and equal opportunity – come at a cost. But government interventions and incentives will also come at a net gain long term. They will raise money by inspiring more people to work harder, by creating more and fairer opportunities, and by spurring direct societal investment.
Whatever happens, Bernie has forced the economic profession and everybody else to take the systemic breakdowns seriously. The system is corrupt to the core, and Hillary, unlike Bernie, is part and parcel of the anti-democracy Big Money poisoned politics. Hillary is now getting on a “Bernie-lite” policy bandwagon. Her challenge is to break a plethora of historical evidence of allying with and voting for corporate and special interests on fundamental issues.
Bernie’s revival of democratic socialism runs deeply through the fabric of American life and government … in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Henry Wallace, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, LBJ, JFK and, yes, Jimmy Carter. For Bernie supporters, his policy program is the much needed “Real New Deal” for our broken nation. It’s a grassroots movement that has potential over the long term to vitally transform severe imbalances in our socio-economic system.
I hope Democratic Californians will drive this message home to the likely ultimate winner, Hillary, by strongly supporting Bernie’s nomination. As noted, Bernie is controlling the public conversation while Hillary is controlling the delegates. He may not be nominated, but many of his ideas supported by almost 50% of the Democrat-Independent voting public should be acted upon by Hillary or she will certainly be a one term president.
Hillary is compromised by her long-time patronizing addiction to rich money interests. Between 2013-2015, Hillary made 12 speeches to Wall Street bankers, private equity firms, and other financial corporations. She recently received $675,000 for three speeches to Goldman Sachs and subsequently refused to release the transcripts. During her Secretary of State term, Bill made $17 million with speeches to similar business groups. Since 2008, both have made ±$139 million in speeches largely to Wall Street interests, e.g., banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, real estate firms, companies and other financial groups. Bernie is not compromised by special interests and their lobbyists. His integrity has always been unassailable.
One HUGE concern is Hillary’s War Goddess temperament. She has never seen a war, regime change intervention, or weapons systems she couldn’t justify. Her imperial world view and bloodthirsty proclivity are well documented in Diana Johnstone’s book, Queen of Chaos, The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton. She documents in detail how Hillary has carefully groomed herself for the role of woman ‘war’ president.
From Asia to Latin America, her record as the ultimate foreign policy neocon “has been scrutinized to oblivion,” namely, for her support of the contras in Nicaragua; support of NATO’s bombing of the former Yugoslavia; support for 2003 ‘Shock and Awe’ invasion of Iraq (which Bernie was against); support for Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan; then, as Secretary of State, support of war turning Libya into a military hell; support of 2009 coup in Honduras; support for regime change in Syria via Salifi Jihadis; recent Hawkish speeches for more intervention in Iraq and Syria.
Hillary may be “packaged” as a progressive but she’s the ultimate neocon – a foreign policy HAWK with an affinity for military adventures and regime change. As President, she will have the power to plunge us into a nuclear Armageddon. Her historical hawkishness comes at a time when America’s epoch of global dominance is nearing an end. She had better adapt more peacefully to the new world situation … meaning a strong military defense but avoidance of foreign military engagements or provocation, unless absolutely essential. This means understanding when and when not to use armed force. In Johnstone’s words, a repeat of Hillary’s Iraq and Libya war blindness and willingness could result in the worst human disaster ever experienced.
Bernie has rightly said we must recognize the ‘realism’ of our disastrous Middle East policies, the long-term chaos implanted on that region and the new threats now reaching out to Europe. Bernie is against unilateral military interventions abroad aimed at regime change. Going to war should be the last resort. The U.S. should take a supporting role, not a leading role in such interventions. This means a tougher approach with Arab allies. Ted Cruz’s vow “to carpet bomb” ISIS jihadis is the archetype reckless overseas military insanity.
As Bernie says, there’s a lesson that must be learned from the massive instability and human tragedies emanating from regime change adventures by aggressive military means in countries like Iraq, Libya and Syria. In his view, this calls for a very critical reassessment of Pentagon budgets, priorities and accountability. Our long ongoing war-mongering culture now costs over $750 billion annually or half of all budgeted discretionary spending and half what the rest of the world spends on defense. This continues to accelerate our national debt while bleeding our Federal Treasury of $trillions in funds critically needed to repair obsolete infrastructure and educational systems.
In sum, I close with some wise words from Diana Johnstone in her book, Queen of Chaos, The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton: “Let us hope that the first woman president will be distinguished by a profound understanding of the world and genuine compassion, rather than relentless ambition.”
_____________________
Frank Thomas is a graduate of Bowdoin and Dartmouth Colleges. He was a management consultant for Dutch international shipbuilding and offshore oil & gas contracting firms as well as a lecturer/trainer for Dutch firms and government ministries until his retirement. In recent years, he has been a researcher and writer on grave national and world issues, such as the science of global warming.
John Lawrence says
Frank, great article as usual. It seems the Presidential election will be a contest between anti-establishment southern whites who will vote for Trump and anti-establishment northerners, coasters and minorities who will vote for Hillary. Many of the latter will be wishing they could vote for Bernie. As usual it will be north vs south.
tj says
no spin zone:
a vote for continuing the self-serving, republican-esque, 1%er pandering – clinton dynasty redux – is anything but ‘anti-establishment.’
Bernie & Trump have far more in common than Bernie & hillary.
no one who wants change from the status quo mess that is washington politics – can HONESTLY claim that hillary would in ANY way provide relief from said mess.
word.
michael-leonard says
“Bernie & Trump have far more in common than Bernie & hillary.”
That’s a very myopic way to look at the candidates, tj. And, btw, why are the men’s names Capitalized but not Hillary’s?
tj says
cruz, kasich, bush, obama.
tj
Bill Adams says
Yep, you nailed it. I dread a general election race between Clinton and Trump (or Cruz), in which Clinton will get to debate strawmen and unrealistic positions, with no pressure to change the olig-capitalistic and militaristic status quo. The only substantive policy debate has been during the Democratic primary Sanders and Clinton, with the establishment doing everything possible to ensure Clinton’s coronation – reminiscent of one party system. The pressure to maintain a two party system by attacking every progressive third party candidate as aiding the Republican candidate has helped to keep the 1% entrenched and the poor exploited and suppressed.
Frank Thomas says
ADDENDUM:
It can’t be emphasized enough that the political spectrum and systemic democratic breakdowns we now have are UNIQUE. For the first time, perhaps ever, BOTH party presidential candidates – the “political revolutionary” and social democrat, Sanders, who wants to wrest power from the privileged; and the “authoritarian, narcissistic business strongman,” Trump, who wants to ‘make America great again’ – are saying that things are very wrong in this country. And they can only be righted by a dramatic paradigm shift away from the corrupt oligarchic and failed management processes controlling U.S. government policy concerning wars, climate change, infrastructure/education systems, gross income and opportunity inequality, racism.
For the first time, BOTH party presidential candidates are giving voice to: a deep societal aversion and alienation; a penetrating uncertainty in a world of rapid change; unending socioeconomic apprehensions and struggles of marginalized middle and poorer classes; fear about the future, a belief our nation’s polarized, money-corrupted governing and election systems can do nothing meaningful about it. Democrat AND Republican insurgent groups of some truly significant numbers feel tightly squeezed by the economic realities of 21st century American capitalism and completely disengaged from a broken political system.
That the U.S. is an oligarchy, led by a small dominant class made up of powerful members, and no longer a democracy is detailed quantitatively in a 2014 joint-study by Martin Gilens, Prof. of Politics at Princeton University and Benjamin I. Page, Prof. of Decision Making at Northwestern University.
In their study, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups and Average Citizens,” the researchers compared 1,800 different U.S. polices implemented by politicians over two decades to the type of policies preferred by the average and wealthy American, or special interest groups.
The researchers concluded that the ability of “average citizens” to shape policy outcomes on contested issues, the ability to shape the agenda of issues that policy makers consider, the ability to shape the public’s preferences or influence on policy making is near-ZERO. In the U.S. the majority does not rule in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. On the contrary, U.S. policies are formed more by special interest groups than by politicians properly representing the will of the general people.
In the researchers’ words:
“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little to no independent influence. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose.”
The researchers’ work – as it relates to equitable social-economic-political choice in America – provides substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but NOT for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
Here are concluding disturbing words of the researchers:
“Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policy making is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s dreams to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.”
Above means the 45th American president should be someone who really understands the profound human anxieties afflicting both sides of the U.S. political spectrum today … someone who is not a conventional, centrist, incremental, do-nothing status-quo proponent … in short, someone with a vision matching the magnitude of the 21st century enormous challenge to refocus government policy on the common good, the values, interests and needs of ordinary people.
Paul Keleher says
Don’t the checks and balances in the US Constitution force gradual, incremental change, for better or for worse?
Frank Thomas says
Paul,
Yes, unfortunately mostly for Worse in last decades, poisoned by ‘Big Money.’
Paul Keleher says
I agree, and hope the “wheels of change” in this country do not turn too slowly for the needed changes to come into being before it’s too late.
The particular battle I’ve been fighting on this front (to get big money out of politics via a states-lead amendments convention as permitted by Article V of the US Constitution) will be a long, protracted struggle. As I go around MA talking to regular folk and their state reps, I find that many people seem to have given up on rescuing the democratic process here. It’s very discouraging.
When will a critical mass understand that the economic system of a country (any country) is intimately tied to its political system. Here, 200 years of so-called democracy in an economy driven by fee-market capitalism has gotten us to the brink of disaster. Bernie articulates the situation beautifully, but his support appear not to have reached the critical mass yet. But even if he is elected, which now appears unlikely unfortunately, I wonder how much good he can accomplish without a constitutional amendment that speaks to the morality of money in politics.
Frank Thomas says
Paul,
A new Harvard Institute of Politics’ survey shows that Bernie, win or lose, is changing the face of American politics. Polling director John Volpe told the Washington Post last Monday that the Senator from Vermont is making a lasting impact. “He’s not moving a party to the left. he’s moving a generation to the left.” (see: Washington Journal John Della Volpe Millennials’|Video)
“Whether or not Bernie’s winning or losing, it’s really that he’s impacting the way in which a generation – millennials between the ages of 18-29 and the largest generation in the history of America, 54% of whom view Bernie very favorably (vs. 37% for Hillary) – thinks about politics.” And people change parties only rarely after about age 30, researchers have found.
The Harvard survey also shows that the preference for democratic control of the White doubled, with two-thirds saying they want a Democrat to win the 2016 election. In Volpe’s words, “There is no question that a significant part of the electorate Bernie has woken up is organizing.”
Frank Thomas says
correction … of the White House doubled,
Paul Keleher says
Yes Frank, these facts do indicate that the direction of the wind is once again changing. The news today is beginning to be reminiscent of the 60s…violent protests in Seattle yesterday, and today (unlike the 60s) terrorism is a fact of life as well.
But they do not change the overriding fact that without a constitutional amendment it will be impossible to create the “sea-change” that is needed to change the direction of this country by re-defining the role of money in politics (and hopefully, eventually in society as a whole). There are 27 existing amendments to the US Constitution and none of them speak to the morality of money in politics. None. I find that incredible, and believe it’s long past time that the Constitution addressed the morality of money in politics. Until such a sea-change occurs, the rich will get richer while the poor will get poorer. There will be no real change. Only tiny incremental change, like the kind Hillary talks about… too little, too late, I’m afraid. Bernie is talking about the change we need, but not enough people “get it” yet.
bob dorn says
Bernie could well bring to the Democratic Party convention a tough plank in the party’s platform against the Citizens’ United decision, either that the party will fight for outright repeal or will insist on Congressional passage of a transparency law on who’s giving how much to whom. I can’t see how any Democrat could oppose that plank, which would be an endorsement of that strange Supreme Court ruling and still remain a delegate or a member of the party. Time to ask them all to do something about poverty, children and homelessness, too. We have a right to know who’s who.
Frank Thomas says
Paul,
Beautifully stated, my good man. Stay with your mission!
Hopefully, Hillary will take distance from her neo-liberal rich money circles and come down to earth where the middle and lower classes are getting hollowed out.
Next to the threat of climate change, runaway income and opportunity inequality and Wall Street looting are decimating the quality-of-life of average Americans.
James Madison is reputed to have presciently said:
“We are free today substantially, but the day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility. It will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. When that day comes, when the wealth of the nation will be in the hands of a few, then we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation to the changed conditions.”
Paul Keleher says
Yes, hopefully Hillary will do that, but I wouldn’t count on it! Every politician knows you don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
The quote you attributed to James Madison is spot-on. He predicted the future, which is today, did he not? It would be great to be able to definitely attribute these word to him as state legislators, at least those I’ve met with (tomorrow I meet with the Speaker Pro Tempore of the MA House), tend to pay credence to the words of the Founding Fathers. And this one give each legislator an opportunity to be one of the “best elements in the country.” A chance to be great! Boy, do they love that.
John Lawrence says
I agree that not only is Bernie moving the Democratic Party to the left, he’s moving a whole generation to the left. He needs to stay in the race all the way to the convention and beyond in order to reinforce his message. The beauty of his approach is that he’s offering young people some meat and potatoes along with theory: free college tuition. Without that caveat, the millennials would probably be saying “Ho Hum.”
Paul Keleher says
We all agree: Bernie is trying to move the country in the direction we favor, and he has the younger generation (and perhaps more of us older folks than he realizes…he’s an old-timer himself I imagine) with him! But he will certainly need at least one amendment to the Constitution to back him up.I’m working on that… an Article V convention to get money out of politics, finally! …and hopefully to redefine the role of money in Amerika.