Uncontrolled Bern Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Chris Cillizza↱ of the Washington Post offers a simplistic thesis: "Bernie Sanders started a political revolution. Now he can't stop it." File under, Duh. Bernie Sanders spoke to a large group of his supporters on Monday in Philadelphia. The crowd cheered as Sanders ran through all of the successes he and his self-professed "political revolution" had run up this year: the millions of votes he won, the reduction in superdelegates, the takeover of state parties by Sanders supporters. Then came time for the pivot. Sanders tried to tell the crowd that now was the time to line up behind Hillary Clinton and her running mate, Timothy M. Kaine. Boos cascaded down. Shouts of "no!" And then a Sanders chant started up. Sanders was at a loss. Here he was telling his most loyal supporters what needed to happen next in order to unify the party and beat Donald Trump. And they weren't listening. They wanted revolution. Now, not later. What was clear for anyone watching Sanders's unsuccessful attempts to calm the churning among his supporters is that the revolution he started is no longer one he can totally control. Or maybe even control at all. There is a temptation to dispute the thesis, though not specifically because it is wrong. Rather, it's not wrong per se, but, rather, at once incomplete yet headscratchingly obvious. Nobody controls their Revolution. And that's why this is an interesting question. Bernie Sanders already knows this; the question is how he views the proposition. To wit, does he actually not know? How can he not? Yet the wreck of hope is a scene played over and over in history; myriad fools believed through hubris of megalomania or sorcerous pretense that they alone could do what nobody else in human history might. That is, plenty have foundered on such rocks before. How does Bernie Sanders relate to his movement? 'Tis a terrible phrasing of the question, true, but at this point anything else comes down to abstraction: To what degree did which error cost how much? In a time when many still resent the mere insinuation of error, answers are even more difficult and volatile. Cillizza continues: This is the nature of centering a presidential campaign―or any campaign, really―on the absolute necessity of radical political change. Sanders, who has been working within the political system―albeit it on the outskirts―for decades, gets that at the end of a losing campaign, you line up behind the person who won. That's just how things work. But for many of his supporters who took the time to attend the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, that's not enough. They campaigned for him, voted for him, gave money to him and now have come to Philadelphia for him. They aren't ready to give up―and don't think they have to. "Bernie or Bust" T-shirts are everywhere. One woman interviewed by MSNBC insisted that the only way the problems surrounding the Democratic National Committee's email leak scandal could be solved is if Kaine was removed as VP and Sanders was installed. (Breaking news: That isn't going to happen!) To this end, we should consider―and Cillizza acknowledges―that "the vast majority of [Sanders supporters] tell pollsters they plan to vote for Clinton this fall". That would be ninety percent, as we are hearing. Yet there remain that ten percent, and as Phillip Bump↱ reports for the Washington Post― Among the weird scenes from the first day of the Democratic convention in Philadelphia is this one. A truck sponsored by the conspiracy-theory site Infowars toting a billboard reading "Hillary for Prison 2016" rolled up to some pro-Bernie Sanders protesters. Infowars doesn't fit neatly onto the political spectrum, but it's by no means liberal. The Sanders supporters, though, liked what they saw. ―they're still busy cheering Republican talking points. Bernie Sanders also recognizes this question: How much of his movement actually shared his principles, compared to how many of those people just wanted to be antisocial? Actually, if it really is ninety-ten, he seems to have done a damn fine job. But it's not actually ninety-ten, because some who will hold their noses will still revel in pretending to be a Republican. And it will be important to remember that market sector; in these market-driven days media seizes on these outcomes in hopes of raising artifice in order to draw audience and thus boost advert revenues. In this context we might be tempted to say that this vocal segment is Bernie's problem, but the truth is that they will either be all of our problem or not. It is also true, however, that Bernie Sanders did very little to quell the problematic aspects of the movement rallying to his name and call; indeed, on some occasions he managed to fan the flames. It makes for a compelling story: "Bernie Sanders started a political revolution. Now he can't stop it." The question remains whether it is true or not. After all, if Bernie Sanders is smart enough to recognize the rocks upon which such revolutions founder, then now does he navigate those waters? Bernie Sanders can't "stop" the revolution? He can't "control" it? What reason have we to presume that he ever intended to? Certes, that invites another question, but cynicism is as cynicism does, this is politics, and these are the United States of America. The idea of a politician stirring a movement to action without any particular care about what they do as long as they pay off toward the goal is hardly new. ____________________ Notes: Bump, Phillip. "90 percent of unwavering Sanders supporters plan to vote for Clinton in November". The Washington Post. 25 July 2016. WashingtonPost.com. 25 July 2016. http://wapo.st/2aqZ8n3 Cillizza, Chris. "Bernie Sanders started a political revolution. Now he can't stop it." The Washington Post. 25 July 2016. WashingtonPost.com. 25 July 2016. http://wapo.st/2aeHrWB
It really is 90/10. So after a few months of the koolaid crowd slandering every Sanders supporter with descriptions of them as cult figures and demagogue followers and people without any actual principles or agenda, but rather enamored of Sanders's persona, we now hear that the problem with them is that they are not sufficiently cult-besotten or persona enamored as they are supposed to be, instead remaining stubbornly wedded to some kind of agenda and principles independent of Sanders's candidacy and exhortations. How about this as a possibility: a good many were never under Sanders's "control" in the first place. They had principles, and an agenda, of their own, which he represented - thereby earning their support - which they are now attempting to further according to their judgment of how best to do that in the absence of representation. That is: They have a political stance. Is Clinton willing to represent them? If not, what exactly is her claim on their support?
Bernie is handling this perfectly. He completely supported Clinton and argues that electing her is a continuation of the revolution. That has credibility since he has negotiated with the party to make elements of his agenda a part of the official party platform. There is no doubt that he has had a HUUUUUUUGE influence on the party gestalt. I think Biden called it. The party just needs to be respectful and give the Bernie or Bust crowd time to accept Clinton. Many of these people are young and idealistic and haven't learned to accept that Rome isn't built in a day. You have keep pushing in the right direction for a lifetime. And as Biden commented, if someone who supported Bernie turns around and supports Trump, they never supported Bernie's platform in the first place. Some Bernie pundits estimate that up to 95% of Bernie supporters will support Clinton. He is expected to be the one who nominates Clinton as the party's candidate. PS. Bernie is an amazing guy. I don't agree with him on everything - I think he goes too far at times - but I am a HUUUUUUUUUGE fan.
Thrilling Adventure Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click for something a little calmer. Yes, it's definitvely 90/10 because Iceaura says so and doesn't need to account for anything other than how they vote. How about this as a possibility: Pay attention so that you're not saying stupid things like, "How about this as a possibility", while reciting what is already on the record. There is a temptation to dispute the thesis, though not specifically because it is wrong. Rather, it's not wrong per se, but, rather, at once incomplete yet headscratchingly obvious. Nobody controls their Revolution. And that's why this is an interesting question. Bernie Sanders already knows this; the question is how he views the proposition. To wit, does he actually not know? How can he not? Yet the wreck of hope is a scene played over and over in history; myriad fools believed through hubris of megalomania or sorcerous pretense that they alone could do what nobody else in human history might. That is, plenty have foundered on such rocks before. How does Bernie Sanders relate to his movement? 'Tis a terrible phrasing of the question, true, but at this point anything else comes down to abstraction: To what degree did which error cost how much? In a time when many still resent the mere insinuation of error, answers are even more difficult and volatile .... .... Bernie Sanders also recognizes this question: How much of his movement actually shared his principles, compared to how many of those people just wanted to be antisocial? It is not really so surprising, then, that the sum effect of your post is to miss the point. It makes for a compelling story: "Bernie Sanders started a political revolution. Now he can't stop it." The question remains whether it is true or not. After all, if Bernie Sanders is smart enough to recognize the rocks upon which such revolutions founder, then now does he navigate those waters? Bernie Sanders can't "stop" the revolution? He can't "control" it? What reason have we to presume that he ever intended to? When you skip out on the detail in favor of template noise, things like this can happen. As it is, you have merely restated a much more general version of what's already under consideration, with the effect of returning to a generally useless point of discussion. As I said, not surprising. However, it seems worth considering that― ―it is difficult to represent people who can't tell us what they want. To that end, her claim is the same as it ever was for Democrats: We can't come all the way to them, and they have nowhere else to go. One of the intriguing and seemingly influential questions looking forward is where, having come this far, it all goes next. So here's a question for someone in your position, of your perspective: What if that ninety percent simply works back into the fold? Here's the thing: As I noted in another of our discussions↗, an important question is if the Bern can form up and apply useful pressure in the sectors where Democrats and their millions of supporting voters traditionally compromise. You know, the Democratic supporters you've indicted as corrupt for having wilfully empowered the Establishment? What if that ninety percent just goes back to being part of that corrupt mass you hope to enlighten by indicting? We've said a lot through this campaign about how impressive the movement is; as I said, the numbers are encouraging, ought to be exciting, but the problem is the rhetoric. Because the Democratic civil rights platform in my lifetime has been a complicated affair; it is also the heart of the underlying bargain. They stand the line, they take what gains circumstance affords them, they lose an awful lot, and they take tough votes that hindsight makes clear they shouldn't have. And the whole time millions of voters have thrown in with that because they understand the stakes. Corporatism and moneyed influence is an important question; during my lifetime, it is only since the Bear Stearns Apocalypse that the underlying political marketplace ideology has swung so dramatically in our direction. It is true that all these raging indictments of corruption make perfect sense, and work just fine for me, if I pretend that voter attitudes were always like they are today. To wit, the great Democratic forfeiture on economics; Clinton's concession to the Reagan economy really looks like a bad idea, these days. And, yeah, it always was. But it's also what voters wanted. As I said, Jackson won on points but Bill Clinton won on votes (1↗, 2↗, 3↗). To the one, you need to start recognizing history. To the other, yes, indeed, the paths and purposes of economy and finance are, in my lifetime, considerations in which liberalism has had very little political clout; it is very easy for a Democrat to justify tough votes about a lot of these issues. There is a reason, for instance, that DLC-era Democrats backed international trade partnerships; and it's one thing to suggest the craven politics of staying in office, but there is also a reasonable question of what would have happened if a significant number of those Democrats lost. To wit, I loathe the Blue Dogs, yet recognize they exist, need their votes, and while I'm not heartbroken for principle to have seen them shattered in 2010, I really would rather have them in Congress than their hyperconservative Republican replacements. And there are millions of Democratic voters who get this and do their part to hold the line. To you, it seems, they are all willing participants in corruption. Because we're getting a civil rights president out of this. That's good news. The tougher prospect is whether or not the People in general, more particularly Democratic supporters, and in our consideration specifically the Bern, can apply useful pressure in the sectors where Democrats and their millions of supporting voters traditionally compromise. And here we come to the question of the ninety and the ten. Is this movement capable of forming up, exercising reasonable political discipline, and learning how to make a proper policy argument? One of the potential prospects is what happens if enough people in the movement, ranging between many and most, just aren't interested, can't be bothered, or whatever the hell other apathy normally seizes American politics? And all of this you're simply dodging for the sake of glib sloth. Look, in re the Bern not only is the question of what next fascinating, it is also extraordinarily important; I'm not certain what you would hope to gain by warding off the consideration.
Iceaura is quoting the most conservative of the polls - that is, the data. What were you doing? You apparently needed the instruction. Aren't you reading what you type? I am. Your rhetoric. The koolaid rhetoric. Is a problem. Yes. But not the biggest problem. The insular and deluded nature of the Clinton brain trust that it symptomizes is a bigger one. We're faced with the possibility that these people believe their own blather, and will talk and act accordingly - welcome President Trump. Not your point, which was to slander people by misrepresenting them. I objected to your slandering and misrepresenting Bernie supporters, for all the world in apparent defense of your weird delusions re Clinton. That's actual lying, now. Your bar keeps lowering. It wasn't "a concession", it was multiple implementations of his agenda, his doing. And it wasn't what "the voters wanted", unless you both count in all voters actively misled by that same Clinton, and ignore the great numbers of better informed voters who strongly objected to Clinton's agenda - even, and perhaps especially, those coerced into voting for him by the prospect of greater evil on the ballot. A familiar situation where Clintons are concerned, no? Sure about that? Compared with whom? Look at the record - Homeland Security, say. NSA. And that's if Clinton even wins, which the koolaid crowd is showing every sign of making increasingly less likely. You're deaf? Or lying again. And nobody in my crowd is looking to the koolaid crowd for representation - the best I'm hoping for is that they can be nudged or levered somehow into not shooting the Clinton candidacy in the foot. Because this mediocre rightwing authoritarian is the only thing between Trump and the White House. Keep deflecting, keep lying, keep slandering the people whose backing you need, and see where it gets you and the koolaid crowd. If it isn't President Trump, the credit will belong with sheer good luck. And as predicted, by me right here months ago and many others who declined the koolaid many years ago, you and yours will blame everybody but yourselves, and in particular you will blame Bernie supporters and other Clinton critics - the messengers, for the message.
Tomorrow: The Berning Promise Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! John Opdycke↱, of Open Primaries, for The Hill: Bernie Sanders had a great run. He exceeded every expectation, mobilized millions, and changed the political conversation. He made the word revolution fashionable again. Now he’s focused on getting Hillary Clinton elected and forming a new grassroots organization, Our Revolution. My question for Bernie is an ontological one: “Is this a “what” revolution or a “how” revolution?” How he answers it has everything to do with whether Bernie 2.0 orients towards remaking the Democratic Party or towards partnering with diverse Americans to remake the country. Big difference. The primary contest is over; the nomination is settled. Bernie Sanders has undertaken the ritual calls for unity within the Democratic Party, and now the Movement itself looks forward. So day by day we continue down life's path toward tomorrow. Now, say it again: We could change the world with only those footprints left behind. ―Nishikawa Takanori↱____________________ Notes: Opdycke, John. "Bernie, you say you want a revolution, but whose?". The Hill. 3 August 2016. TheHill.com. 3 August 2016. http://bit.ly/2aB948Q
Something of an Answer: And Then It Was ... What? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! History teacher and co-founder of Long Island for Bernie Sanders, Ron Widelec↱, for The Hill: When Bernie endorsed Hillary Clinton, many felt betrayed, but most were understanding of his choice and resolved to carry on the political revolution in other ways. If Our Revolution is the next step in the 'revolution', than the word revolution has no meaning. This is not change; it is more of the same. The media has covered the launch of Our Revolution and chosen to focus on internal strife between the new President, Jeff Weaver, and some of the younger staffers who walked out. The real story, quite frankly, is that there is no revolution. The conversation may have shifted a bit, but Democratic politics as usual will continue. Those of us seeking to remain organized and active will have to do so on our own. Our revolution has ended before it even began ... and it went out with a whimper, rather than a bang. It's not that I would withhold sympathy for any pretense of enmity; it's just that there really isn't anything I can say to make it feel any better, or ... I don't know, less worse. And it's true, there's a part of me that wants to say, "Don't smart. Be smart." That is, sure, you know, we get the need to punctuate with a dramatic flair, but, really? So Bernie isn't thrilling you, anymore, so the Revolution's over? Honestly, I got nothin' to help for that. Actually, yeah, I do: So Bernie isn't thrilling you? Well, now your Revolution is even more unchained than it was, before. Top-down revolutions don't work. Revolutions should never be about their leaders. I shouldn't have to remind these points to a revolutionary. To the other, I wonder how this contrasts with the revolution Bernie can't control↑? Still, though, yeah. Launch could have gone better, from what I hear. ____________________ Notes: Widelec, Ron. "Open letter to Our Revolution from a Bernie-crat". The Hill. 26 August 2016. TheHill.com. 27 August 2016. http://bit.ly/2brSg3F
