Home | About | Donate

It's the Political and Economic Establishment, Stupid


It's the Political and Economic Establishment, Stupid

Donna Smith

So, the most recent tactic is to attack Bernie Sanders' platform as a one-issue campaign in a multi-issue nation. Well, that's an interesting argument given one of the most powerful messages from the recent political past that claimed boldly, "It's the economy, stupid." The argument was offered by political strategist James Carville in 1992 during Bill Clinton's campaign for the White House.


Truth is no friend of either the MSM or its primary pundits.

Heck, they lied the nation into war and there was no recrimination, neither fearless moral inventory taken that would lead to a "go and sin no more" course correction.

They lie in asserting that the economy was fixed under Obama. (sure.)

They lie about global warming thanks to generous contributions from the Koch Brothers and their labyrinth of paid think tanks and assorted message shapers.

They even put Prices on the heads of really inconvenient Truth Tellers like Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, etc.

So it's not surprising to see this same group LIE about Bernie Sanders by attempting to define him as a one-trick pony.

Thank you for setting the record straight, Mrs. Smith.

This bears repeating:

"Here's the list of issues I heard Bernie Sanders address at the Denver Convention Center on Saturday night: crumbling infrastructure, climate change, youth unemployment, mass incarceration, Medicare for all healthcare, campaign finance reform, tuition-free public education grades K-16, Social Security, poverty, income inequality, income equity, a woman's right to control her own body, and more. Was there one single thread running through his firebrand speech? Of course. And that single thread is the tie that binds people to Bernie's campaign. Enough is enough."


And yet Sanders stops short of social revolution in his call for political revolution (within the broken system).

“My Power to the People Plan creates deep system change, moving from the greed and exploitation of corporate capitalism to a human-centered economy that puts people, planet and peace over profit. It offers direct answers to the economic, social, and ecological crises brought on by both corporate political parties. And it empowers the American people to fix our broken political system and make real the promise of democracy This plan will end unemployment and poverty; avert climate catastrophe; build a sustainable, just economy; and recognize the dignity and human rights of everyone in our society and our world. The power to create this new world is not in our hopes, it’s not in our dreams - it’s in our hands.” ... "A Green New Deal, Jobs as a Right, End Poverty, Health Care as a Right, Education as a Right, A Just Economy, Protect Mother Earth, Freedom and Equality, Justice for All, Peace and Human Rights, Empower the People," etc.-- http://www.jill2016.com/plan/


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Wonderful. Love the part about Abraham Lincoln. Oh, and BTW, Donna, it's "Yuuuuge"! :wink:


My headline:



Large crowds fill major arenas nationally to hear a statesman who espouses humanitarian and egalitarian politics.

Like Gandhi in India, Bernie makes inroads into US consciousness to employ our better angels in support of democracy and government that cares.

Like Donna Smith, I haven't witnessed this enthusiasm for any other candidate. RFK until his assassination comes the closest.


Although he didn't elicit this kind of excitement, George McGovern was a favorite of mine as a very young man. I recall putting out lawn signs, they were green I think, for George in Sioux City.


Peace candidate Senator Gene McCarthy drew large enthusiastic crowds in early 1968. A week after the New Hampshire primary, there was a rally at the Sioux City airport. Organizers expected 50, and 400 people showed up. My mother knew Clean Gene and his wife, and I remember meeting him that day. We drove over from Storm Lake for the day.

With RFK's assassination, the Democratic establishment squashed McCarthy and his followers, including our Governor Hughes, who gave a speech seconding McCarthy's nomination at the 1968 National Convention. The establishment chose Humphrey, who lost to Nixon.

The Democratic establishment also wasn't fond of Senator McGovern, who somehow wrested the nomination. I cast my first vote for George McGovern in 1972.


I can not help but notice , and while acknowledging it might be just a perception, that the Bernie crowds are filled with younger people.

By the same token, I cannot help but notice that those Hilary and Donald crowds are of people that are much older.

This leads me to conclude that these political revolutions cannot happen without the young people of our Countries which on reflection has me asking myself....

What type of political system would we have if there no more children being born and those that remained were only concerned for their own well being?


It is NOT about "Single Issue" or single focus. HARDLY.

It's just that Sanders has helped millions to SEE a VAST SKEWED AGENDA,
• that works against us all,
... and keeps Oligarchs in power making what should be OUR DECISIONS for us!

It SEEMS like a Single Focus BECAUSE ... because ...
— NONE of the other Sold-Out Bastards dare TALK about it.

In Hillary's "agenda" it is a cone of silence about the most important violation of our democracy!


Donna, IF Bernie gets the nomination, IF he wins the Presidency, he has to deal with the Republican Congress. How will he get his programs through it? He says that we should hit the streets every time. Will we get tired of having to do this? Will it come down to who can spend more money more often to get bills passed or to get them voted down, his Wall Street opposition, or the public? I'm not sure that today, this is a winning strategy.

Why not join the computer age and use technology to help the public decide things like a democracy is supposed to? There is no more secure communications today than by encryption as Snowden suggests, and the reason Big Brother wants Silicone Valley to give them the keys to it. Why not vote securely by using encryption? And cast your vote with a touch of a cellphone or computer key? No voter fraud, direct democratic, no waiting four years to cast a vote if we can surmount the obstacles elites put up?

Why not vote securely online on any and all laws and bills in a continuous fashion? This will undoubtedly happen in the future, but all the technology is available now and now is when we need it. At first, for those who can't compute, we can use it as an adjunct to less secure traditional methods of casting our votes.

Secure, encrypted online voting will appeal to Bernie's young followers. And it will give Bernie a huuuuge advantage by greatly increasing voter turnout. Please consider it.


Although you are correct that Trumpbots' and Hillarybots' enthusiasm is driven by "concern for their own well being" it is unfortunate that those voters are supporting candidates guaranteed not to work for those voters' "own well being.


As Bernie wins more primaries, progressives who were previously afraid to run for congressional seats will challenge blue dog Democrat and GOP incumbents, diluting GOP control of Congress.


Nice to hear this about the Lincoln chant--saying those words together in a large and truly diverse group sounds good.

It's worth remembering, however, that Lincoln's greatest words, in not just my opinion, came in his Second Inaugural speech, which took a plunge into the dark pit of America's slavery-born soul that is as universally known as it is exceedingly rare for a U.S. president to articulate:

The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

In other words, it would be just for white U.S. people to be maimed and slaughtered as mercilessly as the enslaved Americans were for hundreds of years--and for the entire wealth of the nation to be obliterated--as divine justice completing the moral balance sheet of U.S. slavery.

To target the elephantine corruption of U.S. society and democracy by the 1% is a super central focus--yet I still think Sanders should make the U.S. war machine a central "issue" under this umbrella... and I disagree that doing so would be political suicide any more than anything else Sanders is saying. U.S. people also don't like wasting the national treasury, or people's lives, on war for the 1%, and the powerful numbers and case can be made to them that this wasting and fueling of endless conflict and cycles of violence worldwide, with victims everywhere, innocent people both within the U.S. and all around the world--this gross status quo, too, is essential for a democratic political revolution in this country.

Ms. Smith: "It's time for a political revolution, and anything short of that will not bring about the changes that must occur if we are to reclaim our government for all of us." It may seem to some that I'm nit-picking by saying this, but I would like that sentence distinctly more without the "re" part. In the U.S., we have not yet had truly representative democracy, or a fair democracy (e.g., free of the corruption of big money), not 15 years ago, not 50 years ago, not even 80 years ago during the Great Depression with FDR, although the sit-down strikes (perhaps most powerfully in Flint, MI, of all places, which happened to be a GM kingdom before the neoliberalism of Clinton et al) started to create a new kind of direct democracy at work. We certainly can create a just democracy, but to do so will require entirely new creation as much as guidance from the past.


I don't think Bernie is a single-issue candidate but I don't think his message of the economy being rigged in favor of the rich really resonates with blacks. I think they feel the economy is rigged in favor of whites. That is how it probably feels from their point of view. Certainly it seems to be confirmed by the data. The top 10% are doing very well even if most are not doing well compared with the top tenth of the one percent. They are rich, just not filthy rich. What percentage of blacks are in the top 10%. I would guess it is much lower than their percentage in the general population. So probably for blacks it is less about the elite rich rigging the system than about whites rigging the system. Bernie's argument seems to leave an opening for Hillary to reach black voters by addressing their concerns over the barriers posed by racial discrimination.


Thanks BillinDubuque, I've been thinking that this election "feels" like that one.


Actually, I do think that a presidential candidate directly pointing to the U.S. military industrial complex as a plague needing to be eradicated--runs a significantly higher risk of being more severely attacked, politically disappeared, or plainly assassinated by the powers that be, than not doing so. But I'm still not so sure that the U.S. public, and a "political revolution" is right now--still relatively fresh from the U.S. invasion, regime change, and occupation of Iraq, which is widely seen in the U.S. public as at least a horrible mistake--and in the ongoing midst of what the public is increasingly coming to see as endless U.S. wars for the 1%--I'm not so sure that right now the U.S. public is anathema to a campaign such as Sanders' that would add to its platform challenging the state of endless lives and tax dollars lost to wars for the 1% while only sowing more instability, conflict, and extremism on all sides in the world. After all, Obama campaigned partly on a platform of diplomacy over war, which was a very popular stand (even if it ignored all those other things in Obama's candidacy that showed he was not at all ready to pull the plug on the U.S. 1% wars), and even though that was at a time when the public consciousness was more acutely aware of the ongoing losses of U.S. soldiers' lives, it was also during wartime, a time that history shows us it can be harder to advocate for stepping back from war due to amped-up "patriotism." Could a bold platform for peace made widely known to the U.S. public today gain traction? I think it could, especially couched in a "political revolution" to take democracy out of the hands of the 1%, and instead make it work for everyone. Sanders is doing great good in doggedly yanking back that curtain on the sickly weak emperor 1% whom we've somehow managed to become beholden to. Let's keep pulling that curtain back further and further, until everything can be seen in the magnificent light of day.


Progressives don't seem to run for Congress because they lack the funding to do so. Wall Street is the major funder and they won't fund progressives. A major reason to get money and revolving doors out of politics.


The capacity of the oppressed to participate in-and even cheer on-their oppression is shocking. Take the case of the elderly guy picking up trash on an Oakland street on a quiet Sunday morning near the Amtrak station. His beat up Toyota pick-up was plastered with Bush campaign stickers. No doubt he thought of himself as an entrepreneur-who, with a little luck-would one day own a fleet of garbage trucks, and become a millionaire. But he was just an old man trying to scrape together a living-an old man whose time had passed. It was sad and pathetic.And there are lots of him out there.