Home | About | Donate

Liberal Redbaiting of Bernie


Liberal Redbaiting of Bernie

Doug Henwood

The Sanders campaign has certainly sharpened the contradictions, hasn’t it?


From a physics perspective, the people's business, such as education, security, health and the like, is plagued by various forms of friction in the system. The sources of friction are designed as hand warmers for the one percent. Qui bono from student loans, "health" insurance, private armies? The one percent. All Bernie is asking is to lubricate society's business and remove--or at least diminish--the friction. It's common sense with or without a physics degree.


Liberals can always be counted on by the power structure to turn against actual progressives . It is no surprise that the kind of people who support tepid liberalism and a more gentle corporate autocracy would attack Sanders. I was surprised to see the Nation come out in support of him.

The good news is that their rancid line is not selling among youth and those of us hardest hit by what they support. Many of us have seen no economic recovery. Many of us still don't have access to medicine and many of us are sick and tired of perpetual war for profit.

Occupy was an awakening for many. It continues to mature into a movement demanding real progress on issues vital to our survival from climate to economic justice. Let the pseudo-liberals wring their hands and moan, let them worry about their investments. We must push on -- we have no choice.


Those "liberals" are the same "liberals" who enabled corporations to become too-big-to-fail and continue to spend trillions of taxpayer dollars bailing them out.

Denmark and other nations don't spend trillions bailing out too-big-to-fail banks, trillions that could be funding single payer without increasing taxes for any Murkin.


If Sanders campaign has done nothing else, it has flushed a lot of the rats out of their holes.


The Red-baiting has begun but it will be tricky since Bernie himself is the only living representative of socialism for most Americans. Liberals can compare him to Fidel Castro, maybe, but who else is there whose name will ring a bell? The reality is that even the Bernie-approved Scandinavian brand of socialism has long been in retreat before the pressures of weakened economy and an influx of immigrants.

Thanks to the abysmal nature of American schooling, the vast majority of people have little or no awareness of the history of socialism in all its forms so the liberal attempts at smears will go nowhere. Liberal hacks can compare Bernie to Lavrenti Beria or Norman Thomas and draw the same blank.


The quote again:

"Sanders is also doing what populists on both sides of the political spectrum do so well: the mobilization of resentment. The attacks on billionaires and Wall Street are a way of eliciting a roar of approval from angry audiences without necessarily having good solutions for the problems that caused that anger in the first place."

  1. I went to a Bernie Sanders rally and no one there seemed angry at all; they seemed rather smiling and positive. (So this Starr sphincter is lying here.)

  2. Does he have any "good solutions" to the problems?

  3. Hillary mobilizes resentment vs poor people.


Stunning for me is realizing that capitalism is a false and fallen 'god'. One of the ways you can tell is the rabid violence on every level from the subtle to the gross - like a predator denying that it is entering the stage of death throes. One of the unexpected and fundamental challenges is to realize the degree to which our humanity, conscience, relational balances are absolutely necessary to function as a society. Donald Trump is revealing a profoundly dehumanizing gravy train mentality otherwise known as 'colonization' methodologies.
In his Feb hour economics professor Richard Wolff touches on Bernie Sanders and some the tropes and twists being encountered here. One needing constant chipping away is the teflon treatment - the billion $ marketing advisers to keep everything right on the (now recognized as toxic) surface.


Anyone near Chicago today should try to attend a rally for Bernie at Chicago State University, he is also being interviewed by Tweety Bird Matthews before a selected group of students at the University of Chicago.



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


Something major in that article is not answered: why such huge spending from private sources on healthcare? Also, why go we get comparatively little from our public spending?


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


I believe another terminology that is used for what you call "friction" is rent-seeking. Among folks with a strong ambition to make money, a distinction is made between those who contribute something as a by-product of their business venture, vs. those who do not produce anything. The latter group are the "rent seekers", i.e., the ones that cause the friction that you mention. Our capitalist economy has deteriorated to the point where rent-seeking has become huge in magnitude, to the point that it can divert a small portion of its wealth to distort the political process such as it will preserve rent-seeking privileges, perpetuating and worsening the problem. I agree with you (and Bernie Sanders) the reducing this friction is of great importance, perhaps even absolutely necessary. Currently, private health insurance companies are the most egregious example of rent-seeking, so advocating for single-payer makes great sense to me.

(I'm not a physicist but I have a personal bias in favor of that field)


Don't call then "pseudo liberals" - they are liberals in the classical 18th century sense! This is why it is called "neoliberalism."


Because cost controls are so weak - and in private hands - healthcare becomes a huge investment and glitzy expensive advertisement driven, highly profitable industry. It has stockholders and shareholders and millionaire MD's and billionaire "Health System Corporation CEO's, and other useless "rent-seekers" as Cicero explains below. Our vile "UPMC" monopoly where I live is a classic case.

What you should be really asking is "why can Canada and Europe provide excellent healthcare for half the cost of US healthcare, with overall better health outcomes."

A simple drive up to Toronto provides the answer. When I travel up there the first thing I notice is that there don't seem to be any hospitals. But this is just an illusion caused by the sudden absence of (to use my local example) UPMC (TM) Allegheny Health System (TM) or "Highmark" (TM) Billboards along every major highway, UPMC and "Highmark" (TM) logos crowning the downtown skyscrapers (that formerly housed the business that actually made useful stuff - steel, aluminum and glass), or glitzy UPMC TV ads, and especially Big Pharma drug ads.

Instead, in Canada, healthcare is just considered part of the boring, but efficient, public infrastructure (albeit with a surprising number of Catholic-Order run hospitals). You'd just as soon see a TV ad for the 401 Expressway.


Bill Clinton had the support, of course, of a republican legislature to pass NAFTA.

He also had "bi-partisan" support to "end welfare as we know it."

Isn't that a nice word, "bi-partisan"? Whenever the elites are impoverishing workers they can be nicely "bi-partisan."

Hillary is the anointed one to receive coronation, but the real-estate prince might usurp her. Who knows? I would prefer the councillor of the Vermont realm.


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


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


This is a pathetic indictment. What are you gunning for Trump to go "all mad man" on the world?


Hillary would be worse by far as would any of the Repubs while Bernie wants to cut the military budget. You keep spouting these lies but to what purpose unless you are a shill or have issues so to speak?