Home | About | Donate

Liberals No Longer Amused by Bernie Sanders’ Presidential Campaign


Liberals No Longer Amused by Bernie Sanders’ Presidential Campaign

Kevin Gosztola

The objective of the week for liberals appears to be to make clear Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is some kind of pariah. Despite how his candidacy has transformed into a phenomenon over the past months, establishment liberals maintain the U.S. senator from Vermont should not be considered a “serious” candidate. They believe it would be a huge mistake if a Democrat with unapologetic socialist leanings won the nomination, especially over Hillary Clinton.


It is extremely difficult to become rich and remain a liberal. Former liberals that become rich typically descend into neo-liberalism, defenders of the often corrupt status quo that made them rich and keeps them so. Not much different from their conservative peers.


Britain has its royal family, and for decades, the U.S. has been plagued by American Family Dynasty in the form of a Bush or a Clinton.

That means both families have enormous clout and powerful interests backing them.

Many in this forum knew that if Sanders began to make waves, the Clinton campaign would pull out all stops.

Yesterday NPR had a show where Mrs. Clinton got to take all kinds of pot shots at Mr. Sanders and his programs.... little of it was true, but Sanders wasn't present to refute it.

This idea that Sanders can't win has become a mantra repeated often.

I also notice that everyday when I turn on AOL which reaches MILLIONS of people, there's a prominent picture of Trump and everything up to Trump wiping his own ass is covered as if it were important news.

Looks like Gates wants his Republican chump in office.

The results of the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act are monstrous in the form of countless trillions of dollars of faux wealth now circulating and mixing in with formerly solid national economies.

The result of media deregulation is nearly as bad... since it allows corporate interests to push their own narratives without any respect for the truth or genuinely different visions.

One need only look to how effectively Fox TV bamboozled its large audience into thinking that Saddam Hussein was the facilitator of 911.

When lies that big, lies that make war possible, if not inevitable, are given free rein... then a public can be coerced to go along with the unthinkable.

Excellent analysis by Mr. Gosztola.


"What about the idea that Sanders poses an “enormous obstacle” because Americans respond to “socialism” with “overwhelming negativity”?"

If real political knowledge were dynamite under a thimble, the combined explosive force of the working class conservative half of the US population could not topple the thimble.


It is obvious to anyone who regularly reads CommonDreams that the corporate media will never support Sanders. The question is how can we check the heavy influence that corporate media exerts upon the American citizenry. Too many people still lump 'Liberals, 'Democrats' and 'Progressives' into one big, ideological cauldron. This is by design. The goal is to control the narrative by avoiding ideological discussions at all costs. Anything that threatens corporate profits such as universal healthcare or free education is immediately identified as a threat and the MSM goes into overdrive to dismiss any rationale for supporting such 'unAmerican' activities.
Gosztola labels the corporate fundamentalists of the Democratic Party as 'liberals' which plays into the hands of corporate America. The corporate State after all doesn't differentiate between liberals, Democrats and progressives which effectively dismisses all of the internal politics of the Democratic Party as nothing more than internal bickering. If Gosztola referred to the Democrats who oppose Bernie Sanders as 'people who depend on corporate donations for their existence' as such, instead of labelling them as "liberals", it would be far easier for the general public to distinguish between those members of society that support the corporate model as compared to those who don't.
When Hedges refers to the "liberal Class", he is actually referring to those who call themselves Democrats regardless of the conflicting ideologies of the people within the party. In other words Hedges is talking about the 'party faithful' that find it easier to rail against all things Republican rather than concentrating on the fundamental flaws within their own party. It is just as important to call out "journalists" as being either corporate sycophants or representatives of the 99%. You can't be both. The "liberal establishment" is a meaningless phrase as it is indistinguishable from the "corporate establishment". In other words you are either part of the "establishment" (in simple terms the 1%) or not. Serving up the public with such labels only confuses them even more when the fundamental question of our time should be whether our government exists to serve corporate America or the citizenry.


No, the rich are largely liberals in the classical Adam Smithian, Lockeian sense. This is how Mr. Gosztota correctly is using the term "liberal". USAns need to join the world by stopping using the word "liberal" to mean "leftist".


"Unrealistic", "unelectable" and "out of touch" are typical 'soft' strategies of HRC and the Democratic Party to discredit Sanders. If those soft tactics don't work, it will be interesting to see how the nasty the 'hard' strategies become in the establishments efforts to derail Bernie.


I don't quite get this distinction between Sanders and Clinton. People who voted for Obama in 2008 voted for change. Both Sanders and Clinton are trying to put together the Obama coalition that won. So far Clinton is failing to get the majority of young voters and Sanders is failing to get the majority of African American voters. I think the main difference is that Clinton supporters have come to the conclusion that given the power of the Republicans in Congress the type of change they want really isn't possible at this time and Sanders supporters still believe radical change can occur despite the opposition of the Republicans.


I agree Yunzer, but unfortunately most Americans don't distinguish between the two.


I agree that USAns need to stop using the word liberal to mean leftist, but leftists need to stop equating the word with justice, peace, etc. in every case. The left as in Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot can be as totalitarian as the right.

The older, frugal, careful, traditional meaning of conservative has lost its meaning to the new greedy, war mongering, fear mongering meaning of conservative. And the meaning of liberal in the egalitarian, democratic, humanistic, freedom loving sense is often erroneously thought of in the Smithian, Lockeian corporate definition of "free markets" held captive by oligarchy monopolies.


I think you summed it up very well. However keep in mind that most Americans have still not heard of Bernie Sanders while Hilary Clinton is a household name. Even Bernie can win the first few primaries, that may change as African-Americans, Latinos and other marginalized groups jump off of the Clinton bandwagon.


You can add Paul Krugman to the list of "frightened liberals" Mr. Gosztola describes. He has been writing one or more postings every day in his NY Times blog and column trying to convince readers that Bernie's plans "don't add up," or contain "magic asterisks", a criticism he usually applies to Paul Ryan. I have noticed his readers have been leaving rather negative comments about his writings, and have been standing up for Sanders, but all Krugman has done in response is to add a grudging acknowledgement that Bernie is a "nice guy, but unrealistic." He has even carefully crafted a soundbite that Hillary can try to use in anti-Sanders ads when he called Sanders' Medicare for All proposal, "Medicaid for all, not Medicare for all." I'm sure he always intended that comment to be used in anti-Sanders ads.

Krugman of course, hopes to get a post in a Hillary administration, something he seems to neglect to mention while he attacks Sanders daily. Frankly, that's one more reason to vote against Hillary ...


This is sort of squishiness is precisely why liberals (which means something else beyond the USA's borders, btw) are deservingly despised. It is born out of entitled naiveté where they expect to have their cake and eat it too. Not coincidentally, they have wound up being useful collaborators / fools / tools to the creeping corporate feudalization that has made life more miserable for the great majority of Americans. Initially, and reinforced by their bubble that allowed Grandpa Caligula (Reagan) and his creepy crew, plus their successors, to co-opt them whilst allowing the Gipper et al to demonize them to today's Tea Baggers, they are 'surprised' at the traction Bernie Sanders has gained and like their GOP counterparts in reaction to Dump, are in full panic mode and thus are rhetorically flailing away. Ergo the attacks from professional liberal shills whom see their future income potential at risk. May they merely be bumps on the road to a Sanders presidency.


Yes, it is difficult to envision and articulate what the Europeans have been envisioning and articulating into policy and governance increasingly more successfully since WW II. It is difficult because the Know Nothing bipartisan elite says it is too difficult for them to do. Therefore no one is capable of reading, practicing envisioning their own futures in a rapidly, increasingly, difficult world to imagine surviving at all. The whole planet is on the precipice of self-immolation, thanks to the bipartisan Know-Nothing elites running the US. The elites run the US as a mobster cabal primarily devoted to funnelling tax dollars (that come almost entirely from the Middle and Working Classes because no one else is taxed) to Wall Street's most irresponsible corporate moguls. It is difficult to envision democracy inside a party devoted to killing democracy wherever and whenever it appears in any infancy whatsoever, abroad or at home. It is difficult to envision a healthy nation when everyone you know and meet with every day of your life is a rotten corrupt cynical gangster thief like you are. Those thieves are in a panic. Allow me to smile broadly with our electoral successes!


Liberal columnist Jonathan Chait...

Jonathan Chait is many things: a cheerleader of Democratic Neocons, a tool of the One Percent, a sellout committed to submission to authority, DNC flavor.

Jonathan Chait is no liberal.


" The idea that Sanders can't win has become a mantra that repeated often."

First, the MSM ignored Bernie; and now many like Fox News, are laughing at Bernie; ( Billy O. " no one would seriously vote for a socialist".) And to paraphrase Gandhi, then you win!


Yes, I'm old enough to have been around before the present confusions arose regarding these political terms. You are correct in pointing out the change in meanings here. When Papa Bush talked about the dreaded L word, he didn't mean Adam Smith's or the English understandings of that word.


Hillary&Co including the "liberals" are running scared, and so are her clients. Bernie Sanders shows his integrity and vision for a more egalitarian nation, while Hillary shows her mean spirit and corporate/banker/wall st business as usual face.

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine

But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star

But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
And I'm glad the commies were thrown out
Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board

I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
As long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?

But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

Yes, I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew

But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I attend all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs

And I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

Sure once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns

Ah, but I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

Phil Ochs


With your old-fashioned red-baiting, you are showing yourself to be quite the liberal yourself.


Establishment Democrats are not liberals. They are slightly less conservative than RINOs.