Gosh, imagine if one of the two major political parties was lucky enough to have him run for their party’s presidential nomination. There’s no way they’d pass that opportunity up, right? I mean, they’d have to be monumentally stupid, especially during this last election when the two major parties decided to have the most unpopular nominees in history run against each other. Ah, it’ll never happen.
Yeah. They said the same thing about McGovern and Dukakis too.
Better yet, don't look to any "leader" for salvation. As Eugene Debs said: "If I can lead you into the promised land I can also lead you right out of it."
Unfortunately, any slim possibility of success in replacing Obamacare with the healthcare program we really needed - universal single payer - was kind of contingent on Trump not getting elected.
It’s funny, because you say that same exact thing over and over again. Somehow, we’re supposed to never elect a popular progressive, at a time when the left’s ideas are popular, because some crappy candidate lost when the Beatles were still a band. My god, please, your generation was given a country in far better shape than the one you have handed over. You’ve done enough, step out of the way and let us try to clean up the mess your generation has created for us. Maybe, if we can break away from the horrible policies you’ve supported in recent decades, we’ll have a snowballs chance in hell of avoiding the hell quickly approaching us. Your logic is also that the loss in 1972 is more relevant than the 2016 loss of the neoliberal disaster? Or, maybe your logic is that your party is utterly collapsing nationally for something other than the neoliberal policies that have destroyed working people and the poor? Let me ask you, at what point in time will bringing up the election of 1972 start to make no logical sense? Will that still be relevant in 2030?
I also don’t look to leaders for salvation. Decentralized progressive movements in South America existed for a long time, and they weren’t able to realize any social advancement until they were able to elect people of their own. Debs, by the way, ran for president and got 6% of the vote in 1912. I’d imagine that he wasn’t expected blind devotion, just votes and the means to push through structural changes he favored.
Bernie I intend to press for Single-Payer and have joined with the two Single-Payer groups in Vermont and the National group Healthcare-now!.
Check this out because we really need to face what has happened:
Good satire. Just proves my point that presidents of the U.S. are not elected before they are selected!
Sad I have such mixed feelings about this call to action. It is an absolute that we must cover everyone with full healthcare and I would fight tooth and nail for it but the ACA is hard to defend. It has done many people a lot of good, medicaid expansion was the best part of it but it should have been all of it. So much more savings, so many more covered, no worries with single payer. Bernie knows that but that's the problem with trying to work with the Democrats, you are compromised one way or the other. Now he has to defend the ACA.
I would like to know why, when they found 50 electors that were disqualified for voting for Trump and all they needed was for a senator to back the other two Reps that wanted to challenge the vote, Bernie didn't step up.
Trump didn't win the popular vote and he didn't win the electoral college vote so why the hell is he becoming president and where in the hell are the Democrats??? Bernie? WTF?
It is nice to see Bernie Sanders provide the leadership the democratic party so sadly lacks. His options are few thanks due to the useless macinations of the corporate tools infesting the democratic party. Mobilize you must and if you stake out a clear responsible plan for saving and then enhancing social programs, then by God you will win the House and perhaps even the senate. But for God sake, get rid of the do nothing corporate democrats. These parasites are killing the party.
We don't need George McGovern to tell us which way the wind blows. However, he wouldn't be a bad weathervane to explain how far we've been blown off course in these last 45 years. By the Democratic Party and the DLC/3rd Way crowd. And, phony Conservative governance was more than willing to fill the void where progressive New Deal policies once grew.
Always try to follow the dirty money. Which started in New York with Buckley ( yes, those Buckleys ) v. Vallego and continues to this day. Crooked is always as crooked does. Welcome, America, to your own self-induced nightmare. Finally, we see the real downside to being the biggest blowhard in the room. Careful what you wish for, you just got it in spades.
In fact, her view was "Not gonna happen!"
With his 2015-16 presidential run, Bernie has a bona fide national political profile and platform, and I appreciate his leadership to ultimately win single-payer health care for all Americans.
"Health care is a human right." Couldn't agree more with you, Bernie!
Love ya, Bernie!
Joan, boomer bashing is a cheap shot and a not very informed one. I suggest you do a bit of a review on what did get done by a lot of folks during that time frame too numerous to mention. People's History by Zinn would be a good place to start. And as far as the country being in better shape......and how was that?
Yeah, cause Sanders is like most every other person in his generation. If that were the case, we wouldn't still be defending programs passed during their time, we would have built on them and pushed through even greater changes. That generation, whatever it was in the sixties, had strongly supported Reagan a little over a decade later and more of that generation has continued to either support that or fought against radically changing course. I've had to listen to people of that generation talk down to me this entire election cycle, as if they understand this and people like myself are a child. I was also responding to a poster that was arguing against supporting someone like Sanders because of the freaking election 1972. I have people in my family that I love that were hippies and are now environmentalists, some of the biggest influences on me. Unfortunately, there weren't enough of those types of people, and the data does show, without any doubt, that the country is in worse shape. So yes, I would appreciate people of that generation being humble and allow us to take over. Someday, it will be my generation's turn to hand over the keys to the house, and I hope we can hand over a house in better shape than the one we were given. If we don't change things soon, that won't be possible.
I am a huge fan of Zinn, and have read other books in the people's history series. Vijay Prashad's People's History of the Third World is amazing, if you haven't read it. I also think it is totally fair to critique a generation, if their decisions are a net negative. Each generation has a responsibility as far as future generations go. That doesn't mean every person in that generation is to blame, just like it isn't fair to blame every American when our government does something. However, I think it's fair to say that the collective decisions they've made will have a negative impact on future generations.
How are things worse?! The environment, for one, is in a state of collapse. There is a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure gap. They used to have an economy that produced decent jobs for working people, isn't the case anymore. They lived in an more economically equitable society. There were also important civil rights victories, which have not built on but whittled away. There wasn't anything like the WTO, or NAFTA like deals. There was the GATT, but that was radically different than the WTO. Real wages haven't grown in decades, inequality has exploded since Reagan, as has financialization, student loan debt is massive, on and on. The war on drugs has destroyed communities of color, as has deindustrialization, school privatizations, predatory finance, capital flight from the cities, the militarization of the police.the wage gap between white and black workers has grown in recent decades and the black community in particular was destroyed by the crash in 2007. Throw in the fact that both political parties have moved to the right and are thoroughly corrupt, there is little hope right now within the system. There have been some advancements, like marriage equality, but on economic issues, environmentally, with infrastructure, politically, socially, things are falling apart.
I respect a lot of people in that generation. I am just saying that it's time for everyone to think critically about how we got here.
Blacks couldn't vote. Gays were in the closet. Women in the kitchen. White guys played Asians in movies and on TV. But that's all just identity stuff, when you're young, gifted, and White.
Just more phony-baloney repitition of Thomas Frank garbage history, which he seems to write to keep an audience of progressives buying his books. For the millionth time, when the traditional labor-backed presidential candidate was trounced in 1984 by an anti-union incumbent, one who stridently broke a strike no less, can you explain what was supposed to happen afterwards in your scenario? Gary Hart was 1984's Bernie Sanders, after all, but he was running as a "moderate" against old-fashioned Great Society Democrats. He pulled the youth vote by large numbers and ran a strong second in the primary by running on a not-traditional Democratic platform. The country was knee deep in the Reagan Revolution and New Deal politics was in its death throes. So, in your ahistorical world, what was supposed to happen at that time? What was the party supposed to do?
This nonsense history that pretends the DLC and Clinton came out of nowhere to break unions and sell us to the highest bidder is just stupid on its face. There were other forces at work, and in 1984, those forces picked up multiple seats in the House, held the Senate, and won a massive popular vote and electoral college victory. It was the conservative version of 1936, and really the final nail in the old Roosevelt coalition. The DLC was a response to this, and after watching Hart do well with youth voters--again, Hart was 1984's Bernie Sanders--a not unnatural answer for the Democratic Party to turn to if it was going to have a future.
You may want to start a bit earlier than the 60's and go from there.
Your critique is like modern medicine's approach to health care. Isolate an organ or system and focus on it
and forget the rest of the body as if it wasn't all connected.
I get your urgency and I think that urgency has been shared by perceptive and good heart-ed people throughout time. And I also think the efforts that were made in the 60's to 70's in this country were circumvented by forces that have been at work from square one. Every generation chips away at the greed and inertia that is present during their chapter.
I say run with those that inspire you from whatever generation but go easy on blank generalizations about the failings of entire groups to do what needs getting done. Until you've been there.
I believe that was the 50's if I get your point.
And what is your point?
I don't see it as a generational issue and it isn't that clear-cut. While canvassing for Bernie, I met many "millennials" with very conservative and/or neo-liberal opinions completely opposed to Bernie.
We are all in this together, all generations are being adversely affected by neo-liberal/neo-con ideas and we all need to be part of the solution.