The American Spring is a widespread, multi-faceted movement against inequality. The goal of the American Spring is political and economic revolution. Our methods are as varied as the victims of inequality.
And notice how militarized our police are ...
he needs to be in the politcal discussion, notably the debates. granted, it's a tough pill, as he's privately thinking, having to align himself with the dumocrats just to get a place on stage. the only other option would have him aligning with repulsicans.
but if justin akers thinks including hillarious clinton's name in the same paragraph as the phrase "any candidate that courageously confronts inequality" is going to help his readers take his american spring concept seriously, well...
The notion of things changing for the better because of a call to raise wages for some low wage workers is simply an effort to pacify the "masses." Of course the minimum wage needs to meet the actual cost of living. But we remain stuck in reality, where not everyone is able to work, and there aren't jobs for all who desperately need one. The US shipped out a huge number of jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare in the 1990s, and even liberals utterly ignore the consequences.
The tragedy is that we focus on wages to the exclusion of the broader, more critical issue -- our growing poverty crisis. We have put ideology ahead of reality. To do otherwise would be to acknowledge that our corporate state is a grim failure.The US shipped out a massive number of jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare aid in the 1990s, and pretends there are no consequences. In fact, the overall quality of life in the US went from #1 when Reagan was first elected, launching this era, down to #43 by the time Obama was elected. We're sinking. Liberals stand only with those who are of current use to employers, implicitly promoting faith in the corporate state.
Clinton doesn't address inequality. She merely notes the income gap between the better off and the rich because this is a talking point that sells, bringing in middle class campaign donations. Clinton, a very rich politician, wouldn't reduce the wealth of the elite by one penny. More importantly, the Clintons together brought America's war on the poor to new heights, dramatically worsening US poverty while making it cool to utterly ignore the consequences. We can do this only because we, as a nation, have embraced the belief that our corporate state is a success. We believe that everyone is able to work, there are jobs for all, therefore no longer a need for poverty relief. Who would want to change a system that works so well? This serves the elite very well, ensuring that this time, there will be no "people's backlash."
Let's assume for the moment that the author is correct, the "U.S. spring" has begun. In the other "springs" which have occurred in the last few years, people died and were willing to die to push forward.
Would this happen in the U.S.?
Let's assume for a moment that he ran as an independent or third party (such as the Greens). Would he garner as much (or any) attention?
Well, I hate to say it, but if they come up with a Sanders/Clinton ticket that wins, I'd give Sanders about a month before his "heart attack".
All this speculate WE-based-pabulum speaks in ONE uniform voice, and in your case--a voice that's ignorant. This post makes many unsubstantiated claims and attributes them to the great uniform mass of WE. It's also taking up the Atomsk and Rosemarie Jackowski--Blame The Middle Class--meme; and what exactly IS the Middle Class? Half of U.S. workers live paycheck to paycheck.
If you meant the bourgeoisie, that's the upper Middle Class... and for this ilk, even THEIR job security is being robotized, privatized, or shipped to places like India.
You used the term we utterly promiscuously. It reads like Propaganda, shades of insisting that the Black Community "chose" a muscular police force.
These statements are ludicrous Frank Luntz style disinformation memes:
"We can do this only because we, as a nation, have embraced the belief that our corporate state is a success. We believe that everyone is able to work, there are jobs for all, therefore no longer a need for poverty relief."
You take right wing Talking Points and ascribe them to all citizens while also conflating cause (Power) with effect--fall-out that's impacting citizens who have LOST voice, agency, influence, and legal inroads due to changing the calculus that now can best be described as "Absolute power having corrupted absolutely."
Mr. We... and company. YOU are full of it!
I think your response applies better to Fabian...
More importantly that playing soldier boy cum Agent Provocateur with calls to an armed revolution, you might apprise yourself of the types of rollbacks to civil liberties that followed the Arab Spring and have thus far not proven too liberating for Spain's Indignados. One can only hope that Greece will fare better.
Poor soldier boy... dying for a reason to use his own gun.
Your comment IS petty. You want purebred bona fides in a time of ultimate lockdown, censorship, and control.
Sanders has explained why he made the decision and it's a tactical one.
Good people confronting a system wrought with systemic failures are not deserving of blame for said system.
Sanders is about as good as it's gonna get right now.
While polls show that a majority of Americans want to see the military given less funds, and a cessation of at least some foreign wars (higher numbers would result if the media were honestly reporting on actual situations rather than pouring on the propagandistic hype, 24/7), increased minimum wage, greater access to health care (as opposed to insurance scams), more investments in fossil fuel free technology, and other causes that would benefit the vast majority. However, that is not the same thing as asserting that MOST Americans would vote for a card carrying Socialist. Few understand what the term means. The Fox News contingent has done such a "good" job describing Obama as a Socialist that this group can't tell the difference between citizens' benefits in Europe's Social Democracies and Hitler's S.S.
Given the under-education of a sizable segment of citizens, it's a fantasy to think that YOUR ideal candidate (or candidate's would-be criteria) has a chance in hell.
I'm not advocating armed revolution (although I recognize that it does and will happen when all else fails), I'm asking whether there is a critical mass in the U.S. willing to literally put their lives on the line as has happened in other places.
I think Bernie Sanders is a pragmatist first and a socialist second. Lyndon Johnson once said "You can't legislate until you get elected."
No, "in formally seeking the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party", he is acknowledging that Americans are not yet prepared to vote for anyone en masse who is not either a D or an R.
He was elected mayor of Burlington over thirty years ago, which, given all of that time in local and national offices, makes him a savvy politician. He is intelligent enough to know that unless he seeks the nomination as a Democrat (which is viewed by the majority of the voting public as more left-leaning) he has no chance. None. Won't get into the debates. Won't be acknowledged by the media. Won't be taken seriously by the people who will potentially vote.
Want him to stay pure on the surface? Joel Kovel did. Do you by any chance know who he is? (No cheating...)
My take on this there are many people who are on the fence on this militarization of the civilian police forces, a strong response by police to protests could work against them, by allowing those on the fence to see the harsh reality..
But again there are the hard cores are who red, white, blue right down to their underwear, who are still strongly influenced by the cold war idea "that the only red is one that is dead".
Another problem is America does not have strong left, most people fall into the centrist right category in their believes, conservative liberal is the term.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
No, Sioux. You're full of it. Every time you run your trap on this website.
Answer my question from before: Do YOU speak for everyone? Judging by your pompous attitude, you seem to think you do.