Home | About | Donate

The Sanders Campaign’s Views On Creating Radical Change Are Quite Realistic


The Sanders Campaign’s Views On Creating Radical Change Are Quite Realistic

Kevin Gosztola

Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice. —Howard Zinn


Proof positive... she's still a Goldwater Girl:

"Clinton has taken money from lobbyists for private prison companies. She supports maintaining the death penalty. She supported the Patriot Act and Patriot Act reauthorization in 2006. She supported bailing out Wall Street. She has remained silent on key measures, like deferred action and criminal history ineligiblity, which could greatly benefit migrants in the United States. She also clings to the Affordable Care Act, which represented a windfall for health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, as an adequate substitute for a Medicare for All system."

Mother Jones may have started out as a radical magazine, but once it became institutionalized, it also became closet Establishment.

The indictments that Wenner is leveraging against Sanders are quite reminiscent of similar castigation made to Occupy Wall Street. In short, Rolling Stone did a classic hit job dressed up with glib allusions and lots of half truths that few readers would recognize as such.


Rolling Stone, eh? Well that tells a lot about just how far things have to go to even get started on real change. Anyone endorsing Clinton at that level in this day and age should be thought of as an enemy to peace, humanity and Earth. Tsk-tsk. So uncool of you, RS. (Is there an icon thingy for the finger?)


People who think Sanders and his supporters are "angry" have not listened carefully or looked closely at what he is saying and how his supporters are responding. I've been to a Sanders rally and the overall vibe is hope and relief that there is a candidate out there speaking the truth and being listened to. In my view, it's Clinton supporters who are angry, angry at Sanders for revealing their candidate for what she really is and for disrupting the plan. I feel sorry for supporters of all the other candidates that they can't feel what we are feeling: hope and excitement. It continues to be a roller coaster and frustrating at times but boy has it been worth it.


Rolling Stone headline should read "Rock and roll is dead, 60's never happened".

Maybe they could put Lawrence Welk on the front page next month. A look back issue... The decade that birthed the magazine is dead.


I think you're exactly right EnemyofWar, thanks for the insight...


I can't see why he would become a Democrat to run in the primaries if he didn't think the party was a vehicle for change. If he doesn't win he should be able to have a lot of influence on the platform. I don't believe he thinks that running as an independent he has any chance of accomplishing much. To be competitive in a general election he would probably have to raise close to one billion dollars which would be very difficult as an independent. Also, it would assure a Republican victory which is the last thing he wants. He is very aware of what it would mean if Trump or Cruz became president. I expect him to do exactly what he said he would do if doesn't win, support the nominee of the Democratic Party.


I guess "that's it" for Rolling Stone. Finito. Who owns them now? The points Wenner makes should be pretty transparent to most, if not all, of their readers. Who does Wenner think she's kidding?


The Rolling Stone, where all the timid people go, earns a special Caspar Milquetoast toast: here's to you Mr. Wenner for an editorial of such, timorous, cowardly, fearful, fainthearted, lily-livered, spineless, craven-- thinking. It ranks right up there in silliness with your listing of the top songs of the decade in 2009, a popular parlor game among what Mike Royko called the "fern bar set," the darlings so had their hearts set on 2000 that they will, damn it anyway, perpetuate the error forever.


While I support and will be voting for Sen. Sanders, don't try to turn him into something that he isn't. No rainbows and unicorns this time. There is no call or support for "radical change." The agenda remains the same -- improving conditions for the better off, the middle class.

The radical change that we desperately need would require an FDR. Our own history shows what would need to be done. From FDR to Reagan, the US implemented a range of policies and programs that to took the country to its height of wealth and productivity -- far from perfect, but much better.The focus was on reducing poverty while maintaining necessary restraints on corporate and financial powers. With Reagan, America changed its mind, decided to do the exact opposite, and the US has continued falling behind the modern nations in virtually every respect.

Sen. Sanders stands with "working families" (and, presumably, employed individuals), and has no agenda for those who can't work (health, etc.) and those for whom there are no jobs. Nudging up wages, cutting taxes for the middle class, making college more affordable, more infrastructure jobs for men... not exactly radical. What would be radical is a legitimate response to our poverty crisis.



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


Wenner makes the same error about Sander's political revolution as Rachel Maddow makes. This makes me wonder if it is a meme being spread by Clinton operatives.

Both seem to think that Sanders is saying his political revolution will be that he'll raise so much enthusiasm that a massive voter turn out in the general election will give him such a mandate that Congress will have to enact his legislation. Wenner then responds that this is naive. Maddow responds that turnout in the primary hasn't been as massive as in 2008 and Obama's legacy didn't do that.

But they are both responding to a straw man. Yes, Sanders does talk about enthusiasm creating a large turnout in the general election. But he doesn't argue that is how he'll pass his agenda. He only argues that that will allow Democrats to win.

When he talks about a political revolution he's talking about something else, something different, which both Maddow and Wenner are either missing or intentionally ignoring. He's talking about the mobilization of the people after the election to enact change from the bottom up, as Gosztola explains.

So, watch out for this false analysis that is being spread by the Clinton campaign.


Matt Tabbai was one of the few writers at RS that did understand politics and overall quality of RS diminished after Matt left.

I hate to see anybody to associate the term radical with Sanders the way Gosztola is. If you line up Bernie's platform next to TR, FDR, JFK and LBJ, none of who are considered radicals, they are very close.

"In an age of universal deceit, anybody telling the truth is labeled a radical" - George Orwell


Wenner and Maddow are part of the inside the beltway crowd group think.

They definitely don't attend the same cocktail parties that Bernie does.


Trump may run as an independent. He doesn't have the GOP nomination locked up by any means. He's never won a majority in any of the primaries and as the field is now narrowed I expect Cruz to start winning in the remaining primaries. So, if Sanders is not nominated and runs as an independent there could be four choices in the general. The problem here is that if there is not a majority vote, Congress via the constitution, is directed to select the President. Nevertheless, with the lackluster popularity of the other three, a majority vote for Sanders could still be a possibility. By the way, Sanders is still very much in the running for the democratic nomination.


W just does not like the upper tax bracket increases yet is perfectly content to have the debt roll over to future generations yet unborn. Totally uncool of W at TS.


If Sanders runs as third party candidate the Republican candidate will win easily, no matter who it is. The Republicans already start with at least 15 red states. If Sanders runs they will win every swing state. After Sanders and Clinton lose then Sanders has to go back to the Senate. His career there would be toast if he took down the Democrats. Sanders has thrown in his lot with the Democrats. He will either wind up as president or go back to the Senate and if the latter happens I think he will have gained a lot of stature from his campaign. And actually being a Democrat will help him get better committee appointments and might even help him get sponsors for his legislation. I think no matter what he comes out ahead as long as he doesn't run as an independent candidate.


Unconscionable. Why didn't Matt Taibbi do the endorsement for RS?




I can only see an independent run by Sanders having a large chance of success if the same happens on the right. If the Republican establishment finds some way to eliminate Trump as their candidate I'd think it would be a very good bet that Trump would run as an independent, dramatically increasing the chances of Sanders to win as an independent.

I think in the end the election of any Republican OR Clinton would mean a pathetically inadequate response to climate cataclysm, as well as all the issues crucial to a successful response to it--increasing equality, ensuring voting rights and the right to peaceful direct action, and removing media from the control of a few, huge for-profit corporations. I think of the interrelated issues as the 3 Cs: Climate and the larger ecological crisis; The failure of the US Constitution and the rule of law; and the power of Corporations over our lives, media and government. At this point, only radical action is going to save civilization and millions of threatened species, and of the candidates for president only Sanders has the position or apparently the consciousness to even follow, let alone lead, that action.