HERE is the a definition of a word so misconstrued anymore (See Trump!) that is barely recognizable. I hope you will share it with those who you know are asleep to TRUTH!
(1) a. A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.
b. The movement organized around this philosophy.
I read the NYT writers routinely. And I read comments to their columns as I have time for. (BTW, Guardian columnists, many of them American, are far more supportive of Sanders’s campaign.)
Their dismissal of Sanders rests on an implied ID of who they are with respect to the youthful Sanders supporters: “we’re older, wiser, and more responsible than you, so your voices are not as important as ours.” I don’t know where these guys were in 1968, but I know where I was then, and I know how I had to change in those years, from trust to skepticism.
To some degree however NYT is making an effort to bring new voices to their opinion pages, so that’s helpful. Just have to continue to read critically. I learn a lot here at CD as well when my comments get pushback. Thanks, all.
Sanders represents a chance to repair America’s flawed democracy and to bring it into line with other real democracies. The system is flawed because everything is rigged to favour special interest groups. These same ‘special interest groups’ that fund the MSM and our elected officials, will do whatever they can to sabotage Sanders because a functioning democracy is the last thing the Establishment wants.
If somehow Sanders manages to avoid the DNC from preventing his nomination, Sanders will easily win the Presidency. Having said that though, I would suspect a coup or an assassination to prevent Sanders from introducing democratic reforms in Washington. That is why this election is so important. It is the first time in living memory for any American to vote against the Establishment and the .01% are understandably nervous. Nevertheless, if Sanders is prevented from taking his rightful place as the new President of the United States, open revolution would be the only option to overthrow the corrupt plutocracy. Would the .01% being willing to go mano-e-mano with the public? It will all depend on the military and police either supporting the right wing or supporting the people. Time will tell.
Only in flawed democracies (like the U.S.) is the word “populist” derogatory.
I hope some people in the DNC (the Democratic National Committee or Decaying Nefarious Corporatists, take your pick) read these articles and the comments to them. If they did, they would start to realize that everyone will benefit in the future if Bernie wins the nomination and the election. Climate change will be addressed quickly, the military won’t be sent to fight in places where the US isn’t welcome, increased wages will boost the economy and Donald Trump will be retired. Even for rich people, paying their fair share will make them less paranoid that the pitchforks are coming for them. The DNC will almost certainly give us 4 more years of Trump if they keep going after Bernie like this. The DNC gives “party unity” a lot of lip service, as long as it doesn’t extend to Bernie Sanders.
I’m almost surprised at the lack of embarrassment on display in terms of anti-Bernie sentiment from the d-party establishment. They’re just coming out and blatantly admitting they’ll vote for Trump over Bernie if that’s what it comes down to.
And the way they’re tripping all over themselves to forgive and forget Bloomberg’s racist policing policies in New York tells you everything you need to know about why I don’t vote D. Blue-No-Matter-Who my ass.
I don’t know how much contact you have with them, but I can tell you the sense of affronted entitlement among them is deep, petulant and vicious. Another factor at play here is that Sanders and real progressives and socialists stand as permanent, omnipresent personal reminders of their personal hypocrisy and political opportunism, and they absolutely hate it. There’s some psychological stuff going on there.
I had an ugly argument with a moderate Blue-No-Matter-Who friend who said he’d vote for Trump over Bernie. Mostly my venom was aimed at her because she has attacked me for voting for Jill Stein in 2016!
The Democrats are going to end up with Bloomberg. Turn out will be low. Trump will win.
Workers’ pay could and should be $20,000 higher, and a campaign to raise wages would inspire voters to vote. Sanders’ plan comes the closest. Dems should promote higher wages for 90% of the workers. Even progressives fail to emphasize this. Restoring the distribution of income ratio of 1980 would raise take-home wages by close to $20,000 for 90% of workers, for all the 150 million workers earning below $100,000 per year. The Social Security report 2018 on wage income states that 150,406,206 workers earn less than $100,000 in wages. This SSA report is very precise. Each of the 150 million workers could earn $18,186 more each year (using BEA figures on income) if we re-established the 1980 distribution of income ratio. But the fact that elections are financed through private donations makes it nearly impossible to fund candidates who promote this huge change. Huge wealth donations smother the influence of populist voices. The median household income in 2018 was $61,937 (USCensus) and it could easily be $81,937. A $40,000 individual worker income could be $60,000. Poverty would be greatly reduced. Sanders’ program comes closest to achieving the restoration of income distribution, and he is feared because of it. A higher minimum wage, a higher Earned Income Tax Credit, a formula for labor union rights reform, corporate rules putting workers and community on corporate boards, and a direct government job creation would tighten the labor market, all five policies, would force wage incomes higher, back to the 1980 level. Also capital control measures (foreign investment) and rules that prevented the exportation of factories to low-wage nations would be part of the reform. Tariffs that restored trade balance, also. This package would restore the income distribution of 1980. Yes, inflation would also increase, but it could be blunted with price control measures until the surge subsides and prices naturally reach a new equilibrium. We need lower prices on several key issues: healthcare, housing, childcare, and subsidies to transition to green energy. A complete picture for reform is needed, and that will inspire hope, votes, change. Sanders’ and Warren’s are the messages that make this case. My blog: Economics Without Greed, Part Two.
I don’t think it’s that cut and dried. I think Bernie may power through and win if the numbers start getting overwhelming. Plus remember we have some great heroic average working people who aren’t going to stand for it. Like this wonderful lady booyah:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Bernie is a democrat now, not an independent. That speaks volumes. He also supported Hillary when he lost the election last time around. Some say it was because he foresaw Trumps ways. But Hillary was no better. She was the second most funded politician by the Pharms PAC to enable their legislation of the Drug Prescription, Modernization, and Improvement Act of 2003. ONly Bush made more from them- $891000.She also did not take bribes, but was paid at times $5 million to make speeches to oil company;s boards- Bernie put aside his “revolution” to help her get elected- yes he is committed and strong?? The liberal media backs him completely- I wonder at that- why so much support from the establishment?? If you are popular, why?? We all know that the media is bought, and that most of us know that the CIA saturates the media. Why did Bernie only say he was on Palestinians side recently-we are all aware of Israel’s lobby- why did Bernie not make any health legislation,but supported what work Warren did. Now for my bombshell- i hate capitalism, but socialized education and medicine are harmful- not on the financial end, but BOTH INSTITUTIONS ARE DESIGNED TO KEEP US IGNORANT AND DISEASED- to support them totally by the government would lock them in to rigid restriction from total change and overhaul as needed. Yes- I am not on the left- I am off the board radical who thinks outslde the box, and have knowledge that makes me so.
Actually he has been talking about this for years. It is one of the things that first got me looking closer at him.
Should be required reading at least monthly for all congress scum!
The only way that would have happened is if Yang was elected. The next step would have been $16,000.00 a year per adult in the family. It’s a shame that old people are so selfish. That’s why they don’t want Sanders to be elected. I got mine to H**L with you.
Thanks Ted Morgan, for your good analysis and lay-out of the cheering possibility of …Bernie!!!
I live in PA, I’m a senior, and worked on the Bernie campaign in 2016–even held a house party for his supporters. I think so highly of his honesty, experience, values, and, as Mr.Morgan attests, his standing with the regular folks and their issues in this rapidly dividing, top-down economy. Hope the media’s bias and the fear and machinations of the 1 %ers, will be met and overcome by the powers of Bernie’s supporters and his leadership. We working and lower income families need a win!
Thank you for that as Lincoln said it all. But—it takes all of us to believe in what he wrote, but we have Bernie— tougher and shorter than the Lincoln-- but Berne -is the closest thing we have to creating a real democratic republic. : )
Why is it that so many people ‘not on the left’ will tell you (loudly) that they think outside the box when they spout the same things that are said by those who most obviously think inside the box? That is like a TV used car salesman yelling out that he will never sell you a clunker when everybody knows that he does that all the time.
I must say that line about keeping us ‘ignorant and diseased’ is a new one for me. Keeping us diseased? How is giving more people access to healthcare that they can’t afford right now … ‘keeping us ignorant and diseased’? Evidently you must have healthcare yourself because if you didn’t then you are praying that just maybe you and your kids will have healthcare if Bernie wins. If you have kids and no healthcare (or lose your job’s healthcare benefit) then you live in fear of being ‘diseased’ with no way out of it.
“Voters who voted for Bernie in those primaries but Trump in the general election are not Bernie’s fervid young supporters, but in all likelihood largely alienated white working class or rural Americans, fed up with a Democratic Party that long ago deserted them.”
FYI Ted Morgan: seen Jeff Stein’s piece on Sanders-Trump switch voters?
It uses a political scientist’s analysis of this demographic - older, whiter, more likely to define selves as ‘somewhat’ or ‘very conservative’ vs. Sanders progressives.