While Hillary Clinton was in NYC hosting a $2,700 per plate dinner in a swanky location, Bernie Sanders was standing on a box in the Bronx speaking to more than 15,000 fans.
If you have any influence in New York, remind them that this season's presidential primary is a watershed moment in our political evolution. Let it not be said of us, as AJP Taylor said of the Liberal revolutions of 1848, that American "history reached its turning-point and failed to turn."
Power to the Peeps
"What is most remarkable about the Sanders phenomenon is that despite unrelenting hostility from the media gatekeepers of the status quo -- for example, Adam Johnson at FAIR.org documented that The Washington Post ran 16 negative stories about Bernie Sanders within 16 hours on March 8 -- he has continued to draw record crowds. He has also obtained more votes from those under age 30 than Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump combined, pointing to a weakening of the power of the corporate media over political information in U.S. society and the growing influence of social media, at least amongst youth."
Is democratic socialism the American Dream? by John Bellamy Foster (The Washington Post)
Is democratic socialism the American Dream? by John Bellamy Foster (The Washington Post)
Donald Trump's Bad Deals: Marty Rosenberg on Trump Taj Mahal
This new video from AFL-CIO is a doozy: "I want people to see and understand what Mr. Trump is. I am only speaking up because most people won't."
See it here.
See it here.
TPP Eats, Shoots & Leaves
During the debate leading up to the passage of NAFTA, the stationery of an outfit lobbying for the treaty trumpeted: “North American Free Trade Agreement -- Exports. Better Jobs. Better Wages.”
So close.
The correct punctuation, of course, is: “North American Free Trade Agreement -- Exports Better Jobs, Better Wages.”
Expect similar lapses in grammar and punctuation -- and accuracy -- during the upcoming consideration of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Reading list:
TPP: What is it and why does it matter? (BBC News).
The text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership 2016 also can be accessed in French and Spanish language versions on the site of New Zealand Foreign Affairs & Trade.
TPP is a secretive, multinational trade agreement that threatens to extend restrictive intellectual property laws across the globe and rewrite international rules on its enforcement. The main problems are two-fold: (1) digital policies that benefit big corporations at the expense of the public and (2) lack of transparency (Electronic Frontier Foundation).
More Job Offshoring, Lower Wages, Unsafe Food Imports: It's Worse than We Thought (Public Citizen).
Second Thoughts
“I want to be the president for the struggling, the striving and the successful.” -- Hillary Clinton, before the Michigan primary
“I don’t want to be the president for those who are already successful — they don’t need me. I want to be the president for the struggling and the striving.” -- Hillary Clinton, after the Michigan primary
Extra credit:
Crushing it
If you look at its history, you see that Bernie Sanders fits more snugly into the traditions and policies of the Democratic Party than does the Clinton cohort. If you ask the liberal base of the party, you get the same answer: that's what cost Hillary Clinton the job in 2008, and it's why, despite incredible institutional advantages, she hasn't been able to knock Sanders out of contention.
In this election, what’s at stake is not which particular subset of the oligarchy gets to decorate the big corner offices on Capitol Hill or who gets to weekend at Camp David. This is a fight about the future of the country.
The Democratic Party is a vehicle, a tool. If that tool can be used to improve our people's lives, great. That's the measure of its success. Winning, alone, is not. But even for those for whom the only goal is thwarting the GOP, in this season of frustration and discontent, Sanders is more likely to win the general election than Clinton.
More important: if it is not an instrument for improving the lives of ordinary citizens, what good is any political party? Why should people fighting for a living wage vote for a party, whatever its rhetoric, that stands in its way? Why should people who value economic justice vote for a party that embraces giveaways to the economic elite? Why should people who want peace vote for the party of war?
Oh, yeah: the other guys are worse. Is that truly enough?
The young are rallying to Sanders because he is addressing their fears about the future. The economic policies pursued by the Democrats and Republicans over the past 30 years have hurt everyone (except the 1%) to one degree or another, but the young most of all. Crushing debt, joblessness, vanishing career paths, globalization, demographics, and the rising cost of housing are slamming the incomes and destroying the prospects of millions of young people, resulting in unprecedented inequality not just between the economic elite and everyone else, but between generations. Of course they want a leader who makes fixing the economic mess the first priority.
What is true for the young is true for nearly every other demographic (with the possible exception of the elderly, whose lives are cushioned somewhat by programs, like Social Security and Medicare, initiated by -- that’s right -- the New Deal and the Great Society), which is why Sanders’ appeal has such a wide reach. Everyone is mad as hell; maybe, for the first time since the plutocratic counter-revolution began in the early 1970s, they’re not going to take it anymore. In the end, if the duoparty nominees are a radical reactionary and an establishment factotum, the Green Party may be about to enjoy its best year ever.
In this election, what’s at stake is not which particular subset of the oligarchy gets to decorate the big corner offices on Capitol Hill or who gets to weekend at Camp David. This is a fight about the future of the country.
The Democratic Party is a vehicle, a tool. If that tool can be used to improve our people's lives, great. That's the measure of its success. Winning, alone, is not. But even for those for whom the only goal is thwarting the GOP, in this season of frustration and discontent, Sanders is more likely to win the general election than Clinton.
More important: if it is not an instrument for improving the lives of ordinary citizens, what good is any political party? Why should people fighting for a living wage vote for a party, whatever its rhetoric, that stands in its way? Why should people who value economic justice vote for a party that embraces giveaways to the economic elite? Why should people who want peace vote for the party of war?
Oh, yeah: the other guys are worse. Is that truly enough?
The young are rallying to Sanders because he is addressing their fears about the future. The economic policies pursued by the Democrats and Republicans over the past 30 years have hurt everyone (except the 1%) to one degree or another, but the young most of all. Crushing debt, joblessness, vanishing career paths, globalization, demographics, and the rising cost of housing are slamming the incomes and destroying the prospects of millions of young people, resulting in unprecedented inequality not just between the economic elite and everyone else, but between generations. Of course they want a leader who makes fixing the economic mess the first priority.
What is true for the young is true for nearly every other demographic (with the possible exception of the elderly, whose lives are cushioned somewhat by programs, like Social Security and Medicare, initiated by -- that’s right -- the New Deal and the Great Society), which is why Sanders’ appeal has such a wide reach. Everyone is mad as hell; maybe, for the first time since the plutocratic counter-revolution began in the early 1970s, they’re not going to take it anymore. In the end, if the duoparty nominees are a radical reactionary and an establishment factotum, the Green Party may be about to enjoy its best year ever.
It's not over 'til it's over.
There's more to the primaries than picking the nominee. The delegates to the convention will write, amend and approve the party platform. Speeches will be made to the nation in prime time. The party chair will be chosen and DNC positions filled. Whether the nominee is Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, the more progressives that are elected to the convention, the more likely that the Democratic Party will return to its historic role as the champion of social and economic equality.
"Why do so many Democrats hate Hillary Clinton?"
It's not personal.
Any other establishment neo-liberal who ran, especially this year with
so many citizens fed up with business-as-usual, would be drawing the same kind of fire.
It's intensified in her case by her identification with and participation in her husband's administration's policies -- militarization of foreign policy; NAFTA, the push toward deregulation, particularly of the banks (see, the Great Recession) and telecom companies; the Drug War and mass incarceration; the cruel welfare reforms; embracing austerity and fetishizing balanced budgets.
Additionally, there is her habit of seeing every foreign policy issue as a nail needing hammering by the military, and her close ties to Wall Street and the corporate elite. Finally, she lacks a natural politician's gift for retail politics; she isn't light enough on her feet to pirouette past repeated panders and policy shifts without anyone noticing; belated adoption of progressive positions doesn't play as evolving, it looks like cynicism and politics-as-usual:
Fair or not, many Democratic voters perceive her campaign as a con.
Reading List:
-> The most surreal moment in the Democratic debates came when one of America’s most powerful insiders took umbrage at an accurate characterization of whom she represents. Of Course Hillary Clinton Exemplifies the Establishment by Conor Friedersdorf (The Atlantic).
-> How Neoliberal is Hillary Clinton? by Le Gauchiste (Daily Kos).
-> Neoliberalism from Reagan to Clinton by Gregory Albo (Monthly Review), a review of Surrender: How the Clinton Administration Completed the Reagan Revolution by Michael Meeropol (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998).
-> Hillary Clinton isn’t a champion of women’s rights. She’s the embodiment of corporate feminism. Hillary Clinton’s Empowerment by Kevin Young & Diana C. Sierra Becerra (Jacobin)
-> David Harvey not only looks into the political and economic dangers that surround us now, but also examines the prospects for more socially just alternatives. A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey (Oxford University Press).
-> If the Democrats lose in November 2016, they can't say they weren't warned: Stop Hillary! by Doug Henwood (2014: Harper's) and Ready for Hillary? Really? by Pierre Guerlain (2013: Truthout).
Any other establishment neo-liberal who ran, especially this year with
It's intensified in her case by her identification with and participation in her husband's administration's policies -- militarization of foreign policy; NAFTA, the push toward deregulation, particularly of the banks (see, the Great Recession) and telecom companies; the Drug War and mass incarceration; the cruel welfare reforms; embracing austerity and fetishizing balanced budgets.
Additionally, there is her habit of seeing every foreign policy issue as a nail needing hammering by the military, and her close ties to Wall Street and the corporate elite. Finally, she lacks a natural politician's gift for retail politics; she isn't light enough on her feet to pirouette past repeated panders and policy shifts without anyone noticing; belated adoption of progressive positions doesn't play as evolving, it looks like cynicism and politics-as-usual:
Fair or not, many Democratic voters perceive her campaign as a con.
Reading List:
-> The most surreal moment in the Democratic debates came when one of America’s most powerful insiders took umbrage at an accurate characterization of whom she represents. Of Course Hillary Clinton Exemplifies the Establishment by Conor Friedersdorf (The Atlantic).
-> How Neoliberal is Hillary Clinton? by Le Gauchiste (Daily Kos).
-> Neoliberalism from Reagan to Clinton by Gregory Albo (Monthly Review), a review of Surrender: How the Clinton Administration Completed the Reagan Revolution by Michael Meeropol (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998).
-> Hillary Clinton isn’t a champion of women’s rights. She’s the embodiment of corporate feminism. Hillary Clinton’s Empowerment by Kevin Young & Diana C. Sierra Becerra (Jacobin)
-> David Harvey not only looks into the political and economic dangers that surround us now, but also examines the prospects for more socially just alternatives. A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey (Oxford University Press).
-> If the Democrats lose in November 2016, they can't say they weren't warned: Stop Hillary! by Doug Henwood (2014: Harper's) and Ready for Hillary? Really? by Pierre Guerlain (2013: Truthout).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
