{What follows is a post in Facebook thread, q.v.)
I can empathize with your view that Bernie could win only in another
universe. I have a horrible feeling that you are right! On the other hand, in
trying to exercise what little may be left of my critical-thinking faculty, I
ask myself why I have this foreboding? Your argument is a strong answer. Yet I
have to ask - with all respect - is it not based on feeling, as you say the
Sanders-supporters' is? (Burned so many times - how could it ever be
otherwise?").
This is not entirely feeling (we WERE burned the other times), but the argument rests on presuppositions regarding the Nature of the Universe in which we find ourselves. Basically, it is to say that our politics is always this way. You may be right, but I suggest that it is not merely wishful-thinking to call attention to the big demographic and economic changes. These are what our Marxist friends might call "material conditions". Depending on one's assessment of them, completely hard-headed realists can disagree on the conclusion to be drawn.
I will not accept the practical superiority of a Clinton candidacy on the basis of centrist analysis. This is also what I call "beltway consciousness" or Establishment consensus. I will have to be convinced that these conclusions are, in fact, realistic and not ideological. The fact that pundits repeat them is not enough for me.
I just read a Marxist analysis, criticizing Sanders from the left: essentially the Leninist objection to democratic socialism, that the latter is inseparable from the late-imperialist world order. Sander's utterances on the military and his own pork-barrel vote for military equipment support this criticism. [At least, he was honest enough to say that he hated it, knew it was going to pass in any case, and decided to bring home the bacon for VT!] Anyway, if he can't get elected as a Social Democrat, it is pretty certain that he would do not better as a Leninist!
So, if you have to rely on Clinton's bedrock commitment to women and children, in spite of all the warts, I guess it is fair for me to rely on Sander's bedrock commitment to economic justice and curbing the power of the oligarchy. In either case, as you point out, should they succeed Obama, Congress won't let either of them get much through.
They will have to build a movement, and I am willing to hope that the time is right for such a movement to build. The youth mobilization is one evidence of that. So are new voters like my Somali friend who asks "Why can't we be like Germany?", where he lived for several years. It is also a fact of American history that sometimes these movements do succeed - against all odds - like the Civil Rights movement. Martin Luther King was, after all, a self-described dreamer.
What better position to build a movement than the Oval Office? Whether or not Sanders wins, I hope he will spend most of his time supporting organizing in congressional races. I think that is what he means by a "political revolution". I don't think Clinton would do that.
It seems to me that Clinton's career of "realistic" compromise has left her in a position of indebtedness to and dependence on the beneficiaries of the present system. That their spokespeople (mainstream media) tell me that she is inevitable is no surprise. Why should I believe them? Why should I not take seriously the many polls that show Sanders actually doing better? Even though these polls may be nearly worthless at this stage, they are at least more objective than my intuitions - or anyone else's - about what is realistic. I would like to see some similar objectivity in support of Clinton.
This is not entirely feeling (we WERE burned the other times), but the argument rests on presuppositions regarding the Nature of the Universe in which we find ourselves. Basically, it is to say that our politics is always this way. You may be right, but I suggest that it is not merely wishful-thinking to call attention to the big demographic and economic changes. These are what our Marxist friends might call "material conditions". Depending on one's assessment of them, completely hard-headed realists can disagree on the conclusion to be drawn.
I will not accept the practical superiority of a Clinton candidacy on the basis of centrist analysis. This is also what I call "beltway consciousness" or Establishment consensus. I will have to be convinced that these conclusions are, in fact, realistic and not ideological. The fact that pundits repeat them is not enough for me.
I just read a Marxist analysis, criticizing Sanders from the left: essentially the Leninist objection to democratic socialism, that the latter is inseparable from the late-imperialist world order. Sander's utterances on the military and his own pork-barrel vote for military equipment support this criticism. [At least, he was honest enough to say that he hated it, knew it was going to pass in any case, and decided to bring home the bacon for VT!] Anyway, if he can't get elected as a Social Democrat, it is pretty certain that he would do not better as a Leninist!
So, if you have to rely on Clinton's bedrock commitment to women and children, in spite of all the warts, I guess it is fair for me to rely on Sander's bedrock commitment to economic justice and curbing the power of the oligarchy. In either case, as you point out, should they succeed Obama, Congress won't let either of them get much through.
They will have to build a movement, and I am willing to hope that the time is right for such a movement to build. The youth mobilization is one evidence of that. So are new voters like my Somali friend who asks "Why can't we be like Germany?", where he lived for several years. It is also a fact of American history that sometimes these movements do succeed - against all odds - like the Civil Rights movement. Martin Luther King was, after all, a self-described dreamer.
What better position to build a movement than the Oval Office? Whether or not Sanders wins, I hope he will spend most of his time supporting organizing in congressional races. I think that is what he means by a "political revolution". I don't think Clinton would do that.
It seems to me that Clinton's career of "realistic" compromise has left her in a position of indebtedness to and dependence on the beneficiaries of the present system. That their spokespeople (mainstream media) tell me that she is inevitable is no surprise. Why should I believe them? Why should I not take seriously the many polls that show Sanders actually doing better? Even though these polls may be nearly worthless at this stage, they are at least more objective than my intuitions - or anyone else's - about what is realistic. I would like to see some similar objectivity in support of Clinton.
No comments:
Post a Comment