The Sanders Voter: Protesting American Privilege at Home and Abroad
Published on
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
by
Common Dreams
The Sanders Voter: Protesting American Privilege at Home and Abroad
by
Peter Bloom
Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders supporters cheer as they
listen to Sanders speak during his Caucus 2016 party at the Holiday Inn Des
Moines-Airport Conference Center in Des Moines, Iowa, on Monday, Feb. 1,
2016. (Photo: Jim Slosiarek/The Gazette)
Even as Sanders "path to victory" increasingly narrows, the passion for his
candidacy grows in intensity. Recent victories in Indiana and Oregon reflect
the continuing desire for a progressive alternative to Clinton and Centrist
Democrats. It also reveals a hardening divide in the Party and beyond
between those who want real "revolution" and those who are content with
"reform."
These divisions have increasingly spilled over from campaign rhetoric to
more forceful protest and agitation. The recent upheaval at the Nevada
caucus highlights the extreme frustrations and actions of Sanders supporters
who feel disenfranchised by a supposedly "rigged" system. Reports include
vandalism and now verbal threats to those considered to be Clinton allies.
"What does too often go unsaid is how the rightful condemnation of popular
violence masks the larger violence perpetuated by those with power."
As Sanders declared Tuesday, "Our campaign of course believes in non-violent
change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of
violence, including the personal harassment of individuals."
What does too often go unsaid though is how the rightful condemnation of
popular violence masks the larger violence perpetuated by those with power.
In this case, the legitimate critique of the actions of a few Sanders
delegates is hiding the just as real present and future threat posed by the
Democratic establishment to many within America and many more around the
world.
A Growing Revolution
From the very beginning, Sanders has called his campaign a "political
revolution." It is a phrase that traditionally evokes images of violent
barricades and radical confrontations with authority. For Sanders and his
supporters it has meant less guerrilla warfare or the protests of the
square, and more a populist electoral movement against the "billionaire
class" and for social democracy.
The events in Nevada have raised questions over just how peaceful and
democratic this "revolution" actually is. Democratic leaders and many
mainstream party members have charged Sanders campaign of having a "violent
streak." This follows months of accusations that so-called "Bernie Bros"
have aggressively attacked Clinton supporters online using misogynistic
language traditionally disavowed by progressives (and vehemently by the
candidate himself).
Even worse, these actions are perceived to be connected to protestors who
interrupted a Trump Rally in March and yelled expletives at those leaving a
Clinton rally in Los Angeles earlier this month. In the face of such actions
Democratic leaders have "put pressure" on Sanders to more forcefully condemn
such violence.
If anything though this anger only seems to be growing. "The Dems new fear,"
according to CNN, is that the "Sanders revolt could upend the [national]
Democratic convention" in July. It appears that what was once a peaceful
"revolution" could blossom into a full blown rebellion.
Protecting the Establishment
There is clearly a need to reject unacceptable violence, death threats,
harassment and misogyny. To simply ignore them would be to dismiss the
experiences of many who have questioned Sanders or the tactics of his
supporters. It is also significant to recognize that as Sanders mentions,
the majority of his movement has been incredibly non-violent.
"Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made
against my campaign organization," said Sanders. "Party leaders in Nevada,
for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a penchant for violence.
That is nonsense. Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this
country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of
violence."
Still to merely condemn without context is to perpetuate a different type of
violence. It is to be willfully blind to the institutional ways Democratic
elites are alienating outside voices demanding genuine as opposed to surface
level change to the Party and nation.
The unrest in Nevada, for instance, was spurred by underhanded activities by
the local DNC to ensure that Clinton was awarded a majority of the
delegates. This echoes a primary filled with credible charges of voter
suppression and perhaps even fraud from Arizona to New York to Illinois. The
irritated screams are in response to the deeply felt "silencing" of their
voices by Party elites and the mainstream media.
Yet this justified critique also hides another more imminent danger. It is
that these citizens are trying desperately to resist a status quo that has
and will do dramatic violence to them and those they care about. The protest
against Clinton in East LA exemplifies this clear and present threat.
Underneath the hyperbolic claims of elderly women and children being
verbally assaulted was a more frightening reality.
It was that many of the protestors inside and outside the rally were there
to condemn Clintons active role in legitimizing a military coup in Honduras
producing an oligarchic government responsible for the death of indigenous
protestors and the repression of women and LGTB rights. It was a direct
shaming of the Party by Latinos against Clintons own previous brutal
anti-immigration policies and Obamas continued use of deportations.
Protesting American Privilege at Home and Abroad
There is a risk that in calling out the most extreme aspects of Sanders
supporters, the extremism of Clintons brand of Centrism will be dangerously
covered up. What does it say if the localized violence in a Nevada caucus
room trumps the global violence of a candidate who has advocated disastrous
military interventions from Iraq to Libya? Should there be more worry for a
protest at a rally than for the millions of lives ruined by an economic
crisis by a financial sector that Clinton did little to resist and that
continues to support her?
It is too once again draw a clear line of whose safety and wellbeing is
important and whose is not. That the murder of Honduran activist Berta
Cáceres matters little, while the "booing" of Senator Barbara Boxer is a
serious incident that must be strongly decried.
The reversion to violence and threat by progressives backing Sanders is
inappropriate and counter-productive. Yet it is different than the
reactionary assaults of a Trump rally in its desire to breakdown rather than
reinforce existing racial and economic privilege.
However, it is also stands in stark contrast to the less overtly violent but
ultimately potentially more destructive rallies of Clinton. It is to vocally
support a candidate who admirably promises to "break down" the very social
and economic barriers that she and her allies have helped to build and
preserve.
In his statement against the violence in Nevada, Sanders proclaimed: "The
Democratic Party has a choice. It can open its doors and welcome into the
party people who are prepared to fight for real economic and social change
people who are willing to take on Wall Street, corporate greed and a fossil
fuel industry which is destroying this planet. Or the party can choose to
maintain its status quo structure, remain dependent on big-money campaign
contributions and be a party with limited participation and limited energy."
Right now those committed to real economic and social justice are too often
confronted with an even more difficult choice. It is too engage in sporadic
violent acts or to accept the "hidden violence" of the status quo. And all
to commonly the progressive ends of these tactics are betrayed by their
deplorable means.
The political revolution called for by Sanders and activists across the
country offers a different way. It is to create a democratic and inclusive
system of governance that upholds the rights and dignities of all not just
elites and their supporters. It is also an opening to go beyond the borders
of America to join and show solidarity with a growing international movement
of citizens and activists on every continent fighting for real economic,
social and environmental progress.
What is needed is a radical condemnation of the worst excesses of this
rebellion for a committed democratic revolution that will challenge the
global destruction aided and abetted by the establishments of both major
parties. It is a firm protest against American privilege at home and abroad.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
Peter Bloom
Peter Bloom is a lecturer in the Department of People and Organisations at
the Open University. He has published widely on issues of 21st century
democracy, politics and
Skip to main content
//
DONATE
SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Home
World
U.S.
Canada
Climate
War & Peace
Economy
Rights
Solutions
Election 2016
Break Free 2016
Bernie Sanders
Hillary Clinton
Donald Trump
Panama Papers
The Sanders Voter: Protesting American Privilege at Home and Abroad
Published on
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
by
Common Dreams
The Sanders Voter: Protesting American Privilege at Home and Abroad
by
Peter Bloom
28 Comments
Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders supporters cheer as
they listen to Sanders speak during his Caucus 2016 party at the Holiday Inn
Des Moines-Airport Conference Center in Des Moines, Iowa, on Monday, Feb. 1,
2016. (Photo: Jim Slosiarek/The Gazette)
Even as Sanders "path to victory" increasingly narrows, the passion
for his candidacy grows in intensity. Recent victories in Indiana and Oregon
reflect the continuing desire for a progressive alternative to Clinton and
Centrist Democrats. It also reveals a hardening divide in the Party and
beyond between those who want real "revolution" and those who are content
with "reform."
These divisions have increasingly spilled over from campaign
rhetoric to more forceful protest and agitation. The recent upheaval at the
Nevada caucus highlights the extreme frustrations and actions of Sanders
supporters who feel disenfranchised by a supposedly "rigged" system. Reports
include vandalism and now verbal threats to those considered to be Clinton
allies.
"What does too often go unsaid is how the rightful condemnation of
popular violence masks the larger violence perpetuated by those with power."
As Sanders declared Tuesday, "Our campaign of course believes in
non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all
forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals."
What does too often go unsaid though is how the rightful condemnation of
popular violence masks the larger violence perpetuated by those with power.
In this case, the legitimate critique of the actions of a few Sanders
delegates is hiding the just as real present and future threat posed by the
Democratic establishment to many within America and many more around the
world.
A Growing Revolution
From the very beginning, Sanders has called his campaign a "political
revolution." It is a phrase that traditionally evokes images of violent
barricades and radical confrontations with authority. For Sanders and his
supporters it has meant less guerrilla warfare or the protests of the
square, and more a populist electoral movement against the "billionaire
class" and for social democracy.
The events in Nevada have raised questions over just how peaceful and
democratic this "revolution" actually is. Democratic leaders and many
mainstream party members have charged Sanders campaign of having a "violent
streak." This follows months of accusations that so-called "Bernie Bros"
have aggressively attacked Clinton supporters online using misogynistic
language traditionally disavowed by progressives (and vehemently by the
candidate himself).
Even worse, these actions are perceived to be connected to protestors who
interrupted a Trump Rally in March and yelled expletives at those leaving a
Clinton rally in Los Angeles earlier this month. In the face of such actions
Democratic leaders have "put pressure" on Sanders to more forcefully condemn
such violence.
If anything though this anger only seems to be growing. "The Dems new fear,"
according to CNN, is that the "Sanders revolt could upend the [national]
Democratic convention" in July. It appears that what was once a peaceful
"revolution" could blossom into a full blown rebellion.
Protecting the Establishment
There is clearly a need to reject unacceptable violence, death threats,
harassment and misogyny. To simply ignore them would be to dismiss the
experiences of many who have questioned Sanders or the tactics of his
supporters. It is also significant to recognize that as Sanders mentions,
the majority of his movement has been incredibly non-violent.
"Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made
against my campaign organization," said Sanders. "Party leaders in Nevada,
for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a penchant for violence.
That is nonsense. Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this
country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of
violence."
Still to merely condemn without context is to perpetuate a different type of
violence. It is to be willfully blind to the institutional ways Democratic
elites are alienating outside voices demanding genuine as opposed to surface
level change to the Party and nation.
The unrest in Nevada, for instance, was spurred by underhanded activities by
the local DNC to ensure that Clinton was awarded a majority of the
delegates. This echoes a primary filled with credible charges of voter
suppression and perhaps even fraud from Arizona to New York to Illinois. The
irritated screams are in response to the deeply felt "silencing" of their
voices by Party elites and the mainstream media.
Yet this justified critique also hides another more imminent danger. It is
that these citizens are trying desperately to resist a status quo that has
and will do dramatic violence to them and those they care about. The protest
against Clinton in East LA exemplifies this clear and present threat.
Underneath the hyperbolic claims of elderly women and children being
verbally assaulted was a more frightening reality.
It was that many of the protestors inside and outside the rally were there
to condemn Clintons active role in legitimizing a military coup in Honduras
producing an oligarchic government responsible for the death of indigenous
protestors and the repression of women and LGTB rights. It was a direct
shaming of the Party by Latinos against Clintons own previous brutal
anti-immigration policies and Obamas continued use of deportations.
Protesting American Privilege at Home and Abroad
There is a risk that in calling out the most extreme aspects of Sanders
supporters, the extremism of Clintons brand of Centrism will be dangerously
covered up. What does it say if the localized violence in a Nevada caucus
room trumps the global violence of a candidate who has advocated disastrous
military interventions from Iraq to Libya? Should there be more worry for a
protest at a rally than for the millions of lives ruined by an economic
crisis by a financial sector that Clinton did little to resist and that
continues to support her?
It is too once again draw a clear line of whose safety and wellbeing is
important and whose is not. That the murder of Honduran activist Berta
Cáceres matters little, while the "booing" of Senator Barbara Boxer is a
serious incident that must be strongly decried.
The reversion to violence and threat by progressives backing Sanders is
inappropriate and counter-productive. Yet it is different than the
reactionary assaults of a Trump rally in its desire to breakdown rather than
reinforce existing racial and economic privilege.
However, it is also stands in stark contrast to the less overtly violent but
ultimately potentially more destructive rallies of Clinton. It is to vocally
support a candidate who admirably promises to "break down" the very social
and economic barriers that she and her allies have helped to build and
preserve.
In his statement against the violence in Nevada, Sanders proclaimed: "The
Democratic Party has a choice. It can open its doors and welcome into the
party people who are prepared to fight for real economic and social change
people who are willing to take on Wall Street, corporate greed and a fossil
fuel industry which is destroying this planet. Or the party can choose to
maintain its status quo structure, remain dependent on big-money campaign
contributions and be a party with limited participation and limited energy."
Right now those committed to real economic and social justice are too often
confronted with an even more difficult choice. It is too engage in sporadic
violent acts or to accept the "hidden violence" of the status quo. And all
to commonly the progressive ends of these tactics are betrayed by their
deplorable means.
The political revolution called for by Sanders and activists across the
country offers a different way. It is to create a democratic and inclusive
system of governance that upholds the rights and dignities of all not just
elites and their supporters. It is also an opening to go beyond the borders
of America to join and show solidarity with a growing international movement
of citizens and activists on every continent fighting for real economic,
social and environmental progress.
What is needed is a radical condemnation of the worst excesses of this
rebellion for a committed democratic revolution that will challenge the
global destruction aided and abetted by the establishments of both major
parties. It is a firm protest against American privilege at home and abroad.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
