Well, vague and meaningless words do not come very naturally to me. If I
have something to say I want to be clear about it. I will use subjective
terminology when I am talking about something subjective, but even then
I try to be as clear as possible. When I fail to be completely clear I
will try to clarify. As for being chastised for one's choice of words, I
avoid that, but for whatever reason you sure do want to chastise me for
not being vague. When someone else is vague I try to get clarification.
If you call trying to understand what I am being told chastising then I
don't know what to do. Do you really want to say something and not be
understood? I don't. But let me add that I do not get these kind of
lectures in the in person world. I get other misunderstandings of
myself. I will give you an example. A number of people have told me that
I am always serious and businesslike. I got that as far back as junior
high school. I remember back then having someone ask me why I always
took everything so seriously. I didn't think I did. My image of myself
is of a laid back, friendly guy with a sense of humor, the exact
opposite of serious and businesslike. Serious and businesslike is not
how I see myself and it is not the way I want others to see me. So I
tried to investigate why people got that impression. I asked one woman
if I came off that way to her. She said that yes I did and then added
with a laugh, except when you are telling your jokes. I am a big fan of
joke telling and I thought that would disqualify me from being perceived
as serious and businesslike if anything would. So she said that I didn't
come off that way when I was telling jokes, but I can't tell jokes all
the time. I asked someone else about whether I come off that way and he
agreed that I did and so I asked if my love of jokes did anything to
rescue me from that perception. He said that the reason my jokes were so
funny was because of my delivery. He said that my serious and
businesslike delivery of jokes made them so much funnier and if I did
not deliver them that way they would not be nearly so funny. Then I
asked another woman whether I came off that way and she agreed that I
did and I asked her what I could do to change that impression. She just
said that there is nothing I can do because it is just my personality.
To be honest, she might have been the most perceptive of all of them and
she might be right. I still can't think of myself that way though. But
it still remains that no one in the in person world gets so hung up on
the words I use. Sometimes they don't understand a word and they ask me
what it means and I just explain it and they have no problem having
something explained to them. I do have a rather extensive vocabulary due
to a lifetime of voracious reading, but sometimes other people do use
those vague words and I am left not understanding what they are saying.
I ask for clarification and they try to clarify and sometimes they do so
satisfactorily and sometimes not quite so satisfactorily, but they never
get upset over my having asked. Sometimes I ask for clarification and I
get laughed at and then I know that I most probably have missed another
innuendo that everyone else got, but they still do not get upset that I
merely asked a question. For that matter, I usually don't run into that
in the on line world either. I think you are about the only one who does
get upset about my words and my asking what a person means. Well, there
was Alice. But she didn't get upset so much about my specific word
choices. She seemed to be just upset that in general I did not express
myself in vague and emotional ways. That was exemplified in the
discussion about art. I tried to define it in as precise and objective
way as I could and she threw a fit because I was not being vague and
emotional about it. And she never did offer an alternative definition
that she thought was better than mine. She just wanted me to be vague. I
really am so often at a loss. If I can't say what I mean and mean what I
say I don't know any other way to express myself. If I try to be vague
then that does not strike me as really expressing myself at all. It is
just the opposite. It is letting myself run words together that don't
mean anything.
---
Carl Sagan
“ Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ”
― Carl Sagan
On 6/18/2019 9:48 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Roger,
Certainly, you and the rest of us can express our opinions and we should be
free to use whatever words we choose, in order to do so. You misunderstand what
I wrote if you think that I'm upset by your use of the words that you use. My
point was that most of us don't aspire to be as precise as you do and most of
us are not attempting to do economic analysis. If you choose to do that, it's
fine, but most of us don't think in the same way that you think.
In the same way that you want to be free to express your opinions without being chastised for them, we want
to be able to do the same. We'd like to be able to use terms like, "middle class", without being
accused of having acquisitive motives. Words like "proletariat", or, "bourgeoisie", are
not in our daily vocabulary and don't come naturally to us. We don't read the same books that you read and
therefore, the language in which we form our concepts, is different from the language you use. It's true that
your language is more effective in precisely expressing the thoughts that you wish to communicate. I
appreciate that. I'm requesting that you accept that we're all different and that we all may need to express
ourselves in different ways. And although you may think that it's misguided and just plain stubborn, many
people don't appreciate being corrected in how they think about things or how they write about what they
think, even if they're being imprecise.
You mention, "religious bullies". That is the term you have chosen. But the people to
whom you refer, might very well say that they are just trying to explain the things they have been
studying and in which they believe, and that they would like to convince people to accept their
ideologies, just as you are trying to explain the things you know and if possible, to convince
people to accept your ideology. The content of what you're explaining may be very different, but
the motivation to explain and convince, may be exactly the same. The people who don't agree with
your point of view, might call you a, "socialist bully". I'm not calling you that. I'm
trying to point out the parallels.
I'm also not attempting to have a debate, or to win an argument. I'm trying to
have the conversation which has been attempted on this list many times between
you and various other people, and which has invariably gone astray, ending in
misunderstanding and never being resolved.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 9:09 PM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders on Democratic Socialism,
Elizabeth Warren and the Media
Working class refers to the proletariat and it is a perfectly acceptable term.
Middle class and ruling class are somewhat ambiguous and especially middle
class. When Marx was writing the bourgeoisie was still in large part the middle
class. That is, they were oppressed by the aristocracy and in turn they
oppressed the workers. Even then, though, there had been a number of successful
bourgeois revolutions and so the bourgeoisie were the ruling class in enough
countries that the main way the class struggle manifested itself was in the
struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Originally bourgeois
simply meant town dweller, but a layer of town dwellers started a banking and
mercantile system that gave them economic power and the word came to refer to
the class that did the buying and selling of commodities without participation
in their creation and controlling banking and speculation in money. That
character remains today. What is middle class? It usually refers to a
professional class that performs jobs that require a high degree of education
and they are well compensated monetarily for it. They usually are doctors,
lawyers, professors and the like. The phrase, middle class, is ill defined, but
there is some basis for defining it with reference to those professions. The
trouble is that even once you precisely define it just how useful is it? I
suppose if you are a status climber you might look to the middle class as your
goal and if you achieve it you can look down on other people who have only
achieved a less desirable situation, but other than as a way to be snobbish
about your status just what good does it do? As a term in class and economic
analysis it is useless. If you are going to do an economic analysis you have to
consider what economic role a class performs.
Middle class is just too vague for that. Bourgeoisie refers to something
definite and its role can be identified and analyzed. I don't understand why
you get so upset over the use of a meaningful word over the use of a vague word
that is hard to pin down. I do not understand why it is so important to you
that I speak only in vague and largely meaningless language. It seems like you
don't want me to express anything meaningful. And, by the way, religious
bullies don't teach. They try to force their superstitions on everyone. And let
me point out something.
If I cannot express my opinions and my perspectives on whatever subject is at
hand then there is no point in my discussing anything. I don't know how I could
possibly discuss anything without providing my own perspective and opinions.
---
Carl Sagan
“ Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ”
― Carl Sagan
On 6/18/2019 5:33 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Yes, Precisely so, see below...
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 3:43 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders on Democratic
Socialism, Elizabeth Warren and the Media
I use the modifier bourgeois because that identifies the class perspective of
the ideology I was talking about. I suppose in the context in which I was just
now using it it was not really necessary, but remember that you can go to an
ice cream shop and get a liberal scoop of ice cream on a cone. That shows right
there that there is room for ambiguity in the use of the term. Marx did use the
word bourgeois a lot, but that was another word he did not invent. It was a
word in common usage when he did his writing and he wrote in the common
language. Specifically, he wrote in German. I suppose bourgeois is a
translation of the word he used. I have seen it in German and I forget exactly
how it is spelled in that language, but it looks very similar to the word
bourgeois. He did also use the word very frequently in his theoretical writings
on class analysis. After all, the bourgeoisie was and is a significant class
that has to be dealt with. But bourgeois is, again, not a word that Marx
invented nor is it a word that he redefined.
But it is a word that he used and that you use, a lot. But these days, most people, people who are not
Marxists, people who may have socialist leanings, use terms like, "working class", and "middle
class", and "ruling class". They use those terms often, to try to describe social and economic
phenomena. They do not have precisely the same intellectual perceptions as you have, and they may not have
read the same books as you. But they have read books and articles, and they do have their own philosophical
views and value systems, and opposition to capitalism, may be part of their value system.
I do try to educate using whatever knowledge I happen to have. I do try to
explain things when I see that certain concepts are not well understood. And if
there is some chance of winning someone over to my own ideology I would like to
do that. But to demand that everyone think just the way I do? As far as I can
tell that is something that came out of thin air and it more precisely
describes Mostafa.
When you try to educate, when you try to explain because you think that certain
concepts aren't well understood, when you try to win someone over to your
ideology, that is exactly what many people do who are highly emotionally
invested in a particular set of values or philosophy or religion. In your case,
you would define what you're invested in, as a scientific theory. But whenever
people have this strong need to explain and to try to win someone over to their
way of seeing things, it is a kind of missionary work. Just as you do not want
Christians or Muslims, trying to teach you what you haven't asked to learn,
other people might not want you to teach them about socialism. If they want to
know about the things that you have studied, they would probably ask you.
Miriam
---
Carl Sagan
“ Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ”
― Carl Sagan
On 6/18/2019 3:16 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Roger,
I know this was a response to Carl, but it's also relevant to our discussion so
I'd like to make one or two points.
First of all, you use the term, "bourgeois liberal". Does that term come from
Marxist theory or from socialist writing that was done previous to his?
Second, when you use that term, aren't you using it as a criticism?
From everything that you write, I get the feeling that you believe that
everyone who doesn't believe in the exact kind of socialism which you value,
everyone who hasn't studied it and who doesn't understand it in the same way
that you do, is wanting or wrong or misguided or ought to change in order to
think just the way you think.
Am I incorrect?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 1:52 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders on Democratic
Socialism, Elizabeth Warren and the Media
Well, if we are going to form our own labels for someone based on
reading his or her rambles then my label for you, Carl, would be
often radical. I say often because you do stray into conventional
liberalism at times. But insofar as you are radical it is an
unfocused radicalism with no ideological perspective. I suspect that
it was largely acquired from your father because you are what is
commonly called a red diaper baby. But I also suspect that what you
acquired from your father is poorly remembered and perhaps not fully
understood at the time. As for Bernie sanders, I form a label for him
too and it is based on his writings or, if you prefer, his ramblings.
The label is bourgeois liberal. I see nothing about him that is
socialist. By using that word for himself he threatens the good name
of socialism with vagueness. As for myself, I suppose it is fair to
let you affix a label to me based on your impression of my own
ramblings, but to me the word professor does not fit. That is not the
least how I think of myself
---
Carl Sagan
??? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ???
??? Carl Sagan
On 6/18/2019 11:13 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Greetings All Enthusiasts,
Although this is a small list, it is a very diverse group of people.
From our resident professor Roger, to the frothy, curses of Joe,
and all the comments and post between, we have the ability to share
and learn. What I would personally hope is that in openly sharing
our inner thoughts, we do not begin to judge one another.
Sure, I'm loose with my terms, at times billing myself as
Progressive or Radical, and at other times a Wild Eyed Liberal. But
if you read my rambles you will form your own label for me, and I accept that.
The important service of this list is the sharing of thoughts and
publications that are ignored by the Ruling Class.
And by the way, as sure as I am that there are folks on this list
who appreciate the materials and thoughts being offered, I am just a
certain that there are Lurkers who believe that such expressions and
thinking are a threat to the American Empire and its Ruling Class.
Like Mostafa, their minds are set in concrete and we should not ever
fool ourselves into believing that exposure to the information and
opinions on this list will suddenly open their minds and turn their
heads.
But I want to thank all of you who do find this a place where we can
exchange opinions and information that is not readily available
anywhere else. And hopefully, where we accept each other for our
differences, as well.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/17/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, but there's a clear definition of what socialism is and Roger
provided it very precisely in his email.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of R. E. Driscoll
Sr
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 12:46 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders on Democratic
Socialism, Elizabeth Warren and the Media
Is there a genetic Socialism and a genetic Socialist?
Richard
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 17, 2019, at 7:29 AM, Miriam Vieniwrote:
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Roger,you that Bernie Sanders is not a socialist in the classic
No, actually, there's no argument here. The point was that I
agreed with
definition of that word. You take offense because I characterize
what you're talking about as Marxist socialism. You are extremely
precise in how you label things. I just meant all of the
traditional, classical socialism that I've ever heard about or read
about. Again, these labels are not nearly as important to me as the
realities that we are all having to deal with. They would be, if we
were in a formal seminar on socialism. But we're not. We're just
trying to express thoughts and feelings on a tiny email list.
Miriamfor me to say it. Socialism was around before Marx ever was around
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2019 10:24 PM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders on Democratic
Socialism, Elizabeth Warren and the Media
Miriam, it seems that the way to get you to label anything Marxist
is just
and the word meant something before Marx was even born and before
he ever started writing anything about it. It is true that the
socialism that came before Marx was mostly utopian socialism or
anarchism, but it was still there. The word actually does mean
something. Even if it is utopian or anarchist socialism. Here is
what a socialist is. A socialist is one who advocates for the
public ownership and democratic control of the means of production.
Again, that predates Marx and just because I am the one who says it
that does not mean that it is Marxist theory. This definition is
extremely broad.
It not only includes utopian socialists and anarchists, but it
includes many flavors of Stalinists, Trotskyists and myself and
some very good people and some very bad people. It includes people
with whom I do not want to be associated. The first time I offered
that extremely broad definition on this list it was Sylvy who
practically accused me of sectarianism by telling me that there
different kinds of socialists, not just my little group. When I was
being that broad it is incredible that anyone would think that I
was only counting some little insular group. But you are nearly doing the same
thing.
You want to broaden the definition of socialism to the point that
it is so vague that it means nothing. And that speaks to another
thing that I have addressed. The more definitions that a word has
the vaguer it is and the more definitions that it takes on the
vaguer it becomes until when a word means everything it means nothing at all.
If you want the word socialism to mean everything then you may as
well call Donald Trump a socialist or you may as well call Ronald
Reagan a socialist. Then there will be no point in using the word
socialism at all because it will have no meaning. Now, of all those
varying kinds of socialist that there are even a social democrat
can be a socialist,?? but I tend to think that the only socialist
social democrats that are left are the left wing social democrats.
Let's look at the history of where social democrats came from.
Before the Russian revolution if an organization was called social
democrat it was pretty much the same thing as calling it communist.
In fact, before the Bolshevik Communist Party was founded the
Russian Social Democratic Labor Party was the party of Lenin and it
was a revolutionary party. Leading up to the Russian revolution,
though, there was a split in the RSDLP. The followers of Lenin
wanted the party to continue as a revolutionary party while the
followers of Karl Kautsky wanted to essentially transform into a
bourgeois electoral party. Their argument was that socialism should
be fought for by any means necessary and that included becoming a
part of bourgeois parliaments. According to them they should
participate in bourgeois elections and once they got elected they
could then pass laws that would gradually?? move toward socialism.
It did not seem to even occur to them that the bourgeoisie would
resist that path and if they actually showed a prospect of
succeeding that the bourgeoisie would strike back at them ruining
their parliamentary plans. But furthermore, they ran into another
problem that has plagued reformist movements over the centuries.
That is that when you try to join the system in order to change it
the only thing that gets changed is yourself. And boy, did the
Menshevik social democrats ever get changed. Ever since the
Menshevik/Bolshevik split the Mensheviks have been drifting further
and further to the right and since over a century has passed now
there are some social democrats who have drifted so far to the
right that they are not just right-wing social democrats, but just plain
right-wingers.
Look, for example, at the British Labour Party. What does thehave to do with socialism? What does even some sections of it have
Labour Party
to do with either labor or liberalism? The social democrats have
integrated themselves in the bourgeois system of governance that
they defend capitalism and have no perspective toward socialism at
all. If a socialist is someone who advocates the public ownership
of the means of production then I will have to admit that some of
the left wing of the social democrats might still be socialists
even though I think they?? are all wrong about how to get
socialism. But most social democrats simply falsely call themselves socialists.
Then along comes Bernard Sanders. He is not even affiliated with
any social democrat organization. He just decided to slap the
socialist name on himself. At least he started out keeping himself
apart from the twin bourgeois parties, but he even stopped doing
that and joined the solidly bourgeois Democrat party and became one
of its staunchest defenders. There is nothing in his program that
even comes close to advocating public ownership of the means of
production. He only advocates running capitalism with a few more
regulations. I am sorry, but that is not socialism. As for the
bourgeois electoral system being set up so that parties other than
the Republicrats don't stand a chance of being elected, well, it
really does seem to me that that is an argument for making change
in some other way than just joining up with the enemy to perpetuate their
system.
---Democracy or whatever label one wants to give it. But the point is
Carl Sagan
??? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ???
??? Carl Sagan
On 6/16/2019 5:35 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Correct. It isn't Marxist socialism. It's Democratic Socialism or
FDR
that everyone, except people who follow classical Marxist socialist
theory, are calling it socialism and the label is immaterial at
this point. What's important is that what Sanders is calling for is
the kind of changes most likely to help a majority of people in
comparison to what the other Democratic candidates are calling for.
And since our system is set up so that third party candidates don't
have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, it's important to get
the best possible Democratic candidate as possible.
totaling sober people too, but they are wrong.Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey<rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2019 3:22 PM
To: Miriam Vieni<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Bernie Sanders on Democratic
Socialism, Elizabeth Warren and the Media
If what he is for is FDR style new deal then that is not socialism.
People who get falling down drunk on a daily basis can claim to
be tea
bill of economic rights that he set forth. It is very different---
Carl Sagan
??? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ???
??? Carl Sagan
On 6/16/2019 10:18 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Roger,
These days, Democratic Socialism is equivalent to FDR's New Deal
and the
from today's Liberalism and also, within the left of the Democratic
party, there are gradations. Also, if you listen to some of the
Marxist economists on podcasts these days, like Richard Wolfe, or
you read what they write, they are talking in concrete terms about
something very different from the Marxist theory espoused by the
old fashioned Communist parties. But Bernie Sanders is not
representing himself as a Marxist socialist.
a Liberal, as is Joe Biden. You can't even put Elizabeth Warren inThe usage of words does keep changing. Hillary Clinton is
represented as
the same category as them. But she just wants to repair the system
we have. Bernie Sanders wants to make much more significant changes in the
basic system.
differs from liberalism. I just don't see anything that sets it apart.Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey<rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2019 9:16 PM
To:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Bernie Sanders on Democratic
Socialism, Elizabeth Warren and the Media
I think what he really needs to explain is how his so-called
socialism
of trouble.---
Carl Sagan
??? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ???
??? Carl Sagan
On 6/15/2019 5:09 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Bernie Sanders on Democratic Socialism, Elizabeth Warren and
the Media By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
15 June 19
The Vermont Senator???s campaign is still trying to find its
rhythm ??? but its message is clear
If it seems like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is fighting for
his political life amid a series of negative articles, it might
be because he always is. The Sanders campaign is grounded in a
principle that an absence of controversy would be the real
indication
with striking McDonald???s workers directly.???It???s not a clich??: Sanders is always, literally, embattled,
among other things because his version of politics is a battle,
a zero-sum clash of economic interests in particular. ???The
way he fights is unique,??? says his campaign manager, Faiz Shakhir.
???He goes to Walmart and confronts the CEO over wages. He goes
and stands
course.The latest brush-fire, a series of negative articles trumpeting
a poll surge by Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren as the
latest indication of Bernie???s oft-predicted demise, is just
par for the
again.Sanders this week gave a major address, explaining why he calls
himself a ???Democratic Socialist.??? He did this in 2015, and
after much discussion this spring it was decided he needed to
do so
with corporate interests.Speaking at George Washington University, Sanders described his
campaign as a continuation of FDR???s legacy, specifically the
so-called Second Bill of Rights, as enumerated in the 1944
State of the Union Address. He plans on releasing an
???Economic Bill of Rights??? that will essentially provide
government guarantees for a living wage, affordable housing, health care and a
complete education.
Echoing a famous line by Roosevelt, he talked about his
confrontations
Green New Deal, free college, even a guaranteed income.
???They are unanimous in their hatred of me, and I welcome
their hatred,??? he said, to cheers.
Unlike the last election, when the policy difference between
himself and opponent Hillary Clinton was so great it scarcely
needed explaining, Sanders in 2019 is running in a much-altered
Democratic Party environment. In part due to his own efforts in
2016, and in part due to a growing movement driven by the likes
of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others, he???s now chasing the
nomination in a field full of candidates expressing varying
degrees of support for policies once considered radical:
Medicare for All, a
2016?This is an accomplishment on the one hand, but also a complication:
How does Sanders stand out now in a political landscape that
(policy-wise, anyway) has made wholesale moves in his direction
since
attracts.In an odd way, Sanders defines his campaign by the negativity
it
not real.Other campaigns that might talk the talk on issues like climate
change can???t be taken seriously, Bernie Sanders tells me in a
phone call from Washington, D.C., unless they ???frontally
confront the fossil fuel industry.??? If you???re not
???embattled,??? you???re
no one, stands up to no one, and changes nothing.???In this vein he derides the ???middle ground??? platform of
someone like current frontrunner Joe Biden, which Sanders says
???antagonizes
affordable housing.???Asked why he chose this week in particular to give an address
on Democratic Socialism, Sanders says the motivation was ???twofold.???
???The first is to try to move this country away from an
austerity policy,??? he says. ???We must recognize that
economic rights are human rights. People are entitled ??? and I
underline the word entitled ??? to a decent job that pays a living wage.
They???re entitled to health care. They???re entitled to a
complete education, to
economic security.He goes on to elucidate probably the biggest difference between
himself and Warren.
???In the words of Roosevelt,??? he says, ???the Republic at
the beginning was built around the guarantee of political rights.
But he came to believe that true individual freedom can???t
exist without
ago.??????It???s time to guarantee economic rights. [FDR] said this 80
years
economic security.Warren and Sanders have nearly identical critiques of how
screwed up American capitalism has become in the global economy
age. The main difference is that while Warren seems to want to
fix the problem by re-invigorating those original political
rights, Sanders wants to take what he calls the ???next step???
into guaranteeing
his decision to run.I ask him about the headlines of this week, and how he would
best characterize the difference between himself and Warren,
whom he describes as a ???friend.??? He answers by describing
how he came to
just have to beat Trump ??????I thought long and hard about this,??? he says. ???My wife
and I thought about it for months and months. We talked about
it more than we ever talked about anything else. We???d be sure
of one thing on Monday, then Tuesday it would be different.???
He pauses. ???I reached the conclusion that I???m the strongest
candidate to beat Donald Trump, but that wasn???t all. I
wouldn???t
either.???the goal would be to create a movement to fundamentally
transform the country, so the future wouldn???t be threatened
by later Trumps,
to pay their share.Sanders then explains that the only kind of candidacy that
could succeed now would be one like his own. ???It won???t
work,??? he says, ???unless you have the courage to take on the
very powerful special interests that are entrenched and wield so much influence.
If you want to fix the climate change problem, you can???t do
it unless you frontally confront the fossil fuel industry. You
want to rebuild the infrastructure? You have to take on the
1-percent, get them
to cut it.??????I believe from the bottom of my heart my approach is the
only way,??? Sanders says. ???The middle of the road approach
isn???t going
work every day here on the campaign.I asked him if he???s settled into a psychological strategy for
dealing with the media negativity, which seems relentless.
Specifically, did he ever think about taking the Trump
approach, and embracing the negative media, turning it to his advantage?
He laughs, but only a little.
???It???s hard,??? he says. ???My views on the press are
nothing like Trump???s. I don???t believe that the media is the
enemy of the people. ???They???re not terrible people, it???s not fake news ???
there are a lot of great reports in the New York Times, we use
their
Washington Post].???But,??? he says, ???at the end of the day, the media work
for huge multinational corporations. And as you know ???
you???re one of the few who does know ??? anyone with my agenda
is going to attract a lot of opposition. I mean, last time, I
think in a day or two, we had 16 different negative stories in
the same paper [the
???As for finding a new way to handle it, psychologically, I
think we???re getting there. I think we???re figuring that out.???
Email This Page
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
