Roger,
What I wrote was about human interaction and communication. I was trying to
explain something about your interaction with me and others on the blind
democracy list. It's a subject that you're unaccustomed to dealing with. I
think that is why you don't understand what I'm talking about.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 2:03 PM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders on Democratic Socialism,
Elizabeth Warren and the Media
All I can say is that you are not making sense to me.
---
Carl Sagan
“ Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ”
― Carl Sagan
On 6/19/2019 9:35 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Roger,
It seems as if you are misinterpreting what I wrote. I am not upset at your
choice of words and if I write something and you don't understand what I
write, I won't be upset if you ask me to explain more clearly what I mean.
I think that perhaps we're having a problem communicating about this because
of what you call, "innuendo". It's the emotional tone of what you write. It's
the written equivalent of being, "serious and businesslike", those
descriptions that other people have of you that you don't feel are accurate.
When I write to you in an email about how we're communicating on this list,
I'm writing about my perceptions of what you are saying and about how I feel
about those perceptions. Those discussions that you've had with people about
how you appear to them in real life, are parallel or equivalent in content.
All of us have an idea of who we are and how we come across to others, and
sometimes, we find out that our idea of ourselves is totally different from
other people's idea of us. Sometimes, we try to make changes in our behavior
so that our idea of ourselves and others' ideas of us, are better aligned.
Sometimes, it's too difficult for us to do that.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 10:45 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders on Democratic
Socialism, Elizabeth Warren and the Media
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
-----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
around 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
Labour Party
have 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
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
is 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 WarrenThe usage of words does keep changing. Hillary Clinton is
represented as
in 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
