Carl,
My interpretation is that, yes, it will affect your life and mine in terms
of our economic and physical well being, whether our government leadership
is Democratic or Republican. If Democratic, there will be somewhat more
financial security and there will be more freedom in terms of personal life
style. But we are clearly living in a police state, a buracratized mass
society. The words and concepts that are used to cover up the reality like,
"Democracy", "Freedom", "voting rights", are basically double speak. We
have some freedom to travel, say what we wish, post opinions on the web, but
our environment, the quality of our food, the quality of our living spaces,
the way in which we must handle the chores of living in this fragmented,
impersonal society, all of them are a function of corporate power and the
fact that the real, basic, human daily needs of most of us are meaningless
to those in power.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 11:37 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Could President Sanders defeat a Republican
congress
Chuck and All,
Articles like this one tickle my funny bone. First, the writer sets up his
points so the answers reflect his position. Second, he takes Sander's words
and reads his interpretation into them.
But that's the way many "Journalists" now report the "news". And granted,
objectivity is hard to come by. Each of us puts our own spin on the spin
put on the story. I am, for lack of a better term, a Radical Reformed
democrat(with a small d), with conservative fiscal leanings. But I answer
as easily to labels such as, "Loose Cannon".
But that's beside the point. My point is that all of this conversation
regarding what Bernie means, or what Hillary says, or where Ted is coming
from, or if the real Donald will please stand up, does not address the
central problem. The Corporate Capitalist System is not serving the
majority of Americans. The Corporate Capitalist System is doing one Hell of
a fine job defending the Oligarchy that is the American Corporate Empire.
And while Hillary, Ted and Donald are ignoring the central problem, at least
Bernie understands that the only way to reach change is through a
revolution. Perhaps Bernie is using the wrong term for what appears more to
be a People's take over of the government, without changing the existing
system. That's not really a revolution as much as it is a political change
of guard.
To me, a revolution is the overthrow of the existing Establishment.
We normally think of such an uprising as being violent, but it can be a non
violent overthrow. Our own Republic has been turned into an Oligarchy with
only nominal violence. The Republican majority has been a moving force,
blocking any of the weak efforts by the Obama forces to make social changes
on behalf of the Working Class.
The United States is now controlled by the Corporate American Empire.
The profiteers, the Industrial/Military Corporations are the major
beneficiaries of this new System.
Despite who wins, all of the candidates being allowed to be considered, will
be controlled to a greater or lessor degree by the Oligarchy. They are part
of it.
While I plan to vote for Bernie, it is as if I were at a wrestling match and
someone asked me, "Who do you think will win? The Mad Hatter or the March
Hare?" And I say, "I bet on the Mad Hatter". I have no stake in that match.
I am simply a spectator being entertained by two half naked behemoths. I
will walk away to resume my normal life no matter who wins.
Perhaps in this up coming political wrestling match, I will not have quite
such a "normal" life under Ted or...God forbid, Donald, but Hillary has
already promised me that under her "leadership" we will go slow. Which in
my mind translates, "We will hold the line...unless we are told to tighten
control just a bit".
What Working Class Americans need to do is to pull together a special
Constitutional Convention, and begin exploring just what sort of all
inclusive government they could produce. Presently we have no idea of what
to do if this current, out of control government failed. And it will fail
simply by draining all of its national resources away.
Naturally such a Constitutional Convention would be declared as Treason, by
the existing gang. But such a movement would need to declare that we no
longer will play by their rules. We will continue to go to work, pay our
taxes and abide by the social laws. But we will exercise our Right as
Citizens to gather and determine how a government might better serve All its
People. After that it won't matter if Hillary, Bernie, Ted or even Donald
are tucked away in the oval office. We'll have our hands full.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/31/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chuck,Democrats.
But the Democratic Party has changed radically in the past 30 years.
Given your political orientation, I wonder if you would have supported
FDR and his New Deal because actually, that is what Ssanders is
talking about, old fashioned FDR New deal politics. He's using the
word, "revolution", to indicate that in order to get the party and the
country back on track, very large numbers of people must be involved.
The current Democratic Party is very much like the Republican Party
used to be. Perhaps back 30 or 40 years ago, you would have been
comfortable in the Republican Party.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charles ;
Krugman (Redacted sender "ckrugman" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 7:44 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Could President Sanders defeat a
Republican congress
this article does a better job than I could of putting my thoughts in
to perspective as to why I haven't jumped on the Sanders bandwagon and
why I'm having trouble buying in to his campaign. To start I must that
I am a proud liberal Democrat (note the differentiation from
progressive). My goal is not a political revolution but is to elect
Democrats and further the Democratic Party locally and nationally by
making sure that Republicans are voted out of office. While the Obama
Administration could have done some things better I am not ashamed of
its performance. I have said in earlier posts that I believe the
problem has been the Tea Party in Congress and in state and local
government. I believe that at the time the banks and auto industry
needed to be bailed out to protect America as a whole and the economy.
Yes the bail out might not have gone far enough for the average
consumer but the consequences of not having it might have been much
worse. I want a candidate to show partisanship which is why I
supported O'Malley until he dropped out of the race. Perhaps I'm
promoting the status quo but I just can't get excited about the issues
that the Sanders campaign presents and the solutions that it offers.
Chuck
From: Frank Ventura <mailto:frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 1:12 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Could President Sanders defeat a Republican
congress
From:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/01/25/could-president-sanders
-defea t-republican-congress/SflnJZh7gwLqHtNEaNOF0N/story.html
Could President Sanders defeat a Republican Congress? - The Boston
Globe Page 2 of 6
Cohen writes:
Surely, because he serves in the Senate, Sanders knows that a public
option in Obamacare didn't fail because Obama didn't advocate for it;
it failed because Democrats in Congress refused to go along with it.
Bernie Sanders listened to a question at a town hall apoearance in
Iowa Falls, Iowa, on Monday.
Mark Kauzlarich/REUTERS
Bernie Sanders listened to a question at a town hall apoearance in
Iowa Falls, Iowa, on Monday.
By Michael A. Cohen January 26, 2016
Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail is quite good. His rap on income
inequality and the distorting effects of big money in American
politics is persuasive and effective. But as I listened to him speak
in Nashua last week, I couldn't help notice there was something
missing from his stump
speech: Republicans.
It's a bit of an odd omission, seeing as Sanders is running for the
Democratic nomination for president. But it also speaks to one of the
fundamental problems with Sanders' campaign and his theory of
political change.
Now to be sure, it's not as if Sanders fails to criticize Republicans
(he does); it's that his focus lies elsewhere.
He says, "What we've got to do is create a political revolution which
revitalizes American democracy; which brings millions of young people
and working people into the political process." In a recent speech on
Wall Street, he listed the iniquities of the One Percent, but never
mentioned the GOP.
This language is at pace with a campaign message that views money, not
Republicans, as the true impediment to transformative political
change. But just a cursory review of the past seven years of American
politics suggests that Sanders is wrong.
First and foremost, to say that nothing real will happen until we have
a political revolution is refuted by history. Since President Obama
took office, Congress passed a health care law that expanded access to
20 million people, reformed the student loan program, made massive
investments in clean energy and infrastructure, and strengthened
financial regulation. What allowed this to happen wasn't a political
revolution. It also wasn't even the election of a Democratic
president. The simple fact is that much of this happened because
Democrats, for a brief period, had a filibuster-proof majority in the
Senate and control of the House.
Democrats have enjoyed far less success now that Republicans control
Congress. GOP opposition on Capitol Hill is not simply a result of
campaign donations from Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, and Wall
Street - three of Sanders' key bogeymen. It wasn't these folks that
had the most to lose from health care reform; and indeed many on Wall
Street and in the business community disagreed with Republican
opposition to immigration and watched in horror as Republicans in
Congress played chicken with the debt limit. The driver for these
efforts is politics and the ideological preferences of Republican
politicians and voters.
But the second problem here is that Sanders, though running as a
Democrat, is diminishing, even disrespecting, the accomplishments of
Implicit in Sanders' call for single-payer health care is thatCongress?
Obamacare is simply inadequate to the challenge of ensuring greater
access to care and cutting costs. Implicit in Sanders' call for
greater financial regulation is that Dodd-Frank is inadequate reform.
Implicit in Sanders' call for free higher education is that Democratic
efforts to improve the student loan program and ensure free tuition
for community college is that these measures are insufficient.
Now of course Sanders would likely suggest that one needs a political
revolution to ensure the kind of changes that go beyond these
half-measures.
But if one believes that, why is Sanders running for president?
Surely, because he serves in the Senate, Sanders knows that a public
option in Obamacare didn't fail because Obama didn't advocate for it;
it failed because Democrats in Congress refused to go along with it.
If it is Congress - particularly Republicans - that has blocked
reform, shouldn't Sanders' focus be on electing more liberal Democrats to
candidates.
I asked his campaign how much time he's spent over the years helping
Democrats get elected to Congress. I didn't get a response. But it
bears noting that Sanders isn't even a Democrat, and from my
admittedly crude Google searches I couldn't find much evidence that
he's actively campaigned on behalf of Democratic House and Senate
to Congress.
That stands in contrast to his opponents, Martin O'Malley and Hillary
Clinton. O'Malley criticized Sanders during the last Democratic debate
for not campaigning on behalf of Democratic candidates in South
Carolina. For her part, Clinton campaigned in 20 states at the tail
end of the 2014 midterm election. In fact, while Clinton helped to
raise $18 million for Democrats in 2015, Sanders didn't raise a dime
for the DNC - and she's identified helping down-ballot Democrats and
rebuilding local Democratic parties as top priorities.
As Sanders, who has been in Washington for decades surely must know,
Congress today is a dysfunctional mess, one in which Republicans block
pretty much every single reform effort proposed by Democrats. Why
would President Sanders be successful in overcoming Republican
obstructionism? If he believes the key to creating a political
revolution would come through overturning Citizen United or ending the
influence of super PACS or moving toward public funding of elections
or ending redistricting, how exactly would he accomplish that?
The point of course is that he wouldn't, not without a solid majority
of Democrats in Congress and even then much of his agenda would be
open to negotiation.
Now, in fairness, lots of presidential candidates talk about
legislation on the campaign trail that has no chance of becoming law.
Clinton is just as guilty of this, but she's not the one talking about
a political revolution or being indifferent about electing more Democrats
If anything, political change in America rarely begins with the
actions of presidents - it usually ends with them, as political
leaders, pushed by activists and social movements, are often the last
group to jump on a political bandwagon. This has been true from
enacting laws to protect workers and the civil rights movement to more
modern fights in support of same-sex marriage.
Sanders' focus on the presidency as a spark for massive political
change is a particular affliction that affects the Democratic Party,
where more emphasis is placed on electing a president than on the hard
work of electing Democrats not just to Congress but at the state and
local level, too.
In a sense, this is what is so troubling about what Sanders is doing.
It's not just that he is presenting his supporters with a simplistic
understanding of how political change happens, he is merely setting
them up for crushing disappointment. If, by some outside chance,
Sanders became president, his agenda would be dead on arrival. We'd
see four more years of gridlock and four more years of dysfunction. If
Sanders really wanted to push his agenda, he would have spent the last
few years electing like-minded Democrats to Congress. But I suppose
that's less fun than running for president.
Michael A. Cohen's column appears regularly in the Globe. Foll0w him
on Twitter @speechboy71.
