the only problem with your proposed Constitutional convention by the working
class Americans is that you don't have unity within that class. There are
those who are the Trump followers and the tea partiers that would disagree
with the type of recommendations that you are proposing. How are those
misguided people going to be convinced that trickle down evonomics nor less
government services will not benefit them or their families?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 8:36 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,
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 Democrats.
Implicit in Sanders' call for single-payer health care is that 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 Congress?
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 candidates.
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 to Congress.
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.
