'Democracy Is Messy': Sanders Changes Tune On Protest At Democratic
Convention
Published on
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
by
Shadowproof
'Democracy Is Messy': Sanders Changes Tune On Protest At Democratic
Convention
by
Kevin Gosztola
Bernie Sanders speaks on the first night of the 2016 Democratic National
Convention. (Photo: disneyabc/flickr/cc)
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders delivered a speech, which
marked the end of the first day of the Democratic National Convention in
Philadelphia. It partly repeated statements made when he endorsed
presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton. However, the Democratic National
Committee gave him a primetime slot to pacify his delegates and further
discourage supporters from protesting inside the convention, particularly
against a process they see as rigged to nominate Clinton.
In May, Sanders thought the convention could get "messy," telling the
Associated Press, "So what? Democracy is messy. Everyday my life is messy.
But if you want everything to be quiet and orderly and allow, you know, just
things to proceed without vigorous debate, that is not what democracy is
about."
Yet, hours before the speech, Sanders sent a text to supporters and
declared, "I ask you as a personal courtesy to me to not engage in any kind
of protest on the floor. It's of utmost importance you explain this to your
delegations."
The Sanders campaign also sent out an email to delegates that argued, "Our
credibility as a movement will be damaged by booing, turning of backs,
walking out, or other similar displays."
"That's what the corporate media wants," the campaign contended. "That's
what Donald Trump wants. But that's not what will expand the progressive
movement in this country." The campaign, which supposedly sparked a
"political revolution," again reiterated the request to not engage in "any
kind of protest or demonstration on the convention floor."
For months, the Sanders campaign built a nascent political campaign into an
insurgent force to be reckoned with inside the Democratic Party. The
campaign adopted the language of movement politics to contest the political
party's commitment to crowning Clinton their nominee. Their opposition was
not a reaction to her identity but to her record of support for war and
corporate policies, which are responsible for poverty and a threat to the
working class.
The Sanders campaign taught millions of Americans the value of struggle and
why it is important to fight. It geared up for a battle over issues and
ideas that manifested itself when the Democratic Party's platform was
drafted. Except, as the convention neared, Sanders abandoned plans for floor
battles at the convention. He endorsed Hillary Clinton and attempted to lend
legitimacy to her campaign by nullifying many of his most fierce critiques
of her record.
Now, the campaign, which gave so many Americans the confidence to fight for
reforms against the power elites of the Democratic establishment, has
effectively told Sanders delegates to pause their outrage. It has demanded
they forsake the spirit of grassroots politics, which was a major energizer
of the campaign, and sit quietly as a moment of grand opportunity passes-and
all because Sanders does not want to be a scapegoat for a messy convention
that Donald Trump may highlight to bolster his argument that he should be
the next President of the United States.
What happened to the idea that the Sanders campaign was an alternative to
status quo politics?
The Clinton campaign believes it is in the process of a "revolutionary act."
Jess McIntosh, director of communications outreach for Clinton's campaign,
said on "Democracy Now!", "I do think it is important, in fact, for our
movement to celebrate the fact that we have done something revolutionary.
This week, we do something revolutionary."
Even though electing Clinton could potentially be no different than electing
someone like Margaret Thatcher or Indira Gandhi, by asking his "political
revolution" to halt actions in the convention, he is giving Clinton
Democrats room to devalue the meaning of struggle.
In June, Sanders said on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, "I
don't think Hillary Clinton can lead a political revolution." He insisted
millions want to see the Democratic Party transform from a party of wealthy
campaign contributors to a party of the middle class and the "47 million
people living in poverty." But Sanders has not made the case to his
supporters that the Democratic Party has started any transformation, even
with the energy of the "political revolution."
This is why Sanders delegates are seeking ways to protest at the convention.
A sizable faction of delegates want to engage in displays of defiance
against a Democratic Party establishment that did everything it could every
step of the way to protect Hillary Clinton from losing to Bernie Sanders.
They would like to walkout of the convention after Clinton is officially
nominated, however, they want to know that hundreds of other delegates will
join them.
Sanders launched a political organization called Our Revolution. According
to USA Today, it will "help recruit, train, and fund progressive candidates'
campaigns." However, this is not particularly revolutionary, especially if
they are all running within the Democratic Party. Multiple organizations
have launched in the past to train progressive leaders.
When Jesse Jackson ran for president in the 1980s, he had the Rainbow
Coalition to mobilize grassroots organizers in the electoral arena and move
politics to the left. His campaign in 1984 was treated by the Democrats in a
crude manner similar to how Sanders was treated in the 2016 Election. Still,
Jackson was too invested in the Democratic Party to break from it, and his
coalition became a liberal conduit for bringing new voices into Democratic
politics.
Back in 1991, Sanders said, "What we need in this country is what Jackson
calls a Rainbow Coalition, but it has to be done outside the Democratic
Party." He acknowledged that most people argue the Democratic Party is where
the working class and labor unions are so everyone should work within that
political party. But he argued "for millions of Americans both parties are
looked upon with derision, with disrespect. Polls show that half the
American people don't even know the difference between the Republican and
Democratic Party."
Sanders suggested it was better to tell the truth that both parties are
controlled by "big money."
What has changed since 1991? Is it that Sanders has built up power and does
not want to jeopardize that power? Is it that the Democratic Party is in a
position where it currently has to respect him, even though it loathed
everything he stood for last year?
Sanders appears to be extremely concerned about how the Democratic Party
will turn him into a pariah if he does not play by their rules and support
Clinton like they demand. In falling in line, he is fracturing a part of the
left, which he united.
To build unity with the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, which has
tremendously failed the working class and sold out the poor in the past, he
risks the unity his political campaign forged among disaffected people
throughout the country. He threatens the solidarity among movements, which
see Clinton as toxic.
The way to beat Donald Trump is not to stifle protest inside the Democratic
National Convention because one presumes it will make it easier for Trump to
win on Election Day. That gives into fear and benefits the party elites, who
are far more comfortable with serving corporations over the 99 percent.
Rather, encouraging protest or democratic action within the convention
inspires people to keep growing the "political revolution."
A "political revolution" cannot be sustained by telling people to vote for
Hillary Clinton and elect better progressive Democrats to positions in
government. It cannot be sustained by encouraging surrogates and campaign
organizers to limit the boundaries of acceptable protest from the
grassroots. Both represent examples of politics of the status quo rather
than bottom-up politics, which can truly push leaders to give into demands
for change.
Officials in the Democratic Party, who have tasked Sanders with helping them
create a veneer of party unity, will never endorse his democratic socialist
vision. On the other hand, the very people frustrated with Sanders' recent
actions will fervently remain supportive of him if he stays true to his
politics.
Perhaps, it is time for Sanders delegates to remind their candidate he
taught them to stand up and fight back. He helped them believe they have the
power to transform the system to be more democratic and include socialist
policies, which were made popular by the Bernie Sanders campaign. The whole
world is watching and the stakes are at their highest. This is the stage to
struggle for a better society out in the open.
Copyright FDL Media Group C, All Rights Reserved.
Kevin Gosztola
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
'Democracy Is Messy': Sanders Changes Tune On Protest At Democratic
Convention
Published on
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
by
Shadowproof
'Democracy Is Messy': Sanders Changes Tune On Protest At Democratic
Convention
by
Kevin Gosztola
. 40 Comments
.
. Bernie Sanders speaks on the first night of the 2016 Democratic
National Convention. (Photo: disneyabc/flickr/cc)
. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders delivered a speech,
which marked the end of the first day of the Democratic National Convention
in Philadelphia. It partly repeated statements made when he endorsed
presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton. However, the Democratic National
Committee gave him a primetime slot to pacify his delegates and further
discourage supporters from protesting inside the convention, particularly
against a process they see as rigged to nominate Clinton.
. In May, Sanders thought the convention could get "messy," telling
the Associated Press, "So what? Democracy is messy. Everyday my life is
messy. But if you want everything to be quiet and orderly and allow, you
know, just things to proceed without vigorous debate, that is not what
democracy is about."
. Yet, hours before the speech, Sanders sent a text to supporters and
declared, "I ask you as a personal courtesy to me to not engage in any kind
of protest on the floor. It's of utmost importance you explain this to your
delegations."
. The Sanders campaign also sent out an email to delegates that
argued, "Our credibility as a movement will be damaged by booing, turning of
backs, walking out, or other similar displays."
"That's what the corporate media wants," the campaign contended. "That's
what Donald Trump wants. But that's not what will expand the progressive
movement in this country." The campaign, which supposedly sparked a
"political revolution," again reiterated the request to not engage in "any
kind of protest or demonstration on the convention floor."
For months, the Sanders campaign built a nascent political campaign into an
insurgent force to be reckoned with inside the Democratic Party. The
campaign adopted the language of movement politics to contest the political
party's commitment to crowning Clinton their nominee. Their opposition was
not a reaction to her identity but to her record of support for war and
corporate policies, which are responsible for poverty and a threat to the
working class.
The Sanders campaign taught millions of Americans the value of struggle and
why it is important to fight. It geared up for a battle over issues and
ideas that manifested itself when the Democratic Party's platform was
drafted. Except, as the convention neared, Sanders abandoned plans for floor
battles at the convention. He endorsed Hillary Clinton and attempted to lend
legitimacy to her campaign by nullifying many of his most fierce critiques
of her record.
Now, the campaign, which gave so many Americans the confidence to fight for
reforms against the power elites of the Democratic establishment, has
effectively told Sanders delegates to pause their outrage. It has demanded
they forsake the spirit of grassroots politics, which was a major energizer
of the campaign, and sit quietly as a moment of grand opportunity passes-and
all because Sanders does not want to be a scapegoat for a messy convention
that Donald Trump may highlight to bolster his argument that he should be
the next President of the United States.
What happened to the idea that the Sanders campaign was an alternative to
status quo politics?
The Clinton campaign believes it is in the process of a "revolutionary act."
Jess McIntosh, director of communications outreach for Clinton's campaign,
said on "Democracy Now!", "I do think it is important, in fact, for our
movement to celebrate the fact that we have done something revolutionary.
This week, we do something revolutionary."
Even though electing Clinton could potentially be no different than electing
someone like Margaret Thatcher or Indira Gandhi, by asking his "political
revolution" to halt actions in the convention, he is giving Clinton
Democrats room to devalue the meaning of struggle.
In June, Sanders said on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, "I
don't think Hillary Clinton can lead a political revolution." He insisted
millions want to see the Democratic Party transform from a party of wealthy
campaign contributors to a party of the middle class and the "47 million
people living in poverty." But Sanders has not made the case to his
supporters that the Democratic Party has started any transformation, even
with the energy of the "political revolution."
This is why Sanders delegates are seeking ways to protest at the convention.
A sizable faction of delegates want to engage in displays of defiance
against a Democratic Party establishment that did everything it could every
step of the way to protect Hillary Clinton from losing to Bernie Sanders.
They would like to walkout of the convention after Clinton is officially
nominated, however, they want to know that hundreds of other delegates will
join them.
Sanders launched a political organization called Our Revolution. According
to USA Today, it will "help recruit, train, and fund progressive candidates'
campaigns." However, this is not particularly revolutionary, especially if
they are all running within the Democratic Party. Multiple organizations
have launched in the past to train progressive leaders.
When Jesse Jackson ran for president in the 1980s, he had the Rainbow
Coalition to mobilize grassroots organizers in the electoral arena and move
politics to the left. His campaign in 1984 was treated by the Democrats in a
crude manner similar to how Sanders was treated in the 2016 Election. Still,
Jackson was too invested in the Democratic Party to break from it, and his
coalition became a liberal conduit for bringing new voices into Democratic
politics.
Back in 1991, Sanders said, "What we need in this country is what Jackson
calls a Rainbow Coalition, but it has to be done outside the Democratic
Party." He acknowledged that most people argue the Democratic Party is where
the working class and labor unions are so everyone should work within that
political party. But he argued "for millions of Americans both parties are
looked upon with derision, with disrespect. Polls show that half the
American people don't even know the difference between the Republican and
Democratic Party."
Sanders suggested it was better to tell the truth that both parties are
controlled by "big money."
What has changed since 1991? Is it that Sanders has built up power and does
not want to jeopardize that power? Is it that the Democratic Party is in a
position where it currently has to respect him, even though it loathed
everything he stood for last year?
Sanders appears to be extremely concerned about how the Democratic Party
will turn him into a pariah if he does not play by their rules and support
Clinton like they demand. In falling in line, he is fracturing a part of the
left, which he united.
To build unity with the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, which has
tremendously failed the working class and sold out the poor in the past, he
risks the unity his political campaign forged among disaffected people
throughout the country. He threatens the solidarity among movements, which
see Clinton as toxic.
The way to beat Donald Trump is not to stifle protest inside the Democratic
National Convention because one presumes it will make it easier for Trump to
win on Election Day. That gives into fear and benefits the party elites, who
are far more comfortable with serving corporations over the 99 percent.
Rather, encouraging protest or democratic action within the convention
inspires people to keep growing the "political revolution."
A "political revolution" cannot be sustained by telling people to vote for
Hillary Clinton and elect better progressive Democrats to positions in
government. It cannot be sustained by encouraging surrogates and campaign
organizers to limit the boundaries of acceptable protest from the
grassroots. Both represent examples of politics of the status quo rather
than bottom-up politics, which can truly push leaders to give into demands
for change.
Officials in the Democratic Party, who have tasked Sanders with helping them
create a veneer of party unity, will never endorse his democratic socialist
vision. On the other hand, the very people frustrated with Sanders' recent
actions will fervently remain supportive of him if he stays true to his
politics.
Perhaps, it is time for Sanders delegates to remind their candidate he
taught them to stand up and fight back. He helped them believe they have the
power to transform the system to be more democratic and include socialist
policies, which were made popular by the Bernie Sanders campaign. The whole
world is watching and the stakes are at their highest. This is the stage to
struggle for a better society out in the open.
Copyright FDL Media Group C, All Rights Reserved.
/author/kevin-gosztola
/author/kevin-gosztola/author/kevin-gosztola
http://www.commondreams.org/author/kevin-gosztola
