Greenwald writes: "Evidence of a growing Sanders movement is unmistakable.
Because of the broader trends driving it, this is clearly unsettling to
establishment Democrats - as it should be."
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: AP)
The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
21 January 16
The British political and media establishment incrementally lost its
collective mind over the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the
country's Labour Party, and its unraveling and implosion show no signs of
receding yet. Bernie Sanders is nowhere near as radical as Corbyn; they are
not even in the same universe. But, especially on economic issues, Sanders
is a more fundamental, systemic critic than the oligarchical power centers
are willing to tolerate, and his rejection of corporate dominance over
politics, and corporate support for his campaigns, is particularly menacing.
He is thus regarded as America's version of a far-left extremist,
threatening establishment power.
For those who observed the unfolding of the British reaction to Corbyn's
victory, it's been fascinating to watch the D.C./Democratic establishment's
reaction to Sanders' emergence replicate that, reading from the same script.
I personally think Clinton's nomination is extremely likely, but evidence of
a growing Sanders movement is unmistakable. Because of the broader trends
driving it, this is clearly unsettling to establishment Democrats - as it
should be.
A poll last week found that Sanders has a large lead with millennial voters,
including young women; as Rolling Stone put it: "Young female voters support
Bernie Sanders by an expansive margin." The New York Times yesterday
trumpeted that, in New Hampshire, Sanders "has jumped out to a 27 percentage
point lead," which is "stunning by New Hampshire standards." The Wall Street
Journal yesterday, in an editorial titled "Taking Sanders Seriously,"
declared it is "no longer impossible to imagine the 74-year-old socialist as
the Democratic nominee."
Just as was true for Corbyn, there is a direct correlation between the
strength of Sanders and the intensity of the bitter and ugly attacks
unleashed at him by the D.C. and Democratic political and media
establishment. There were, roughly speaking, seven stages to this
establishment revolt in the U.K. against Corbyn, and the U.S. reaction to
Sanders is closely following the same script:
STAGE 1: Polite condescension toward what is perceived to be harmless (we
think it's really wonderful that your views are being aired).
STAGE 2: Light, casual mockery as the self-belief among supporters grows
(no, dears, a left-wing extremist will not win, but it's nice to see you
excited).
STAGE 3: Self-pity and angry etiquette lectures directed at supporters upon
realization that they are not performing their duty of meek surrender,
flavored with heavy doses of concern trolling (nobody but nobody is as rude
and gauche online to journalists as these crusaders, and it's unfortunately
hurting their candidate's cause!).
STAGE 4: Smear the candidate and his supporters with innuendos of sexism and
racism by falsely claiming only white men support them (you like this
candidate because he's white and male like you, not because of ideology or
policy or contempt for the party establishment's corporatist, pro-war
approach).
STAGE 5: Brazen invocation of right-wing attacks to marginalize and
demonize, as polls prove the candidate is a credible threat (he's weak on
terrorism, will surrender to ISIS, has crazy associations, and is a clone of
Mao and Stalin).
STAGE 6: Issuance of grave and hysterical warnings about the pending
apocalypse if the establishment candidate is rejected, as the possibility of
losing becomes imminent (you are destined for decades, perhaps even
generations, of powerlessness if you disobey our decrees about who to
select).
STAGE 7: Full-scale and unrestrained meltdown, panic, lashing-out, threats,
recriminations, self-important foot-stomping, overt union with the Right,
complete fury (I can no longer in good conscience support this party of
misfits, terrorist-lovers, communists, and heathens).
Britain is well into Stage 7, and may even invent a whole new level
(anonymous British military officials expressly threatened a "mutiny" if
Corbyn were democratically elected as prime minister). The Democratic media
and political establishment has been in the heart of Stage 5 for weeks and
is now entering Stage 6. The arrival of Stage 7 is guaranteed if Sanders
wins Iowa.
Headline covering Jeremy Corbyn. (photo: The Intercept)
Headline from The Daily Beast. (photo: The Intercept)
It's both expected and legitimate in elections for the campaigns to harshly
criticize one another. There's nothing wrong with that; we should all want
contrasts drawn, and it's hardly surprising that this will be done with
aggression and acrimony. People go to extremes to acquire power: That's just
human nature.
But that doesn't mean one can't find meaning in the specific attacks that
are chosen, nor does it mean that the attacks invoked are immune from
critique (the crass, cynical exploitation of gender issues by Clinton
supporters to imply Sanders support is grounded in sexism was particularly
slimy and dishonest given that the same left-wing factions that support
Sanders spent months literally pleading with Elizabeth Warren to challenge
Clinton, to say nothing of the large numbers of female Sanders supporters
whose existence was nullified by those attacks).
People in both parties, and across the political spectrum, are disgusted by
the bipartisan D.C. establishment. It's hardly mysterious why large numbers
of adults in the U.S. want to find an alternative to a candidate like
Clinton who is drowning both politically and personally in Wall Street
money, who seems unable to find a war she dislikes, and whose only political
conviction seems to be that anything is justifiably said or done to secure
her empowerment - just as it was hardly a mystery why adults in the U.K.
were desperate to find an alternative to the craven, war-loving, left-hating
Blairites who have enormous amounts of blood stained indelibly on their
hands.
But the nature of "establishments" is that they cling desperately to power,
and will attack anyone who defies or challenges that power with unrestrained
fervor. That's what we saw in the U.K. with the emergence of Corbyn, and
what we're seeing now with the threat posed by Sanders. It's not surprising
that the attacks in both cases are similar - the dynamic of establishment
prerogative is the same - but it's nonetheless striking how identical is the
script used in both cases.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: AP)
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/21/the-seven-stages-of-establishment-backla
sh-corbynsanders-edition/https://theintercept.com/2016/01/21/the-seven-stage
s-of-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition/
The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
21 January 16
he British political and media establishment incrementally lost its
collective mind over the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the
country's Labour Party, and its unraveling and implosion show no signs of
receding yet. Bernie Sanders is nowhere near as radical as Corbyn; they are
not even in the same universe. But, especially on economic issues, Sanders
is a more fundamental, systemic critic than the oligarchical power centers
are willing to tolerate, and his rejection of corporate dominance over
politics, and corporate support for his campaigns, is particularly menacing.
He is thus regarded as America's version of a far-left extremist,
threatening establishment power.
For those who observed the unfolding of the British reaction to Corbyn's
victory, it's been fascinating to watch the D.C./Democratic establishment's
reaction to Sanders' emergence replicate that, reading from the same script.
I personally think Clinton's nomination is extremely likely, but evidence of
a growing Sanders movement is unmistakable. Because of the broader trends
driving it, this is clearly unsettling to establishment Democrats - as it
should be.
A poll last week found that Sanders has a large lead with millennial voters,
including young women; as Rolling Stone put it: "Young female voters support
Bernie Sanders by an expansive margin." The New York Times yesterday
trumpeted that, in New Hampshire, Sanders "has jumped out to a 27 percentage
point lead," which is "stunning by New Hampshire standards." The Wall Street
Journal yesterday, in an editorial titled "Taking Sanders Seriously,"
declared it is "no longer impossible to imagine the 74-year-old socialist as
the Democratic nominee."
Just as was true for Corbyn, there is a direct correlation between the
strength of Sanders and the intensity of the bitter and ugly attacks
unleashed at him by the D.C. and Democratic political and media
establishment. There were, roughly speaking, seven stages to this
establishment revolt in the U.K. against Corbyn, and the U.S. reaction to
Sanders is closely following the same script:
STAGE 1: Polite condescension toward what is perceived to be harmless (we
think it's really wonderful that your views are being aired).
STAGE 2: Light, casual mockery as the self-belief among supporters grows
(no, dears, a left-wing extremist will not win, but it's nice to see you
excited).
STAGE 3: Self-pity and angry etiquette lectures directed at supporters upon
realization that they are not performing their duty of meek surrender,
flavored with heavy doses of concern trolling (nobody but nobody is as rude
and gauche online to journalists as these crusaders, and it's unfortunately
hurting their candidate's cause!).
STAGE 4: Smear the candidate and his supporters with innuendos of sexism and
racism by falsely claiming only white men support them (you like this
candidate because he's white and male like you, not because of ideology or
policy or contempt for the party establishment's corporatist, pro-war
approach).
STAGE 5: Brazen invocation of right-wing attacks to marginalize and
demonize, as polls prove the candidate is a credible threat (he's weak on
terrorism, will surrender to ISIS, has crazy associations, and is a clone of
Mao and Stalin).
STAGE 6: Issuance of grave and hysterical warnings about the pending
apocalypse if the establishment candidate is rejected, as the possibility of
losing becomes imminent (you are destined for decades, perhaps even
generations, of powerlessness if you disobey our decrees about who to
select).
STAGE 7: Full-scale and unrestrained meltdown, panic, lashing-out, threats,
recriminations, self-important foot-stomping, overt union with the Right,
complete fury (I can no longer in good conscience support this party of
misfits, terrorist-lovers, communists, and heathens).
Britain is well into Stage 7, and may even invent a whole new level
(anonymous British military officials expressly threatened a "mutiny" if
Corbyn were democratically elected as prime minister). The Democratic media
and political establishment has been in the heart of Stage 5 for weeks and
is now entering Stage 6. The arrival of Stage 7 is guaranteed if Sanders
wins Iowa.
Headline covering Jeremy Corbyn. (photo: The Intercept)
Headline from The Daily Beast. (photo: The Intercept)
It's both expected and legitimate in elections for the campaigns to harshly
criticize one another. There's nothing wrong with that; we should all want
contrasts drawn, and it's hardly surprising that this will be done with
aggression and acrimony. People go to extremes to acquire power: That's just
human nature.
But that doesn't mean one can't find meaning in the specific attacks that
are chosen, nor does it mean that the attacks invoked are immune from
critique (the crass, cynical exploitation of gender issues by Clinton
supporters to imply Sanders support is grounded in sexism was particularly
slimy and dishonest given that the same left-wing factions that support
Sanders spent months literally pleading with Elizabeth Warren to challenge
Clinton, to say nothing of the large numbers of female Sanders supporters
whose existence was nullified by those attacks).
People in both parties, and across the political spectrum, are disgusted by
the bipartisan D.C. establishment. It's hardly mysterious why large numbers
of adults in the U.S. want to find an alternative to a candidate like
Clinton who is drowning both politically and personally in Wall Street
money, who seems unable to find a war she dislikes, and whose only political
conviction seems to be that anything is justifiably said or done to secure
her empowerment - just as it was hardly a mystery why adults in the U.K.
were desperate to find an alternative to the craven, war-loving, left-hating
Blairites who have enormous amounts of blood stained indelibly on their
hands.
But the nature of "establishments" is that they cling desperately to power,
and will attack anyone who defies or challenges that power with unrestrained
fervor. That's what we saw in the U.K. with the emergence of Corbyn, and
what we're seeing now with the threat posed by Sanders. It's not surprising
that the attacks in both cases are similar - the dynamic of establishment
prerogative is the same - but it's nonetheless striking how identical is the
script used in both cases.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
