Weissman writes: "Why are some liberals so eager to help the right wing
fight against ever electing a socialist, an anti-imperialist, or anyone
dedicated to working night and day to break Wall Street's chokehold on so
much of the global economy?"
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. (photo: AP)
What Do Progressives Eat for Breakfast?
By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
08 February 16
Progressives and democratic socialists in this year's elections are working
for radical change or even a nonviolent "political revolution," as Bernie
Sanders likes to call it. Not being fools, we knew from the start that the
odds were stacked against us. Some of us even suspected that liberal pundits
like Paul Krugman and Jonathan Chait would berate us for risking a complete
rout in the elections, as George McGovern and Walter Mondale suffered in
1972 and 1980.
Why are these liberals so eager to help the right wing fight against ever
electing a socialist, an anti-imperialist, or anyone dedicated to working
night and day to break Wall Street's chokehold on so much of the global
economy? Do they really believe that Hillary Clinton would work as hard as
Sanders against her patrons and playmates on Wall Street or their global
pipeline deals and trade agreements? Did they ever hear her condemn her
husband's role in deregulating Wall Street and creating the economic crash
of 2007 and 2008? Why, then, do they lend their voices to the red-baiting
that has already begun?
Don't get me wrong. The risks of electing a radical right-wing Republican
are real, just as they were in 2008 when a little-known African-American
with a Muslim father and the provocative name of Barack Hussein Obama ran in
the primaries against Hillary. The risks today are far greater, as galloping
economic inequality, a new Cold War, racism, overt white supremacy,
nativism, xenophobia, Christian nationalism, Islamophobia, and even fascism
now threaten both sides of the Atlantic.
These are historic threats that only a root-and-branch political revolution
has any chance to overcome. By contrast, Hillary's have-guns-will-travel
imperialism abroad and incremental tweaking at home will only deepen the
economic, social, and ideological divides.
The bigger risk - if we can believe the recent Quinnipiac poll showing a
virtual tie nationwide between Sanders and Clinton - is that we will win the
elections and lose the more decisive battles, as we did to a large extent
with Obama's victories in 2008 and 2012. Go back and read the transcript of
Thursday's debate in New Hampshire between the two candidates, especially
the segments on foreign policy.
Hillary may have sounded more gung-ho about using US and allied special
forces to work with local Arab and Kurdish forces in fighting against the
Islamic State, while Bernie worried more about quagmires and not becoming
"the policeman of the world." But both generally supported Obama's continued
military involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, which guarantees that
US and NATO forces, special or otherwise, would remain in the region for
decades to come.
Is this what those of us who support Sanders really want? If not, we had
better start speaking out now. A serious political movement has to have its
own voices apart from whatever political candidate we may be supporting at a
particular time, and that distinction is the only way we can remain true to
ourselves and to Bernie's better instincts.
________________________________________
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly
Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a
magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France,
where he is researching a new book, "Big Money and the Corporate State: How
Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently
Break Their Hold."
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. (photo: AP)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
What Do Progressives Eat for Breakfast?
By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
08 February 16
rogressives and democratic socialists in this year's elections are working
for radical change or even a nonviolent "political revolution," as Bernie
Sanders likes to call it. Not being fools, we knew from the start that the
odds were stacked against us. Some of us even suspected that liberal pundits
like Paul Krugman and Jonathan Chait would berate us for risking a complete
rout in the elections, as George McGovern and Walter Mondale suffered in
1972 and 1980.
Why are these liberals so eager to help the right wing fight against ever
electing a socialist, an anti-imperialist, or anyone dedicated to working
night and day to break Wall Street's chokehold on so much of the global
economy? Do they really believe that Hillary Clinton would work as hard as
Sanders against her patrons and playmates on Wall Street or their global
pipeline deals and trade agreements? Did they ever hear her condemn her
husband's role in deregulating Wall Street and creating the economic crash
of 2007 and 2008? Why, then, do they lend their voices to the red-baiting
that has already begun?
Don't get me wrong. The risks of electing a radical right-wing Republican
are real, just as they were in 2008 when a little-known African-American
with a Muslim father and the provocative name of Barack Hussein Obama ran in
the primaries against Hillary. The risks today are far greater, as galloping
economic inequality, a new Cold War, racism, overt white supremacy,
nativism, xenophobia, Christian nationalism, Islamophobia, and even fascism
now threaten both sides of the Atlantic.
These are historic threats that only a root-and-branch political revolution
has any chance to overcome. By contrast, Hillary's have-guns-will-travel
imperialism abroad and incremental tweaking at home will only deepen the
economic, social, and ideological divides.
The bigger risk - if we can believe the recent Quinnipiac poll showing a
virtual tie nationwide between Sanders and Clinton - is that we will win the
elections and lose the more decisive battles, as we did to a large extent
with Obama's victories in 2008 and 2012. Go back and read the transcript of
Thursday's debate in New Hampshire between the two candidates, especially
the segments on foreign policy.
Hillary may have sounded more gung-ho about using US and allied special
forces to work with local Arab and Kurdish forces in fighting against the
Islamic State, while Bernie worried more about quagmires and not becoming
"the policeman of the world." But both generally supported Obama's continued
military involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, which guarantees that
US and NATO forces, special or otherwise, would remain in the region for
decades to come.
Is this what those of us who support Sanders really want? If not, we had
better start speaking out now. A serious political movement has to have its
own voices apart from whatever political candidate we may be supporting at a
particular time, and that distinction is the only way we can remain true to
ourselves and to Bernie's better instincts.
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly
Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a
magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France,
where he is researching a new book, "Big Money and the Corporate State: How
Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently
Break Their Hold."
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
