Oh, I like Sanders. I liked him better than Hillary. I thought, in many
ways, he was a better candidate. He was certainly more sincere, knew how to
speak spontaneously, just generally relate to people.
Certainly a lot of Sanders voters went for Trump, but Trump never offered
healthcare for all, or free college for all. Those are both great things,
but I can just see how the Republicans would have made mince meat out of him
in the general election campaign, scaring a lot of middle America voters
with the S word, "socialism", if Sanders had won the primary.
We'll never know of course how things would have turned out. Perhaps Sanders
would have won the popular vote if Hillary hadn't run. But I am doubtful
that the majority would have voted for a candidate as far to the left as he
is.
As I said, maybe in 6 or 10 years, when more younger people, who are
generally more progressive, will be in the electorate, but not in 2016.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 4:46 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy]
Midterm elections: Democrats’ ‘blue wave’ falls short
All of those folks who voted for Trump, may very well have voted for
Sanders. There's a journalist who writes for The Nation, who's been
returning to the Midwest ever since the election to interview the people who
voted for Trump. Many of them voted for Obama because they felt that he
could help with the issues they faced, but were disappointed. Then they were
drawn to Sanders. But when Sanders wasn't a candidate and Trump seemed to be
promising some of the same things, they turned to him. Thomas Frank, the
author of What's The Matter With Kansas, who has written and spoken a lot
about this subjectd lately, agrees. His latest book is also on Bookshare.
Sanders had huge crowds throughout the Midwest when he was campaigning. He
is basically a "New Deal Democrat", whatever name he calls himself.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 3:59 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Midterm elections:
Democrats’ ‘blue wave’ falls short
I would have to disagree with those who thought Sanders could have won the
election. He was too far left to have gotten enough votes. Now maybe in 2024
or 2028, someone similar to Sanders could win on his platform. But I don't
think mainstream America would have voted for him in sufficient numbers in
2016.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 3:48 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy]
Midterm elections: Democrats’ ‘blue wave’ falls short
There was a time when the shame of the Democratic Party was its Dixicrats.
The party was supposed to represent the interests of the working class back
then, but there was this part of it from the southern United States whose
major focus was segregation. To those of us from the North, it was a relief
when all those bigots moved over to the Republican Party. We had this
delusion that now we had a party that would truly represent democratic
valyes. We thought that the war on poverty and the voting rights actd were
proof of the goodness of the party. Of course we were in denial about our
party's willing participation in the cold war and its succeeding involvement
in wars in Korea and Vietnam. Actually, we identified the party with FDR's
New Deal. Ever since the 70's, as the party has moved to the right
economically and eventually more openly embraced war as a major mechanism of
foreign policy, all we had left to cling to was, liberal social values. That
included feminism, LGBT rights, freedom of thought and religion, and
acceptance of people of all races and cultures. But because economic
equality has increased so ddrastically, because all of the laws and
regulations have changed to benefit the ultra wealthy, the corporations and
the banks, because trued educational values have morphed into training for
class position and college degrees now cost astronomical fees, there is now
a fight over what the Democratic Party should be, whom it should represent,
what values it should have. If the Republicans have moved so far to the
right that they represent only the financial interests of the wealthy and
the values of wealthy Libertarians and the religious right, then if someone
who calls him or her self a Democrat espouses those same values, many feel
that, that person doesn't belong in the Democratic Party. There are many
people who believe that had the party been even handed during the
presidential primaries, Bernie Sanders would have been the nominee and that
he could easily have won the election. That possibility then opens a whole
new complicated discussion. However, the feeling is that the same forces
within the party which did not permit that to happen, are so crippled by
their ties to wealthy donors and their complete detachment from the needs of
the majority of Americans, that the forces which allowed Mr. Trump to sit in
the oval office, will continue to run the country, one way or another.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 2:33 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Midterm elections:
Democrats’ ‘blue wave’ falls short
Quoting the article in part:
"But the candidates within the Democratic Party “big tent” ranged widely in
their views—from Democratic Socialists of America members to conservatives
like party hack Joe Manchin in West Virginia—who shamefully voted for Brett
Kavanaugh to join the Supreme Court...."
Now I don't like Kavanaugh at all, but I hope the author doesn't think that
only people with a narrow range of views should be elected, as beginning the
sentence with the word, "But", implies. That doesn't sound like a very
intelligent way to run a party or a government. That's what's happening to
the Republican party. I do not want the Democratic party to become a mirror
image of that. We are talking about the House of Representatives after all.
And whatever I think of many other peoples' views, there are a wide range of
views out there. The House is supposed to represent those views, not be a
forum for a narrow set of them.
Again, quoting the article in part:
"Evidence that the “blue wave” did not flow significantly to the left can be
seen in the fact that a quarter of the Democratic Party candidates in the
Nov. 6 election have a background in the CIA, the military, the State
Department, or national security...."
The fact that a quarter of them had such backgrounds is a problem? Does the
author mean to say that only people ignorant of such matters should be
elected? If the fact that only a quarter of them had such backgrounds is a
problem for him, that would seem to be what he's saying. Again, that doesn't
sound like a very intelligent way to make decisions. Whatever one's
positions on matters of the military, the CIA, the State Department, or
national security might be, it seems hard to justify ignorance as a good
approach to making decisions about matters involving them. Ignorance is
Donald Trump's approach to running things. I hope this author isn't
advocating a similar approach for Democrats.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 11:24 AM
To: blind-democracy
Subject: [blind-democracy] Midterm elections: Democrats’ ‘blue wave’ falls
short
https://socialistaction.org/2018/11/07/midterm-elections-democrats-blue-wave-falls-short/
Midterm elections: Democrats’ ‘blue wave’ falls short
/ 2 days ago
Nov. 2018 Ocasio Cortez (AP)
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America,
was elected to Congress on the Democratic Party ticket. (AP)
By MICHAEL SCHREIBER
“This is the most important midterm election in the modern history of this
country,” said Senator Bernie Sanders, and many politicians and pundits
agreed. President Trump spoke similarly during his week-long campaign tour,
aimed mainly at shoring up Republican candidates in so-called Red States.
“Everything we have achieved is at stake,” Trump declared to his cheering
admirers.
After the election, however, the mood quickly subsided; there was no
evidence that substantial changes had come onto the political landscape.
For one thing, the hoopla that Democrats had drummed up to create a mighty
“blue wave” produced merely a ripple of elected candidates. In a Nov. 7 news
conference, in fact, Trump boasted that his campaign rallies had “stopped
the blue wave.”
The Democrats’ lackluster finish came despite the fact that they had
received the bulk of Wall Street donations. The securities and finance
industry backed Democratic congressional candidates 63 percent to 37 percent
for the Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Of course, the Democrats did succeed in winning a majority in the House for
the first time since 2011, and made gains in many relatively affluent
suburban districts that had leaned Republican in years past.
And here and there, a few rookie Congress members were elected who consider
themselves to be “progressives” or even “democratic socialists.” More women,
LGBTQ people, and people of color than ever before were elected on the
Democratic ticket.
But the candidates within the Democratic Party “big tent” ranged widely in
their views—from Democratic Socialists of America members to conservatives
like party hack Joe Manchin in West Virginia—who shamefully voted for Brett
Kavanaugh to join the Supreme Court. The crook Bob Menendez was also
reelected as a Democratic U.S. Senator from New Jersey, despite having been
censured by the Senate Ethics Committee for accepting bribes from a wealthy
businessman.
Evidence that the “blue wave” did not flow significantly to the left can be
seen in the fact that a quarter of the Democratic Party candidates in the
Nov. 6 election have a background in the CIA, the military, the State
Department, or national security. They included, for example, Elissa
Slotkin, who won a congressional seat from Michigan’s Eighth District.
Slotkin is a former CIA operative in Iraq, who also served as Obama’s Iraq
director on the National Security Council. Later, she worked at the
Pentagon, looking into drone warfare, “homeland defense,”
and cyber warfare.
All in all, despite the addition of a few “progressive” Democrats to
Congress, the complexion of U.S. politics has changed very little since the
election. The policies of the capitalist Democratic Party have not been
altered one iota from the pro-corporate, pro-war, anti-environmental ones of
the past.
The social issues that the Democratic Party candidates addressed in their
campaigns were exceedingly narrow. “Medicare for All” was a central plank of
the Democrats this year, though we can expect that the proposal will be
watered down; as under Obama, the needs of the insurance industry will have
to be catered to before the proposal ever reaches a vote in Congress. The
Democrats also spoke about repairing the country’s roads and bridges—always
a safe bet at election time—but ignoring the need for efficient mass
transportation and the use of renewable fuels.
Major issues of an international scope were ignored, such as climate change
and out-of-control environmental pollution, and pouring more money into the
military (most Democrats in Congress supported this year’s $716 billion
military budget). Likewise, questions such as the sanctions against Iran,
trade wars with China and other countries, and the endless U.S. wars in
Afghanistan and the Middle East were virtually absent from the platforms of
Democratic candidates for Congress.
Moreover, important domestic issues such as raising the minimum wage to be
enough to live on; the right to low-cost housing; securing the rights of
women, immigrants, and LGBTQ people; and stopping police violence against
people of color generally received no more than a nod by the Democrats.
A referendum on Trump
The main issue that the Democrats ran on was simply “stop Trump.” CNN and AP
VoteCast polls on the eve of the election both showed that close to 70% of
voters hoped to send a message to Trump with their vote; about 26% to 28% of
the respondents were for Trump, and 38% to 40% were against. Trump readily
agreed that the election was a referendum on his administration. He told
potential voters in Mississippi, “Pretend I’m on the ballot.”
The Republicans held onto their “strongholds” in rural districts and in
areas of discontented white workers who had voted for Trump in 2016.
Accordingly, the Republicans increased their edge in the Senate and won
several key governor races. In general, right-wing and Trump-supporting
politicians were elected, while more mainstream Republicans did not do as
well. In a Nov. 7 tweet, Trump acknowledged the fact, saying, “Those that
worked with me in this incredible Midterm Election, embracing certain
policies and principles, did very well. Those that did not, say goodbye!”
One loyal Trump supporter who followed the formula, Marsha Blackburn, was
elected to the Senate from Tennessee. “I’m going to work with President
Trump all of the way to build that wall,” she affirmed to voters. A
Blackburn commercial started with a shot of the immigrant caravan crossing
Mexico. “I’m going to stop the criminals who are going toward our border,”
Blackburn stated in a voice-over.
In order to rally his supporters in the weeks leading up to the election,
Trump relied almost exclusively on scare tactics, using racist descriptions
that are commonly employed by the ultra-right. Trump described the Central
American migrants traveling through Mexico as “invaders” and “terrorists,”
and he endorsed a campaign ad that likened them to Luis Bracamontes, an
immigrant who had been convicted for killing two police officers.
Polls showed that the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court was
a key issue for Trump supporters in the election. Only a month before the
election, Trump spread the conspiracy theory that people protesting Brett
Kavanaugh’s nomination (“elevator screamers”) were being paid for by
billionaire George Soros—a figure who is frequently denounced in
anti-Semitic literature.
In the South, with its long history of injustices against Black people,
racism was merged with anti-immigrant prejudices in Republican messages
against the Democrats. In Georgia, Trump said that Democrat Stacey Abrams, a
Black “progressive” running for governor, was “unqualified”
for the office, and that she “would turn Georgia into a giant sanctuary city
for criminal aliens, putting innocent Georgia families at the mercy of
hardened criminals and predators.” The National Rifle Association in Georgia
put out a message, “Defend yourself. Defeat Abrams.” And ABC News reported
that a robocall on behalf of her Republican opponent, Brian Kemp, called
Abrams a “negress.”
Should socialists work within the Democratic Party?
The elections reflected the broader polarization that has taken place in the
United States during the last few years, brought on in part by the
dissatisfaction and alienation that working people feel toward the status
quo in capitalist society. Some workers and middle-class people, often in
“rust-belt” districts that have seen better times, have been hoodwinked by
the anti-immigrant and racist messages of the right wing.
But likewise, there is no doubt that the reactionary pronouncements by Trump
and the right have had an electric effect in mobilizing people in
opposition. The last two years have seen massive rallies in the streets
against Trump’s policies.
Unfortunately, at the present time, working people have no authentic voice
in the political arena except in the streets. Some socialists mistakenly
adhere to the idea that it might be possible to change the pro-big business
nature of the Democratic Party by working within it, or that it might be
possible to break a “left wing” (such as Bernie Sanders
supporters) out of the party. But both scenarios are merely wishful
thinking.
Similarly, it is a deadly illusion to think that revolutionary socialists
can be elected to public office and work for significant social change when
using the ballot line of the capitalist Democratic Party—always a
“lesser-evil” trap for the unwary. History has repeatedly demonstrated that
the former party of the Klan, White Citizens Councils, and Southern
slavocracy serves the ruling class elite unfailingly.
That this “graveyard of all fighting social movements” can be considered a
vehicle for advancing working-class interests is preposterous. In general,
when “progressive” or “left” candidates run as Democrats, the party
hierarchy forces them to align their positions with those of the mainstream,
not the opposite.
Consider Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the member of the Democratic Socialists
of America (DSA) from the Bronx, who was just elected to the House as a
Democrat. At first, the party leadership viewed her with suspicion, but
after winning the primary vote, she became a celebrity, the subject of talk
shows—and even Barak Obama endorsed her.
Accordingly, the DSA enlisted Ocasio-Cortez to travel to California to raise
money and support for other “left” candidates running in the Democratic
Party. We can expect, too, that the Democratic Party leadership will use her
services in selected and “safe” locales as an opportunity to refurbish the
party’s image when it suits their needs.
They understand that Ocasio-Cortez and other DSAers are fresh faces who can
attract young people and activists with new energy into the party—and thus
channel dissident voices into the double-talking capitalist mainstream.
Sanders played a similar role in 2016, shepherding the unwary first into his
campaign and then into Hillary Clinton’s.
At her acceptance speech on Nov. 6, Ocasio-Cortez told supporters, “We can
make change … We are here, and we are going to rock the world in the next
two years … This is not the end. This is the beginning.”
But real change will never be achieved from within the Democratic Party.
The beginning of a new day for working people in the United States will
arrive when they construct their own party, one that operates not only at
the ballot box but in workplaces and in the streets, and with a
revolutionary program to enable the working class to take political power in
its own name and abolish the rule of the capitalists.
Share this:
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) 46Click to share on
Facebook (Opens in new window)46 Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new
window)
November 7, 2018 in Elections, Trump / U.S. Government.
Related posts
The rise of right-wing violence in Trump’s America
The caravan that defies borders
Michael Moore flays Trump in ‘Farenheight 11/9’
Post navigation
← ‘We won’t be erased,’ say Connecticut protesters for trans rights
Get Involved!
Donate to help support our work
Get email updates
Join Socialist Action
Newspaper Archives
Newspaper Archives Select Month November 2018 (5) October 2018 (10)
September 2018 (8) August 2018 (12) July 2018 (13) June 2018 (11) May
2018 (19) April 2018 (15) March 2018 (17) February 2018 (14) January
2018 (13) December 2017 (13) November 2017 (13) October 2017
(16) September 2017 (15) August 2017 (16) July 2017 (17) June 2017
(16) May 2017 (17) April 2017 (14) March 2017 (13) February 2017
(19) January 2017 (13) December 2016 (12) November 2016 (19) October
2016 (12) September 2016 (10) August 2016 (10) July 2016 (14) June
2016 (14) May 2016 (9) April 2016 (12) March 2016 (14) February 2016
(8) January 2016 (11) December 2015 (11) November 2015 (9) October
2015 (8) September 2015 (10) August 2015 (7) July 2015 (13) June
2015 (9) May 2015 (10) April 2015 (12) March 2015 (9) February 2015
(11) January 2015 (10) December 2014 (12) November 2014 (11) October
2014 (9) September 2014 (6) August 2014 (10) July 2014 (11) June
2014 (10) May 2014 (11) April 2014 (10) March 2014 (9) February
2014 (11) January 2014 (11) December 2013 (10) November 2013 (11) October
2013 (17) September 2013 (13) August 2013 (10) July 2013
(11) June 2013 (15) May 2013 (14) April 2013 (14) March 2013 (12)
February 2013 (10) January 2013 (17) December 2012 (7) November 2012
(8) October 2012 (19) September 2012 (2) August 2012 (27) July 2012
(18) June 2012 (3) May 2012 (19) April 2012 (14) March 2012 (17)
February 2012 (19) January 2012 (17) December 2011 (3) November 2011
(33) October 2011 (14) September 2011 (13) August 2011 (34) July
2011 (24) June 2011 (19) May 2011 (19) April 2011 (15) March 2011
(15) February 2011 (15) January 2011 (15) December 2010 (17) November
2010 (1) October 2010 (6) September 2010 (3) August 2010 (8) July
2010 (7) June 2010 (2) May 2010 (9) April 2010 (3) March 2010 (8)
February 2010 (3) January 2010 (9) December 2009 (6) November 2009
(5) October 2009 (16) September 2009 (3) August 2009 (2) July 2009
(5) June 2009 (2) May 2009 (7) April 2009 (6) March 2009 (16) February
2009 (9) January 2009 (10) December 2008 (11) November 2008
(8) October 2008 (16) September 2008 (14) August 2008 (18) July 2008
(12) June 2008 (3) May 2008 (2) April 2008 (3) March 2008 (14) February
2008 (11) January 2008 (11) December 2007 (8) November 2007
(1) July 2007 (1) June 2007 (1) April 2007 (1) March 2007 (1) February
2007 (3) December 2006 (11) November 2006 (11) October 2006
(13) September 2006 (15) August 2006 (11) July 2006 (18) June 2006
(7) May 2006 (14) April 2006 (6) March 2006 (14) February 2006 (5)
January 2006 (2) December 2005 (9) November 2005 (8) October 2005
(13) September 2005 (12) August 2005 (9) July 2005 (16) June 2005
(16) May 2005 (16) April 2005 (12) March 2005 (14) February 2005
(19) January 2005 (15) December 2004 (14) November 2002 (17) October
2002 (19) September 2002 (22) August 2002 (21) July 2002 (15) May
2002 (21) April 2002 (21) February 2002 (15) January 2002 (15) December
2001 (17) October 2001 (24) September 2001 (18) July 2001
(19) June 2001 (18) October 2000 (17) September 2000 (21) August 2000
(19) July 2000 (16) June 2000 (26) May 2000 (21) April 2000 (22) March
2000 (28) February 2000 (18) January 2000 (20) December 1999
(20) November 1999 (26) October 1999 (25) September 1999 (18) August
1999 (40) July 1999 (38) June 1999 (24) May 1999 (27) April 1999
(25) March 1999 (26) February 1999 (29) January 1999 (24) July 1998
(12)
Search
View socialistactionusa’s profile on Facebook View SocialistActUS’s
profile on Twitter View SocialistActionCT’s profile on YouTube
Subscribe to Our Newspaper
Upcoming Events
No upcoming events
Category Cloud
Actions & Protest Africa Anti-War Arts & Culture Black Liberation Canada
Caribbean Civil Liberties Cuba East Asia Economy Education & Schools
Elections Environment Europe Immigration Indigenous Rights International
Labor Latin America Latino Civil Liberties Marxist Theory & History Middle
East Police & FBI Prisons South Asia Trump / U.S. Government Uncategorized
Vote Socialist Action Women's Liberation
View Calendar
Blog at WordPress.com.
Follow
--
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life
after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved
negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement,
and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no
matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and
more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the
evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
