It probably won’t. It might be me, but I’m seeing a lot of disenchantment with Sanders regarding his seemingly lukewarm support of racial and gender issues and his will-he-or-won’t-he attitude towards committing to the Democratic Party despite having been given a position of some influence within its apparatus. Most of that disenchantment seems to come from women and black voters, who are the Democrats’ actual core demographic, so that’s not boding well either.
You have to go look at the age groups. I’m a group I am with that from my personal experience post election with these groups you were referring to their approve of sanders and his message they just did not have the ability to vote. Mind you NYC was special mess. SanderAn does and the thing is Sanders does care about mintory group of this nations he was only candidate in decades to show genuine concern for The indigenous population. His message of economic and political equality for all as a pushing aggressive factor is gone many people to try to run for office of our generation more importantly POC take up that torch of both social economic justice. They’re sick of this July monarchy central left policy that disfranchises majority of Americans. I’m not pushing revolution but we definitely need reform so we must push candidate for that and as Long as it’s in the framer work of government we can be as aggressively fast as about it as possible. Paul no for long time talk about economic justice as political message. because the Democratic Party needs to brace the economic with the social justice.
Implying the Democratic Party is Centre-Left
I mean, the Democratic Party definitely needs a proper left wing, since it’s clear that “We’re not as bad as the Republicans!” isn’t going to be a winning strategy forever, but the fixation on Sanders as a saviour figure worries me, as do some of the people he brings to the table (I am not a fan of the “dirtbag left”).
If nothing else, an old white dude pretending to be more left than he is while being no-give-and-all-take with the Party he’s nominally working with isn’t going to be a winning strategy either, if the example of Thomas Mulcair offers any insight in that case.
I’m not entirely sure what it is, but presenting Sanders or his message in terms of a savior figure leaves me lukewarm at best.
Some of this is undoubtedly comments like Cataphrak’s, but it frankly falls flat to begin with for me.
Maybe it’s the degree that I’m severely skeptical of him being a guy I especially need to listen to, as if he’s the only one who cares about any of the causes I care about.
Again from personal experience the electrified a lot of people. But I completely understand if you have skepticism and the healthy amount of pessimism followinv politics for number of years. I’m still never new to it. But he got me to person start caring. Looking at any other historical examples of how I am personally for reform because Revolution is a strong word revolution requires bloodshed and kill good men. When Revolution works the best at least my opinion is when it’s short and fast-acting. The people that are in charge of it are able to form a provisional government coordinate quickly and are in line to with the will of the people. The mind you this is a very classic liberal perspective.
On a complete side note apparently Trump’s granddaughter is more culture than he is.
Honestly, the fact that he’s mobilised people to start caring is the important thing, and I hope that’s Sanders’ long-term legacy and not “he raised a massive support base who were loyal to him personally, did little but start fights with people who criticised him, and disappeared when he retired/died.”
Honestly I think that is going to be his main legacy. I’m hoping that he’s pushing the American left and a new left Direction. Because that’s all he can do pretty much at this point. It’s still hard to be optimistic but I have to try. And saying my state is so entrenched it’s maybe just self-defeating for my own attempt at giving it a shot. New Jersey is one of these stereotypical examples of political corruption a least of the most stereotypical Northern example. Plus we are heavily associated with the mob even before The Sopranos.
FYI not all revolution are Terrible First Republic did have universal emancipation… because you got understand the reason why Maximillion was crazy at the end it was because the man and mental break down. He was literally for to virtuous for the rest of France while trying to keep the republic together and eventfully broke him. Mind you Sonthonax does deserve some credit.
I’m sure he’s electrified others, but that’s not very good at swaying me.
The thing that - looking at recent posts - leaves me of little enthusiasm is more about this:
“Why? Why is that the cause we should be most worried about?”
It’s certainly not the one that leaves me most upset that my country is heading for a state the dogs wouldn’t have it (to twist the saying “going to the dogs”), but it seems the biggest Bernie thing.
I’m certainly not in favor of corporate influence in politics, but I’m even less in favor of other things.
Which leaves me feeling cold too, because “Corporate Money” is an wedge issue from within the Democratic Party, as opposed to something like single-payer healthcare or higher minimum wage or prison reform. It’s often used as a cudgel to hit Democratic lawmakers who are nominally (or substantively) in favour of the three aforementioned substantive issues, but are not anointed “Sanders Democrats” and therefore, insufficiently “Progressive” to a lot of his supporters.
As relates to finding that cudgeling unpleasant:
“Perfecting purity is for monks and other people who don’t have to live in the real world.” probably explains a lot of my political and quirky opinions, come to think of it.
Politics is always going to be the art of imperfect people using imperfect systems to get adequate (at best) results.
corporate money is a huge it to you it’s from the biggest things they have the form. Even as I’m getting more knowledge of this I see you with strike the compromise for unity of the results. The hugest you nonetheless in my state alone you feel like and for that matter fact elections are practically bought. Which undercuts deglation of sovereignty. Making de facto electors even less So yeah it hug issue. This why people build barricades. Combine that with a large population Of mix minority group that is under rep all readily since many are part of lower middle class the with corporate money is a double gut punch.
@Elfwine i’m going only swallowed a bitter pill of corporate money with my politician if I have to absolutely necessary make that compromise of utility otherwise it’s a no go for me. Think about this for second Aristotle politics was a sequel to his ethics.
I think corporate donors aren’t quite as much of a factor as you think (though it’s obviously a factor, if the GOP’s tax plan is as pushed by their donors as it appears to be). Campaign funds are not necessarily the be-all end-all of elections. A message that resonates, favourable media coverage, and the wider geopolitical environment all contribute as much, or more than who has the bigger campaign fund in electoral contests.
In this regard, I kind of see “I’m not backed by a corporate donor” as the equivalent of “I’ve never been arrested for speeding”, it’s almost certainly a good thing, but you don’t bring it up if you’ve got more important, immediately substantive issues to champion.
Aristotle’s Politics is also awful. I’m not sure any reasonable person should be using a work which establishes a large chunk of the population as sub-human by nature as a positive example.
I think Cataphrak put it better than I could have. I’m certainly in favor of limiting corporate influence, but corporations spending money worries me less than “make America all about white cismales even more than it already is”.
If that regulation guarantees the goods can be traded across 27 different member states?
Not to say that there was ever a ban on products, but it was an issue on classification regarding boxed products to ensure that the purchaser could be guaranteed a product to match the classification it had received. Under the same rules we have the size of apples etc. Legislature might sound silly to you, but it has to get minute if you want to encourage trade between Half a billion people and more than 30 countries.
Your go-to arabic world is a Bosnian?
Anyways, in regards to the whole “why dont they stay and fight” argument… There is no A vs B fight in Syria. And for many people there are no groups they want to support or fight for. Not to say that many former Yugoslavians absolutely DID flee their countries (including young men) to safety. To complain that someone doesn’t want to fight in a war… I don’t even know where to start…
Perhaps not. But if the alternative is to let 700.000 people wither away to death and disease in overpopulated camps in Greece and Italy, i know what i will choose.
Campaign Finance reform is a huge issue I got arrested for that issue twice. It goes listen to the speeding ticket analogy and more of the equivalency have I took in bribes for political office. Now I no fool. Every form of corruption has been a major issue in American politics since and before its Inception. It’s a huge issue because it produces a certain brand of politician. Forcing them to represent their biggest patrons to their campaign coffers. It’s not necessarily something you seem in voting but what committees are apart of which is massively huge. Unless of an older breed of politician . That is trying to push for reform but how to use corporate money to go to I won’t shoot for it as long as they’re trying to end that system. Because it’s a castration of suffrage for the general population. FYI I promise you I’m not dog whistling anything I mean everybody of the middle to lower social economic class. But also we need a system to the gods multiple to your voting so I can actually have a larger representative base of the different groups within a state. But Paul my friend is something we will have differ on. Because I campaign Finance reform is in the same package combined economic and social justice. And I hope this analogies not too harsh but just Solely social reform without the economic Justice and looking at something like campaign Finance reform. Is not too different when the creo color population of Santo Domingo when thier lobbying for equal suffrage to the National Assembly but still wanting to keep their slaves. I’m going with Aristotle’s politics historical perspective of the time you got to separate the archaic from what was vitial. Which in his case political responsibility of the citizen. At least that I can remember off the top of my head right now. And again I’m sorry I hope I’m not coming off harsh it’s issue I am very personally passionate about.
I’m using this as something of an extreme, but:
Let’s say you had a politician who rejected corporate donors and railed about Wall Street being the source of America’s ills - and who thought that there ought to be an official state religion, that women should stay in the home, and that people who believe in evolution are a threat to the Commonwealth and should be “reeducated”.
Are you going to seriously tell me that someone who believes in any of the italicized part would be good for social justice because they say worse things about Big Oil than some generic centrist Democrat?
I’m not saying Bernie is that someone, or would support that someone (or that you are) - but I do think it would be a position far closer to “pro equal suffrage but wanting to keep their slaves” than people who aren’t “Progressive enough” because they’re not regarding corporate donors as the most important cause around.
So the same Democrats that no problem prolong perpetual war. That’s where our lovely privileges of being American we don’t suffer that perpetual war destruction when they down environmental regulations or any positive Reform they gain they go four step back in another. Thing is I have yet to see that example I bet it exist somewhere but I haven’t sent it yet probably they’re the same people that believe banking is complete utter destruction all society and wars. Now I’m not saying big banks do not push things in certain direction they have a pull but not end all be all.
Now mind you I would have to be Crazy to back anyway with that social platform.
I can’t think of anyone who is exactly that off the top of my head, but I can say that in a contest between “the guy ranting about corporate donors”, “the guy ranting about transgender people being a threat to society”, and “the guy who makes me upset that my party is insufficiently left wing, especially as relates to corporations”…
I’m voting for who will beat the second guy, and if that means “the guy who corporate interests love” then I’ll deal with that after I’m not worried about the second guy.
And those three positions do exist.
For the sake of continuing this discussion the simplest way to destroy the mob is support the biggest mob there is.
I mean the state.
Of course it is, but I don’t consider it more important than every other economic or social justice issue. If pursuing campaign finance reform means undercutting those fighting voter suppression, or corporate deregulation, or bathroom bills, or police reform because it’s a good way to score points in an intra-party pissing match, then I want nothing to do with it.
Perpetual war is basically the natural state of a Great Power, and getting into every fight you can to defend your “dignity” and prove that “you’ve still got it” is basically how powerful states keep their rivals from infringing on their sovereignty or co-opting the guarantees and assurances that their citizens live with. The reason states become powerful is to attain security, and the reason those states write their histories in blood is to maintain that security.
I’ve mentioned this before, and it’s a bitter pill to swallow, but American Empire has a popular mandate, because those perpetual “victorious” colonial wars and the hegemony it perpetuates convinces the American people (and people who live in its closest allies, like us) that we’re safe and that any attempt to attack us will be met with overwhelming, irresistible force. “Perpetual War” sounds bad (not just because it is), if you frame it like that, but if you frame it as upholding the assurances of safety and security that the citizens of the empire cling to, then it becomes considerably more popular.
If the US response after 9/11 shows anything, it’s that the American people as a collective are willing to countenance a lot of nasty measures to maintain their myth that they are safe, and that anyone who attacks them will be crushed.