Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Desperate Dollar Democrats

Russophobia and Hillary Clinton's blame game tour must be losing a little steam, because the anti-Bernie Sanders concern trolls are back. Too many people are still Sanders supporters, and that's making the party leadership a tad nervous.

So the New York Times has been performing its own due diligence with several prominent articles in recent days gently "raising questions" about the legitimacy, if not the basic sanity, of the Bernie faction. On Sunday, the newspaper groused on its front page that Democratic "militants" are making it so hard for the Wall Street faction to achieve the real goal: winning. The Times version of a Democratic militant is somebody who is crazily demanding health care for everybody.

In effect, that makes the majority of the United States one big pitchfork-wielding mob, given that eight in 10 Democrats want single payer insurance, and three out of 10 Republicans do. Therefore, "hippie-punching" is being elevated to a whole new level by the increasingly desperate Neoliberal Thought Collective of which the Times is such a faithful mouthpiece.

As Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin inform their readers:
 Democrats are facing a widening breach in their party, as liberal activists dream of transforming the health care system and impeaching President Trump, while candidates in hard-fought elections ask wary voters merely for a fresh chance at governing.
The growing tension between the party’s ascendant militant wing and Democrats competing in conservative-leaning terrain, was on vivid, split-screen display over the weekend. In Chicago, Senator Bernie Sanders led a revival-style meeting of his progressive devotees, while in Atlanta, Democrats made a final push to seize a traditionally Republican congressional district.
All that centrist Democrats are saying to voters is, please, give the superior knowledge class of the plutocracy one more chance to do right by you. All they want is to govern you as responsibly, as freshly as a sprig of plastic-wrapped mint. The Berniecrats, on the other hand, are just a ragtag bunch of tent revival militants smoking a lesser herb. Sound familiar?

Since that particular article didn't go over so well within the reader commentariat, the Times has now proceeded to play the age card. "Is Sanders, At 75, Too Old for 2020? His Fiercest Fans Say No" is the headline of the piece written by Yamiche Alcindor.

This headline contains two implicit messages: yes, of course Bernie is too old, you dolts! And you progressives who agree with his policies can't possibly be serious, mature voters. You are "fierce fans" who operate with your emotions rather than with your rational minds and your own agency. You see Bernie not as a politician in a representative oligarchy, but as a Mick Jagger-type rock star in a democracy who will instantaneously grant your most whimsical wishes.
With their idol turning 79 in 2020, some fans of Senator Bernie Sanders who had gathered for the second annual People’s Summit were thinking wistfully about the next progressive hero who could take the presidential baton: Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts might make a good next leader, though she at times appears too cautious.
The subliminal message: you're smoking way too much hash. Grow the hell up.

The Times did not mention that many Sanders supporters have increasingly been urging him to forget about reforming the Democratic Party from within, and instead help them form a brand new party. But as Sanders explains to Nina Turner in this Real News Network interview, he is still taking a wait and see approach. He's actually acting pretty cautiously and conservatively for such a "radical" politician.




Here's my published comment on Alcindor's story:
 In general, all politicians on the national stage are "too old." And too rich, and too esconced in near-permanent power to have any earthly idea how their putative constituents are struggling just to get by.

The divide between the centrist Democrats and the more progressive Sanders faction has as much to do with class and ideology as it does with age. And given that the rich are living longer, chronological age becomes moot. When you're a multimillionaire member of the Senate, for example, you have all the affordable health care you could possibly want.

The average age of the Democratic House leadership is 72. Unfortunately for us, the GOP leaders in that body are slashing the social safety net with youthful abandon: they're in the prime of their misbegotten lives, averaging out at just 42 years of age.

Eighteen of the 33 Senators running for re-election in 2018 will be 65 or older.

Even Elizabeth Warren will be close to 70 should she choose to seek her party's presidential nomination. In order for younger people to succeed at electoral politics, we have to get the money out. We should also impose term limits on congress critters, so that younger, poorer candidates have a fighting chance to get elected locally and then eventually run for president before their Medicare kicks in.
Down with the Oldigarchy.

http://blog.quorum.us/the-115th-congress-is-among-the-oldest-in-history-1

(Incidentally, the Times just announced that it has radically changed its commenting system. No more pre-publication human moderation, no more waiting for your remarks to be printed, no more preference given to elite green check commentators: a Google algorithm shall set you free, and most articles will now be open to comments. An explanation, of sorts, is here).

8 comments:

stranger in a strange land said...

If the time was right in 2016 for a third party it's even righter for 2020. Who's leading the way, cautious conservative radical (accused sheepdog) Bernie Sanders? He could save some face by starting every speech with a loud screed against the duopoly, and advocating a strong independent party. Down with the oligarchy and their uniparty. Whose side are you on, Bern?

Jamie said...

No informed leftist would want to impeach Trump on the Russia scare. It is only a struggle within the ruling class to reignite the cold war with Russia and give an excuse for the arms race. Since Hillary took millions in bribes from Russia, liberals don't really even care about their fake McCarthyite scare as it relates to Russia.

stranger in a strange land said...

Yes, what would the idea be for a "liberal activist" wanting to impeach Trump? That they would fare better dealing with President Pence? That's hogwash.

As annenigma has posited, figuring out how to appeal to Mr. Trump's ego to actually do some good for the many may have some, if slight, chance of being effective. He certainly seems to enjoy political battles. And he's willing to blurt out the occasional rude truth (I'm thinking of the 'we're not so innocent' comment regarding murderous Putin).

Impeachment is worthless, a dead-end for mass-energy that SHOULD be directed into building a sane third (second) political option for We The People.

Zee said...

Actually, the number of Republicans favoring universal, single-payer health care may be closer to 4-in-10, or 40%.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/06/republicans-for-single-payer

Zee said...

On the topic of a "Trump impeachment," I was nearly bowled over with amazement to learn that even the truly Trump-deranged Charles Blow may have reached that "fifth stage of grief," Acceptance.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/opinion/the-resistance-impeachment-anxiety.html?mcubz=1

"I know well that the very real obstacles to removal [of Trump] injure the psyche of those worn thin by the relentless onslaught of awfulness erupting from this White House. I know well that impeachment is one of the only rays of hope cutting through these dark times. I’m with you; I too crave some form of political comeuppance.

But, I believe that it’s important to face the very real possibility that [Trump's] removal may not come, and if it does, it won’t come swiftly. And even a Trump impeachment would leave America with a President Pence, a nightmare of a different stripe but no less a nightmare.

In the end, the Resistance must be bigger than impeachment; it must be about political realignment. It must be built upon solid rock of principle and not hang solely on the slender hope of expulsion. This is a long game and will not come to an abrupt conclusion. Perseverance must be the precept; lifelong commitment must be the motto."


But upon which "solid rock of principle" will the "Resistance" hang? Bernie's "Rock of Gibraltar," or Hillary's faux granite, concrete-and-steel Wall Street skyscrapers? If I recollect correctly, the latter have always seemed to be the Blow-viator's perch-of-choice.

annenigma said...

Hard truth is the new coin of the realm in politics. Jeremy Corbin had the courage to speak truth to power about British foreign policy being responsible for terrorism, something many believe but the establishment phonies haven't dared to admit publicly. The establishment phonies wrote off Corbin as a crackpot and warned he would ruin the Labour Party, the opposite of what actually happened. Color them clueless and surprised, just like the Democrats.

Independent Bernie dared to speak many hard truths, even if he left a lot out. My personal favorite is when he caused the Hillary-heavy debate audience to gasp in disapproval and shock when Bernie said that "Wall Street's business model is fraud." He earned the respect and support of real people, but naturally not the establishment phonies.

Trump told a few hard truths too, proving he had the guts to say what the politically correct phonies would never dare say. As a result he surprised them all and won - never mind his backtracking on Saudi Arabia funding terrorism and so much else. I bet his supporters believe his broken promises mean nothing because he's playing the long game and the real Donald Trump will be free to keep his promises when he doesn't have to worry about re-election. Obamabots are familiar with twisting themselves into that same mental pretzel.

Democrats are going to keep being losers because they are unwilling and unable to speak truth to power for fear of losing big donor money. The ONLY Democrat I see having the right stuff is Tulsi Gabbard, but she's a pariah to the Democratic Party.

The Dems are about as far away from truth as they can get with their McCarthyism and Russia hysteria. Instead of engaging in some real truth telling to stir the soul and energy of the masses, the Democrat's latest ploy is to swear instead. Kristen Gillibrand unleashed multiple F-bombs recently in reference to Trump and to Democrats - "Fundamentally, if we're not helping people, we should go the fuck home". I'm inspired by her substantive talk, how about you?

Stick a fork in the Democratic Party because they're done. If we don't get a new political party up and running before 2020, Donald Trump will get a second term.

Zee said...

On the topic of impeachment, it came as a shock to me that even the Trump-deranged Charles Blow may have come to that fifth stage of grief, i.e., acceptance:

“I know well that the very real obstacles to removal injure the psyche of those worn thin by the relentless onslaught of awfulness erupting from this White House. I know well that impeachment is one of the only rays of hope cutting through these dark times. I’m with you; I too crave some form of political comeuppance.

But, I believe that it’s important to face the very real possibility that removal may not come, and if it does, it won’t come swiftly. And even a Trump impeachment would leave America with a President Pence, a nightmare of a different stripe but no less a nightmare.

In the end, the Resistance must be bigger than impeachment; it must be about political realignment. It must be built upon solid rock of principle and not hang solely on the slender hope of expulsion. This is a long game and will not come to an abrupt conclusion. Perseverance must be the precept; lifelong commitment must be the motto.”
(Bold emphasis added.)

Still, on the even-Loonier Left Coast, the “Hope of Impeachment Train” rolls on:

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/13/gavin-newsom-delaine-eastin-trump-impeachment-california-governor/

This knowing full well that with a Republican majority in the House, it ain’t ever gonna happen.

But I guess such hopeless jabber must play well to the Loonier Left. My home state has become ever more delusional.

Erik Roth said...

For what it's worth ...

To the editors and publisher of the New York Times:

In a piece dated June 14, 2017, headlined "Attack Tests Movement Sanders Founded,” your reporter Yamiche Alcindor made insufferably outrageous accusations against Bernie Sanders and his supporters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/us/politics/bernie-sanders-supporters.html

As one of the snidely labeled “Bernie Bros,” I demand a formal, printed retraction, followed by summarily firing that so-called journalist.
Nothing less than that is respectable or acceptable.
Her repugnant accusatory innuendo is too boorish to debase and refute in detail, as every counsel from Proverbs to Mark Twain advises.

Alcindor's contemptible smear job was not fit to print, and by doing so, the NYTimes shows itself to be simply and stupidly a sycophant to the corporate elite status quo and the Clinton neocon cartel.
Alcindor clearly has no sense, and by printing her despicably defamatory drivel the NYTimes plainly has no shame.
Sickeningly, the "Gray Lady" has become a pompously smarmy, unabashedly corporate, Wall Street, Pentagon whore.
Elimination of the Public Editor further proves cowardice and complicity in support of the imperial oligarchy, forsaking all pretense to journalistic integrity.

So I repeat: Alcindor must be fired, and the NYTimes must make amends by sincere, contrite apology, with corrective, responsible reportage henceforth.
My response offered herewith is all the respect you have due.
If you have any shred of integrity whatsoever, you will recognize, acknowledge, confess, and address your offense.
By those fruits we shall know you.

Erik Roth
Minneapolis