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.
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn speaks in the House of Commons.
Photo: PA Wire/AP
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.
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.
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.
“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…”
Of course the false hope presented by Corbyn and Sanders have nothing to do with large numbers of adults supporting them!!
How is it “false hope”?
and if Hillary loses it will be because she got caught in the seven stages and could not find a way out.
The Vox publication of Thorpe’s study is an example of this kind of takedown backlash. Sort of a somber stage 6 with extra gravitas. A flash analysis of Thorpe’s study:
1) He states: “The main difference is the ACA is dramatically less disruptive while a single payer plan would create enormous financial winners and losers among households and businesses.” So no surprise the study produces winners and losers but it seems to completely miss the biggest losers: the insurance companies whose expenses and profits ALL replace actual care.
2) Thorpe’s study assumes:
— A. that total compensation is fixed, and
— B. that employers would claw back 100% of the saving from their premiums now treated as compensation, and
— C. that employers would reduce worker compensation to cover 100% of new single-payer payroll taxes.
This is a clear contradiction between stated assumptions that shifts costs out of businesses onto people and the government. No surprise that individuals and government are the losers then. At the additional 6% of payroll plus current premium costs these convenient assumptions very likely create the entire bottom line cost shift Thorpe complains about.
Making contradictory basic assumptions is shoddy analysis. In Thorpe’s analysis businesses save 100% of their share of current premiums and the new payroll taxes, so workers and the general public… not so much. It is remarkably easy to prove what you have already assumed.
It’s high time we, as a people in America, come to terms with the fact our wars have always only been about the Money Monster. I am not anti-corporate or anti-banks, being someone who grew corporate America to Executive level myself, and play with buying/selling Wall Street stocks. But I at least try to invest in socially responsible stocks and funds, not war profiteering, cancer-causing polluters, and outright weapons makers keeping USA in a perpetual state of war. The ignorant wrapping the blood soaked flag around the bodies of their daughters and sons with “honor”.
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate brazen enough to question the sick status quo. To let go of the money in politics, the criminal connection to corporate cronies, all dressed up with a religiously radical fundamental “duty to God & country” mantra.
The Olibarchical power centers can’t tolerate Bernie because he is to smart to play their sick game. America’s Hunger Games have got to end, now. Enough is enough. Its not about “terrorism”, a political oxymoron which means the same thing as war. Use of force to gain political and economic “strength”.
“ISIS” is a money monster created by the money trail—-Pentagon/Global MIC/CIA/NATO “peacemaking” arming of rebels. USA has been sponsoring terrorism for decades. There is nothing “extreme left” or “liberal” about this stance. Its reality. Don’t continue letting a distorted reality dance in you heads through our war owned and controlled media talking heads.
“I personally think Clinton’s nomination is extremely likely, but evidence of a growing Sanders movement is unmistakable.”
Really? Then why did you bother to write your article if you think Sanders and his “movement” are wasting their time?
Are you trying to dissuade the movement by posting your seven stages of abuse?
This is like trying to dissuade a woman from pressing charges of rape because of the back lash she will experience from the rapist.
I don’t want to be one of those online trolls who’s first mode of communication is to attack, so I’ll try to respond to this calmly first.
Glenn didn’t say he’s wasting their time, Kevin. He said he believes the chances of Clinton getting the nomination remains most likely, but has diminished over time. If you understand statistics and probability, it’s like he’s saying Clinton has, say, an 80% chance of being nominated BUT this is down from, say, 95%. If anything, he’s saying the precise opposite of what you are: the movement is growing, and their chance of winning is increasing. Far from trying to dissuade Sanders’ movement, it sounds encouraging to me. Your reading of his phrase is extremely baffling, to say the least.
Posting the seven stages of abuse is his observation of a common pattern in these situations. Knowledge is power, as they say, and being armed with this knowledge means you know what to expect and can prepare for it/see it when it comes. I doubt any serious Sanders supporter, or Sanders himself, would change their mind just because they read this article.
Finally, the rape analogy is offensive and incorrect. I think you ought to apologize to Glenn for that – it’s incorrect, over the top and not sensitive in the least.
There, I tried to post a reply without resorting to being a crazed internet person. I hope that helps.
Thank you for your newsletter service.
A.L. Findeisen
Interesting to unpick and recognise establishment behaviour around these people – how about a little analysis of Greece, the EMF, and Yannis Varoufakis in this way?
You’ve left out the standard Eighth Phase of backlash: that used on such as Huey Long, J.F. Kennedy, M.L. King et.al.
That was threatened —and avoided—with Obama.
The first new X-Files is an interesting lesson.
Yes, all seven stages of attack against anyone (which is to say only Bernie) who is exposing, educating the American people, and engendering non-violent Revolution against this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire which now controls, and merely ‘poses’ as, our former country will be attacked in every conceivable way — as all six-sectors of the DGCEmpire (particularly the corporat, financial, media/propaganda, and dual-party Vichy-political sectors of the Empire are currently doing to Bernie.
The only two sectors of the DGCEmpire that have yet to attack or oppress Bernie’s campaign are the militarist-sector and the extra-legal sector (which had previously attacked the campaign of Nader nominally against Empire, by limiting his insurgency against the Empire to “chain-linked fence ‘free speech zones’ when Nader attempted to secure some minor level of media visibility as a third-party threat to the Empire).
At least Bernie, because of his smart strategy of running his insurgency against the Empire WITHIN the legally protected, if anesthesied Democratic Party, has been able to keep his “Political Revolution” protected from the extra-legal sector of the Empire from being able through its domination over the Judical branch of the nominal (qua facade) image of this quasi-‘government’ as was the case in both the exclusion of Nader (and Gore) from having any opportunity to challenger the Empire’s strangle-hold over both the more obvious and overt neocon ‘R’ Vichy party and the more sophisticated and smoother lying neoliberal-con ‘D’ Vichy party that have been so successfully ping ponging the American people back and forth between the two facades of this decades long dual-party Vichy-political facade of faux-democracy.
Here’s a funny article. It’s from “Bloomberg View” a website owned if I’m not mistaken, by Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire who may or may not run against Bernie Sanders. It’s written by Peter R. Orszag His bio says he’s:
The gist of it is that, Americans don’t need the quality affordable healthcare that every single citizen has in Germany, UK, Canada, and that there is an alternative that would be less of “an extreme change” to the private insurance industry.
Instead of joining the rest of the world with their fancy, everyone can see a doctor, plans, says the article, the US insurance companies could be made more efficient if the private insurance companies in America improve their billing practices:
So, If I understand this correctly, instead of making healthcare available to all Americans for a lower cost than what is paid by those Americans who do have insurance pay now, as a substitute Bloomberg View says American companies can reduce billing costs.
Now I can think of at least three problems with Citigroup’s plan. One, reducing insurance company costs, doesn’t give the millions of Americans who aren’t covered, any healthcare. Two, this plan requires no government action, the private companies could have implemented cost saving moves at any time, so, why would they only do it now, except to forestall the US government giving Americans medicare for all? And three, even if the private insurance companies cut their costs, why would they use that money to lower costs to their clients and extend to new clients? Why wouldn’t the insurance companies add the extra money to their profits? Up till now, the US insurance companies have been content to take in high profits and leave tens of millions of people without healthcare insurance.
So you see, the argument that finally giving Americans what they want, universal healthcare is “ill-advised” because “it’s possible to simplify billing and claims processing” is the funniest thing I’ve read today. I can’t wait until Germany and the UK and Canada hear about this brilliant idea so they can dismantle their universal healthcare systems!!!
It won’t happen here, in Canada, because we see our system of health care as something much more important than it being a mere public service; hell would be paid to those who would try. What it is that makes it so is its universality, a tie that binds all Canadians within a vision of unity that transcends the power of the corporate and political elite. They fear the moral integrity of that unity most, yet, not because of any loss of power or money on their part, but, because once unleashed they will be exposed for the depravity of their past actions and duly punished.
The many Industrial Complexes in the US and the Establishment the supports them are coming to the realization that at least some Americans are coming to their senses about the fact that Big Business isn’t serving their needs. A possible revolt is brewing, and they are scared.
A story you will NEVER see in the Intercept (this morning in the state-operated New York Times):
“………His attacker, a teenage fanatic who the police say was inspired by the Islamic State, was trying to decapitate Mr. Amsellem, a teacher at a local Jewish school……….It was the third such knife attack since October on a Jew in Marseille, where the Jewish population, around 70,000, is the second largest in France after Paris. And it was the latest example of how France is confronting both the general threat of terrorism, especially after two large-scale attacks in Paris last year, and a particular strain of anti-Semitism that has left many French Jews deeply unnerved……“This was something claimed by an individual who invoked Daesh, who wanted to kill a Jew. It is extremely serious,” said Marseille’s top police official, Laurent Nunez, in an interview. “Daesh” is an Arabic acronym for the Islamic State, which is also known as ISIS or ISIL…….”
Anti-Muslim racism is confronted by the Intercept while anti-Jewish racism is ignored – but not inadvertently. It has been a long standing policy of the Intercept to explain (justify) Islamic attacks against the west because of our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and our support for Israel. But the Jews in France are being targeted for the actions of Israel (a foreign country), not the actions of France. Thus, Jewish people are a “legitimate” target anywhere in the world because of the policies of Israel.
While one may legitimately disagree with the policies of Israel, that is irrelevant to Jews targeted around the world which is collective punishment. Nakba is remembered for the 700,000 Palestinians expelled from Palestine, while the estimated 800,000 Jews expelled or intimidated into leaving the greater Middle East is ignored.
While publications like the Intercept excoriate the west over the linking of all Muslims to Islamic terrorists, they subtly, but clearly justify (without condemnation) the attacks specifically directed at Jewish people guilty of nothing other than being Jewish.
Various left websites, organizations, and activists have exposed Sanders to be a charlatan.
See the excellent coverage at the WSWS. Or the BlackAgendaReport. Or Paul Street’s many articles.
Civilians in the USA must not fool themselves: the responsibility to participate in class struggle and to destroy the Empire is not substituted by casting ballots for fake-left con-men like Sanders (or Obama or Clinton or Warren).
Or this piece by James Petras:
Democratic Party Primaries: “Progressives” as Political Contraceptives
http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=2063
The principled progressive democratic socialist, anti-war, anti-Empire, and non-violent revolutionary Bernie Sanders (who is both Jewish and smart enough to have started his insurgency against this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire within the carcass of the laugh lying mis-named “Democratic Party” in order to block being easily excluded from the rigged (s)election process) has apparently been far more sucessful than the Empire imagined in being able to both expose and ‘out’ the Empire (as the “Occupy” movement partially achieved, even without calling itself “Occupy the Empire”, which expresses a full sentence containg an ‘object’) and this 60s generation radical political Jew has managed to re-start the Revolution of my generation more effectively and peacefully than the SDS, Weathermen, and Black Power movement combined.
Yea! Bernie. Who will slowly, steadily, and peacefully educate, inform, and ignite a Second American Revolution against Empire again — but with a peaceful and even joyous ‘shout heard round the world’ instead of a deck-clearing and violent “shot heard round the world”.
As JFK warned, “those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution (against Empire) inevitable” — except that Bernie seems to have found the ‘path’ to making non-violent Revolution against this first and last fully ‘disguised’ global Empire quite possible because the most dangerous thing in the world to a disguised (and hidden, like a cancer) Empire is to merely but publicly ‘expose’ it to the light of average people “of good will” — just as ‘the light’ will dispatch a Vempire or a cancer.
– “Various left websites, organizations, and activists have exposed Sanders to be a charlatan”
If there is a presidential candidate proposing affordable tuition, universal healthcare, breaking up the banks who is scaring Clinton more than Sanders, news of that hasn’t reached me yet.
The thing is, the problems Americans have, the inequality, the inability to see a doctor, the student debt, the wars, the corruption, If Sanders or Clinton, or Cruz or Trump don’t fix it, it’s not going away.
So when Sanders is elected president, if the US government doesn’t deliver, things are only going to get worse, and Americans are only going to get more demanding. But I don’t see any of the other major candidates even wanting to change things. They are proposing to conduct a rear guard action for the status quo.
You can always find presidential candidate X that is outside the corrupt Democratic party, who everyone agrees will be blocked by the two big parties from even debating or getting on the ballot.
And you can find candidate Y who will be backed by the banks and the leadership of the Democratic or Republican party and who has a track record of liking how things are.
But to get a candidate Z, that is in that sweet spot, where they are benefiting from the rigged rules, inside the corrupt two party political system, but also have support from the many that want America’s unhealthy politics fixed. Such a candidate doesn’t come around often in American politics.
But if Sanders fails, don’t worry. Inequality won’t end itself, student debt won’t pay itself, people dying because they don’t have insurance, won’t heal themselves. If Sanders fails, those people won’t be happy and they will be even more desperate to find someone to channel their discontent.
JLocke
Your thoughtful insights and well-drafted counterpoints continue to add a needed element to The Intercept discussions.
Lately I have been trying to imagine the political dynamics it would add to the Sanders campaign if he would ignore tradition and indicate his preference of a woman VP running mate. Obviously Sen. Elizabeth Warren comes to mind; but Sen. Maria Cantwell or Rep. Barbara Lee would certainly garner progressive support.
By the way, great article Glenn!!
“Work is love made visible.” KG
As Usual,
EA
In Puerto Rico and other Spanish speaking countries we have a running joke about why a loaf of bread is a miracle to behold. The innards are referred to as tripas or guts. The two ends are each the culo del pan or butt ..It has 2 butts and guts! Indeed it is! Its actually quite analogous to our two party system. We convince ourselves depending which butt we pick that it is somehow different. I believe a vast majority are ready to ditch their loaf..because its stale and molded…The only thing I expect of Bernie is a pardon for Snowden. Very few people remember the role he played helping a woman who survived the mk ultra experiments..when no other politician or lawyer would touch her..Bernie was instrumental in helping expose the the massive network of hospitals, where patients were abused with CIA involvement. Much of what they learned then was applied to Gitmo. That said he strikes me as last of the good guys and Snowden deserves it..I am shocked that I dont hear the NSA and their Mouthpieces in Congress yell at Clinton that her email mishandling of Humint and Sigint may have caused loss of lives.
That said..Clinton turned the other way when thousands of African blacks were rounded up in Libya tortured, and executed, not to mention the final death toll of fifty thousand and collapse of a thriving secular Muslim nation and another cradle for our perrenial boogeymen the terrorists.. I have no doubt she will have the same concern for American plebs, were she to be elected. She is well aware of who has been buttering both ends of her loaf over the years.
While Trump does not personally appeal to me..he is well on his way fracturing the neo con and lobbyist oligarchs that run the system..makeup the guts of the loaf..no matter who is in office…With the short windup ken doll Rubio and the Curmudgeon Cruz..its a sure guarantee…things will stay the same . another bite of that huge crap sandwhich..which end you start will not be important..
Not a tasty thought…
As usual, sharp, concise, and cutting edge.
Definitely….
Great article Glenn. But I would love to see a little video montage of talking heads acting out each stage. In fact, you could do one with just using Tweety.
Good read.
Hillary is not going to win, however. Her campaign is exhibiting stage 7 here in Iowa, where she started with a 47 point lead and now trails by 8 a week before the caucus.
Both parties are in crisis. If the establishment candidate fails to win the nomination, the parties will have to decide whether or not to risk a split that will weaken them severely.
Note that on both sides the establishment candidates are backed by corporation insider interests.
You forgot establishment cheating. #BernieSanders will win unless the DNC cheats even more than they already have and prevents him from having delegates counted.
There is precedent for that. Back in 1944, Henry Wallace was very popular among rank-and-file Democrats, but very unpopular among many in the establishment. The DNC chairman was Robert Hannegan, a noted figure in the St. Louis political machine. (In 1940, he helped Harry Truman get reelected to the senate after Truman was tarred by his association with the corrupt Kansas City Pendergast machine. In gratitude, Truman helped get him appointed to head the DNC as well as Commissioner of Internal Revenue .) In 1944, a weakened FDR planned to drop Henry Wallace as his VP nominee. Several choices were on the list, but Hannegan wanted Truman. The convention still had to go on. Wallace made a speech, and the delegates went wild. As delegations paraded around the hall, Senator Claude Pepper tried to put Wallace’s name into the nomination. Hannegan told the man at the podium, “You’re taking orders from me, and I’m taking orders from the President.” The convention was adjourned for the day, and Wallace did not get to return as VP. Truman got the nod. When Truman got into the White House, he named his buddy Hannegan as Postmaster General. Hannegan even boasted that he wanted “Here lies the man who kept Henry Wallace from being President of the United States” on his tombstone. Of course, Hannegan didn’t live through Truman’s last term.
Absolute Sander’s parallel to UK Corbyn’s phenomenon!
I do not think Hillary will let anyone take her turn, this is pay day for a lifetime of work for the party, no plum alternative could entice her as Secretary of State in 2008, time is running out, she WILL be first US woman president, but it could prove to be a bitter victory for her. I hesitate to envision a 3rd Clinton term at this point in time.
The wheels are in motion for a financial comeuppance for our crooked financial and corporate dealings worldwide, the chaos of military entanglements by our last five president’s administrations have left a deformed USA so at odds with our world neighbors and our own citizens that I shudder to see what Hillary with her war hawk mentality will attempt.
But if anyone has been programed to be lead implementor for the United States Corporate/Government it is she. Just one example on July 15, 2009 she joyfully spoke at the nation’s CFR branch, “We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.” No other candidate is as malleable for the banks, corporations, and their fellow profiteering political protectors than this determined woman, whatever it takes, she willingly serves her masters. She has been on this track since the Nixon years.
It would however, be just to see her installed in office then shortly afterwards be plagued by one or more of those many skeletons/bodies fallen in her path to power, as Nixon fell to shortly after his landslide reelection.
Could be that VP is more important in 2016? I dunno, but what comes after this round is what’s interesting to me, so much corruption cannot keep building, it is waiting to be answered. Whomever is in the seat of power will get the blame and I do not see any candidate being able to stop the pay our country has amassed. Just being fatalist I suppose. . . .Sorry for all of us, but we’ll feel better afterwards. Still hoping for the future, even so. . . .
Hillary Clinton has overwhelming support among the
“super delegates” (who happen to be the most powerful
democrats) and they are preparing to push her and
over-ride the rest of the delegates
at their corporate owned “convention.”
The democrats and republicans deliberately created
“super delegate” positions to help their insiders to beat down
any semblance of a populist voice at their pretentious
“conventions.”
Sometimes there is a tendency to form a hypothesis and then shoehorn observations into it. Nothing wrong with this, except that it leads to pointless discussions as some people necessarily disagree.
Key is to distinguish between objective facts and opinions. Be parsimonious in your arguments and stick to objective facts over theories and opinions. More you claim, more resistance and disagreement you invite.
For example, it would be more effective to say “author of such and such article misrepresented this event”, rather than “elites, in order to control the masses, have misrepresented this event in that article”.
The most close to facts would be
ruling class using its lackeys in capitalist media to lie even about very meek dissent against some(!) crimes of the ruling class.
Of course, to pretend that it is not about political system but just some “article” is more “effective” to misrepresent (ie lie) the reality
This piece is such a spot-on analysis of the situation. I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the Corbyn parallels! Excellent job, Greenwald.
Glenn’s a lawyer. What is the legal take on Hillary’s email problems? Wall Street Journal says it’s a problem.
It would be nice to know BEFORE Hillary is nominated.
Stage 10: http://goo.gl/MMD0md
Bernie Sanders is a good fellow. The Presidency will totally corrupt him, provided that he somehow survives the agony of signing off on the drone kill list. I would love to imagine that we are all good guys like the incorrigible Sufi guy here or as dashing as “-Mona-” with all the dashes, so that’s why we need to introspect and ask ourselves if we really deserve anyone less vile than Mrs Hillary Clinton.
Spot on Glenn. Been interesting to listen to Chris Matthews almost following the seven step lay out. First talking about how great our democracy was that Sanders had a place at the table, then mocking him “from Ben and Jerry country” only “young people supporting him.” Then as of late Chris Matthews has been lecturing about how Bernie’s idealistic stances were ideas that Matthews felt “during the 60’s and 70’s” As of late Matthews has gone into the warning stages.
I am 63 and totally support Sanders based on his voting record and his ideals. While there is not much difference between Hillary and Sanders on the Israel Palestine conflict. Clinton’s very serious and deadly warmongering in Iraq, Libya, Syria is deeply disturbing. More than willing to walk over hundreds of thousands of dead and injured bodies and millions of refugees from those disasters on her way to her goal of being in the White House. Deeply shameful and disturbing.
On top of that her shameless connections to Wall Street. Just cannot support her no matter how much I would like to see a woman President.
And so my calculations are that Senator Sanders is the best bet for the majority of Americans and is fundamentally far less of a warmonger than Clinton.
Was interesting in the last Dem debate when Hillary was asked whether she will consult with her husband about decisions being made. She of course said “yes” specifically on the “economy” Not sure why Sanders did not walk through that open door and whisper about former President Clinton signing the repeat of Glass Steagall. ????
oops this was supposed to go under Glenn’s seven point piece.
Glenn what is your take on why Sanders avoids bringing up Hillary’s aggressive push for the military intervention in Libya and arming rebels in Syria as Secretary of State. I know he says he wants to stay focused on issues however these are serious issues. Her deadly war record.
Both Clinton and Sanders blamed Assad for all of the dead in Syria. Absolutely no recognition of how Clinton and Obama’s stubborn defiance of considering a power sharing deal that Assad (the Leverett’s wrote a great deal about this at their website Going to Tehran) Assad was offering five years ago. Leveretts also pointed out that over 50% of the Syrian population at that time supported Assad.
Instead of going this route we heard the Obama administration incessantly repeating “Assad must go, Assad must go” Five years later, hundreds of thousands of dead Syrians later, 11 million refugees and all we hear out of Clinton (and Sanders going along) is that Assad is responsible for this human rights disaster. Clinton never takes serious responsibility for her war hawkish stances. She is deadly.
Why is it that Bernie avoids calling her out on Libya and Syria?
“Why is it that Bernie avoids calling her out on Libya and Syria?”
Because he agrees with her?
Evidence?
We can’t all be intelligent enough to recognize the changes that are needed. Bernie Sanders is the appropriate choice for the new politics of tomorrow….the ones dictated by transparency and not living in the pockets of oligarchs.
That’s a pretty fair description of the UK media’s reaction to Corbyn’s ascent. Interestingly, the worst backlash came from the media that normally would be sympathetic to Labour. The party membership heavily endorsed him but the Parliamentary MPs broadly didn’t. As with congress, many got there by adopting a close resemblance to conservatives in order to gain less negative media coverage. We don’t however, in the UK, have to contend with hunger-games levels of sponsorship distorting the likely result of elections, though there certainly is corporate influence aplenty.
Then there’s the next problem: Even if Sanders wins… born in 1941, you have to wonder if he can successfully cope for eight years with the slings and arrows? Who will be his running mate? Because whoever they are. they have a fair chance of inheriting the crown. He will also, no less than President Obama, be dealing with a recalcitrant congress. We’re a very long way, without the power of unions that pushed “the New Deal,” from seeing much needed wealth redistribution.
Obama and the democrats DEPEND upon the scheme
of “a recalcitrant congress” in order to continue the
increases in militarization and private corporate domination.
Your final sentence highlights the focus which is used
by democrats, libertarians, and republicans alike –
wealth.
Though the distribution of economic power is a strong
manifestation of the levels of corruption which flourish today,
underlying all of the inequality is a disdain for the idea
of equal justice. That disdain is a core component of what
drives the corporate capitalist who depend upon
the democrats, republicans, and libertarians in the fake USA.
Sanders has CHOSEN to be a member of a branch of
that corporatism, just as Obama has.
The opposition of democrats, libertarians, and republicans
is largely in how they think the continuing implementation
of global private corporate domination should be imposed.
All of their words are without integrity and the real motto of
the fake USA is,
“It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘Is’ is.”
This is why they all promote the LIE of
“american exceptionalism.”
The Trail of Tears is now a global project and
those with the least wealth are the “indians.”
Sanders has a much better chance of bringing better Congress critters along with him than Clinton–witness Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the rest of the corrupt corporate tools running the DNC..
We will also see a stage-8: “Bernie is wonderful, but only Hillary can beat Trump… so, a vote for Bernie is a vote for Trump. Vote Hillary!”
I disagree.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for Donald Trump with a vagina
and a better hairpiece..
This has been ongoing since the summer. It’s her only argument right now in Iowa. The polls show Bernie beats all Republicans by larger margins while Clinton loses to some. Once people catch on to this fact, many people who were voting for her out of a sense of duty to keep Republicans out of the White House will switch. Just like 2008.
This is a really good and well thought out piece Glenn, but it leaves out a key question that we need to address. In the UK, is there a party infrastructure (like the U.S. DNC – Democratic National Committee) that is so entrenched that it virtually assured that the machine neoliberal would win the party nomination process?
My guess is that the answer is ‘No’.
So that leaves us with the key question in the U.S.: How much harder will it be for Sanders to repeat what Corbyn accomplished, in the face of the power and structural entrenchment that the DNC currently holds?
The post lightly [edited] for clarity:
Mr. Greenwald
Inequality is another popular topic [which I do not understand]. The standard of living for Americans and generally westerners is extremely high relative to the rest of the world [populated by people I denigrate with racial slurs like brownies.
My brain doesn’t work well.] It’s been that way for a long time. [Sometimes it produces circular claims:] the rise of our standard of living simply was unsustainable thus, it’s stagnant or decreasing. [At other times, it just fabricates nonsense:] The redistribution of the wealth to the third world was as inevitable as the growth of factories in China and elsewhere. [America’s wealth has not been “redistributed” to China. Instead, it’s been increasingly concentrated among a relatively small number of people, or “the 1%”. Income inequality is the label used to describe the growing discrepancy in wealth distribution between the classes, not between nation-states. So even though] there is an issue of inequality, [I don’t know anything about it.]
Using cheap politically-motivated language like [I so often do] completely characterizes the impot[e]nce of everything [I feel. I want] to be applauded even [though my reasoning, facts, and] motivations are completely off base. So the gap is [growing between what I believe and what] exists in the world.
Just a few things about Sanders.
Not that it will matter to most people, but Socialism and Communism are not the same thing. (No, I won’t school people about the two, their roots, who started them, etc. Just will add that some aspects of the U.S. are “socialist” (with small “s”) such as Social Security, Public Education, Public Transportation, etc., all things Conservatives hate because it “takes away their freedoms” (George Will actually said that about Amtrak).)
We interrupt this comment to bring you this important news:
Capitalism and our kinds of socialism can work well together, for Capitalism by it self cannot and does not produce wealth — it produces goods. It is a healthy, working, working class buying those goods that produces wealth — money must go around in a circle, sort of, as wages given out means money being spent back, producing wealth — in other words, wealth is labor. I refer you to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 were they debated such a meaning of wealth over some months. (What we have now is Crony Corporatism that is the “great sucking sound” of all your dollars going up to the 1%.)
Promoting the general welfare of the people is done… by the people. Capitalism is about promoting the general welfare of the Corporations and those in Government that can help those Corporations, public be damned.
Now back to your regularly scheduled commentcast:
The MSM have not been covering Sanders for a long time because they have been so focus on the bleeding leading men like Trump and Carson, and now Trump and Cruz — it it bleeds it leads, and they’re a bloody bloodbath of hate, now hacking one another up on stage for all to see.
And Sanders has been a strong, calm, consistent, clear voice actually saying real things to his great many audiences that crowd around him — many of them young and educated. (Conservatives tend to be older and uneducated.)
And the MSM will be covering him now and Trump and Cruz are starting to fester and rot. And that there will be many more all around attacks and the twisting of Sanders’ words and statements, that will get the attention of attention seeking TV “Journalists.”
‘Bernie Sanders is nowhere near as radical as Corbyn.’
Corbyn is a beige, middle-of-the-road, Keynsian wonk. There’s legitimately fuck all that’s radical about him. His supposed radicalism is just relative to the cannibalistic, anti-human social Darwinism that permeates every aspect of the fucking dung-heap that is modern politics, and a truly tragic reflection of how bad thing are in the US, if this arsehole can seriously be touted as ‘radical.’
Great article.
My disappointment with Obama started before he beat Hillary and just grew and grew.
I didn’t have access to a Clark (h/t) to keep my perspective in the early days.
My disappointment with Bernie began months ago, but the “Obama experience” has meant it has been mild and almost meaningless.
And, thanks to many like rrheard (h/t) who can articulate similar framing as in my own mind, I’m comfortable with the minor wins and lowered expectations, and can keep supporting Bernie (not financially) despite his establishment tendencies in areas where actual change is needed.
So, thank you GG and associates, not just for the articles and insight, but for the forum that allows exposure to so many great voices…
… and a few god-awful ridiculous ones.
I guess all I have to add, is that many here, however contradictory, are making our reality more tolerable, because fuck you to those who are happy with the way things are only goes so far.
A
That’s the same, tired trope that is most often used to hang hats upon when defending ‘capitalism-as-the-great-equalizer’ – and it’s as equally unpersuasive as your ‘torture-works-to-protect-our-homeland,’ which is to say, not at all.
Sure, if by ‘people’ one excludes the majority of actual American citizens, as well as the rest of the up-and-coming denizens of our world.
Capitalism, per se, isn’t the problem. It’s the failure of capitalism’s promise (so you say) of creating such conditions within a society in order to ‘promote the general welfare’ that is.
Like rrheard, I’ll be happy to see this paradigm shift (as assuredly it will) as no civilization can long survive such gross inequality forever.
But please, join the billionaires (such as Steven Schwartzman, Blackstone CEO) that support such fallacies and share in your ignorance:
While you’re at it, you may as well vote for Hillary. You are all in the same sinking boat.
I’ve seen some Hillary Clinton supporters treat Bernie Sanders as if he were a third party candidate, even though he’s running as a Democrat within the Democratic Party primary. So I guess Stage 8 would be to relegate him to third party status and hence oblivion in our “democratic” election system.
By the way, it would be nice if The Intercept would recognize that there are more than two parties in this country that get their presidential candidates on at least a majority of state ballots. Something that would make an interesting article would be the Green and Libertarian Parties’ lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates:
https://www.fairdebates.com/
I appreciate your piece, For Senator Sanders to be elected, is not insurmountable, and there is much work to be done still, and hope you write a piece, once we pass that threshold. Thanks for keeping it real????
Sanders is really beginning to look like an accidental front-runner. I really think his goal in running was just running to keep Hillary “honest”, but she’s such a cold, distant figure with so much baggage that she just can’t win. Until recently he wasn’t even running like a serious candidate in Iowa. Hillary’s not as much of flop as Jeb!, but she’s not very likable and this is a very anti-establishment year. The Democrats should have gone with Diamond Joe, he has the common touch.
Though the mild establishment backlash against Bernie is nothing like the panic generated by Trump on the Right. As Hitch liked to say “there are encouraging signs of polarization”
If by “Diamond Joe” you mean Joe Biden, I have to wonder
if your comment is typical devious democrat triangulating
or if you are joking.
Most people are fooled by appearances and the way it
appears now is that it would seem that
Joe Corporate Predator Biden is not a candidate.
There is however the possibility that he could be called upon
to “rescue” his fellow corporate predators at their
corporate owned convention.
Stranger things have happened and the democrats
have a history of finding ways at their “convention”
to create surprise candidates and vacate any candidacy
which does not align with the wishes of the powerful elites.
It is not that the republicans and libertarians wouldn’t do
the same sort of de-railing, but generally their candidates
don’t pretend to be non-corporatists
as much as the democrats do.
I hope people won’t be fooled by Biden. He seems like a completely tamed pro-corporate centrist Democrat to me. And then there is his inappropriate touching of women and even children. Gawker did a post about it and I am related to someone he did it to. Because of that, he shouldn’t win. I would like to think he also couldn’t win if his sexual harassment became public. Perhaps that’s one reason he didn’t run.
When the democrats and republicans were creating
the war against Iraq in 2002 – 2003,
Biden was the chair of the Senate Foreign relations Committee
and he made sure that the only people who testified
before that committee in regards to the fake threat from
Iraq were people who were pushing the
lies which were the basis of the war.
Biden, Clinton and Kerry were rewarded with their positions
in the corrupt Obama administration after they helped start
that illegal war based on lies.
If there has been inappropriate sexual behavior by Biden
it seems to me that it is secondary to the fact that he
helped murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Biden says he is not running for president, but,
as he is a typical lying corporate democrat,
he could still end up as their candidate.
Glenn, trying to ignore or hand-wave away the issue of electability for Sanders shows a lack of foresight on your account. Yes, polls show Sanders as being more popular with the general public than Hillary is right now. The reason why that is is because the general public doesn’t know who Sanders is and what he stands for. The public knows Hillary’s “scandals”. They don’t know Sanders’ scandals (of which there probably are very few, but look at the wholly artificial “Benghazi” or “Fast And Furious” “scandals” for illustration of what the right-wing is capable of) or Sanders’ socialism. If he is nominated they will undoubtedly find out.
The right wing attack machine hasn’t even begun to go after Sanders. They’ll have a field day by claiming he’s a commie who will eat your grandparents and turn the US into an East Germany with Sharia. And if you repeat a lie long enough the public will begin to believe it. If he is nominated, very likely the Republicans will win. And the possibility of several Supreme Court seats being open in the next President’s term should frighten all of us.
Of course we liberals and progressives will vote for Sanders if he wins the nomination. I personally agree with Sanders’ positions more than I do Clinton. But in the real world we often have to accept a compromise than go all out for principles, because principles will get you principled defeats in elections. Hillary can win. With Sanders, that is questionable.
This country does not need a President Cruz.
This country also does not need another neoliberal (ie, Hillary) who will continue or even expand upon what Bush started in 2001. In the real world, innocent people die regardless of whether that missile fired from that drone was ordered by a Republican or a neoliberal/hawkish Democrat. Even Sanders seems likely to continue our country’s inhumane, bloody foreign policy given his mixed voting record, which is why I support Jill Stein and the Green Party, spoiler theorists’ idea of the “real world” be damned. Call it “ego” if you want, but I refuse to have blood on my hands, even if it’s the “lesser evil” amount of blood.
Can’t deny that the right wing attack machine won’t go after Bernie full bore if he is the Democratic nominee.
Don’t see how that will prevent him from beating any Republican nominee, starting with Trump, whose major supporters now seem to be old white supremacists.
Yes Dave, let’s cower in fear of what the Repubs would do against Sanders.
It will pale in comparison to what they will do to Clinton. They have been building their case against her since hubby was Prez. People are not enthusiastic about Clinton. They will stay home in droves, whereas Sanders will ride a wave of populist energy and enthusiasm into the White House.
And yes, let’s get real people, because, as you say “…in the real world we often have to accept a compromise than go all out for principles,..”. After all, look how well that has worked out for Obama.
And your comment about voting for Sanders if he wins the nomination. If you really want to face reality, it is this: If Clinton, Trump, or Cruz wins, then the takeover by the oligarchy is complete, it’s just a matter of degrees. This is your last chance, brother. If you really believe in Sanders then get off your butt and work for him in your state’s primary or caucus, because if he doesn’t get past that then you won’t get to vote for him.
What are you referring to from your “reading” of this article? Where in the article did Glenn even mention Sanders’ electability, much less “hand wave away the issue?” This article speaks for itself what it is about. Sanders’ electablity isn’t the subject or theme of the article.
Don’t fall for the okie doke. Turnout is all that matters. If turnout is good the dem wins whoever it is.
Sanders went through stage 7 in his first successful house and senate campaigns and his poll numbers kept going up as those campaigns progressed.
In a recent fox news interview Charles Krauthammer quoted Claire McCaskill saying that the Clinton campaign was going to use ads featuring the hammer and sickle symbol of communism against Sanders. So he’s a communist for advocating single payer health care, free public college tuition, and a $15 and hour minimum wage.
The conservative publication National Review says that Trump would destroy conservatism. Lindsey Graham says Clinton would beat him in an election.
I’m thinking Sanders would have an even easier time beating Trump.
No reason. Just a feeling.
Hmmm, Lindsey Graham prefers Clinton over the Republican frontrunners:
But…and I know this is a far out idea, what if Americans didn’t want “crazy” or “dishonest”? Wouldn’t that make Sanders a win-win, for both people on the left and the right?
Am I understanding this right? Is Sanders being criticized for not supporting reparations for slavery? What, and Cruz and Clinton are making “the fight against white supremacy” their priority number one?
American voter – “Gee, I did want to be able to afford college and afford to see a doctor, but Sanders isn’t going to give me slavery reparations so I’m taking a second look at Trump!!!”
Seriously?
Coates is not talking about American voters in general, but specifically about “black voters,” whom he seems to suggest should condition their support for Sanders on his support for reparations. But, of course, the overwhelming majority of black voters will in fact support Sanders if he is the Democratic nominee, irrespective of his position on reparations. They also will overwhelmingly support Clinton if she is the nominee. Because they know (despite what some folks around here keep telling me) that the major parties are not the same.
The thrust of his argument is white supremacy will continue because not even a “Socialist”, someone who is supposed to have the back of the marginalized, cares about righting the historical wrongs against Blacks.
(We’ll ignore the plight of First Nations for simplicity …)
I’m glad they know the difference between the two parties. I guess they vote as a block or something …
Let the WASP descendents of slave-owners pay for their ill-gotten gains — and let them also pay off the descendants of immigrants who were hoodwinked into coming here to better themselves or escape their own oppression, with no intention of oppressing black people.
While we’re at it, Coates can forget about his “black body,” and teach his son that what matters is how life’s lived (and how to avoid cops), not the color of one’s skin.
Coates is definitely being unfair to Sanders. It’s unreasonable to demand something of Sanders that you’re not going to demand of Clinton. I don’t blame Coates. He’s taking advantage of the situation. But it’s ridiculous. I doubt it’s going to harm Sanders. He just needs to keep racking up the rappers on his side. Goddamn genius move by Sanders I think.
The absurd part is that Coates himself hasn’t exactly been an activist on the issue of reparations.
His expectations of Sanders are higher than what he himself can be bothered to muster.
I do blame him for such obvious hypocrisy.
And, to be clear, I have publicly stated my support for reparations… and I believe it should be debated. But, I am well aware I am among a tiny minority when I’ve done so, and I don’t think it would be politically wise for Bernie to add the issue to his platform.
A
At a rally on Monday evening in Storm Lake, Iowa, US presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders called for an audit of the Department of Defense for fraud and wasteful spending, as soldiers are forced to live off of food stamps.
01:01 31.12.2015 (updated 06:25 31.12.2015)
http://sputniknews.com/us/20151231/1032524304/sanders-dod-audit.html
Did they ever find the missing $2.3 TRILLION announced on September 10th 2001? NOPE
The War On Waste – CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-war-on-waste/
To put that scandal in perspective, the missing DoD loot amounted to almost half the nation debt at the time.
Government – Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual 2000 – 2015
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Exactly, Sam! Shameful, if not criminal. And yet, year-after-year this is the kind of data/information the incompetent bums and the executive branch tries to keep under wraps.
KERRY SAYS GOVERNMENTAL CORRUPTION FUELS EXTREMISM
BY MATTHEW LEE
AP DIPLOMATIC WRITER
Jan 22, 6:37 AM EST
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_UNITED_STATES_KERRY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Clark – interesting comment. Your fervent dislike of “Democrats” is palpable but your underlying correlative assumption (that to be a democrat and claim to want establishment change is inherently hypocritical) is simply wrong. One can mistrust many of the power players and influencers in government and still be a “Democrat”. If we take Sanders for what he says he is, then he is one such example. He is correct when he posits that one of the biggest issues plaguing our country is the top 1% grabbing more and more wealth while the middle class evaporates and people get poorer and poorer. I believe it really is less people than the top 1% ( more like .01 or . 001%) who wield the power. It’s a power and control issue. The “elites ” would like a centralized (i.e. Global) government/feudal system. It’s easier to control from one central source. There is so much corruption politically, economically, etc that the only way to have any say/power/representation is to get more money into the hands of the other 99.9%. That would begin to make it possible to serve the interests of people.
Your democrat beliefs is a branch of the same religion as that
which underlies the republican beliefs.
I have no way to “believe” in Bernie Sanders primarily
because he has chosen to be a member of that
corrupt religion.
If the devious blatant-ness of Obama and his predatory
cabinet choices can’t get you to see the truth about
what Sanders is supporting by joining that choir,
I can only feel the same regret I feel for the vast majority
of people who identify as
democrat, libertarian, and republican.
It goes well beyond money.
Underlying the economic corruption is a perverse belief in
“american exceptionalism” which depends upon
willful, desperate blindness.
There are 2 main questions remaining within the
democrats fake campaigning in 2016.
How long can Bernie Sanders pretend that he is not
also an “establishment” candidate
and
how will he convincingly step aside for the democrats
preferred corporate predatory candidate who MUST prove
to the desperately craven “exceptional” democrat voters
that they can be as militaristic and delusional
as their republican allies?
If you are running as a democrat, then you are supporting
the establishment, no matter how many words you use
to pretend otherwise.
If you still can’t learn from Obama’s deceptions, as is the case
with the millions of people who still identify as democrats,
then I’m sure your proud delusions will help heal your
injuries (or their visibility) when the “establishment”
(of which you are part) cuts away another
chunk of the poorly built floor upon which you are standing.
I’m sure many would call me a “cynic” because that
typical dismissal of reality through name-calling
also protects your unwarranted pride in your delusional state.
There is no way of knowing the level of delusion which is
driving Sanders to stay within the democrat establishment
machinery.
All of this is pathetic.
I’m certain that if Sanders loses to Clinton, he will support her over the top Republican contenders. I would.
But since, right now he’s in the running, he’s got a track record of supporting things that would be good for America, whereas Clinton has already announced she’s in favour of more aggression towards Iran, no improvement to healthcare, etc. and of course, her bread and butter is Wall Street. So, for anyone in America wanting the kind of healthcare or education that people elsewhere have and enjoy,…it’s a no-brainer.
Obviously the electoral system, the Democratic party in America is corrupt. I think what you see in the “feeltheBurn” movement is part of that movement to repair it, to infiltrate it, to hijack it. If elected, will Sanders disappoint like Obama? Possibly. But I think there are several reasons to believe that Sanders will go in a different direction, to believe that, on healthcare for example, he won’t just sit back and let corporations write his legislation. Sanders is nowhere near as leftwing as Corbyn in the UK. But in the US context, I’m not aware of anyone of Sanders’ left wing credentials with as good a perch to become US president.
I think that a far greater risk, than president Sanders disappointing the left, is the risk of Democratic presidential candidate Sanders being set upon by both the Republicans and their allies in the Democratic party leadership. I’m sure a good lot of Democratic party congress members and backers would rather see a president Cruz than a president Sanders.
Having Sanders as President would flush out a lot of corrupt Democrats uncomfortable with the idea of explaining why they are taking money to vote with the corporations and against the American people and their own president on issues such as universal healthcare.
Your FAITH in Sanders is just that.
It is based upon a set of beliefs which have no basis in
anything beyond what Sanders WOULD have POSSIBLY done
if he was ever in a position to really make a difference,
which he has never been.
The reason he has never been in that position is largely
the result of the actions of the democrats –
of whom he has stated that he “always have” supported
the corporate democrat establishment’s candidate.
Consider also,
last month I looked which “super delegates” in the
fake “progressive caucus” have endorsed his candidacy.
2 of his own fake “progressive” congressmen – Ellison and Grijalva –
have endorsed his candidacy
while 57 other fake “progressive caucus” members have
endorsed the corporate predator named Clinton.
Grijalva, as is typical of democrat deviousness, has endorsed
both Clinton and Sanders.
Being in two places at once is the game of the democrats
and they are “always” the choice for Sanders.
I do not believe in any religious cults and that is exactly what
the democrats, republicans, and libertarians are.
There is one global crusade of corporatism and these parties
are its adherents.
Do you know who founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus ?
Hint : it was Bernie Sanders, in 1981
It wouldn’t even exist, if not for him.
I did know that and that only helps reinforce the
phony nature of “progressive democrats” when the
majority of them (57 the last time I looked)
have endorsed the corporate predator named Clinton
while Sanders has the endorsement of 2 and
one of them – Grijalva – has endorsed both
Sanders and Clinton.
A bunch of Fakes.
This is good:
I think “fatalism” and “status quo” are the perfect words to describe Chait. He’s for the status quo, and his means of holding on to it are by trying to induce fatalism in his readers.
I’m still trying to understand why some critics of Sanders think they are “the Left”, but one of the main arguments seems to be “Sanders won’t be able to work with congress!”, yeah so elect Clinton, her plan to NOT give all Americans healthcare, NOT give all Americans affordable education, NOT reduce the power of Wall St. will sail through. Then with all the time saved, she can concentrate on starting more wars!!!
I guess it’s his being a “progressive” that causes Chait to disagree with Sanders’ ideas? You know, the popular ones? But anyway I was thinking, instead of saying, “don’t vote for the guy who most wants to give you the things you want”…like the kind of healthcare other countries enjoy, because, right now, the US congress is full of corrupt corporate Republicans that will fight him…
Why not try this..support the guy who most wants to give Americans what they want, healthcare, affordable education, less corrupt government, etc…and AT THE SAME TIME, while you are in the voting booth, vote for congress people, who, unlike Chait, support Sanders.
That way, (if my math is correct) congress will be full of people who will vote with Sanders and give Americans what they want.
I agreed, and write a bit about why, but the crap blogware disappeared my comment when I clicked Submit.
Another example of an Islamic terrorist attack (yesterday) because of our support for Israel:
“…….At least 14 civilians were killed and dozens were wounded after Islamist militants struck a popular beachside restaurant Thursday night in Somalia’s capital…….The militants attacked from several directions……The Shabab, which have vowed to turn Somalia into a puritanical Islamic state, claimed responsibility for the attack…….Witnesses said that the attack started when Shabab fighters emerged from the beach and began firing at patrons of the Lido beachfront restaurant. People fled in the other direction, but they were killed and wounded by a bomb-laden car that exploded at the restaurant’s gates……”
Had the US ended our support for Israel, this attack could have been avoided.
You said:
But the text you quoted says this:
Aside from the fact that the term, “Islamic Terrorist” is invalid and an oxymoron (for reasons I’ve given before), that’s how a significant number of people subtly equate something called Islamism with the entire religion of Islam.
Often, they use these two terms interchangeably as, in their minds, they’re the same thing and they DO want to implicate the religion of Islam.
P.S. By the way, generally speaking, your analyses are sometimes wrong.
Some might call the above a monumental understatement.
Don’t worry Sufi. I can live with being occasionally wrong…..generally speaking.
The topic of this article is “…establishment backlash …”. It is not terrorism. Stay on topic!
@ Jay
There are only 3 “topics” of relevance or import in the worldview of the “far right wingers” like Craig:
1) The poor poor plight of the Jewish diaspora in the world and the state of Israel;
2) America’s global economic hegemony through violence (cloaked in the hypocrisy of America’s purported “humanitarianism”;
3) The wondrous magical hand of the “free market”.
Oh yeah and the 4th Amendment is bad and torture is both good and necessary.
If the context was related to his “topics” – then okay. But, it is not!
After seeing so many irrelevancies and inaccuracies from him, I am now programmed to simply skip past his name most of the time.
This one took a bit longer to research. Basically, in 2006, US-backed Ethiopian troops invaded Somalia in order to carry out regime change. They wanted to install a regime dubbed the Transitional Federal Government (TGF). They fought factions in control of Somalia, primarily something called the Islamic Court Union (ICU). The ICU was largely defeated, but hardline elements in it did not want to give up, so they formed groups such as Al-Shabaab.
No worries, Craig. I’m sure if you keep looking, you’ll find some atrocity somewhere that can’t be linked to US meddling in any way.
“……Wars between Somalia, or its precursor Islamic states, and Ethiopia, stretch back to 16th century. For example, Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi was a 16th-century Islamic leader popular in Somali culture for his jihad against the Ethiopians during the rise of the Adal Sultanate. The painful living history, oral and cultural traditions, long-standing ethnic divisions and sectarian differences lay a foundation of conflict between the two nations…….”
All of you tend to forget about historical differences which leads to modern conflict. However, I am not surprised the US supported the Ethiopians against radical Islamists and al Qaeda. After all, we are at war with al-Qaeda wherever they emerge. None of that explains the ruthless targeting and murder of civilians eating at a cafe which the US had absolutely nothing to do with.
SOCIALISM is the governing set of principles that place life and life support for all persons before wealth and profit.
Wallstreet hoarders and profiteers are scared to death of losing their grip of power over all others – especially mainstreet.
The equality of life support for all people IS a balance of power that allows the freedom of choice between pursuing more and not pursuing at all. Such equality of power allows for co-operation and sharing as the living remedy for competition-going-crazy.
Wallstreet’s ultimate objective is the decimation of societies and lands so they can buy them cheap to own and develop as they would a war zone. Their method is to print currency and values to hold as repossessable unless their victims can pass on the debt to others in the same trap.
The inevitable demise of society is that they are forever slaughtered with wallstreet price hikes to force the pawning of one’s property, and the selling of the futures of their children to become virtual indentured servants to the owners’ club.
Wallstreet seeks to trap all others into their fraudulent economy. Know that the so-called crash of wallstreet stocks is nothing more than ruination of hoarder values and a big savings for the common person. Know that rising prices of stocks is not a gain but a loss for the common person as such prices makes stocks thus popular ownership less affordable and allows wallstreet to print credit to loan to buy to sucker all others to pay interest – hence 50% margin accounts.
In the SOCIALIST WORLD there shall be 3 economies –
> life support (which is a human right ordained by God)
> comfort (modest and humble as blessed as it is)
> wealth (which greed is put in check by the ordained right of life support)
Socialism and capitalism are the perfect marriage provided that socialism is the foundation as the cake and capitalism is just the frosting.
“…….Socialism and capitalism are the perfect marriage provided that socialism is the foundation as the cake and capitalism is just the frosting……”
Just the opposite.
The idea that capitalism is foundational to a functioning society underpins why your arguments are consistently morally bankrupt.
The US Constitution speaks not at all about your ideologically compromised perfect union to which your arguments regularly infer, nor has it enshrined any such notions since, and the push-back against such idiocy is actually stronger now that it has been in decades.
Just as consumers are the only real job creators (one cannot possibly create and sustain a job without someone to consume a product or service) the public (sans economics models disguised as moral compasses) are, and should be, the only creators of a uniform system of governance on their own behalf.
This is just another example of you trying to create and then pigeonhole an ideology (that is actually an economic system) into an already existing social contract.
Ayn Rand would be proud.
Sillyputty
According to your source:
“……..Where in the Constitution is it stated or implied that the U.S. economy should be based on vulture capitalism, or for that matter, any kind of capitalism? Nowhere! However,the Preamble to the Constitution does clearly mention “promoting the general welfare.”…..”
That is exactly what capitalism has done – promoted the general welfare of the people by creating our wealth. Why should the government tell you how to run your business? That doesn’t mean that I oppose some regulations. People are greedy, but thank God we are. I am always amazed at people who grew up in a wealthy capitalist society who degrade capitalism. Reap the benefits and bitch. Considering that communism was the biggest economic failure of the twentieth century, you would think people would learn. Hmmmm…..some never do.
That’s the same, tired trope that is most often used to hang hats upon when defending ‘capitalism-as-the-great-equalizer’ – and it’s as equally unpersuasive as your ‘torture-works-to-protect-our-homeland,’ which is to say, not at all.
Sure, if by ‘people’ one excludes the majority of actual American citizens, as well as the rest of the up-and-coming denizens of our world.
Capitalism, per se, isn’t the problem. It’s the failure of capitalism’s promise (so you say) of creating such conditions within a society in order to ‘promote the general welfare’ that is.
Like rrheard, I’ll be happy to see this paradigm shift (as assuredly it will) – as no civilization can long survive such gross inequality forever.
But please, join the billionaires (such as Steven Schwartzman, Blackstone CEO) that support such fallacies and share in your ignorance:
While you’re at it, you may as well vote for Hillary. You are all in the same sinking boat.
BERNIE SANDERS’ SOCIALIST AMERICA
Ethan Earle – January 2016
http://www.rosalux-nyc.org/bernie-sanders-socialist-america/
Your link is typical of the blinders that Sanders’ supporters
wear when they try to pretend that he has integrity.
These sort of worshipers leave out the fact that Sanders
avoids addressing the fact that the economy of
the fake USA (Sanders’ preferred topic) is greatly damaged
by the ENORMOUSLY predatory foreign policy machinery and
they also prefer to ignore his support for pouring money
into warmongering entanglements which keep growing
with the enthusiastic help of his beloved democrats and
their alliance with the republicans.
He is a member of the status quo when it comes to supporting
funding for very same international warmongering
of which he says he is opposed.
Also, when Israel and Saudi Arabia do their most horrible
aggressions, he has encouraged them.
He is another in the now long line of democrats who
say they want one thing while they support another.
Sanders has a long history of getting things right that’s hard to ignore. Even if he loses, hopefully his messages reaches a wider audience and paves the way for more socialist politicians.
http://tysongibb.net/?p=441
He needs to be very careful in everything he does, though. Any misstep will be amplified by the corporate media. The establishment is very good at undermining and discrediting progressive economic change.
The Intercept imposes “no fly zones” in journalism. These are important stories that lie outside of the perpetual anti-American rhetoric that flows from this site. Another story that the Intercept will probably not cover is recently released report by a British inquiry into the poisoning of a former KGB agent by Russian agents using polonium 210. There are few examples which are any more representative of state power and authority than the murder of the former Russian KGB agent who defected to the west. You can read the story in the state operated New York Times today.
Another story entirely ignored by the Intercept was the murder of the Argentina state prosecutor who implicated the Argentina government in the cover-up of the role of the Iranian government in the murder of 80 Jews at a Jewish Community Center in the 90s. That is inexcusable, of course. Argentina forms part of the southern boundary of Brazil where Greenwald lives. For that matter, has the Intercept even acknowledged that Jews were targeted during the Charlie Hebdo slaughter? And predictably, not a single story covered the increase in anti-Semitic incidents globally during Operation Protective Edge. We have seen article after article accusing the west of collective punishment directed at Muslims for the acts of a few Islamic terrorists, but collective punishment of Jews seems perfectly OK at the Intercept – at least it’s not worth covering. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand why.
The Intercept refuses to cover any part of the Syrian war which has created so many unwanted refugees – 4,000,000 or so. Well, let me qualify that. The Intercept has covered that the unwanted Syrian refugees are the twenty-first century equivalent of the internment of Japanese-Americans – according to Murtaza Hussain. However, there has not been a single article about the war initiated by the Syrian dictator, Bashar Assad, which resulted in the catastrophic refugee crisis in the first place. This is also true for the annexation of Crimea Peninsula, or the low grade civil war supported by the Russian military in eastern Ukraine after the Russian puppet was ousted from power.
These are all examples of abuse of state power which according to the Intercept is the focus of the staff – at least according to the mission statement of the Intercept:
“…….We believe journalism should bring transparency and accountability to powerful governmental and corporate institutions, and our journalists have the editorial freedom and legal support to pursue this mission……”
True – as long as they stay out of the “no fly zones” of journalism.
Whataboutery, blah, blah, blah, whataboutery, blah, blah, blah, whataboutery, whataboutery, whataboutery, blah, blah, blah. [Start your own blog writing about those things if you feel they are so relevant to 99.99% of American lives, because near as I can tell they aren’t]
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/terrorists-were-already-known-to-authorities/
But here’s a question, more than 100 people were killed in the Paris attacks. Most weren’t Jewish. 4 Jewish individuals taken hostage during the Porte de Vincennes siege at a Hypercacher kosher superette were killed.
So why is it The Intercept’s responsibility to focus less on the other 124 people killed because 4 happened to be Jewish?
The Jewish diaspora globally accounts for approximately 0.2% of the world’s population. And yet in your mind the death of every Jewish person in a terrorist attack (which have been remarkably few in both absolute number and as a percentage of those non-Jews killed in terrorist attacks) should be the focus of mainstream journalism’s reporting. Why?
rrheard
“…….But here’s a question, more than 100 people were killed in the Paris attacks. Most weren’t Jewish. 4 Jewish individuals taken hostage during the Porte de Vincennes siege at a Hypercacher kosher superette were killed…..”
The four Jewish people killed were not randomly targeted. They were selectively targeted because they are Jews. That’s what makes it different.
“……. So why is it The Intercept’s responsibility to focus less on the other 124 people killed because 4 happened to be Jewish?…..”
We have seen article after article at the Intercept about the bigotry directed at Muslims in the west (America and Europe) because of the actions of a relatively few Islamic terrorists. Fundamentally, that is collective punishment of the Muslim population, just like the internment of the Japanese during WWII was collective punishment of Japanese Americans for the actions of Japan (which obviously, they had nothing to do with).
Targeting Jews for the actions of Israel is exactly the same thing – collective punishment. The Intercept protects the civil rights and civil liberties of western Muslims – thus all of the articles accusing Americans and Europeans of bigotry (Trump, for example). The Jews were murdered exactly because they were Jews – and only because they were Jews defines collective punishment.
“……..In an interview with BFMTV during an ensuing standoff, Coulibaly stated that he targeted the Jews at the Kosher grocery to defend Muslims, notably Palestinians.[14][15]……”
That would seem to warrant at least some kind of acknowledgement by someone at the Intercept. However, instead, Scahill ran an article right after the attacks quoting the terrorist Awlaki:
“……“I support what Umar Farouk has done after I have been seeing my brothers being killed in Palestine for more than sixty years…..”
The article was published just a couple of days after the conclusion of the Paris attacks. I would call the lack of acknowledgement of the targeted Jews (by anyone at the Intercept) together with the publication by Scahill insensitive at the least – and support for the collective punishment of Jews at the worst (for the actions of Israel). Of course, Greenwald has focused a lot of negative attention on Israel. None of this surprises me.
Thanks.
@ Craig
Again, so what if 4 Jews out of 128 non-Jews were “targeted”? Is the death of ever delicate flower Jew in the world somehow more important than the death of a non-Jew that it needs some sort of special recognition? If so, why?
And seriously Craig, if you want to make an issue of “collective punishment” you better start by looking long and hard at Israel’s “collective punishment” of Palestinians every single time a Jew has been killed by an individual Palestinian. Last count I made re: the world’s “most moral” army is that they are engaging in “collective punishment” somewhere in the range of 20 Palestinians for every citizen of the State of Israel that is murdered. If that isn’t the height of immorality and “collective punishment” then there is no such thing.
The fucking degree of your hypocrisy and blinkered far right-wing ideology really is disturbing.
As far as what Glenn Greenwald or any other journalist chooses to focus on is up to them and their editorial staff. They are under ZERO obligation to report on what you find personally important or otherwise “news-worthy”.
If you think the poor horribly maligned citizens of the state of Israel are getting short shrift–start your own fucking blog, report on it, and then sit back and see our irrelevant is your point of view to the vast majority of the world based on the number of hits you get on your content. And then compare that to the readership and hits on The Intercept’s content.
rrheard
“…….Again, so what if 4 Jews out of 128 non-Jews were “targeted”? Is the death of ever delicate flower Jew in the world somehow more important than the death of a non-Jew that it needs some sort of special recognition? If so, why?….”
You are obscenely dumb. I just explained it to you – and then you completely change the subject to Israel as if the targeting of the Jews in France should be tied to Israeli aggression. Do you even know if the murdered Jews were Zionists? Possibly they were highly critical of Israel? Maybe they weren’t even Zionists. You have no clue where they stood politically – and either did the murderers. They just planned to murder Jews – any Jews because of the actions of Israel i.e., collective punishment.
This is the very idea which Greenwald (and staff) has written countless articles excoriating the west for fear mongering about the Syrian refugees for the actions of a relative small percentage of Islamic terrorists. Did this all go right over your head? Or do you believe that Jews living in Europe, the US or anywhere on the planet are legitimate targets for the actions of Israel? Because if you do, then you are dumber than I imagined.
As far as I know, not one Muslim refugee has been killed. Four Jews were killed in one attack. They are not more important than the other innocent people targeted by the Islamic terrorist (Charlie Hebdo), but the difference is that they were targeted for the actions of a foreign country – a country that no one even knows if the victims were even affiliated with Israel in any way. They were just Jews in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Your insensitivity to the murdered Jews is a classic far left position. You don’t need to worry whether you are “near” of “middle” left. You are on the fringe – the whacked out fringe left. Truth be told, I doubt you even know why.
Age old formulae no doubt, but in the UK the immediate paradigm is surely the Scottish referendum, which announced that Corbyn already had a nation-wide constituency for the first time perhaps. Be interesting to see if he can split the vote in Scotland (he must if he is to succeed, but the polsters suggest residual loyalty to the SNP)
Two years and eight days sitting in a tree and they called her crazy.
http://myhero.com/hero.asp?hero=j_hill
http://www.globalonenessproject.org/people/julia-butterfly-hillhttp://www.forestecologynetwork.org/JULIA22.htm
Go Bernie!
The Pakistan Taliban is suspected of carrying out an attack at Bacha Khan University in northwest Pakistan yesterday:
“……..Militants raided a university in northwest Pakistan Wednesday, timing their attack to a ceremony at the school to ensure maximum casualties. They slaughtered at least 22 people, a provincial police authority told CNN……”
The attack took place near the scene of the brutal attack killing 132 children at another school in 2014. The (Pakistan) Taliban took credit for that attack. Common sense indicates that the Muslim students were most likely targeted because of the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (and our support for the Jewish state).
If you do 5 minutes of research you’d find out the Pakistani Taliban did not exist before the invasion of Afghanistan.
That’s fine, but you are avoiding the broader question which is why they are attacking Muslims in Pakistan. This is a response to the Pakistan military incursions into TTP controlled territories. According to Wikipedia:
“……Although the TTP has claimed allegiance with the Afghan Taliban in the Afghan Taliban’s insurgency in Afghanistan, the two groups have no direct affiliation.[9] The TTP has almost exclusively targeted elements of the Pakistani state.[12] The Afghan Taliban however have historically relied on support from the Pakistani army in their campaign to control Afghanistan.[16][93]…..”
Obviously, the TTP opposes the US presence in Afghanistan, but their primary goal is to establish an independent Islamic state in northwest Pakistan. They killed 200 tribal leaders to consolidate their power. Typical of Islamic terrorists, they kill Muslims for power – not because the US invaded Afghanistan.
Right. In this case we did them a favor by greasing the skids for their revival in Pakistan. Kind of like we did a favor for the ISIS fanatics who grew in the chaos we created in Iraq. Don’t take my word for it — ask Tony Blair.
Mona
According to Wikipedia:
“…….The roots of the TTP as an organization began in 2002 when the Pakistani military conducted incursions into the tribal areas to originally combat foreign (Afghan, Arab and Central Asian) militants fleeing from the war in Afghanistan into the neighbouring tribal areas of Pakistan.[7][15] A 2004 article by the BBC explains:
The military offensive had been part of the overall war against al-Qaeda. … Since the start of the operation, the [Pakistani] military authorities have firmly established that a large number of Uzbek, Chechen and Arab militants were in the area. … It was in July 2002 that Pakistani troops, for the first time in 55 years, entered the Tirah Valley in Khyber tribal agency. Soon they were in Shawal valley of North Waziristan, and later in South Waziristan. … This was made possible after long negotiations with various tribes, who reluctantly agreed to allow the military’s presence on the assurance that it would bring in funds and development work. But once the military action started in South Waziristan a number of Waziri sub-tribes took it as an attempt to subjugate them. Attempts to persuade them into handing over the foreign militants failed, and with an apparently mishandling by the authorities, the security campaign against suspected al-Qaeda militants turned into an undeclared war between the Pakistani military and the rebel tribesmen.[15]…..”
In effect, you are right Mona. The US invasion forced al-Qaeda to flee into NW Pakistan where the Pakistan military invaded. Before the US invasion, al-Qaeda ran terrorists training camps used to train terrorists to murder people world-wide in Afghanistan.
Tribal leaders paid the highest price:
“……..In 2004 various tribal groups, as explained above, that would later form the TTP, effectively established their authority in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) by concurrently engaging in military attacks and negotiating with Islamabad. By this time, the militants had killed around 200 rival tribal elders in the region to consolidate control.[8]…..”
I’m also right about the U.S. creating the womb in which ISIS gestated.
What I mean by “right” Mona is that without the US invasion, al-Qaeda had a place to continue to plan attacks in Afghanistan.
“……..I’m also right about the U.S. creating the womb in which ISIS gestated…..”
It’s a hell of a lot more complicated than that Mona, but simplicity and anti-Americanism go hand in hand. That’s why the simplistic argument used by the far left that our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and our support for Israel is the reason for Islamic terrorism falls way short – as I have shown time and time again.
Thanks.
@ Craig
Who is the “far left”? Is there a “middle left” or “near left”?
As far as kicking down your a straw man of your own creation–bravo. Only problem with it that nobody on the “far left” or any other degree of “left” has argued that:
What has been argued by many, and not just those among those on the “far left” (wherever that might be in your “far right” ideologically blinkered worldview), is that that invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and support for Israel’s actions, is a “contributing” factor or “partial” explanation for “some” of what drives anti-Western sentiment among “some” individuals in the Muslim world.
But hey prop up and knock down your straw man arguments all day long and attempt to red-bait anyone who doesn’t see the world through your pinhole “far right wing” authoritarian worldview. Nobody really cares because in the long run, you and your fellow travelers are a dying breed.
rrheard
“……..What has been argued by many, and not just those among those on the “far left”………….is that that invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and support for Israel’s actions, is a “contributing” factor or “partial” explanation for “some” of what drives anti-Western sentiment among “some” individuals in the Muslim world……”
I certainly agree with that statement, but Greenwald has never been one to shy away from the causes of terrorism and he frequently quotes the report commissioned by the Pentagon on the causes of terrorism:
“……..Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, ever increasing support of what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf States…….” (etc. etc. etc.)
No one is arguing that Muslims hate our freedoms. Muslims are as varied as any other group. The Arab Spring was as good of evidence as you will ever hope to see that many Muslims admire our freedoms – and are willing to die for them (something that many of us might have questioned in the past). That is not in dispute. I also believe that most Muslims are peaceful I have never labeled all Muslims as terrorists, and I have been fairly careful to point out that it is the Islamic terrorists that hate our freedoms and seek power to subjugate Muslims in a racist and bigoted, anti-democratic society. They kill mostly Muslims for power. This is going on all over the world. See the last two attacks in Indonesia and Somalia just in the last couple of days. I specifically disagree that it’s our policies which drive most Islamic terrorism.
The Islamists are motivated by gaining power. They emerged (as another oppressed class in the Middle East) at about the same time as the Arab Spring. They recruit using the same propaganda as the Intercept peddles, but even someone with a walnut for a brain can easily tell that they kill mostly Muslims – for power. Thus, recruitment in the west to commit mass murder is not easy although several thousand European Muslims have traveled to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS (and kill more Muslims). So many peaceful Muslims probably do disagree with some of our policies, but not enough to commit mass murder – especially for any number of Islamic organizations that kill primarily Muslims for power.
Thanks
Way to hijack a discussion of domestic US politics, Craig.
Seems like the topic has been adequately covered, if this information is in Wikipedia. And your notion that you should choose what stories are covered by a publication and editor you hate is comical.
If he “hated” the publication and editor, he wouldn’t be here all the time. It’s dysfunctional, I’ll grant you that, but it’s not hate.
And, against my better judgment, I’m going to take this one step further. I think that “hate” you reference is actually a lot closer to “love.” But mixed in with an unhealthy (and I might add, doomed) attempt to exert control. Those two things don’t mix well, never have, but try telling that to some people.
There. I said it. Erase my comment if you like: I don’t care. I’m going to bed. Good night.
Here’s how it works, Craig. The US can’t exactly be blamed for the existence of violent extremists (although, if you give it some thought, there’s a bit of nuance that could be argued in this regard.) But it is perfectly valid to blame the US government for the foreseeable and unforeseeable consequences of its actions, like you would anyone else.
In other words, conservative politicians and the mainstream media say: “Corbyn and Sanders are commie greenies who will destroy the economy and will let terrorism run rampant.”
And the docile, conservative voting sheep say: “Yes, you are right, they are commie greenies who will destroy the economy and will let terrorism run rampant. We will mindlessly swallow anything you say.”
It happened here in Australia 2.5 years ago. The Murdoch press told all the drones to vote for a mindless, incompetent conservative moron, and of course they duly, dutifully did. He was SO incompetent, that he was dumped on his arse only 2 years later.
But of course, the voting robots won’t learn, it will be ‘rinse and repeat’….
In 2012 Ron Paul tied Michelle Bachman for first place in the Iowa straw poll, and the press wouldn’t even mention his name. What stage would that be?
I don’t know if Corbyn faced this, but probably so. Bernie certainly has, Nader did. It is always wrong. Glenn Greenwald was one of Ron Paul’s only selective defenders among progressives.
The same could be said across the pond of the SNP in Scotland. All the parties went out to demonize them, both in the 2014 referendum, and the 2015 election. While sadly, fear won in 2014 (though by a lesser margin than predicted), the SNP delivered a near clean-sweep of Scotland in 2015, running to the left of Labour (and defeating several Labourites who were FAR from left-wing, such as the infamous Jim Murphy, a member of the political council of the Henry Jackson Society, to say nothing of the Lib Dems, the coalition partners of the Tories).
Incidentally, with this taken into account, the 2015 UK election had more seats shifting LEFT than right, yet it’s somehow portrayed as a Tory victory. (Never mind that the Tories have FEWER seats than the Coalition had before.)
More fine work, Glenn – thank you.
Ask Salvador Allende or Olof Palme how stage 8 looks like…
I hope you’re wrong about Bernie’s chances. Bern as prez would give JC a huge “electability” boost.
This isn’t about the article; just a suggestion. If an article is going to have this many links, when you click on a link it should automatically open a new tab (I’m using Chrome). When you click links on The Intercept, you’re redirected to the new page and then you have to click back to the article and so on. It’s frustrating and clunky to have to right-click and “open new tab” for every hyperlink. I’m no web designer but I figure this is an easy thing to do (other sites do it), and readers will greatly benefit from the enhanced navigation. I love the site by the way. Thanks.
In chrome, simply hit control button before clicking link. Link will open in new tab.
…or if you have a middle button on your mouse, just click the link with that.
They did the same thing with Ron Paul. It has nothing to do with whether they are liberal or conservative.
Just in case it hasn’t already been linked:
http://gawker.com/living-embodiment-of-why-people-are-unhappy-asks-why-a-1754277152
Why are people unhappy? Why are they enthusiastic about any possibility of escaping Clinton the Second? It is le bafflements!
Thanks for that. But you have to be understanding of Stephen Schwarzman. You see, for example, when he wants medical care, he has no time for this “I’m dying! I can’t afford medical insurance!” nonsense. Schwarzman buys himself…a hospital, if need be. And if you are nice to him, I’m sure he’ll let you use it. But why depend on the charity of billionaires? Become one yourself! So as Colbert would say “I’m a billionaire, and so can you!!”
Mr. Greenwald
It’s interesting to see your support for the so-called anti-corporate candidates like Bernie Sanders and Tim Canova. According to Sanders:
“…….I do believe in private companies that thrive and invest and grow in America, companies that create jobs here, rather than companies that are shutting down in America and increasing their profits by exploiting low-wage labor abroad.”[169]…..”
This is a classic populous position within the anti-corporate crowd. Inequality is another popular topic with the left. The standard of living for Americans and generally westerners is extremely high relative to the rest of the world, or what is commonly referred to as the third world. It’s been that way for a long time, and the rise of our standard of living simply was unsustainable thus, it’s stagnant or decreasing. The redistribution of the wealth to the third world was as inevitable as the growth of factories in China and elsewhere.
If there is an issue of inequality, it’s between the west and the third world. Corporations didn’t move overseas to help the staggering number of people in poverty (or starving). They simply are not held to the same environmental or safety standards, and wages are cheap. It’s cheap to do business. But the biggest beneficiaries of the global corporate movement are the people who work and earn a wage at the factories and industrial complexes that provide cheap goods to the west (which increases our standard of living). Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty. Thus, there is a gradual shift of wealth which is good for all of the people on earth.
Using cheap politically-motivated language like “exploiting low wage labor abroad” completely mis-characterizes the importance of those jobs to people who have families and children just like us. Corporations are to be applauded even if their motivations are completely off base. So the gap is closing for the real inequality that exists in the world. That is one of the most positive developments in the twentieth century – and into the twenty-first century. Trying to keep the third world in poverty is simply illiberal.
– “Corporations didn’t move overseas to help the staggering number of people in poverty (or starving). “
WHAAT??? Wash your mouth out. Corporations (blessed be the corporations!!” Are job creators! They create jobs, they create wealth. Once they’ve lowered wages sufficiently in the west, by offshoring jobs to places with bad labour laws, bad environmental laws and cute little child workers, you can rest assured, as the free market is my witness (blessed be the corporations!!!) they will begin their wealth creation in America, one minimum wage job after another until it’s Indians who are complaining about those damn technical support people with AMERICAN accents!!!
“……..They create jobs, they create wealth…..”
That is about as far as your answer needed to go. Corporations exploited the cheap labor in the US during the industrial revolution – and created the wealthiest country in human history.
And before that by exploiting millions of imported human slaves and by nearly exterminating the indigenous population of the lands that are now America. Oh yeah and by making war on Mexico and then taking a bunch of their land through war.
Funny how America wasn’t so good at becoming the “wealthiest country in human history” [not sure what Jesus would think about that] strictly on the strength of its “ideals”, but rather on its willingness to engage in human slavery, genocide, labor exploitation and war.
I’m also curious what that will mean when China becomes the “wealthiest country in human history” which will happen very soon? Does that mean that China’s mix of party communism combined with state controlled and centralized economy with some “free market” features makes China’s political model or ideology superior to America’s?
“……..Funny how America wasn’t so good at becoming the “wealthiest country in human history” [not sure what Jesus would think about that] strictly on the strength of its “ideals”, but rather on its willingness to engage in human slavery, genocide, labor exploitation and war…….”
Well, of course. No other humans are capable of enslaving people but Europeans (white people). Regardless, it was the industrial revolution which catapulted the west to earn our vast wealth. Certainly part of the wealth and economic growth was on the backs of slaves, dirt cheap labor and child labor. However, there was a great deal of technological advances which catapulted the economies. The British built a vast empire throughout the world.
The Chinese have the second most billionaires in the world today (200+), thus the incentives to gain wealth and success exist in the Chinese economy just like the US economy. After Mao starved millions of people to death under communism for 30 years, the change to a more competitive market economy with individual incentives has lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty. Liberalizing the Chinese economy led to their current success and wealth. Their standard of living will continue to rise which beats starving even with significant environmental problems (and they are huge in China).
Capitalism works. Plain and simple.
…buy a clue.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/01/the-0-1s-marie-antoinette-moment.html
From your link
“…….And that’s before getting to the fact that his remarks confirm what clued-in Americans know well: the top wealthy lead lifestyles that are so disconnected from the rest of the public that they are dangerously out of touch……”
There will always be rich people, but you missed the point. REAL inequality exists between the west and the third world. You need to explain how you decrease that gap without job creation. That is what corporations do whether you like it or not.
buy a clue……
Corporations make a vast amount of useful and just-for-fun disposable Widgets. The quality of life overall rises and the people are well-entertained.
But the price for unfettered corporate growth and globalization is an exponentially increasing gap between the very tiny number who own and control most of the wealth on the one hand, and everybody else on the other, including a disappearing middle class and more people in the lower- and poverty-classes.
This is deeply corrupting of democracy and results in oligarchy. Nor will such a vast disparity of wealth be permanently tolerated by any people.
@ Mona
I’m looking forward to the day when the worldview of “far right wingers” like Craig comes fully to fruition and the people have nothing left to lose. It’ll be fun watching the poor and destitute scale the walls of Craig’s gated neighborhood to hunt him down for the “free market value” of his shiny grey pelt.
Stage 8 deliberate sabotage of economy followed by state of emergency possibly dictator or cleaner assassination
You forgot stage 8 pinochet
Wow! This is a brilliant piece!! I’m not a republican or a Democrat and I’m blown away by this. Greenwald is as discerning as they come. Definitely sharing this with as many people as possible.
Sanders has the highest approval rating of any US senator. 83% of Vermonters approve of him, only 13% disapprove. There are a lot of republicans in that 83%. Sanders is probably more electable than Clinton.
http://www.theweek.com/speedreads/590697/bernie-sanders-highest-approval-rating-senator
Yet Clinton loyalists insist that it’s Mrs. Clinton, she with the highest negatives of any candidate in the 2016 election, that is the less risky choice.
May I interrupt this discussion just to make people aware that a British judge has concluded that Russia “probably” killed one of its ex agents in London, some years ago.
I was just thinking…What if Litvinenko was not the only one…what if there was a, sort of…”kill list” that the Russian president had made of people he wanted bumped off? What should Britain do? More sanctions? Declare war on this monstrous president and his murderous nation?
Of course, the Brits are singling out two of the three suspects mentioned by Litvinenko, and ignoring the third suspect, who happens to be an Italian with ties to the CIA, noted for claiming KGB involvement in various things (all of which were proven false) and trying to claim threats to his life. The person in question, Mario Scaramella, has faced numerous criminal charges in Italy.
Then again, Litvinenko is far from a noble figure. He’s claimed that Putin was behind Al-Quaida, as well as the 7/7 London bombings. Litvinenko was a big buddy of the infamous Boris Berezovsky, who a British judge found to have “regarded truth as a transitory concept”.
Lastly, most British inquiries of late have tended to side with the establishment despite the evidence, like the infamous Hutton Inquiry.
This is from 1988 and it seemed like an improbable fantasy at the time: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094576/
Stage 8 is when they just try to buy him. If that fails, stage 9 is when they shoot him.
Assuming he becomes president, a man of Mr. Sanders integrity does not sell out; he is coopted. He is shown that to get anything done, he will need to use existing institutions, government agencies and non-government organizations. These all respond to certain stimuli and not to others. In order to accomplish anything, he will need to learn which levers to press and which buttons to push. If he masters this (as Barack Obama did), he’ll find the actions produced are identical (or nearly so) to those generated by preceding administrations. The US government is a tuba, and it will only produce tuba music, no matter how hard you blow into it.
If he doesn’t master this, he will quickly be dismissed as a failure and disappear.
I hope you’re wrong, but fear you aren’t.
“If he doesn’t master this, he will quickly be dismissed as a failure and will bedisappeared.”
Benito
“……The US government is a tuba, and it will only produce tuba music, no matter how hard you blow into it…….”
I hope you are right.
Ugh.
The “hopey changey” Obama bit was contagious.
That is my fear, articulated perfectly.
I’d like to see more reporting on Jill Stein of the Green Party and how here policy positions compare to those of Sanders and Clinton.
This would be good. The last interview I saw she was asked about this, she said the biggest difference was that she would cut military spending (pointing out that the US military is the single largest producer of greenhouse gasses) and that she would deny all aid to human rights abusers (i.e. Israel and Saudi Arabia), and prevent weapons sales to them until they come in line with International Law.
Very much agreed. I’d also like to see TI report on her and Gary Johnson’s lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates. Many voters don’t seem to realize just how much the Democrats and Republicans have rigged the process against third/minor party candidates.
There are 909 at large delegates to the democratic national convention this year, largely made up of democratic office holders and Clinton has a lock on them, so she is already 900 delegates ahead of Sanders. It’s just another way for the establishment to hang on to power. Democracy is grand.
One of the BBC’s more prominent establishment journos, Mark Mardell, has just written a rather strange Corbyn article.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35350417
It’s either a rambling and incoherent mess – evidence of a Stage 8 meta-phase perhaps – or an admission, cloaked in a series of whimsical asides, that Corbyn does not play by Westminster rules and the normal measures of political coverage don’t apply to him.
Anyway, I was stumped by the article – poorly written and just plain weird – until someone suggested to me that this could have in fact been a carefully disorganized argument that the Establishment media has Corbyn all wrong.
I’m not quite sure, but it’s definitely possible that someone has poked his head outside the Westminster bubble, and noticed how different the air smells.
Well, although I normally vote Green Party, and still lean towards Dr. Stein, whom I believe has the best overall campaign platform, it is interesting to note that the presumptive fave, Hillary Clinton, was formerly a part of a presidential administration which was unable to nail Osama bin Laden, financed and armed the Taliban, and presented Wall Street with the necessary tools to melt the economy (REIT Modernization Act, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996).
And people are still interested in that neocon called Hillary????????
Great comparison, BTW!
Actually, the presidential administration of which HRC was a part DID nail bin Laden. With that said, I agree that the peace and prosperity of the Bill Clinton era totally sucked.
Also too, thank you, Green Party voter, for George W. Bush. That worked out great.
Green Party voters aren’t responsible for dubya, people who voted for dubya are responsible:
“[In Florida] Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader’s votes wouldn’t have mattered. Second, liberals. Sheesh. Gore lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader. ”
http://www.salon.com/2000/11/28/hightower/
The Democrats and liberals who voted for Bush fucked up, obviously. So did the liberals, progressives, and lefties of any stripe who voted for Nader. Both groups are responsible for Bush’s ascension to the presidency. (I would guess, though, that most Dems and libs who voted for Bush would now admit they fucked up, whereas most lefty Nader voters indignantly deny any sort of responsibility for the tragic consequences of their actions.)
Would that twice as many people had voted for Nader and firmly cost Gore the election with the understanding that that would be a major goal of their vote. And then promised to keep doing it or else. (Or else what? It didn’t get that far…) We could have halted the rightward lurch of the Democratic Party years ago.
It doesn’t have to just be a pointless “protest vote” if we think more than one election at a time and resist the every-four-years pressure to knuckle under. Presidential elections are close enough that a relatively small number of voters-on-strike, refusenik-voters, traitors not heeding the cries of how-dare-you Gator90 effortlessly recycles in this post, whatever you want to call them — a small number of committed liberal/progressive voters could throw elections, help build 3rd party resistance, and exert influence beyond their numbers by coming back with support at the right time (if demands are met).
Bernie Sanders might be a chance for the Democratic Party to avoid this (for them nightmare) scenario. Or if he isn’t nominated, maybe we could see it start this year.
@Vic Perry – “throw elections”
The Plan:
1. Give the Republican Party complete control of the federal government.
2. ?????????
3. Ponies!
There’s no ponies in the scenario I outlined, you lazy hack. Recriminations aplenty, but no ponies, rainbows, unicorns…..yes, I’m familiar with the mind-numbingly cliched discourse of centrist Democrat apologists.
By the way, my voter strike scenario is unlikely to occur in meaningful numbers – but then I thought a serious primary challenge to The Anointed One was unlikely a year ago too.
OK, sorry about the “ponies.” I’ll revise the Plan:
1. Give the Republican Party complete control of the federal government.
2. ?????????
3. ?????????
(If you’re calling me a centrist, by the way, I’d have to quarrel with that designation. I certainly self-identify as well to the left of center. I just have a hard time seeing anything good coming of #1 above.)
Look, as a voter if you want leverage over a party, but you always telegraph to the party “no matter what, I promise to vote for your nominee”, then rather obviously you have no leverage over that party. You’ve traded it in, and for nothing. The party leaders smile and pat your head. You can now be safely ignored. Post-election complainers get the Rahm Emmanuel treatment and get called, did he say ‘retarded’? He’s a lovely man. He also had a point, in his ruthless way — a lot of those people weren’t going anywhere, and next time they will convince themselves to go along again. (Or….maybe the Sanders phenomenon suggests that there are limits).
Most liberals I know are actually proud that they telegraph their undying support ages ahead of time. They end up spending a lot of time making excuses for the disappointing positions and actions of their party, and a lot of time playing up the menace of the opposition.
So how do you exert leverage over your party? A voter strike IS extreme. But note how many people want loyalty tests right now – WHO WILL YOU SUPPORT IN NOV. IF IT ISN’T YOUR NOMINEE? Nobody should be answering that question right now unless they want to make a point, when the main purpose of asking it now is to shut down the insurgency.
Well, the answer to showing your preferred party that you are not an automatic rubber-stamp of a supportive vote is to refrain from voting for that party.
One can do that by voting outside the two parties. One can also do that in primaries by writing in a different name.
I have come across people who automatically write that off. Well, it is erroneous to assume you have to vote between the two major parties—Republican or Democratic—yet there are people who act like that is required of them when they choose to participate in voting.
There are also people who will say, “If you vote for a candidate outside the two parties, you have thrown away your vote.” No. That is actually a misunderstanding of the purpose of participating by voting in elections. One’s vote is an expression of who he/she supports electing to the office in question. One’s vote is “support.” Do, when one makes excuses that he/she is voting for “the lesser of two evils,” he/she is still supporting evil. After all…he/she gave that evil candidate—lesser or not—his/her vote of support. And, realistically, that voter has contributed to the problems which come from such evil.
speaking my language, D.
The people who voted for Gore actually were more
responsible for the election of Bush.
Gore willfully declined to fight back.
After Bush was put in office by the republicans and
the democrats, the vote count in Florida showed
that Gore had won.
I cannot help but suspect that planning for
the illegal war against Iraq
was well underway and both corrupt parties knew it
HAD to happen, one way or another.
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
was setting the groundwork for the war in the 1990’s
and their agenda is what has been underway with
the support of both the democrats and the republicans.
9/11 provided the terror, the democrats and the
republicans together spread the lies.
Biden, Kerry, and Clinton were rewarded for their
criminality and Obama, Pelosi, and Reid gave all of the
criminals cover.
So, you go ahead, tighten your blinders,
and put the blame on the people
who voted for Nader because that is what the
corporate controlled democrats and republicans
need you to do.
Haters gotta hate.
Waaait a minute! Anyone remember the Florida Supreme Court stopping the recount??? That “election” had nothing to do with Ralph Nader. THAT was America’s first coup.
Somebody can’t do math. 1% of ‘Dems who voted for Bush’ is 3,080.
If I understand correctly, Bush won in Florida with a margin of 327 votes, so a 1% or 3,080 votes shift would have made a huge difference.
Good point, thank you.
She was also part of the Clinton Administration, which failed to get Bin Laden before 9-11 (he was on the radar as a wanted man for the USS Cole attack). The Clinton administration was too busy bombing pharmaceutical plants at the time.
In 2000, in Florida, more tegistered Democrats actually voted for Bush than people of conscience voted for Nader. By the way, as a Hitlery supporter, I will assume that the “thanks” was not sarcasm, as Hitlery, while in the Senate, votef for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and all of the things people of conscience dislike Bush for. As Sec of State under Obama, she pushed to expand the warmongering of Bush to persue Regime Change in Libya, Syria, and the Ukraine, all while pushing for a war in Iran to top it off (and laughing gleefully at the prospect of using nuclear weapons against Iran.
As a person of conscience (I do hope you recognize that my use of this phrase as a contrast to Democrats), I can say, you are welcome, though it is an unwarranted thanks, as it was Democrats and their ideological twins the Republicans who are responsible for Bush (along with old Jewish retirees voting for Pat Buchanan, who, like the Democrats who voted for Bush, far outnumbet the few people of conscience whose vote was based on moral integrity.)
Sure, blame the Jews.
You have some pretty thin skin for a gator.
Stop falling on your sword every time someone mentions Jews. John mentioned the Jewish vote in FL in passing.
John mentioned the number of Jews who voted for Buchanan, which in itself is funny as Buchanan is still on record saying “Congress is Israeli occupied territory.”
I didn’t see all of yesterday’s blow-up, which seemed to start with Gator taking offense to the insinuation Wasserman-Schultz got her money from loan sharking and ended when Glenn stepped in as comments were “over the top”.
Curious that race baiting always lands a catch …
Hmmm. I intended the “blame the Jews” remark as a bit of self-mockery, but perhaps it wasn’t as obvious as I assumed it to be.
@Gator90
This oft repeated mantra is the hilariously delusional view that the democratic party is closer to the green party than they are to the republicans. You should really be scolding republicans that they should be voting democratic.
From an advertising point of view, this slogan is quite clever. The message isn’t that greens should vote democratic, the message is the laughable idea that democrats are closer to greens than to republicans.
This has to be argued indirectly because as soon as you argue it directly its absurdity becomes readily apparent.
I don’t know who is “closer” to whom. I’m not sure what you mean by that, actually. I do know the election of George W. Bush had consequences.
Centrist Democrats have long attempted to win votes from anyone left of the Republican party through one and only one method: scolding them. That’s the “how dare you?” approach. It is built on the presumption that they are owed votes.
I have resisted this pitch for years, because it is entitled nonsense. But one advantage of it is that one can credibly threaten to withhold said “owed” vote in hopes of exerting leverage.
“Strategic Voting” hilariously was meant to dress up voting-for-the-lesser-evil as some kind of savvy mature option. Your actually using your vote as your leverage over them – your tiny bit of leverage – was the last thing they meant. If your vote doesn’t mean anything then why do they spend so much money on elections? Here’s to real Strategic Voting.
+
@Gator90
You need to explain why green party voters have anything to do with electing Bush.
Why are they more to blame than non voters, republicans, self-identified democrats that voted republican and libertarians?
The hilarity of partisans is not only that they desperately need the other side to survive, but they need them to be as extreme as possible because the partisan doesn’t vote for somebody, but against the other. As soon as the other is seen as the same as the inside group then you got nothin.
If you were concerned about ideas and philosophy over party you would want all parties to reflect your beliefs as closely as possible. You would want all parties to be as similar as possible.
But even after all that demonization and pushing the other party to be as extreme as they can be in order to have something resembling daylight between the both of you, both parties are basically the same in practice, and the people aren’t buying it anymore.
The parties are already dead. Party self identification is at dismal levels despite the the constant demonization and curating of extremists on the other side.
Partisanship has consequences.
@thelastnamechosen — “Why are [green party voters] more to blame [for electing Bush] than non voters, republicans, self-identified democrats that voted republican and libertarians?”
They aren’t. But there is something uniquely frustrating about avowed lefties voting in a way that (predictably) helped bring about the election of the most right-wing president in modern history. And about their refusal to acknowledge what they did.
Of course, if you honestly believe there was no meaningful difference between Bush and Gore, then it doesn’t matter. Though a lot of Iraqi widows, widowers, orphans and bereaved parents might beg to differ.
@Gator90
I noticed you picked Bush and Gore instead of Bush and Obama. Gore lost and is therefore in the abstract. Gore is the ideal democrat because he never took power. You can project your hopes and dreams of liberal heroism upon an impotent canvas.
The man picked Joe Lieberman to be his running mate for god’s sake.
The parties are dying because no one believes they are sincere anymore. The only promises kept are in defeat.
Also, the idea that the spectrum of human philosophy exists on a continuous line of left and right is noting more than superstition. God and Satan have more subtlety and interaction than left and right. That’s not a philosophy, that’s a sports match…and a fixed match at that.
With that said–Obama is the most right wing president in modern history. :)
People who blame those who vote their conscience seem to me to have no faith in a process they claim is very important and might themselves be accused of endorsing a corrupt 2 party capitalist war machine. Democrats gave the war powers to Bush. Obama took them up without hesitation.
It is Gore who failed to fight the corrupt voter theft.
Financial bubbles are not prosperity, Gator90. Do a little reading about prophetic CFTC chair Brooksley Born and how she was shut down by Bill Clinton’s Wall Street hatchet men. The Dubya administration may have allowed the big American financial houses to drive the world economy into a ditch in 2007/2008, but it was the Clinton administration that got them all liquored up for the road.
I understand that Glenn’s piece is not about Sanders, himself, but all of the uncritical adoration BTL (and almost universally among Berniebots) is really rather pathetic. Sanders is a moderate social democrat whose domestic programs, although many are admirable wouldn’t have tiniest chance of making it through our neoliberal Congress and permanent government.
What’s more, and more important, is that Bernie is every bit as committed to American exceptionalism and empire as any of the others: his antiwar posturing is as thin and phony as Obama’s, and MIC giants like the corps that build the F-35 just love the guy.
Perhaps all true, with one fatal exception. Hillary is no friend to the poor.
http://mattbruenig.com/2015/11/06/my-beef-with-hillary-is-mainly-that-she-is-an-enemy-of-the-poor/
And, the poor need no more frenemies than they already have.
Ed note: Please ditch the Berniebot signifier. It really doesn’t signify anything useful expect for maybe the writer’s laziness. I know you’re more articulate than this.
“Perhaps all true, with one fatal exception. Hillary is no friend to the poor.”
No, Hilliary is a Wall Street whore as well as a warmonger. How does that relate to what I wrote?
“Please ditch the Berniebot signifier. It really doesn’t signify anything useful expect for maybe the writer’s laziness.”
I disagree. It signifies my assessment of a group of Sanders supporters who are eager, excited beyond reason, and mindlessly scurrying about pasting “Feel the Bern” stickers on every lamp post and Internet post. I think it’s just as accurate a description as Obamabot was in 2008 and (an indicator of just how clueless American voters are) again in 2012.
As for my articulacy: my mother and countless socially-programmed teachers insisted that the use of profanity indicates a poor vocabulary. They were totally fucking wrong.
1 – Maybe caring about who is president is not really Doug’s thing? Doug doesn’t suggest an alternative. I usually vote 3rd party myself, and will certainly do that again if Sanders is not the nominee. Even if I didn’t like Sanders, and I do to an unusual degree for a politician who has gotten this far, I would still like this just on the basis of the freakout it has plainly created in the Democratic Party.
2 – he’s just moderate — bad dog — but his programs “wouldn’t make it through Congress” either — so what, Doug, don’t try anything? Now that’s stupid. It’s also a prime Hillary Clinton talking point.
Here’s how I see it: it’s negotiation tactics on a grand scale. If we demand more than we expect to get, we might get to settle for more than we have now. Demand nothing, and we can count on getting worse than nothing.
3 – I doubt, and have read enough to doubt, your statement that Sanders is as “committed to American exceptionalism and empire as any of the others”, and by the way, Obama didn’t do much antiwar posturing even in 2008, where he promised to escalate in Afghanistan. You could look it up. Also if you have some textual evidence of some corporate love for Bernie Sanders then do share. That said, on foreign policy, I don’t expect miracles of change from Sanders here, and I didn’t like his response to the bombardment of Gaza at all.
4 – I am very nice to even bother responding to anyone who uses the term “berniebots.” Especially hypocritical coming from Doug “Why Can’t People Be More Civil” Salzman. Maybe I should call Doug a nihilistbot, a pessimistbot, a give up doll? Sure, it adds nothing to the discussion, but….
No, it isn’t, really. My overwhelming concern is that we are a warmongering empire and I learned long ago that reality never changes with the occupant of the Oval Office.
My alternative: Prepare for sustainable local and bioregional culture and economies and work hard to make them work. Global industrial-finance capitalism and giant nation states are utterly unsustainable in a world with shrinking resources and are past their sell-by dates.
Nothing you try, in terms of a presidential election, will make a dime’s worth of difference in the reality of U.S. political reality.
Focus on local matters, where what you say and do may actually matter.
You must be either young or very naive. I’ve been listening to this incrementalist silliness for more than 50 years, while almost everything in American politics and socioeconomics and the imperial endless war machine has grown worse with each passing year.
The lesser of two (or least of three or seven) evils is still evil, and LOTE voting has never gotten us anywhere.
That just tells me you’ve failed to grasp the reality of the matter, or that your reading has been Sanders’ promotional material. I’m getting bored with typing, so, start here:
Bernie Sanders is a cruise-missile progressive: False hope, foreign policy and the stubborn endurance of American exceptionalism
There’s plenty more out there, and if you carefully reviewed his voting record, you could not honestly reach any conclusion other than that Sanders is a supporter of the War Machine and yet another presidential candidate eager to bow down before AIPAC and give Israel a blank check in its genocidal campaign against Palestinians.
I don’t need to look it up; I still have dozens of stubborn Obamabot former friends who have never forgiven me for insisting that their “peace candidate” was no such thing. And just to keep the details straight, I believe it was the summer of 2007 when Obama first called Afghanistan “the right war.”
Do try to distinguish between descriptive labels for political factions and personal insults. I know it’s hard when you are emotionally involved, but, when reading comprehension fails, replies are likely to be off-course, as well.
Oops, meant to suggest this one for Vic, also:
Bernie Sanders’ Troubling History of Supporting US Military Violence Abroad
Oh wow, when Doug insults people it’s a description. Doug says calling it an insult indicates lack of reading comprehension.
“Doug is a pompous jackass.” Hey, was that an insult or a description? I won’t make anybody wait for the answer – I intend it as both.
That’s the best you have?
Go back and do your research. You’ll be a wiser young man for it, although you’ll be chagrined to learn that your hero candidate is just another warmonger in dove’s feathers. I’ve given you starting points.
Wow, you hit stages 2, 3, and 5. Good work.
I have not read it, but I trust Greg Palast:
http://www.gregpalast.com/get-the-bernie-bio-today-not-because/
“Bernie – The new Comic Book Bio, It can cure Stupid
Tuesday, January 12, 2016, A personal note from Greg Palast
Love Bernie. Hate Bernie. Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn. I’m violently non-partisan by profession and nature. But, I demand you read Ted Rall’s comic book biography of Bernie Sanders.
It’s not some propaganda crap-ola to promote Sanders’ Presidential campaign. You don’t get a lot of stuff that makes you feel warm and fuzzy about the candidate. Rather, what you get is, “The Making of a Guy Pissed-off with the Way the System is Stacked Against the Average Joe.”
Rall’s Sanders was not the intellectual child of Karl Marx. Rather, he was the child of Eli Sanders, a low-ticket salesman whose commissions barely covered the rent on a one-bedroom flat in Brooklyn – except when they didn’t cover it and Sanders’ parents would fight.”
I’ve been looking forward to an article on these developments from Glenn for awhile.
1- There’s a kind of ‘volunteer establishment’ and their argumentative points are easier to disseminate than ever. Having closely followed the press and social internet commentary on the Sanders insurgency, I believe that the “establishment” reaction against Sanders is not a totally top—>down phenomenon. Many of the familiar talking points against Sanders seem to have been generated by people who are not pundits or party hacks, something that I can see because the press mostly ignored him. This week the attacks seem more coordinated.
2) The content of the ‘right wing attacks’ part is amusing given recent history in the US. Handwringing over the saleability of the “socialist” label, whether legitimate or feigned, fails to note that the current president has been assailed with the label of “socialist” since well before his re-election. What are attackers supposed to say now —“‘no, this time we really mean it, he’s REALLY a socialist, not like Obama who we said was a socialist.”
3) Prediction as argument should always be called out — it’s the worst. It’s a cheap way to avoid real argumentative engagement by pretending prophecy. Prediction as argument is pervasive throughout the political spectrum: it’s standard throughout the comments section here (“they” won’t let him, he will disappoint, he will be assassinated) and pervasive through establishment discourse (“America will never elect…” “we know he will lose”).
As someone else pointed out, every president since FDR has had socialist programs. It’s all a matter of degree.
Wow. Another “Seven Stages of…” list. Let’s hope it gets around – and gets a Wiki page! (Hint, hint someone; please?)
Stage 8 may be “spread rumor(s) of infidelity, criminal past, tax evasion, etc.”. Maybe bringing in a “Bernie [did something bad] to me in college…” person.
We all know it will happen if he continues to poll well. (And he will, now that the Media can’t ignore a “front-runner” polling high. (And the majority pf the public like his clear, direct message(s). Unlike Trump’s which are just “I’m gonna do it!”)
I’m just waiting for naked pics to surface so I can see how they try to make it about “his humiliation”.
Bill Clinton has started stage 6 in NH, by declaring hopeless gridlock if Bernie were President, but Hillary is the real change agent
I was at a volunteer meeting for Sanders the other day. Bernie wasn’t there – just one of his eleven national volunteer coordinators.
(It was rather badly done by the way – with much reciting of long URLs and no printed handouts – the whole thing could have been done with one email instead of stealing two hours of our time. All the young people had left by the halfway mark.)
But the significant fact is that turnout for this volunteer meeting was larger than in previous elections’ actual “meet the candidate” meetings.
The similarities between Corbyn and Sanders are really striking–not just in terms of establishment reaction, but in terms of style, messaging, dynamics. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34126758
Also intriguing is the contrast between France’s lurch to the right (Le Pen) and Labour’s lurch to the left (Corbyn).
Lol this was fucking fantastic. Thanks, Glenn.
Also, speechboy is a smelly little turd. Someone flush him.
Excellent observations!
There is no such thing as the Democratic establishment or the Republican establishment – there is only the Establishment.
Should Mr. Sanders survive the many stages of derision and coercion, the establishment will do whatever it needs to do in order to stop Sanders. The media is not Democrat or Republican, they are Corporatists.
Exactly. I typically switch off when political discussions degenerate down to Left vs Right/Blue vs Red/Lib vs Con blar blar blar. It’s all a charade no different to rooting for Hulk Hogan over The Iron Sheik
This reminds me of the Seven Deadly Sins of Journalism, Glenn.
Glenn: Excellent observations, sir. Michael Cohen was on MSNBC last night, and his attackson Sanders border on being pathological. I find it strange how BLM members confronted Bernie, contrasted with their benign treatment of HRC. He is now being accused of being against reparations, when he simply said support in congress for it would be nil. Never mind that HRC totally obfuscated the issue when asked.
I just saw this morning that Billy boy is saying that she sent two minions to Flint to help with the lead debacle, while Bernie called for Snyder’s resignation. Of course, HRC deflected that question and refused to declare that Snyder must go.
There is no doubt that there is a media vendetta against Bernie; the only question is how deep it goes.
I neglected the craziest comment so far, from Senator McCaskill, who stated that Repubs would waste no time creating an ad featuring a hammer and sickle should Bernie get the nomination. How in the hell did someone become a US Senator and not know the difference between socialism and communism? smh
It’s more likely we are heading towards major war regardless of who succeeds in the nomination. War monger or non-interventionist alike, the war machine is bigger than any presidency or administration so long as you have the unscrupulous main stream media promoting the fake threat of terrorism and the gullibility of the public to digest the propoganda without question. As others have implied, if it cannot be achieved through deceit, it will be through coercion.
Great site BTW.
I look to Glenn Greenwald for his take on issues of the moment, and the last time I disagreed with him in a serious way was on Citizens United. But this essay is sort of “duh.” I think it was Dorothy Parker who said, in reference to Katherine Hepburn, that her acting ran the full gamut of emotions from A to B. That describes in a nutshell the range of acceptable opinion in modern American (UK, French) political discourse. But what’s interesting is that movements outside of what’s acceptable happen pretty regularly. More on the right than the left, true, but they do happen. I guess it’s good that you retain your ability to be constantly outraged, but I think it’s silly to write as if we too should be outraged that powerful people and interests dominate the discussion. And please don’t overstate the outsider status of Sanders. On many many issues he subscribes to the insider consensus. Corbin, I agree, is another matter entirely.
“but I think it’s silly to write as if we too should be outraged that powerful people and interests dominate the discussion.”
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.
That the establishment tries to dominate the discussion goes without saying. It’s interesting nonetheless to take note of the various tactics the establishment uses to defend itself. They are effective tactics too.
Speechboy is having such a difficult time, and here you go pouring lemon juice on all the painful cuts he’s already suffered.
Killary should get Bill Cosby to publicly denounce Bernie Sanders.
Would you consider pulling a similar comparison from the ’08 Obama/Clinton primary?
Great article, could’ve really done without the “I personally think Clinton’s nomination is extremely likely…” Captain Obvious
Sense this column is about the media and their devotion to oligarch authoritarian power I want to pose this question.
What is behind the virtually total black out of coverage of China and its leaders, its positions on global concern of the day, its foreign policy or almost anything else?
The president (or PM or whatever title he holds) of Chins Xi is on a state visit to the Middle East he has met with the Saudi royals and is now in Cairo and on his way to Tehran. Today he is even attending a high profile public festival in Egypt. (no connection to the Clapper visit of course)
China is a huge country with a huge population of 1.4 billion and an economy almost as big in GDP as the US. China is an important and critical voice in the world with growing influence.
Yet, to the publication, from WorldNetDaily and right wing sites from Democracy Now and the Intercept on the left not AP or Reuters not NYT or Guardian not a single word about it.
Why is this?
Not sure what you’re talking about, as the New York Times and Bloomberg Business News both have stories on those issues.
Yes, I searched and did find some articles. So I guess I was exaggerating. Still, my point is that China coverage is very thin everywhere in the West. You can bet that if Merkel or Hollande or a Western leader went to Saudi there would be minute by minute coverage. Xi in Egypt and signing an MoU is news, no mention of that or concurrent coverage of his trip. Attendance at the festival in Cairo should at least been a photo op.
And, nothing about what China’s foreign policy toward the region might be or its reasons for the trip. Nothing much about the New Silk Road hardly even heard of in the West just nothing much.
The fascinating thing to observe during the UK’s Labour leadership election campaign was that with every smear, insult and character assassination being slung at Corbyn by the corporate news media, his support grew in direct proportion.
Make no mistake, this was a new phenomenon in UK election campaigning and it was exhilarating to witness the establishment looking ever more desperate as it realised that its usual and hitherto effective modus operandi was failing for the first time.
Something I think it’s funny (and sad at the same time) is the american notion that NEOLIBERAL politicians (like the Clintons and other establishment dems) are LEFTISTS since neoliberals are part of the RIGHT spectre of politics in most democratic countries.
I think there was a 25% turnout of voters here in our last local election.
I wish there was as much interest in challenging the establishment in home towns and states as there is for the president. It doesn’t make any sense. You have a better chance of being able fight the influence of outside money in your own back yard than you do for the entire country.
Don’t worry folks. As the time of his increasing popularity with middle America draws near, he will be taken out, just as the Kennedys and King were…
Stage 8: Assassination by an establishment patsy…
Stage 9: A last minute US Supreme Court special intervention to officially ‘select’ the establishments preferred candidate.
With Sanders’ increasing popularity, I’ve been thinking that the possibility of the establishment allowing Sanders to win is remote. If they (whoever “they” are) can rig an election for a George Bush, they can surely rig one away from a Bernie Sanders.
Sanders may take the Iowa caucuses, and then–Glenn’s right–all hell will break lose against Sanders–from his own party! Wow, what a spectacle that will be! But, I think all of that negativity will happen increasingly as the caucuses get closer and Clinton gets more desperate. It will be interesting , because I don’t think Hillary Clinton does desperate very well. We’ll see…
P.S. It’s hard for me to imagine Sanders’ supporters being any less likeable than Hillary’s or literally any of the Republican candidates’. That entire group baths in obnoxiousness.
Sanders was not considered a Democrat before 2015, he was an Independent, so I think that makes it all the more likely that the Democratic Party Establishment resorts to relatively unprecedented means to ensure he does not win.
I’m afraid you’re right. The only mystery is how ugly it will become…
All of the comments here presuppose that an election in America today has anything to do with choosing true democratic leadership. I voted twice for Obama and feel betrayed. Even if Bernie were elected, who’s to say he won’t make deals in the back room with the good ole boys just like our current president? Don’t get me wrong, I encourage everyone to vote, but I’m not naive enough to believe that any president, however radical, can make a significant difference until all of the cancer is removed from Congress. I’m not even sure that dramatic change can be effected except through revolution.
If Bernie’s elected, there will be massive obstruction from both sides, not just from the other party. Increasingly, the democratic party establishment is so far from Sanders’ ideas, it may as well be a wholly separate party from the one in which Bernie belongs. Jimmy Carter may have an opinion on this…
Bernie will be beholden to no one but the American people. And he knows he will not succeed if we do not turn out in 2018 and 2020 to give him support in Congress. He has said so many times.
I think we will have a president for once who calls Congress out on their gridlock and partisan bs – literally calls them out to the American people. Nothing short of record turnout the next few cycles and voters holding politicians accountable will render his presidency worth remembering. This is all assuming he can win the nomination and general election, of course.
Thanks for the support Glenn. I’m a member of a trans-Atlantic social media activism group that advocates for both Corbyn and Sanders and I have been noticing the same ugly trend from the establishment of both countries. Now I just have a nice well-written article from a reputable source to share everywhere and support my position :)
This article isn’t “support.” I won’t bother explaining why that is and what it actually is because the article itself is, as one would and should expect from Greenwald, self explanatory. You have only to read it with comprehension.
Greenwald does frame his arguments in a cogent, compelling way.I’m glad you find them helpful.Hope to hear more about your social media activist group, if you care to share. Thanks!
It isn’t LIBERALS going against Bernie Sanders, it is the top down DNC establishment that has been co opted by Hillary Clinton’s minions who have wormed their way into, rather onto the executive boards of many of the so called liberal non-partisan organizations that now endorse her over Sanders ignoring his record with their issues. In the end it will only weaken those organizations as the new generation of organizations start to erode their support among small donors and volunteers who used to make up their base. The new left sees the establishment of these groups as tired and ineffectual more interested in keeping a status quo that provides them with the comfort of railing against the rain cloud but never quite able to fix the leaking roof. It is a new generation ready for their NEW DEAL that electing Bernie Sanders and down ballot true progressives will bring.
Hillary Clinton is a greater threat to national security than Bashar al-Assad, and it has nothing to do w/ emails or BENGHAZI. If Hillary knows what’s good for her, she’ll find an exit strategy. If she doesn’t, she will incur a wrath far worse than a ‘right-wing conspiracy.’ It’s Hillary’s choice how far she wants to push it – but I have little doubt she will make the wrong choice and continue to thrash-out and flail like a witch in quicksand.
I wonder if these “anti-establishment” politicians aren’t, in fact, serving the interests of that establishment.
My home pressure cooker, for example, has a pressure relief valve.
Fair question, Robert. And, if Sanders isn’t in this campaign to win it (as some suspect), that’s exactly what he’s doing. Still, there are some who could (and have) credibly argued that your supposition is baked into our electoral system and system of government; electoral votes vs popular vote, no accommodation for the benefits of parliamentary representation…
Sandy Levinson being one of them.
https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/slevinson/undemocratic/
If anyone saw the 2005 documentary, “An Unreasonable Man,” there were some moments in which experts like Howard Zinn (who died in 2010) talked about how the Democratic Party really operates in deciding on a nominee. Something like getting behind that candidate; shut up; and do so even if that nominee isn’t really for what you think needs to happen.
There was also good insight into how the Democratic Party was very glad to get rid of Howard Dean before the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries went deeply.
The Democratic Party was contaminated with corporatists who changed the party’s direction around the late-1970s/early-1980s. And many more who joined the party are ex-Republicans who left that party because of the social brand it became during the Reagan/Bush 1980s period … and was clearly transforming the party, in the 1990s, into what we recognize today.
I can see why Glenn Greenwald, for the time being, figures the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination will go to Hillary Clinton. But could you imagine the explosions if the nomination was actually won by Bernie Sanders? (And most especially, in a general-election matchup against Donald Trump, if Bernie Sanders gets elected the next president of the United States?)
I anticipate the Democratic Establishment will go into a more dramatic mold to do their best to sabotage the Bernie Sanders campaign.
“mold”
I meant … mode.
(I apologize.)
“Mold” was right
– “I personally think Clinton’s nomination is extremely likely, but evidence of a growing Sanders movement is unmistakable.”
I was surprised that Corbyn managed to become leader. The Labour party was even considering halting the leadership race because, well, he was winning:
Democrats, this time around, will have a chance to vote for someone who doesn’t need to be pressured to talk about fixing what ails the health system, the school system, the big banks, or to vote for someone who is pressed to say things that please the left, or the right, in order to get elected.
Democrats, this time around, will have a chance to vote for someone who favours helping the majority of women, or to vote for their first female president.
That’s my prediction.
A very interesting set of parallels are presented here, but
all of these “steps” are regularly employed as methods
of business as usual
by democrats and republicans on a day by day basis.
When pressurized within the campaign season these
tactics may further escalate in the described manner, but
let us NOT pretend that each of these isn’t used regularly
and interchangeably
by these corporate owned parties.
I have had these very same tactics used against me
on a personal level by people who are proudly
“progressive democrats” (as oxymoronic as it gets!)
when I dared to ask questions
from outside of what they see as an acceptable pale.
The assumption that Sanders is
strongly opposed
to the system which he has made a career of
simultaneously criticizing while being
a participant within it
is very likely very dangerous to real change.
Also, the assumption that it is now either/or –
Sanders or Clinton –
is predicated upon the belief that there will be no
devious game-changer between now and November
by a party whose main consistent characteristic is
NOT doing what they appear to be doing.
If you trust any democrat, republican, or libertarian,
your own judgement is not based upon
the facts of history.
“The Right” is not a wing of these corporate owned parties –
it is now central to their shared game of global domination,
just as it was in every other “exceptional” imperialist venture.
That is why these parallels are so easy to predict.
To think that Sanders the democrat
is significantly different than Tony Blair
is an assumption which I cannot make.
Bernie Sanders is a New Deal Democrat – a blast from the past. He is the last best hope for capitalism in America because unless the social contract is reinstituted the whole damn thing is going to come crumbling down
I do not know what you mean.
Do you support the Corporate capitalist overlords
or are you saying that the
“whole damn thing” needs to come down?
Also,
the “New Deal democrats” began being pushed out
of that corporate owned party when Henry Wallace
was pushed out and Truman was brought in.
There was a brief domestic resurgence during the
imperialist Johnsonian Vietnam corruption, but since then
the corporatist imperialism has been central to both of
the major fake corporate parties.
If Sanders is a new “new deal,” he wouldn’t be a democrat.
You do realize that Sanders was an Independent in the Senate, right? And that he switched to Democrat to have a hope in hell of getting the candidacy?
Independents and “third-parties” don’t do well in the Red-Blue Race.
It’s that transition from Stage 6 to Stage 7 (and, would especially be a Stage 8) that is interesting. At Stage 6 the “appeal” is still to the individual to understand how “dangerous” their choice is. In other words it is still an appeal, You need to see it my way.. There is still an effort to persuade, even if it’s directed at the voter’s limbic system. At Stage 7 we get the threats of system sabotage; You will see reason, or else… And, that Stage 7 would be operationalized with Stage 8. Plead->threaten->enforce. It’s a pretty “parental” approach.
Lining it out this way is helpful; it’s good to understand the script. Simultaneously, it is amusing and dispiriting. Amusing to watch, dispiriting because of how well it can work (obviously, it’s failed – so far – in Corbyn’s case).
There are some like Jeet Heer who argue – somewhat persuasively – that Bernie Sanders isn’t really motivated to win. That Sanders is in the race merely to squeeze Clinton more to the Left, or to offer space for some issues to be aired that otherwise wouldn’t be acknowledged. I hope he’s wrong. I don’t like the thought that I’ve paid (with campaign donations) just to give voice to some issues.
Matt Bruenig put up a couple of pieces that really clarified the possibilities, for me. He has a bias, which he freely admits, that puts his finger on the scale for Sanders. That said, Bruenig’s analysis is clarifying in terms of what either candidate would be able to accomplish if elected. His pieces are written in response to two of Hillary’s supporters writing in The Nation and Salon. But, he makes plain the obstacles that Sanders faces, as well.
http://mattbruenig.com/2015/11/09/hillary-clinton-will-not-get-anything-done/
http://mattbruenig.com/2015/12/10/the-weak-hillary-case/
And, lest someone begin to pound the table about SCOTUS and “electability”:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-the-next-supreme-court-vacancy-will-favor-liberals-no-matter-who-retires/2015/12/31/12828dce-978b-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b
…Bernie Sanders is the only candidate in either party with a net-positive favorability rating… – Nate Silver
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/
My only criticism: you managed to use so many great examples, yet somehow never worked out Chait and Ezra Klein.
But, great, spot-on piece.
STAGE 8: subversion. Let’s undermine and topple him!
Mr. Greenwald omitted “STAGE 8: Then they coopt you.” Providing of course, the candidate survives the first 7 stages.
Or they assassinate you.
STAGE 9 is seldom necessary. Their powers of cooption are considerable.
Indeed, the groundwork for Stage 8 is already in place; when its Bernie versus Donald in the general election, democrat and republican voters alike will go to the polls in droves thinking that whichever man wins will shake up the corporate stranglehold on Washington, at the same time voting for the same old democrat or republican members of Congress who are owned by the corporatists.
How many republican members of Congress do you think will support Donald’s policies, or democrats Bernie’s? Very few, I would argue. We did not get into our present state as a result of presidential action alone, and anyone who thinks that the president, acting alone, can get us out of it is simply ignorant of how things are done inside the beltway.
What is particularly terrible about the rise of anti-establishment candidates Sanders and Trump is that it is a reaction to what the establishment did, yet non-establishment people will be the ones that suffer from the idiotic and dangerous policies of both candidates. In other words, this is the same old story that the powerless will pay for the mistakes of the powerful. Both Sanders and Trump are demagogues that desperately need to read a book and STFU.
Which book?
I meant any book, but I would recommend “Socialism” by Ludwig von Mises for Sanders and “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” by William Shirer for Trump.
Oh God, you don’t recommend a book from Mises or from anyone with ties to the Mises Institute unless you really hate someone. These people are insane they live in a parallel universe where they think unregulated market works fine.
The Mises Institute was founded after Mises died, so it’s hardly fair to hold him responsible for it. Socialism was published in 1922. But you can just go with your prejudice and that way you don’t have to read the book.
I didn’t read his book specificaly, but I do know what is there because I already read books from people who used his book as reference to make points (pro and con).
Anyway, it won’t make a difference. Bernie is not a socialist, he’s a social-democrat probably influenced by the scandinavians and french politicians. He would probably be considered in the “center-left” spectrum in some countries, he only sound “radical” for americans, who think neoliberals are leftists.
There are whole sections of the actual book (and the preceding 1920 paper, Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth), that specifically and directly address Sanders’ viewpoint. Mises sometimes refers to it as “partial socialism.”
@ Macroman
Hahahahahahahahah . . . what’s next, are you going to advise Bernie Sanders should read his Hayek, Rothbard, Friedman and Ayn Rand, you know, to ‘get his mind right’?
Hahahahahahahaha . . . you are very very funny sometimes. Ideologically blinkered and full of fantasies about human behavior and relationships, and ‘economics’, if you think Von Mises or any of his minions has anything valuable to offer the world.
Let me guess, you’ve actually read the book.
@ Macroman
Of course. And if it had been accurately titled “Von Mises Attacks Straw-Man Definitions and Practices Meta-Economics” it would have been useful as fire starter or fish wrap. Which is not to say that the entirety of the “Austrian” school of thought is without merit or insight, periodically anyway. Only that it is of very limited use in the real world of human beings as a function of their institutions, relationships and morality.
Would you like a long (or short) list of the flaws (or how about incoherent internal self-contradictions and non-explanations for human actions/relationships that Von Mises doesn’t grapple with correctly, or fit his models and/or predictions) in his lifetime of “theorizing” about “economics”?
Should we start with his flawed understanding of “externalities” or ABC? How about the Von Mises rejection on principle “mathematical economics” like econometrics? Or his methodological problems generally? How about a critique of Von Mises’ “praxeology” or the idea of “a priorism”? Maybe a critique of the “ethics” of his worldview or the farcical idea that ‘economics is a value free science’.
How about we go into the critiques of Von Mises’ work by his own fellow travelers (before and after)?
@ Macroman
And so as not to be accused of engaging in a self-refuting comment–when I say that the Austrians “have nothing valuable to offer the world” and “which is not to say that the entirety of the “Austrian” school of thought is without merit or insight, periodically anyway” what I mean is that as a “worldview” Von Mises theories are not “valuable” as a coherent ideology that will ever improve the human condition, but that the Austrians in a “micro” sense have made contributions (although I feel limited in value) to discussions about discrete “economic” phenomena or relationships.
I don’t see those statements as self-refuting and/or mutually exclusive.
I would go point by point and try to cure your misundertandings of Mises but I expect and receive remuneration for that type of work, as you know.
I am curious, however, of what straw men definitions Mises uses in Socialism, and what flawed understanding of externalities you are referring to? His criticisms of Pigou?
You were worried about making a comment that could be perceived as self refuting. In the course of that endeavor you might want to consider retracting your claim that Mises had a flawed understanding of ABC. The theory was originated by Mises in his 1912 book The Theory of Money and Credit. He may not have been as smart as you are, but surely he understood a theory he authored. It is inconceivable that you didn’t know that, being omniscient and all, so I understand your position to be that you understand ABC and its originator doesn’t. Typical intellectual humility from the self-anointed genius that insists non-lawyers stay silent on the law yet never tires of telling economists about economics. Lovely.
@ Macroman
That would be fun.
I’ve never said non-lawyers should “stay silent” but that if you are going to spout off about the law, and what it means or doesn’t, you should be able to back that up with proper citation and a basic understanding of precedent or civil or criminal procedure.
As far as me telling economists about economics, I’m prepared to cite all the critiques of Von Mises’ work by his fellow PhD carrying “economists”.
Got any ideas why no nation actually subscribes to or employs the “economic” theories and worldview of Von Mises, Rothbard et al and never has?
Seriously are you one of those people who believes Von Mises et al understand all the universal immutable truths of “economics” you know like an actual scientist understands chemistry or physics?
Because here’s who I have respect for in the field of “economics”–the “economists” who understand and admit with humility to the monumental shortcomings of the discipline of “economics”.
As far as going toe to toe with you on the critiques and shortcomings of Von Mises work, I doubt it would be productive. Either you’ve never grappled with the many many critiques of it by fellow economists, or you are so ideologically blinded you don’t understand them. In any event, any purported “economist”, like you, who actually believes there is such a thing as a “free market”, or that there ever could be, or that it would in any way be desirable, is basically too clueless to engage in a citation battle on the relative merits of Von Mises work. And I say that with the utmost humility I can muster.
Keynes, the Galbraiths, Stiglitz, Krugman, Mankiw, DeLong, Reich, . . . and I’d wager the vast majority of the world’s “economists” don’t adhere to the Von Mises worldview, any guesses why? Are they all lacking in humility or just blind to the greatness of Von Mises theories?
Sorry for the delay, I’ve been ill.
You have citations?!?! Wow. And you don’t even mention them. Bastard.
Yes. No. OK, great. Yes. No.
There , I’ve answered your questions. Now answer mine.
You should also drop your presumption that I’m some sort of free market fundamentalist. Or just keep repeating yourself and reenforcing my belief in your unbridled idiocy.
And I was disappointed, but of course not at all surprised, that you didn’t retract your statement that Mises didn’t understand his own theory. See why I respect you so much? Maybe a little more intellectual honesty would help you get a job.
Does anyone who is not neck deep in hardcore economic theory need to know more than that Mises was chief economist for the Austrian Fascists to see what your proposed reading suggestion amounts to?
Mises was chief economist for the Austrian fascists? And Hitler was a rabbi?
Macroman,
Are you saying Bernie Sanders is a
demagogue” just like Donald Trump?
Please tell us more, Macroman.
Sanders is the only one smart and moral enough to run the country. Just ask him.
Trump appeals to bigots; Sanders appeals to economic illiterates. They both rely on their supporters trusting their guts and not their brains.
You people call anyone who isn’t a 100% capitalist “economic illiterates.” People aren’t buying it anymore.
“You people”??? Wtf are you talking about? And I call everyone not 100% capitalist an economic illiterate? Do you even know if I’m 100% capitalist?
Just make stuff up. “People” will definitely “buy” that.
LOL! “Just make stuff up”
Macroman, you certainly have THAT down. And I’m not buying your bullshit.
Cool. I’m looking forward to never hearing from you again.
Funny. The Republicans seem to have that whole “gut” thing down pat. Not to say that the Democrats don’t do their share of “gut appeal” – both teams are trying to get their fans to RAH for them.
As for your appeal to have “economics illiterates” educate themselves by reading von Mises, I have a counter-proposal. You (and Bernie, if he hasn’t already) should read “The Shock Doctrine” by Naomi Klein. You’ll see where the practical end of following the Austrian née Chicago schools of economic theory have taken Chile, Argentina, Russia, etc.
Well, well! Stage 5, crazy associations, brazen right-wing attacks, et al
“What is particularly terrible about the rise of anti-establishment candidates Sanders and Trump is that it is a reaction to what the establishment did, yet non-establishment people will be the ones that suffer from the idiotic and dangerous policies of both candidates”
It’s been said in some traditions that the most qualified person for a position of power is the one who’s competent, yet s/he has no desire for power and control.
A lack of desire for power and control is considered to be a quality of the higher self.
How humanity puts that into practice, is most challenging, and rare, and goes against all forms of political systems that are currently in place.
Glenn Greenwald: Why is it that you believe “Clinton’s nomination is extremely likely”? Is it because you know the political system and democratic(?) voting process is rigged?
I obviously don’t know what will happens. My election predictions, like everyone else’s are mostly worthless (which is why I almost never make them: here, I was just emphasizing that the point of this article isn’t that I think Sanders will win). Beyond that, this year is different for lots of reasons: almost nobody predicted Corbyn’s win at the start nor Trump’s success, and few predicted Sanders would be even this strong.
In any event, my belief that Clinton will likely win is mostly about (a) my assessment of Democrats and what does and doesn’t matter to them, (b) the Democratic media establishment’s virtually lock-step support for Clinton, and (c) the things that do and don’t matter in U.S. elections.
Thank you for your response, Glenn. Where you write: “(b) the Democratic media establishment’s virtually lock-step support for Clinton” … no doubt accounts for much of the anger and frustration on the part of a percentage of Sanders supporters. (Some of whom perhaps felt “screwed” by the likes of the Democratic media establishment and Howard Dean.) And one other point: It ‘aint always easy to distinguish the paid shills from the professionals where journalists are concerned. You are perhaps of the opinion that the majority of journalists are of your same caliber. Sadly, I have not found such to be the case. Likewise, few appear particularly adept at investigative reporting, as in, rule of thumb: Follow the money, @ddayen ;-)
Fully agree with you, Glenn. Sanders has been good at bringing out important issues for voters to consider; but his efforts will only lead to an anointment of Clinton as she will move towards leftist positions to garner votes. Once elected she will revert to character. Sanders is almost indistinguishable from Clinton on foreign policy and this is very sad.
This bit about how “he’s just there to move her to the left” was corny last year; the past few weeks have already made it a false prediction since his troublesome stamina has inspired Hillary to “get RIGHT back to where she started from” as the song kinda goes.
Electability is going to be more and more a factor. Unless it really is true that the Dem establishment would rather have a Republican President than a progressive Dem. But can they stomach Trump? LOL
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/poll-sanders-outperforms-clinton-matchup-against-trump-n498076
http://reverbpress.com/politics/wiu-mock-election-sanders-gop/
The best predictor of election outcomes historically has been betting markets. The odds are heavily in Clinton’s favor and have been from the beginning. Obama was already ahead of her in the odds by this time in 2008.
The only predictor I feel confident to make: There will be record numbers in terms of voter turn out, or rather, up.
Glenn, you’ve always been rather masterful at pointing out how the establishment uses word games to create, concentrate and protect their power. Here we have another classic case where the public has a distorted grasp of what the term “establishment” actually means. The label tends to be ascribed, incorrectly, to anything that is tenured without consideration of how the subjects underlying mechanisms of power are actually working.
I hope that Bernie’s daring move to criticize even our progress left’s most cherished institutions will force people to think a little deeper about what Bernie’s whole fight is about. Putting the spotlight on how even leaders of some of the left’s most important constituencies have been sucked into the entrenched power structure is a chilling, but important, fact to acknowledge. By forcing voters to stop and think about the concept of “establishment politics” and why Bernie would apply the term to our own progressive institutions may help voters to better recognize just how pervasive establishment politic’s control actually is.
Good article, pretty much agreed with all of it. As a Scotsman, it is all too familiar as we bore the brunt of these establishment tactics during the independence referendum.