Friday, January 29, 2016

Bernie's Political Revolution isn't Going to Get it Done

Jamelle Bouie touches on something wholly glossed over by Bernie's rather one dimensional economists theory of politics. Indeed, we can't help but think of Marxism itself.

Bernie has said he's not looking to literally have the government take over the means of production, but his rigid money in politics reminds you of Marxism. He has read Marx in his time he-as have I for that matter.

"At base, Sanders does not believe the American public is deeply split on key issues. Instead, Sanders sees a broad and unified public that’s stifled and trampled by the power of concentrated wealth, from Wall Street to big corporations and beyond. And so, when asked by a voter about gridlock and Congress—“What specifically will you do to overcome the resistance, cure the gridlock, and garner the necessary support to implement your initiatives and actually get something done in Washington?”—Sanders replied with his call to political revolution."

"Still, there’s a problem, and the reason is straightforward. Yes, Wall Street and big business are powerful forces that, in many ways, have captured important parts of the American political system. But just as critical is the simple fact that Americans disagree. And they’ll continue to disagree, even in the face of a broad political movement. The closest analogy to Sanders’ revolution—the civil rights movement—inspired a backlash that reversed important gains and moved American politics to the right."

This has been his problem on things like 'identity politics'-though it also touches on another issue he's weak on-gun control.

Americans are fundamentally divided. There isn't blanket agreement and never has been.

Issues of race and gender don't magically disappear by getting rid of money in politics-aside from how exactly he plans to do this.

This has been a point of Propane Jane who argues the reason we don't have 'socialism' in America as opposed to Europe is race.

You could say that Bernie's theory of change is totally an outside game-his political revolution-ie, the people that vote for him.

In office, he has never shown even the slightest ability to form coalitions in the inside game which is necessary to govern. Even in his own party-which of course, isn't really his party-he has made no friends.

Even progressives like Peter Shumlin who agree on single payer don't support him but HRC.

This is where I disagree with Bouie. I think he'd be a very poor President because of his contemptuous attitude towards the inside game in politics which Bouie admits is also part of it.

No comments:

Post a Comment