Did the working class, especially its white members, elect Donald Trump again because they are basically racist, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic? Are they craving a strongman who can protect white supremacy from a flood of immigrants and put the woke liberals in their place?
Agree on a new political party but disagree on Sanders "leading" it. Bernie is a spent force, sadly notable for capitulating to the dem party too many times. Better to find new people who wont fold at the last moment.
Strongly agree with your conclusion here! "Will the Democrats learn from this debacle and change their ways? I’m not optimistic. They are the defenders of the liberal elite establishment and have grown very comfortable (and prosperous) in that role." And the problem is only going to get worse. As working-class people defect from the Democratic Party and middle-class people enter the party, the party's focus on middle-class politics and interests will only get stronger.
I really hope Sanders and others in the labor movement start to get creative in their thinking. Convincing the Democrats to change their rhetoric to be more populist or adopt a couple progressive priorities will not be enough (if that could even be done, no one has shown how they could get the power to force the party to make these changes). Hopes of fixing the Democratic Party in this way has an "if pigs could fly" character to it.
The reality is that the Democrats 1) are dependent on business and the rich for funding the party, 2) have a long-standing economic program that prioritizes business, 3) have for years focused on recruiting "moderate" politicians who then veto more progressive priorities, 4) have been chasing college-educated middle-class voters for years and have been able to win elections with that strategy (2018, 2020, probably 2026), and 5) have a reputation with many working-class people that couldn't be worse because the party is blamed for deindustrialization.
We can’t accept all of that and then repackage it with an economic populist message and expect a radically-different result. Which raises the question which is the more plausible path for getting out of this mess? Would it be easier to abolish the existing Democratic Party and build a totally new Democratic Party in its place, which would involve removing its leadership layer, finding a whole new organizational structure and financing strategy, creating a new party program from scratch, recruiting and electing a new cadre of party politicians, and rebuilding the party's tarnished brand? And doing so by winning Democratic primaries, where middle-class people increasingly dominate the primary electorate? Or is it more plausible to be thinking about starting something new? Of course it's not easy to think about building a new party. But if we finally accept that the existing Democratic Party would have to be abolished and replaced to start functioning as something like a party for working people, maybe starting from scratch starts to look more reasonable and efficient than a gut renovation...
I agree with most everything said here, but I think it's only fair that these discussions at least acknowledge the Biden administration's industrial policy as one of the most working-class-friendly in decades. Two things can be true at the same time: that Democrats have mostly abandoned a labor-focused, egalitarian politics and that Republicans are even worse, making the political decisions of the working class, while they may be understandable, rather illogical.
I'm utterly amazed how the upper middle class professional and administrators the Ds actually represent could be so bewildered. Look at their comments on liberal sites and even on moderately left populist ones like Jim Hightower's Clearly the D believers see through a very different reality tunnel than we invisible and excluded workers.
The Ivy Ds seem to want us to believe the U.S. majority is middle class and college educated. Truth is only 31% have 4 year degrees and that's in anything from anywhere. Many have to work in something not related; add them to the more obvious working class. Voila! More like ~80%. Whose wages have been stagnant, if not falling and whose jobs are insecure. 58% have less than $5k in savings. 42% have less than $1k.
Or it's a Pastor Niemoller WWII thing: first they came for X, but I wasn't X, so I didn't protest... The blinkered D supporters don't want to look at history, or economics, or foreign policy. They aren't disturbed that the neolibs did an unfriendly takeover of the D party in the late '70s, likely a function of the '71 Powell Memo. These 'New Ds' dumped the New Deal, programs vehemently hated by the banksters and 1%ers. The Ds also abandoned labor, making the party safe for large corporate donors.
The B. Clinton admin did away with the last of the New Deal banking and financial regulations, which lead directly to the '08 econ crisis. The working class lost jobs, pensions, houses. But the D elites were fine, so they didn't protest. The Ivy Ds see no problems with econ assumptions. Like dismissing ruined ecosystems and devastated human communities as "externalities." Like requiring endless growth on a finite planet.
Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Even when your wonderful D party is explicit about merely being the lesser of two evils. I've never met a D believer who admits the Biden State Dept. was run by Cheney trained neocons likely to be retained by Harris or Cheney wouldn't have endorsed her. They want a unipolar world, U.S. control over a de facto empire. They support all the endless wars it takes to maintain their illusions.
My old blue collar co-workers may not all know fancy terms like externality, neolib, or neocon. But they do know the econ system is trickle-up; benefitting only the few at the top. And they know that trillions for endless wars means nothing for infrastructure, better healthcare, or anything else related to the common good.
But sure, D elitists, treat us workers as you have for decades. As disposable deplorables incapable of knowing what's best. As ignorant ingrates who need to defer to our betters. Such a grand way of charming us into returning to your exclusive party.
In short, politics have become a game of fear. Those who would rule know this and use it to the greatest extent possible. A new party could be a possible solution but not one led by a far rightist (no disrespect Bernie). I believe that we, the People, are really looking for someone to listen to us all and then craft intelligent policies that will do the most good for the most people. Many may not know this or agree but, I do believe deep down that is what we all really want, except for those who worship greed and power.
Why did Trump win by so wide a margin? Because both parties, and outside players, use fear as their primary focus and weapon. Machiavelli wrote something along these lines in "The Prince" that fear is the best tool to control the masses in the short term and the worst in the long run. Dictators, populists, and authoritarians have used it to turn segments of populations against one another for centuries. It is being used against us now, by both parties.
However, forming a new party is a long and arduous undertaking. Perhaps it would be better to have strong leadership in the Democratic Party (or even the Republican) that is less beholding to the wealthy and has a Kantian ethical ethos. I do not support socialism but do believe that social conscience is important to success of anyone or any country. I do not support our current form of capitalism as I feel it is broken and uncaring and aligned to support the success and wealth of the few. The more of us who are successful and doing well in life the better for all.
If we want to truly re-frame our current political environment let's reduce the influence of money in our elections. Let's limit the dollar amounts of political contributions and the power of PACs. Put limits on how much candidates and political parties can spend on elections. Take money out of the equation and see what happens.
Lastly, don't get me started on MAGA. Let's make America great and lead the world by example. We have a long and sordid history that many do not want the rest of us to know about, use our critical thinking skills to analyze and to accept and work to improve. These areas include Manifest Destiny, slavery, racism, bigotry, child labor, lack of rights for all...especially women, genocide, and the rape and pillage of our environment for the profits of the few, among others. There is much good in our history, it's just that not all of it is good and we really don't want to chase after the whitewashed version we are being fed. We must open our eyes and minds and move forward in making us into a truly good country that the world would want to emulate.
The few profit from our ignorance and the many suffer from it. Perhaps all of these things should be part of the curriculum in our schools from the early years on...honest and true history of our country and society, whether it hurts to know it or not, as it is the reality of the United States...not so much great about those parts of it now are there?
O.K. maybe this wasn't so short...apologies. Just know that there is so much more that needs to be said.
Great piece. I'm one of the many lifelong registered Democrats who sat this election out—I just couldn't bring myself to vote for either candidate—and I'm not really "working class."
I voted for Bernie in the primary twice, and I especially supported his 2016 campaign and brand. The 2020 "Bernie youth movement" was likely too focused on identity politics, and related nonsense, to make the same noise nationally as what he was poised to do in 2016. I'm not sure that Bernie is the right person at this point to start something new: the Squad and laptop/Brooklyn "left" are too toxic and too tainted, and he's too inextricably tied to them at this point to get much normie working class support. I still like him, and Ro Khanna and Marianne Williamson and others a good bit, but I don't really see any good leadership or movements emerging from that side of the aisle as it currently stands. There has to be some huge changes to turn the ship around.
As messy and abrasive as the new right Trump movement is, it does seem more aligned with working class goals like reshoring, using aggressive tariffs to get there, and moving towards more employment, as opposed to just increasing the safety net. That movement's angry rejection of sometimes objective reality-defying identity politics shibboleths, looking to gut the bureaucratic state, ending American military adventures, and embrace of deregulation for domestic economic and job growth is a feature to working class voters, not a bug. The continued "these people are voting against their interests" smear is just plain wrong and doesn't make sense. Being tied to some rose-tinted vision of the old Democrat Party that doesn't exist anymore is stopping the party from accepting their current situation.
I helped form the Green Party of California, which, while praised and lauded by many, really didn't amount to much. Starting a new party is hard. Very hard.
Better to take the considerable labor it would take, and apply it to the Democrats.
That's it exactly--it would take "considerable labor." And I mean the majority working class, close to 80% of the population. We who've been ignored for decades. I love Green ideas--I was raised in WA forests and with Native culture. My icon is my own artwork.
But I was a blue collar worker for nearly 30 years; I returned to college late in life. (U of WA Botany major, Forestry minor. MA, GTU Berkeley.) The amount of class prejudice was astounding. It seldom occurred to the educated elites that some of us lessers could read, write, and think. IMHO, a problem for the Greens.
I was also a local D campaign mgr in the days before the D party dumped the New Deal and abandoned labor. I know from experience how difficult it is to build coalitions among very different people. Like a Catholic men's club and activists for women's liberation. Small business owners and rank & file union members. Eco-activists plus rural farmers and lumberjacks. All in the same room! But back then, we understood we all wanted to serve the common good. Nobody got exactly what they wanted, but nobody was left out, either.
The model should be something like what happened during the Nov. 1999 anti-WTO demonstrations in my hometown I'm proud to say became known as "The Battle of Seattle." The huge number of protesters, the wide diversity of viewpoints. Summed up wonderfully by a sign that read-- TURTLES AND TEAMSTERS: TOGETHER AT LAST.
Sure, another party for Democrat Socialism would be great but it wouldn't get any more traction than the current "3rd" Parties without Ranked Choice Voting. Until we have RCV the pressure to vote for the better of the 2 main party candidates remains.
A third party would be a disaster. Look at the history. Look at what the fascist did to the Republican Party. They have pushed to the right. To have any power we must push the Democrats to get rid of Neoliberalism and vote out the corporate and self serving hacks. You want a third party, join the Working Families Party.
The D party was taken over by neolibs in the late '70s. Probably related to the Powell Memo of '71, a precursor of Project 2025. These 'New Ds' dumped the New Deal, helpful for working people and which regulated banks and investment firms. So of course loathed by 1%ers and the corporate elite. Regulations not fully repealed until B. Clinton.
The D party became oligarchical center/right, made safe for corporate donors, never questioning the rapacious system or its econopathic overlords. Which enabled the Rs to go full on fascist plutocrat. Note that when this all began, there were many progressive Rs still in office. Now they're a very rare species, even among Dems. We, the majority working class, have been ignored by the D party for decades. By an Ivy D elite whose real opinion was said out loud by H. Clinton: "deplorables." Neither to be seen nor heard, our role is merely to defer to our betters.
BTW, I was a blue collar rank and file activist for close to 30 years. I also managed local D campaigns and fought the neolib takeover. The D elite has made sure that we declasse' lessers can't interrupt their party. Even more so since that business with Bernie--how dare he criticize the party for its exclusivity and its refusal to oppose trickle-up economics!!!
Yes- unite feminists, labor, and the disenfranchised intergenerational non-persons roaming our hollowed dead streets under a Progressive, non-hierarchical ‘Demos’, one brave enough to reject ‘Coin Flip’ Capitalism’s complete nullification of human dignity and the natural world that sustains us.
We need to work this out a little bit. Unite with whom, around what goals, build what to have power and do what with the power and finally, how do we accomplish this.
Someone either here or on Consortium News replied to a comment I made, pointing out the likely connection between the Powell Memo and the late '70s neolib unfriendly takeover of the D party. The union made light bulb over my head sure lit up at that idea.
I hadn't re-read the Memo for a few years, so I just did. Labor is mentioned on pp 17, 32, and 33. But only cited in passing to make it appear as support for whatever point he was making. No need for anything more since labor (the working class) is irrelevant, right? As if a foreshadowing of what the D party would become.
What's interesting is he never actually refutes any of the criticisms of biz/capitalism; he just carries on as if they're self-evidently wrong. His and the corporate p.o.v. are simply assumed to be right. Obviously a grad of the Friedman Chi school and/or Austrian school style of econ. argument. Reminds me of an 1800s Vatican proclamation that "error has no rights." Therefore no detailed rebuttal required.
The totally shocking thing is how well they managed to achieve what they set out to do in 1971. Including making their claims seem self-evident.
Les, I think your heart is in the right place, but it will have to be someone other than Bernie.
Bernie is too old and his credibility is gone, having sold out to the Democratic Establishment too many times, and not getting any concessions in return. Another failing that he did not spend the time to train someone younger to succeed him. Someone like a Tulsi Gabbard (I know not everyone agrees with her - I don't agree with her views on Israel, but agree with her on many other issues) to clearly take over the movement after he steps down from old age.
The Democrats are in bed with Wall Street and the rich. The reality is that we can spend a lot of time discussing the failures of the party, but this was all done because they would rather lose as Wall Street / neocon politicians than win as a legitimate left wing party. They can't hide it anymore, which they did using Obama or Bill Clinton, so now it's flat out attacking the working class, a class they once claimed they would protect against capitalism.
If a third party comes, it will be someone other than Bernie. Otherwise, it may end up like some of the Russians say - they are seeing the US in a similar state to the late USSR. It may have to involve a major collapse and then rebuilding from what follows after.
Bernie is just a symbol of what it looks like to be a progressive populist who is an independent. The key parts are independent and progressive populist. A younger person without baggage would be better. But we've got to play the hand we have. Bernie indeed is popular among working people for saying it like it is about Wall Street and corporate America.
Agree on a new political party but disagree on Sanders "leading" it. Bernie is a spent force, sadly notable for capitulating to the dem party too many times. Better to find new people who wont fold at the last moment.
Strongly agree with your conclusion here! "Will the Democrats learn from this debacle and change their ways? I’m not optimistic. They are the defenders of the liberal elite establishment and have grown very comfortable (and prosperous) in that role." And the problem is only going to get worse. As working-class people defect from the Democratic Party and middle-class people enter the party, the party's focus on middle-class politics and interests will only get stronger.
I really hope Sanders and others in the labor movement start to get creative in their thinking. Convincing the Democrats to change their rhetoric to be more populist or adopt a couple progressive priorities will not be enough (if that could even be done, no one has shown how they could get the power to force the party to make these changes). Hopes of fixing the Democratic Party in this way has an "if pigs could fly" character to it.
The reality is that the Democrats 1) are dependent on business and the rich for funding the party, 2) have a long-standing economic program that prioritizes business, 3) have for years focused on recruiting "moderate" politicians who then veto more progressive priorities, 4) have been chasing college-educated middle-class voters for years and have been able to win elections with that strategy (2018, 2020, probably 2026), and 5) have a reputation with many working-class people that couldn't be worse because the party is blamed for deindustrialization.
We can’t accept all of that and then repackage it with an economic populist message and expect a radically-different result. Which raises the question which is the more plausible path for getting out of this mess? Would it be easier to abolish the existing Democratic Party and build a totally new Democratic Party in its place, which would involve removing its leadership layer, finding a whole new organizational structure and financing strategy, creating a new party program from scratch, recruiting and electing a new cadre of party politicians, and rebuilding the party's tarnished brand? And doing so by winning Democratic primaries, where middle-class people increasingly dominate the primary electorate? Or is it more plausible to be thinking about starting something new? Of course it's not easy to think about building a new party. But if we finally accept that the existing Democratic Party would have to be abolished and replaced to start functioning as something like a party for working people, maybe starting from scratch starts to look more reasonable and efficient than a gut renovation...
I agree with most everything said here, but I think it's only fair that these discussions at least acknowledge the Biden administration's industrial policy as one of the most working-class-friendly in decades. Two things can be true at the same time: that Democrats have mostly abandoned a labor-focused, egalitarian politics and that Republicans are even worse, making the political decisions of the working class, while they may be understandable, rather illogical.
I'm utterly amazed how the upper middle class professional and administrators the Ds actually represent could be so bewildered. Look at their comments on liberal sites and even on moderately left populist ones like Jim Hightower's Clearly the D believers see through a very different reality tunnel than we invisible and excluded workers.
The Ivy Ds seem to want us to believe the U.S. majority is middle class and college educated. Truth is only 31% have 4 year degrees and that's in anything from anywhere. Many have to work in something not related; add them to the more obvious working class. Voila! More like ~80%. Whose wages have been stagnant, if not falling and whose jobs are insecure. 58% have less than $5k in savings. 42% have less than $1k.
Or it's a Pastor Niemoller WWII thing: first they came for X, but I wasn't X, so I didn't protest... The blinkered D supporters don't want to look at history, or economics, or foreign policy. They aren't disturbed that the neolibs did an unfriendly takeover of the D party in the late '70s, likely a function of the '71 Powell Memo. These 'New Ds' dumped the New Deal, programs vehemently hated by the banksters and 1%ers. The Ds also abandoned labor, making the party safe for large corporate donors.
The B. Clinton admin did away with the last of the New Deal banking and financial regulations, which lead directly to the '08 econ crisis. The working class lost jobs, pensions, houses. But the D elites were fine, so they didn't protest. The Ivy Ds see no problems with econ assumptions. Like dismissing ruined ecosystems and devastated human communities as "externalities." Like requiring endless growth on a finite planet.
Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Even when your wonderful D party is explicit about merely being the lesser of two evils. I've never met a D believer who admits the Biden State Dept. was run by Cheney trained neocons likely to be retained by Harris or Cheney wouldn't have endorsed her. They want a unipolar world, U.S. control over a de facto empire. They support all the endless wars it takes to maintain their illusions.
My old blue collar co-workers may not all know fancy terms like externality, neolib, or neocon. But they do know the econ system is trickle-up; benefitting only the few at the top. And they know that trillions for endless wars means nothing for infrastructure, better healthcare, or anything else related to the common good.
But sure, D elitists, treat us workers as you have for decades. As disposable deplorables incapable of knowing what's best. As ignorant ingrates who need to defer to our betters. Such a grand way of charming us into returning to your exclusive party.
In short, politics have become a game of fear. Those who would rule know this and use it to the greatest extent possible. A new party could be a possible solution but not one led by a far rightist (no disrespect Bernie). I believe that we, the People, are really looking for someone to listen to us all and then craft intelligent policies that will do the most good for the most people. Many may not know this or agree but, I do believe deep down that is what we all really want, except for those who worship greed and power.
Why did Trump win by so wide a margin? Because both parties, and outside players, use fear as their primary focus and weapon. Machiavelli wrote something along these lines in "The Prince" that fear is the best tool to control the masses in the short term and the worst in the long run. Dictators, populists, and authoritarians have used it to turn segments of populations against one another for centuries. It is being used against us now, by both parties.
However, forming a new party is a long and arduous undertaking. Perhaps it would be better to have strong leadership in the Democratic Party (or even the Republican) that is less beholding to the wealthy and has a Kantian ethical ethos. I do not support socialism but do believe that social conscience is important to success of anyone or any country. I do not support our current form of capitalism as I feel it is broken and uncaring and aligned to support the success and wealth of the few. The more of us who are successful and doing well in life the better for all.
If we want to truly re-frame our current political environment let's reduce the influence of money in our elections. Let's limit the dollar amounts of political contributions and the power of PACs. Put limits on how much candidates and political parties can spend on elections. Take money out of the equation and see what happens.
Lastly, don't get me started on MAGA. Let's make America great and lead the world by example. We have a long and sordid history that many do not want the rest of us to know about, use our critical thinking skills to analyze and to accept and work to improve. These areas include Manifest Destiny, slavery, racism, bigotry, child labor, lack of rights for all...especially women, genocide, and the rape and pillage of our environment for the profits of the few, among others. There is much good in our history, it's just that not all of it is good and we really don't want to chase after the whitewashed version we are being fed. We must open our eyes and minds and move forward in making us into a truly good country that the world would want to emulate.
The few profit from our ignorance and the many suffer from it. Perhaps all of these things should be part of the curriculum in our schools from the early years on...honest and true history of our country and society, whether it hurts to know it or not, as it is the reality of the United States...not so much great about those parts of it now are there?
O.K. maybe this wasn't so short...apologies. Just know that there is so much more that needs to be said.
Great piece. I'm one of the many lifelong registered Democrats who sat this election out—I just couldn't bring myself to vote for either candidate—and I'm not really "working class."
I voted for Bernie in the primary twice, and I especially supported his 2016 campaign and brand. The 2020 "Bernie youth movement" was likely too focused on identity politics, and related nonsense, to make the same noise nationally as what he was poised to do in 2016. I'm not sure that Bernie is the right person at this point to start something new: the Squad and laptop/Brooklyn "left" are too toxic and too tainted, and he's too inextricably tied to them at this point to get much normie working class support. I still like him, and Ro Khanna and Marianne Williamson and others a good bit, but I don't really see any good leadership or movements emerging from that side of the aisle as it currently stands. There has to be some huge changes to turn the ship around.
As messy and abrasive as the new right Trump movement is, it does seem more aligned with working class goals like reshoring, using aggressive tariffs to get there, and moving towards more employment, as opposed to just increasing the safety net. That movement's angry rejection of sometimes objective reality-defying identity politics shibboleths, looking to gut the bureaucratic state, ending American military adventures, and embrace of deregulation for domestic economic and job growth is a feature to working class voters, not a bug. The continued "these people are voting against their interests" smear is just plain wrong and doesn't make sense. Being tied to some rose-tinted vision of the old Democrat Party that doesn't exist anymore is stopping the party from accepting their current situation.
I helped form the Green Party of California, which, while praised and lauded by many, really didn't amount to much. Starting a new party is hard. Very hard.
Better to take the considerable labor it would take, and apply it to the Democrats.
That's it exactly--it would take "considerable labor." And I mean the majority working class, close to 80% of the population. We who've been ignored for decades. I love Green ideas--I was raised in WA forests and with Native culture. My icon is my own artwork.
But I was a blue collar worker for nearly 30 years; I returned to college late in life. (U of WA Botany major, Forestry minor. MA, GTU Berkeley.) The amount of class prejudice was astounding. It seldom occurred to the educated elites that some of us lessers could read, write, and think. IMHO, a problem for the Greens.
I was also a local D campaign mgr in the days before the D party dumped the New Deal and abandoned labor. I know from experience how difficult it is to build coalitions among very different people. Like a Catholic men's club and activists for women's liberation. Small business owners and rank & file union members. Eco-activists plus rural farmers and lumberjacks. All in the same room! But back then, we understood we all wanted to serve the common good. Nobody got exactly what they wanted, but nobody was left out, either.
The model should be something like what happened during the Nov. 1999 anti-WTO demonstrations in my hometown I'm proud to say became known as "The Battle of Seattle." The huge number of protesters, the wide diversity of viewpoints. Summed up wonderfully by a sign that read-- TURTLES AND TEAMSTERS: TOGETHER AT LAST.
Sure, another party for Democrat Socialism would be great but it wouldn't get any more traction than the current "3rd" Parties without Ranked Choice Voting. Until we have RCV the pressure to vote for the better of the 2 main party candidates remains.
A third party would be a disaster. Look at the history. Look at what the fascist did to the Republican Party. They have pushed to the right. To have any power we must push the Democrats to get rid of Neoliberalism and vote out the corporate and self serving hacks. You want a third party, join the Working Families Party.
The D party was taken over by neolibs in the late '70s. Probably related to the Powell Memo of '71, a precursor of Project 2025. These 'New Ds' dumped the New Deal, helpful for working people and which regulated banks and investment firms. So of course loathed by 1%ers and the corporate elite. Regulations not fully repealed until B. Clinton.
The D party became oligarchical center/right, made safe for corporate donors, never questioning the rapacious system or its econopathic overlords. Which enabled the Rs to go full on fascist plutocrat. Note that when this all began, there were many progressive Rs still in office. Now they're a very rare species, even among Dems. We, the majority working class, have been ignored by the D party for decades. By an Ivy D elite whose real opinion was said out loud by H. Clinton: "deplorables." Neither to be seen nor heard, our role is merely to defer to our betters.
BTW, I was a blue collar rank and file activist for close to 30 years. I also managed local D campaigns and fought the neolib takeover. The D elite has made sure that we declasse' lessers can't interrupt their party. Even more so since that business with Bernie--how dare he criticize the party for its exclusivity and its refusal to oppose trickle-up economics!!!
BTW, the Powell memo never mentions labor -- not even once.
Yes- unite feminists, labor, and the disenfranchised intergenerational non-persons roaming our hollowed dead streets under a Progressive, non-hierarchical ‘Demos’, one brave enough to reject ‘Coin Flip’ Capitalism’s complete nullification of human dignity and the natural world that sustains us.
We need to work this out a little bit. Unite with whom, around what goals, build what to have power and do what with the power and finally, how do we accomplish this.
Someone either here or on Consortium News replied to a comment I made, pointing out the likely connection between the Powell Memo and the late '70s neolib unfriendly takeover of the D party. The union made light bulb over my head sure lit up at that idea.
I hadn't re-read the Memo for a few years, so I just did. Labor is mentioned on pp 17, 32, and 33. But only cited in passing to make it appear as support for whatever point he was making. No need for anything more since labor (the working class) is irrelevant, right? As if a foreshadowing of what the D party would become.
What's interesting is he never actually refutes any of the criticisms of biz/capitalism; he just carries on as if they're self-evidently wrong. His and the corporate p.o.v. are simply assumed to be right. Obviously a grad of the Friedman Chi school and/or Austrian school style of econ. argument. Reminds me of an 1800s Vatican proclamation that "error has no rights." Therefore no detailed rebuttal required.
The totally shocking thing is how well they managed to achieve what they set out to do in 1971. Including making their claims seem self-evident.
Les, I think your heart is in the right place, but it will have to be someone other than Bernie.
Bernie is too old and his credibility is gone, having sold out to the Democratic Establishment too many times, and not getting any concessions in return. Another failing that he did not spend the time to train someone younger to succeed him. Someone like a Tulsi Gabbard (I know not everyone agrees with her - I don't agree with her views on Israel, but agree with her on many other issues) to clearly take over the movement after he steps down from old age.
The Democrats are in bed with Wall Street and the rich. The reality is that we can spend a lot of time discussing the failures of the party, but this was all done because they would rather lose as Wall Street / neocon politicians than win as a legitimate left wing party. They can't hide it anymore, which they did using Obama or Bill Clinton, so now it's flat out attacking the working class, a class they once claimed they would protect against capitalism.
If a third party comes, it will be someone other than Bernie. Otherwise, it may end up like some of the Russians say - they are seeing the US in a similar state to the late USSR. It may have to involve a major collapse and then rebuilding from what follows after.
Bernie is just a symbol of what it looks like to be a progressive populist who is an independent. The key parts are independent and progressive populist. A younger person without baggage would be better. But we've got to play the hand we have. Bernie indeed is popular among working people for saying it like it is about Wall Street and corporate America.