There's One Heresy That Sets Bernie Apart From All Other Dem Contenders to Unseat Trump

[Uncle Joe]

Let’s be clear: Bernie Sanders’s heresy, what sets him apart from every Democrat running to unseat Donald Trump, is not simply that he calls himself a socialist in a country long proudly identified as capitalist. Those two labels, socialist and capitalist, are open to too many interpretations and represent too many historical examples (everything from Norway to the United States, Stalin’s Soviet Union to Hitler’s Nazi Germany) to pin down. Rather, a more precise way to define the historic nature of Sanders’s campaign would be to focus on his promotion of social or economic rights and how they relate to the individual or political rights found in the US Constitution.

Sanders, by waging practically a one-person crusade to legitimize social rights, is striking at the core cultural belief that holds the modern conservative movement together: an individual-rights absolutism that has, today, little to do with economics or political philosophy but rather forms the essential, cultish element of right-wing identity politics.

First, some definitions: Individual or political rights are aimed at restraining government power. They presume that virtue is rooted in the individual and that the public good, or general welfare, of a society stems from allowing individuals to pursue their interests—to possess, to assemble, to believe, to speak, and so on—to the greatest degree possible. A legitimate state is a state that restrains itself, that limits its role to protecting the realm in which individuals pursue their rights. Economic or social rights presume that in a complex, industrial society, with its imbalances of power and often extreme concentrations of wealth, the state has a much more active role to play in nurturing virtue through the redistribution of wealth in the form of education, health, child care, pensions, housing, and other common needs.

Sanders made the distinction between these two sets of rights the centerpiece of his historic June 12 speech at George Washington University, in which he defended democratic socialism as the country’s only possible redemption, not just from Trump but also from the rotten system that produced Trumpism. Calling for a 21st-century bill of economic rights, one modeled on Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 proposal for a Second Bill of Rights, Sanders said, “We are proud that our Constitution guarantees freedom,” but now “we must take the next step forward and guarantee every man, woman, and child in our country basic economic rights—the right to quality health care, the right to as much education as one needs to succeed in our society, the right to a good job that pays a living wage, the right to affordable housing, the right to a secure retirement, and the right to live in a clean environment.”

(snip)

https://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-american-exceptionalism/

This is an epic read and historical analysis.

[SouthernProgressive]

1. Shocking that someone would read that and come away with positive thoughts about Sanders.

The whole basis of the article is offensive and directed at those who view him as a deity.

That is really some sick stuff.

“Epic read.” If you are thinking of it as a poorly written Harry Potter tale.

I’ve come to realize you are a one person Sanders wrecking crew here at the DU. You make him look so bad while claiming to support him.

[Hortensis]

3. +1. But admit it, Sanders "waging practically a one-person

crusade to legitimize social rights" is pretty funny.

Fwiw, though I seldom read them, having gotten the gist looong ago, I think Unc's posts do serve a useful purpose in helping everyone understand what Sanders' more committed supporters choose to believe and how they tend to think. Also the kind of stuff being targeted at those voters.

And now with DU's candidate poll revealing more clearly how support here breaks down, the dramatic contrast between Sanders' actual support and the number of posts promoting him is illuminated. DU is not exactly flooded with Sanders supporters the way some elements want us to think.

Btw, new data show Sanders' fundraising totals are still very high, even as his support melts away to other candidates. His average supporter is not affluent, and studies show the kind of donors who give to several primary candidates have never included him on their lists. So how come? It would be surprising if the national equivalent of our "8%" of his $27-ers is somehow managing to keep his donations at that level.

[comradebillyboy]

16. +1

[Vegas Roller]

18. +1000000 - The OP attracts far more ridicule than any positive feelings n/t

[Gothmog]

23. Agreed-

[betsuni]

33. This is correct.

"practically waging a one-person crusade to legitimize social rights"

[Hortensis]

2. The rotten system that produced Trump is representative government.

Democratic Socialism would retain that and would not change human nature or its vulnerabilities to bad leaders.

Sanders views are by today's standards extremist because he can't even give socialism away to today's electorate. Even the few supporters here who tried out the label for themselves quickly dropped it.

What Sanders believes socialism is is not "open to interpretation." He's known what he believes for decades. Though he became much more discreet in congress about admitting just how much of the nation he believed should be seized for state-run communal ownership, I believe his draconian healthcare plan that, via legislative fiat, would strip almost all Americans of all real choice is a huge clue to him.

[Uncle Joe]

4. The preeminent question being, representative of what?

The people or corporations and oligarchs?

[Hortensis]

5. You go, Joe! :)

[Uncle Joe]

6. Your only answer Hortensis? :)

[Hortensis]

8. Here's one: People running socialist systems use the

same tactics to keep power and manipulate their populations as RWers running corporations do. There is no system that eliminates human nature from leadership, we have to control it. We did here for a while and then stopped, and here we are.

Here's a second one: Left-wing economic systems tend to end up being taken over by RWers and becoming increasingly RW authoritarian. Hardly unexpected: Power seekers go wherever the power is. For another, socialism promotes equality at the expense of liberty and justice. Ssystems that deny and repress individual freedoms and rights require force to keep the populace in line, and strong conservatives are just a lot better at that. True believers in the need for it, actually.

Just look at Russia, where today's strong conservatives long for a return to their centralized authoritarian government, and are getting it. Communism, of course, is one type of socialism, but of course Russia's "communist socialist" government wasn't that before it fell apart and isn't now.

[Uncle Joe]

9. We have a nation with three individuals that own as much wealth as the lower half of America,

what is that if it isn't a kleptocratic oligarchy?

Kleptocratic oligarchy is a global dynamic firmly rooted here in the U.S. Russia, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

[Hortensis]

10. What's the difference between ownership and control

under socialism?

Do you imagine the people of Russia ever really "owned" the means of productio under a system where those in charge decided what would be allocated where? "The people" weren't allowed inside the luxury stores reserved for the "socialist" elites, much less able to shop there. Those in charge didn't own the means of production either but were somehow nevertheless very wealthy.

It's the vote you need to promote and protect to get what you want, Unc. Without empowered, engaged electorates, all systems will exploit, oppress, and impoverish. Our grandparents legislated control of your evil capitalists, but our generations trashed those controls and are currently reaping the whirlwind.

Over 300 million of us and a just few tens of thousands of them, though. Maybe we should take a lesson from those who came before and put that leash back on them again.

Well, it's been nice. Have a good day.

[Uncle Joe]

11. No, Russia went from

oligarchic Communist control to oligarchic authoritarian, capitalist control.

The system creates the vote and the vote or lack thereof legitimizes the system, Trump is a symptom of our national dysfunction not the disease.

If this long term dynamic of corporate/oligarchic supremacy over "We the People" at least since the days of Reagan isn't reversed and massive income/wealth inequality persists, we will have future Trumps and they will be worse.

[Vegas Roller]

19. Not every rich person attained their wealth by stealing

It is a false premise that every fortune is created by stealing, robbing, swindling or fraud.

[ehrnst]

14. Indeed. (nt)

[Me.]

32. ...

And you know, I do wish DU had a walks on water smilie

[ucrdem]

7. "a one-person crusade to legitimize social rights"?

I would call Bernie's campaigns, which apart from DU partisanship are historic in many respects, a lot of nice things, if I had to, but "a one-person crusade to legitimize social rights" is not one of them.

Head-scratcher.

[ehrnst]

15. IKR? It's a classic "The Nation" POV, however.

Very grandiose description of a Senator with his record of legislative accomplishment.

He does talk about certain things a lot. Loudly even. He gets testy when he's asked followup questions that don't allow him to continue to the next thing he wants to talk about.

He believes that he is right on everything. He is very certain of that.

That kind of absolute, unshakeable, rigid self-confidence in a man is very appealing to many people.

[Vegas Roller]

20. It is a one person crusade to make sycophants swoon

and not ask too many questions while completely overlooking the flaws.

The whole campaign is geared to make people who want all or nothing to end up getting nothing, become angrier and then Trump (or anyone anointed by Putin) wins. One starts wondering is that is the plan to begin with.

[Gothmog]

12. What are sanders' legislative accomplishments?

[silentEcho]

13. Right.

[Vegas Roller]

21. Well ... he did rename two post offices in Vermont!! nt

[Gothmog]

24. Okay

How does this qualify him to be POTUS?

[Vegas Roller]

17. Greg Gandin

a modern day Hans Christian Anderson.

[OKNancy]

22. FYI

Sorry about the photobucket watermark

[Gothmog]

25. I am an Obama Democrat or a moderate Democrat

[delisen]

26. brought to us by the limousine socialist magazine, The Nation.

[Uncle Joe]

28. Brought to us by Pulitzer Prize winning history professor Greg Grandin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Grandin

[delisen]

31. alternative fact? can't find evidence of winning Pulitzer.

perhaps a finalist back in 2010?

[Uncle Joe]

34. I stand corrected, I misread it, he was a finalist.

Thanks delisen.

[still_one]

27. I am going to bite my tongue

[zaj]

29. If only historical analysis and theoretical wonkery won elections

But it doesn't.

In elections, facts don't matter... only PERCEPTIONS matter.

Bernie should have created a new unthreatening brand of ideology to call himself. It would have done everyone a lot of good.

[Uncle Joe]

30. Neither history or perceptions are static. n/t

[GulfCoast66]

35. Sanders has finally run up against an unmovable obstacle,

Few democrats and even fewer Americans are socialist. Warren made that point when declaring herself a believer in capitalism and she has taken many of Bernie former supporters who loved the rhetoric but did not go as far as considering themselves socialist.

And the argument that we Democrats don’t understand socialism is not only insulting but wrong. Most do understand it. Just don’t agree with government controlling business and industry.

And if you don’t think that is the goal of Democratic Socialism, then don’t believe me. Read their platform. They want lots of the things we do. But they are quite honest that their ultimate goal is state or worker control of industries.

That belief is in my mind quite honorable. But just wrong.

And all credit to him. I think he has greased the wheels to making more of our candidates proud to call for a more robust system of Social Democracy.