END TO END BERNERS: The Official Bernie Sanders 2020 Crew thread

A jibe would be "an insulting or mocking remark; a taunt."? It wasn't either of those things.

As an overture to the Bernie left it’s along the lines of an insulting salary offer that I wouldn’t even negotiate with

Spoken like someone who has lots of fairly well-paid job options.

I was pretty sure Biden would pick out student debt forgiveness as his main concession to bring Bernie voters his way. His qualified support for free tuition at public colleges and universities would be means-tested, but the cut-off of $125,000 household income is not such a bad offer. Given how outspoken he was about M4A, his proposal of Medicare at age 60 has zero appeal for the vast bulk of Bernie's voters and is only meant as bait for voters over 50.

This is a far cry from the political revolution, as Bernie described it, but Bernie deserves solid thanks for prying this much out of Biden's campaign. What Bernie's voters need to understand is that Biden's non-revolutionary politics can accurately be described as "I will scratch your back, but only if you scratch mine". The more publically you fight for Biden, while still clearly defining yourself as Bernie's bloc, the more power you'll accrue when these promises have to be turned into passed and signed legislation.

The finish line is much further away than you would like it to be, but quitting now just guarantees you have ceded all your power. The religious right never makes that mistake. They claw for every increment and then prepare for the next fight.

otm

Look, substitute whatever word you want in if it bothers you. I'm certain you're not deliberately trying to derail the conversation. I am moved to go into my perhaps-not-quite-motivated explanation though.

I don't like Explaining Things because I was socialized as a cis white man. That's how I was taught to communicate, and sometimes it really is appropriate, and a lot of times it's just condescending bullshit. But the flip side is that I understand better than I'd like that mode of speech and I know how to talk like a cis white man.

In cis white man language, the issue is one of standing. Cis white men are into using their Superior Rhetorical Skills to speak for anyone and everyone and one of the things that I like about Bernie is that even though he is unquestionably a cis white man, he doesn't really do that so much.

It's fucked me up a lot, this tendency. For a long time what it meant to be transgender was heavily gatekept. Our identity and our right to it was determined, on a fundamental level, by cis white men. Many of these cis white men were compassionate and well-intentioned and they did a fucking terrible job of it.

So that's self-determination. I speak for myself as a trans white woman. I don't speak for trans women or white people or women, but I can at least, I can speak for _one_ trans white woman. Black men can speak for themselves as black men. And so on, and so forth.

I do not recognize or accept the standing of white people to speak for the feelings and experiences of black Americans, either individually as a group, no matter how many "black friends" they have, no matter where they grew up. Whatever the intent of a white person bringing up "Black Voters" to another white person is, it inevitably tokenizes those voters, inevitably denies them a voice.

otm re: how much better right wingers are at this, xxl

The finish line is much further away than you would like it to be, but quitting now just guarantees you have ceded all your power. The religious right never makes that mistake. They claw for every increment and then prepare for the next fight.

― A is for (Aimless)

You're using the religious right as a model? The people transformed a movement that was supposed to be moral into a fucking cargo cult in the naked pursuit of power at all costs?

I'm just not sure we're totally on the same page here, Aimless.

For the leaders of the religious right, like Falwell and Robertson, the movement was never about morality, but always about the naked pursuit of power. They have always steered the RRW movement by that compass.

I've been stuck on an insulting 'salary' (actually an hourly rate) for 2 years

Bernie's politics aren't really revolutionary except graded on Uncle Sam's curve

The people transformed a movement that was supposed to be moral into a fucking cargo cult in the naked pursuit of power at all costs?

with all due respect, I see this as a false binary. Morals are useless in politics without power.

otm re: how much better right wingers are at this, xxl

As for using the RRW as 'a model', they in turn used other successful movements as their model, because in the arena of politics the ends may be moral, amoral or immoral, but the means are always the accrual and use of power.

“If you want to pull the major party that is closest to the way you’re thinking to what you’re thinking you must show them that you’re capable of not voting for them. If you don’t show them that you’re capable of not voting for them, they don’t have to listen to you. I promise you that. I worked within the Democratic Party. I didn’t listen or have to listen to anything on the left while I was working in the Democratic Party because the left had nowhere to go.”

And that quote is from what well-known authority on the Democratic Party?

LBJ was ruthless and gross -- turpitude in human form -- who saw no point in taking moral stands without (a) making sure constituents are behind you; and/or (b) using the power he accumulated when he saw the moment...and was responsible for getting Congress to pass the fairest, most moral legislation since the 1930s.

When the string of losses started for Sanders in late February, it staggered me because I thought he and the campaign had figured this out. Who cares if he's right, as Elizabeth Bruenig wrote yesterday? His campaign didn't expand his base beyond 2016's. He should've officially registered as a Democrat; it would've assuaged quite a few people? So what if he drew moral authority from being a proud independent? If he was in it to win, it's an easy choice.

A buddy who works for a certain congressperson in South Florida and a self-professed Bernie Bro in 2015-2016 told me last night that Sanders' campaign was the only one that didn't coordinate campaign strategy in her district: visiting ICE detention centers on his own, say, unlike Warren, Buttigieg, etc contacting them. When he insisted on being right about Fidel + education during the "60 Minutes" interview -- a move I regret defending, given that it cost him more dearly in Florida than I was prepared to admit in February -- my friend saw the end of his campaign.

From Lawrence O’Donnell, talking about when he staffed for Moynihan

xpost

Wikipedia:

From 1989 to 1995, O'Donnell was a legislative aide to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

So, during the end of GHW Bush's administration and the start of the first Clinton administration, an aide to a NY senator thought he could safely ignore "the left" - and he was probably correct about that. I'd say both "the left" and the Democratic Party have undergone a long series of learning experiences and adaptations since then.

Nor is Laurence O'Donnell the final word on political reality in a nation this diverse and sprawling. No one is that big an authority.

and I’m sorry, real quick remind your bonafides?

An argument from authority rests on the authority cited. My argument against his authority was not based upon my own superior authority but was an argument from probability. You may choose to believe Laurence O'Donnell, but I suspect his statement aligns with your prejudice and that is what makes it believable to you, more so than any idolization of Laurence O'Donnell as a fount of infallible wisdom. Or you may choose to think that my lack of bona fides undermines my argument, but I'd say O'Donnell's statement should be read narrowly as the experience of one person, in one place, in a particular time, working for a particular senator who wrote a notorious 'white paper' pleading for "benign neglect" of civil rights issues.

Biden, while still clearly defining yourself as Bernie's bloc, the more power you'll accrue when these promises have to be turned into passed and signed legislation.

sorry, aimless I’m going to need to see some “authorities” cited

The right didn’t grind it out for 40 years. They basically captured the GOP in 10 years and the country in 20.

Blocs don’t matter when they all vote for the same things or same guy. We did this yesterday - Biden is having to bargain for Sanders supporters because the possibility exists for them to withhold their votes in a meaningful number. He isn’t bargaining for Warren supporters because they’re already guaranteed votes for him, despite being a different bloc.

Keeping a seat at the table is a dumb argument anyway, because we know it’s objectively not true. Who did the Obama admin spend more time sucking off to get the ACA passed - Joe Lieberman or Any Progressive Senator?

how long did Obama have a veto-proof majority?

That usual excuse doesn’t work for you here. Lieberman was important because he could leverage withholding his vote to get his way, whereas the ‘left’ of the Senate were irrelevant - they were voting for the ACA regardless.

LBJ was ruthless and gross -- turpitude in human form -- who saw no point in taking moral stands without (a) making sure constituents are behind you; and/or (b) using the power he accumulated when he saw the moment...and was responsible for getting Congress to pass the fairest, most moral legislation since the 1930s.

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

LBJ was an extremely interesting case and, from what Caro writes about him.... fairly exceptional?

I am not sure, really, how much we disagree. It's just, you know, there is that rubicon you spoke of. The Religious Right pole-vault over that threshhold for me. To speak of how "successful" they have been in their goals, which include, to be blunt, killing as many people like me as possible, seems pretty monstrous to me. Aimless did not sound terribly far off from a Wehraboo, to my ears.

I recognize the need, to a certain extent, for compromise, sometimes even for capitulation to power. I ask that you please not take my unwillingness to do so in certain cases for naivete.

and I’m sorry, real quick remind your bonafides?

sorry, aimless I’m going to need to see some “authorities” cited

sorry, aimless I’m going to need to see some “authorities” cited

This past week and a half I've been reading Parting the Waters, Taylor Branch, about the civil rights movement between 1954 and 1963. I'm not going to cite the page numbers or paragraphing for you, but the basic history is this:

Kennedy-Nixon election in 1960 was extremely close. When Kennedy's numbers crunchers analyzed the voting breakdown they realized that blacks (whose precincts were very easy to isolate due to de facto and de jure segregation) had broken for Kennedy over Nixon by roughly 20% more than the voting patterns in the previous several presidential elections, where Republicans had done very well with blacks as "the Party of Lincoln", while Democrats were the party of segregation in the South. This big swing was the margin of victory in some states and the most identifiable single reason Kennedy won.

This was such a surprise to Kennedy that he felt compelled to identify what caused this sudden shift. It turned out to be a last minute massive leaflet campaign among black churches, praising Kennedy for placing a sympathetic phone call to Correta King when MLK was in jail (this happened so often I forget just which instance this was). The leaflet became known as the "blue bomb". This put a different complexion on the importance of the black vote and the issues that were important to black voters.

Thereafter, the Kennedy administration was caught in a constant agony of knowing they just plain couldn't afford to alienate black voters, while still trying not to alienate southern segregationists. In the end, this knowledge forced them to make many concessions they would not have made without their feeling like the political vise they were in was very strong on the side of the black voters, not just the Solid South.

The key piece being this: Kennedy knew who he had to thank for those key votes from blacks and knew the issues had brought him those key votes, consequently he felt pressed to give something in return for them and the civil rights leaders kept the pressure on him to deliver. By forming a suddenly very important bloc, coalesced around very clear issues, black voters gained a much greater leverage when the time came to call out the army to get James Meredith into Ole Miss.

This is not some weird anomaly, either. This is a large part of the mechanics of US national politics.

So he was repaying voters who had not otherwise for people like him before... so votes that were previously withheld and could be again...

that's how politics works

The importance is more in the size of your bloc/coalition and its ability to deliver votes when asked to deliver them. By placing so much emphasis on withholding votes I think you are picking up the wrong end of the stick, but yes, both ends of a stick are parts of the stick.

a vote cast today is a vote you'll lose next week; that's what pressure's for, and it may not even work.

xxp - yes, Alfred, that’s my point...

And Lawrence O’’Donnell’s point.

btw, when your bloc is not among the biggest ones, it is easy enough to miscalculate the strength of your hand, overplay it, and be stuck with nothing. I think Sanders did an excellent job of gauging the strength of his hand in wringing concessions from Biden. What he can't do is lay all this out in stark terms to his followers, who would not understand these kind of necessary machinations. MLK, Jr. was wholly different in the soaring of his oratory and the sordid, but necessary, details of his strategizing.

It's important to keep reminding ourselves -- I have to every day -- that the Democratic Party these days consists of everyone who's not a Republican, therefore it has lib, conservative, and moderate wings that it would take an LBJ-esque eminence to straddle.

that's how politics works

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

not sure i agree with the implicit assumption in that statement :(

I wasn't swatting aside objections, and I'm sorry for it coming across this way.

milo is otm. if your argument is that the stakes are too high to play chicken, that's one thing, and make that case. but denying that, assuming you are part of a large enough bloc whose votes a politician needs, threatening to withhold votes is not an effective means to push that candidate, is dishonest. how else do you explain these new proposals from biden? coincidence?

It's important to keep reminding ourselves -- I have to every day -- that the Democratic Party these days consists of everyone who's not a Republican, therefore it has lib, conservative, and moderate wings that it would take an LBJ-esque eminence to straddle.

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, April 10, 2020 1:48 PM (twenty minutes ago)

sounds like more bad news for the Democratic party

I’m not sure when those two points haven’t been true of both parties outside the last 25 years of the GOP. Nature of a two party system etc.

We just need a Democrat with a giant hog to step up.

Bernie should have Milton Berled one of the fireside chats.

milo is otm.

For certain.

What remains to be seen is whether the Bernie bloc can stay organized as a movement without the focus of Bernie's presidential campaign to coalesce around. iow, it's not him, it's us.

Also, can it continue to grow itself between elections? Judged by the strength of localized left-progressive organizing and midterm results, the movement got stronger after 2016. Judged by raw primary vote totals in 2020, it got stuck in the zone of 25% to maybe 30%, which is damn good considering, but needs to get bigger to match the breadth of its vision.

I do not think the emergent organized left in the USA will concern itself with any presidential elections that may occur again

my most communist friend has been referring to this as "the last election"

progress happens one funeral at a time

the conclusion being drawn is that electoralism doesn't work

I'd say your communist friend should get out more, but that would be wrong at this particular time.