berniesanders   2116

« earlier    

Bernie Sanders's Socialism Speech Dodged the Issue - The Atlantic
“If Sanders was coy about the details of a ‘socialist’ economy, he was downright disdainful of the notion that a speech on socialism and authoritarianism should seriously grapple with the long history of socialist movements that have ended in dictatorship. In his view, the threat of autocracy comes exclusively from the right. Just as in the 1930s, ‘America and the world are once again moving towards authoritarianism.’ This danger is driven by ‘right-wing forces of oligarchy, corporatism, nationalism, racism, and xenophobia.’ The only answer that will stave off fascism is, you guessed it, ‘democratic socialism.’”
BernieSanders  DemocraticSocialism  Socialism  YaschaMounk 
4 days ago by cbearden
Sanders’s Education Plan Renews Debate Over Charter Schools and Segregation - The New York Times
it promised big increases in teacher pay and in funding for disabled students and schools that serve poor children.

Mr. Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, also vowed to diversify the teaching force, renovate school buildings and expand access to free meals at school.
BernieSanders  election  education 
21 days ago by brycecovert
Zombie Neoliberalism | Dissent Magazine
"For someone who demands that Democrats return to the questions of class that once supposedly drove the party, Frank has a fraught relationship with the radical left. Perhaps it’s to be expected of someone who cut his political teeth in the decades when the idea of socialism was all but dead. His books are peppered with denigrations of communists past that feel particularly dated in a post–Cold War era where many of today’s Bernie Sanders supporters and new Democratic Socialists of America members scarcely remember the USSR. He often draws equivalencies between left and right, positioning himself, like any good New Dealer, as the compromise keeping the commies at bay—the only reasonable position between two wildly irrational poles. This leads, at times, to a curiously apolitical reading of politics, one that strikes an above-the-fray pose that ignores the realities of struggle.

Frank is sharper when he examines the Democratic establishment. Listen, Liberal is a biting diagnosis of the cult of smartness that has become liberalism’s fatal flaw. Given his own weakness for pretending to float above partisan conflict, the book is a self-critique as much as anything. In previous books he glanced at the failures of liberalism, only to return to pointing out how very bad the right is. When he notes today that “Nothing is more characteristic of the liberal class than its members’ sense of their own elevated goodness,” this is an unsubtle rebuke to his own earlier assumptions.

Criticizing the fetish for smartness within the liberal class (the term that he uses for what others have called the “professional-managerial class”) puts Frank in familiar territory. His skewering of tech-fetishists from the first dot-com era turns into a skillful reading of Obama’s turn toward Silicon Valley (and the fact that so many former Obama staffers have wound up there). The failure of the “knowledge economy” has been a subject of Frank’s since way back. There is, he notes, a difference of degree, not kind, between the Republican obsession with entrepreneurs and business and the “friendly and caring Democratic one, which promises to patch us up with job training and student loans.”

Since Trump’s win, Democratic strategists have doubled down on the idea that victory lies with Frank’s “well-graduated” professional class, the “Panera Breads” or the suburban voters of Chuck Schumer and Ed Rendell’s famed predictions that Democrats would make up any losses with blue-collar voters who defected to Trump by gaining ground in affluent suburbs. The most obvious problem with this strategy is that it does not approach a majority: only a third of the country has a bachelor’s degree, and only 12 percent an advanced degree beyond that. The other, and more significant, problem is that this assumption encourages a belief in meritocracy that is fundamentally anti-egalitarian, fostering contempt for those who haven’t pulled themselves up by their bootstraps—and Republicans already give us far too much of that.

Liberalism’s romance with meritocracy has also fostered an obsession with complexity for its own sake—a love of “wonky” solutions to problems that are somehow the only realistic way to do anything, even though they require a graduate degree in public policy just to comprehend. Politics by experts gives us a politics that only experts can understand. Complexity allows people to make things slightly better while mostly preserving the status quo and appearing to have Done Something Smart.

In Frank’s description of Hillary Clinton we see where all this leads: a feeling of goodness that replaces politics. This isn’t entirely fair, of course—for the millions of Clinton voters (and there were, we should remember, some 3 million more of them than Trump voters), one can assume that at least as many of them were motivated by her actual stated policy goals as Trump voters were by promises of jobs and a wall. Yet Clinton came up short in the key states that lost her the Electoral College as much because poor and working people stayed home than because of any sizable flip of the mythical “White Working Class,” those bitter non-degree-havers of the coastal media’s imagination, to Trump.

Feeling good about voting for Clinton because she was less crass than Trump—the campaign message that the Clinton campaign seemed to settle on—was not enough to inspire a winning majority at the polls. Feelings, Frank would agree, are no substitute for politics.

What is left of liberalism these days, then? Surveying the wreckage of the Democratic Party, one is tempted to answer: not much. On the other hand, the 2016 election (and the 2017 elections in the United Kingdom and France) show us the rise of a current presumed dead for decades. In the wake of the Bernie Sanders campaign, the United States has seen the awakening of socialist politics, breathing life into the kind of class talk that Frank has yearned for his entire career. It is important, then, that we take note of the limitations of longing for a vanished past, that we salvage the lessons from recent history that Frank offers in order to move forward.

Frank’s books presume that a return to the New Deal is the best we can hope for. His frequent invocations of FDR demonstrate the problems with Frank’s take on “culture.” Many New Deal programs, after all, excluded workers who were not white men, and while the best parts of the New Deal have resisted right-wing attempts to take them down, nostalgia for its peak is similar to that which motivates right-wing populism. It is the left’s version of “Make America Great Again.”

The echoes of Kansian arguments have returned to a left grappling with the best way to respond to Trump; some have forthrightly said that pandering to presumably cultural-reactionary Trump voters is necessary, that Democrats should discard “identity liberalism,” in Mark Lilla’s words. In Kansas, Frank wrote, “If basic economic issues are removed from the table . . . only the social issues remain to distinguish the parties.” But this is also true in reverse: when Trump ran to the left on trade, denouncing deals that Hillary Clinton had backed, few people were able to successfully explain why Trump’s racism and sexism made him, still, a bad deal for working people.

Frank demonstrates both liberalism’s promise and its limitations—which are also the limitations of Bernie Sanders and those who, in trying to defend the left against its more disingenuous critics, wind up casting the New Deal–state as the apotheosis of all possible politics rather than as one temporary phase in the class war.

For it is class war that we are in, whether we like it or not, and we will not win it with smartness or with better billionaires. It is a power struggle in which the right will aim to divide and conquer, to mobilize racism and sexism to maintain a hierarchy, and the center will attempt to smooth the roughest edges in order to hold onto its own power or, what’s worse, because it genuinely believes that there is still No Alternative.

“Liberalism,” Frank notes in The Wrecking Crew, “arose out of a long-ago compromise between left-wing social movements and business interests.” In most of his books there is a brief acknowledgment of this kind of struggle—nods to what Kansas refers to as “decades of movement building, of bloody fights between strikers and state militias, of agitating, advocating, and thankless organizing.” We need that kind of fight once again, if we are to hope for things to get better.

John Feltner of Rexnord knew; he joined his union comrades on the picket line even as he was preparing to lose his own factory job. Feltner told me about his time at “union school,” held on the grounds of the great labor leader and five-time Socialist presidential candidate’s home, and how compared to Debs’s day, neither political party spoke to him.

We need to ensure that our politics are not just a welfare-state version of Make America Great Again, a kinder fetishizing of the industrial working class that leaves so-called “social issues” out of the picture. For that hope, we need to turn to the social movements of recent years, to the growth of the Movement for Black Lives and the promise of the Women’s March and particularly the Women’s Strike, to the activists sitting in and disrupting town halls to save healthcare and even improve it, as well as the burgeoning membership of socialist organizations and the rise of Chokwe Antar Lumumba in Jackson, Mississippi. The groundwork is being laid, but as Frank notes, no benevolent leader is going to bring us the change we need.

That is going to be up to all of us."
2017  neoliberalism  sarahjaffe  donaldtrump  thomasfrank  hillaryclinton  meritocracy  smartness  elitism  politics  us  elections  newdeal  economics  workingclass  class  classism  berniesanders  socialism  capitalism  chokweantarlumumba  liberlaism  unions  labor  activism  organizing  chokwelumumba 
5 weeks ago by robertogreco
November 6, 1990. Except for a few minor language changes, this could have been yesterday. I trust b…
BernieSanders  from twitter
5 weeks ago by SheilaRuth
Bernie Sanders' trip to the Soviet Union shaped his views on foreign policy - The Washington Post
The just-married socialist mayor from Vermont was on what he called “a very strange honeymoon,” an official 10-day visit to the communist country, and he was enthralled with the hospitality and the lessons that could be brought home.

“Let’s take the strengths of both systems,” he said upon completing the trip. “Let’s learn from each other.”
communism  russia  BernieSanders 
5 weeks ago by Jswindle

« earlier    

related tags

1950s  1980s  1990s  2000s  2016  2017  2019  2020  9/11  abdulelsayed  aca  academia  activism  afghanistan  agriculture  alexandercockburn  alexandriaocasio-cortez  alexandriaocasiocortez  america  amyklobuchar  analysis  andrewsullivan  andrewyang  antitrust  antiwar  article  atheism  banking  bankruptcy  barackobama  bernie  bernie2020  berniesoblack  betoo'rourke  biden  billclinton  blacklivesmatter  book  books  californianideology  cambridge-ma  capitalism  care  carolynmccarthy  castro  centrism  centrists  cfpb  change  chelseamanning  chokweantarlumumba  chokwelumumba  chrishayes  cities  class  classism  classwarfare  cnn  communism  consumerprotection  corruption  corybooker  currentaffairs  cybersecurity  debt  democracy  democratic  democraticsocialism  democrats  demos  denmark  dependency  dillarduniversity  dnc  donaldtrump  economics  education  electability  election  election2016  election2020  elections  elitism  elizabethwarren  ericswalwell  essay  evictions  facebook  fieldwork  finance  foreignaffairs  foreignpolicy  freemarkets  genius  georgemcgovern  gop  governmentfailure  grahamgreene  grassroots  hacker  harvard  harvardsquare  hbcus  health  healthcare  heathermcghee  highered  highereducation  hillaryclinton  history  homeless  housing  howard  hrc  ideology  immigration  impeachment  individuals  inequality  insulin  insurance  interdependency  interfaith  iowa  iraq  israel  israelpalestine  jaywestbrook  joebiden  journalism  juliancastro  justiceforjanitors  kamalaharris  karlmarx  kathrynroos  katiemcdonough  labor  lgbt  liberalism  liberlaism  lisabarrett  listening  livingwage  lizafeatherstone  malcolmgladwell  markets  martinfeldstein  matthewyglesias  mckinsey  mediabias  medicare  merit  meritocracy  michaelsorrell  mikegravel  mikepence  mindchanging  minimumwage  mitchdaniels  modesty  monicadiaz  morehouse  movements  naacp  nathanrobinson  neoliberalism  nevada  newdeal  newhampshire  notredame  nuance  opinion  organizing  oxford  oxycontin  palestine  patriotact  paulquinncollege  petebuttigieg  peterdaou  policy  politico  politics  post-racial  poverty  primaries  prisonreform  privilege  progressive  progressives  publicity  putin  race  racerelations  racism  radicalism  regulation  religion  rentcontrol  reparations  republican  republicans  research  resistance  revolution  rfra  rhodesscholar  robertsmith  rokhanna  ronaldreagan  rossdouthat  russia  sanders  sarahjaffe  saviors  scottritter  sethmoulton  sexism  siddharthamitter  siliconvalley  smartness  snark  socialdarwinism  socialism  socialmedia  society  southbend-in  southcarolina  staffers  studentloans  students  taxes  teachers  technopoly  technosolutionism  theatlantic  thehill  thenation  thinkprogress  thomasfrank  tomsteyer  tomthedancingbug  transparency  twitter  unions  universalbasicincome  us-pres  us  usa  vermont  vice  voting  vox  wapo  war  warren  waynefrederick  wealth  weareone  workingclass  yaschamounk 

Copy this bookmark: