Thursday, March 06, 2014

BERNIE, YOU'RE GREAT, BUT THAT'S NOT HOW MOVEMENTS START

Bernie Sanders tells The Nation and Time that he's definitely pondering a 2016 presidential run, though all he's doing right now is talking to fellow progressives -- he's not laying groundwork otherwise. He says that, if he were to run, he's not sure whether he'd run as a Democrat or an independent; in the latter case, unlike Ralph Nader in 2000, he seems aware of the risks. He says in the Nation interview:
... the dilemma is that, if you run outside of the Democratic Party, ... you would be taking votes away from the Democratic candidate and making it easier for some right-wing Republican to get elected -- the [Ralph] Nader dilemma.
On the other hand, he thinks we need more than Hillary Clinton, as he tells Time:
... I think, you know, if you talk about the need for a political revolution in America, I think it's fair to say that Secretary Clinton probably will not be one of the more active people.
It would kill me to see Bernie Sanders on a ballot and not vote for him, but that's probably what I'd do if he were a third-party candidate in the general election -- unless Hillary were so far ahead in the polls that she clearly couldn't lose. I'm not even persuaded by the "New York will go Democrat no matter what, so vote third party" -- I don't want to be part of a group that gives the Republican candidate a popular vote win, even if the Democrat wins the Electoral College, because I don't want the idiots in the press to say a new Democratic president "has no mandate." (Not that actually having a mandate helped Barack Obama, but still....)

I agree with Sanders about the need for a "revolution." I just don't agree that this (from the Nation interview) is the way it could happen:
The more radical approach would be to run as an independent, and essentially when you’re doing that you're not just running for president of the United States, you're running to build a new political movement in America -- which presumably would lead to other candidates running outside of the Democratic Party, essentially starting a third party. That idea has been talked about in this country for decades and decades and decades, from Eugene Debs forward -- without much success....

If you look back to Nader's candidacy [in 2000], the hope of Nader was not just that he might be elected president but that he would create a strong third party. Nader was a very strong candidate, very smart, very articulate. But the strong third-party did not emerge. The fact is that is very difficult to do.
I don't understand the belief that the way to start a movement is to run a presidential race. The candidate is just one person -- he or she isn't part of a coalition of any kind. There's no one else running for Congress or running in state and local elections across the country -- there's just this one quixotic individual, doing something that's all but certain to fail. How is that a foundation for anything? What movement did Ross Perot build, or John Anderson in 1980? (Even George Wallace can't be said to have started a movement -- the Southern strategy started with Goldwater and was partly coopted in 1968 by Nixon. It didn't become a third-party movement -- it became, with the most overt racism somewhat muted, the current Republican Party mainstream, and that process didn't begin in earnest until a series of Republican wins starting in 1980.)

Instead of one Bernie Sanders in 2016, why aren't there a couple dozen Bernies in seemingly hopeless state and local races this year? I'm not sure if Sanders is right about the potential for winning over the tea party:
One of the goals that I would have, politically, as a candidate for president of the United States is to reach out to the working-class element of the Tea Party and explain to them exactly who is funding their organization -- and explain to them that, on virtually every issue, the Koch brothers and the other funders of the Tea Party are way out of step with what ordinary people want and need.
But I wish a few people were trying to beta-test the notion this year in congressional races. Go out there in some district where a Republican expects not to even have to campaign, possibly a district where no Democrat is even bothering to run, and talk about raising the minimum wage and dialing back tax preferences for the wealthy and putting people to work by building infrastructure. Just try it -- there's really no downside risk, no chance of electing Scott Walker as president. Maybe twenty people would run and a few would put scares into their opponents; maybe one or two would make it a race, or even win.

That's how I'd like to see a movement built. Or bypass electoral politics and fight issue campaigns instead -- that's what the civil rights movement did, and that's what the gay rights movement is doing now.

7 comments:

Phil Perspective said...

But I wish a few people were trying to beta-test the notion this year in congressional races. Go out there in some district where a Republican expects not to even have to campaign, possibly a district where no Democrat is even bothering to run, and talk about raising the minimum wage and dialing back tax preferences for the wealthy and putting people to work by building infrastructure.



Because the DCCC would ignore them, as would the local media. I'm not using it as an excuse to do nothing. Just pointing out what would happen. I think Bernie's point is, while not saying it explicitly, that since he's a sitting US Senator he'll get more press/attention than a 3rd patty candidate otherwise would. He's stated before that the reason for him to run would be because the issues that matter to Joe and Jane Public aren't getting addressed.

BK said...

Thanks, Steve M., and I couldn't agree more. Bernie ought to come down to N.C. and see what building a real movement is all about. Rev. Barber could teach hima thing or two. Fusion!

Victor said...

BK,
Barber is great.
I met with the man several times, and if his schedule allowed, he came down to the anti-war, anti-torture, anti-rendition protests in the Fayetteville, NC area, where I was one of the organizers.

He's what a religious leader should be.
And I'm glad to see he's dropped a lot of weight since the last time I saw him in person, in 2008 - at the end of the year, having lost my job, I moved back to Upstate NY.

Victor said...

This is where the Occupy Movement failed.

They could have been a force, if properly structured and led. Kind of like a Liberal Tea Party - only with more cross-over appeal. A lot of Independents and Moderates, and even some Republicans were, and still are, pissed-off at Wall Street and the Banksters.

But they had some sort of aversion to "Leaders."
Probably in the fear of false-prophets hijacking their movement.

It's a shame, because THAT, properly done, could have sprouted into a force.

But now, we Liberals and Progressives are back to Square 1.

And yeah, revolution start from the bottom and go up - not from Presidential candidate.

I love Bernie, and would vote for him in a Primary.
But if he runs a 3rd Party, I won't touch him, because he could cause the Republicans to win, if people like me voted for him.

Nader did enough damage as a 3rd Partier - we don't need another person "from the left" giving the sociopathic Republicans another win (even if that last win came from the SCOTUS).

Puddn'head said...

"Go out there in some district where a Republican expects not to even have to campaign, possibly a district where no Democrat is even bothering to run, and talk about raising the minimum wage and dialing back tax preferences for the wealthy and putting people to work by building infrastructure."

The point is that these districts were gerrymandered to be safe. IF this had any chance of success, don't you think there would be a Democrat trying it? And if it doesn't have a chance -- le me be blunt -- do you think much of the electorate that this message appeals to will bother to show up on election day, without MASSIVE coordination to make it happen?

Steve M. said...

The point is that you might luck into a victory if you force a Republican who's not used to having to run seriously into an actual campaign, and possibly a gaffe. Or maybe, without funding, you just put a scare into an incumbent. I've seen that become newsworthy in New York a couple of times -- both Ed Koch and Mike Bloomberg underperformed in their last victorious mayoral elections, against woefully underfunded challengers. The press took notice that maybe the bloom was off the rose in each case.

Philo Vaihinger said...

If Bernie is in the Dem primaries I will absolutely prefer him for the Dem nomination to Hillary the warmongering, neocon, Zionist, neoliberal, third-way, bellicose pain in the backside.

But if she's the Dem nominee it is hard to see how the eventual GOP nominee could be better than her, in net.

And she could end up the nominee just because there are so many unrepentant PUMAs out there who will shriek like bipolar banshees that it's just her turn, dammit.