SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
election 2015
Bernie Sanders is a Candidate for, Not of, Today's Movements
Yesterday, The Atlantic's Eric Liu asked what it would take to move presidential candidate Bernie Sanders's ambitious proposals from "we're gonna" to "we've done it," outlining seven steps to bridge the gap. First among Liu's recommendations is a call for a "Bernie's 30" of progressive congressional Democrats to oust Republican incumbents, throwing the weight of the Sanders campaign's small donor base into strategic races around the country.
Feb 13, 2016
Yesterday, The Atlantic's Eric Liu asked what it would take to move presidential candidate Bernie Sanders's ambitious proposals from "we're gonna" to "we've done it," outlining seven steps to bridge the gap. First among Liu's recommendations is a call for a "Bernie's 30" of progressive congressional Democrats to oust Republican incumbents, throwing the weight of the Sanders campaign's small donor base into strategic races around the country. But what about Bernie's three million?
Liu's suggestions are solid, involving a mix of plans for grassroots mobilization and innovative electoral strategies at all levels of government. According to his fifth point, "Sanders would have to link up to other organic movements that are arising in parallel with his own campaign." Liu cited Democracy Awakening and even Trump supporters hungry to "make America great again."
But the strategies for the Sanders camp's success and that of egalitarian movements are necessarily distinct: Bernie is a candidate for, not of, the movements, but his success thus far is a sign of what a sizeable chunk of America is ready for, electorally speaking: democratic socialism. It's still hard to escape the feeling that he caught today's movements off guard. If Sanders is elected, will movements make their own push for electoral power, for a party of and by DREAMers, the movement for black lives and the emergent youth climate fight? Or will they mobilize outside to hold him accountable? Hopefully, both.
Bernie and the soul of the Democratic Party are worth fighting for. As renowned civil rights organizer Bayard Rustin said, "A political party is not only the product of social relations, but an instrument of change as well." A Sanders administration would make life better for millions of ordinary Americans and likely signal the end of the Clintonite New Democrats' rush for the center. Radicals can win -- or at least get close enough to shake up the party establishment, as Sanders already has. Movement leaders could be the "Bernie 30," and push for a historic realignment with their own agenda, shared platforms and party infrastructure. And their comrades in the streets can continue pushing for the kinds of change that only mass uprisings can put on the agenda.
As Liu points out, Obama's on-the-ground strategy in 2008, the brainchild of United Farmworkers' veteran Marshall Ganz, is a powerful example for how to integrate young and newly-engaged volunteers into a campaign infrastructure -- and one that movements themselves could learn plenty from, along with the Tea Party's impressive grassroots infrastructure (something Liu also mentions). That said, there's a difference between a revolutionary election campaign and a revolution. A "Bernie three million," then -- whether he wins or loses -- will be about more than Bernie, channeling their energy and new-found skills back into the movements that made his run possible.
Whatever a Sanders White House can accomplish will not be enough -- commander-in-chief isn't an office that lends itself to activism. The crises of climate, and racial and ethnic inequality can't be undone in one office over four years. That's likely why Bernie's campaign has been quick to deflect from his importance as an individual, circulating the slogan "Not Me Us" in advance of the Iowa caucus. In calling for a "political revolution," the 74-year-old Brooklynite has repeatedly pointed to his supporters as the vectors of change. "This campaign is not just about electing a president," Sanders said in last night's Democratic debate. "This campaign is about creating a process for a political revolution... It is about bringing tens of millions of people together."
The United States has come close to a political revolution before, and passed a slate of unprecedented redistributive policies to quell. The New Deal is an overused, overstated metaphor for what form a more redistributive, more sustainable American economy could take. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was no socialist, though, and passing each part of the New Deal also came down to outright fights between his administration and Congress, which was "often to the left of Roosevelt in the early years," according to historian Arthur Schlesinger. Conventional narratives herald then-president Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a savior of the country's downtrodden. What that leaves out is the historic New Deal Coalition, an often extra-governmental, ungainly force of social movement actors -- communities of color, unions, the unemployed -- that backed him into a corner. Roosevelt faced the threat of open revolt, from his own party and the American people.
Take this vignette from before FDR took office, in 1932, as fallout from the Great Depression continued to hit. Robert McElvaine's history of the period describes the House floor in March of that year as a "truly remarkable" scene. "Prompted by the largely spontaneous outpouring of sentiment from their constituents, congressmen rebelled against their leaders," he writes. "Amidst cheers, foot stomping, whistling, and wild applause, progressive Republicans united with Democrats in voting to increase income taxes, surtaxes, and estate taxes. Shouts of 'soak the rich!' and 'conscript wealth!' rose from the House floor."
As anyone who's watched C-SPAN can attest, congressman don't foot stop against the rich of their own accord anymore. There are no scripts for a democratic socialist American president, and the lead-up to the New Deal is a plenty imperfect one to follow. If we take Bernie's call for a political revolution seriously, though, we can hope for some more scenes like the one above.
Keep ReadingShow Less
10 Reasons I Support Bernie Sanders for President
Dec 09, 2015
I first saw Bernie Sanders speak in early November 1993, when I went to a brown bag lunch he held for voters in Montpelier, Vermont, a few days before NAFTA was passed. At that lunch, he explained how NAFTA would undermine workers rights, and American democracy. He turned out to be years ahead of his time.*
But I bring it up now because it relates to why I am proud to endorse Bernie Sanders for President of the United States.
Sanders is a fearless, experienced leader capable of seeing the truth, and standing up to big private power, even when its almost impossibly hard. President Sanders would always keep the humble, struggling, proud citizen at the center of what he does.
Here are 10 reasons for my support:
1. Congressman Sanders voted against the Iraq war, showing judgment and leadership when it mattered, and has held consistent and careful foreign policy views.
2. Senator Sanders has been a leader on finance, supporting a new Glass Steagall and introducing his own bills to break up the big banks.
3. Senator Sanders has led the fight against the XL pipeline, and for wind, sun, geothermal, and all renewable sources of energy.
4. Congressman Sanders opposed NAFTA, and has been a leader in the opposition to the TPP.
5. He has spent his career fighting private prisons and overcriminalization.
6. He has always understood the vital role that unions and institutions play in a more equal America, and fought for workers' rights.
7. He has long fought against high-stakes standardized tests.
8. He is a lifelong advocate for veterans, and a leader in health clinics and access to dental care and basic services.
9. He always been practical, with a long career of working across all party lines with respect.
10. Most importantly, President Sanders would put fundamental reform--including public financing of elections--at the heart of what he does.
America is in pain, and democracy is in crisis. Twenty Americans have more money than the bottom half of Americans. According to the New York Times, 158 families made half of all the donations so far in the presidential race. We have a private campaign finance system gives private companies and billionaires control over government. That's not American democracy.
I endorse Sanders because of my deep patriotism, my belief that democracy is possible and a thriving economy is possible, and we don't need to beg at the feet of the wealthiest donors to have a collective life worth living. Sanders has always paid attention to the root threats: inequity and excess elite power. He always explained in patient detail the way that privately financed elections and outside spending totally destroy our democracy. There is too much fear in our political life: he brings big dreams instead.
I thrilled to endorse on the same day as the Working Families Party endorsement. The WFP endorsement is a huge boost for Sanders' campaign. While Sanders has generated lots of grassroots enthusiasm, few organizations have stepped forward to endorse him. I believe the WFP endorsement will help encourage more organizations to step out boldly in support of his campaign and in support of the democratic revolution.
Sanders showed judgment, leadership, and a willingness to be his own person in his first years in Congress when I saw him at that brown bag lunch, and he will show judgment, leadership, and a willingness to be his own person as President.
I am proud to endorse him.** I hope you join me.
*It was a consequential and memorable lunch for me in other ways -- in the elevator on the way there, I met Howard Dean's then-Chief of Staff, who suggested that I apply for a job on his campaign the following year. I did, beginning my own life as a campaigner and organizer.
**This is in my private role as a citizen. MAYDAY.US is not making any Presidential endorsements.
Keep ReadingShow Less
No Longer Willing to be Bullied and Fracked, How One Pennsylvania Town Fought Back
"They are mobilizing against a system of law that empowers corporations over communities, and empowers government to preempt communities from protecting their air and water.'
Nov 04, 2015
In defiance of a corporate lawsuit over a proposed fracking wastewater injection well, the citizens of Grant Township, Pennsylvania on Tuesday evening adopted the country's first municipal charter establishing a local bill of rights--a document which codifies environmental and democratic rights, and bans such drilling activity as a violation of that pact.
"The people of Grant Township spoke loud and clear: They have rights, and they will protect those rights," said Chad Nicholson of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), who served as a consultant to the commission that drafted the charter.
Grant Township initially adopted a Community Bill of Rights in June 2014 in an effort to halt the drilling project but was overruled when a court sided with Pennsylvania General Energy Company (PGE) and the Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association (PIOGA), which argued that the rights of the fossil fuel companies trumped those of the citizens.
CELDF explains: "In its lawsuit, PGE claimed that it had a 'right' to inject wastewater into the Township. PIOGA has also declared that there is 'no constitutional right to local self-government' or to be free from the harms associated with oil and gas production."
However, Tuesday's vote, which called for a "transformation of the community into a home rule Township," now invalidates most of that court ruling, according to CELDF.
Local efforts to prohibit extraction activities, such as fracking, over concerns of its impact on air and drinking water quality have faced fierce resistance from both drilling companies and state governments. In Denton, Texas, for example, a community fracking ban was overturned after the state government passed a law barring such ordinances.
This has forced grassroots groups to devise increasingly creative solutions in order to maintain sovereignty in the face of what campaigners say are deep pocketed--and politically connected--corporate interests.
Nicholson notes that close to 200 communities across the U.S. have advanced some form of community rights, though many are amendments to existing charters. The Grant Township Bill of Rights is the first written entirely on the basis of asserting and protecting "the right to clean air and water, the right to be taxed fairly, and the right to local community self-government."
"This isn't David versus Goliath," he added. "This isn't just one community standing up to say 'no.' Grant Township is joining with communities across the country who are standing up collectively and saying to government and corporations, 'We're no longer willing to be fracked, poisoned, and polluted.' They are mobilizing against a system of law that empowers corporations over communities, and empowers government to preempt communities from protecting their air and water. Communities are saying this is not acceptable, it's not sustainable, it's not democratic, and it's going to change."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular