DECEMBER 10, 2019
NEWS AND VIEWS
THIS ARTICLE
HAS SOME VERY INTERESTING INFORMATION IN IT WHICH I HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE, AND
UNLIKE SOME MAJOR MEDIA SOURCES, IT DOESN’T “BASH” BERNIE, TREATING HIM WITH
RESPECT, INSTEAD. THE THINKING AND WRITING IS TRULY ANALYTICAL. THE WRITER,
WINSLOW T. WHEELER, IS ONE OF THE FEW TO WORK ON BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN
CONGRESSIONAL PROJECTS AND HAS WRITTEN BOOKS AND ARTICLES FOR A VARIETY OF PUBLISHERS.
SEE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winslow_T._Wheeler.
Bernie Gets
More Cash From War Inc.* Than Any 2020 Candidate
Forget your
assumptions--the defense industry influence game is all about relationships
and access.
DECEMBER 10,
2019|12:01 AM
WINSLOW T.
WHEELER
PHOTOGRAPH -- Democratic
presidential candidate Bernie Sanders appears on stage during the "Bernie's
Back Rally" at Queensbridge Park in Long Island City on October 19, 2019,
in New York. By J Stone/Shutterstock
Despite his
frequent votes against defense bills, Senator Bernie Sanders has collected
more presidential campaign contributions from defense industry sources than
any other candidate, including Donald Trump. That’s according to data on
2020 funding at the OpenSecrets.org website, which is sponsored by the Center
for Responsive Politics.
As of early
December, Sanders had out-collected Trump $172,803 to $148,218 in defense
industry contributions, a difference of 17 percent. And his margin had been
growing in October and November.
Among the top
five defense contractors (Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon,
and General Dynamics), Sanders typically out-collected Trump by multiples.
His receipts from Lockheed Martin and Boeing more than doubled Trump’s; his
intake from General Dynamics was almost threefold that of the president and his
contributions from Northrop Grumman about fivefold. Only in the case of
Raytheon did he fail to at least double the president’s take.
Sanders also
out-collected all of his Democratic rivals. His total defense industry
contributions ($172,803) roughly doubled those of Buttigieg ($88,494) and
Elizabeth Warren ($83,429), and more than tripled those of Joe Biden ($49,540).
The rest fall even further behind. He also out-collected his Democratic rivals
among each of the top five defense corporations, except in the case of
Raytheon, which gave Buttigieg 8 percent more.
Unless he’s
receiving defense industry money under the table from ostensibly non-defense
PACs or via “dark money,” Donald Trump is performing remarkably poorly
vis-Ã -vis several Democratic contenders, not just Sanders. Low overall
performer Biden pulled more from Lockheed-Martin; Elizabeth Warren pulled
more from General Dynamics and Boeing; Warren, Buttigieg and Biden drew more
from Raytheon and Northrop Grumman.
For someone
polling as a front-runner, Biden attracted less money from among defense
contractors: he ranks near Andrew Yang in the lower tier.
The
implications for the relationship of defense industry contributors to
Sanders and the others may, or may not, be everything you might assume. Defense
industry PACs, and the corrupting influence they have over compliant
politicians, are not the source of this money. While PAC funds very much
predominate in the recorded donations to members of Congress in the 2020
OpenSecrets.org data, none of the presidential candidates—even
Trump—have accepted any recorded defense industry PAC money.
Instead, it all
comes from what the OpenSecrets.org data show as “Individuals,” who are
allowed to give only up to the federally allowed limit of $2,800 per election.
Thus, the money shown from corporations like Lockheed Martin is from individual
donors who specified an association with Lockheed Martin in the paperwork
associated with their contribution.
The data for
Sanders may be illustrative. From OpenSecrets.org, it appears that Sanders has
thousands of individual contributions from people who identified affiliations
with Boeing and Lockheed Martin, though no donations appear to amount to the
legal maximum, and most seem to be from engineers, technicians, and other
non-management types.
Sanders has collected
more contributions from Boeing than any other recorded federal politician and
doubles the politicians in second and third place. And the $52,059
he collected from Boeing about doubles what he received from his next
highest defense industry contributors, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin.
What might this mean?
A Google
search of Boeing and Sanders reveals several articles in late 2018 discussing
various charges by Sanders against Boeing management and in favor of union
workers. It is possible that Sanders’ unique performance in collecting
Boeing-affiliated donations stems from this activity, especially if the
unions affiliated with Boeing plants made his activity especially well known
and prompted membership to be individually supportive.
That hypothetical
explanation, however, does not mean that the donations from individuals strips*
the giving of collective influence and is no more than an expression of
grassroots support unrelated to corporate interests. Indeed,
OpenSecrets.org explains at its FAQ page that “our research over more than 20
years shows enough of a correlation between individuals’ contributions and
their employers’ political interests that we feel comfortable with our
methodology.”
Moreover, if
it is correct that union-member donations from Boeing-affiliated individuals
explains some significant part of Sanders’ unique performance in collecting
Boeing contributions, it would be the union, not the corporation, who might
want to keep candidate Sanders reminded of their support and interests.
Significantly, unions frequently lobby in favor of the defense products made
in plants where they have representation. The F-35 Strike Fighter is a good
example. On some issues the difference is without distinction.
Influence
peddlers from lobbyist shops, defense corporations and the Pentagon have
evidence Sanders can be a receptive target of their ministrations. The fact
that he and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) were acquired as advocates of basing
the Defense Department’s highly controversial F-35 in Burlington Vermont
certainly hasn’t gone unnoticed. Sanders describes himself as opposed to
the F-35 but also receptive to the in-State economic benefits of the basing at
Burlington.
Lobbyists for
programs beyond the F-35* will never expect
to convince him or his staff to reverse on an issue like President Trump’s
$1.7 trillion plan to upgrade the U.S. nuclear triad of weapons and delivery
systems, but perhaps they can convince him on the edges of some of the
sub-issues, like proceeding with the new nuclear ballistic submarine and
missile program, rather than to extend the life of the existing Trident
program. Or, perhaps to eschew proposals to eliminate the ICBM leg of the Triad
as several authors have already suggested.
Each example is
hypothetical, but the methodology is always the same among defense industry
and military spending operatives: you must get access to have a chance to
make your case; contributions help to do that. In that industry, victories
for even minor programs are worth billions.
Contributions
do not automatically buy obedience, but they do create the opportunity for
the advocate to make a case in front of the selected audience. That is
their Constitutional right even without the money, but as a practical matter on
Capitol Hill money enables access, and access pricks eardrums. My more than
two decades of experience on Capitol Hill tells me that is exactly how they
think.
No one should
consider Sanders unique. The same logic applies to the other candidates,
especially those, like Warren, who has also been a critic of defense spending.
Those face-to-face meetings can help soften the rough edges in the
relationship. That she collected more from Boeing than Trump seems to indicate
an interest in having a relationship among Boeing-affiliated individuals. Biden
and Buttigieg must be wondering why their more compliant approach to defense
spending has not elicited more for them than the others: presidential campaigns
are buying seasons for defense lobbyists; the selling comes later.
A common
refrain from the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates is that they collect
no “corporate PAC” money. In the case of the defense industry they have no
need to; they get plenty from “individuals.” As one academic commented, by
giving up any corporate PAC money, these candidates are basically “giving up
the sleeves out of their vest.”
Salient lessons
that can be learned from the data above are that Bernie Sanders is being
targeted for future defense industry access, and Donald Trump is not pulling
nearly as much public money from defense corporations as the Democrats—nor as
one might expect.
There will be
more to this story as the campaign proceeds. Trump may pound the table
demanding more; Sanders may articulate his irritation with his first place
status, but his returning the money is not likely. Biden and Buttigieg might
even claim their lower status shows they are actually defense spending critics,
which will be baloney. Warren is surely working on a plan.
Winslow T.
Wheeler has over 30 years of experience as a staffer in the U.S. Senate for both
Republican and Democratic Senators and as an Assistant Director at the
Government Accountability Office. More recently he was Director of the Straus
Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, now run by
the Project On Government Oversight (POGO).
THEAMERICANCONSERVATIVE.COM*
The American
Conservative (TAC) is a magazine founded in 2002 and published by the American
Ideas Institute. The publication states that it exists to promote a
conservatism that opposes unchecked power in government and business; promote
the flourishing of families and communities through vibrant markets and free
people; and embrace realism and restraint in foreign affairs based on America's
national interests, otherwise known as paleoconservatism.[3] Originally
published twice a month, it was reduced to monthly publication in August 2009,
and since February 2013, it has appeared every two months.[4]
The American
Conservative was founded by Pat Buchanan, Scott McConnell and Taki
Theodoracopulos in 2002 in opposition to the Iraq War. . . . .
F-35*
Lockheed Martin
F-35 Lightning II
From Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia
The Lockheed
Martin F-35 Lightning II is a family of single-seat, single-engine,
all-weather, stealth, fifth-generation, multirole combat aircraft, designed for
ground-attack and air-superiority missions. It is built by Lockheed Martin and
many subcontractors, including Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney, and BAE
Systems.
The F-35 has
three main models: the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A (CTOL), the short
take-off and vertical-landing F-35B (STOVL), and the catapult-assisted take-off
but arrested recovery, carrier-based F-35C (CATOBAR). The F-35 descends from
the Lockheed Martin X-35, the design that was awarded the Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF) program over the competing Boeing X-32. The official Lightning II name has
proven deeply unpopular and USAF pilots have nicknamed it Panther, instead.[9]
. . . .
As the largest
and most expensive military program ever, the F-35 became the subject of much
scrutiny and criticism in the U.S. and in other countries.[14] In 2013 and
2014, critics argued that the plane was "plagued with design flaws",
with many blaming the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed
"to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time," instead
of identifying and fixing "defects before firing up its production
line".[14] By 2014, the program was "$163 billion over budget [and]
seven years behind schedule".[15] Critics also contend that the program's
high sunk costs and political momentum make it "too big to kill".[16]
The F-35 first
flew on 15 December 2006. In July 2015, the United States Marines declared its
first squadron of F-35B fighters ready for deployment.[17][18] However, the
DOD-based durability testing indicated the service life of early-production
F-35B aircraft is well under the expected 8,000 flight hours, and may be as low
as 2,100 flight hours. Lot 9 and later aircraft include design changes but
service life testing has yet to occur.[19] The U.S. Air Force declared its
first squadron of F-35As ready for deployment in August 2016.[20] The U.S. Navy
declared its first F-35Cs ready in February 2019.[21] In 2018, the F-35 made
its combat debut with the Israeli Air Force.[22][23]
The U.S. stated
plan is to buy 2,663 F-35s, which will provide the bulk of the crewed tactical
airpower of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps in coming decades.
Deliveries of the F-35 for the U.S. military are scheduled until 2037[24] with
a projected service life up to 2070.[25]
“STRIPS”*
VERSUS “OUTSTRIPS”
The
"strip" in "outstrip"?
The Online
Etymology dictionary says the -strip in outstrip is from the Middle
English "to move quickly."
But when you
look up the word strip you get -striepan "to plunder" and Middle Low
German strippe for strip (as in stripe) related to strap or thong.
So does anyone
know of anything about strip "to move quickly"? Other words with that
root?
Just curious.
4 years ago
Different
strips.
The strip in
outstrip has been obsolete on its own for a good 200 years. But it originally
meant ‘move quickly’, and later ‘overtake’. e.g. in Beaumont and Fletcher's
Honest Mans Fortune, we have the line:
Before he
reacht it, he was out of breath, And then the other stript him.
Source: OED
and stuff
level 2
bkrags
5 points
·
4 years ago
Sweet. Thanks.
Are there any other current words that use strip in that sense? Or has
"outstrip" outstripped its cousins?
WHAT IS WAR
INC?
VIDEO GAME -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQRpjqi1Pcs
MOVIE
War, Inc. –
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org
› wiki › War,_Inc
War, Inc. is a
2008 American political action comedy film directed by Joshua Seftel and
starring John Cusack. Cusack also co-wrote and produced the film.
Music by:
David Robbins Edited by:
Michael Berenbaum
Produced by:
John Cusack; Danny Lerner; Gra...
I REALLY DON’T
LIKE NANCY PELOSI. SHE ACTS TOO MUCH LIKE MITCH MCCONNELL TO ME, AND SHE ISN’T
PROGRESSIVE AT ALL. TO ME, PEOPLE LIKE HER AREN’T ACTUALLY DEMOCRATS. MAYBE
“CENTRIST PARTY” WOULD BE A GOOD NAME FOR THOSE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THESE
DAYS WHO BASICALLY ARE NOT FOR “THE PEOPLE.”
I’M READY TO
SEE THE PARTY SPLIT ALONG IDEOLOGICAL GROUNDS. BOTH THE DEMS AND THE
REPUBLICANS ARE TOO BIG AND TOO POWERFUL. PROGRESSIVES FROM VARIOUS SOURCES
SUCH AS THE GREEN PARTY MIGHT HAVE A BETTER CHANCE TOGETHER THAN WITHIN THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY, BOTH TO ACHIEVE IMPORTANT GOALS AND TO ELECT OFFICIALS AT ALL
LEVELS. THAT ASSUMES A STRONGER AND BROADER PROGRESSIVE MEMBERSHIP, AND
STRONGER UNIONS.
POLITICAL
LEADERS CAN WORK, AS BERNIE SAYS, FROM THE TOP TO CONTROL THE RELATIONSHIP OF
CORPORATIONS TO THEIR WORKERS, BUT WITHOUT UNIONS WE WILL GET JUST EXACTLY WHAT
WE HAVE TODAY, I THINK. IT’S LIKE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE LAWYERS OF THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ERA WOULD EVER HAVE ACHIEVED WHAT THEY DID WITHOUT THE VISIBLE AND
AUDIBLE PRESENCE OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PRIMARILY BLACK PEOPLE MARCHING IN
THE STREETS, OH YES, AND RIOTING IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS. THAT’S WHY I AM RELIEVED
TO SEE BLACK LIVES MATTER, EVEN IF THEY HAVEN’T ALWAYS BEEN FAIR TO SANDERS.
THESE DAYS ARE A RERUN OF THE BAD OLD DAYS OF POVERTY AND RACISM, AND IT’S TIME
TO FIGHT.
TWO BILLS, THE U.S.-MEXICO-CANADA
AGREEMENT (USMCA) AND PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE ACT (PRO-ACT) ARE
DISCUSSED IN THIS ARTICLE.
NANCY PELOSI
PUSHES THE HOUSE TO PASS USMCA, BUT NEGLECTS A BILL WITH BROAD SUPPORT TO
STRENGTHEN UNIONS
Rachel M. Cohen
December 2 2019,
7:00 a.m.
PHOTOGRAPH -- Nancy
Pelosi at a press conference in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on Nov.
14, 2019. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
HOUSE SPEAKER
NANCY PELOSI has made no secret of her desire to pass the U.S.-Mexico-Canada
Agreement by the end of the year, telling reporters recently that it
would be her goal for the House to vote on it before Christmas. Centrist Democrats
have been insisting privately that a quick passage for the trade deal is
necessary for moderate members of Congress to win their competitive
reelections in 2020, to show they can “do something.” Unions have made
clear, though, that from their perspective, USMCA lacks real labor enforcement
mechanisms, which could undermine the whole deal, further drag down wages, and eliminate
more jobs.
Meanwhile, a
top priority for labor has been sitting quietly on Pelosi’s desk and, unlike
USMCA, already commands enough support to get it over the House finish line.
The Protecting the Right to Organize Act* would be the most comprehensive
rewrite of U.S. labor law in decades. It would eliminate right-to-work laws,
impose new penalties on employers who retaliate against union organizing, crack
down on worker misclassification, and establish new rules so that employers
cannot delay negotiating collective bargaining contracts. Introduced by Rep.
Bobby Scott, D-Va., in May, it already has 215 co-sponsors in the House and 40
in the Senate.
The PRO Act passed the
House Committee on Education and Labor on September 25 on a party-line vote. But
two months later, Pelosi has still not moved to bring the bill to the House
floor, nor has she given any indication of when she would. Her office did not
return requests for comment.
“I don’t know
exactly what the holdup is — it is taking longer than it should given the
number of co-sponsors that we have,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, co-chair of the
House Progressive Caucus. “Many other bills have come to the floor with fewer
co-sponsors than this one.”
Jayapal told
The Intercept that she believes that House leadership remains committed to the
bill and that she and the Progressive Caucus have been pressuring them
to bring it to the floor. “I think it is really critical for us as Democrats,”
she said. “And anyone on the Democratic side who is wary of expanding
collective bargaining I think should be thinking really clearly about why that
would be.”
Rep. Mark
Pocan, the other Progressive Caucus co-chair, said they’re working hard to make
sure the bill gets calendared, but acknowledged that “there’s probably somewhat
limited bandwidth” for the PRO Act given the intense focus on hashing
out labor provisions in the trade deal, and the House’s desire to finish
passing the drug-pricing bill.
“Because of
that, we’re probably having a more difficult time getting an exact date.
There’s a lot of work happening right now,” he said.
Dan Mauer,
director of government affairs for the Communications Workers of America, told The
Intercept that the delay to bring the vote to the floor has been “very
frustrating” and that his union has made it clear to House leadership that
members would be “very unhappy” if the House does not prioritize the bill by
the end of the year.
“We get it’s
hard, there’s a lot of stuff on people’s plates, and at the same time, this
bill already has a lot of demonstrated support,” he said.
Randi
Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, told The
Intercept over email that her union is also urging Congress to pass the PRO
Act before the end of the year. “Currently, employers have carte blanche
to abuse their power and dissuade workers from joining a union, but consider
the flipside — in cities and states with a strong union presence, wages,
benefits, and job security are better across the board,” she said. “Congress
can do something concrete to rebalance the ledger, and the time to act is now.”
A repeal of
right-to-work would mean that states could no longer impose bans on unions
charging private-sector workers mandatory fees for collective bargaining, even
if they are not dues-paying union members. In 2018, the Supreme Court
effectively nationalized right-to-work in the public sector when it ruled in
Janus v. AFSCME that no fee or payment may be deducted from a public-sector
worker unless the employee “affirmatively consents” to pay.
While Pelosi
has voiced concern that the impeachment against President Donald Trump might
distract from advancing the Democrats’ legislative agenda, she is not moving
the PRO Act, which is in a strong position for passage. The
legislation builds on the House Democrats’ 2017 “Better Deal” agenda, which
included many labor commitments also laid out in the PRO Act. “We want to
put this out to the public,” Pelosi said at the time. “Public sentiment is
everything.”
Aside from
having co-sponsors, public sentiment for unions is also at one of its
highest points in the last 50 years, according to Gallup’s annual polling.
Sixty-four percent of Americans approve of unions, up 16 points since 2009.
While the House
did vote to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour this summer, union
advocates also felt that House leadership dragged its feet on bringing that
bill to a full vote. It passed the House labor committee in March but didn’t
come to the floor until July.
Meanwhile, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, a powerful business lobbying group, is spending
thousands of dollars ginning up opposition to the PRO Act, running ads
on Facebook and Twitter. The chamber is also spending heavily on ads in
support of USMCA, urging viewers to tell Congress to pass the trade
deal.
screenshot-web-1574791350The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce is advertising against the PRO Act on Twitter.
Screenshot: The Intercept
“I do worry
that by delaying [on the PRO Act], we just give the chamber and others
the opportunity to prevent passing this legislation,” Jayapal said.
The last time
Congress was in a position to pass a major rewrite to labor law was in 2009,
when Democrats unsuccessfully pushed the Employee Free Choice Act. Labor
leaders disagree over why EFCA ultimately failed. Some blamed moderate
Democrats, others blamed then-President Barack Obama, and still others chalked
it up to a weak ground game from labor and progressives in holding Congress
accountable in the face of intense corporate opposition. The death of
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass, who was chair of the Senate labor committee and then
succeeded by a Republican, surely didn’t help. Neither did aggressive lobbying
by the chamber. “This will be Armageddon,” the vice president for labor
policy at the Chamber of Commerce complained at the time.
Some unions
appear more resigned to the idea that it’s already too late for the bill to
pass this year.
“The Teamsters
would love the PRO Act to be considered by the full House as soon as
possible, although time is running short for that to happen in 2019,” a
spokesperson told The Intercept over email.
AFSCME
President Lee Saunders also praised the House for its efforts so far to
support workers, but avoided saying that his union expects to see the PRO Act
wrapped up by the holidays. “We expect progress to continue” on bills like
the PRO Act, and the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, which would
bring labor reform to the public-sector workforce, he told The Intercept. “With
this political and grassroots landscape, we have every expectation that our
elected officials will give working people the freedom to shrink the widening
wealth gap and the voice they need to strengthen their communities.”
Mauer of CWA was more
direct in raising the potential consequences for not moving swiftly, pointing
to the need to galvanize union members before the next election.
“If you want
real strong worker excitement that will get union activists excited for 2020,
this is what we need to get it; the PRO Act is really it,” he said. “We
absolutely think this is a key thing, not just legislatively but politically.”
SOOO, BERNIE
SANDERS CAN TALK TO BLACK PEOPLE AFTER ALL? ONE BLACK PERSON SAYS HE CAN, AND
SHE LIKE SANDERS THINKS THAT ECONOMICS IS AT LEAST AS IMPORTANT AS SKIN COLOR
IN THE POSITION THAT SO MANY BLACK PEOPLE ARE STILL IN TODAY. WATCH THIS TED-X
TALK BY DR. TAYLOR -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyE5nI1nRJI.
“FROM #BLACKLIVESMATTER TO BLACK LIBERATION | KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR |”
Opinion
Don’t Think
Sanders Can Win? You Don’t Understand His Campaign
There was a
time in America when being called a socialist could end a political career. Not
anymore.
Dec. 10, 2019
By Keeanga-Yamahtta
Taylor
Dr. Taylor is
the author of “From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation.”
PHOTOGRAPH -- Christopher
Lee for The New York Times
As the
Democratic primary elections get closer, the party leadership has begun to fret
in public about universal health care and other ambitious proposals. Even
former President Barack Obama tried to assuage donors’ fears in November when
he said that the “average American” doesn’t think we need to “tear down the
system and remake it.” His comment captured the essence of tensions that
have roiled the party for months. Party elites believe focusing squarely on
President Trump’s record will end his presidency, while others counter that
the Democrats also have to champion bold policies.
The surprising
resilience of the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont vindicates the
latter approach. Mr. Sanders’s improbable rise to Democratic front-runner
began in 2015 when he organized his campaign for president around a
redistributive agenda of universal health care and free college, along with a
number of other progressive reforms. Party insiders dismissed this as fanciful
and out of touch, but Mr. Sanders aggressively challenged Hillary Clinton for
the nomination while picking up 13 million votes.
Mr. Sanders has
not diluted his message since then, but has instead recommitted to his
promises of “big government” socialist reforms — all the while pulling other
candidates to his side. Although Mr. Sanders grows in popularity, neither
the Democratic Party establishment nor the mainstream media really understand
his campaign. That’s because it disregards conventional wisdom in politics
today — tax cuts for the elite and corporations and public-private partnerships
to finance health care, education, housing and other public services.
After months of
predictions of its premature end, Bernie Sanders’s improbable run continues
its forward movement. In October, pundits and other election experts suggested
that perhaps Mr. Sanders should leave the race and throw his support to Senator
Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, in the wake of her rising poll numbers and
his heart attack. But doubts quickly gave way to excitement when Mr.
Sanders captured the coveted endorsement of Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.
She was soon joined by Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and
Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.
The spirited
endorsements of three-quarters of the so-called squad illustrates how Mr.
Sanders’s campaign has grown from 2016 when it was criticized for being too
white, too male and for underestimating the salience of race and gender
oppression. Some of that criticism was overstated. Indeed Mr. Sanders won
52 percent of the black millennial vote in 2016 and was supported by Black
Lives Matter activists like Erica Garner, who passed away in 2017. But Mr.
Sanders took the criticisms seriously anyway.
Much of the
media, though, has been stuck in 2016 and has missed the ways that the
Sanders campaign has transformed into a tribune of the oppressed and marginalized.
We can also measure this change in the endorsement of Philip Agnew, the
former head of the Florida-based Dream Defenders and a leader in the Black
Lives Matter movement who has become a campaign surrogate. As well as the
endorsement of the Center for Popular Democracy Action on Tuesday, a
powerful coalition of more than 40 progressive community groups which will now
rally their 600,000 members across the country to organize voters in support of
Mr. Sanders. These developments defy the caricature of his campaign as impossibly
sexist and implicitly racist.
Instead, Mr.
Sanders has reached the typically invisible, downwardly mobile working class
with his language of “class warfare.” He has tapped into the anger and
bitterness coursing through the lives of regular people who have found it
increasingly impossible to make ends meet in this grossly unequal society.
Without cynicism or the typical racist explanations that blame
African-Americans and Latino immigrants for their own financial hardship, Mr.
Sanders blames capitalism. His demands for a redistribution of wealth from the
top to the rest of society and universal, government-backed programs have
resonated with the forgotten residents of the country.
Since Mr.
Trump’s election, “class,” when it’s discussed at all, has been invoked for its
hazy power to chart Mr. Trump’s rise and potential fall. Recall the endless
analyses of poor and working-class white voters shortly after his election and
the few examinations of poor and working-class people of color. But the Sanders
campaign has become a powerful platform to amplify the experiences of this
multiracial contingent.
Under normal
circumstances, the multiracial working class is invisible. This has
meant its support for Mr. Sanders’s candidacy has been hard to register in the
mainstream coverage of the Democratic race. But these voters are crucial to
understanding the resilience of the Sanders campaign, which has been fueled by
small dollar donations from more than one million people, a feat none of his
opponents has matched. Remarkably, he also has at least 130,000 recurring
donors, some of whom make monthly contributions.
Adding to that,
Mr. Sanders is the top recipient for donations by teachers, farmers,
servers, social workers, retail workers, construction workers, truckers, nurses
and drivers as of September. He claims that his donors’ most common
employers are Starbucks, Amazon and Walmart, and the most common profession is
teaching. Mr. Sanders is also the leading recipient of donations from Latinos
as well as the most popular Democrat among registered Latinos who plan to vote
in the Nevada and California primaries. According to Essence magazine, Mr.
Sanders is the favorite candidate among black women aged 18 to 34. Only 49 percent
of his supporters are white, compared with 71 percent of Warren supporters.
Perhaps most surprising, more women under 45 support him than men under 45.
Mr. Sanders’s
popularity among these voters may be what alienates him within the political
establishment and mainstream media. The leadership of the Democratic Party
regularly preaches that moderation and pragmatism can appeal to “centrist”
Democrats as well as Republicans skeptical of Mr. Trump. It is remarkable
that this strategy still has legs after its spectacular failure for Hillary
Clinton in 2016.
Mrs. Clinton’s
rejoinder to Mr. Trump that “America never stopped being great” was tone deaf
to millions of ordinary Americans struggling with debt, police brutality and
pervasive inequality. Simply focusing on the boorishness of Mr. Trump or
offering watered-down versions of what has made Mr. Sanders a household name
will not motivate those who do not typically vote or angry voters who recoil at
the cynicism of calculating politicians.
In many
respects, Bernie Sanders’s standing in the Democratic Party field is shocking. After
all, the United States government spent more than half of the 20th century
locked in a Cold War against Soviet Communism. That an open and proud
socialist is tied with Ms. Warren for second place in the race speaks to the
mounting failures of free market capitalism to produce a decent life for a
growing number of people. There was a time in America when being called a
socialist could end a political career, but Bernie Sanders may ride that label
all the way to the White House.
This essay has
been updated to reflect news developments.
Related Links
Amid Bernie
Sanders’s ‘Resurgence,’ a Progressive Coalition Endorses Him Dec. 10, 2019
Keeanga-Yamahtta
Taylor (@KeeangaYamahtta) is an assistant professor of African-American studies
at Princeton.
The Times is
committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear
what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And
here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New
York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
READER COMMENTS
Tom Clark
Northern
Kentucky4h ago
Times Pick
Let’s not
overstate facts. Sen. Sanders did well in the 2016 Democratic primaries. But no
self-proclaimed socialist has run a nationwide campaign, much less won one. No
socialist has faced the onslaught of the 24-hour slime machine known as Fox
News screaming “socialist!” over and over and over. A Sanders candidacy comes
with many concerns.
Lilly
New Hampshire4h
ago
Times Pick
I paid $25,000
out of $60,000 in 2018 to healthcare and I didn’t get sick once. This is just
one indication of how sick the strip-mining what’s left of the middle class of
the USA is.
Bernie2020
T H Beyer
Toronto4h ago
Times Pick
This is a time
for calm not bold. There will be no luxury of
sweeping change
let alone trying to overcome labels this time around.
It's time for
Sanders to anoint a successor to grow the
movement he has
started. It is naive to nominate him.
In many
ways he inflicted uneccessary damage to
Hillary in the
primaries last time.
Geez, Democrats
get real with someone who will win!
Butch
Atlanta4h ago
Times Pick
To borrow from
the article's headline, if you think Sanders can win, you don't understand the
swing state voters.
Lisa Calef
Portland OR5h
ago
Times Pick
Well said, you.
Bernie can win because marginalized voters will swarm on Election Day and
broadside the low expectations and cynicism of the Democratic Party. I am so
ready for real change. I want to see my adult children never worry about health
care delivery again.
Joanna Stelling
New Jersey5h
ago
Times Pick
Great article.
I just donated to Bernie's campaign. I'm white, I have an easy retirement and I
worked at a white collar job my whole life, but I can't tolerate the
inequalities of this country anymore. It's going to kill us if we don't do
something about it.
V. Sharma, MD
Falls Church,
VA5h ago
Times Pick
Even though I
fancied myself a Warren/Pete guy, I took that Washington Post policy test and
realized I am basically in alignment with all his views. I think I'm a lot of
Gen X commenters here; there is just something admirable about his convictions
and he probably gets more credibility for not playing ball with the Democratic
establishment. And more importantly than anything; I'm starting to think he can
win
Dominic
Astoria, NY6h
ago
Times Pick
Bernie's
campaign gives a platform and a voice to Americans who are long marginalized
and long struggling. I also feel his candidacy is illuminating a generational
shift in our politics away from a corporatist, status quo politics and back to
a politics that is focused on programs and policies that improve the lives of
most Americans.
The middle
class is dying fast, and most younger people, and many communities of color,
have been hit hard by overwhelming income and wealth inequality, poor quality
jobs and wages, soaring costs of living, a barbaric and insatiably greedy
healthcare industry, and the increasing damage of climate change.
Unfortunately, many in the upper echelons of the DNC are still fixated with an
outdated and ineffective center-right, corporate, Wall Street mentality that
has infected and damaged our party since the 90's. They'd rather chase unicorn
Republican voters instead of rallying their base. Being anti-Trump is not
enough.
Bernie has the
passion, the integrity, the consistency, and the ability to address long
ignored systemic problems and also energize the base to come to the polls.
1blueheron
Wisconsin6h ago
Times Pick
Bernie has the
most integrity in terms of campaign financing, and his opposition to the Iraq
war. In a time when the GOP has made
post-truth culture their daily profession, this will matter to the American
public. It is not true that this economy
is "good." Nothing has been
done on health care costs. Each year,
those increases eat up my raise. This
economy is doing nothing but extracting the wealth from everyone, except the
elite. Sanders words will resonate with
the reality people are living, despite the facade that the GOP is painting.
Cindy Fordham
Lewisburg, PA6h
ago
Times Pick
I remember when
I was a junior high school student in the 1960s that public schools required
civics class. What I most remember from my experience taking that course was
the emphasis on the American middle class. The instructor telling us
emphatically that we were lucky to be given the opportunity of a higher
education and the freedom to pursue our dreams. I wasn't aware back then how
true that was. Bernie rings that same bell. America the great and free for all
and not just the wealthy. I believe in Bernie. I think he truly wants the
freedom and opportunity that America really stands for.
allseriousnessaside
Washington,
DC6h ago
Times Pick
A very
interesting and fresh analysis of where Sanders' support is coming from. The
splits between the candidates' strengths is fascinating. One would think Warren
and Sanders would be competing for progressives, but polls show Warren
competing more with Biden's voting bloc. Yet, Biden voters' preferred second
choice is Sanders.
And this
thought "Much of the media, though, has been stuck in 2016" is right
on target. It's a cheap shot to ask why Bernie isn't attracting nearly 50% of
the voters like he did last time around. You know, maybe it's a little tougher
when 20 candidates are splitting the vote.
But the
strength of the Democratic establishment is strong, it's entrenched and it
represents what are simply different types of politicians who rely on high
dollar personal and corporate donations and become beholden to the special
interests who helped put them in office.
If I had to
guess what's going to happen at the Convention, the first round won't result in
a winner and, in the 2nd round, the Superdelegates will throw their votes to
another centrist, most likely Biden if he remains a strong candidate,
regardless of whether Sanders comes in with the most delegates won. If that
happens, don't blame Sanders when a large segment of the potential Democratic
coalition sits this one out on election day.
Julie
Boise7h ago
Times Pick
Oooooh, that
was refreshing. I love that it was
written by an assistant professor of African American studies at
Princeton.
The beauty of
these times is that there is no right person to vote for other than someone who
isn't Donald Trump or his party followers.
Each one of the candidates will bring their strengths and their
weaknesses. If they create a cabinet of
people who balance their gifts and challenges, the country has a chance to
improve.
I long for a
country that is motivated by love, respect, and wisdom.
clint
istanbul7h ago
Times Pick
"Under
normal circumstances, the multiracial working class is invisible."
Exactly. If one assumes that this sad state of affairs isn't an accident, it's
easy to see why Bernie Sanders generates the most genuine excitement of any
candidate among his own uniquely diverse base and such loathing among those
whom he may replace.
Bernie Sanders
poses an existential threat to the stakeholders who have defined the Democratic
Party's agenda, if not its rhetoric, since the Clintons and the DLC hatched
"triangulation" in the 1990s. Since then, the party has tacked hard
to the right, with disastrous consequences financially, legislatively and so,
predictably enough, at the ballot box. If elected, Sanders would bring about a
sea change that shines a new light on the questionable legacies of Presidents
Clinton and Obama and perhaps engender a new electorate with enough faith in
the system to actually demand real change and organize to push for it. The
massive movement he has been building since 2015 will be viable and active
beyond 2020, regardless of who wins. I think that's what really scares the
Democratic elite. Nothing terrifies the politically cynical as much as
uncynically engaged voters.
Anne-Marie
Hislop
Chicago7h ago
Times Pick
Ok. I'm not a
Sanders supporter, but if his support is as broad and deep as you say it is,
then I guess we'll have a President-elect Sanders this time next year. So, why
worry about those you chose to call the "party elite" (surely a
smear) and what they think?
Christopher
Brooklyn7h ago
Times Pick
@Anne-Marie
Hislop
"Party
elite" is not a smear. It is an accurate description of the upper ranks of
the party who are closely connected to big donors, corporations and financial
institutions and consequently utterly hostile to Bernie.
We worry about
them because they have considerable power -- in the form of media ownership,
super-PACs, super-delgates, etc... -- to thwart the will of primary voters
and of the electorate in general.
Liz
Chicago7h ago
Times Pick
To understand
Bernie Sanders one has to realize that nothing he proposes doesn’t already
exist in some shape or form in Europe.
These policies
are not radical, Marxist, or unaffordable.
The vast
majority of Americans would be much better off in Bernie’s America, and the
upper middle class would trade in some take home pay for a more extensive
safety net.
**** ****
**** ****
Comments
Post a Comment