A single spark can start a prairie fire
Those of us who have any respect for Hillary know that her record is progressive. While some have come to believe that she is some kind of reactionary, the fact remains that all her stances were at worst mainstream Democrat and at best progressive. The attacks on her are mostly political.
There's no denying that Hillary is far more of a politician than Bernie, though on issues such as gun rights and the stealth bomber Bernie showed he too was capable of being a politician when necessary. There's no denying that Bernie is more progressive than Hillary, but by most measures she was a reliable progressive, and like it or not, people like Kennedy, Kerry, Gore, and even FDR had strong ties and support from Wall Street. There's no denying that Bernie is one of the rare ethical and honest politicians, but Hillary is not the corrupt liar that political campaigns make her out to be. She overall has an honest record, even if you disagree with some of her choices or dislike the way she and her husband went from middle class to almost as wealthy as Gore and Kerry.
But, even though she is a little to the right of Bernie maybe she would be the better choice if we want real change.
When Obama got elected, he also helped sweep in a Democratic Congress. During those two years, major legislation was passed. The Stimulus Bill, which created tens of thousands of blue collar jobs, invested heavily in renewable energy, put 100s of billions of dollars into healthcare and education, and so much more was like nothing we had seen since the New Deal. Healthcare reform, a dream of Democrats since at least the early 1970s, came to fruition in a tough battle where every single Republican voted against it, and the Democrats were forced to woo their conservative Blue Dog Democrats. Many smaller bills were passed, such as The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. It was an awesome two years.
But, then in 2010 everyone stayed home, especially the millennials. In both 2010 and 2014, only 20% of millennials voted and in 2014, they voted Democratic by only a 54 to 43% margin. Needless to say Republicans gained control, and Obama was forced to govern from the center and act alone to get anything at all progressive done.
I think that if Sanders gets elected, there's the risk that the same thing that happened with Obama will happen again -- a large part of the anti-establishment movement will be co-opted or will feel it's achieved its aim and largely disband.
But, what happens if the election is between Trump and Hillary and Hillary wins? The anti-establishment movement will certainly not be satisfied. You have the millennials who have no love of the establishment, even if they vote for Hillary, and you have the Trump supporters who feel the same way. Doesn't this lay the groundwork for a real political revolution? If Hillary wins and the movement remains strong, it may become something we haven't seen since the era of the great labor movements and great civil rights movements.
Mao Tse Tung said, "A single spark can start a prairie fire." Well, in Bernie and Trump we have two sparks. If they both lose, that may be enough to start a real political revolution, one that is run by the people, not the institutions of power.
Given that Bernie is among the most ethical presidential candidates in history, my guess is Bernie will not do what's best for him or even for the Democratic Party, but will do what's best for the social movement he's helped inspire. My guess is that he will negotiate soon with Hillary to secure some gains, do what he can to get his supporters to vote for Hillary, and figure out a way to keep his movement alive. If he does, then the Trump supporters will be able to come left to continue their own revolution, and the White House and Congress will be kept on notice.
= new reply since forum marked as read
[/img]
