Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumChris Hedges and Ralph Nader on the Complicity of Bernie Sanders
Not left enough for many on the actual left.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_chris_hedges_and_ralph_nader_on_the_bernie_sanders_set-up_20151110
Well, Bernie Sanders has been around a long time, says Nader, whose latest books include Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State and Return to Sender: Unanswered Letters to the President, 2001-2015. He can see beyond the next hill, or around the next corner. I think I know what his game plan is. Basically, he wants to arouse public opinion in a progressive manner, domestically. Hes got real problems with military and foreign policy positions that he has not taken, progressively. But he wants to build progressive public opinion so that it pulls the Democratic party a little bit. But he doesnt want to do this in any way that can take a vote away from the nominee, if you say, Hillary Clinton.
So, hes lost his bargaining power electorally, when he said hell endorse the Democratic nominee five months ago. Without saying it depends on who it is, he would have had some bargaining power. So, hes finished in terms of any electoral dynamics when the primary season is over.
Do you have a theory as to why? Hedges asks.
Yeah, but his job now, as he sees it, is to mobilize and focus the enthusiasm of progressive-minded people but heres where the contradiction is, Nader explains. If you dont go into the political arena to win and you gotta go after the leader in the polls, Hillary Clinton, you dont have to do it nastily, but shes very vulnerable. A militarist, a Wall Street corporatist, the worst on her record. ... Heres the contradiction Chris, if he doesnt go electorally in a serious way to win, then [Bernie Sanders] is setting up millions of Americans, and young Americans, for a huge morale collapse. When in April or May he appears on the stage with Hillary Clinton, if shes the nominee and the winner of the primary and he endorses her. And then, he is folded into the whole Clinton War-Wall Street machine, and he goes back to the Senate as a hero. He has a little more influence in the Senate. Maybe he gets two senators to sign on to his single-payer bill. He couldnt get one other senator to sign on to his single-payer bill. He has a huge mailing list. And he continues on his merry way.
Sanders should not endorse Clinton unless she endorses his agenda publicly, Nader explains.If he doesnt do that, hes gonna go down as a total wimp, as a totally complicit person with the subsequent crimes of the Hillary Clinton administration, he adds.
For Naders take on the reasons why a third party will never succeed in American politics and why the Obama administration really rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline, watch the full video below:
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)however, I completely disagree with his take on the electability of Senator Sanders.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Whether they're on the left, and angry about it, or on the right (end of the party) and counting on it. His endorsement isn't going to transfer the new people he's energizing. They've SEEN Clinton with their own eyes. They know the differences, and they weren't energized by her. And the boogeyman approach has been played too often. A 7-2 Supreme Court is bad, but in terms of winning cases, it's not really different than a 5-4 Supreme Court. Sanders followers want what he offers, they're not for him because they're 'scared of Republicans'. Sure, they know Republicans will suck worse, but if the choice is suck or suck worse, they don't want to be a part of making things suck at all.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat...
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Especially considering Bernie's age. Nader has to be wrong on this, completely wrong.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Nader was real fuckin' effective in 2000.
Screw that guy.
Hedges is a plagiarist, so i'll just assume everything he says here he took from Nader, too.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Nader says that Sanders has "lost his bargaining power electorally, when he said hell endorse the Democratic nominee five months ago."
Is Nader under the impression that he, Nader, following his much more brilliant and strategic course, had oodles of bargaining power? If so, with whom?
Nader made multiple runs for the Presidency. He ran in 1996, coming in fourth, thus at least establishing that he wasn't making empty threats about running. Apparently, though, he didn't have enough bargaining power to get anywhere, so he ran again in 2000, coming in third. In the eyes of many Democrats, his candidacy was one of the factors that put Bush in the White House. (Hey, Naderites, please don't start with the Gore-didn't-carry-Tennessee and Lieberman-was-bad and thousands-of-Florida-Democrats-voted-for-Bush and all the rest of it. Your hero just undercut you. The whole "bargaining power" argument here rests on the idea that you can threaten to run third party, and by that threat you can extract concessions, because the Democrats will fear that your "spoiler" candidacy will result in the inauguration of a Republican.)
Now, surely, that must have meant big-time bargaining power, right? Nader had demonstrated that he could break one percent in the vote, indeed could even break two percent, and could hurt the Democrats. Wow, he must have been in the catbird seat!
Well, apparently not, because he ran again in 2004. As far as I can tell, all his supposed bargaining power got him exactly nothing. Maybe he should face the facts -- the main fact being that Bernie is right.
merrily
(45,251 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)is conditional is called not supporting your party. Right or wrong, that's what it is (not).
I don't think Nader's any mind reader or great politician, either. His interview above really rubs me the wrong way.
And no I don't blame him for Bush v Gore. I just don't like and don't agree with the above.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)I'm not going to do a Zombie vote...since we've had our share of crooks and criminals.
And that Bernie is pulling "her" a LITTLE bit to the Left? Hell, we need a tow truck to drag her back to the left, since she had gone too far Right.
Nader has always bugged the shit out of me.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)because any other outcome will be a death knell for the American People, all of them.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)We're all boiling a degree at a time, and we need to elect a guy who sees that our very survival depends upon turning off the burners.
appalachiablue
(41,171 posts)Irreversible climate change danger is dead ahead.
artislife
(9,497 posts)The next 100 years, people. The next 100 years.
No one will give a crap if there was a woman president or two African American males elected one after the other if the climate continues to go to HELL.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)what a visual!
mother earth
(6,002 posts)Hedges. I love Bernie Sanders, and from what I do know the criticism he's getting from these two stem partially from the fact that he didn't run as a third party candidate (Hedges), which they have a point in one respect, but I also respect Bernie's choice to run as a dem. Regardless of what they think, or what we think, one thing is certain. We absolutely need to get Bernie elected, but none of us here know for certain if that will happen, so we have to look beyond that.
The big thing and the only reason I bother to respond in this thread, is the fact that the beginning of a social movement IS underway. There's no denying it. Bernie is our beginning, but whether he gets elected or not, we can't stop here, and it won't. So, let's not throw stones at these two incredible men who are catalysts for change, a rarity these days. Let's embrace their way of thinking, along with our understanding and embracement of Bernie's platform & realize we are on the cusp of what may very well be a real social movement that is only beginning. You can't see an era, until it becomes historic.
Having said that, it doesn't take away one whit from this campaign for Bernie Sanders, the President we absolutely need. We haven't gone left nearly enough, no argument there, step by step, people. Don't kill the messenger, we're building from all of these pushes.
I also believe any party unity meme needs to come after the election, NOT BEFORE, then and only then, because it is self-serving for HRC and self-defeating for Bernie, and we may NEVER be at the point to turn any support over to HRC, we're here to attain victory, furthermore, in the end it will lie with each individual to follow their heart on that decision, if there's ever the need. (Note to admins: not calling for anything either way, just for the sake of clarity...)
One thing I know with certainty, all of our greatest minds, Chomsky, Hedges, Wolff, & BERNIE, etc., are all sounding the alarms and saying the same things, for damned good reason.
(Editing to add: I do think Bernie entered the race, never thinking he'd get this kind of support, so there's that. His resounding success in reaching hearts & minds is yet another indication of the power that's awakening in people. Either way, the force within is growing, about damn time. What happens next? If we win, we win, it grows. If we lose, the wave grows. We might see discontent grow that wave to unfathomable proportions.)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The "movement "did not begin with Bernie.
It began with Code Pink and OWS.
....but the "movement" didn't really begin with them either.
It began with our great uncles and great Grandfathers demanding Worker Rights,
and shedding blood to get them.
Its ALL the SAME movement. It may wax & wane, but it is a movement based on fairness for the 99%.
Woodie is still with us, and Bernie, and OWS.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)Response to bvar22 (Reply #19)
mother earth This message was self-deleted by its author.
Festivito
(13,452 posts)...over fear of being called a total wimp because Bernie would not be as powerful as he could have been.
I think Nader has a disconnect in his logic that he misses now and missed in 2000.
olddots
(10,237 posts)Thanks for my seat belts in my car now stay out of politics .
swilton
(5,069 posts)both narcissists and divas. Bernie has stolen their show and run a campaign more successfully...pure jealousy.