DNC Unity Tour: Bernies Rightward Journey

[Sentinel]

Bernie’s journey from tragedy to farce recently took the form of a road trip through nine states together with the new DNC chair and former Labor Secretary, Tom Perez. Like all establishment politicians, Perez speaks only in the evasive language of meaningless banalities—that and a few words of embarrassingly broken Spanish. During the primaries, he personally assured the Clinton campaign he would “put a fork into” Sanders’ Latino support, and cynically encouraged Clinton to go after Sanders by casting him as the candidate of “angry white men” who was out of touch with minorities.

During the race for DNC chair, Bernie supported Keith Ellison against Perez. Widely seen as the “progressive” candidate, and an early supporter of the Sanders campaign, Ellison is among those who recognize the need for a leftward posture in the aftermath of 2016. But the Democrats chose Perez, and Sanders fell in line—again.

Given the vacuum and lack of alternatives, Sanders could still play a role in upending US politics. But he appears to have decisively answered the question, “what will Bernie do?” As long as he continues to work with the Democrats, he is helping to preserve the two-party system and the rule of capital. 2016 revealed the extent to which the two parties of capitalism have destroyed their legitimacy. The potential for the emergence of a new mass party that would radically transform the political landscape is closer than ever, but it must be based on a program of open class struggle against capitalism if it is to do more than simply let off steam.
https://www.marxist.com/dnc-unity-tour-bernie-s-rightward-journey.htm

After the elections, where the Democratic establishment sabotaged the run of Bernie Sanders - the candidate who likely would not have beat Trump - there is a huge thirst for a new political formation to break with the US two-party system. The capitalist crisis has made he formation of a US mass workers' party not only desirable but absolutely necessary.

The movement behind Sanders, who called himself a 'democratic socialist' and had slogans such as 'revolution against the bilionaire class' was in only the latest incarnation of a reawakened US left, which had already tried it's wings in several movements since the start of the crisis in 2008, such as the 2011 Wisconsin protests, Occupy etc.

In times of crisis the masses of workers move dialectically, looking for a way out, testing new options, and Sanders' popularity was/is a schoolbook example. There is polarisation both to the left and to the right, and in a way also the rise of Trump was a reflection of this phenomenon. Neither right wing populists or left reformists can offer a solution, as those that rallied behind Trump will bitterly learn.

The difference with left reformism is that it may turn into a revolutionary mass movement at the inevitable failure of the reformist leadership. But before a mass revolutionary consciousness exists, such a reformist leadership usually needs to form.

Bernie, while still the single most popular US politician according to polls, seems to stubbornly refuse this role. What do people think is the way forward to channel the masses yearning for a new kind of politics to the left? Could the DSA be an embryo of a new mass party of labour?

[Jimmie Higgins]

The DSA is growing rapidly--and the lack of established branches or seasoned members compared to new members and chapters probably means that to some degree politics are not set and quite dynamic from branch to branch.

Most members are likely more Bernie-style labor-progressive but there is definitely a left-wing as well. But as far as I can tell, it seems like both wings are set on strategy around the Democratic Party. The is the de-fault for labor, progressives, etc in the US... so this might not be fully settled among these DSA supporters, just a default "common sense" starting-point or lowest common denominator.

But I think the Democratic Party is also the biggest hurdle to overcome... if even only in terms of them creating a reformist dem-socialist movement.

[willowtooth]

I dont really understand the hype around bernie sanders, he has been senator for years Bernie was already mayor of the capitol of Vermont while Obama was still an undergrad. People were searching for someone further to the left to fulfill all the promises of Obama, universal healthcare, free college, a large public works program, none of which was denounced by the democrats. I also find the claim of hillary clinton "conspiring with the establishment" to put herself in power, to be a ridiculous charge with no evidence that not even Sanders himself supports. It's just as ridiculous as the claim that he might've have won. Clinton won the primary in the south and in virtually all the states that voted for Trump, any right winger that tells you he might've voted for bernie sanders but instead voted for Trump is full of shit and is only saying so to avoid criticism for supporting the indefensible children's clown that is Trump, and pass the blame on to some ridiculous conspiracy theory that the democratic "establishment" rigged the election.

Yes the people who were screaming "build the wall", were just an inch away from supporting the jewish/atheist socialist, the same people who can't decide if Hitler was a socialist or if he did nothing wrong. The people who's only problem with Wall st is that its full of Jews, yes they were totally going to vote for sanders, the people that until recently were called the taxed enough already party, despite Americans having the lowest tax bill in history. Yes they were going to vote for high taxes and welfare spending. The people who spit on Syrian orphans, then cheer when their country is bombed to "save them" from Assad. Yes they were going to vote for sanders they just needed to spraypaint a few more swatikas first lol

Bernie Sanders himself is a 75 year old relic its a miracle he hasn't slipped into dementia or died due to natural causes. The fact that there wasn't a candidate running under 65 tells you something about the electorate, the election was like an aged baby boomer retirement home election for club president. What they still haven't done is show us who the next generation of democrats will be, who is behind Sanders or Clinton. Who will they run in 4 years? I honestly wonder if the plan is to trot out Clinton until she's 100?

One glass ceiling that was shattered with Trump was the idea that someone who's had zero experience as an elected official, or the military can be elected. Elon Musk once said he would love to run for president, but didn't think someone from outside government could. The field is open for a billionaire, a famous author, artist or even a singer...

...So I'm supporting a Kanye West/Beyonce ticket for 2020:)

[Sentinel]

I dont really understand the hype around bernie sanders, he has been senator for years Bernie was already mayor of the capitol of Vermont while Obama was still an undergrad. People were searching for someone further to the left to fulfill all the promises of Obama, universal healthcare, free college, a large public works program, none of which was denounced by the democrats.

Obama was a disappointment and eye opener for many who had believed in him. As dialectical materialism teaches us, people during a time of capitalist crisis, when they get desillusioned with the establishment, start looking for alternatives. But they will always first look for the 'path of least resistance', the easiest solutions as close to what is familiar and safe, as possible. This is why Bernie managed, with his radical phraseology - words like socialism and revolution - to garner the amount of support he did.

This doesn't necessarily relate to his actual merits, and clearly it has since been proven that he isn't willing to challenge the establishment. But the masses only learn by experience, and every generation must go through the same school. Now, but not before, they are ready to listen to actually radical people if they pose a credible alternative.


I also find the claim of hillary clinton "conspiring with the establishment" to put herself in power, to be a ridiculous charge with no evidence that not even Sanders himself supports.

Well, as the article says, Wikileaks did release the emails confirming that the DNC conspired 'to stick a knife in him'. Moreover I seem to recall that there were also inconsistencies in the counting of the votes in the primaries. But perhaps someone from the US remembers the details around all this better than I do. Most of the superdelegates (democratic establishment) voted against him, which seems to prove he wasn't very popular among the party high ups.

However the case, I don't think it is incredible at all that the leadership of a fundamentally capitalist party would find even someone like Sanders, on European scale not very left wing at all despite his rhetoric, too left wing and do all in their power to stop him. On the contrary it seems self-evident.

The reason Sanders doesn't support the claims, of course is that he just isn't prepared to break with the democrats, that is as far as his socialism goes.


It's just as ridiculous as the claim that he might've have won.

It is confirmed by opinion polls that Sanders would have gotten a better result against Trump than Clinton. Now, polls can't be trusted to 100%, of course, but I think it is quite obvious that this would have been the case, seeing the hatred against Clinton for years on the utmost right wing of the party, her role in orchestrating wars abroad etc. She was regarded as the embodiment of the establshiment, while Bernies rhetoric (different than merits) sent another message.


Clinton won the primary in the south and in virtually all the states that voted for Trump, any right winger that tells you he might've voted for bernie sanders but instead voted for Trump is full of shit and is only saying so to avoid criticism for supporting the indefensible children's clown that is Trump, and pass the blame on to some ridiculous conspiracy theory that the democratic "establishment" rigged the election.

Yes the people who were screaming "build the wall", were just an inch away from supporting the jewish/atheist socialist, the same people who can't decide if Hitler was a socialist or if he did nothing wrong. The people who's only problem with Wall st is that its full of Jews, yes they were totally going to vote for sanders, the people that until recently were called the taxed enough already party, despite Americans having the lowest tax bill in history. Yes they were going to vote for high taxes and welfare spending. The people who spit on Syrian orphans, then cheer when their country is bombed to "save them" from Assad. Yes they were going to vote for sanders they just needed to spraypaint a few more swatikas first lol


Yes, convinced bigots, who voted for Trump - of which there no doubt were way too many for comfort - would not have voted Sanders. But firstly, not all voted for him due to being racist. I know shitloads of people who want to be my friends at work etc, who have no problem with me being gay. Still they are prepared to throw me and other gays under the bus and vote for the Sweden Democrats, who oppose gay rights as they buy their lies about being against the establishment (or because they are racist, but not all of them are).

People are not consistent, especially not people who are prepared to vote for right wing populists. Lots of people voted for Trump for his promises about economic protectionism, to build up the industries in the US again, or because they wanted to cast a protest vote against the establishment, even throwing minorities and women under the bus but without being convinced racists, sexists or homophobes. That's how it goes unfortunately.

This is why we often see far right populists lose their support when they reveal themselves as perpetuators of capitalism after gaining power - and then the pendulum swinging the other way when a serious alternative comes from the left. Sharp turns to the right and to the left are typical to times of crisis.

But, and this is the most important thing: it doesn't have to be the same people that voted for Trump that would have voted for Sanders, at all. About half of the electorate did not vote, many because they could not support either candidate. The amount of votes for the democrats sunk significantly compared to the last elections, while the republican vote was much more stagnant. It is these from these people, and people who have given up voting long time ago due to the lack of alternatives most of Bernies support agaisnt Trurmp would have come, and that could have made him win.


Bernie Sanders himself is a 75 year old relic its a miracle he hasn't slipped into dementia or died due to natural causes. The fact that there wasn't a candidate running under 65 tells you something about the electorate, the election was like an aged baby boomer retirement home election for club president. What they still haven't done is show us who the next generation of democrats will be, who is behind Sanders or Clinton. Who will they run in 4 years? I honestly wonder if the plan is to trot out Clinton until she's 100?

One glass ceiling that was shattered with Trump was the idea that someone who's had zero experience as an elected official, or the military can be elected. Elon Musk once said he would love to run for president, but didn't think someone from outside government could. The field is open for a billionaire, a famous author, artist or even a singer...

...So I'm supporting a Kanye West/Beyonce ticket for 2020:)

I have no doubt Clinton might run again. But fundamentally, I think the democratic ticket is a dead end. A labour party needs to be formed, and chances are this will happen due to Bernies betrayal. I hear the DSA is promising, but it will be a complicated process and time is short. However, as the saying goes, there are decades when nothing happens, and weeks when decades happen.

In Europe we are already used to seeing mass parties of the left (and unfortunately the far right) spring up from nowhere in notime, and it can go faster than we think in the US as well, especially with someone like Trump in power - see my other thread about his tax reforms package and it's potential effects.

[willowtooth]

Well, as the article says, Wikileaks did release the emails confirming that the DNC conspired 'to stick a knife in him'. Moreover I seem to recall that there were also inconsistencies in the counting of the votes in the primaries. But perhaps someone from the US remembers the details around all this better than I do. Most of the superdelegates (democratic establishment) voted against him, which seems to prove he wasn't very popular among the party high ups.Wikileaks also says that Hillary Clinton is in charge of monitoring all the aliens from outer space, none of those emails were credible and most of them came out of disinformation centers in Moldova. If we were to go by the wikileaks emails hillary clinton is a comic book super villain who controls an army of assassins and can travel through time.


However the case, I don't think it is incredible at all that the leadership of a fundamentally capitalist party would find even someone like Sanders, on European scale not very left wing at all despite his rhetoric, too left wing and do all in their power to stop him. On the contrary it seems self-evident.

The reason Sanders doesn't support the claims, of course is that he just isn't prepared to break with the democrats, that is as far as his socialism goes.
No sanders was actually an independent for many years, it wasn't until 2005 that he officially became a democrat, he has no real ties to the democrats, Thats why i found the debates between him and hillary clinton to be so unbearable to watch they were like copycat figures of eachother, Bernie calls himself a socialist, but thats about it. Their proposals, the issues their concerned with, even their voting records are practically identical. I really dont think he said one thing that truly separated himself from hillary clinton (or socialists from liberals). He just sort of repeated over and over these economic statistics about income inequality, tax laws, prisoner stats and that was it, his proposals weren't that impressive, I think his most radical economic reform was to tax investment speculation to pay for free college, which is not all that left wing. Tennesee a red state recently became the first state to provide free 2 year college. He didn't say abolish the money system, he didn't even say nationalize all the banks.



It is confirmed by opinion polls that Sanders would have gotten a better result against Trump than Clinton. Now, polls can't be trusted to 100%, of course, but I think it is quite obvious that this would have been the case, seeing the hatred against Clinton for years on the utmost right wing of the party, her role in orchestrating wars abroad etc. She was regarded as the embodiment of the establshiment, while Bernies rhetoric (different than merits) sent another message.


this underestimates the propaganda department of the american right wing he wouldve been a communist, sharia law loving, baby eater by the time fox news was through with him



Yes, convinced bigots, who voted for Trump - of which there no doubt were way too many for comfort - would not have voted Sanders. But firstly, not all voted for him due to being racist. I know shitloads of people who want to be my friends at work etc, who have no problem with me being gay. Still they are prepared to throw me and other gays under the bus and vote for the Sweden Democrats, who oppose gay rights as they buy their lies about being against the establishment (or because they are racist, but not all of them are).


well thats sort of like saying you know alot of people who aren't racist they just wouldn't let their kids date outside their race. ignoring discrimination or saying "it's not your problem" is a form of discrimination. I'm sure plenty of germans didn't hate jews they just simply didn't care about them


People are not consistent, especially not people who are prepared to vote for right wing populists. Lots of people voted for Trump for his promises about economic protectionism, to build up the industries in the US again, or because they wanted to cast a protest vote against the establishment, even throwing minorities and women under the bus but without being convinced racists, sexists or homophobes. That's how it goes unfortunately.i dont know if "convinced" is the right word here, "active" maybe or "violent" might be a better word


This is why we often see far right populists lose their support when they reveal themselves as perpetuators of capitalism after gaining power - and then the pendulum swinging the other way when a serious alternative comes from the left. Sharp turns to the right and to the left are typical to times of crisis.

But, and this is the most important thing: it doesn't have to be the same people that voted for Trump that would have voted for Sanders, at all. About half of the electorate did not vote, many because they could not support either candidate. The amount of votes for the democrats sunk significantly compared to the last elections, while the republican vote was much more stagnant. It is these from these people, and people who have given up voting long time ago due to the lack of alternatives most of Bernies support agaisnt Trurmp would have come, and that could have made him win.

I agree with this in fact I think a far left radical could win majority support, maybe not corporate sponsorship though. For example, one thing I thought Obama should have pushed for was universal healthcare, instead of this ACA provisional medicare expansion. Since people turned it into universal healthcare in the right wing press anyway, and they wouldve fought against just as hard if it was universal healthcare, in fact many still think it is universal healthcare, and now they are talking about dismantling it anyway. So now we have to start universal healthcare initiatives again from the beginning, like its 1964. Now if obama had pushed universal healthcare and failed we would be in the exact same position. except the majority of people would be educated in what universal healthcare is, regardless if congress passed it.

Same goes for the election they need to push further to the left, but unfortunately american politics is more about winning for team red and team blue than governing


I have no doubt Clinton might run again.*shivers*


But fundamentally, I think the democratic ticket is a dead end. A labour party needs to be formed, and chances are this will happen due to Bernies betrayal. I hear the DSA is promising, but it will be a complicated process and time is short. However, as the saying goes, there are decades when nothing happens, and weeks when decades happen.

In Europe we are already used to seeing mass parties of the left (and unfortunately the far right) spring up from nowhere in notime, and it can go faster than we think in the US as well, especially with someone like Trump in power - see my other thread about his tax reforms package and it's potential effects.not in America the Democrats are the worlds oldest continuously running political party, the republican are over 150 years old as well. We've seen random 3rd parties pop up every now and then but they rarely get over 5% of the vote. The last 3rd party to win a major election was when the republicans were created, and we had a civil war right after

[Jimmie Higgins]

I did not support Sanders (mostly on the grounds of his connection to the Democratic Party), and am generally skeptical about electoral efforts, but I don't think the campaign is irrelevant or should be dismissed by revolutionaries in the US.

But just on the DNC leaks... Established figures lost their positions over things that came out as (symbolic) sacrificial lambs for the DNC. The DNC did not disown the leaks, they minimized them and instead used them to try and beat the war drums with xenophobia against Russia. Mad Albright said on the DNC stage "you can't trust Russians" not Putin (which would be sound advice even if Albright should get as much lack of trust) but Russians in general! This xenophobia was part of the Clinton campaign's openly stated strategy of going right on national security to capture "traditional Republicans" who they thought were disgusted by Trump. Clinton supporters at the convention were coached to chant "u-s-a, u-s-a" directly against Sanders supporters chants of "no more wars".

Even now they attack Trump on cold-war grounds and xenophobic arguments rather than actually opposing his racism and sexism.

The leaks, the way the party reacted to Sanders is not really speculative. It is documented not not in dispute. They only speculative part for the left IMO is how much of this was just "hard campaigning" and buerocratic favoritism vs how much was an actual fear within the DNC of an ideological erosion of support for centrist neoliberal politics among party supporters/voters.

I don't know the answer to this... it's likely some mixture of both. But it is pretty leading when you consider that both of the major parties had party establishments openly agonize about their lack of control over a process that's generally as choreographed and politically deep as a Super Bowl halftime show. In addition Trump, congress and the DNC are unprecedentedly unpopular in opinion polls.

Washington has been in an imperial holding pattern more or less since 2003 when the dream of regime-change empire stalled. It's been in a political impasse since the recession. This has resulted in polarization and a low-temp political crisis... what's missing is that no other social force has been in a position to push ahead on its own. So middle class petty-owners and regional millionaire big-wigs are stirring but unable to achieve much while predictably flailing towards some kind of fascism. Meanwhile small sparks of class resistance have flared and disappeared here and there... not quite hot enough to generalize or catch some dry brush.

This is the more relevant question about the election for US leftists: what is the level of polarization, what would be possible if a phenomena like the Sanders campaign was independent of the Democratic Party and took on more than just electoral activism?

[willowtooth]

I did not support Sanders (mostly on the grounds of his connection to the Democratic Party), and am generally skeptical about electoral efforts, but I don't think the campaign is irrelevant or should be dismissed by revolutionaries in the US.

But just on the DNC leaks... Established figures lost their positions over things that came out as (symbolic) sacrificial lambs for the DNC. The DNC did not disown the leaks, they minimized them and instead used them to try and beat the war drums with xenophobia against Russia. Mad Albright said on the DNC stage "you can't trust Russians" not Putin (which would be sound advice even if Albright should get as much lack of trust) but Russians in general! This xenophobia was part of the Clinton campaign's openly stated strategy of going right on national security to capture "traditional Republicans" who they thought were disgusted by Trump. Clinton supporters at the convention were coached to chant "u-s-a, u-s-a" directly against Sanders supporters chants of "no more wars".

Even now they attack Trump on cold-war grounds and xenophobic arguments rather than actually opposing his racism and sexism.Thats what they wanted to hear, did you know that there was a hit campaign against bernie sanders spending his honeymoon in the USSR? Did you know that Hillary's connection to Saul Alinsky was going to be major part of attack ads against her. To go from that to the current president of Russia actively supporting Trump just completely deafened any kind of "hillary is a secret communist" rhetoric like they did with Obama, like they wouldve gone crazy with if Bernie sanders had won. The baby boomers are old, they are the deciding age group in the electorate, socialism is a 4 letter word, and they are terrified of the Russians. And after all these accusations against Putin are facts, while it might have been tactically bad for Clinton herself to speak about it because russians equals USSR equals leftists, so telling people to fear the russians is like saying be afraid of the left but the overall message was true and was spread by journalists, activists, even republicans themselves. honestly it was so perfect I struggle to find something more hilarious and ironic, maybe if Trump went to boarding school with osama bin laden that would probably be the only thing funnier

And now they are trying to get an impeachment out of it, the FBI director got fired the other day


The leaks, the way the party reacted to Sanders is not really speculative. It is documented not not in dispute. They only speculative part for the left IMO is how much of this was just "hard campaigning" and buerocratic favoritism vs how much was an actual fear within the DNC of an ideological erosion of support for centrist neoliberal politics among party supporters/voters.That's how the party operates? It's private party they legally dont have to let anyone vote in the primary, some people supported Clinton some people supported sanders. There were caucuses that were being decided by literal coin flips. It was a close race, but that doesn't mean millions of democrats didn't prefer Clinton, she was extremely popular especially among women. If Martin O'malley had gotten the nomination and nobody could say why except for some backdoor decisions then these claims might be valid, but even Sanders will tell you he lost fairly, and he's probably hanging out at hillary clinton's beach house right now.


I don't know the answer to this... it's likely some mixture of both. But it is pretty leading when you consider that both of the major parties had party establishments openly agonize about their lack of control over a process that's generally as choreographed and politically deep as a Super Bowl halftime show. In addition Trump, congress and the DNC are unprecedentedly unpopular in opinion polls.

Washington has been in an imperial holding pattern more or less since 2003 when the dream of regime-change empire stalled. It's been in a political impasse since the recession. This has resulted in polarization and a low-temp political crisis... what's missing is that no other social force has been in a position to push ahead on its own. So middle class petty-owners and regional millionaire big-wigs are stirring but unable to achieve much while predictably flailing towards some kind of fascism. Meanwhile small sparks of class resistance have flared and disappeared here and there... not quite hot enough to generalize or catch some dry brush.

This is the more relevant question about the election for US leftists: what is the level of polarization, what would be possible if a phenomena like the Sanders campaign was independent of the Democratic Party and took on more than just electoral activism?81% of Americans are in the services industry, so how can a bunch of people's whose job is to be as polite as possible all day lead a revolution? lol I actually think a small party that focuses in elections that get decided by the democrat primary rather then the election, could lead to a successful leftist third party, governors mayors city councils etc but it would have to support the democrats in general elections, instead of leading of these cult campaigns based solely on a single personality becoming president

people are actually talking about your senator Kamala Harris for president in 2020 what do you think of her?

[ckaihatsu]

81% of Americans are in the services industry, so how can a bunch of people's whose job is to be as polite as possible all day lead a revolution? lol


It would be a very *polite* revolution of violent services. (grin)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Frankly why not service workers in the US?

The last working class general strike started with a yearlong picket by women working in department stores in the 40s.

Service workers have varying levels of power in terms of the functioning of capital... some can stop or control vital functions, others just facilitate retail or whatnot.

But they are still a link in the chain -- some more connected with facilitating production other with potentially interesting connections within the functioning of physical working class communities. Add to that the racism and sexism intertwined with the past and present development of low-wage service labor pools and it seems to me that the realities of services workers are a volatile mix with a huge amount of potential in 21st century America.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Sanders has been moving to the right since the 1990s.