Sanders Annoys Democratic
Establishment
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/11/sanders-annoys-democratic-establishment/
By Rick Sterling
When Republicans are in the
White House, columnist Paul Krugman and The New York Times sometimes sound
pretty good. But when someone starts seriously and effectively challenging core
assumptions and values of our political economic system, the progressive veneer
quickly vanishes. This is demonstrated in Paul Krugman’s attack on the Bernie
Sanders campaign in his “Sanders Over the Edge” editorial.
Krugman does not hold back.
Bernie supporters and Bernie himself are described by Krugman as intolerant,
cultish, shallow, vague, without substance, lacking character and values,
dishonest, short on ethics, really bad, petulant and self-righteous. Wow.
Krugman’s diatribe deserves
scrutiny and lampooning. The purpose seems to be to ridicule, threaten and warn
Sanders to get back in line. Instead, progressives may intensify their support
for Sanders and tell Krugman to get his facts straight. Here are some key
falsehoods in the Krugman attack:
Krugman dismisses Sanders’
call to “break up the big banks” and suggests the financial giants did not
cause the economic crash; the problem was “predatory lending” by smaller
outfits such as Countrywide Financial. This analysis is nonsense and
contradicts what Krugman himself has said in the past. The predatory lenders
were minor players in the process. The loans would never have been issued if
they were not being bought up and bundled together into collateral debt
obligations (CDOs) and other “products” by major financial institutions such as
Goldman Sachs. They were the ones driving the operation not the individual
lenders.
Krugman goes on to claim
Sanders does not have any specific proposals and that “going on about big banks
is pretty much all Mr. Sanders has done” and “absence of substance beyond
slogans seems to be true of his positions across the board.” This is untrue,
easily confirmed by looking at the Sanders website.
Sanders has called for a tax on Wall Street speculation/trading, dramatic
changes in the tax code, increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour, canceling
detrimental trade accords and imposing individual penalties for corporate
crime. These are clear and specific with similar details in virtually every policy
area.
Krugman claims Sanders and
supporters were ‘just plain dishonest’ when they accused Clinton of receiving
substantial funding from the fossil fuel industry. Krugman relies on the
establishment “fact checks” of the Times, The Washington Post and NPR. However
those “fact checks” have been refuted
by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting which confirms that Clinton did in fact
receive substantial funding as claimed by Sanders. The FAIR title gives the
essence: “NPR Fact Checker can’t be bothered to check.”
Krugman gets really worked up
because Sanders issued a “rant” suggesting Mrs. Clinton may not be “qualified”
to be President after taking so much funding from Wall Street and supporting
recent and past U.S. foreign aggression and intervention which has backfired
badly.
Krugman says Sanders is
“really bad on two levels” — “imposing a standard of purity “ and raising the
specter that Sanders supporters may not happily support Clinton as the “strong
favorite for the Democratic nomination.” This is the core message from
Krugman, a warning to Sanders to get back on the establishment bus.
Krugman thinks it is
hopelessly purist to expect a President who will not take the country into new
wars and sustain illegal coups such as in Honduras. Many Sanders supporters
know about Clinton’s role in Honduras, Libya and beyond, probably better than
Krugman. That’s why some will not transfer their votes to her.
Is Krugman not aware of the
reason for Sanders’s success? Sanders is calling for radical transformation in
the economy, criminal justice, health-care, education and foreign policy. He is
publicly saying this needs to be done with a populist “political revolution.”
He is winning huge support with that message and because many see him as
sincere and authentic, not a normal politician. That is clearly troubling to
Krugman and the Times.
The New York Times has
endorsed Hillary Clinton and their candidate is in jeopardy. This may be
contributing to escalating attacks on Bernie and whitewashes
of Hillary.
[For more on this topic, see
the Young Turks for a
video take-down of Krugman and his attack on Sanders.
Rick Sterling is base in the
San Francisco Bay Area and writes primarily on international issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment