Is the US ready Bernie Sanders?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/06/bernie-sanders-america-ready-for-socialist-president?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Version+A&utm_term=155341&subid=10534205&CMP=ema_565a

Dr Krissy Haglund does not care if she is labeled a socialist. Or an ideological purist. Or, indeed, any of the other epithets thrown at Americans who are flocking to support Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination. She knows what she is: fed up.

On the campaign bus with Bernie Sanders: 'I am moved by the passion'

“I have patients who are deciding not to have children or are unable to buy a house because of their student loans,” says the family physician from Minneapolis, who this week drove four hours with her two children to see the senator speak in Iowa.

“My loan is now $283,000,” she says. “It’s gone up $60,000 in the six years since I graduated from medical school. This is a national crisis that needs deep, immediate attention.”

As the only candidate proposing to abolish tuition fees at public universities, Sanders frequently takes on the role of a reverse auctioneer, asking members of the audience at his rallies to shout out how much student debt they have. 

For a while, the record was $300,000. Then he met a dentist who graduated with loans of $400,000.

But paying for college by taxing Wall Street speculation is not the only policy that has seen the senator from Vermont branded a dangerous extremist – by his own party. Despite the limited health insurance reforms passed by Barack Obama, 29 million Americans remain without any coverage and many more are underinsured to the point where they cannot afford to see a doctor.

So Sanders does the same thing with healthcare, asking audiences to compete to reveal the size of their deductible – the fixed amount per treatment that must be paid by patients before their insurer will contribute anything. At almost every rally someone gets up to $5,000, sometimes in tears.

His plan to replace this bureaucratic and expensive system by expanding the public Medicare program emulates a “single payer” insurance model used in Canada, rather than the direct state provision of Britain’s National Health Service. It aims to reduce overall costs caused by hospitals and drug companies charging the weak US consumer many times the equivalent in other countries that benefit from pooled purchasing power.

Nevertheless, when inevitably someone asks if the US can afford to follow other rich countries down the road of universal healthcare and access to tertiary education, Sanders likes to remind them of the trillions of dollars of income redistribution that has already taken place in the opposite direction: a trend that has left median wages slumping, but 58% of all new income since the banking crash going to the top 1%.

“Enough is enough,” audience members typically roar by the time he reaches this point in the well-worn speech.

“A few years ago you could graduate high school and get a job and just work hard, put on those work boots, and you’d be able to achieve whatever you wanted,” agrees Anna Mead, 22, a student from Long Beach, New Jersey, outside a rally in New Hampshire.

“Now, it’s just not the case anymore. We’ve seen vast amounts of inequality just building and building throughout the decades to the extent that the 1% has accumulated such a vast amount of wealth that exceeds 40% of the population. I feel like the United States has always been strengthened whenever we had a president take any kind of policy for the middle class to build them up. When you build everyone up, everyone does better.”

The notion, proposed by Sanders, that a corrupt campaign finance system is the only thing standing between voters and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change this might seem simplistic. But it is proving wildly popular.

From a standing start, he has closed the gap in the Democratic primary race between himself and a once unassailable Hillary Clinton, from 36% to just 2%, according to one national poll this week.

Sanders and Trump lead as New Hampshire vote looms – campaign updates

Though few believe this one poll to be indicative of the true national picture just yet, real-life voting in the Iowa caucus last week brought Sanders to within 0.3% of Clinton.

In New Hampshire, which votes for a Democratic nominee on Tuesday, Sanders is so far ahead of the former secretary of state in the polls that her advisers would be delighted if they could contain his win to single digits. Many are already dismissing the result as a home turf blip and encouraging Clinton to leave the state on Sunday to focus her time elsewhere.

Locals in New Hampshire bristle, though, at the notion they would be swayed simply because someone is from next-door Vermont, a liberal bastion that the more libertarian iconoclasts in the Granite State regard with suspicion.

This argument also ignores the fact that the state Hillary Clinton represented in Congress is only 50 miles from the New Hampshire border, although New York reportedly has such ambiguous feelings about its former senator that the Sanders camp claims she refused their requests to hold a debate there.

Yet much as it pains his supporters to acknowledge any frailty, Sanders is under growing pressure from Clinton during their debates. The attack strategy varies. Sometimes she argues they are dancing on the head of a pin by debating who is a true progressive, but when the policy gulf is illuminated the attack switches to what she claims are his wildly unrealistic proposals.

Privately, Clinton’s attack machine has gone further, claiming deep-seated communist sympathies. That serves as a likely prelude to what Sanders might face from Republicans in the still somewhat unlikely event that he wins the Democratic primary.

Sanders has never hidden his political background and has left much for critics to pick over. But it is his steadfast determination not to hide from the label “democratic socialist” that causes most confusion.

In a lengthy speech at Georgetown University last November, he argued that his political philosophy was most in keeping with that of Franklin D Roosevelt, who similarly proposed a mix of public works, help for the poor and banking reform to lift America out of the Great Depression.

“I don’t know what we mean when we say he is a socialist because my idea of Bernie Sanders is that he’s an FDR liberal,” agrees Sharon Ranzavage, 69, an attorney from Flemington, New Jersey, speaking outside an event in Manchester, New Hampshire, on Friday.

“He’s back to the future, if you will, and that’s why I’m excited about him. I think the Democratic party in this country has veered very far to the right. We have to get back to who we are, which is taking care of each other. We’re a capitalist country but we need to modify the extremes of capitalism.”

Confusion also stems from the fact that Sanders uses the phrase “democratic socialist” partly to stress his belief that change must come through the ballot box, but also because, in continental Europe at least, he would probably be known as a social democrat, a label that does not easily translate to the US.

A “Democrat” in US parlance is something the independent senator from Vermont only became when he decided to seek the party’s presidential nomination in May. Anyone using the word “social” in American politics might as well go the whole hog and add the “ist” before somewhere else does.

In a British context, Sanders would be hard to place too. Many of his core proposals – universal access to healthcare, paid maternity leave and a more generous minimum wage – are accepted, in principle at least, by all the main UK parties including the Conservatives, who recently put up the British minimum wage as a centerpiece of their budget.

In relative terms, Sanders represents a swing to the left for the Democratic party that is analogous to Jeremy Corbyn’s recent victory in the Labour leadership campaign. But on foreign policy and absolute comparisons of domestic policies he would probably be closer to pre-Blairite Labour reformers of the 1980s and 90s such as Neil Kinnock or John Smith.

Back in New Hampshire this week, a radical mood is conjured up at rallies calling for a “political revolution” and blasting out John Lennon’s Power to the People. But when Sanders punches his hand into the air, he quickly unclenches the fist, to avoid imagery that is too strident.

We will have to wait for several more primary results to know whether American politics could possibly be ready for a self-avowed socialist. Already, the response from supporters to seem to be a shrug that suggests this is the wrong question.

“I feel like I finally have a politician who will match my true feelings and hopes for this country,” says Haglund.

Is America ready for socialism? Probably not. But it might be ready for Sanders.

Sanders fans on socialism

What is wrong with being a socialist?

Dwayne Hamm, 23, from New Brunswick, New Jersey:

I believe what people think is a socialist is: they get confused and think we’re heading towards the dreaded communism. But I think people confuse themselves about what it is Sanders is trying to do and what it is a socialist believes in. You’ll see that there’s nothing wrong. All we’re asking for is equality across the board. And to those who have privilege it may seem oppressive. And I feel that’s what people think the problem is.

Can you be a democratic socialist?

Anna Mead, 22, from Long Beach, New Jersey:

I don’t think socialism can exist properly without democracy. Socialism is community regulation of the means of production and distribution.

How do you feel about Hillary Clinton trying to woo young people?

Fiona Boomer, 19, from Salt Lake City, Utah:

I do have to give credit where credit’s due but as a young person Bernie’s stance on free education would be amazing. I’m deeply in debt as it is. It would be great if that was free. Hillary is debt free and Bernie is tuition free. That’s a big deciding factor for me. I do think Hillary is doing a good job. She claims she’s being more realistic but I think Bernie is realistic.

How likely is it that Clinton will win you over?

Rene Casiano, 41, from the Bronx, New York:

Honestly if Bernie doesn’t make it I will support her because she’s still better than everyone else on the other side of the spectrum.

A Message from Bernie Sanders

Hello,

The CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, said yesterday our campaign represents a dangerous moment, "not just for Wall Street, but for anyone who is a little bit out of line."

I have to say, I find it a little beyond comprehension that Lloyd Blankfein would lecture our campaign about "dangerous moments" after Wall Street received huge bailouts from the working families of this country, when their greed and recklessness caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, livelihoods, and homes just a few years ago. His arrogance has no end.

Now Wall Street is pouring money into other campaigns. But I am here to tell you that we don’t want their money and we don’t want their super PACs. We are going to do it differently. We are going to win together on the strength of millions of small donations.

Here’s the truth: Wall Street is terrified because we are running a campaign that does not support their agenda. They never expected us to battle to a virtual draw in Iowa, and they are starting to get a bit nervous about New Hampshire too.

The next primary is less than one week away, and we have a slight lead in the polls despite opposition from the economic and political establishment in the state. But if we stand together, I know that we have a good chance to win next week.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders

Hillary Clinton Turns Stand-Up Comic: "I’m a Progressive Who Gets Things Done"

by Jeff Cohen

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/04/hillary-clinton-turns-stand-comic-im-progressive-who-gets-things-done

In her speech claiming victory after the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton proclaimed herself “a progressive who gets things done.” I had to laugh. And it wasn’t just because former President Bill Clinton – the centrist Triangulator-in-Chief – was standing behind her, beaming and clapping.

A quick review of Hillary Clinton’s record shows that much of what she gets done is anti-progressive (not unlike President Clinton in the 1990s). For example:

Promoting Fracking Worldwide is Not Progressive: On behalf of Chevron and other US oil companies, Secretary Clinton and the State Department pushed fracking globally, as Mother Jones has documented: “How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Sold Fracking to the World.”

Boosting Corporate-Friendly Trade Deals is Not Progressive:  Secretary Clinton repeatedly praised the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – as it was being negotiated by the US Trade Representative and her State Department – and she recruited countries into the deal. In October, with Bernie Sanders climbing in the polls, Clinton said she no longer supported the pact, and prevaricated about her earlier boosterism.

Enabling Military Coups is Not Progressive:  When she headed the State Department, it enabled a military coup in Honduras that overthrew democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya, a progressive. Clinton was briefed on the dishonesty that allowed aid to illegally reach the coup government.

Pocketing Millions from Corporate Lectures Fees is Not Progressive:  When Wall Street, Big Pharma and other corporate interests paid a soon-to-be presidential candidate an average of $230,000 for a speech, did Hillary Clinton think it was for her brilliant stand-up comedy? Or was it more akin to political bribery? Clinton now says these firms just wanted to hear the views of a former Secretary of State on our “complicated world” – or about the Bin Laden raid. But Politico reported in 2013 soon after one of her three speeches to Goldman Sachs: “Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish.” (Releasing the speech transcripts would help settle the matter.)

Escalating the Afghan War is Not Progressive:  As insider books on the Obama administration have revealed, Secretary Clinton was among the most hawkish of Obama’s advisors in country after country – for example, vociferously urging the failed and pointless 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan.

Chaotic Military Intervention in the Middle East and Libya is Not Progressive:  If not for Hillary Clinton’s 2002 Senate vote in support of Bush’s Iraq invasion, Obama would not have defeated her in 2008. As if having learned nothing from the post-invasion chaos in Iraq, Secretary Clinton was one of the strongest voices in 2011 urging Obama to militarily depose Qaddafi in Libya, a country now in total, deadly chaos.

On the campaign trail lately, Hillary Clinton is doing her best to sound much more progressive than her record in office, but she’s a rank amateur compared to her husband’s slickness on this score in the 1990s. President Bill Clinton did “get things done” – but some of his biggest initiatives were the opposite of progressive:   

1993:  Passage of the corporate-friendly trade deal NAFTA, which passed mostly with Republican support against the votes of most Democrats in Congress.

1996:  Passage of the Telecommunications Act, the biggest change in media law since the 1930s, which helped big media companies grow even bigger. Bill Clinton got this done by working closely with Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, as both major parties received large donations from media and telecommunications corporations.

1996:  Repeal of federally-guaranteed welfare in the form of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), a program enacted in 1935 during Franklyn Roosevelt’s New Deal. The Children’s Defense Fund – a group Hillary Clinton worked with and repeatedly invokes to shore up her “progressive” credentials – vehemently denounced repeal.

1999-2000:  Deregulation of Wall Street, working closely with right-wing Senator Phil Gramm. Among other things, President Clinton ended the 1933 Glass-Steagall legislation which had separated Main Street banks from the more speculative Wall Street banks (a measure Hillary Clinton says she is opposed to reinstituting). Dereg led directly to the 2007/2008 economic meltdown. 

I’m open to the argument that you can’t blame Hillary Clinton for these policies of her husband that were so hurtful to poor and working-class women and men – policies that she publicly defended or went quiet on. But she wraps herself today around the Bill Clinton presidency. And it’s not unprecedented for a first spouse to object to White House policy: Barbara Bush went public that she opposed her husband’s anti-choice position on abortion.

One policy from the 1990s that Hillary and Bill get joint custody of is healthcare; President Clinton chose Hillary to lead his administration’s healthcare initiative in 1993. Working with the biggest insurance companies (five giant firms had formed the Alliance for Managed Competition), Hillary Clinton proposed a convoluted proposal that kept big for-profit insurers in the heart of the system. Her “Managed Competition” scheme was so complex and bureaucratic that it never got out of committee in a Democrat-controlled Congress – but it did sideline a single-payer Medicare for All bill, a truly progressive measure that was backed by 100 members of Congress, labor unions, Consumers Union, and a grassroots movement. 

"The great news for progressives is that large numbers of young activists are joining a 'political revolution.' Whether Bernie wins or loses, let’s hope these young people not only transform the Democratic Party, but also the organizations that purport to represent the poor and working class, oppressed racial and sexual minorities, and the environment."

Like her husband, Hillary can come off as either centrist or progressive depending on the audience. And depending on the season – left-leaning during primary election season, and corporate centrist in office. Her current campaign for president has helped reveal not just a split between corporate Democrats and progressive Democrats, but a chasm between the leadership of liberal constituency groups and the progressive base of these groups.

Some labor unions have poured $5.5 million into the pro-Hillary SuperPAC, for example – funding a woman who sat on the board of one of our country’s worst union-busters, Walmart.

The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, endorsed Hillary over Bernie despite the fact that it took her until 2013 to support gay marriage, while Bernie had joined a minority of Congress members who voted against the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton in 1996.

The League of Conservation Voters endorsed Hillary over Bernie despite the fact that she pushed fracking worldwide while he staunchly opposed it, and he fought against the Keystone XL pipeline and its dirty oil from the beginning while she took until a few months ago – during campaign season – to express opposition. 

The great news for progressives is that large numbers of young activists are joining a “political revolution.” Whether Bernie wins or loses, let’s hope these young people not only transform the Democratic Party, but also the organizations that purport to represent the poor and working class, oppressed racial and sexual minorities, and the environment.

When that happens, the next time a corporate politician pretends to be a “progressive” during primary season, these groups will not be complicit in the masquerade.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Jeff Cohen is an associate professor of journalism and the director of the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College, founder of the media watch group FAIR, and former board member of Progressive Democrats of America. In 2002, he was a producer and pundit at MSNBC (overseen by NBC News). He is the author of Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media - and a cofounder of the online action group, www.RootsAction.org.