Bernie Sanders and the Song of America

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

And once again, they fail to grasp the quality of Bernie that is at the heart of his unique appeal. Unlike any other candidate in the Democratic Primary field and any other candidate in modern American history, Sanders talks in terms of expanding the inalienable rights of every citizen.

(snip)

The funny thing about Sanders’ political strength and his candidacy though—in opposition to most political commentators and politicians in both major parties—is that it is deeply built on the language of Americanism. The story we tell ourselves about ourselves it that we are a country of universal rights. Our progress as a nation, in narratives from both the left and the right, is about living up to these ideals. Whether one sympathizes with this American exceptionalist framework or not, it has always been, to invert Walt Whitman, our democratic chant, our acceptance of “nothing which all cannot have their counterpart of on the same terms.”

As his rivals offer dazzling arrays of policy proposals, some with deep merit while others boilerplate technocratic, Sanders is often criticized for his lack of policy minutiae. This is wrong-headed to say the least. America’s most sacred policy documents and its most popular policies throughout its history are not innovative new ways to train software engineers, tax credit proposals, or health care subsidies. They are the Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th Amendments, the right to age gracefully and elderly health care, and of course the right to vote. When lived up to these are rights that all Americans enjoy regardless of race, gender, religion, and ability or lack thereof to pay. They are intended to be universal for all Americans and the heart of the way virtually all of us understand what is good about America.

The rumpled old crazy-haired kooky Jewish socialist with a funny Brooklyn accent did not become the most popular politician in America by suggesting that some rights should be means tested or that health care should be “affordable.” The right to vote is, to use Sanders’ words, “inherent in a democracy.” One would be hard-pressed to suggest that most Americans disagree with him on that point. Whether pundits and the Democratic Party have noticed it or not—and judging by their rhetoric, they haven’t—Bernie Sanders does quite well when he gets to be the one talking about the rights we should all get by virtue of being Americans.


https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/04/25/bernie-sanders-and-song-america

[NYMinute]

1. lol

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. That wasn't nice.

[George II]

7. ...

[BlueFlorida]

3. Commondreams should rename itself Berniedreams nt

[Uncle Joe]

4. Bernie's dreams are most assuredly with the commons.

The commons is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society.

[BlueFlorida]

5. Reminds me of Dr. Zhivago nt

[Uncle Joe]

6. Your post reminds me that nations have choices. n/t

[appalachiablue]

8. American democracy and rights, so fundamental yet threatened. TY UJ.

They are the Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th Amendments, the right to age gracefully and elderly health care, and of course the right to vote. When lived up to these are rights that all Americans enjoy regardless of race, gender, religion, and ability or lack thereof to pay. They are intended to be universal for all Americans and the heart of the way virtually all of us understand what is good about America.

[Uncle Joe]

9. Well said and thank you appalachiablue.

[Hortensis]

10. "Sanders is often criticized for his lack of policy minutiae."

Yes, he is. Not just about the minutiae also. I watched him for the first time in a while at the She the People conference and was shocked anew at the limitations of his thinking. He recited his usual lines and couldn't seem to flex enough to genuinely answer the questions asked.

When asked what he'd do as president about all the hard-right judges currently being appointed who are hostile to women's and black rights, he basically blew off a critical problem for them and grabbed the chance for some classic Sanders Dem-attitude by telling this mostly black female audience that anyway "both parties do it." (!) Suure, Democrats also pack the courts with extremist judges who rule against individual rights and especially to oppress minorities. But what came out of his mouth is what he believed, and that's appalling. Is it any wonder he was booed?

On the further subject of competence, it might be illuminating to revisit the editorial board interviews that, astonishingly!, revealed he has hardly any more idea of how to use government to implement ideas he's been espousing for years than any reasonably intelligent citizen would who hasn't. This after over a quarter century as a U.S. senator inside government, with a world of information available to him, a staff who could study and report it to him, and a nation full of experts who'd be glad to fly to DC to explain possible solutions to him.

Voters need to think about it, because after listening to him for years now I'm convinced he doesn't. What people saw at that conference is basically what he is.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/bernie-sanderss-rough-ride-with-the-daily-news/476919/

[Kentonio]

11. I'm curious..

What exactly do you expect ANY Democratic president to do about right wing judges who have been appointed during this disaster of a Trump presidency? His point very clearly wasn't that Dems also appoint judges who oppress minority rights, just that we tend to appoint judges who lean very liberal. Which is exactly what we generally want and ask for. It then counterbalances the ones appointed by the right.

At some point though you have to accept that there aren't exactly many choices here. Do you want the law changed so we can purge all the right wing judges? Are you ready for the pukes to then use those same laws against liberal judges when they get back into office?

[Hortensis]

12. No, that's not what Sanders said. He drew the same

false equivalency between Democrats and Republicans that he always has. Probably knee-jerk, we've all seen it just pop out whenever an opportunity arises. The difference is that those of us who are offended at, and bemused by, these constant, deluded insults don't exactly admire him for them.

As for the solutions Sanders couldn't be bothered to think about, I don't know most of what we can do either. However, Sanders might have said, if it had occurred to him, that we do not need to change the laws in order to purge the worst offenders among the right-wing judges. They are subject to review and standards, and many could be removed for great cause. Kavanaugh's hardly the only highly unethical, even criminal political activist who is completely unsuited to any position in the judiciary; there are many who are even worse. We can also plug the holes revealed in those laws and set up additional commissions for review.

You know, if you were a woman, you might be less inclined to defend Sanders' shockingly inadequate concern for this giant threat. Excessive support of leaders is exactly how whole populations are lead away from what they once cared about, or should, by leaders who have other ideas.

Our courts are being packed at all levels with judges who are antagonistic to the expansion of women's rights over the past century and are ruling every day to undermine them, often completely indefensibly. Most of these malefactors are applying their own religious biases to civil law. This is a HUGE, DIRECT attack on a full half of the nation, but it also severely adversely affects the other half as well. Especially children whose wellbeing depends on the wellbeing of their mothers.

And, of course, this is a full-fledged attack on the character, the soul as Biden calls it, of our nation. How do the principles involved of liberty, equality, justice for all, etc, etc., compare to the importance of Medicare for All versus the ACA?

[Kentonio]

13. No, you're just reading false equivalency into it where it doesn't belong.

The fact you said 'that he always has' shows clearly that you watched already having decided that you disagreed with whatever he would say.

Despite all the accusations against Bernie of 'unicorns' and whatever, he's a very pragmatic politician. Him launching some tirade against the 'unfairness' of right wing judges would have been hypocritical and pointless. His solution is to show the public that America can be a fairer place and then to win election to actually make it a fairer place.

Not a single woman or minority person would be helped by a politician giving some carefully prepared speech about right wing judges. Literally the only thing that will help is to get Democrats into office and start appointing more liberal judges, while simultaneously helping improve people's lives so they realize that voting D is the only rational course of action.

[Hortensis]

14. I'm pragmatic. He's comparatively indifferent

to an enormous, growing problem for all women, but always more immediately hurting minorities.

And you?

Don't answer. Just maybe think about what you should believe, instead of just supporting whatever this other, very imperfect man says.

[Kentonio]

15. I don't need Bernie or any other politician to tell me what to think.

At the same time unlike some I'm not tribal enough to assume that everything a politician I dislike says must be false.

Perhaps you could try thinking about the context and the ramifications of different courses of political action before leaping to conclusions based solely on the candidates name.

[Uncle Joe]

16. Regarding right wing judges being hostile to women's and black's rights.

(snip)

On January 1, 2008 more than 1 in 100 adults in the United States were in prison or jail.[7][8] Total US incarceration peaked in 2008.[1]

In addition to the overall highest incarceration rate, the United States also has the highest rate of female incarceration. According to a November 2017 report by the World Prison Brief around 212,000 of the 714,000 female prisoners worldwide (women and girls) are incarcerated in the United States.[9] In the United States in 2015, women made up 10.4% of the incarcerated population in adult prisons and jails.[10] In most countries, the proportion of female inmates to the larger prison population is closer to one in twenty. Australia is the exception where the rate of female imprisonment increased from 9.2 percent in 1991 to 15.3 percent in 1999.[11]

Comparing other English-speaking developed countries,[3] whereas the incarceration rate in the US is 660 per 100,000 population of all ages (as of 2016 table above),[1] the incarceration rate of Canada is 114 per 100,000 (as of 2015),[12] England and Wales is 146 per 100,000 (as of 2016),[13] and Australia is 160 per 100,000 (as of 2016).[14] Comparing other developed countries, the rate of Spain is 133 per 100,000 (as of 2016),[15] France is 110 per 100,000 (as of 2016),[16] Germany is 76 per 100,000 (as of 2016),[17] Norway is 73 per 100,000 (as of 2016),[18] Netherlands is 69 per 100,000 (as of 2014),[19] and Japan is 48 per 100,000 (as of 2014).[20]

In addition, the United States has striking statistics when observing the racial dimension of mass incarceration. According to Michelle Alexander, the United States "imprisons a larger percentage of its black population than South Africa did at the height of apartheid."[21]

(snip)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_incarceration_and_correctional_supervision_rate

I view this as De Facto disenfranchisement of the electorate by race and gender.

Do you believe these women and African Americans while still in prison should be allowed to vote?