PLEASE THINK BERNIE: If the only thing blocking the liberation of a [great] people was the lack of progressive ideals, then (for example) wouldn't Thom Hartmann and/or Phil Donahue have and/or retained like multi-year/multi-million dollar contracts with MSNBC?

Being kind of a lazy idiot I tend to base a lot of my thinking on simple-minded pattern recognition; Conceding that, what I have seen is that often throughout history popular political movements (and/or individuals) eventually transition from being about 'us' and/or 'we' to just being more about 'me' (Think personality cult, or Ponzi scheme).

{sigh} And sadly regarding Senator Sanders current campaign, recently it looks to me like his movement has crossed over into being more about Bernie than what objectively would (arguably) be the best path forward to adavance his high-minded ideals and/or progressive government policy prescriptions.

Firstly, when it comes to a fully forthright acknowledgement of Thom Hartmann as an influentilal political philosopher, Sanders apparent stinginess angers me. Secondly, if he really cares about remedying social & economic injustices affecting his supporters, why wouldn't he concede (thus forgo the risk of dimenishing HRC campaign) and instead redirect his efforts (and substantial financial resources) towards trying to win a Congress controlled by the Democrat party?

Importantly, I contend that it is these kinds of high-profile displays of disunity on the political-left that in turn give the more dangerous forces on the political-right license (if you will) to justify use of their otherwise egregious (from a humanitarian persepctive) exploitations. And so now, Sanders increasingly desperate run for the office of U.S. president has (to me) seemingly fallen into that same (like shameful) trap.

And no, it's unlikely established/prestigious media outlets (e.g., The New York Times, or The Washington Post) are going to like magically step-up and aggresively advocate for Bernie's [otherwise righteous] campaign. Why? Because (like Thom has explained) the news blackout on Bernie protects their economic interest in the status quo, where they Instead focus on the horse race and/orover-the-top personalities. For example I can imagine they'd be like absolutely orgasmic if Trump choose Kim Kardashian for his V-P running-mate.

Does that make America great? No. Does it make NBC, or FOX News more profits? Yes! Point being if Bernie cannot bring himself to exercise statesmanship to like rise above, then (aside from the exceptional Thom Hartnann) who will?

So again, yeah Bernie has had a righteous run, right? But maybe at a top here, and in relation to world history; Will he be 'the one' who it turns out is immune to the tragic (i.e., Shakespearian) forces associated with over reaching?

Bottomline is it's widely regarded as unlikely that Sanders will win (his partys'?) nomination. And so his campaign's continuing to press HRC could put at risk a Democrats' pro-growth agenda in Congress. Another personal note here; I am old enough to remember when Republican's (I assume, because of The New Deal) status in Congress was relegated to moribund force. Given the current [otherwise incomprehensible] lack of infrastructure investment; If a President HRC working through a Democrat Congress can get that engine of economic growth restarted, imagine the stark contrast with Republican's present day intransigence. Thom says a political revolution is coming, and infrastructure reinvestment (verses endless wars, off-shoring factory jobs and a 'finacialized' economy) could be the [healthier] fuel that drives higher economic growth, potentially helping fund (for example) single-payer healtcare. And again relegating Republican party to relative politoical/cultural impotency.

Comments

marriott79's picture
marriott79 1 year 1 week ago
#1

I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. A) You're jumping on the bandwagon to write Sanders off and B) You don't realize he's doing progressives (assuming you are one) a huge favor by running up to the convention, regardless of his delegate count. This in and of itself shows he cares about bringing about progressive change and raising these important issues that would otherwise be ignored.

If you think Republicans aren't already aware of [every] critique Sanders has of Clinton, then you're sorely mistaken. They're not going to use most of Sanders' critiques against her in the general, anyway, because most of what he critiques her on are modern conservative Republican positions and ideals, like taking money from special interests and voting for war. Why do you think they make up all these crazy conspiracy theories, like the email scandal? It's posts like this that will ruin Bernie's chances. He can only lose if we don't support him.

And as for Bernie not acknowledging Thom as an influential political philosopher... what the heck are you talking about?!?! What do you want him to do?... stand on the stage at the debate and promote the Thom Hartmann radio program? Bernie took one of Thom's books and distributed it to every senator, left and right, asking them to read it and use it as a plan of action. But if you want to see real political philosophy, then I suggest you read Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, or Chris Hedges. They put it all out there and don't give anyone a free pass.

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Can We Trust Gorsuch On Women's Rights?

Yesterday Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer signaled that Senate Democrats would try to filibuster Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.