|
JohnsonDFirstEssay 5 - 13 Jun 2016 - Main.JohnsonD
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| | | Are we all socialists now? | |
<
< | It is clear that Bernie Sanders has struck a chord with many young and disenfranchised voters, but the seeds of his revolution, and the reintroduction of democratic socialist ideals into American society were planted long before his candidacy. The economic crash of 2008 and the failures of the Bush II administration weakened the creed of free enterprises which had long maintained that capitalism was the most rational and logical way to organize a nation’s economy, and that any “Thinking Man” would, through dispassionate study, come to see capitalism’s superiority as a universal truth. Further, the dissolution of the Soviet Union – the defeat of our most threatening economic competitor – meant that there was no ready-made national foe which critics of socialism could weaponized when the heresy of government action was proposed. These phenomena softened the silencing power of the socialist label on the left and brought back a political faction that had been suppressed under the weight of the old creeds. | >
> | It is clear that Sanders has struck a chord with many young and disenfranchised voters, but the seeds of his revolution, and the reintroduction of democratic socialist ideas into American society were planted long before his candidacy. The economic crash of 2008 and the failures of the Bush II administration weakened the creed of free enterprises which had long maintained that capitalism was the most rational and logical way to organize a nation’s economy, and that any “Thinking Man” would, through dispassionate study, come to see capitalism’s superiority as a universal truth. Further, the dissolution of the Soviet Union –our most threatening economic competitor – meant that there was no ready-made national foe to which critics of socialism could weaponized when the “heresy” of government action was proposed. These phenomena softened the silencing power of the socialist label on the left and brought back a political faction that had been suppressed under the weight of the old creeds. | | | | |
<
< | Most importantly the crash signaled a reckoning of right wing social and economic policies. Under these policies, government services and institutions had been essentially gutted or privatized. The promises of post New Deal, post WWII “American Dream,” including affordable education, jobs for Americans willing to work them, and pension programs for the elderly and ill, were destroyed or seriously threatened. | >
> | Most importantly the crash signaled a reckoning with the right wing social and economic policies of the last few decades that had weakened government services and allowed capitalism to flourish unfettered. The promises of post-New Deal, post WWII “American Dream,” including affordable education, jobs for Americans willing to work them, and pension programs for the elderly and ill, essentially evaporated during this period. | | | | |
<
< | After the 2008 crash America experienced a modest leftward shift on social issues and saw the election of Obama and the passage of legislation such as T.A.R.P and The ACA. These slight expansions of government power emboldened the democratic socialist wing of the Democratic party who felt that these policies did not go far enough. This wing was accepted by Democratic voters because its creeds were familiar to their own and thus seemed harmless to the long-term health of the organization. Politicians like Bernie Sanders offered to take already popular programs such as the ACA and push them even further to the left. He offered a purer version of old Democratic beliefs. | >
> | After 2008, America experienced a leftward shift on social issues and saw the passage of legislation such as T.A.R.P and The ACA. These slight expansions of government power emboldened the democratic socialist wing of the Democratic party who felt these policies did not go nearly far enough in fixing the nation’s problems. This wing was accepted by Democratic voters because its creeds were familiar to their own and thus seemed harmless to the long-term health of the organization. Politicians like Bernie Sanders promised to replace quasi- socialist corporatist schemes like the ACA with true socialist programs like UHC. | | | | |
<
< | By focusing on purity and true belief Sanders gives voice to this new semi-respectable wing of the Democratic party. But as a semi respectable wing, his coalition lacks the necessary attributes to succeed in American politics. Sanders supporters make the mistake of believing that the creeds (both his and the Democratic party’s) matters more than the organization. But merely pointing out the contradictions of an organization’s creeds is not helpful because all creeds of successful organizations are inherently contradictory, they are incantations that tell us little about how an organization will actually operate. Arnold notes that in revolutions “ideas are often vague but are made to appear to have specific content.” They are advanced by “focusing attention on actual possibility of practical realization” (Arnold 13). Arnold also notes how organizational creeds are often purposefully disjointed. The contradiction resulting from these creeds is what allows them to be accepted by a large enough majority as to make the organization political viable. This observation still holds true today. If an organization is to gain ascendency, then it must be interested in winning, and it is difficult, likely impossible to win at this time with a platform as pure as Sanders’, and with an organization as weak as Sanders’. Sanders initially did little to combat his image as a fringe candidate only running to push the eventual nominee to the left ideologically. By the time he realized he had a chance, he had already made so many missteps that it was nearly impossible to catch up in actual votes. | >
> | A semi respectable wing
By focusing on purity and true belief Sanders gives voice to this new semi-respectable wing of the Democratic party. But as a semi respectable wing, his coalition currently lacks the necessary attributes to succeed in American politics. Sanders supporters make the mistake of believing that the creeds (both his and the Democratic party’s) matters more than the organization. But merely pointing out the contradictions of an organization’s creeds is not helpful because all creeds of successful organizations are inherently contradictory, they are incantations that tell us little about how an organization will actually operate. Arnold notes that in revolutions “ideas are advanced by “focusing attention on actual possibility of practical realization” (Arnold 13). Arnold also notes how organizational creeds are often purposefully disjointed. The contradiction resulting from these creeds is what allows them to be accepted by a large enough majority as to make the organization political viable.
This observation still holds true today. If an organization is to gain ascendency, then it must be interested in winning, and it is difficult, likely impossible to win right now with a platform as pure as Sanders’, and an organization as weak as Sanders’. Sanders misstepped by initially doing little to combat his image as a fringe candidate only running to push the eventual nominee to the left ideologically. By the time he realized he had a chance to win, he had already made so many political miscalculations that it was impossible to catch up in actual votes. | | |
It is what it does | |
<
< | Sanders supporters may feel disappointed at the fact that Sanders has no real chance at winning the Democratic nomination. If his supporters could focus on the organizations more than the creeds then they might see that America has made progress from a leftward perspective the past eight years, and would likely continue to make such progress under Hillary Clinton. Placing an emphasis on purity may very well put that progress in jeopardy by allowing the right to reinstitute many of the policies that lead us to the situation in which the country currently finds itself. | >
> | Sanders supporters may feel disappointed at the fact their candidate has no real chance at winning the nomination. If his supporters could focus on the organizations more than the creeds then they might see that America has made progress from a leftward perspective in recent years, and would likely continue to make such progress under Hillary Clinton. Placing an emphasis on purity may very well put that progress in jeopardy by allowing the right to reinstitute many of the policies that lead us to the situation in which the country currently finds itself.
Of course a scenario could arise that would leave democratic socialist ideas dormant for another 70 years, but based on the direction politics is currently headed, social democratic ideas are not likely going away. it is only a matter of time before the ideas gain enough strength to actually change the creeds of the Democratic party. The visible failures of unfettered capitalism, and demographic shifts along the lines of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and language increase the likelihood that soon a new generation of Americans will rise with a set of mythologies and creeds more receptive to democratic socialism. People like Sanders help this process along by introducing ideas into the mainstream. We may soon see a leader who can actually pull off what Sanders has attempted, expanding the electorate and bringing social democratic policies to America. | | | | |
<
< | Of course a scenario could arise that would leave democratic socialist ideas dormant for another 70 years, but based on the direction politics is currently headed, social democratic ideas are not likely going away. it is only a matter of time before the ideas gain enough strength to actually change the creeds of the Democratic party. Demographic shifts along the lines of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and language increase the likelihood that soon a new generation of Americans will rise with a different set of mythologies and creeds. Then we may see a leader who can actually pull off what Sanders has attempted, expanding the electorate and bringing social democratic policies to America. | >
> | Word count: 988 | | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
JohnsonDFirstEssay 3 - 06 Jun 2016 - Main.JohnsonD
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | | |
<
< | I fixed the markup
first, so I could read the piece easily. I don't think you looked
at the piece on the web after you submitted it, or you'd have seen
the effect of using titling markdown on every paragraph. You might
want to use the "Raw" button to look at the markdown of the piece.
You Say You Want a Revolution? Democratic Socialism and Political Presence
-- By JohnsonD - 19 Feb 2016
Bernie Sanders uses the word revolution to define a political awakening where millions of Americans will rise up against their corporate masters and bring about a new era of (democratic) socialist politics. For many on the American political left, his proposition sounds enticing, especially in the face of slow social progress and stagnant wage growth. People who have historically held a privileged place in society have begun to feel the the same type of social and economic pain usually reserved for people at the margins of society. At the same time, increased polarization makes it exceedingly difficult for political compromise to take place.
In the face of this new social reality, members of both political parties have begun to turn to extremist ideologies. Sanders taps into this phenomenon on the left by co-opting the language of revolution. He sells middle America a homogenized version of socialism wrapped in the language of the revolutionary. We should examine this rhetoric closely because as Malcom X succinctly stated: “you never had a revolution without bloodshed.” The fear of true revolutionary action is evidenced in many ways, the most striking being Sanders’ strict adherence to economic issues at the expense of what he sees as more divisive racial and gender issues. A true revolution would require the type of massive and rapid social change that would be unpalatable to the average Sanders supporter.
It's not true that such efforts cannot be made at the ballot box
alone. Taking a quote from Malcolm X out of context and applying it
elsewhere isn't an argument. Britain adopted social democracy at
the ballot box in 1946, for example, beginning an alternation in
power between socialist and non-socialist parties that is also
common elsewhere in Europe, often (because of proportional voting
systems) in coalitions across socialist/non-socialist lines. The
government which has just succeeded a Conservative government in
power in Canada is a social democratic party, led by the son of the
most successful socialist politician in Canadian history.
In the US, on the other hand, the bilateral hegemony of the two
cross-regional parties agreed on common non-socialist
ideology—which was secured by the prohibition in the
Taft-Hartley Act prohibiting the existence of a labor party or labor
newspapers in the US—has prohibited any meaningful form of
post-war socialist electoral effort. Senator Sanders is claiming
that the reservoir of votes for social democracy (which are the
votes of the poor who ordinarily do not vote) can be tapped to
change government policy in the US decisively. There's no doubt
that he's right. If the poor turned out to vote in the US in the
proportion that they do in the world's largest democracy, in India,
for example, social democracy would indeed come to the US overnight.
Senator Sanders is also claiming that is going to happen in response
to his running for President. There's no doubt he's wrong about
that. But he's litigating a case which is crucial to the future of
his society—at a time in his life when he will not have a
better future chance to do what he has been preparing all his life
to do—and he's doing a terrific job of it. | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | Therman Arnold and the Bernie Sanders Revolution
-- By JohnsonD -
Getting the dragon out of his cave
Bernie Sanders uses the word revolution to define a political awakening where millions of Americans will rise up against their corporate masters and bring about a new era of democratic socialist politics. The question remains whether this new democratic socialist organization within the Democratic party will find political success in this election or in the near future.
As Holmes noted, there is no working out of our system from general axioms of conduct. We must therefore reject attempts to look to principles, or doctrine, or history for guidance, rather we must assess in what ways the structure of the system changes in the here and now, and why, at this time, the creeds of democratic socialism are finding more currency in the Democratic party than in any time in recent memory. We can then use our findings to predict whether this new acceptance of democratic socialist creeds represents a permanent change in the direction of the party itself or a momentary aberration. | | |
Are we all socialists now? | |
>
> | It is clear that Bernie Sanders has struck a chord with many young and disenfranchised voters, but the seeds of his revolution, and the reintroduction of democratic socialist ideals into American society were planted long before his candidacy. The economic crash of 2008 and the failures of the Bush II administration weakened the creed of free enterprises which had long maintained that capitalism was the most rational and logical way to organize a nation’s economy, and that any “Thinking Man” would, through dispassionate study, come to see capitalism’s superiority as a universal truth. Further, the dissolution of the Soviet Union – the defeat of our most threatening economic competitor – meant that there was no ready-made national foe which critics of socialism could weaponized when the heresy of government action was proposed. These phenomena softened the silencing power of the socialist label on the left and brought back a political faction that had been suppressed under the weight of the old creeds. | | | | |
<
< | It seems as though the main gripe of disaffected millennials is not that the system is irrevocably broken, but rather it’s the disappointment of not having met the expectation of achieving the version of the American Dream they were promised. | >
> | Most importantly the crash signaled a reckoning of right wing social and economic policies. Under these policies, government services and institutions had been essentially gutted or privatized. The promises of post New Deal, post WWII “American Dream,” including affordable education, jobs for Americans willing to work them, and pension programs for the elderly and ill, were destroyed or seriously threatened. | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | After the 2008 crash America experienced a modest leftward shift on social issues and saw the election of Obama and the passage of legislation such as T.A.R.P and The ACA. These slight expansions of government power emboldened the democratic socialist wing of the Democratic party who felt that these policies did not go far enough. This wing was accepted by Democratic voters because its creeds were familiar to their own and thus seemed harmless to the long-term health of the organization. Politicians like Bernie Sanders offered to take already popular programs such as the ACA and push them even further to the left. He offered a purer version of old Democratic beliefs. | | | | |
<
< | Maybe. But what was the promised "dream"? From the beginning of
European mass migration here, the society that coalesced into the
United States has been characterized by the presence of an
opportunity for personal re-invention, growth and self-improvement
that was unavailable in the societies migrants left behind. That
opportunity for personal self-realization and improvement was
attributable not only to the freedoms of economic and civil life
guaranteed by a republican form of government, but also because this
burgeoning society took possession of immense physical
resources—previously possessed instead by indigenous
populations the Europeans dispersed and sometimes genocidally
mistreated—and conscripted the labor and very lives of
millions of enslaved persons. The combination of benign and malign
subsidies to the freedom for self-development of some of the
population produced a unique condition in human history. By 1950,
that society had become the most powerful economic and military
aggregation in world history.
The rising generation, itself demographically very large because of
a postwar birth boom, enormously benefited from a few key socialist
institutions. Socialized old-age pensions removed the threat of
poverty among the old for the first time, allowing them freedom from
the need to provide subsistence to their aging parents. Socialized
medicine for everyone above 65 also freed them from the costs of
their parents' health care. The GI Bill socialized the financing of
higher education for tens of millions of people, men and women, who
fought our wars. Their educational attainments helped to build the
strongest higher educational system in world history, and immensely
increased the human capital and productivity of their society. A
mortgage market subsidized by federal guarantee allowed them to
become home owners at a previously unimaginable level. Because
working-class people otherwise must rent in a market in which
landlords raise rents as wages rise, home ownership allowed this
generation to avoid the landlord-trap, so producitivity gains were
real wage gains to them. Strong labor law allowed collective
organization and bargaining, which ensured that the immense gains in
value to postwar enterprise were shared with workers.
Now, the next generation fears it cannot count on those socialist
institutions to help them up, and they are right. A generation of
right-wing government has savaged the institutions that remain. We
have expanded virtually nowhere, and where we have—in the
Affordable Care Act, for example—the results are maintainable
only contingently, subject to the continued hostility of a system of
government that depends less in the making of public policy on the
votes of the poor than on the contributions of the rich.
What is the "American Dream" they were promised? The sunshine of
postwar American Social Democracy under another name ("the New Deal,
the Great Society"), or the older version, in which an equal chance
in the race of life was promised to those for whom equality was
impossible to imagine at home (as well as being denied outright to
those for whom equality was supposedly not intended)? There was
always a continuity between the conservative non-socialist outlooks
of the present and the past, even in the business-dominated
Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln was indeed a man who looked to
the "equal chance in the struggle of the poor man to improve
himself" as the essence of the American promise; he was willing to
die himself in the end, as he asked others for their last full
measure of devotion, to make that equal chance come true for those
enslaved, as well as those already free. It was the Democratic
Party, under Franklin Roosevelt, that turned to socialist policies
under non-socialist names to save American society from the Great
Depression. What your "millennials" have a gripe about, apparently,
is that they are not being delivered the degree of socialism that
was accorded to their parents, and are being forced back on the
"American Dream" of all earlier generations, which is far more
strenuous and brutal. In that case, Senator Sanders is making an
entirely rational and appropriate case to them, about the future of
the Democratic Party, is he not?
As long as people who looked like them had the promise of affordable college, raising a family in a gated suburb, and making a respectable amount of money at some soul-crushing 9-5, then everything was fine, regardless of what was actually occurring around them. It was only when these issues started to cause discomfort and disruption to their middle class existence that it became a real threat to them. The desire for revolution stems not from the anger that arises when one realizes the inequalities in the system, but the anger that arises from feeling excluded from the system. They see the world changing around them, and they don’t know what to do, so instead of reacting creatively they cling to an ideology that claims that it has all of the answers.
Unfortunately, the solution Sanders proposes is not based in reality. What the Sanders supporter fails to understand It’s not just the politicians and special interests who are opposed to (democratic) socialist ideas, Half of the country is opposed to much of the democratic socialist agenda, and many conservatives and liberals are opposed for reasons both based in ideology and practicality.
Maybe.But it is quite clear at the moment that the Republican Party
has been claiming largely about the conservatism of its voters, and
is discovering that its electorate does not believe what the Party's
classe dirigente proclaims. Whether the Democratic Party's
electorate believes what the "New Democracy" wing of its ruling
class, led the Clintons, proclaims is equally uncertain now, for
many of the same reasons. But the Republican Party is being pulled
apart by its electorate's response to the demographic changes in the
skin colors, languages, and cultural origins of new Americans. If
the Democratic Party can adjust its creeds and habits to those new
Americans, on the other hand, it stands to strengthen itself
substantially, and probably—this is Senator Sanders'
point—to move more directly to becoming a social democratic
party.
It may be easy to brush these people off as shills under the influence of special interests, but that sort of thinking solves nothing. The assumption of bad faith not just for those on the right, but for fellow Democrats is troubling. How exactly are they supposed to win a senate seat in a Republican state with their rigid ideological tests? What candidates will they recruit that will have widespread appeal in Republican states? They don’t seem to have a plan behind their slogan.
In no densely-populated state in the US are non-voting poor people
unable to change the partisan composition of government if they
showed up at a turnout level proportional to that of the rich, and
voted as those among them who vote vote now. In such an electorate,
Idaho and Utah would be "Republican states." | >
> | By focusing on purity and true belief Sanders gives voice to this new semi-respectable wing of the Democratic party. But as a semi respectable wing, his coalition lacks the necessary attributes to succeed in American politics. Sanders supporters make the mistake of believing that the creeds (both his and the Democratic party’s) matters more than the organization. But merely pointing out the contradictions of an organization’s creeds is not helpful because all creeds of successful organizations are inherently contradictory, they are incantations that tell us little about how an organization will actually operate. Arnold notes that in revolutions “ideas are often vague but are made to appear to have specific content.” They are advanced by “focusing attention on actual possibility of practical realization” (Arnold 13). Arnold also notes how organizational creeds are often purposefully disjointed. The contradiction resulting from these creeds is what allows them to be accepted by a large enough majority as to make the organization political viable. This observation still holds true today. If an organization is to gain ascendency, then it must be interested in winning, and it is difficult, likely impossible to win at this time with a platform as pure as Sanders’, and with an organization as weak as Sanders’. Sanders initially did little to combat his image as a fringe candidate only running to push the eventual nominee to the left ideologically. By the time he realized he had a chance, he had already made so many missteps that it was nearly impossible to catch up in actual votes. | | | | |
<
< | | | |
It is what it does | |
<
< | Ideas such as universal healthcare and free (or at least debt free) college tuition are welcome in a political conversation that has too often skewed to the right. But in order to effect the system the self-proclaimed democratic-socialists must recognize their place within it. The mental gymnastics needed to refer to a man who spent thirty years in politics as anti-establishment, especially one going up against a woman running to be the first female President must be done away with.
The work it takes to make actual change happen must begin. The Senate and Supreme Court might all be decided by the next election. An electoral loss could mean, the loss of voting rights and healthcare for our most vulnerable. The stakes are real and the Sanders supporter must learn to be present if they are to have a say. | >
> | Sanders supporters may feel disappointed at the fact that Sanders has no real chance at winning the Democratic nomination. If his supporters could focus on the organizations more than the creeds then they might see that America has made progress from a leftward perspective the past eight years, and would likely continue to make such progress under Hillary Clinton. Placing an emphasis on purity may very well put that progress in jeopardy by allowing the right to reinstitute many of the policies that lead us to the situation in which the country currently finds itself. | | | | |
>
> | Of course a scenario could arise that would leave democratic socialist ideas dormant for another 70 years, but based on the direction politics is currently headed, social democratic ideas are not likely going away. it is only a matter of time before the ideas gain enough strength to actually change the creeds of the Democratic party. Demographic shifts along the lines of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and language increase the likelihood that soon a new generation of Americans will rise with a different set of mythologies and creeds. Then we may see a leader who can actually pull off what Sanders has attempted, expanding the electorate and bringing social democratic policies to America. | | | | |
<
< | It's a good start. The
next draft should consider, in addition to your own ideas, some of
other peoples'. | | | |
|
|
JohnsonDFirstEssay 2 - 07 Mar 2016 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | You Say You Want a Revolution? Democratic Socialism and Political Presence
-- By JohnsonD - 19 Feb 2016
Bernie Sanders uses the word revolution to define a political awakening where millions of Americans will rise up against their corporate masters and bring about a new era of (democratic) socialist politics. For many on the American political left, his proposition sounds enticing, especially in the face of slow social progress and stagnant wage growth. People who have historically held a privileged place in society have begun to feel the the same type of social and economic pain usually reserved for people at the margins of society. At the same time, increased polarization makes it exceedingly difficult for political compromise to take place. | | | | |
<
< | In the face of this new social reality, members of both political parties have begun to turn to extremist ideologies. Sanders taps into this phenomenon on the left by co-opting the language of revolution. He sells middle America a homogenized version of socialism wrapped in the language of the revolutionary. We should examine this rhetoric closely because as Malcom X succinctly stated: “you never had a revolution without bloodshed.” The fear of true revolutionary action is evidenced in many ways, the most striking being Sanders’ strict adherence to economic issues at the expense of what he sees as more divisive racial and gender issues. A true revolution would require the type of massive and rapid social change that would be unpalatable to the average Sanders supporter. | >
> | I fixed the markup
first, so I could read the piece easily. I don't think you looked
at the piece on the web after you submitted it, or you'd have seen
the effect of using titling markdown on every paragraph. You might
want to use the "Raw" button to look at the markdown of the piece.
| | | | |
<
< | Are we all socialists now? | >
> | You Say You Want a Revolution? Democratic Socialism and Political Presence | | | | |
<
< | It seems as though the main gripe of disaffected millennials is not that the system is irrevocably broken, but rather it’s the disappointment of not having met the expectation of achieving the version of the American Dream they were promised. As long as people who looked like them had the promise of affordable college, raising a family in a gated suburb, and making a respectable amount of money at some soul-crushing 9-5, then everything was fine, regardless of what was actually occurring around them. It was only when these issues started to cause discomfort and disruption to their middle class existence that it became a real threat to them. The desire for revolution stems not from the anger that arises when one realizes the inequalities in the system, but the anger that arises from feeling excluded from the system. They see the world changing around them, and they don’t know what to do, so instead of reacting creatively they cling to an ideology that claims that it has all of the answers. | >
> | -- By JohnsonD - 19 Feb 2016 | | | | |
>
> | Bernie Sanders uses the word revolution to define a political awakening where millions of Americans will rise up against their corporate masters and bring about a new era of (democratic) socialist politics. For many on the American political left, his proposition sounds enticing, especially in the face of slow social progress and stagnant wage growth. People who have historically held a privileged place in society have begun to feel the the same type of social and economic pain usually reserved for people at the margins of society. At the same time, increased polarization makes it exceedingly difficult for political compromise to take place. | | | | |
<
< | Unfortunately, the solution Sanders proposes is not based in reality. What the Sanders supporter fails to understand It’s not just the politicians and special interests who are opposed to (democratic) socialist ideas, Half of the country is opposed to much of the democratic socialist agenda, and many conservatives and liberals are opposed for reasons both based in ideology and practicality. | | | | |
>
> | In the face of this new social reality, members of both political parties have begun to turn to extremist ideologies. Sanders taps into this phenomenon on the left by co-opting the language of revolution. He sells middle America a homogenized version of socialism wrapped in the language of the revolutionary. We should examine this rhetoric closely because as Malcom X succinctly stated: “you never had a revolution without bloodshed.” The fear of true revolutionary action is evidenced in many ways, the most striking being Sanders’ strict adherence to economic issues at the expense of what he sees as more divisive racial and gender issues. A true revolution would require the type of massive and rapid social change that would be unpalatable to the average Sanders supporter. | | | | |
>
> | | | | | |
<
< | It may be easy to brush these people off as shills under the influence of special interests, but that sort of thinking solves nothing. The assumption of bad faith not just for those on the right, but for fellow Democrats is troubling. How exactly are they supposed to win a senate seat in a Republican state with their rigid ideological tests? What candidates will they recruit that will have widespread appeal in Republican states? They don’t seem to have a plan behind their slogan. | >
> | It's not true that such efforts cannot be made at the ballot box
alone. Taking a quote from Malcolm X out of context and applying it
elsewhere isn't an argument. Britain adopted social democracy at
the ballot box in 1946, for example, beginning an alternation in
power between socialist and non-socialist parties that is also
common elsewhere in Europe, often (because of proportional voting
systems) in coalitions across socialist/non-socialist lines. The
government which has just succeeded a Conservative government in
power in Canada is a social democratic party, led by the son of the
most successful socialist politician in Canadian history.
In the US, on the other hand, the bilateral hegemony of the two
cross-regional parties agreed on common non-socialist
ideology—which was secured by the prohibition in the
Taft-Hartley Act prohibiting the existence of a labor party or labor
newspapers in the US—has prohibited any meaningful form of
post-war socialist electoral effort. Senator Sanders is claiming
that the reservoir of votes for social democracy (which are the
votes of the poor who ordinarily do not vote) can be tapped to
change government policy in the US decisively. There's no doubt
that he's right. If the poor turned out to vote in the US in the
proportion that they do in the world's largest democracy, in India,
for example, social democracy would indeed come to the US overnight.
Senator Sanders is also claiming that is going to happen in response
to his running for President. There's no doubt he's wrong about
that. But he's litigating a case which is crucial to the future of
his society—at a time in his life when he will not have a
better future chance to do what he has been preparing all his life
to do—and he's doing a terrific job of it.
Are we all socialists now?
It seems as though the main gripe of disaffected millennials is not that the system is irrevocably broken, but rather it’s the disappointment of not having met the expectation of achieving the version of the American Dream they were promised.
Maybe. But what was the promised "dream"? From the beginning of
European mass migration here, the society that coalesced into the
United States has been characterized by the presence of an
opportunity for personal re-invention, growth and self-improvement
that was unavailable in the societies migrants left behind. That
opportunity for personal self-realization and improvement was
attributable not only to the freedoms of economic and civil life
guaranteed by a republican form of government, but also because this
burgeoning society took possession of immense physical
resources—previously possessed instead by indigenous
populations the Europeans dispersed and sometimes genocidally
mistreated—and conscripted the labor and very lives of
millions of enslaved persons. The combination of benign and malign
subsidies to the freedom for self-development of some of the
population produced a unique condition in human history. By 1950,
that society had become the most powerful economic and military
aggregation in world history.
The rising generation, itself demographically very large because of
a postwar birth boom, enormously benefited from a few key socialist
institutions. Socialized old-age pensions removed the threat of
poverty among the old for the first time, allowing them freedom from
the need to provide subsistence to their aging parents. Socialized
medicine for everyone above 65 also freed them from the costs of
their parents' health care. The GI Bill socialized the financing of
higher education for tens of millions of people, men and women, who
fought our wars. Their educational attainments helped to build the
strongest higher educational system in world history, and immensely
increased the human capital and productivity of their society. A
mortgage market subsidized by federal guarantee allowed them to
become home owners at a previously unimaginable level. Because
working-class people otherwise must rent in a market in which
landlords raise rents as wages rise, home ownership allowed this
generation to avoid the landlord-trap, so producitivity gains were
real wage gains to them. Strong labor law allowed collective
organization and bargaining, which ensured that the immense gains in
value to postwar enterprise were shared with workers.
Now, the next generation fears it cannot count on those socialist
institutions to help them up, and they are right. A generation of
right-wing government has savaged the institutions that remain. We
have expanded virtually nowhere, and where we have—in the
Affordable Care Act, for example—the results are maintainable
only contingently, subject to the continued hostility of a system of
government that depends less in the making of public policy on the
votes of the poor than on the contributions of the rich.
What is the "American Dream" they were promised? The sunshine of
postwar American Social Democracy under another name ("the New Deal,
the Great Society"), or the older version, in which an equal chance
in the race of life was promised to those for whom equality was
impossible to imagine at home (as well as being denied outright to
those for whom equality was supposedly not intended)? There was
always a continuity between the conservative non-socialist outlooks
of the present and the past, even in the business-dominated
Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln was indeed a man who looked to
the "equal chance in the struggle of the poor man to improve
himself" as the essence of the American promise; he was willing to
die himself in the end, as he asked others for their last full
measure of devotion, to make that equal chance come true for those
enslaved, as well as those already free. It was the Democratic
Party, under Franklin Roosevelt, that turned to socialist policies
under non-socialist names to save American society from the Great
Depression. What your "millennials" have a gripe about, apparently,
is that they are not being delivered the degree of socialism that
was accorded to their parents, and are being forced back on the
"American Dream" of all earlier generations, which is far more
strenuous and brutal. In that case, Senator Sanders is making an
entirely rational and appropriate case to them, about the future of
the Democratic Party, is he not?
As long as people who looked like them had the promise of affordable college, raising a family in a gated suburb, and making a respectable amount of money at some soul-crushing 9-5, then everything was fine, regardless of what was actually occurring around them. It was only when these issues started to cause discomfort and disruption to their middle class existence that it became a real threat to them. The desire for revolution stems not from the anger that arises when one realizes the inequalities in the system, but the anger that arises from feeling excluded from the system. They see the world changing around them, and they don’t know what to do, so instead of reacting creatively they cling to an ideology that claims that it has all of the answers.
Unfortunately, the solution Sanders proposes is not based in reality. What the Sanders supporter fails to understand It’s not just the politicians and special interests who are opposed to (democratic) socialist ideas, Half of the country is opposed to much of the democratic socialist agenda, and many conservatives and liberals are opposed for reasons both based in ideology and practicality.
Maybe.But it is quite clear at the moment that the Republican Party
has been claiming largely about the conservatism of its voters, and
is discovering that its electorate does not believe what the Party's
classe dirigente proclaims. Whether the Democratic Party's
electorate believes what the "New Democracy" wing of its ruling
class, led the Clintons, proclaims is equally uncertain now, for
many of the same reasons. But the Republican Party is being pulled
apart by its electorate's response to the demographic changes in the
skin colors, languages, and cultural origins of new Americans. If
the Democratic Party can adjust its creeds and habits to those new
Americans, on the other hand, it stands to strengthen itself
substantially, and probably—this is Senator Sanders'
point—to move more directly to becoming a social democratic
party.
It may be easy to brush these people off as shills under the influence of special interests, but that sort of thinking solves nothing. The assumption of bad faith not just for those on the right, but for fellow Democrats is troubling. How exactly are they supposed to win a senate seat in a Republican state with their rigid ideological tests? What candidates will they recruit that will have widespread appeal in Republican states? They don’t seem to have a plan behind their slogan.
In no densely-populated state in the US are non-voting poor people
unable to change the partisan composition of government if they
showed up at a turnout level proportional to that of the rich, and
voted as those among them who vote vote now. In such an electorate,
Idaho and Utah would be "Republican states." | | | | |
>
> | | | |
It is what it does | |
<
< | Ideas such as universal healthcare and free (or at least debt free) college tuition are welcome in a political conversation that has too often skewed to the right. But in order to effect the system the self-proclaimed democratic-socialists must recognize their place within it. The mental gymnastics needed to refer to a man who spent thirty years in politics as anti-establishment, especially one going up against a woman running to be the first female President must be done away with.
The work it takes to make actual change happen must begin. The Senate and Supreme Court might all be decided by the next election. An electoral loss could mean, the loss of voting rights and healthcare for our most vulnerable. The stakes are real and the Sanders supporter must learn to be present if they are to have a say. | >
> | Ideas such as universal healthcare and free (or at least debt free) college tuition are welcome in a political conversation that has too often skewed to the right. But in order to effect the system the self-proclaimed democratic-socialists must recognize their place within it. The mental gymnastics needed to refer to a man who spent thirty years in politics as anti-establishment, especially one going up against a woman running to be the first female President must be done away with. | | | | |
>
> | The work it takes to make actual change happen must begin. The Senate and Supreme Court might all be decided by the next election. An electoral loss could mean, the loss of voting rights and healthcare for our most vulnerable. The stakes are real and the Sanders supporter must learn to be present if they are to have a say. | | | | |
<
< |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | It's a good start. The
next draft should consider, in addition to your own ideas, some of
other peoples'. | | | | |
<
< | Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|
JohnsonDFirstEssay 1 - 19 Feb 2016 - Main.JohnsonD
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
- You Say You Want a Revolution? Democratic Socialism and Political Presence
- Bernie Sanders uses the word revolution to define a political awakening where millions of Americans will rise up against their corporate masters and bring about a new era of (democratic) socialist politics. For many on the American political left, his proposition sounds enticing, especially in the face of slow social progress and stagnant wage growth. People who have historically held a privileged place in society have begun to feel the the same type of social and economic pain usually reserved for people at the margins of society. At the same time, increased polarization makes it exceedingly difficult for political compromise to take place.
- In the face of this new social reality, members of both political parties have begun to turn to extremist ideologies. Sanders taps into this phenomenon on the left by co-opting the language of revolution. He sells middle America a homogenized version of socialism wrapped in the language of the revolutionary. We should examine this rhetoric closely because as Malcom X succinctly stated: “you never had a revolution without bloodshed.” The fear of true revolutionary action is evidenced in many ways, the most striking being Sanders’ strict adherence to economic issues at the expense of what he sees as more divisive racial and gender issues. A true revolution would require the type of massive and rapid social change that would be unpalatable to the average Sanders supporter.
- It seems as though the main gripe of disaffected millennials is not that the system is irrevocably broken, but rather it’s the disappointment of not having met the expectation of achieving the version of the American Dream they were promised. As long as people who looked like them had the promise of affordable college, raising a family in a gated suburb, and making a respectable amount of money at some soul-crushing 9-5, then everything was fine, regardless of what was actually occurring around them. It was only when these issues started to cause discomfort and disruption to their middle class existence that it became a real threat to them. The desire for revolution stems not from the anger that arises when one realizes the inequalities in the system, but the anger that arises from feeling excluded from the system. They see the world changing around them, and they don’t know what to do, so instead of reacting creatively they cling to an ideology that claims that it has all of the answers.
- It is what it does
You Say You Want a Revolution? Democratic Socialism and Political Presence
-- By JohnsonD - 19 Feb 2016
Bernie Sanders uses the word revolution to define a political awakening where millions of Americans will rise up against their corporate masters and bring about a new era of (democratic) socialist politics. For many on the American political left, his proposition sounds enticing, especially in the face of slow social progress and stagnant wage growth. People who have historically held a privileged place in society have begun to feel the the same type of social and economic pain usually reserved for people at the margins of society. At the same time, increased polarization makes it exceedingly difficult for political compromise to take place.
In the face of this new social reality, members of both political parties have begun to turn to extremist ideologies. Sanders taps into this phenomenon on the left by co-opting the language of revolution. He sells middle America a homogenized version of socialism wrapped in the language of the revolutionary. We should examine this rhetoric closely because as Malcom X succinctly stated: “you never had a revolution without bloodshed.” The fear of true revolutionary action is evidenced in many ways, the most striking being Sanders’ strict adherence to economic issues at the expense of what he sees as more divisive racial and gender issues. A true revolution would require the type of massive and rapid social change that would be unpalatable to the average Sanders supporter.
Are we all socialists now?
It seems as though the main gripe of disaffected millennials is not that the system is irrevocably broken, but rather it’s the disappointment of not having met the expectation of achieving the version of the American Dream they were promised. As long as people who looked like them had the promise of affordable college, raising a family in a gated suburb, and making a respectable amount of money at some soul-crushing 9-5, then everything was fine, regardless of what was actually occurring around them. It was only when these issues started to cause discomfort and disruption to their middle class existence that it became a real threat to them. The desire for revolution stems not from the anger that arises when one realizes the inequalities in the system, but the anger that arises from feeling excluded from the system. They see the world changing around them, and they don’t know what to do, so instead of reacting creatively they cling to an ideology that claims that it has all of the answers.
Unfortunately, the solution Sanders proposes is not based in reality. What the Sanders supporter fails to understand It’s not just the politicians and special interests who are opposed to (democratic) socialist ideas, Half of the country is opposed to much of the democratic socialist agenda, and many conservatives and liberals are opposed for reasons both based in ideology and practicality.
It may be easy to brush these people off as shills under the influence of special interests, but that sort of thinking solves nothing. The assumption of bad faith not just for those on the right, but for fellow Democrats is troubling. How exactly are they supposed to win a senate seat in a Republican state with their rigid ideological tests? What candidates will they recruit that will have widespread appeal in Republican states? They don’t seem to have a plan behind their slogan.
It is what it does
Ideas such as universal healthcare and free (or at least debt free) college tuition are welcome in a political conversation that has too often skewed to the right. But in order to effect the system the self-proclaimed democratic-socialists must recognize their place within it. The mental gymnastics needed to refer to a man who spent thirty years in politics as anti-establishment, especially one going up against a woman running to be the first female President must be done away with.
The work it takes to make actual change happen must begin. The Senate and Supreme Court might all be decided by the next election. An electoral loss could mean, the loss of voting rights and healthcare for our most vulnerable. The stakes are real and the Sanders supporter must learn to be present if they are to have a say.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
| Revision 5 | r5 - 13 Jun 2016 - 20:50:50 - JohnsonD |
| Revision 4 | r4 - 12 Jun 2016 - 21:25:35 - JohnsonD |
| Revision 3 | r3 - 06 Jun 2016 - 07:06:30 - JohnsonD |
| Revision 2 | r2 - 07 Mar 2016 - 16:39:27 - EbenMoglen |
| Revision 1 | r1 - 19 Feb 2016 - 21:58:08 - JohnsonD |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|