Dems Need To Learn From the UK Election to UNITE under one message: GET HIM OUT!

[bubblesort]

In this case, "populist" means to me someone who thinks a politician's legitimacy and authority derives from his articulating the unmediated will of the people, as evidenced by his "packing massive stadiums" rather than his leading a democratic political party, and who dismisses opposition to that politician as mere examples of corruption and undue influence by vested interests.

It's not Bernie Sanders I think is a left-wing populist, it's you, so I don't see the point of the second question. The only consciously populist candidate or potential candidate in this election, at least so far, is Trump.

Oh, I see the confusion. You think leaders in democratic countries are populist, and that's bad.

The way things work, in American democracy, is that leaders derive their authority from the will of the people. Not their preference, or their whims, but their will. We go to the polls and hand the government a mandate to be lead by the candidate who we have faith in. That's why we don't use ranked choice voting, or parliamentary systems, or things like that for the presidency. Those systems generate a weak mandate to lead. American democracy generates a strong mandate to lead.

So... if Bernie and Trump are populist, and others are not, I guess that means you think the candidates who receive less votes would make better presidents?

Which one? We have racist, corrupt Buttigeg. Racist, creepy Biden. Racist, transphobic, large soda hating Bloomberg. War mongering, racist Kloubachar, who is too busy running big fund raisers to really campaign like she should be doing.

These people aren't dangerous at all? I guess they are safe if you are white. Personally, I think minorities should be treated like humans.

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

Health Care is a human right and I dare anyone to argue that statement.

Not fighting for and supporting free, unconditional healthcare to sick and injured humans is radical and extremist. Those are the people who will be running to the fascists. They just won't know it when they've arrived.

The rest is just kinda baloney.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Come on. You say this as though he is just some Johnny-come-lately who will burn bright but short. It's Bernie Sanders. A seasoned veteran policy maker. He's been getting shit done for decades, to no fanfare. Now he's drawing crowds, suddenly he's all show no substance and his support is just shallow noise.

If Sanders runs as anything other than Democrat, he and his supporters will be called traitors. Divisive vote stealers. "Why Trump won." And so on.

The doubts I'm raising here are not about Sanders but about his supporters, or at least those who think the same way Bubblesort does -- that is, those who see him as "the voice of the people" because he enthuses stadiums.

Those are the people who, if Sanders fails to gain the nomination, or gains the nomination but loses the election, or wins the election but finds he can't implement many of his policies, whether because of lack of time or lack of cooperation from the legislature or because of the federal courts, are going to be shouting about betrayal and enemies of the people.

I do have concerns about Sanders himself, simply because I have difficulty understanding the concept of a leader who describes himself as a socialist but doesn't have a socialist party to lead, and I'm really puzzled about what's supposed to happen to his supporters after he's gone, be it after failing to gain the nomination or losing the election or retiring in 8 years' time after two successful terms.

Does he have any sort of formal movement supporting him and his ideas, as Corbyn had the Momentum group? Who's going to say, after Sanders, that so-and-so is the "Bernie continuity candidate"?

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Oh, I see the confusion. You think leaders in democratic countries are populist, and that's bad.

The way things work, in American democracy, is that leaders derive their authority from the will of the people. Not their preference, or their whims, but their will. We go to the polls and hand the government a mandate to be lead by the candidate who we have faith in. That's why we don't use ranked choice voting, or parliamentary systems, or things like that for the presidency. Those systems generate a weak mandate to lead. American democracy generates a strong mandate to lead.

So... if Bernie and Trump are populist, and others are not, I guess that means you think the candidates who receive less votes would make better presidents?

Which one? We have racist, corrupt Buttigeg. Racist, creepy Biden. Racist, transphobic, large soda hating Bloomberg. War mongering, racist Kloubachar, who is too busy running big fund raisers to really campaign like she should be doing.

These people aren't dangerous at all? I guess they are safe if you are white. Personally, I think minorities should be treated like humans.

Leaders in democracies derive their authority by winning elections, not by being, in your words, "the only one packing massive stadiums."

I make no comment on Bernie Sanders at the moment, but I do, as I said, get worried about his supporters who don't release that about political leaders, because they tend to start fulminating about corruption and betrayal when, as they see it, the "will of the people," as articulated by the guy who packs the massive stadiums gets frustrated or isn't fully implemented, in their view.

Also, I have to question your understanding of the American political process.

You tell me that "We go to the polls and hand the government a mandate to be lead by the candidate who we have faith in." The president leads the government in the sense he (she, one day) appoints his cabinet, but what about the mandates enjoyed by the Congress?

What's supposed to happen, in your view, if Democratic members of the House of Representatives or the Senate don't, for whatever reason, support some of President Sanders' initiatives -- does his mandate override theirs, and are they betraying the will of the people, probably for some corrupt motives, by defying him?

As I say, I am not half so worried about Bernie Sanders as I am about his left-wing populist supporters, like you, because I get the very strong impression you want not so much a socialist or social democratic president as a radical caudillo of some sort, and that doesn't normally end well.

 

[bubblesort]

It seems like you are confused. You are concerned about populism, then you try to act like you aren't.

I just want to be clear on your argument here... It seems like you refuse to attack Bernie directly (because you can't), and instead attack people like me, because you think we are easy targets who don't understand the political process, and are just emotional idiots getting taken in by a demagogue... who is Bernie. You are saying Bernie is a demagogue... but you have no problem with Bernie? Do you like demagogues?

Also, I have to question your understanding of the American political process.

My understanding of the American Democratic™ political process is perfectly fine. It's ok to be confused on this, though. I understand that you brits don't really have proper American Democracy™ over there. You have people with silly hats and wigs running things and taking away your sharp objects. Hey, I can't throw stones, though. I mean, you have a great national health system, and some other wonderful social programs, so you're doing something right. What you need to do if you want to understand real American Democracy™, though, is go to your local, well funded British library and ask them where they keep the encyclopedias. It's like Wikipedia, except it's written by experts, and they print it on dead trees. Look up American politics in one of them, and you will understand a little more about how things work in a proper American Democracy™.

One thing about Bernie supporters that may surprise you is we aren't actually all socialists at all. We just agree on Bernie's policies. Like what Aeon Jiminy posted. I think we all agree that health care should be a universal human right, and that the health insurance industry has exploited us too much, for too long. It doesn't matter what your ideological bent is when your facebook wall is full of patreons for medical bills. You can only donate so much, but you need to do more. How do you do more? Vote for Bernie! It has nothing at all to do with his personality. I actually don't care much for his personality. I think he should be more agressive about calling out his opponents on scandals and racial issues and corruption, and I loathe his slogan ("Not me, us"). I still back him, because it's the right thing to do.

I actually have a lot of libertarians on my facebook wall, and some of them are very active libertarian organizers (I'm sorry, i try to talk sense to them some times, but some people just don't understand math). Seems like every few days I see a post from one of them saying they are supporting Bernie now. These guys will debate the role of government with me untill we are blue in the face, but at the end of the day, I'll stand next to those guys at a Bernie rally, and that says a lot, because I am extremely picky about whose back I have at rallies (protip: never stand next to antifa).

The thing I don't understand is why you are arguing so hard against Bernie, without actually appearing to like any of his opponents. Why is that? What is the one thing all of Bernie's opponents have in common? They're all just so diverse, aren't they? There must be one thread that links them all together...

Could it be... racism?

No, really. Each and every one of them are racist dirt bags. I can prove it.

Pete Buttigeg
Joe Biden
Michael Bloomberg
Amy Klobouchar

Are you sure your 'concerns' aren't really about you trying to cover up and rationalize structural racism?

 

[Lady Darnk Juniorette]

 

[Ishina]

The doubts I'm raising here are not about Sanders but about his supporters, or at least those who think the same way Bubblesort does -- that is, those who see him as "the voice of the people" because he enthuses stadiums.

Those are the people who, if Sanders fails to gain the nomination, or gains the nomination but loses the election, or wins the election but finds he can't implement many of his policies, whether because of lack of time or lack of cooperation from the legislature or because of the federal courts, are going to be shouting about betrayal and enemies of the people.

I do have concerns about Sanders himself, simply because I have difficulty understanding the concept of a leader who describes himself as a socialist but doesn't have a socialist party to lead, and I'm really puzzled about what's supposed to happen to his supporters after he's gone, be it after failing to gain the nomination or losing the election or retiring in 8 years' time after two successful terms.

Does he have any sort of formal movement supporting him and his ideas, as Corbyn had the Momentum group? Who's going to say, after Sanders, that so-and-so is the "Bernie continuity candidate"?

That's just American politics I guess. When two parties have an absolute monopoly on politics and when the people have a tradition of distrust towards independent politics, the only practical way for someone serious about change is to dress in blue or red. Or to start a revolution. I think Sanders is a bit too old to be a general, so a Democrat will have to do.

 

[Clara D.]

My understanding of the American Democratic™ political process is perfectly fine. It's ok to be confused on this, though. I understand that you brits don't really have proper American Democracy™ over there. You have people with silly hats and wigs running things and taking away your sharp objects. Hey, I can't throw stones, though. I mean, you have a great national health system, and some other wonderful social programs, so you're doing something right. What you need to do if you want to understand real American Democracy™, though, is go to your local, well funded British library and ask them where they keep the encyclopedias. It's like Wikipedia, except it's written by experts, and they print it on dead trees. Look up American politics in one of them, and you will understand a little more about how things work in a proper American Democracy™.

Are you sure your 'concerns' aren't really about you trying to cover up and rationalize structural racism?

Oooo, a patronizing jackass that gets to go on my ignore list, tho it's sort of moot since their posts are all TL-DR that makes my eyes glaze over anyways. Someone never heard the phrase "brevity is the soul of wit."

I guess they're just here to add proof to the whole Bernie Bro's are asshats thing.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

That's just American politics I guess. When two parties have an absolute monopoly on politics and when the people have a tradition of distrust towards independent politics, the only practical way for someone serious about change is to dress in blue or red. Or to start a revolution. I think Sanders is a bit too old to be a general, so a Democrat will have to do.

Yes, and I'm probably puzzled because I'm looking at the US Democrats from a foreign perspective and don't understand how they work.

What puzzles me about the whole thing is that I'd have thought anyone who wanted to bring about radical change in the US to change people's lives by moving the country to the left must realise that the project can't be achieved simply by electing Bernie Sanders as president.

If you're serious about it, you'd also want to elect -- I would, anyway -- similarly minded people to the House of Representatives, to the Senate, and to state, city and local government at all levels, and to keep on selecting radical candidates for each election.

That means campaigning inside and outside the party to ensure your side is at least represented in the relevant committees and the party machinery overall, and preferably that it controls it, and that means having lasting campaign groups that campaign for particular policies and slates of candidates rather than ad-hoc groups formed to support particular candidates.

I don't see any similar organisations inside or outside the Democratic Party. Here in the UK, Corbyn had been working away for years with like-minded colleagues within the party in left-wing organisations like the Socialist Campaign Group, building up support inside and outside the party, as had, in previous decades, people like Tony Benn and Michael Foot, and there are similar organisations on the centre and centre-right of the party, campaigning inside and outside the party for their policies and for candidates who support them.

Here, when voters were impressed by Jeremy Corbyn and wanted to join a movement to support him, they'd have been encouraged to join both the Labour Party and the Momentum Group, which campaigns inside and outside the party for left-wing Labour policies.

Is there a similar organisation in the US for people in Bernie Sanders' "Movement," as people are calling it? Where are his supporters supposed to go after November?

Is there a campaign for democratic socialism (or social democracy) within the Democratic Party that members and supports can join that's not primarily associated with getting a particular candidate nominated or elected for a particular post? If there isn't, then it seems to me Sanders' project will not outlast him.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

One thing about Bernie supporters that may surprise you is we aren't actually all socialists at all.

That's all too clear and that's what worries me.

 

[Ishina]

Yes, and I'm probably puzzled because I'm looking at the US Democrats from a foreign perspective and don't understand how they work.

What puzzles me about the whole thing is that I'd have thought anyone who wanted to bring about radical change in the US to change people's lives by moving the country to the left must realise that the project can't be achieved simply by electing Bernie Sanders as president.

If you're serious about it, you'd also want to elect -- I would, anyway -- similarly minded people to the House of Representatives, to the Senate, and to state, city and local government at all levels, and to keep on selecting radical candidates for each election.

That means campaigning inside and outside the party to ensure your side is at least represented in the relevant committees and the party machinery overall, and preferably that it controls it, and that means having lasting campaign groups that campaign for particular policies and slates of candidates rather than ad-hoc groups formed to support particular candidates.

I don't see any similar organisations inside or outside the Democratic Party. Here in the UK, Corbyn had been working away for years with like-minded colleagues within the party in left-wing organisations like the Socialist Campaign Group, building up support inside and outside the party, as had, in previous decades, people like Tony Benn and Michael Foot, and there are similar organisations on the centre and centre-right of the party, campaigning inside and outside the party for their policies and for candidates who support them.

Here, when voters were impressed by Jeremy Corbyn and wanted to join a movement to support him, they'd have been encouraged to join both the Labour Party and the Momentum Group, which campaigns inside and outside the party for left-wing Labour policies.

Is there a similar organisation in the US for people in Bernie Sanders' "Movement," as people are calling it? Where are his supporters supposed to go after November?

Is there a campaign for democratic socialism (or social democracy) within the Democratic Party that members and supports can join that's not primarily associated with getting a particular candidate nominated or elected for a particular post? If there isn't, then it seems to me Sanders' project will not outlast him.

Well I can't really answer for Americans, but I guess the Democratic Socialists of America is the comparitive organisation you're looking for. It's members, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib have have been on an upswell of support recently, and its membership increased in thousands after Trump was elected.

 

[bubblesort]

That's all too clear and that's what worries me.

Sure it is, LOL

Tell me, when did you decide that bussing is a bad idea, and police cheifs who investigate institutional racism should be fired?

 

[Jolene Benoir]

I do love it when people who were once banned make a splashy return to show everyone that they are still the same jackass.

 

[Isabeau]

Yeah, I realized yesterday. The name seemed familiar but I couldn't quite remember. Good example of a "Bro" who don't seem to reflect "socialist" Sanders.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I do love it when people who were once banned make a splashy return to show everyone that they are still the same jackass.

Yeah, I realized yesterday. The name seemed familiar but I couldn't quite remember. Good example of a "Bro" who don't seem to reflect "socialist" Sanders.

That's what was behind my questioning -- I remembered him from SLU before his spectacular melt-down, and thought I'd test whether he'd changed at all, since I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt when I can.

That, and enough rope.

 

[bubblesort]

I had a melt down? Really? You guys are crazy.

I've been around here posting for a while. Cristiano himself hit like on one of my first posts after I recreated the account, so I figure I'm good.

Not trying to troll, just talking poliitics, same as you guys. I'm not being any more confrontational than any of you guys are, normally.

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

That's all too clear and that's what worries me.

I'm very confused about your concerns of Bernie Sanders and his supporters.

I know you are British. Do you dislike the British healthcare system? Do you feel it's ultimately lead your country and people in the wrong direction?

Being American, if I woke up this morning and my house was on fire or someone was bashing in my patio window with a bazooka, I could call the Police or Fire Dept. without grabbing my credit card or getting billed later. If I had children, I could send them to school without being billed or taking out loans. I have these socialist services from the same system that was in place before Bernie Sanders arrived. These are life-threatening or important situations and Americans somehow reasoned that society can and should provide relief.

If I woke up this morning paralyzed, my child was lying in bed coughing up blood or could benefit from 4 more years of education, society may very well fall into fascism if I don't put my house and retirement up for collateral before calling for specialized assistance.

I'd rather call for Americans to put their houses and retirement up as collateral to fund our Defense Budget and skim healthcare and education off the top of the public funds. With a simple accounting rearrangement, we might be having a completely different argument about who is the radicals and extremists.

 

[Anya Ristow]

Well I can't really answer for Americans, but I guess the Democratic Socialists of America is the comparitive organisation you're looking for.

No, it's not, and I've been through this with her already. DSA is an activist organization, not a political party. There currently is no viable path to the presidency except through one of the two primary parties, so if there is to be a party of Democratic Socialists in the USA, either the Democrats or the Republicans will have to become Democratic Socialists.

Sanders may or may not even be trying to do that. For four or eight years the highest office in the party will be held by a Democratic Socialist. Even that doesn't assure the party will become so. More work would have to happen, more change would have to happen, more people would have to come to consider themselves Democratic Socialists.

 

[Ishina]

The question was about organisations.

 

[Anya Ristow]

The question was about organisations.

It's been discussed before, probably in this very thread. She is approaching it as if she's never discussed it before, but she has.

ETA She's brought up DSA before.