..that’s the headline from this piece by Kevin Gosztola written January.
This is the core of it, and a damn good read for raising questions — imo:
"What [the liberal establishment] argument really amounts to is an argument that Democratic Party politicians and the operatives who run their campaigns would be uncomfortable with talking openly about socialism because that would alienate the corporate interests they have cozied up to in order to win elections."
This:
It is one thing to vote for Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, who are more than happy to serve the moneyed elite, if you actually believe in what she stands for as a presidential candidate.
But it is quite another thing to delude people into voting for her simply because it is your view that Bernie Sanders’ vision is difficult to make a reality.
That position accepts the status quo and embraces a politics of low expectations, where the best elected officials can do is triage the effect of wealth and power becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of the few.
While it has been pointed out many times and numerous ways by supporters of both Dem candidates throughout months worth of diaries posted here and at other websites that Hillary Clinton has benefited from Bernie Sanders platform and ideas, and in fact has moved to the left to match them, it still remains unclear what the argument is for the establishment candidate’s policies that make them superior to those of Bernie Sanders, and Clinton the best candidate for the future of this country and the Democratic party itself.
There hasn’t been much said that supports the establishment platform that didn’t include a lot of the usual: Polls; numbers; delegates; name recognition; inroads; elect-ability; inevitability.. All talk, it seems, to fill in blank spaces on the candidate’s actual policies instead of demonstrating what makes them the better choice
What is the real argument for the establishment Dem? Not including “electability” or any other aspect as defined by the current Dem leadership, nor the numbers, or delegates super or otherwise, or the intransigence of the opposition (R) congress, but actual policy goals spelling out why they’re preferable to Bernie Sanders’ goals(?)
That remains a mystery — or maybe not. Just not something that is considered newsworthy by the beltway press corp: Dems choosing expediency over reliability to envision and build the changes we all seek, once again.
It is disheartening to realize that with the establishment candidate we can expect more trade deals further threatening the environment & worker protections again on the chopping block, fracking will continue apace, and zero advocacy for single payer universal healthcare as our future, with the largest corporations remaining firmly in control
As writer Chris Hedges [has] argued, [and is not a Bernie Sanders supporter but advocates for Dr. Jill Stein]
“The liberal class’ disposal of its most independent and courageous members has long been part of its pathology.”After World War I, and especially after World War II, corporations gradually sought more and more control of the state. Corporations now hold government completely captive and the liberal class, which..
“purged itself of the only members who had the fortitude and vision to save it from irrelevance,”..bears some responsibility.
And therein lie Hillary Clinton's biggest problems. She epitomizes the "insider" label of the early crowd of 2008 Democratic contenders. She's part of the Clinton machine that decimated the national Democratic Party. And she remains surrounded by many of the old consultants who counsel meekness and caution. James Carville, the famed longtime adviser to the Clintons, told Newsweek last week, "The American people are going to be ready for an era of realism. They've seen the consequences of having too many 'big ideas.' "
— emphasis added
We can embrace big ideas. We have it to do better. Bernie Sanders for President - :)