RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Bernie Sanders Is Not Stalin Print
Tuesday, 14 May 2019 10:47

Taibbi writes: "John Hickenlooper's broadside against Bernie is only the beginning of red-baiting season."

Bernie Sanders talks to supporters during a rally at the University of Washington, in Seattle. (photo: Joshua Trujillo/Seattlepi.com)
Bernie Sanders talks to supporters during a rally at the University of Washington, in Seattle. (photo: Joshua Trujillo/Seattlepi.com)


Bernie Sanders Is Not Stalin

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

14 May 19


John Hickenlooper’s broadside against Bernie is only the beginning of red-baiting season

ernie Sanders has accomplished something no one in American politics has managed for decades: He’s uniting Democrats and Republicans.

It’s early yet, but talking points for the 2020 campaign season are emerging on both sides of the aisle. Republicans and Democrats both have been trying to sell the rise of politicians like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and others as stalking horses for the overthrow of capitalism.

Noted GOP pollster Frank Luntz appeared with Howard Kurtz on the Fox “MediaBuzz” program. It was typical ring-around-the-collar news marketing, telling audiences something scary, i.e. Americans are going commie! Kurtz said a poll of 1,000 respondents found that 52 percent of Hillary Clinton voters agreed with the sentence, “I prefer to live in a socialist country than a capitalist one.” His editorial analysis:

“Capitalism itself has been so demonized by media that… if you want to oppose socialism you oppose it by talking about freedom, not capitalism.”

The interesting part of the Luntz poll was that 16 percent of Trump voters agreed with the same statement about socialism. He went on to say significant numbers of both Clinton and Trump voters favored 70 percent tax rates for the top 1 percent of earners. Kurtz suggested this was the result of media bias:

“Is the media kind of soft on socialism?” he asked Luntz. “I mean, favorable press to Democrats like Bernie Sanders and AOC, being tough on flaws of capitalism, the excesses of big corporations…”

Luntz responded that yes, of course, this was the media’s fault. What else could it be? Just look at the New York Times, he said. Why, out of seven Times news stories, he said, “typically” six will be hostile to capitalism or corporations. “It’s gotten so bad,” he continued, “I started to say to people: Stop trying to defend ‘capitalism,’ it’s ‘economic freedom.’”

This is absurd to the point of being funny: First of all, the press has been dumping on Sanders almost recreationally for years now. Meanwhile, fear of litigation has kept the press away from business exposés for decades. Whole genres of corruption go uncovered, from child labor that makes your consumer goods (enjoy that child-mined cobalt ore in your cellphone!) to war profiteering to pollution to industrial accidents. Few news organizations have even one labor reporter anymore. The last collective bargaining session that made a front page probably involved the NFL.

The more interesting part of the Luntz interview came later, when he said of Sanders, “I will be blunt with you, I think he is the most likely nominee in 2020,” and “Republicans should want that” because “Sanders cannot appeal to overall mainstream American people.”

On the other hand, Luntz went on to say with a straight face, Republicans “should be scared to death” if Democrats make Colorado Senator Michael Bennet the nominee, because “there is no issue about socialism” and “he is not extreme, he is mainstream.”

Luntz just got finished telling Kurtz a soak-the-rich 70 percent tax plan has 79 percent support among Clinton voters and 46 percent support among Trump voters, but somehow Michael Bennet — a man who would lose a charisma contest to a bag of styrofoam packing peanuts — is the threat Republicans should worry about.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Colorado-governor-turned-presidential-candidate John Hickenlooper — who sells himself as a “pragmatic progressive” — went after Sanders in New Hampshire, though not by name.

“You have to hand it to the GOP for achieving the near-impossible,” Hickenlooper said in early May. “Just years after the collapse of the Soviet Union…who would have imagined the Koch brothers and Donald Trump could help resuscitate the discredited ideas of Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin?”

Of course, Hickenlooper went on to say, he wasn’t trying to cast aspersions on Sanders as a human being by comparing him to Stalin, who murdered 20 million people. “Do I respect him?” Hickenlooper said. “Absolutely. Do I respect his supporters? Absolutely.” However, he said, he thinks Sanders is wrongly “demonizing the private sector” with ideas that will “hurt working people.”

The s-word has become such a political hot button that it’s caused even candidates whose platforms are similar to Sanders’ to make public disavowals. Longtime campaign-press pack leader John Heilemann, in an interview with Elizabeth Warren, claimed Hickenlooper was “afraid” to call himself a capitalist in the current environment, and confronted the Massachusetts senator by daring her to answer: Are you a capitalist?

“Yes,” she said, adding later: “I believe in markets.”

Luntz, Kurtz, Hickenlooper and Heilemann are all indulging in an old PR trick, one designed to reduce the political landscape to a stark (and fictitious) binary choice: One can either be a God-fearing, cheeseburger-loving American, or a Marxist, with nothing in between.

The Luntz poll question was framed as an either/or deal: Would you “rather live in a socialist country than a capitalist one”? Hickenlooper was suggesting the choice is between capitalism and Stalinism. Heilemann is pushing a litmus test for candidates: capitalist or non-capitalist. All of this is designed to push the idea that a vote for Sanders (or for the kinds of policies he favors) is a vote to overthrow free enterprise.

The irony of all of this is that Sanders, who is painted as a sort of extremist menace and El Coco-style monster from whom we should hide the children, would have been considered a tepid Republican back in the Fifties, when the original red scare was at its peak.

When Dwight Eisenhower was president, ideas like state-subsidized mortgages, government-aided tuition, and socialized medicine were considered relatively mainstream. The top tax bracket was 91 percent, and though very few people actually paid that rate, some did — there were 10,000 taxpayers in 1958 who paid 81 percent or higher.

This is not to say tax rates that high would make sense today. But there’s a gigantic gap between advocating for free college tuition and single-payer health care and Stalin.

Sanders does pitch himself as a revolutionary (see On the Campaign Trail With Bernie Sanders 2.0). His use of the term, however, is less reality than a dark satirical commentary, speaking to how insanely far modern America has drifted in the direction of a laissez-faire free-for-all. There has not been a true labor candidate as a viable presence in a presidential race in modern American history: They’ve all been backed by big money.

National policy across the board is dominated by business. Politicians drenched in donations from Boeing, Raytheon, Northrup Grumman and Lockheed-Martin decide levels of military spending. On the banking and financial services committees, it’s Wall Street money that rules. The Ag committees are ruled by frankenfood and tobacco firms.

The likes of Kurtz and Luntz want to blame the media for changing attitudes, but the real issue is that the corporate cash that has dominated politics for decades almost exclusively pushed employer interests, ignoring all else — and voters have started, belatedly, to notice.

While big companies like Amazon systematically avoid taxes (literally to the point of paying nothing in many cases) most ordinary people are paying every penny of their individual tax obligations and not getting a lot in return.

What politicians like Sanders and Warren represent isn’t Marxism, but an introduction to what politics might look like if you removed money from the policymaking equation.

Most people would rather have affordable health and day care than battleships, they want to be able to go to college without being in debt until death, and they want better schools and more job security.

If policies like these were decided by up-and-down plebiscite, without the advocacy of corporate-sponsored politicians and media outlets that would lose fortunes in ad dollars if elections were publicly-funded, there’s little question that people would ask for more than they’re getting now.

The current panic in the press is designed to make people think that if they demand more politically, it’s going to end in purges and Gulags. It’s a trick, and a big part of the reason there’s going to be a massive effort at creating an “ick” factor around politicians like Sanders, and to a lesser extent, Warren.

They want people to think it’s socially unacceptable to ask for job security or subsidized education or other protections. More to the point, they want to go back to the good old days, when the presidential election season was a glorious ritual in which voters took two years to decide if they would vote for the politicians who’d completely sold them out, or only just mostly.

Bernie Sanders may not be the answer, but he isn’t Stalin, and voter attitudes aren’t changing because people are romanticizing the Great Terror. We’ve just had awful leadership for so long that demanding fairness and competence from politicians has started to seem like a radical idea. It isn’t, but get used to being told it is, until the next election at least.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Is Trump Yet Another US President Provoking a War? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=32128"><span class="small">Robin Wright, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Tuesday, 14 May 2019 08:26

Wright writes: "The United States has a long history of provoking, instigating, or launching wars based on dubious, flimsy, or manufactured threats."

F22 fighter jet on runway. (photo: Getty Images)
F22 fighter jet on runway. (photo: Getty Images)


Is Trump Yet Another US President Provoking a War?

By Robin Wright, The New Yorker

14 May 19

 

he United States has a long history of provoking, instigating, or launching wars based on dubious, flimsy, or manufactured threats. In 1986, the Reagan Administration plotted to use U.S. military maneuvers off Libya’s coast to provoke Muammar Qaddafi into a showdown. The planning for Operation Prairie Fire, which deployed three aircraft carriers and thirty other warships, was months in the making. Before the Navy’s arrival, U.S. warplanes conducted missions skirting Libyan shore and air defenses—“poking them in the ribs” to “keep them on edge,” a U.S. military source told the Los Angeles Times that year. One official involved in the mission explained, “It was provocation, if you want to use that word. While everything we did was perfectly legitimate, we were not going to pass up the opportunity to strike.”

Qaddafi took the bait. Libya fired at least six surface-to-air missiles at U.S. planes. Citing the “aggressive and unlawful nature of Colonel Qaddafi’s regime,” the U.S. responded by opening fire at a Libyan patrol boat. “The ship is dead in the water, burning, and appears to be sinking. There are no official survivors,” the White House reported. In the course of two days, the U.S. destroyed two more naval vessels and a missile site in Sirte, Qaddafi’s home town. It also put Libya on general notice. “We now consider all approaching Libyan forces to have hostile intent,” the White House said.

The most egregious case was the U.S. invasion of Iraq, in 2003, which was based on bad intelligence that Baghdad had active weapons-of-mass-destruction programs. The repercussions are still playing out sixteen years (and more than four thousand American deaths) later. The beginning of the Vietnam War was authorized by two now disputed incidents involving U.S. warships in the Gulf of Tonkin. In response, Congress authorized President Johnson, in 1964, to “take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.” The war dragged on for a decade, claiming the lives of fifty-seven thousand Americans and as many as a million Vietnamese fighters and civilians.

The pattern goes back even further. In 1898, the Spanish-American War was triggered by an explosion on the U.S.S. Maine, an American battleship docked in Havana Harbor. The Administration of President William McKinley blamed a Spanish mine or torpedo. Almost eight decades later, in 1976, the American admiral Hyman Rickover concluded that the battleship was destroyed by the spontaneous combustion of coal in a bunker next to ammunition. In 1846, President James Polk justified the Mexican-American War by claiming that Mexico had invaded U.S. territory, at a time when the border was not yet settled. Mexico claimed that the border was the Nueces River; the United States claimed it was the Rio Grande, about a hundred miles away. One of the few voices that challenged Polk’s casus belli was Abraham Lincoln, then serving in Congress. Around fifteen hundred Americans died of battle injuries, and another ten thousand from illness.

Today, the question in Washington—and surely in Tehran, too—is whether President Trump is making moves that will provoke, instigate, or inadvertently drag the United States into a war with Iran. Trump’s threats began twelve days after he took office, in 2017, when his national-security adviser at the time, Michael Flynn, declared, in the White House press room, “As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.” Flynn, a former three-star general, was fired several weeks later and subsequently indicted for lying to the F.B.I. about his contacts with Russia. The Administration’s campaign against Iran, though, has steadily escalated, particularly in the past two weeks.

On May 5th, a Sunday, the White House issued an unusual communiqué—from the national-security adviser, John Bolton, not the Pentagon—announcing that a battleship-carrier strike group, led by the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, and a bomber task force, including B-52s, were deploying off Iran’s coast. The Lincoln was headed to the Middle East anyway, but its deployment was fast-tracked, U.S. officials told me. Bolton claimed that the Islamic Republic was engaged in “a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings,” but did not provide specifics. The Administration’s goal, he said, was “to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.” Bolton, who was a key player behind the U.S. war in Iraq, advocated bombing Iran before he joined the Trump White House.

Five days later, on May 10th, the Pentagon announced a second display of force: the U.S.S. Arlington and a battery of Patriot missile systems would join the Abraham Lincoln. The Arlington carries U.S. Marines and an array of aircraft, landing craft, and weapons systems to support amphibious assault, special-operations teams, and “expeditionary warfare.” A Patriot battery defends against ballistic missiles and aircraft. Both are meant to respond to “indications of heightened Iranian readiness to conduct offensive operations against U.S. forces and our interests,” the Pentagon said.

The Trump Administration is concerned that Iran, or its proxies, could strike U.S. assets in the Middle East, including in the Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Syria. The Iranians “have demonstrated the willingness and ability to attack our people, our interests, and our friends and allies in the confusing, complex zone just short of armed conflict,” General Kenneth McKenzie, the head of U.S. Central Command, said last week, at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, in Washington.

Iran does, indeed, have a growing array of surrogates across the region. Lebanon’s Hezbollah—inspired, armed, and trained by Iran—is now the most powerful militia outside state control in the entire Middle East. In Syria, Tehran has mobilized Shiite allies from four countries—Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan—to supplement its own forces helping President Bashar al-Assad reassert control over his fractured nation. Tehran has reportedly shipped short-range missiles to allies by boat through the Persian Gulf and deployed kits in Syria that convert imprecise rockets into missiles with greater range, accuracy, and impact. The Islamic Republic supports several Shiite militias in Iraq under the umbrella of the country’s Popular Mobilization Forces, which emerged in 2014, with Iraqi government approval, to fight ISIS. The caliphate has fallen, but the P.M.F. remains a powerful and divisive militia in Iraq.

Despite the Trump Administration’s aggressive stance, there have been no major incidents in the Persian Gulf for almost two years, after a spate of provocative acts by Iran—thirty-six in 2016 and fourteen in 2017—against U.S. warships, a Pentagon official told me. The last one was on August 14, 2017, when an Iranian drone approached the U.S.S. Nimitz as an F/A-18 was trying to land on the aircraft carrier. The drone, which was flying at night, did not have its lights on; repeated radio calls to its controlling station went unanswered. The Nimitz was in international waters, beyond the twelve-mile limit any nation can claim.

“We haven’t seen an unsafe interaction since then,” Captain Bill Urban, the spokesman for U.S. Central Command, told me. “It has been a long time, considering how many incidents we had in 2016 and 2017.” The U.S. still has regular interactions with Iranian ships. “It’s not unusual to have several attack craft come out and approach our ships and take pictures. But now they routinely stop at a safe distance or approach in manner that is not escalatory,” he said. “We continue to remain vigilant.”

The U.S. military deployments are the latest steps in the Administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign. The U.S. designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization last month and has imposed a steady stream of sanctions on Iran’s economy, the most recent of which were imposed last week and covered industrial metals produced in Iran. The Administration has vowed to keep increasing pressure until Iran changes its behavior—on its weapons-development programs, human-rights violations, support for militant movements, and intervention in other Middle East countries. So far, Tehran has not changed course.

“Frustration is building up in Washington, as maximum pressure has produced minimum strategic results, and the clock is ticking,” Ali Vaez, the director of the Iran program at the International Crisis Group, told me. “Some in Washington and the region would welcome, or try to provoke, a confrontation in an effort to achieve what sanctions have failed at so far—cutting Iran down to size.” Vaez outlined two scenarios: Iran digs in, “prompting a frustrated White House to double down yet again on measures that alienate key allies and risk regional escalation,” or Iran calculates that it has little left to lose “and decides to escalate further in the nuclear realm or in the region.”

Iran has made aggressive moves of its own. Last month, Tehran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s traded oil passes, if the Administration blocks it from exporting its own oil. Last week, President Hassan Rouhani announced that Tehran would no longer comply with two smaller provisions of the 2015 nuclear deal: exporting excess uranium and also heavy water from its nuclear program. (It might not be able to export the stockpiles anyway, since the U.S. recently vowed to sanction any country that buys either.)

Trump withdrew from the agreement a year ago, but Iran continued to comply, according to inspectors at the International Atomic Energy Agency. Rouhani also issued an ultimatum to the deal’s other five signatories, Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia: either help Iran sell its oil and circumvent U.S. sanctions restrictions within sixty days or Tehran would increase its enrichment of uranium, a fuel that can be used for both peaceful nuclear energy and building the world’s deadliest weapon. Rouhani’s announcement basically put the world on notice that Tehran would not keep to the agreement’s limits if it failed to receive its promised benefits. “We felt that the nuclear deal needs a surgery, and the painkiller pills of the last year have been ineffective,” Rouhani said, in a televised address. “This surgery is for saving the deal, not destroying it.”

The sense of foreboding is tangible, the threats from both sides are no longer rhetorical. Before the nuclear-deal negotiations began, in 2013, Washington was consumed with hyped talk of the United States or its allies bombing Iran. If the nuclear deal formally dies, talk of military confrontation may again fill both capitals—even if neither country wants it. “Make no mistake, we’re not seeking a fight with the Iranian regime,” McKenzie, the Centcom commander, said last week. “But we do have a military force that’s designed to be agile, adaptive, and prepared to respond to a variety of contingencies in the Middle East and around the world.” The problem, as U.S. history proves, is that the momentum of confrontation is harder to reverse with each escalatory step.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: Asset Forfeiture? Thank Joe Biden and His Friend Strom Thurmond Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36478"><span class="small">John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 13 May 2019 13:27

Kiriakou writes: "I, for one, want a president who is going to support civil liberties and civil rights, not conspire with notorious extremists to take them away."

Sens. Strom Thurmond, Joe Biden, and Ted Kennedy before the Clarence Thomas hearings began in 1991. (photo: John Duricka/AP)
Sens. Strom Thurmond, Joe Biden, and Ted Kennedy before the Clarence Thomas hearings began in 1991. (photo: John Duricka/AP)


Asset Forfeiture? Thank Joe Biden and His Friend Strom Thurmond

By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News

13 May 19

 

arvey Miller is known in the music industry as “DJ Speedy.” He’s a serious player in the music world, having worked with Beyonce, Jay-Z, and other top pop stars. He is a wealthy and successful entrepreneur and entertainer. He also happens to be African-American.

Miller was driving recently from his home in Atlanta, Georgia, to his second home in Los Angeles. A sheriff’s deputy pulled him over in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, for “not using his turn signal a full 100 feet before changing lanes.” The deputy asked Miller what he was doing in Oklahoma. Miller said that he was a professional musician and he was on his way to his home in California. The deputy said that the story sounded suspicious and he asked if he could search the car. Miller, who had no criminal record, refused. “No, you can’t search my vehicle,” he said. “What warrants you to search my vehicle?”

The cop wasn’t finished with Miller, however. He called in a K-9 unit; a K-9 “sniff” isn’t the same as a “search,” according to the Supreme Court. No permission — or warrant — is needed. The cops claim that the dog “alerted” for possible drugs and they searched the car. Miller protested that he has never used drugs, he hadn’t been drinking, and he had never been arrested. He had never broken the law.

The cops found no drugs. They did, though, find $150,000 in cash, which they seized, claiming that the money “smelled like marijuana.” They also claimed that of the $150,000, one $20 bill was fake, and they arrested Miller. He spent 12 hours in the county jail and was released without charge in the morning.

But the cops kept the money, and they’re not giving it back. It’s called civil asset forfeiture. Literally nothing in the law says that the police have to give Miller his money back, even though he’s never been charged with a crime. He’ll probably never see it again. And who do we have to thank for this travesty of justice? Joe Biden.

Biden was elected to the Senate way back in 1972, and he immediately saw himself as a potential presidential candidate. He was a progressive Democrat from a progressive Democratic state and he had to prove to Republicans and moderate independents that he was tough on crime. He set out to do that immediately.

An early form of asset forfeiture had been passed into law in 1970, but it applied only to goods that could be considered a danger to society, like weapons, illegal alcohol, and untaxed cigarettes, and it applied only after the defendant was convicted of a crime. Prosecutors wanted something that gave them more leverage over defendants and that packed more of a punch besides just a prison sentence. In 1978, Jimmy Carter’s “drug czar,” Peter Bourne, became a proselytizer for a wildly-expanded form of civil asset forfeiture. He held seminars for prosecutors and volunteered to brief members of Congress on the need for forfeiture without conviction as a legal weapon. He quickly gained an ally in Joe Biden.

Bourne told Biden that prosecutors weren’t taking advantage of the civil asset forfeiture law and that it needed to be strengthened. But he was soon pushed out when Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980. Biden then began working with the new attorney general, Ed Meese, and Assistant Attorney General Bill Weld. (Weld somehow has come to be known as a “moderate,” despite the fact that he went on to become a federal prosecutor, where he was a leader in civil asset forfeiture cases, the Republican governor of Massachusetts, and the Libertarian Party’s nominee for Vice President. He is now running against Donald Trump in the 2020 Republican presidential primaries. He went so far in the 1980s as to ask Congress for the authority to shoot down planes flown by suspected drug dealers.)

Biden, Meese, and Weld agreed that the asset forfeiture laws didn’t go far enough. They decided that, because the existing law required an indictment before the feds could take people’s property, it had to be changed. Police and prosecutors would have unprecedented legal authority to “put the drug cartels out of business.” They turned to Biden to push it through Congress.

In 1983, Biden, along with racist former Dixiecrat senator Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), drafted the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act, which gave federal agents nearly unlimited powers to seize assets from private citizens. Reagan signed it into law quickly. But Biden wasn’t done. A year later, he and Thurmond wrote and had passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act. It again expanded prosecutors’ powers and lowered the burden of proof for forfeiture. Now federal agents only had to believe that what they were seizing was equal in value to money believed to have been purchased from drug sales. Nobody had to prove anything. Most importantly, the new law allowed for “equitable sharing,” allowing states and localities to retain up to 80 percent of assets seized.

Do you think Biden has had second thoughts? Nope. In a 1991 speech on the Senate floor, he said, “We changed the law so that if you are arrested, and you are a drug dealer, under our forfeiture statutes, the government can take everything you own. Everything from your car to your house, your bank account, not merely what they confiscate in terms of the dollars from the transaction you just got caught engaging in.” Notice that he didn’t say anything about anybody actually being convicted of a crime.

More recently, in January, Biden was challenged over his support for asset forfeiture. He parsed his words. “I haven’t always been right. I know we haven’t always gotten things right, but I’ve always tried.”

I, for one, want a president who is going to support civil liberties and civil rights, not conspire with notorious extremists like Thurmond, Reagan, Meese, and Weld to take them away. Biden has had his turn at the trough. He blew it. He stripped Americans of their rights. He actually wanted — encouraged — the cops to take our homes, our cars, and our money even if we were never convicted of a crime. He made it easier for them. That’s the kind of politician we should send into a permanent retirement, not to the White House.

Email This Page


John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act - a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture program.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
It Will Be Very Hot and Very Wet - We've Exceeded 415ppm of Carbon Dioxide for the First Time Since the Pliocene Print
Monday, 13 May 2019 13:14

Cole writes: "The last time the earth saw 415 parts per million of CO2 was the Pliocene era between 3 and 5 million years ago."

When volcanoes erupt, a large amount of material from the Earth's interior, including extraordinary amounts of carbon dioxide, are released into the atmosphere. (photo: European Geosciences Union)
When volcanoes erupt, a large amount of material from the Earth's interior, including extraordinary amounts of carbon dioxide, are released into the atmosphere. (photo: European Geosciences Union)


It Will Be Very Hot and Very Wet - We've Exceeded 415ppm of Carbon Dioxide for the First Time Since the Pliocene

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

13 May 19

 


he National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration measures atmospheric carbon dioxide at its Moana Loa observatory. You can see that on May 11 we were just about at 415 parts per million of CO2. A couple of days this week, we’ve gone over 415. When I say that, you should run screaming like a tsunami is coming over the horizon with mayhem on its mind. 415 is bigger than a million tsunamis. We put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when we drive gasoline autos or burn coal or natural gas for heating.

May 11: 414.75 ppm
May 10: 414.26 ppm
May 09: 414.23 ppm
May 08: 414.50 ppm
May 07: 414.24 ppm
Last Updated: May 12, 2019

(The chart above shows that we have, scarily, added about 100 ppm only since 1960. This process is speeding up, folks.)

We Americans are spewing 6 billion metric tons of the stuff into the atmosphere every year. An active volcano like Mt. Etna is putting out 5.8 million tons of CO2 every year.So we Americans are like 1,000 active, erupting volcanoes, all day, every day, every year, year after year.

In contrast, there are only about 19 active volcanoes putting out significant emissions in the whole world as we speak. They’d need to increase by a factor of 50 just to match American output, and China puts more CO2 out there than we do.

The last time the earth saw 415 parts per million of CO2 was the Pliocene era between 3 and 5 million years ago.

We cannot see the full effects of 415 yet. The oceans are very deep and very cold, and it will take thousands of years for them fully to absorb the extra heat being trapped on earth by carbon dioxide and methane.

But that’s the big bang and will take a while. We are already seeing significant climate emergencies, and the effects of the CO2 have been visible since at least the beginning of the 20th century. The American southwest has seen a century of unusual dryness, and the monsoons in India have been wetter and more destructive, over the past century. These trends will increase dramatically in coming years.

In the Pliocene, it was much hotter.

In the Pliocene, oceans were much higher, maybe 90 feet higher.

That is our fate, folks. That is what 415ppm produces. It is only a matter of time, and some of the sea level rise will come quickly.

Amsterdam, New Orleans, Lisbon, Miami– the list of cities that will be submerged is enormous.

The extra heat trapped here on earth by CO2 is melting all the earth’s surface ice, so that the water runs into the oceans and raises their level.

It will be a lot hotter. Some 3-6 degrees F. hotter. That’s an average for the whole surface of the world. Any particular place could be 15 degrees hotter. Try that out in Tucson, AZ. Some places will become uninhabitable. It can’t be stopped now.

What can be stopped is its getting any worse. But that would require moving with blinding speed to wind and solar power and electric cars.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: On the Trail With Bernie Sanders 2.0 Print
Monday, 13 May 2019 10:40

Taibbi writes: "Can the Vermont senator win over Trump voters and harness his grassroots army to transform the Democratic Party?"

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., greets supporters after speaking at James Madison Park in Madison, Wis., Friday, April 12, 2019. (photo: Amber Arnold/Wisconsin State Journal/AP)
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., greets supporters after speaking at James Madison Park in Madison, Wis., Friday, April 12, 2019. (photo: Amber Arnold/Wisconsin State Journal/AP)


On the Trail With Bernie Sanders 2.0

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

13 May 19


Can the Vermont senator win over Trump voters and harness his grassroots army to transform the Democratic Party?

blustery Friday evening. A few thousand supporters of Vermont senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders are gathered in James Madison Park, along the shores of Lake Mendota. Though it’s April, it’s cold as hell. A group of Bern fans look ready to blow away in the breeze as their giant American and Wisconsin state flags fill up like spinnaker sails. When Sanders finally ascends to the lectern, all you can see from a distance is a shock of white hair whipping in the wind atop a shiny black overcoat. He looks like a gull in a Glad bag.

“When I was leaving Washington this morning, I was wondering — should I take my coat or not?” he says. “Right decision. Good!”

It’s the beginning of Sanders’ so-called Blue Wall tour, through five key Rust Belt states that fell to Donald Trump in 2016. Wisconsin is the first stop, to be followed by Indiana, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Sanders is here to roll out his campaign’s core argument, that among Democrats he alone is positioned to retake voters lost by the party to Trump.

Within just a few minutes, Sanders gets to his money line:

“Of all the lies that [Trump] told,” he says, “the biggest lie was when he said during the campaign he was going to defend the interests of the working class of our country.”

Sanders’ pitch to 60 million red-state voters is, Trump lied to you. He believes many of Trump’s supporters are denizens of a pissed-off working class who bought Trump’s promises of better jobs, benefits and security after decades of betrayal from both parties.

Sanders thinks the whole working class shares this anger, but this trip is overtly about the white portion of that demographic. That he’s even making a pitch to Trump voters is an act of defiance. Much of the commercial news media since 2016 has doubled down on Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” line, dismissing Trump voters as motivated entirely by racism. To court them at all, the thinking goes, is itself a form of white identity politics.

Sanders clearly disagrees. His speech is designed to remind everyone, Democrats as much as ostensible Trump voters, how explicit Trump’s promises on the “economic insecurity” front were and how miserably he’s failed at keeping them. Bernie has never said this out loud, but some of his frustration may come from the fact that candidate Trump in 2015-16 often borrowed from Sanders-esque critiques about corporate power; he even regularly made it a point to praise Sanders in speeches.

“Trump told the American people that he would provide health care to everybody, remember that?” Sanders says.

The crowd cheers a little. Perhaps not everyone remembers, but Trump did once promise “insurance for everybody,” adding a classic strongman’s pledge that “everybody is going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.”

Sanders lists other Trump pledges seemingly stolen directly from his own campaign. “I remember the ad that he ran, it was really a very good ad,” Sanders quips. “He said, ‘I, Donald Trump, [am] going to stand up to Wall Street.’ Remember that? Oh, yeah, and we’re going to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act.”

Sanders of course has long promised to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, a Roosevelt-era law separating insurance, commercial banking and investment banking. Sanders was mad in a copyright-infringement sort of way even then, and still seems it. (After Trump was elected, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told Sanders that Trump’s promise of a “21st-century Glass-Steagall Act” did not actually mean breaking up banks, which would “ruin liquidity.”)

Sanders goes on to list other Trump whoppers: that “the rich will not be gaining” under his tax plan (in fact, 83 percent of the tax relief went to the top bracket), that he would bring manufacturing jobs back, and so on.

It all makes sense. The disconnect is the crowd isn’t exactly full of duped Trump supporters. Most of the assembled are young, progressive-leaning students whom Sanders had already won over in the last election cycle.

“I loved his 2016 campaign,” says Zach Farmer, a University of Wisconsin student, who adds he liked that Sanders “introduced things like Medicare for All, free college tuition, things like that.” Farmer was merely a fan in 2016 but plans to volunteer this time around, a typical representation of how the Sanders phenomenon has grown since the last election.

Despite his movement’s continuous growth, Sanders appeared to have a difficult winter. Former staffers accused him of ignoring “the issue of sexual violence and harassment” in the 2016 campaign. Tied to that were criticisms that his staff was overrepresented by white men, an issue that may have led to his longtime Svengali, Jeff Weaver, deciding not to run his campaign this time. This seemed to rattle Sanders, who has been tied at the hip to Weaver since dinosaurs roamed the Earth (read: since 1986, when Weaver was Sanders’ driver during the Vermont gubernatorial campaign).

It wasn’t just a theatrical delay when Sanders took a long time to decide to run; he was genuinely torn. Former staffers launched a Draft Bernie/signature-gathering campaign designed to prove he’d have the support he’d need to succeed. Sanders still took six or seven weeks after that to think it over.

In 2016, Sanders ran a freewheeling campaign, occupying a Jeremiah-like role, roaming the planet speaking truth to power. Now, Sanders is a genuine contender, even if he’s seldom described that way. With almost no corporate support, he led all Democrats in fundraising in the first quarter. In the first week after a late-February launch, he pulled in an astonishing $10 million, coming from 359,914 donors, 39 percent of which came from addresses that had never donated to him before. By the end of March, he’d raised $18 million, with an average contribution of just $20, down from $27 in 2016. By mid-April he had a million volunteers.

But Sanders no longer has the breeze of low expectations at his back. What was merely a lack of institutional support in 2016 has transformed into active institutional opposition. Among the donor class, his own party’s leadership and in most of the commercial media, he is roundly despised. He is blamed often for Clinton’s 2016 loss, and denounced as a dangerous socialist, a narcissist obstructionist, even the Kremlin’s candidate. (Multiple Washington Post columns have claimed Vladimir Putin is pushing the Sanders campaign in order to help “elect Trump.”)

Sanders has obviously heard it all, along with the complaints about his age, 77, and other criticisms. These figured into the difficult calculation of whether to run. Unlike most candidates who finish second in a close presidential primary, he knew he would enter the next cycle as the opposite of a presumptive front-runner — more like a presumptive pundit scratching post.

But Sanders couldn’t afford to sit this out. Failure to run might have imperiled decades of efforts toward realizing ideas like Medicare for All and a raised minimum wage. He and many members of his staff also believe that on issues like climate change, the country can’t afford to wait out either another Republican or corporate-backed Democratic presidency. Ultimately, the calculation was no more message campaigns. Sanders not only has to run, he has to run and win.

Of course, to win, he’d essentially have to overturn the whole political system — two parties, big-dollar donors and the media. It’s his only realistic path to the presidency.

“It’s a different kind of campaign,” Sanders tells me in late April. “Look, we’re not just taking on Donald Trump. We’re also taking on the corporate establishment, the Democratic establishment, the drug companies, the health insurance companies, Wall Street.?.?.?.

“It’s not just rhetoric,” he says.

***

The day after the Madison rally, a much sunnier afternoon. A Detroit blues-acid-funk band called Act Casual blasts out “Hillbilly Disco” in the parking lot of Macomb County Community College.

Bernie 2020 events have a Monterey Pop feel, with audiences often full of rainbow tie-dye, picnicking families and toddlers running loose, all in odd contrast to the campaign’s legendarily square candidate. Everything from Brit pop to funk to reggae has warmed up Sanders events (I haven’t heard death metal yet, but maybe it’s coming).

It’s self-consciously a Sixties vibe, but defiant, Altamont-type Sixties, not the fuzzy Forrest Gump version. The campaign stokes this imagery in a ham-handed way by playing revolution-themed songs before the speeches start — “The Revolution Starts Now,” by Steve Earle, “Revolution,” by Flogging Molly, and so on.

Sanders’ revolutionary branding has always drawn eye rolls among people who take the word in its literal sense. Obviously, Bernie Sanders, perpetually tie-clad senator of a tiny dairy state, is not leading tunnel raids of Viet Cong or urging miners to dynamite coal tipples.

“There is nothing revolutionary about Our Revolution,” snapped the World Socialist Web Site in 2016, when Sanders launched a permanent organization after his campaign ended. The site ripped Sanders for working within the Democratic Party and failing to openly denounce capitalism.

Mainstream Democratic pundits similarly scoff at Sanders as an insurgent left phenomenon. Centrist barometer/pundit Jonathan Chait wrote a New York piece in February called “The Myth of Bernie Sanders’ White Working-Class Support,” claiming Sanders’ electoral success came significantly from the right — from “Never Hillary” voters, many of whom went on to vote for Trump and “had either left the party or had never been in it in the first place.”

“Without that protest vote,” Chait sniped, “the entire narrative of Sanders as the rising voice of the party’s authentic base would never have taken hold.”

The Sanders campaign’s point of view is that Bernie’s voters are the party’s authentic base, or at least were, once upon a time. The Macomb County event was chosen to make this point. This Detroit suburb is where Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg coined the term “Reagan Democrats” four decades ago.

Greenberg was describing the predominantly white working-class voters who jumped to the Republican Party in droves in the Reagan years. Greenberg’s initial explanation, which became the traditional diagnosis among political scientists, was that these voters had been lured away mostly by racial appeals, over issues like busing and urban-renewal grants.

The Sanders campaign is betting on another take. They believe Democrats don’t have a problem with working-class white voters, but a problem with working-class voters of all races and backgrounds — lost to the party over the years due to frustrations with free-trade policies, a 50-year decline in real wages, disillusionment with bipartisan-supported foreign wars and their costs for military families, failure to regulate an increasingly exploitative financial-services sector, exploding incarceration rates and so on.

Craig Regester, an Ann Arbor professor and activist who introduces Sanders at the rally, hammers the theme when he takes the lectern. Regester says that when Reagan won here, political scientists “went crazy” trying to figure out what happened. Clearly referencing the race issue, he says, “They had all these theories, these elitist misunderstandings of the good and decent people who work and live in Macomb County.?.?.?.?What Bernie Sanders understands about what happened then, that no other Democratic candidate understands, is that those folks didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party actually might have left them.”

Eventually, Sanders is introduced with his usual pop-revolution anthem, John Lennon’s “Power to the People,” the same intro tune of his last campaign (a song our own Hunter S. Thompson once dismissed as having been written “10 years too late”).

Dishing a few awkward Bern-shakes to crowd members on the way, Sanders ascends to the lectern and delivers much the same speech he gave in Madison — what one might call his Trump-is-a-pathological-liar speech, the essence of it being that “whether you’re a progressive, a moderate or a conservative, you are not proud that today we have a president of the United States who is a pathological liar.”

When Sanders mentions that Trump promised to be a “different kind” of Republican, you can hear a trace of Gilbert Gottfried as he deadpans, “It will not shock you to learn that he lied.” Occasional bone-dry sarcasm represents more or less Sanders’ full humor arsenal.

It all sounds on the surface like the same all-Trump-all-the-time rhetorical strategy that failed Democrats in 2016. However, it’s a little more nuanced. The constant references to working-class voters and the choice of places like Warren are an implicit indictment of past Democratic losses.

Sanders’ “revolution” may not be a beret-and-bayonet insurrection, but it is about using the vote to forcibly detach the Democratic Party from corporate donors, to return it to its roots as a labor-dominated organization.

The Blue Wall tour is crammed full of union imagery, with Sanders introduced at stop after stop by union leaders and advocates, who tell tales of the Vermont senator intervening in labor disputes, supporting strikes, joining picket lines, even being the first presidential candidate to unionize his staff. His union bona fides will be recited to the point of redundancy.

“Bernie Sanders is a union organizer,” United Electric worker and activist Alan Hart will tell one crowd. Sanders backed 1,700 striking workers this year at Hart’s old locomotive plant in Erie, Pennsylvania.

Sanders’ union-centric stump presentation is a surprisingly tight message for a candidate often criticized for being strategy-averse and who has already dealt with dissension and loss among his brain trust — three of his senior advisers have left the campaign since the launch.

“Obviously the issues of social justice are critically important?.?.?.?and we need to end discrimination in all forms,” Sanders tells me. “But we need a trade union movement to rebuild the middle class in this country.”

A drop in union support for Democrats was a little-discussed factor in the 2016 race. Exit polls showed union votes for Hillary Clinton fell about seven percent versus the Obama years.

Trump’s failure to keep promises to union members and/or bring back manufacturing jobs (although the rate of decline has slowed) might be a factor in swing counties in 2020, but it won’t be easy. There’s some evidence Trump’s tariffs, along with things like his generally hostile/insulting posture to China, still somehow carry weight with union voters. Democrats may only regain union votes if someone like Sanders — who probably went trick-or-treating as Samuel Gompers in his childhood — ends up on the ballot.

It’s been a while since any viable presidential candidate has described his or her campaign as part of a “trade union movement.” It may not be enough for the World Socialist Web Site, but an all-labor, no-corporate-money run is the closest thing to guerrilla politics you’ll see on an American campaign trail. It couldn’t actually work, could it?

Adam Brody, who works locally as a freight forwarder — that’s a person who organizes the logistics of moving goods and materials using “trains, boats, planes,” etc. — laughs at the question. “People thought Trump couldn’t win,” he says.

***

Another big crowd, another string of fiery introductory speeches, including a couple from San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz and Nina Turner, the black former Ohio state senator who is an emerging leader in the nascent Democratic Socialist movement. Jill Stein asked Turner to be her running mate on the Green Party ticket in 2016, but Turner declined, saying, “I believe that the Democratic Party is worth fighting for.”

Today, as co-chair of the campaign, Turner is effectively Sanders’ unofficial running mate. She’s almost his rhetorical opposite: passionate, confident, off the cuff, able to say things like “hashtag-the-struggle-sho-nuff-real” and have crowds respond with something other than stunned silence.

In Pittsburgh, she takes the stage in a slick leather jacket (even when he was younger, Sanders couldn’t have pulled off a Starsky and Hutch look) and immediately riles up the audience: “Mayor Cruz and I, we’re bringing the co-chair girl power together, all right?”

Turner’s partnership with Sanders seems to work, but also draws attention to the undeniable fact that race has been a difficult issue for this campaign. Although Sanders talks a lot about social and racial equality, he has an almost Biden-esque propensity toward awkward foul-offs and maladroit responses when questioned on the topic.

In Houston earlier this year, at a She the People forum devoted to elevating women of color, Sanders was asked by host Aimee Allison what he would do to combat white-supremacist violence. After speaking about pushing an “agenda that speaks to all people” — a distant cousin of an “all lives matter” type of argument that Ebony called “dodging” the question — Sanders stepped on a verbal nail.

“I know I date myself a little bit here,” Sanders said, “but I was actually at the March on Washington with Dr. King back in 1963.”

The Houston crowd groaned, and it seemed aghast when he raised his trademark index finger to punctuate the observation. (The Bern Point is off-putting to some, amusing to others. There are versions of the Point that begin all the way to the candidate’s left or right and sweep across and down, almost like a disco move. If Sanders becomes president, college drinking games will surely be built around his pointing habits.)

Bernie Sanders will never be woke. Like Biden, he is an older white man who never could or would be able to see outside his own experience. The question will be if he’s doing enough to hit the right policy notes. As the campaign goes on, partners like Cruz and Turner will be instrumental in explaining what’s progressive about Sanders and his politics.

Turner especially seems to understand the difficulty of this mission and has become adept at filling in Bernie’s blanks. She delves into his personal story (Sanders often bends into Exorcist-style contortions when asked to talk about himself), sharing, for instance, his experience as the son of a Polish immigrant escaping the Holocaust. This ostensibly contrasts him with Trump’s infamous immigration stances. “Senator Bernie Sanders understands what it means to try to come to this country for a better life,” she says.

The Turner-Sanders partnership works best when Turner hits issues where she and Sanders have overlap. Like Sanders, she grew up in mean circumstances. From the age of 14, she worked in high-drudgery, low-reward jobs for profit-sucking fast-food chains and retail stores, which is probably why she shares Sanders’ naked disdain for such companies and any politician who takes their money.

“He won’t sell you out, and you can take it to the bank,” Turner says. “He can’t be bought off.”

All of the overt labor rhetoric at Sanders’ rallies makes it all the more frustrating that when Joe Biden, this election cycle’s version of the inevitable candidate, finally entered the race in late April, he did so with the backing of a firefighters’ union and United Steelworkers president Leo Gerard.

This is despite the fact that Biden is exactly the sort of Democrat that for decades has traded working-class votes for employer-class donations. Biden supported NAFTA, most-favored-nation trading status with China, and the Trans-Pacific Parnership — all anathematic positions for unions.

Biden even did his union-photo-op launch after a fundraiser at the home of David Cohen, an executive with Comcast, a company with a long record of opposing union organization and hiring nonunion subcontractors.

Biden’s schizoid approach is a perfect expression of the counterintuitive electoral dynamic between unions and Democrats. Dennis Kucinich, Dick Gephardt and Sanders in 2016 are on the list of longtime labor activists who’ve been stood up in presidential primary seasons by major unions in favor of Biden types.

“We went through this the last time,” says Sanders, who was endorsed by what he calls “three wonderful unions” in 2016, including the National Nurses’ Union. “But we did not have the support of a lot of the major unions.”

Sanders said he believes that the 2016 race caused union leaders to take “a lot of heat” from the rank and file for declaring for Clinton early. “I don’t think they’ll be so quick to decide this time,” says Sanders. “I don’t think there’s anyone who has a better record on unions than me.”

***

The day after the Pittsburgh event, Sanders has a live, Fox-televised town hall in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, a once-booming steel city and more recently famous as a capital of America Declining.

The sight of a self-described Vermont socialist taking quasi-polite questions from frontline Fox Satan-casters like Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum is surreal to the point where it’s surprising the hall doesn’t explode in hell flames. Baier in particular seems concerned his head might splatter, Scanners-style, every time he looks in Sanders’ direction.

When health care comes up, Baier asks for a show of hands, wondering how many people in the audience would be willing to transition to “what the senator says, a government-run system?”

Almost everyone raises their hands, and there are cheers in the hall. Vox later describes the scene as “Sanders 1, Fox News Hosts 0.”

As recently as the mid-2000s, it was considered a virtue for a Democrat to demonstrate the ability to “cross the aisle.” John Kerry’s introduction video at the 2004 Democratic convention even showed him with his arm around Arizona Republican and turgid Iraq War supporter John McCain.

In the Trump era, “crossing the aisle” is about as popular among blue-state intelligentsia as scabies or snuff films. No effort to court the Fox audience is considered kosher. In a year when Democrats officially cut off Fox as a debate broadcaster, Sanders’ decision to do the town hall was a political act in itself. Did it accomplish anything?

“Fox was kind enough to let us write an editorial after that,” Sanders says. “I think there are a few people who watched who are working two to three jobs, who have nothing set aside for retirement, and they’re wondering: Who cares about us? Do Democrats care about us? Do Republicans care about us?”

He pauses. “I think there are some working-class people out there who will say, ‘I don’t agree with Sanders about everything, but he’s right.’?”

Whether or not you believe his pitch will work depends a lot on whether you think Trump’s voters were misled, or whether they read him loud and clear and voted out of racial and cultural resentment rather than the economic issues Sanders holds dear.

The official entrance of Biden soon overwhelmed the novelty of Sanders’ Fox appearance. Early polls put him ahead of Sanders by as many as 20 points and the same pundits who called the 2016 race prematurely on both sides of the aisle were quick to pronounce the primary all but over. The 2020 race will be compared to 2016 in large part because the preposterous (at press time) 21-candidate Democratic field has such obvious parallels to the 17-person “Clown Car” GOP field last time.

This race has already seen headline blizzards for California Sen. Kamala Harris, Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and debates haven’t even started. A lot of these press freakouts appear as thinly disguised Beltway prayers for someone to knock Sanders out of the race. The Washington Post openly wrote that Buttigieg might “save the Democratic Party” from the Vermont senator. No other candidate inspires these takes: Pundits don’t gush when Harris drops in the polls, for instance.

Sanders seems to know it. Talking to Rolling Stone in the days after Biden’s much-ballyhooed jump into the race, he sighs. He’s clearly exhausted by it all, intellectually if not physically.

Still, anyone who’s followed this politician for any length of time knows that both the strength and weakness of Sanders is his relentless sameness. Over and over again, across more than 40 years in public life, he has been saying essentially the same thing — staffers affectionately refer to his decades-long clarion call about siding with working people against corporate power the “Berniefesto.”

Sanders doesn’t have Ted Cruz episodes, where a thousand speeches into a campaign, he suddenly feels a need to burst into Princess Bride impersonations. Sanders has only one note, and deviating from it never occurs to him. What Turner says about Sanders never being bought off is true, if only because if the senator tried to sell out, he wouldn’t know where to start and would suck at it. He’s also never tried shutting up, and probably couldn’t do that, either.

So he’s in for the long haul. Acknowledging that campaigns have highs and lows, he shakes off the media furors and points to the volunteers counting on him. “We just had a weekend with 4,700 house parties, with over 70,000 people attending,” he says. “That’s an unprecedented level of involvement, and it’s in every state. We’re going to do our best.”

Some outside observers will say he’s already had his impact, by mainstreaming ideas like Medicare for All. Fifty-six percent of all Americans and as many as four out of five Democrats now support single-payer health care.

Even Max Baucus, the former Democratic Senate Finance Committee chairman who was essentially the public-option killer during the Affordable Health Care Act fight in the Obama years, said after the 2016 race “the time has come” to consider single-payer. Similarly, many of the 21 Democratic candidates are for some version of Medicare for All.

The 30,000-foot pundit view on Sanders’ chances should be that he, of course, has a chance, one rooted in the same logic that saw Trump win. He is an unconventional candidate with an at least somewhat insoluble base of support, running in an overlarge field of mostly traditional politicians, many of whom will take votes from one another.

For Sanders to win, all his voters have to do is overthrow basically the entire political system, which would be ridiculous except that all the other options may be worse: Trump is no solution, and a seemingly mighty traditional Democrat fell short last time.

Moreover, if 2016 taught us anything, it’s that press pronouncements are often an anti-indicator on electability questions. Should any of the “inevitable” candidacies stumble, a plurality of votes might carry the day, as it did for Trump three years ago. Then and only then will we find out if Bernie’s pitch to the working class was really a revolution, or just another song written too late.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 Next > End >>

Page 890 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN