BERNIE’S LAST SHOT

                                                     

Most people, myself included, predicted that if Sanders didn't win New York he would be pretty much out of the race. Admittedly, the math doesn't look good. Even if you disregard the highly debatable assumption that the superdelegates who have endorsed Clinton would defy the will of the voters in the event that Bernie pulled off a miracle, he will have to win a remarkably high percentage of Democratic votes in the remaining primaries to enter the convention with even a slim lead. There is a way that he could do that, however: Clinton-leaning Democratic voters in the remaining races could choose to vote for the candidate who best represents their views. 

How many Clinton voters have you heard say "I love Sanders' positions on the issues, BUT"?" These reluctant "supporters" have been voting for her in large numbers only because they believe that she is the most viable candidate in the general election or that she is the one who could get the most done, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary. What if a significant proportion of them decided to stop rationalizing their decision to voting against their preferred candidate? While I am not aware of any poll data to back this up, I suspect this would give Sanders the edge he needs to bring in the kind of numbers that would make superdelegates think twice about defying the will of the voters.

None of the earlier arguments about why Sanders still has a chance have changed, even if the odds have dropped because of his unexpectedly sound defeat in New York. He still has the advantage of momentum. It's true that this has momentarily stalled, but one loss does not a trend make. He has still won seven out of the last eight races and is the favorite in the upcoming primaries. While Clinton's more fanatical supporters seem blind to the fact, superdelegates will surely have to recognize that the better Sanders is known, the better his poll numbers, while the more familiar voters become with Clinton's record (as opposed to her resume) the lower her favorability ratings. That's not what delegates endorsing her want to see when their own political futures depend on backing the winning horse.

In terms of electability come November, Sanders has won about as many swing states as Clinton, but may have a better chance in the general. He outperforms her with independents and continues to outpoll her in head to head polls against Trump and other potential Republican nominees. Add to this the fact that 25 percent of Sanders supporters say they will not vote for her, and there could be harm to the party's down ticket prospects as well since many young voters will likely not show up at all. Ignoring the anger at politics-as-usual, Clinton supporters have been demanding that Sanders supporters bend to the party will, hold their noses and vote for yet another corporatist candidate. Since they sincerely believe that it is only logical to vote for whatever politician has a D after his or her name, even those who say they won't vote for Sanders because they are upset at some of his supporters would be unlikely to withhold their votes for him should he be nominated.

Viability in the general election is by far the most important issue superdelegates should be concerned with, since that is what determines their reward for supporting a candidate. If enough Democrats decide that they are tired of voting for candidates who won't make a serious effort (if any) to fight on basic issues like single payer, a $15 minimum wage, ending destructive free trade policies, addressing global climate change, winding down endless wars or seriously taking on Wall Street, their reward will be even greater: They will have an advocate who will keep the spotlight onto the corruption of the political process that has led the party to the brink of selecting a candidate who epitomizes neoliberal and neoconservative values that are antithetical to traditional Democratic positions. 

THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY TO DEFEAT SINGLE PAYER

                                                                              

It’s dismaying to see Hillary Clinton still repeating the discredited idea that a single payer health care system would be too expensive.  Although we already know it provides comprehensive and universal health care at a fraction of the cost of American’s non-system everywhere it has been tried, some of her supporters continue to find various justifications for opposing what polls show 85% of Democrats say they want. There has never been a better example of the self-defeating nature of establishment thinking in the Democratic Party.  Attitudes about Clinton are so fixed that you have to wonder, if the primary were a referendum on single payer, would Democrats actually reject it?

Of course, the election is about much more than that. Sanders has opened and closed the last two debates with well-honed arguments that taking on the corrupting influence of Wall Street would be his first priority. What he has not said in his comments about single payer is that concern for their Wall Street patrons was the reason Democrats took it off the table at the beginning of the health care reform debate in 2009. Their excuse was that it was “unrealistic.” Instead, they offered a bait-and-switch in the form of the Public Option. It was billed as a step to single payer because everyone would choose cheap, comprehensive Medicare-type over the spotty coverage of overpriced private insurance. However, Senator Schumer quickly ended that vain hope when he made a deal to handicap the Public Option so it could not compete with private insurance.

Those who understand the economics of single payer know that the “reform” debate was primarily aimed at bailing out the Wall Street-owned medical insurance industry that was in the process of pricing itself out of existence. This is the “death spiral” of insurance costs: Increasing costs drive people from the market, requiring further increases to maintain shareholder profits and industry executive bonuses, resulting in more people unable to afford insurance. Unchecked, this would soon have led to a situation where average Americans would be paying 50% or more just for insurance premiums. Obviously, this is unsustainable. Enter corporate Democrats, with a “reform” that guarantees millions more customers for the insurance industry, subsidized by taxes that go directly into the pockets of Wall Street investors.

Many rank-and-file Democrats failed to ask themselves what the suppression of the debate about single payer said about the chances of eventually electing a Democratic majority that would put the interests of people over profit. The answer is that the Democratic leadership, being dependent on Wall Street to control the White House, is insufficiently willing to challenge the corruption of the system. Until we find leaders in the party who will, there is no reason to expect anything to change.

Reforming campaign finance would make achieving single payer and accomplishing the rest of the progressive agenda possible. The alternative is abandoning hope of getting what we need in exchange for what we can get, in the name of “pragmatism.” In using this as a selling point for her candidacy, Clinton is apparently arguing that truly representative democracy is a naïve notion.  Elect her, she says, and she will use her experience navigating the existing corrupt system to fight for small, incremental victories that do not challenge the corporate takeover of American government and the economy.

Clinton claims that her experience will enable her to guide us gradually in the general direction of where we need to go. It would be very interesting to hear how she plans to do this in the face of a hostile Congress that is likely to continue to be dominated by Republicans who have a visceral hatred for her. Would Democratic chances be any worse with a “socialist” who has explained that all he means by the term is someone who will fight for all Americans, rather than compromise principle on the altar of expediency?

Sanders cannot pass single payer by himself, but neither can Clinton honestly promise to deliver any meaningful reforms of the Byzantine, unaffordable and woefully inadequate system of Obamacare. It will take a mass movement of Americans demanding their government put their interests over corporate profit to get real health care reform.

TAKE BACK AMERICA WITH A PLEDGE TO AMEND

Oregon voters will likely have a clear choice in the US Senate race in November. Unless Senator Merkley’s Republican challenger is willing to endorse a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and the more recent McCutcheon decision overturning aggregate limits on donations to candidates and parties, it will be obvious which candidate is running to serve the interests of We the People rather than corporations and the obscenely rich. Merkley is a cosponsor of an amendment proposed by Bernie Sanders that would ban all corporate and union contributions and allow limits on individual campaign expenditures.

 In District 4, Congressman DeFazio has done him one better. He has cosponsored an equivalent resolution in the House along with another that would abolish corporate personhood, the doctrine that holds that corporations have constitutional rights. That is a key element in a whole series of Supreme Court decisions based on the fallacy that money is speech. This means that those who can afford it are able to speak loud enough to drown out the voices of the People and those who represent them. Ending corporate constitutional rights is the second condition that an amendment should satisfy to most effectively deal with the problem of corporate control of the US government.

For those who are fuzzy on the details of the 2010 Citizens United decision, it reversed a century of law in removing all limits on “independent” expenditures by unions and for-profit corporations to influence political campaigns. McCutcheon takes the idea that money is speech to its logical extreme in allowing the wealthiest Americans to spend unlimited amounts in direct contributions to parties and to give the personal maximum to as many candidates running for federal office as they choose. That means that not only is the presidency for sale to the highest bidder (as we saw recently when Sheldon Adelson invited prospective Republican candidates to apply for his support), but Congress is up for grabs as well.

The only way to counter an activist Supreme Court that is denying Americans the right to control corruption in campaign finance is to pass a constitutional amendment such as the one that Merkley supports. It is up to voters to see that this issue receives the attention it deserves during the campaign season. The only way that Merkley will succeed in his efforts to rein in the power of the banksters, fight free trade agreements that violate national sovereignty of accomplish any of the other objectives that Americans demand is for us to support him in his efforts to pass an amendment. The Oregon Democracy Coalition (ODC) is working to help make support for an amendment a campaign issue.

 If you are a resident of the United States, you can help.

ODC takes the position that the first step in dealing with corruption in government is to put into the constitution the principles that money is not speech and that corporations (including unions) do not have constitutional rights, including the “right” to put money from their general treasuries into elections. They are organizing around the state to get people to show up for campaign appearances and other events featuring candidates to ask them if they will support a constitutional amendment of this type. They encourage people to start groups in their home towns to fill these forums with people willing to put this question to them in public settings.

ODC also encourages individuals to write letters to the editor and to talk to local political, social justice, church and other groups about the issue. It is helpful to get organizations to endorse such coalitions and their efforts. This is the social justice issue of our times. It is ironic that the idea of corporations has its origin in the 14th Amendment, which was intended to ensure the rights of former slaves. As interpreted by the Supreme Court, it would mean that average Americans have essentially become slaves of corporate interests who control Congress. It is impossible to have a representative democracy unless voters have the opportunity to hear from candidates whose campaigns are not being financed be deep-pocketed special interest groups. Failing to deal with this issue would mean the failure of the democratic experiment in government.