THE REVOLUTION MUST TRANSCEND PARTISANSHIP

                                                                                         

In order to sustain the momentum that Sanders has built for a political revolution, we have to continue to attract new people to the cause, regardless of the outcome of the primary and general elections.  Should Sanders win, this will occur naturally as Clinton supporters grudgingly fall in behind him like the faithful party members they are. If he loses and Hillary goes on to win the general election, it will be much more difficult to convince Clintonites to join the effort. They are, after all, pretty much by definition willing to settle for whatever the party can give them. How else could they enthusiastically support someone who represents everything the other half of the party is revolting against?

They are also very angry that Sanders continues to use his campaign to criticize the party, which they see as irresponsible since it boosts chances of a Trump victory. As usual, supporters of the Democratic status quo want to blame those who refuse to go along for the results of their complacency.

It’s obvious that the division between Sanders supporters and Clinton backers is growing, even while the Democratic establishment is demanding that the party come together to prevent a Trump presidency. Clinton supporters are alarmed and angry that Bernie’s legions do not bow down defeated, or at least be grateful for a symbolic place at the table in July. After all, they would line up behind Sanders if he had beaten all odds and prevailed despite the systemic disadvantages he faced.  They cannot understand how any Democrat could consider not voting for anyone with a D after her name if it meant keeping a Republican out of the White House.

Given this simplistic view of politics, Clintonites conclude that Sanders supporters are just being unreasonable. They attribute the anger they are seeing to youthful naïveté, misogyny, or the fact that Sanders continues to express anger at the Democratic status quo. Only the latter argument has any serious basis, but only a blind partisan would argue that criticizing what the party has become is a bad thing. In fact, their failure to acknowledge the validity of Sanders’ critique is the real source of his supporters’ anger.

If Clinton’s advocates cannot be made to understand the central importance of Sanders’ challenge to the corruption of the system, we must look elsewhere to build a movement that continues when the Sanders campaign ends.  Should she prevail in November, it may actually be easier to recruit Trump followers to the cause than her supporters. Not being blinded by the corporate media spin on Wall Street’s darling, Trump’s fans may be more amenable than Clinton supporters to the idea of working together on issues on which most Americans agree.  Trump and Sanders supporters already have in common that they both reject the Duopoly leadership. Both are increasingly aware that Duopoly politicians are subservient to interests other than our own. Given the positions Trump has taken, it is clear that his supporters are not as ideological as progressives typically assume Republicans to be. If we can learn to stop thinking in partisan terms, we can find common cause on many issues. In addition to mutual contempt for the Duopoly establishment, there is widespread nonpartisan agreement many critical issues that Trump and Sanders support and on which Clinton’s record is at odds with public opinion.

It’s time to abandon the assumption that politics is a battle between fundamentally opposing forces of the right, represented by Republicans, and a left represented by Democrats.  This simplistic dichotomy is so deeply engrained in Clinton supporters that they cannot comprehend why Sanders and his supporters are challenging what the Democratic Party has become. Their identification with the party brand is so strong that many question whether an independent progressive like Sanders is a “real Democrat,” but fail to ask themselves how they define the term. They assume that any politician who calls herself one is, regardless of how much her neoliberal and neoconservative record resembles that of a typical Republican. For many such Democrats, the choice is not which candidate best represents them but whether that candidate can prevent the dreaded outcome of a Republican in the White House.  They consider themselves on “the left” simply by virtue of party membership.

In contrast, Trump supporters do not identify with the Republican Party, even if most are members. Among them are many who might be persuaded to consider the Sanders message, if their candidate does not win and they face four to eight years of Clinton. Sure, some are just attracted by racism and many by his willingness to say whatever foolish thought crosses his mind, but many Trump enthusiasts like some of the good ideas he claims to support. Many of his positions echo those of Sanders: opposing free trade, ending policies of regime change, mandating a living wage, restoring civil liberties, having a more balanced relationship with Israel and most importantly, campaign finance reform.  A great many people are impressed by the fact that Trump’s campaign is largely self-funded. True or not, they see this as evidence that he is not beholden to special interests. Those who think these issues are important are people who may be able to understand that “making America great again” has nothing to do with making it whiter and everything to do with ending corruption of government by special interests.

The average Trump booster may even be more ready for political revolution than some Sanders supporters. All of them firmly reject the Republican establishment, while many Sanders supporters are ready to vote for Clinton she wins the nomination, despite the fact that she stands for everything Sanders is fighting against. Those of us dedicated to bringing about political revolution know that it begins with challenging the corruption of the system. That starts by refusing to vote for any politician who is the clear choice of the same interests that back both Duopoly parties. Maverick status is another thing that Trump and Sanders share. If we stick to issues and not personalities, there is a chance that we can overcome the suspiciousness that the corporate media and politicians have deliberately created between us and work together toward the common goal of establishing representative government in the US.

It is the opposition to being led by politicians who put the interest of the economic elite over those of average Americans that should bind people from across the political spectrum in this common cause. When 80% of Americans have expressed opposition to Citizens United, it seems obvious that we should be able to work together to do something about it. That is exactly what the Sanders revolution is all about. If we want politicians to represent us, we have to stop applying ideological labels to ideas that can lead to solutions to problems that affect us all.  “Conservative” and “liberal” should be relative terms, not absolutes. If we don’t allow others define what we are supposed to believe, we can find that consensus necessary for true representative government.  If we can make it that far, we can then decide through the democratic process what kind of country we want to be.

WHICH WAY TO THE REVOLUTION?

                                                                                

It’s fascinating to follow the discussion about the “Sanders revolution,” a vague phrase that lends itself to a variety of interpretations. Depending on your point of view, the term may be one of hope or derision. For others, it just provokes blank stares.

The idea of a political revolution inspires those who can see that today’s Democratic Party is the captive of a system in which special interest money finances increasingly expensive campaigns. In the post-Citizens United era, these people recognize the historic significance of a candidate making a serious run for President without the backing of corporations or wealthy individuals, and despite the efforts of well-connected party leaders aghast that he is challenging one of their own. Beyond setting an example of how to beat this corrupt system, Sanders is out to change it. He is increasingly making campaign finance reform a centerpiece of his campaign. To many of his supporters, the “revolution” is defined as ending a system where the wealthy determine who are viable candidates to ostensibly represent us, while at the same time protecting their interests.

Those who see the need to address the corrupting influence of money in politics find it hard to understand Democrats who can’t grasp why this prospect is causing such excitement. Party stalwarts are puzzled by the backlash against “the Establishment,” a term most Sanders supporters consider a euphemism for “corporatists.” In their frustration at what appears to be willful ignorance, they lash out at those who they should be trying to convince. Fortunately, Sanders’ popularity continues to increase with the exposure that the corporate media can no longer deny him. We will soon know if his momentum will continue to build fast enough to carry him past Super Tuesday. But even if it does not, the “revolution” must continue.

Critics of Sanders on the left argue that his campaign will actually undermine progress toward more lofty goals, such as ending capitalism.  Most commonly, this view holds that as long as people support Democratic candidates there is no hope for changing the system of which both major parties are part. Since Bernie has chosen to run as a Democrat and to throw his support to Clinton should he not get the nomination, so this reasoning goes, it is a no-win proposition. They then point out with what often seems like grim satisfaction, “How will people ever realize that the Duopoly is part of the problem?”

While they have a valid argument, they offer no reasonable alternatives. Voting for either of the corporate-captured parties is a sham? To some extent that is true, but what do we do about it?  Third parties are not viable, and given the state of leftist politics they will not become so before global climate change renders the point moot. Mass civil disobedience? In a country where the leading contender for the Presidency is the multimillionaire wife of a former President? Get real.

The naivete of these arguments is matched only by the arrogance of those of their proponents who call Sanders supporters naïve. The smug self-assurance of these self-styled radicals masks a deep cynicism that prevents them from seeing how the Sanders campaign might actually aid their cause. Those who scorn the idea that he is the vanguard of a revolution in any meaningful sense of the term don’t seem willing to consider how his campaign can advance the cause of a more expansive transformation of the political system. In time-honored leftist tradition, they are busy forming a circular firing squad to attack the Sanders campaign from a position opposite that of Clinton backers who are also trying to shoot it down.

Those critics who are serious about to build a movement for what they consider genuine revolution might want to consider the effect of dismissing millions of people who are at least aware of the need for a dramatic change. It is irrelevant that many may not fully comprehend what that means. It is impossible to create a mass movement if you expect everyone to agree with you. Differences are bound to arise and inflexibility causes schisms, destroying the solidarity on which any movement depends. It is elementary strategic thinking to consider how to work together where possible to achieve agreed upon objectives, even when there is disagreement on strategy or ultimate goals.  How in the world can anyone expect a mass uprising of a population so steeped in the current system that half of those who consider themselves “progressive” would consider voting for a candidate backed by the finance industry, apparently believing her claims to be its sworn enemy?

It is hard to see how anyone can argue with the idea that addressing the corrupting influence of money in politics is a good way to organize a movement. How many Americans would disagree with the notion that government doesn’t work because those in power put the interests of the 1% over those of the rest of us? The idea is so elementary that when Adbusters first wrote about Occupy, the idea of a constitutional amendment to reform campaign finance was the single action item they suggested. Occupying Wall Street symbolized that the ultimate power behind that money was the banking and finance industry that nearly destroyed the economy (or is in the process of doing so) and with it, the middle class (not to mention the poor). With a well-defined enemy and a clear objective, the movement had a chance to become much more than a symbolic protest, The problem was that Occupy activists refused to prioritize goals, making strategic political action impossible.

Campaign finance reform is not the answer to all our problems, but it is the first step to finding one. If Sanders were to make this point clear, he might just convert a few skeptics. So far, he has focused on a promise to vet any candidates to the Supreme Court according to their willingness to overturn Citizens United. While laudable, Clinton has made the same promise. Despite the fact that this is yet another example of a promise to work on an issue she has avoided in the past and the fact that she depends on the system she now vows to destroy, her supporters trust her to keep it. That’s why Sanders should also be talking about his proposed constitutional amendment intended to end the doctrine that money spent to influence elections is protected speech.

The key to using this to build a movement is that as President, he could promote the idea of voting only for candidates who would support such an amendment, as suggested by Move to Amend, as well as other reforms like the American Anti-Corruption Act. For those unfamiliar with the latter, it would address a variety of other ways that special interest money can influence politics, including putting limits on lobbying to include closing the revolving door (or at least significantly narrowing it). Keeping the need to address the corruption of the system in the forefront of American consciousness cannot but help the effort to get Americans to sustain pressure on Congress to put the needs of people over profit. The only way to advance any aspect of the progressive agenda is to first address the corruption that has created the problems in the first place.

The Sanders “revolution” is just the first phase of the kind of fundamental change in American politics that can put us back on the path toward true representative democracy. How far we go will be up to us.

SETTING GOALS FOR REAL GLOBAL REVOLUTION

This is the second essay in a series exploring a strategy for building a united international front against fascism and war. The first outlined a possible strategy and how to develop it around an overall goal of ending the corruption of governments as a means of establishing representative democracy. As strategic planning starts with establishing intermediate term objectives, that is the main topic of this essay.



For all the hopeful talk about the possibility of global revolution, little has been accomplished that will lead to one unless the threads of change can be woven into a pattern discernable to average people. Real change requires strategy based on common goals that have yet to be agreed upon. When there is general agreement on many of the things that must be changed, a way must be found to articulate these aims in such a way that a substantial majority understands and agrees with them. This means making the arguments in a non-ideological manner to the extent possible. Only then can a strategy be designed to reach these goals that will have broad enough support to succeed in overthrowing the existing order.

While we want to change the world, we have to start by realizing that the critical battles will be fought in the US. It is the center of global economic and military power. As the radical right plays out the strategy it began developing when Goldwater was humiliated in 1964, liberals have increasingly asked why they cannot seem to create a similarly united progressive movement. While a number of theories have been offered to explain the problem, they offer few practical suggestions about how it might be overcome. No progress can be made until liberals and conservatives can agree on the goals of such a revolution. That is not as hard as it sounds.

Occupy brought together a wide range of activists from those with mainstream political backgrounds to young Libertarian and Socialist anarchists at opposite extremes of the political spectrum. Together, they had amazing success at bringing media attention to the fact that people around the world are being systematically oppressed by a global elite often referred to as the “corporatocracy.” In the end, however, its effect was a mere ripple in the collective consciousness. The central message was lost in the babble of voices of people who were more often focused on the symptoms of the disease rather than the sickness, which is corruption of the political process by the economic elite.

As a result, most Americans are back to talking about Duopoly politics. The details of the shutdown and the upcoming debt ceiling showdown are all-consuming topics, even though they are merely manifestations of the larger problem.  The critical fact that is largely ignored by both the corporate and “alternative” media is that the debate has been framed in such a way as to justify the same austerity measures on the United States and other western nations that the international banks through the IMF have been imposing on less developed nations for decades.

The recent government shutdown epitomizes the corruption that is at the heart of everything that is wrong with American politics, which has become an existential threat to civilization as we know it. In this grotesque bit of theater, one side of the Duopoly allegedly threatened the US and world economies to prevent the implementation of Obamacare. That is a preposterous bluff, since the program is a bailout of a bankster-owned insurance industry that was pricing itself out of existence and thus welcome by corporatists with very deep pockets. The insurance industry might want more than it got, but they are not going to start over after winning millions of new customers and taxpayer subsidies that will keep profits rolling in for years before the real costs become apparent. The only possible rationale for this game of chicken is that Republicans wanted to use the threat to give Democrats an excuse to bargain away even more of the social safety net.  How else will Congress continue to provide corporate welfare to the economic elite who support both parties? Democrats stood firm for the moment, but if history is any guide they will capitulate when the question of raising the debt ceiling comes up again soon.  

If corruption is the problem, then any strategy for revolution has to provide a means of striking at the power of the economic elite over the US government. This was clear to the editors of Adbusters when they called for an Occupy movement. They suggested that protestors organize around the issues of Wall Street criminality and the need for a constitutional amendment to reform campaign finance, cutting off a vital source of their control. Their advice was ignored.  Instead, local Occupy leaders were so paranoid about co-option that they refused to work with any established organizations, to give a platform to truly sympathetic politicians or even to make a serious effort to prioritize issues. This guaranteed that the overall message would be lost and that the movement, built more on hope than strategy, would stumble.

It is not possible to change society by cacophonous protest. There has to be a unified message simple enough for the average distracted American to instantly recognize. The most universal and fundamental message that we can have is that America is not a democracy.  For those who fear rule by popular will, it is not even a Republic, because it is not representative democracy.  The systemic corruption by Wall Street of our “representatives” has put the “mock” in democracy. That is the root problem we must attack by consistently pointing out both the role of Wall Street in virtually all of the problems Occupy protested. A constitutional amendment is the first giant step to solving them.

Whether individuals choose to focus their efforts on ending war, dealing with climate change and other environmental issues, establishing universal health care, working for a just economy or any of the myriad other problems Congress refuses to address, they must become part of the effort to tie these issues into the root problem of corporate control of the US government. Until this problem is addressed, all other efforts serve no purpose other than to assure that advocacy groups will always have causes to fight, since they will never make meaningful progress with a government so thoroughly corrupted by corporate influence. All advocates for justice must help make clear that large international banks ultimately dictate its economic and military policies. Only when major organizations learn to coordinate the message with this overarching theme can a truly unified progressive movement emerge.



After the end of the Vietnam War, most of those who had committed themselves to working for social change declared victory and went on with their lives.  Many of them went on to become part of the Establishment they had loathed for putting them or those they loved at risk of having to fight and die in a war for corporate Empire. Once unified by the overall theme of social justice and overturning a social order that systematically oppressed the poor, women and minorities, the progressive movement soon lost its collective identity. The Kennedys, King and Malcolm X were all dead, martyrs to a cause that too few remembered when the immediacy of the threat seemed to fade. Despite gains in civil rights for African-Americans and women, the essential corruption was largely unchanged. Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace and some of the CIA and FBI abuses of power against protestors were revealed. Many of us were under the impression the system was working.

Just as we have learned from the successes and failures of Occupy, so we must look to the 60s for lessons that will help us win the revolution that was left unfinished in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. One key lesson from that struggle was the realization that the power of the People could only be realized when those struggling for justice for various groups of individuals joined forces to fight for liberty and justice for all. Another was that the movement was most successful when it appealed to the universal desire to see America be the beacon of hope for this ideal, contrasting it to the reality of the actions of its government.  Inspiring hope created growing support, while merely inflaming anger at the established order led to resistance by the large segment of Americans who are fearful of change.  As we educate the public about the need for change, we must make them understand that they can make those changes by taking control of their government using a practical strategy, not a nebulous fantasy of creating a new society or form of government by rational persuasion alone.

Without going into detail here, the basic idea behind such a strategy is that the only way to create real change is through the power of the vote. We must find a way for Americans to use it to seize control and establish a government of, by and for the People rather than the economic elite. Many people have reacted to corruption in politics by giving up on electoral politics. Rejecting the only means we have of exercising political power reduces the idea of revolution to a dangerous fantasy, since the only alternative in the end would be violent resistance. Fortunately, it is possible to use the electoral process to pass a constitutional amendment that will effectively reform campaign finance. All it will take is to make support for such an amendment a litmus test for candidates for Congress in 2014 and beyond until we elect a legislature that will pass the amendment.  Since the reasoning behind this claim is not self-evident, a more complete analysis of this idea will be elaborated on in the final essay in this series.

We cannot wait for a movement to arise spontaneously as the result of ever-worsening economic conditions and infringements on civil liberties. If we do, by the time Americans realize a democratic revolution is necessary. It will be too late to challenge a corrupt government that has granted itself enormous power to repress dissent. The least informed will then to resort to violence. This can only result in the deployment of a police state apparatus that is already in place. We need a strategy based on ideas that are widely accepted if we want to achieve a real majority. Occupy should have proved conclusively that with the mainstream media almost completely controlled by corporate interests, it will take more than slogans to create a shift in the collective consciousness of Americans that challenges nearly universally accepted ideas. If we want to lead them to the truth, we have to start from where they are.

To challenge the lies about “free” markets, the notion that democracy equates to the right to vote and the fallacy that there are two parties with competing interests, we have to tie the lessons to ideas that are even more fundamental.  The goal is to make people realize that these ideas are used to keep us from seeing the systemic manipulation of the 99% by the 1%. Because they are so deeply ingrained, it is very difficult to challenge them directly. That means that we have to create cognitive dissonance by highlighting how accepting them conflicts with even more deeply held beliefs.  No ideas are more basic to the American psychology than freedom and representative democracy.  Starting from there, it is possible to create a groundswell of support for a plan that could unite the vast majority of Americans from across the political spectrum in a common goal. How to do that will be the subject of the next two essays in this series.
Next:  Changing the World: The Psychology of Belief