THE IMPECCABLE LOGIC OF BERNIE OR BUST

                                                                       

                                  

                                                                           

Now that Clinton has virtually sewed up the Democratic nomination, it’s time for Sanders supporters to reassess their commitment to the political revolution he represents. There seems little doubt that those who have not yet voted will cast their ballots for him when they have the chance. The issue is what they will do in November. It is a sure thing that the revolution will not continue if Bernie’s backers line up behind with Clinton. Will they submit to the politics of fear, hold their noses and vote for the representative of all that they stand against, as Clinton and her smug supporters assume?  Or will they hold their ground, choosing to risk a Trump presidency to make the point that there is a line that progressives will not cross? That is the question at the heart of the Bernie or Bust strategy.

It has been argued that Bernie or Bust was a way to influence how Democrats voted in the primaries. The idea was that if voters leaning toward Clinton understood the depth of disgust toward the darling of Wall Street, they would realize that she could actually lose by Sanders supporters withholding their support. The hope was that many of those who preferred Sanders’ stands on the issues would quit rationalizing their support of Clinton on the false premise that she was more electable, which polls have consistently indicated is not the case.  That argument is now moot, however. So, is there still a place for the Bernie or Bust strategy, or was it always just about appealing to the fears of Democratic rank-and-file?  For anyone who understands just how desperately we need a political revolution, the only possible answer is a resounding “yes.”

It is positively mind-blowing to many Sanders supporters that a majority of Democrats nationwide have up until now cast their votes for a candidate backed by Wall Street who has  a record of unrivaled militarism, claims that universal health care is economically unsound despite all the proof to the contrary, who lies even about trivial things (and then about lying about them), backs free trade except when running for President, calls her Democratic opponent a liar and his supports naïve, then insists that he is destroying the Democrat’s chance to beat Trump. There are no rational grounds to argue that she is any kind of progressive, even in the absolutely broadest sense of the term.  Those serious about political “revolution” can hardly support her just when they have the chance to make clear the depth of their conviction that they can no longer accept the status quo.

What Clinton supporters do not seem to realize is that this election is not just about what we are going to accomplish in the next four years. It is about how to reverse the 25-year slide to the right the US has undergone since the last Clinton gave us the “third way,” which many refer to as “Republican lite.” Blind Democratic loyalists do not seem to realize that the party has not failed because “conservative” ideas have become more popular, but because those who profess progressive ideals are unwilling to demand that politicians fight for real political solutions, or even discuss them. The Democratic strategy for negotiations always starts with the assumption that nothing is “politically possible” if it challenges the interests of the economic elite who finance the campaigns of candidates of both Duopoly parties. This reflexive attitude is a direct result of Bill Clinton’s capitulation to the corrupting influence of money in politics, the fight against which is at the heart of the Sanders campaign.

It started when Bill Clinton supported NAFTA, welfare “reform,” banking deregulation, “humanitarian intervention” in Kosovo, three strikes, discriminatory drug crime sentencing and other policies favored by the conservatives and corporate donors he was courting. He has never been held responsible for doing what no Republican would have been able to. Like Hillary, he was granted immunity from all his reprehensible actions because he was unjustly accused of others. The time for excuses is over.

The American economy has been devastated by the actions of Clinton’s Wall Street patrons, who not only remain unpunished but continue to direct economic policy. Economic inequality rivals that of the Gilded Age. College debt is economically handicapping a generation. Health care costs remain out of control and tens of millions remain uninsured despite the added cost to taxpayers of Obamacare. We are engaged in what appears to be endless war, with Clinton promising to double down in Syria, Libya and anywhere else where the interests of her corporate backers in the military industrial complex are threatened. Most critically, we are entering a period when climate instability threatens the existence of human civilization and possibly the survival of mankind.

It seems unlikely that Clinton will have the courage to challenge the Wall Street-dominated fossil fuel industries when she has collected millions from bundlers and individuals working in the fossil fuel industry and from SuperPacs funded by large industry donations. While Sanders has received contributions from individuals in the industry, he has not only refused to take any money from fossil fuels corporations, but has sponsored in each of the last three Congresses constitutional amendments that would ban corporate campaign contributions. He has also explicitly come out against fracking, which Clinton has long supported. While Clinton called the phony “war on terror” her number one national security priority, Sanders correctly identified it as global climate change.

Climate change will determine how much time we have to deal with the consequences of corporate control of the US government. As Bill McKibbin and others have been warning with increasing urgency, time is running out to act. There is nothing in Clinton’s record to suggest that she will stand up to those who have put her in power. Even when she claims to oppose a corporate power grab like TPP or NAFTA, she only does so when she is in the spotlight of a presidential campaign and in doing so, lies about her record of past support. How can we trust her when the survival of the planet is at stake?

“Incrementalism” has proven itself over the years to be two steps backward for every one forward. Clintonism has been the path that has led to this point. We cannot wait four years or more to let the Democratic Party know that we are not going to tolerate the corruption of the system that has led nearly 40% of Americans to give up on voting. If we are ever going to force our government to act in our own interests, we must refuse to vote for candidates who make excuses for not even trying, calling it “pragmatism.” The only reason that single payer health care, ending a self-defeating “war” on terror, regulating the banking and finance industry and creating an economy that works for everyone are “not politically possible” is that average Americans and their elected officials accept the corruption of money in politics as normal, when it should be unacceptable.

Now is the time for the real revolution to begin.

THE HORRORS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE NO ONE TALKS ABOUT

Millions of Americans are concerned about the government’s unwillingness to seriously address the consequences of global warming.  Many thousands are actively resisting Keystone XL, fracking, Big Coal and Big Oil and LNG exports that would only add fuel to the fire, but most people who accept the reality of global climate change have no idea just how horrific its effects will be. Even if we were to meet the most optimistic goals for emissions reduction tomorrow, some scientists believe we have already passed the extinction point. While no one can know that for sure, it is probably a conservative estimate that at least a billion people are fated to die from decisions we have already allowed our leaders to make, no matter what choices we make now.

The global population is already unsustainable. The World Watch Institute determined that if resource consumption rates relative to income were constant, the world could only achieve a steady-state economy (one capable of sustaining the planet’s population indefinitely) by drastic population reduction or even more drastic economic deprivation. It estimated that even if we eliminate inequality, the planet could only sustain a population of 2.1 billion people with an average income of $35,690.   If instead we continue to allow individuals to amass unlimited wealth, global poverty can only continue to worsen. Currently wealthy nations would not be spared. We cannot grow out of the problem by increasing world GDP due to the finite nature of many critical resources. We have to make difficult choices soon, because every year we delay will result in millions of unnecessary deaths. Global climate change sets an upper limit on how long we have to act before human civilization itself collapses.

There is no doubt that the power of denial is strong. Even when the survival of human civilization is at stake, a substantial number of people will grasp at any argument that allows them to believe they needn’t worry. The fact that the chances against doing anything to change the trajectory of global climate change seem astronomical is another reason to deny the reality of what is happening to the world we are going to leave our children. While a growing number of former skeptics are accepting the reality of global climate change, most stubbornly refuse to consider the likelihood that it is caused by human activity. They are unwilling to consider the likely consequences if they are wrong.  Perhaps if they could picture what will happen if we do not act now, some of them would be shaken from their complacency.  Just as importantly, people who merely fret about the problem now might get active.

I have yet to read a detailed description of what happens when the water level rises to the point where it swamps populated islands and sea coast cities. The refugee problem in the US would dwarf the Katrina disaster, but the consequences would be much worse for poorer nations around the world. Who would feed these refugees, and how would they be protected from exposure?  The world food supply would be devastated by drought, desertification, storms and disruptions of the food distribution chain. Prices would increase, especially given the role of speculators whose manipulation of commodities markets have already contributed to mass starvation. This is a problem that will only get worse as population pressures rise, agriculture suffers and the inevitable consequences of supply and demand kick in.

The availability of clean water is already a serious problem in much of the world. Increasing droughts in many areas would make this problem a crisis, especially in third world nations. Even under current conditions, water consumption is estimated to increase by 40% by 2025.  Africa would no doubt suffer the worst, even though African produces only a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases generated by wealthy nations. Making matters still worse, water privatization is becoming the norm around the world, even in the US.  It is the poor who will suffer the most as water becomes an inaccessible commodity that is not even made available in rural areas, since rural infrastructure is so much less profitable than only supplying water to cities.

With overcrowding, malnutrition and lack of clean water, disease will become pandemic. With tens of millions of Americans lacking access to timely medical care, how much worse will it be for the world’s poor? Already, 1.5 million children under the age of five die every year of cholera, dysentery and typhoid fever. 7-8 million people die each year from a combination of starvation and lack of clean water, another 2-3 million from preventable disease and a half- million from the direct effects of war.

We cannot prevent the loss of untold millions of lives from decisions already made, but we can assure the survival of civilization if we start to work now on the difficult task of establishing democratic rule in the US and the world. That work has already begun, but millions of people whose children’s lives will be affected by the outcome have not yet become engaged. The only way to create a government of, by and for the People in the US or anywhere is to succeed in the nation that has the most military, economic and political power in the world. We must rid Washington of the tools of the corporate elite to create a government that will put human need over the greed of the corporate Puppetmasters of the Current Occupants of Congress and the White House.

The way to do that is to make a campaign issue of support for a constitutional amendment declaring that spending money to influence the outcome of elections is not speech and corporations do not have constitutional rights.   Learn more about the Pledge to Amend campaign here.