[Peace-discuss] My take on Sanders' campaign to draw people into the Democratic Party, and recent Democracy Now coverage

[David Green]

https://soundcloud.com/whatisleftpod/preview-the-politics-of-aoc

Aimee Terese has been on to AOC for quite some time, this excerpt from 11
months ago.

Her co-host Benjamin Studebaker has also written about AOC on his blog, in
February of last year:

https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2019/02/18/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-seems-confused-about-race/


On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 1:39 AM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> DN is an increasingly establishment-friendly news outlet no better than
> NBC, CBS,
> PBS, etc. The issues that drove Aaron Mate away are serious and the most
> recent AOC
> interview on a major bill is consistent with their slide into being just
> another
> establishment outlet.
>
> Goodman's most recent AOC interview has some talk about the bailout bill
> (I refuse to
> call it a "stimulus" because it only stimulates executives ability to buy
> back their
> stock, artificially inflate their company value, and buy out competition
> all while
> not funding the public at large. None of that helps us.).
>
>
> https://www.democracynow.org/2020/4/7/aoc_coronavirus_stimulus_corporate_slush_fund
>  > JUAN GONZÁLEZ: [...] Congresswoman, could you talk about the debate
> that you had
>  > within yourself in terms of whether to support this package, given the
> enormous
>  > tax breaks and the direct grants and loans to corporate America?
>  >
>  > REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah. Well, you know, I think,
> ultimately, this
>  > debate, it was up to each and every member. I don’t slight any member
> for how they
>  > voted. I could not bring myself to ultimately support this bill,
> because I believe
>  > that people will soon see the extraordinary asymmetrical assistance
> that went to
>  > corporations. We’re not just talking about half a trillion dollars that
> went to
>  > Wall Street, as I mentioned in my remarks. That is being leveraged to
> $4 trillion
>  > for Wall Street and corporations. And what we’re seeing in payroll
> protection for
>  > small businesses is just a drop in the bucket compared to that.
>  >
>  > But, ultimately, what this administration did was hold every hospital
> hostage,
>  > hold every frontline worker hostage. And it is not an easy decision
> whatsoever for
>  > any member. But, ultimately, I think that people will soon see the
> betrayal that
>  > was in this bill, that was pushed forward by the administration and by
> Mitch
>  > McConnell. It is completely — it is completely unethical and inhumane,
> what has
>  > been done. And we talk about the oversight of this bill. It is far too
> little. It
>  > is far too flimsy. And what we have essentially done was give Steven
> Mnuchin a
>  > blank check to pick and choose who this administration will reward with
> $4
>  > trillion.
>
> When AOC said "I could not bring myself to ultimately support this bill"
> it gives the
> impression that she voted against the bill but she didn't exactly say that
> she voted
> against that bill. AOC won't say precisely how she voted and because DN's
> reportage
> is biased in her favor, they don't explicitly ask her how she voted using
> proper
> language and confirmation of how she voted.
>
> The Hill recently insisted "AOC DID vote no on the bailout" in
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjXMdFCMDuk but there's no evidence to
> back that up.
> It's a voice vote. Sadly, The Hill quoted this same interview segment from
> DN to
> conclude that AOC voted against that bill. That's either The Hill's poor
> evaluation
> criteria at work, or they're a part of the manufacture of a proper image
> for AOC.
>
> Jimmy Dore responds to that claim from The Hill in
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5uH0Dn7PfU and makes excellent points:
>
> - AOC should have called for a roll call vote, but she didn't.
>
> - AOC should have called out her leadership for not insisting on a roll
> call vote,
> but she didn't.
>
> - AOC has an invitation to go on Jimmy Dore's show and say that she did
> not vote for
> that bailout bill, but she won't go on Dore's show and say that because
> she knows the
> truth: she voted for that bill. I call this an excellent point because
> this is a real
> 'put up or shut up' moment and we need to be clear about who is on our
> side.
>
> - Therefore AOC wouldn't be using euphemisms like she "could not bring
> [her]self to
> ultimately support this bill" if she had voted against that bill. She'd be
> explicit
> and precise in her language. She'd rightfully and repeatedly boast to her
> base and to
> her constituents that she did right by them in their time of need, thus
> justifying
> putting her in power.
>
> I'd also add:
>
> - Democracy Now (Amy Goodman) never should have accepted that vague
> language from
> AOC. Goodman should have asked "So did you vote for the bill, yes or no?"
> but Goodman
> didn't do that. We had come to expect a vastly different interview style
> from DN and
> Goodman in particular -- asking lengthy questions to that CNN reporter
> (Aaron Brown?)
> about shitty news coverage from CNN, "keeping" Pres. Clinton on the phone
> answering
> tough questions and for far longer than he wanted to talk followed by
> Goodman
> pointing out in subsequent interviews about that call that 'the most
> powerful man in
> the world doesn't know how to hang up the phone?', and so on. We don't
> need unclear
> reportage like what we got from AOC in this promotional spot posing as an
> interview.
> We get euphemisms and obscurantism all the time from other
> establishment-friendly
> outlets. DN was supposed to stand apart from that coverage and be worth
> charitably
> contributing to.
>
> Consider this excerpt from DN, which is typical of what they've broadcast
> every day
> recently:
>
> https://www.democracynow.org/2020/4/9/bernie_sanders_naomi_klein
>  > NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I think the main thing that I want to say this
> morning, Amy, is
>  > just that I just would like to express my huge gratitude to Bernie
> Sanders, to his
>  > entire family, to the many people who worked for the campaign just so
> tirelessly
>  > and opened up the window of what was possible politically in this
> country. It was
>  > an incredibly tough campaign. And I trust that Bernie is making the
> right decision
>  > in this moment as the leader of that campaign and also as a U.S.
> senator. I know
>  > that he’s not going to just go relax, as he said in his address. He
> intends to
>  > fight for people, as he has always done, in this critical moment, in
> terms of what
>  > kind of relief, rescue and reimagining that we do in the midst of this
> pandemic.
>  > He is staying on the ballot. He is still building power in order to
> pressure the
>  > Democratic Party and Joe Biden to run the most progressive campaign
> that they can.
>  > So, you know, I feel so much gratitude for Senator Sanders.
>  >
>  > More than anything else, I think what the campaign did is help us find
> each other.
>  > And by “us,” I mean that huge “us” of the “Not me. Us.” campaign. And
> he did this
>  > not just in this campaign, but in 2016, where he really broke the spell
> of the
>  > Reagan era, that spell that has lasted for four decades, that told
> people, who
>  > believed, that this system that was funneling so much wealth upwards
> and spreading
>  > insecurity, precariousness, poverty and pollution for everybody else —
> everybody
>  > who saw that system and thought there was something deeply wrong with
> it, what the
>  > neoliberal era told us was that we were the ones who were crazy, we
> were a tiny
>  > minority of fringe people, and that we should just accept it. And what
> the Sanders
>  > campaign did in 2016 is tell us that we had been lied to, that, in
> fact, there
>  > were so many millions of us who saw that this world was fundamentally
> upside down.
>  > And all of the incredible organizing, including digital organizing but
> also
>  > in-person organizing, wove this amazing web, and we were able to find
> each other
>  > and find that we were many and they were few. And so, I don’t think we
> can ever
>  > thank Bernie Sanders and the campaign enough for that. And being part
> of the
>  > campaign as a volunteer — but I did go to four states for the campaign
> — was some
>  > of the — provided some of the greatest moments of my political life. I
> mean, I was
>  > in Nevada when we won, and got to be part of that incredibly joyful
> moment and
>  > just got to meet so many other like-minded people.
>
> Precisely what did Sanders do in or around 2016 that could fairly be
> described as
> "[breaking] the spell of the Reagan era, that spell that has lasted for
> four decades,
> that told people, who believed, that this system that was funneling so
> much wealth
> upwards and spreading insecurity, precariousness, poverty and pollution
> for everybody
> else"?
>
> Sanders used Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and some other policy
> ideas to
> attract people to a campaign he (by all available evidence) never intended
> to win.
> Then he full-throatedly endorsed his neoliberal opponent Hillary Rodham
> Clinton.
> People at the time were so pissed at how his campaign was treated that
> they sued the
> DNC corporation (a suit both DN and Sen. Sanders himself were tellingly
> silent
> about), and these disaffected Sanders supporters did not vote for Clinton
> (becoming
> part of a major reason why she lost -- she didn't keep the Obama voters
> across enough
> states with enough electoral votes to win). I believe that came to be
> known as
> "#DemExit", inspired by the portmanteau Brexit.
>
> Regarding Noam Chomsky's comments to DN about Sanders' 2020 campaign:
>
> https://www.democracynow.org/2020/4/9/noam_chomsky_bernie_sanders_campaign
>  > Noam Chomsky: [...] Suppose Biden is elected. I would anticipate it
> would be
>  > essentially a continuation of Obama — nothing very great, but at least
> not totally
>  > destructive, and opportunities for an organized public to change what
> is being
>  > done, to impose pressures.
>  >
>  > It’s common to say now that the Sanders campaign failed. I think that’s
> a mistake.
>  > I think it was an extraordinary success, completely shifted the arena
> of debate
>  > and discussion. Issues that were unthinkable a couple years ago are now
> right in
>  > the middle of attention.
>  >
>  > The worst crime he committed, in the eyes of the establishment, is not
> the policy
>  > he’s proposing; it’s the fact that he was able to inspire popular
> movements, which
>  > had already been developing — Occupy, Black Lives Matter, many others —
> and turn
>  > them into an activist movement, which doesn’t just show up every couple
> years to
>  > push a leader and then go home, but applies constant pressure, constant
> activism
>  > and so on. That could affect a Biden administration.
>
> I disagree. With what leverage will Sanders "pressure the Democratic Party
> and Joe
> Biden to run the most progressive campaign that they can" (and what a weak
> standard
> that is) or "impose pressure"?
>
> What activist movement did Sanders build? Sanders had some people
> interested in his
> campaign and Sanders has a Democratic Party candidate incubator group
> ("Our Revolution").
>
> I'd chiefly attribute increased interest in Medicare for All and Universal
> Basic
> Income now to COVID-19 lockdown/stay-at-home economic pressure (various
> types of
> strikes, people losing their jobs, to name a couple of examples) more than
> I'd
> attribute this to Sanders' speeches.
>
> And, even if we assume this activist movement exists, precisely how is
> that activist
> movement more likely to sway a theoretical Biden administration than the
> Trump
> administration?
>
> The most credit I can give Sanders is bringing slightly more attention to
> Medicare
> for All for a time but ultimately that credit had to stop when he
> abandoned that very
> effort in the swan song of his campaign (when he said "Let me be clear: I
> am not
> proposing that we pass Medicare for All in this moment. That fight
> continues into the
> future." and saying in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uQV83U5Dk around
> 41m44s "This
> is not Medicare for All, we can’t pass that right now."). He did that in
> order to
> appease his real master the Democratic Party.
>
> I can't help but think that Congress knows that bailing out businesses was
> unnecessary and that they are all too feckless to challenge their party
> leadership
> for a better bill. So they're falling back on unchallenging PR to create
> better
> "optics" (as they say in the public relations biz).
>
> I could be convinced toward Chomsky's nicer position if he gave evidence.
> But there
> is none to be found so it's not surprising that Chomsky didn't give any
> evidence. As
> far as I can tell it's all a 'feelings'-based argument driven by a
> Democratic Party
> desire to manufacture a better legacy for someone who did drop Medicare
> for All
> promotion, and absolutely did vote for the bailout bill (we have the roll
> call vote
> to prove this). That vote means that Sanders could have made a name for
> himself by
> voting against that bill and then taken that 'no' vote to the people whom
> he still
> hopes to collect votes from and campaign contributions from -- remember
> that Sanders
> merely "suspended" his campaign. That bailout bill still would have easily
> passed the
> Senate without Sanders' yay vote). So my calling Sanders feckless seems
> completely
> fair, right, and proper to me, particularly considering that this is a
> time of
> obvious struggle for the poorest among us, and that this bill implements
> the largest
> wealth transfer. People haven't fully felt the effects of this bill yet.
> By the time
> they do they'll be asking "Wha happened?" and they'll need to look back on
> history
> and recognize not only what did happen, and who made it happen, but also
> they'll need
> to skip a lot of establishment-friendly media which was lying to them.
>
> Recent big events (including war!) are so poorly covered by DN of late, DN
> is just
> not worth my time and certainly not worth contributing money to. I only
> watch it now
> on rare occasion and purely as a bellweather for so-called "progressive"
> media as DN
> is still considered a well-known outlet in those circles. I don't trust
> the news I
> get from DN without other independent confirmations. Also, the interviews
> DN gets are
> often not that great (see above with AOC).
>
> I think that history will come to see Jeffrey St. Clair's book "Bernie &
> The
> Sandernistas: Field Notes From a Failed Revolution"
> (https://store.counterpunch.org/product/bernie-the-sandernistas/) about
> Sanders' 2016
> campaign as prophetic -- Sanders deserved the criticism he received for
> his 2016
> campaign from both St. Clair and Black Agenda Report (such as
> https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary).
> Sanders
> deserves the criticism he receives now. And the establishment-friendly
> media is
> desperate to create another narrative where Sanders looks a hell of a lot
> better than
> his political record can support (on April 7 he posted
> https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1247689671557201924 which reads
> "There is a
> word to describe our health care system today: grotesque. We need Medicare
> for All."
> and then on April 8 he "suspended" his campaign and dropped Medicare for
> All saying
> it wasn't politically tenable. If that doesn't urge sharp critique, what
> does?
> Sanders never had a foreign policy position that was clearly
> distinguishable from a
> neocon's, so he's got nothing to offer there). Perhaps Jimmy Dore is
> correct: Sanders
> did what he did to escape being viewed with hatred like the DNC views
> Ralph Nader.
> Sanders' choices are consistent with that motivation.
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20200412/8d3b4b75/attachment-0001.htm>