[Peace-discuss] What I glean from The Two Bruces

[J.B. Nicholson]

Karen Aram wrote:
> Aaron is a great journalist and interviewer, but Jimmy is a better analyst.
> 
> Aaron’s suggestion of going with the lesser evil and pushing to the left is very
> disappointing given we don’t have time for that nonsense, people are dying without
> jobs, without housing, without healthcare, the last thing we need is another
> administration subject to the capitalist ruling elites.
I too hold Mate's work in high regard but I was surprised to hear Mate endorse lesser 
evilism (in what is now available as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45TnIAgfPRM).

There's comparably bad rationale behind Mate's thinking in 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkxPmgoktIw (about why Bernie Sanders' campaign 
"failed" or took a "nosedive" according to the following article which is discussed 
in this Dore video).

Mate's penultimate sentence in that video sums up his take:

> Aaron Mate: You vote for whoever is the least-worst and then you push them in the
> direction you can.
Dore seems to recognize that that mode of thinking got us to where we are and (as 
Dore has said before) when one does this, one gives up their only power and the 
candidate has no reason to listen to you afterwards.

I find Mate's logic thoroughly unconvincing. I dare say a majority of registered US 
voters find it unconvincing too, hence the largest bloc of them didn't vote for US 
President in 2016 where Hillary Clinton was widely said to be the lesser evil 
(least-worst). I would not be surprised if we a large bloc of registered voters not 
vote for POTUS in this year's election either for this reason and due to COVID-19.




I'm not convinced that Sanders' 2020 campaign failed. I'm convinced that that 
campaign succeeded at achieving different goals (goals Dore is rarely willing to 
bring up much less discuss in-depth). Therefore the article discussed in that video 
has it wrong.

Politico author Holly Otterbein wrote:

https://archive.md/r81zI -- read the article without Javascript or ads!
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/10/inside-bernies-sanders-campaign-nosedive-179576
> According to interviews with more than 20 of Sanders’ aides, surrogates and top
> allies, many believe he should have been more aggressive in taking on Biden,
> including over the idea that he was more electable in November. They also
> complained about the campaign’s organizing strategy and its inability to win over
> black and senior voters. Though nearly everyone in Sanders’ circle felt that the
> media and political establishments played critical roles in taking him down, they
> still think the nomination was in his reach.
Dore claimed that the nomination was within Sanders' reach and Mate didn't object to 
either the article or Dore's claim. I say that the nomination was never in Sanders' 
reach for two reasons (from the two Bruces):

1. Per Bruce Spiva, DNC lawyer speaking to a court in his official capacity as that 
corporation's legal representative (see 
https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2020-February/051938.html for his 
quote which I often reference) against some disaffected Sanders 2012 campaigners who 
claim that the DNC cheated them: the decision of who shall be the DNC's standards 
bearer is up to the DNC corporation, not primary candidates nor primary voters. The 
so-called 'primary election' is merely theater. I'll add that without this 
distraction the DNC's freedom would be too obviously just another corporation picking 
its representative. So DNC elites are careful to construct a democratic-appearing 
process with enough safeguards in it to always produce an outcome which is amenable 
to the party bosses.

2. As the late Bruce Dixon explained in 
https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary years ago, 
Sanders is playing out the sheepdog role his campaign was intended to carry out. In 
the end Sanders would always throw the race: ditching Medicare for All, constantly 
complimenting Biden, and firmly backing Russiagate, as a few examples. Sanders would 
deliver his audience to the DNC who would pick up a "where else you gonna go?" mantra 
("Maybe you have to swallow a little bit" of Joe Biden per his wife Dr. Jill Biden). 
I maintain that so much of what Sanders has done recently is done chiefly to keep in 
good stead with the Democratic Party.

So of course "no one went for a knockout blow" (quoting that Politico article). The 
whole point was to use Sanders' commanding lead and vastly higher donations (Dore 
said Sanders raised more in one month than Biden raised in his entire 2020 campaign) 
to promote the DNC's reliable neocon/neolib insurance plan -- Biden.

A lot follows from The Two Bruces which helps us put both of Sanders' recent 
campaigns into context including that it's silly to get caught up in counting votes, 
voting machine troubles, or delegates (as if they matter in corporate party primary 
races). It's wrong to look at any number of substantive bad Sanders campaign choices 
as "mistakes" (they weren't accidents). It's foolish to conclude that Sanders was 
"cheated" in 2016 or in 2020 -- a mistake I too have made. Spiva is clear: The DNC 
corporation is fully within its right to simply selecting a so-called 'nominee', 
standards bearer, and informing us all who that is. This means the DNC corporation is 
free to name literally anyone who agrees to take the role. Parties don't owe us 
democracy. The DNC is merely picking a corporate head. Or the DNC can set & change 
the rules for their chosen process at any time (hence shifting qualifications on 
which surveys to use for determining popularity, shifting amounts of money to set as 
minimum requirements for the next so-called "debate", etc. get bad press sometimes 
but ultimately are legal and also serve as a means test for would-be Democrats: how 
much are you going to let them push you and your favorite candidate around?).

Aaron Mate is correct to point out that all of the media outlets Sanders would speak 
with are "class enemies" of those who supported Sanders. But the logical conclusion 
to draw from that is not to support lesser evilism, or to think that Sanders goofed 
in his campaign choices, but to understand that Sanders isn't stupid or foolish. 
Something else is up, and that something is the design Bruce Dixon told us about 
years ago. Even Dore tacitly admits this (while giving no credit to Dixon) in 
pointing out that Sanders is a sheepdog for the Dems and that Sanders fears being 
viewed the way the Dems unjustifiably view Ralph Nader -- with scorn and contempt.




Karen Aram wrote:
> The Intercept maybe good on domestic issues, but they lack credibility on foreign
> policy, which is critical, is one of the reasons I don’t pay much attention to
> them anymore.

I don't read a lot of what The Intercept has published since they hired their current 
Editor-in-Chief, Betsy Reed, who strikes me as a neoliberal waste of time. Since 
Intercept hired Reed and some of their other authors, I've had to pare down my 
Intercept reading to only certain authors including Glenn Greenwald and Lee Fang. A 
lot of the other authors strike me as no better than what I can find in the 
establishment-friendly and highly overrated New York Times.

I lost a great deal of respect for The Intercept after how co-founder Laura Poitras 
left, how they handled the Snowden archive (closed it with far too little time for 
interested parties to make a backup), and how they chose to handle the leak 
attributed to Reality Winner (they gave an unredacted copy to the NSA which is 
indistinguishable from asking the NSA "Is this your document?"). These were choices 
and not mistakes. What happened to Reality Winner also serves as a clear signal to us 
all: if you have anything to leak to journalists, don't trust The Intercept. 
WikiLeaks has a far better record of properly handling leaks.