Here's Why I Never Warmed Up to Bernie Sanders
Kevin Drum, Mother Jones
With the Democratic primary basically over, I want to step back a bit and explain the big-picture reason that I never warmed up to Bernie Sanders. It's not so much that he's all that far to my left, nor that he's been pretty skimpy on details about all the programs he proposes. That's hardly uncommon in presidential campaigns. Rather, it's the fact that I think he's basically running a con, and one with the potential to cause distinct damage to the progressive cause.
<snip>
Bernie's explanation for everything he wants to do—his theory of change, or theory of governing, take your pick—is that we need a revolution in this country. The rich own everything. Income inequality is skyrocketing. The middle class is stagnating. The finance industry is out of control. Washington DC is paralyzed.
But as Bill Scher points out, the revolution that Bernie called for didn't show up. In fact, it's worse than that: we were never going to get a revolution, and Bernie knew it all along. Think about it: has there ever been an economic revolution in the United States? Stretching things a bit, I can think of two:
◾The destruction of the Southern slave economy following the Civil War.
◾The New Deal.
The first of these was 50+ years in the making and, in the end, required a bloody, four-year war to bring to a conclusion. The second happened only after an utter collapse of the economy, with banks closing, businesses failing, wages plummeting, and unemployment at 25 percent. That's what it takes to bring about a revolution, or even something close to it.
We're light years away from that right now. Unemployment? Yes, two or three percent of the working-age population has dropped out of the labor force, but the headline unemployment rate is 5 percent. Wages? They've been stagnant since the turn of the century, but the average family still makes close to $70,000, more than nearly any other country in the world. Health care? Our system is a mess, but 90 percent of the country has insurance coverage. Dissatisfaction with the system? According to Gallup, even among those with incomes under $30,000, only 27 percent are dissatisfied with their personal lives.
Like it or not, you don't build a revolution on top of an economy like this. Period. If you want to get anything done, you're going to have to do it the old-fashioned way: through the slow boring of hard wood.
Much, Much more at link: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/heres-why-i-never-warmed-bernie-sanders
= new reply since forum marked as read
Not that I am aware of, maybe the Homestead Strike? After Fricke was shot, that swayed the public opinion on who controls a company and was the start of the capitalists truly showing that they were making all the rules and controlling the purse strings of a company. Failed revolution?
Or the aftermath of the Triangle Factory fire?
Both are just random events that caused big changes. I don't know that they'd really fit the definition of a revolution.
The problem with any economic revolution is that the wealthy can easily outlast us . The same people wanting change also work for these very companies, they are literally producing the revenue that is used to control them. How many voting for Bernie work for Walmart, Amazon, Verizon Wireless and so on? $21 T in offshore accounts alone.
The history of the great Coal Strike of 1902 , for example, shows how much the wealthy believe they are superior people and how far will go to have absolute control.
Thanks very much. 
