Why I’m Still For Bernie: It’s not about winning battles, it’s about winning the war

[Rebkeh]

Aside from my distrust of her, Hillary is too focused on policy. I don’t think her approach is the better one, simply because it serves two masters. Further, there are other reasons:

1. Structural change – changing the policies so they support equality is not going to be sustainable unless the policies, in turn, are supported by structures that are consistent with their aims. As it stands now, the structures are built to maintain inequality, no amount of policy change is going to be safe in such an environment. Bernie aims to take both approaches, to address policy AND structure - which is the correct way. Hillary aims for only one approach while benefiting from the neglect of the other.

If you do not take both approaches, you essentially will have a wack-a-mole situation, especially since all the republicans have to do is unravel the policies before they even take root. Even in their current weakened state, giving them such opportunities would help them more than it would help us. Leave them weakened, for God's sake. Stop the co-dependency. They will not be destroyed by anyone but themselves, that’s how it works. Take a “please proceed” approach to the republicans. Stop helping them, let them keep digging, give them more rope and for the love of God, get out of their way.

2. Fighting the ideological war, rather than policy fights, requires the moral high ground because the means shape the ends. If you fight by lying, cheating and stealing, the victorious outcomes will empower liars, cheaters and thieves. Which, in turn, only repeats the ugly cycle and digs us deeper into the quagmire. We cannot defeat conservative or republican ideology by becoming conservatives and adopting republican ideology. The usual tactic of divide and then conquer by co-opting your enemies will not bring justice for anyone but those who have already arrived. It does not help the people at the bottom, it helps the people in the middle – this is not progress. This is not justice. This is not Truth.

3. Bernie brings us a rare opportunity to leap ahead instead of inching along at a slow crawl. Bernie brings light to dark places and there are far too many shadows in the political arena, shadows that empower the enemies of justice, truth, fairness and democracy. We may not ever have another chance to get it right.

So, getting to the structures of inequality in all its forms, countering the toxic ideology of the right, and because sunshine is the best disinfectant, is why we need Bernie.

Don’t blow this, America.

On a final note, at some point we must stop fighting the symptoms of inequality and start fighting the causes of it. It’s on us, I don’t want someone that says, “I got this.” I want someone that says, “We got this.” The power is to always be with the people, ultimately. There is only one person up there speaking this language.

[JaneyVee]

1. Structural change, like electing a first female president.

And please, Bernie's entire career has been incremental change, IF even that.

[Orsino]

4. That's symbolic change.

I just happen to agree that it's important, with immense possible long-term benefits.

[cali]

5. That, in and of itself, is not structural change

And if Hillary's foreign policy hews to her rhetoric and her history, we will not see any structural change.

She's better than trump. That's about the lowest bar imaginable.

I think she'll be an awful President. Better than trump, doesn't mean good.

[JaneyVee]

6. Of course it is.

230+ years of all male presidents is a power structure. Do you even feminism?

[libdem4life]

19. Her baggage and hubris is not something I want to hold up to future

generations of women as an example. We can wait for the right one. She's not it. One with ethical behavior, strong values and such.

[cliffordu]

20. Yes I do. I believe it's time for a woman president

Elizabeth Warren would have been perfect, but alas, we are left with Hillary, the Neocon neoliberal choice.
So: Yes to feminism, no to Hillary.

[Dragonfli]

13. Incremental change can be helpful but not during a disaster, We are going through both an

economic and environmental disaster at the moment.

During a hurricane one does not incrementally - first hold a commission, compromise with those that think it is "just a little bit windy and wind is not only normal but good". then decide how best to slowly phase into effect a transition from the living room and into the storm cellar, after taking a few votes and form some more commissions on whether or not to move a few into the cellar as the farm still needs to be worked on and it would be impractical to have more than a few people, in shifts move to that storm cellar.

Then compromising and taking a vote deciding that, there may be a storm, but let's be pragmatic and not call it a hurricane and hold another vote as to if we can, or should, allow those few "crazy people" to take shelter.

Even assuming that the incremental change is on the right side of the problem, and eventually decides there is a hurricane and it's time to take shelter, during that time too many will die if not all.

All because the approach was incremental rather than an APPROPRIATE approach to a hurricane, and the discussion was based instead on incremental slow movement to take shelter, rather than sane clear decision making regarding how best to get as many as possible as quickly as possible into the shelter of the storm center.

Incrementalism can be helpful, but is not always the best approach, and incremental change in the wrong direction is change for the worse, not the better.

The professional class do not even feel the winds of poverty and desperation around them and deny the existence of an economic disaster that is harming the majority of Americans and so they deny it and their idea of incremental change (even if good) will be too little too late, it does not help that there is a a complete lack of empathy from the yet higher class this comfortable professional class prefer to elect.

Just as there are economic deniers there are also climate deniers, not the nutjobs that think there is no such thing as climate change, (they do exist as well) but rather the climate deniers that think we have time to use fossil fuel as a bridge without rendering repairs too late and the damage too extreme to be repaired. As an example let's use "frakking" the gasses released let alone the neglectful use and poisoning of incredibly large amounts of water used just in the process of "frakking', but the poisoning of water not used in the process, but that water which supplies the drinking water in the areas where the process is used.

Methane gas in arge amounts is releases in the Frakking process, a gas exponentially more potent than the small bit of CO2 saved by using natural gas rather than other harmful energy fuels - it is actually worse in net for the environment than coal!

The incremental change you seek is not even incremental change for the good, but rather for the bad.

It is incremental change to the right, not the left regarding the the economic hardships of the working and poor classes but also the environment near death ailment of our biosphere.


Incremental change for the good can be helpful, but we are really talking about incremental change to the right which is not good.
Also, just as during the great depression, these two emergencies happening simultaneously incremental change will be less helpful than Hoovers incrementalism and may in fact be worse.

[mmonk]

2. Agreed. It's what others do not get.

[pmorlan1]

3. I'm with Bernie too

I will vote for him and help donate to his campaign until the end.

[silvershadow]

7. Till the bitter end. No more triangulation. No more Third Way. People vs Corporations.

No contest.

[bkkyosemite]

8. It's about winning the battle and the war against the establishment

[ViseGrip]

9. I am for Bernie to be the president, nothing less.

[Orsino]

10. Those focused only on one primary candidate over another are missing that point.

Bernie is a symptom more than he is a cause. He didn't suddenly develop presidential ambitions last year; no, he saw the tremendous hunger for change in the electorate, and has given it a voice in the primary. By staying in the race, he is guaranteeing it/us a voice in the shaping of this year's platform. He/we/it has too many delegates for the Establishment to ignore.

He will have helped to make the next Administration more responsive to our real needs, to a degree that depends in some part on how hard we fight from here on out. Lobby the hell out of both our candidates, our delegates and our elected officials. Let's make some change.

[Rebkeh]

16. I agree nt

[brooklynite]

11. What structural change has Sanders shown he CAN achieve?

[Tarc]

12. This late in the game, pro-Sanders posts should be required to explain how he'd get the nomination

If you believe Sanders can win more pledged delegates than Clinton, show the math that'll get him there.

If you believe Sanders cannot win more pledged delegates than Clinton, explain why the superdelegates should refuse to support the pledged delegate winner and jump to Sanders. (any sort of "ends justify the means" argument, e.g. "Bernie can beat Trump!" is prohibited).

[Rebkeh]

15. Did you even read it?

The OP is not about winning the battles, it's about beating republican ideology.

And I'm not required to meet any of your demands, I ain't your bitch.

[Tarc]

17. Yes, I did. Did you?

The OP is giving us a "only Bernie can save us!" spiel.

[Rebkeh]

22. Of course I did

I wrote it. And it's not about Bernie saving us, it's about us saving ourselves with Bernie's help.

But I digress, judging by this question, you obviously still haven't read it. Or you just see what you want to see, and I can't help you there.

Carry on

[Dragonfli]

14. I have examined where my loyalties lie, others judge, I'll explain my position.

From my perspective, the party I joined thirty nine years ago was a party I believed in and so gave my loyalty, It was the party of The New Deal, The Great Society and at the time I joined also the party of civil liberty, equal rights and a war against poverty. I see a party in 2016 that is not that party. The question of my loyalty now becomes murky. I think my loyalty now only belongs to my class and because Bernie Sanders shares this loyalty to my class, I must support him every way possible.

So many in the party leadership and the party overall are comfortable and this place of comfort has made them cold to the reality that is daily life for a great many people.

They make many assumptions from ivory towers of middle class or wealth with little awareness it would seem of those that are lower middle class (quickly falling into poverty even tho they work harder with multiple McJobs than they did before lower middle class meant poverty).

As to the poor - they seem completely oblivious to them and convince themselves that welfare reform didn't harm anybody, I know Hill and Bill believe this, but it did and does to this day I assure you, it was not a pragmatic solution to a "welfare queen" problem handled well because a Democrat helped to all but destroy it. It will not be a brave pragmatic solution to "earned benefit queens" they will likely label SS beneficiaries, as they collude yet again with republicans to begin to shred these last vestiges of the new deal and great society.

They cause the poor to become poorer still while so many in the party applaud the politicians responsible. Their applause and support are what make them just as responsible as their political idols.

They think this is a game, or a sport with my team and their team, not realizing or caring that the ball that is tossed around in this sport is a child that only gets to eat at school and will soon lose that food, or the ball is an elderly widow or widower that can only afford to take their medicine every other day or maybe will freeze to death in a small flat during a winter they could not pay their gas bill (this happens ALREADY where I live).

There are many other balls tossed around for their sport and amusement, too many to list them all here, some are dead or dying, some are living under a tarp in a vacant lot hoping the cops don't roust them or the suburban teenagers don't decide to slum it and amuse themselves by assaulting them while laughing and taunting the "bum" for cell phone footage. Some of these comfortable people give advice to "the poor that in fact do OK" as a famous DLC Democrat once said. One of the Conservative DU posters once even suggested dumpster diving as a viable and reasonable option.

Too many of them applaud policies and politicians that make all these problems worse, they need to get it through their heads, many are dying and more will die of poverty, this is no game and the poor aren't doing OK, they are doing worse all the time with less help available all the time.

It is not serious, pragmatic, or brave to cause more people to suffer and die in poverty because it is referred to flippantly as "eating peas" or "being adult". It is not pragmatic even when the ones shipping away the jobs or destroying welfare "feel your pain". It never was bravery, but cowardice. It is not balanced when an increasing number of people fall into poverty and die while others become wealthier at an exponential rate.

The punditry, politicians, and comfortable may think it is a fun sport full of serious brave adults that make hard decisions.

Cowards all really, making easy decisions, easy because their decisions don't harm them, but rather the poor they barely acknowledge exist for the profit of the wealthy.

Sometimes they even have the gall to pat themselves on the back and reassure each other "the poor in fact do OK".

I feel very sincerely about these class and poverty issues, I give my loyalty completely to the forgotten, struggling and increasingly poor working classes that birthed me. You decide if that makes me disloyal to a party that has all but forgotten us save for donations and Pyrrhic election victories, because I will fight tooth and nail against any one of them or any elected Democrat that is harmful to my class, in other words harmful to most of America.

For these reasons and others, my loyalties now lie only with Bernie Sanders, politicians that share his views, and the revolution that is necessary if we are to fight and win against overwhelming odds, a fight I take on for my class, the very survival of countless people, and for a better future to leave behind for our younger generations.

[Rebkeh]

18. Well said

Especially the part about the ball being tossed around is a vulnerable person of some kind.

Some people eat their own.

[KoKo]

21. ....!

[Mike__M]

26. I'll just leave a reply right here

'cause I want to see my avatar among all these smart ones that I admire.

[reddread]

23. Its a long fucking way until June 7th

We should be willing to endure considerable pain to reach the other side.
California will stake this properly, with the help of Oregon and so many change minded voters.
lets not drink too deeply of their kool aid until the deal is done.

[Rebkeh]

24. I agree, a lot can happen between now and then

The aura of inevitability is an illusion, math or not. Math is only one factor of many, variables are inconvenient sometimes.

Besides, it's the right thing to do. It really is that simple.

[reddread]

25. they have only been lying all along about their inevitability, racism, civil rights, voting issues,

win margins.
hardly the time to give credit where it isnt due.