I have had it with cynical faux-realists attacking Bernie Sanders idealists

[n2doc]

It's timid and fearful to limit ourselves to incremental change -- and it only makes the powerful more powerful
by CAT J. ZAVIS

I can appreciate the concern and fear underlying the words of John Avignone (“I have had it with naïve Bernie Sanders idealists”) and Paul Krugman (who wrote a piece in the NYT saying Sanders was not realistic and we can only hope for the incremental change proposed by Hilary Clinton) and others who are choosing to support Clinton, even though they want our country to move further to the ideals and values put forth by Bernie than those expressed by Hillary.

They articulate a fear that I have heard spoken by many – Bernie is not electable and if Bernie is the Democratic nomination, a Republican (i.e., Trump) will win and we will be in a very dangerous situation. Their solution is to support Hillary rather than rally behind a candidate who — yes, has shortcomings, as do all the candidates — is trying to build a movement that would be there to support his reform efforts. He recognizes that he cannot create the meaningful and systemic change he seeks for the betterment of our country and the world on his own.

There has been throughout history, and will continue to be, a battle between two competing approaches to social change and underlying that, two worldviews. On the one hand, we have the view of Clinton and her supporters – the realists. The realists (and many involved in social change work fall into this camp) argue that we have to fight for what is achievable because otherwise we will be way worse off. In this case that means cast your vote for Hillary because she is more “realistic,” and thus more likely to win. This is essentially casting a vote for the lesser evil. This approach to social and political change is steeped in fear. Those in this camp believe that the only way we can arrive where we want to get is through incremental (i.e., realistic) change. But what they fail to understand is that those with power and money define their definition of realistic. When we narrow our vision of what is possible to what those in power tell us is possible, we actually bolster their power.

But there’s a reason people limit their vision. Putting forth a vision for radical transformation is a vulnerable and scary leap of faith. Millions of people rallied behind Obama’s call for hope. He professed that we are one country, not a nation of blacks and whites, but all one. He promised to work across the political divide to find solutions to the pressing issues before him and our nation. Within months of being in office, after the collapse of the economic system, Obama chose to bail out Wall Street rather than help Main Street, even though it was Main Street that put him in the White House.

more

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/29/i_have_had_it_with_cynical_faux_realists_attacking_bernie_sanders_idealists/

[Kalidurga]

1. They get really mad at me when I ask questions

Who doesn't deserve health care?

Who doesn't deserve housing?

Why shouldn't children grow up with the idea that college is attainable if they wish to attend?

Why should people work for less money than it costs for the basics?

The thing is the realists are fine with people being homeless, hungry, without basic care. They are fine with squashing the dreams of children who are smart enough for college, but will never escape poverty long enough to go. They are fine with people having to decide if they are going to pay for food or heat, or food or medicine, or food or transportation to work. It's really fine and dandy that millions of people are without basic necessities because it's just too hard to make sure some guy isn't sleeping in a dumpster and dying for lack of antibiotics. And then there are those that are terrified someone somewhere will take advantage of free stuff and not be motivated to work. So, it's better to starve some kids, let some people die, and keep the system just as it is cuz freeloaders.

[phantom power]

2. We could learn some things from the Conservatives.

They always ask for more, pushing the national political dialogue to the right. There's a reason their memes have dominated for the last 40 years.

[abelenkpe]

3. K&R

[eridani]

4. It's a Movement, Stupid: Why Bernie Can Deliver on Promises of Change, While the Sensible Centrists

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/29/its-movement-stupid-why-bernie-can-deliver-promises-change-while-sensible-centrists

If you stand for nothing, you will get beat by anything

Democrats are getting slaughtered at all level of government because citizens are tired of voting for people who don’t represent them.

For example, at the state level, Republicans have total control—that is, a Republican governor and Republican majorities in the legislature—of 24 states. Democrats, by comparison, control only 7 state governments. The rest are split.

It’s not that Bernie doesn’t know how the political process works, it’s that he knows it’s NOT working

When Hillary tells you Bernie Sanders doesn’t know how American Politics works, and people like Paul Krugman, Tom Friedman, and Jonathon Chait repeat it, they’re missing one important fact: The American political process doesn’t work, and it won’t, until and unless we get a real political revolution.

It’s certainly not working for the 99% of Americans who are getting left behind economically. It’s certainly not working when the interests of the elite few trump the desires of the rest of us. And it’s certainly not working when the progressive issues the majority of Americans favor are completely ignored by the government they elect.

If we have a different Congress, things will change

This, of course, is the crux of what the Party establishment, the mainstream media, and the punditocracy don’t get. If Bernie Sanders gets elected, it’s because he got the disaffected majority off the couch and into the voting booth. And if that happens, Congress will have a completely different make-up. Yes, the influence of gerrymandering might dilute the gains that would otherwise be made, but it will not prevent more progressives from getting into office. More progressive voters, means more progressives get elected. And if that happens, Sanders will have more success than any of these so-called experts predict.