What the US Left—and Bernie Sanders’s Supporters—Can Learn From Jeremy Corbyn
http://www.thenation.com/article/what-the-us-left-and-bernie-sanders-supporters-can-learn-from-jeremy-corbyn/Corbyn’s victory represents a forceful insertion of a genuine left alternative to austerity, corporate power, xenophobia, racism, and militarism into the mainstream of British politics. By running a lively, militant, and hopeful campaign, Corbyn and the forces behind him have created the conditions necessary to build power on the left. The only reason those of us on the left in America might want to avoid imitating this result would be if we don’t actually think that Americans want a left alternative—in other words, if we don’t think we can win. Looking at Bernie Sanders’s candidacy through the mirror of Corbyn’s suggests that it is possible for the left to make a national intervention in American politics—and that what we need to do is to figure out how. As Pablo Iglesias has said, “The left can win.” So what can we learn from the Corbynistas?
1) The messenger matters. Voters don’t necessarily hate politicians. What they hate is a class of people who for the sake of their own political advancement are content to play by the rules of a political system that manifestly fails to deliver the goods. Establishment politicians are simply not credible opponents of a system that they complacently serve. Corbyn and Sanders are both long-time elected officials, but both have always also been outsiders, without any significant power base within Labour or the Democrats. Both are forthrightly ideological in their views, and in particular both have been intransigent opponents of austerity in any guise. Both are men of modest means and modest egos. These factors matter greatly in their ability to attract support.
2) The message matters more. What led people by the hundreds of thousands to register to vote in the Labour leadership election was the combination of Corbyn’s credibility as a spokesperson for his program with his program itself. Labour voters were presented with three candidates who ranged from reactionary to milquetoast on economic policy, and one candidate who pledged open combat against austerity. Corbyn put forward a vigorously left program for ending years of economic stagnation and deteriorating public services, and people rallied to it. Sanders has also put forward an emphatically left-wing program to address the economic, political, and ecological ills facing the country, one that is many miles to the left of what any pundit or pollster thinks is acceptable to the American mainstream. Yet his poll numbers surge by the day. An alternative vision, combined with a credible spokesman for that vision, can rally mass support.
3) Changes in the rules can create openings for left forces. Corbyn’s victory would have been unimaginable under the old system, a complicated three-way electoral college that gave the party’s parliamentary delegation an outsized say in the choice of leader. But under a new, true “one-member, one-vote” system, Corbyn and his team were able to recruit supporters to register as members and pay the £3 required to vote. Their superior organizing was both galvanizing and numerically decisive.
= new reply since forum marked as read
How long is the British campaign season and what does it cost a British candidate like Corbyn to run a campaign, start to finish? How full of loopholes are British laws governing corruption of politicians? 'Cause all those things and more bear directly on how much multi-millionaires and billionaires and PACs and groups like ALEC get to control politicians. And guess what, those people aren't exactly leaning on politicians to go left.
How hard is it for Brits to change electoral college rules when they don't work well? What in UK requires a rule change, in the US requires a Constitutional amendment, which is all but impossible to obtain. Even Justice Affectation Scalia thinks the US Constitution should be easier to amend. However, with our pols creating gridlock intentionally and demonizing each other and the constituents of "the other side," I doubt any amendment is going to come about in the next three decades, minimum. (The last mildly controversial amendment occurred during the Eisenhower Administration. After that, even equal rights for women was too divisive for ratification.)
Another difference: Who runs and dominates the Labor Party? Well, OK. I know Al From and Hillary toured Europe years ago to spread the DLC gospel and Tony Blair may have been their most notable and noticeable convert. However, when politicians in the UK had massive election losses, they rebelled. In the US, the Third Way doubled down, promising to "compromise" even more with Republicans. So, there is that difference, too. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778559
The message matters? Gee, if only I had been able to grok that, I would have supported Senator Sanders and posted over and over how glad I am he is running because Americans need to hear his message and you can't unring that bell. I'd best get on all that.
The labor movement matters? Another thing that totally escaped Sanders' supporters, as anyone can see from posts in this group, the populist group and Omaha Steve's labor group, among others! Well, now that I get it, I'm buying me a pair of comfortable pair of shoes. I sure hope I can find a pair that was union made in the USA, like all the stuff in the Bernie store. Solidarity forever!
I am sad that Bernie's supporters are so unaware of all these things. I am adding failing to rid America of austerity politics (whatever that means) to the long and ever-growing list of massive shortcomings and abysmal failures of Bernie's supporters. I am deeply ashamed of each of you and, of course, of myself.
My fellow Bernie supporters, this one's for each of you. 
