Category: Bernie Sanders
Bernie or Bust?
| January 30, 2016 | 10:34 pm | About the CPUSA, Bernie Sanders, political struggle | Comments closed

Bernie or Bust?

There it was on my Facebook feed. An image of a young woman and beneath it the slogan, “Bernie or Bust.” Catchy enough, I thought. But what does it mean? Two very different interpretations came to mind.

One is that Sanders’ supporters are going all out, taking his campaign as far as it can go (and it’s gone further than many political observers thought only a few months ago), but no matter who wins the Democratic Party nomination this summer, supporting the nominee in the fall.

The other is that it’s full speed ahead now, but in the event that Bernie doesn’t win the nomination and Hillary does, his supporters will sit out the general election.

If the first interpretation is the case, so much the better; it’s a win-win. If it’s the other, it’s wrongheaded. Nothing good will come from it. In fact, a lot of bad could result. Let me explain:

Hillary isn’t Bernie; no question about that. His positions go beyond the conventional boundaries of the Democratic Party; hers don’t. His campaign feels transformational; hers doesn’t. He is energizing new constituencies and stimulating new thinking; she isn’t. He’s on the outs with the party’s hierarchy; she’s its favorite. He hopes to build a popular movement that will endure after the curtain falls on this election cycle. She has no such aspiration. And he’s a democratic socialist to boot. Not her cup of tea.

But, by the same token, Hillary isn’t Trump, Cruz, or Rubio either.  Far from it. Nor is she in the same ballpark as Margaret Thatcher or Carly Fiorina, or Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann.

To say that she is a warhawk, a late arrival to the issue of income inequality, and linked to Wall Street, tells us something about her, something important, but it doesn’t tell us everything. Her politics, much like President Obama’s, are more complex and multidimensional than her unrelenting critics on the left and right allow.

In sharp contrast to her Republican adversaries, Hillary has a democratic sensibility and commitment, even if hemmed in by her centrist politics and class leanings. She may not want to break up banks too big to fail, or rein in U.S. military presence and activity worldwide, or embrace single-payer health care (arguably for good reasons), but she will fight for the full range of democratic rights, collective bargaining rights, wage rights, job rights, women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights, voting rights, immigrant rights, and, not least, health rights, as well as defend the integrity of democratic structures, governance, and traditions.

If elected president she will build on the achievements of Obama’s presidency. In other words, her White House will press for economic, social, and political reforms on a range of issues, including existentially necessary action on climate change. This will be especially so if the progressive and popular base of the coalition that elects her, assuming for the moment that she is the nominee, remains engaged in the post-election period. That wasn’t the case in the Obama years, at least on the scale necessary to successfully combat Republican obstructionism.

Even Hillary’s foreign policy, while likely more aggressive and military-inclined than Obama’s, also has a place for diplomacy, global cooperation, and realism, a far cry from any of the trigger-happy Republican candidates who believe there are no limits to the projection of U.S. power in a complex, fractured, and violent world.

Finally, the election of Hillary will break perhaps the biggest glass ceiling for women. While we can’t really know how great its symbolic significance will be, it is safe to say that it will be large and lasting on men as well as girls and women. Moreover, as president, Hillary will certainly do what she has long done, shine a light on women’s concerns, ranging from wage and job discrimination, to health care, abortion, and birth control rights, to rape and domestic violence, to child care and parental leave. But she will do it on the largest public stage and with a far bigger voice.

The GOP candidates, on the other hand, have no such sensibilities and commitments. Neither does the Republican Party as a whole. They have demonstrated by words and deeds that they think too much democracy, too much equality, and too many democratic rights plague the country. And if it were not for Obama in the White House for the past eight years, their “scorched earth” assault on this plague of excessive democracy and equality would have been much further along.

And herein lies the danger that supporters of both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton must consider: If the Republicans win the presidency, that firewall against far-right extremism that the Obama administration represented will disappear and the barbarians will be no longer at the gate, but likely in charge of the whole castle.

Their grip on the Supreme Court is already secure and the odds are good that if they win the presidency, the presidential coattails will be long enough to maintain their congressional majority.

This doesn’t mean that fascism is around the corner. (More about that in another article). But it will mean that a nasty and brutish gang will use its control of the three main branches of government to roll back the democratic rights revolution of the last 60 years and knee cap democratic governance, not to mention ramp up militarism, climate change obstructionism, and the wholesale shrinkage of the public sector.

To make matters worse, this concentration of state power in the hands of the extreme right at the federal level is matched and augmented by its control of thirty state governments, ubiquitous voice in the major media, network of well-funded think tanks, pastors in the pulpits, energetic grassroots constituency, and nearly bottomless war chest, thanks to the Koch brothers and other right wing billionaires.

Which brings me back to the slogan “Bernie or Bust.” If too many interpret it to mean Bernie or no one, least of all Hillary, it becomes an action (or inaction) that could well cede the country to right wing extremists.

By the same token, much the same could be said if Hillary’s supporters, and there have been hints, go on strike in the event that Bernie wins the nomination.

Does anyone really want to repeat the debacle in 1972 when major sections of the Democratic Party sat on their hands rather than support the party’s nominee, the anti-war liberal, George McGovern? We got Nixon and Kissinger then; we will get worse now.

Unity around the eventual winner, not division, not sitting on one’s hands, is, therefore, imperative.

This may not sound sexy. It isn’t a leap down freedom road. It’s more defensive than transformational. The framing of the present situation and tasks in this way isn’t an end point of analysis or struggle. Instead, it’s a necessary way station that can’t be bypassed if we hope to arrive at a future of radical and substantive democracy, equality, sustainability, and peace, a future that is worthy of our humanity.

Everyone’s talking about socialism, but what is it?
| January 30, 2016 | 10:30 pm | About the CPUSA, Bernie Sanders, political struggle, socialism | Comments closed

assets/Uploads/_resampled/CroppedImage6060-suewebb3.jpg

sandersflags520x300

Bernie Sanders may or may not win the Democratic presidential nomination, but he has already done something stunning: put socialism into the mainstream political debate in the United States. Sixty years after McCarthyism made socialism “un-American,” Sanders has placed it back on the American agenda. I say “back” because, as others have noted, socialism has a long history in our country, with such prominent advocates as Helen Keller and Albert Einstein.

But this resurgence should not make long-time supporters of socialism feel self-satisfied. On the contrary. Even for the most dedicated believers, socialism has been a pretty abstract concept, or one defined, stereotyped and hobbled by the experiences of Russia and the Soviet Union, many of which were harsh, even cruel (and criminal), ultimately self-destructive, and inapplicable to American society and culture. For Americans new to the idea of socialism, it’s often burdened with notions of faceless bureaucracy, one-party rule, government control of every aspect of life, stifled creativity, cheesy “socialist realism” paintings, and the like.

Now, in the Sanders era, advocates of socialism are challenged to think and talk about what socialism really is, its essential promise, how it fits the American experience, what it might look like for the U.S., and how it’s a goal every American can embrace and help make a reality.

Below I offer a few ideas.

But first, here’s what Bernie Sanders had to say about socialism.

Bernie Sanders showed how socialism makes sense for America

Sanders made a powerful case for his vision of socialism in a speech at Georgetown University on Nov. 19. In the New Deal of the 1930s, Sanders said, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt acted “against the ferocious opposition of the ruling class of his day, people he called economic royalists”:

“Roosevelt implemented a series of programs that put millions of people back to work, took them out of poverty and restored their faith in government. He redefined the relationship of the federal government to the people of our country. He combatted cynicism, fear and despair. He reinvigorated democracy. He transformed the country.

“And that is what we have to do today,” said Sanders.

Both FDR and Lyndon Johnson, who enacted Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s, were assailed by the right wing as socialists in their day, Sanders noted.

He did not mention the enormous mass movements of the 1930s and 1960s that pushed both Roosevelt and Johnson to act. But he acknowledged it implicitly when he declared that today, “we need to develop a political movement which, once again, is prepared to take on and defeat a ruling class whose greed is destroying our nation. The billionaire class cannot have it all. Our government belongs to all of us, and not just the one percent.”

“A ruling class whose greed is destroying our nation” – Sanders didn’t say it specifically, but that is the essence and logic of capitalism. Defeating this ruling class, according to Sanders, means bringing about “a culture which, as Pope Francis reminds us, cannot just be based on the worship of money.”

Sanders cited calls by Roosevelt in 1944 and Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1960s for an economy that serves the people. In their view, he said, you cannot have freedom without economic security – as Sanders put it, “the right to a decent job at decent pay, the right to adequate food, clothing, and time off from work, the right for every business, large and small, to function in an atmosphere free from unfair competition and domination by monopolies. The right of all Americans to have a decent home and decent health care.”

Getting to that freedom means reshaping political power in our country, Sanders said, because “today in America we not only have massive wealth and income inequality, but a power structure which protects that inequality.”

“Democratic socialism, to me,” he said, “does not just mean that we must create a nation of economic and social justice. It also means that we must create a vibrant democracy based on the principle of one person one vote.”

Is this pie in the sky? Is it impractical? Is it socialism?

How socialism can transform our society to serve the people

Clearly, the connection between our economic and political structures is stronger than Sanders indicated. They are not two parallel systems. We have a political power structure that maintains, protects and preserves an economic system that fuels inequality and injustice. Our economic system based on greed drives (in many ways or in important ways) our political system. The right-wing-dominated Supreme Court’s notorious Citizens United ruling is just one illustration of the role of Big Money – Big Capital – in politics. This is why it’s called “capital”-ism.

Socialism is simply about rebuilding our society so that working people of all kinds, all colors, all languages, all faiths – the auto worker from Mississippi, the African American nurse, the computer technician in Silicon Valley, the McDonald’s worker in Florida, the teacher in Fargo, the gay family farmer and the farm laborer from Guatemala, the Korean American musician, the Irish American truck driver, the Muslim scientist, the Catholic customer service rep, the Jewish college student, the teenager trying to land a first job, and so many others – the people who make this country run – not a tiny group of super-rich corporate profiteers – are the deciders, the planners, the policymakers. The driving force is not the ruthless quest for ever-larger individual profit, as it is under our current capitalist system, but pursuit of the common good – equality, freedom from want and fear; expanding human knowledge, culture and potential; providing a chance for everyone to lead a fulfilling life on a healthy planet.

Sanders showed how socialism is rooted in American values. Socialism is about deep and wide democracy. It is not about an all-powerful central government taking over and controlling every aspect of life. It is not about nationalizing this or that or every company. But it does mean that the public will have to take on and take over a few key “evil-doers”:

Taking on Big Oil and Big Finance

* Number one on the list will probably have to be the giant energy corporations – Big Oil, the coal companies, the frackers. This section of corporate America plays a central role in the U.S. economy, but also in its politics – and it’s a dangerous and damaging one. It’s well known that these folks not only ravage our environment and worker health and safety, and hold communities hostage with the threat of job loss if they are curbed, while at the same time blocking progress on a green economy. But they also back and fund far-right policies on a whole range of issues. (It’s not just the Koch brothers.) This sector of the economy will clearly have to be restructured in the public interest.

* Number two: the giant banking and financial companies – commonly known as “Wall Street” although they are sprinkled around the country. We’ve seen how they wrecked our economy and destroyed lives and livelihoods. For what? Simple greed. They will need to be returned to their socially needed function: to protect ordinary people’s savings and to fund investment in the social good, driving a thriving economy and society: new technologies to save our planet from climate change disaster, flood protection for example;  a 21st century public education system rich in resources to enable the next generations to flourish; expanded medical research and a national health system that serves every American with top quality, humane, state of the art care from one end of life to the other; exploration of space and our own planet to enrich human society; and so many more.

You may have a few others to add to the list of key evil-doers that will probably be on top of the list to be challenged and taken over.

But aside from that, socialism can mean a mix of:

* Worker- and community-owned co-ops.

* Companies democratically owned and run by local or state entities. This is not new: we already have, for example, more than 2,000 community-owned electric utilities, serving more than 48 million people or about 14 percent of the nation’s electricity consumers. Then there’s the state-owned Bank of North Dakota.

* Privately run companies.

* Individually owned small businesses.

For socialism to work, public expression and participation will have to be mobilized and expanded, in the economy and in all other areas of life, for example by measures like:

* Strengthening and enlarging worker-employee representation and decision-making.

* Expanding the New England town hall meeting concept.

* Implementing proportional representation and other measures to enable a wide range of views to be represented in our government at every level.

* Taking money out of political campaigns.

* Making voting easy.

Obviously there’s a lot more to think about and figure out – these are just a few suggestions.

Shedding stereotypes about socialism

Bernie Sanders and others take pains to call themselves democratic socialists. That’s because the concept of socialism – in essence, a society based on the “social” good – has been tainted by much of what happened in the Soviet Union and some other countries. But there’s nothing in socialism that equates to dictatorship, political repression, bureaucracy, over-centralization and commandism, and so on. Those features of Soviet society arose out of particular circumstances and personalities. But they were not “socialist.” As events have shown, in fact, socialism requires expanded democracy to grow and flourish.

Socialism does not mean a small group “seizing power.” It doesn’t mean radical slogans either. Red flags and images of Che or Lenin not required, nor relevant. Socialism means an energized, inspired, mobilized vast majority from all walks of life, from “red” state and “blue,” coming together to make changes, probably one step at a time.

Socialism is not a “thing” that will “happen” on one day, in one month, one year or even one decade. History shows that vast and lasting social change hasn’t happened that way. I expect it will be a process of events, small steps and some big ones – and elections will play a big and vital role – creating transformations that perhaps we won’t even recognize as “socialism.” Perhaps it will only be in hindsight that we will look back and say, “Oh yes, we’ve got something new.” And it’s not an end product. There is no “end of history.”

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels became famous for analyzing capitalism and how it exploits and oppresses the 99 percent – OK they didn’t use that term, but that’s what they were talking about. Capitalism started out as a productive and creative force, they wrote, but it contained the seeds of its own decline. It has created a massive and ever-widening working class but most of the wealth this class produces and sustains goes into the pockets of an ever-smaller group of capitalists: that’s called exploitation. It creates so many problems that eventually it will have to be replaced. Change is on the agenda.

Thank you Bernie Sanders.

You can watch Bernie Sanders’ Georgetown speech and his responses to questions from students here (about 1-1½ hours). The text of his prepared remarks is here.

P.S.: What others are saying: a sampling

Tim Egan, a columnist at the New York Times whose writing I generally admire, suggests that socialism equates to nationalizing corporations. He suggests Sanders would have nationalized General Motors rather than bail it out in 2008-2009. But socialism really isn’t about nationalizing things, as I discuss above.

The Washington Post has a quiz: “Are you a democratic socialist like Bernie Sanders?” None of the 10 quiz questions actually have to do with transforming the economy in any fundamental way.

Then there’s “Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist Capitalist.”

Historian Eric Foner advises: “How Bernie Sanders should talk about democratic socialism.”

Sociologist Staughton Lynd disagrees with Foner.

Political economist Gar Alperovitz has a different take in “Socialism with an American face.”

And so does Rand Paul … “There’s nothing sexy and there’s nothing cool about socialism,” he told Glenn Beck.

Meanwhile, “A high school teacher helps clarify ‘socialism’ for Donald Trump (and you!).” But he doesn’t!

If you read through these, you’ll find there’s a raft of confusion out there! As writer Jonathan Chait aptly notes about much of it: “[F]or a term so freighted with the capacity to inspire its supporters and terrorize everybody else, ‘socialism’ is oddly bereft of any specific meaning.”

On the other hand, this article does offer some more precise definitions.

I hope I’ve added something useful to the discussion.

Photo: Bernie Sanders speaking at a town meeting at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona, in July. Gage Skidmore/Flickr/CC

The difference between Sanders and Clinton
| January 30, 2016 | 3:29 pm | Bernie Sanders, political struggle | Comments closed

One of the most important differences between Sanders and Clinton summarized in one image.

Jump over the fold for links to the sources.

Hillary Clinton in Columbus, OH:

Hillary Clinton confessed Thursday to something liberals have long suspected: being a moderate Democrat.”You know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center,” Clinton told the audience at a Women for Hillary event in Ohio. “I plead guilty.”

The line is new for Clinton, who spent a large portion of her early campaign casting herself as a liberal fighter who has been progressive for her entire life. To many on the left, those lines never really rang true.

“I take a backseat to no one,” Clinton told a New Hampshire audience in July, “When you look at my record in standing up and fighting for progressive values.”

Bernie Sanders on Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: [Clinton] is in Ohio today. In Columbus. And she painted herself as a moderate. And she said “I plead guilty” to being a moderate. Do you plead guilty to being a moderate?SANDERS: No. I am somebody who for the last 30 years has stood up and fought for working families. I have taken on virtually every special interest in the country from Wall Street to the drug companies. I am a proud progressive.

I will vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election if she is the nominee. But the contrast presented here is one of the primary reasons I am supporting Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary.

America/Bernie Sanders
| January 25, 2016 | 7:35 pm | Bernie Sanders, political struggle | Comments closed

Is breaking up the big banks a good idea?
| January 25, 2016 | 9:00 am | Analysis, Bernie Sanders, political struggle, socialism | Comments closed

By Darrell Rankin

On Bernie Sander’s idea of busting up the big banks
Is the idea harmful? Yes. In short, the foxes will continue to guard smaller hen houses.
There are four main reasons why this part of Sander’s platform is harmful or will not work.
It is important to start by recognizing that Sanders calls himself a socialist, whereby today’s aged, dying and deadly capitalist society can be reformed to achieve happy and near-perfect harmony.
News of Sander’s campaign is reaching billions of people globally, so it is important to recognize another truth: Fixing capitalism is not the same as socialism.
Sander’s campaign is sure to renew discussion and thought about the right way to escape the present nightmare, and that means socialism.

* * * * Four reasons
U.S. lawmakers busted trusts in the progressive era (1900-1917), but their efforts did nothing to stop banks and corporations from growing to sizes that dwarf those of the last century.
One capitalist kills many because of objective laws of development, not merely because of sentiments like ‘greed.’
Monopoly capitalism feeds and expands on the firm foundation of the growing social nature of production and the increasingly complex division of labour within production: the need to cooperate.
The need to cooperate and produce for our survival is hindered, negated and crushed by the capitalists who own the banks and factories.
As predicted by Karl Marx, private ownership contradicts the social nature of production on an ever-greater scale.
Today, the contradiction means the hardship, crushed dreams and destroyed lives of the vast majority of workers.
It means the suppression of knowledge (drug and other patents, tuition fees, etc.), military spending, mass impoverishment, enormous underemployment, trade sanctions, the destructive reaction of nature to heedless profit-oriented development, and so on.
Resolving capitalism’s main contradiction requires that working people overthrow the capitalist class and expropriate the monopoly capitalists’ property – smaller capitalists are not the largest source of the main contradiction.
Secondly, curbing the power of finance or bank capital will require perpetual vigilance by masses of people. Making foxes accountable how they run the hen house takes a lot of work. Plus if there are more foxes, there’s more work.
Thirdly, breaking up large banks and corporations is counter-productive. The larger the bank, the easier it is to put people ahead of profit. The problem is not size, but the profit motive. There should no need for ten banks to finance one bridge.
Lastly, involving millions of people in a campaign to eliminate large enterprises and banks in modern capitalism will be disappointing in the end. The power of banks can be curbed. But it will take socialism to eliminate their power altogether.
Socialists can demand to curb corporate power and still remain committed to a socialist society in the longer run. That avoids diverting energy to reforms that will not work.
Sander’s starting idea is that the U.S. has the ‘wrong kind’ of capitalism, which ignores capitalism’s irrevocable laws of development.
The division of corporations into monopoly and non-monopoly strata is an essential and typical feature of modern, ripe-rotten capitalism in many nations.
It is impossible to return to pre-monopoly or competitive capitalism.
Mass protests can curb the power of monopoly finance capital, but ultimately a socialist revolution will have to place power in the hands of workers.
The crucial problem now is which class benefits from these huge behemoth entities, and that concerns state power.
That is the key problem.
There’s nothing wrong with fighting to curb the power of Wall Street. Power is the issue, not the size of banks.
Lasting change will require a socialist revolution and state power by the working class.
State power by workers will open up a real rebirth for the United States and its workers. It would end imperialist plundering, create full employment, improve living standards and rescue the environment.
Socialists want to turn the foxes into hard working chickens.
We don’t need any foxes.

Why I Support Bernie Sanders
| January 24, 2016 | 8:58 pm | Bernie Sanders, political struggle | Comments closed

Letter of endorsement of Bernie Sanders:

I was a junior in college when the reality of today’s economic and social injustice hit me squarely in the gut with soul crushing force. After managing through my own set of difficult circumstances — escaping the cycle of poverty and dysfunction that included abandonment by my mother, gang-involvement, a stint on juvenile parole, a teenage abortion and becoming a high school drop-out — I was working several jobs to get myself through school at the University of Southern California.

One of those jobs was assessing kids involved in a long-term study on the impact of early learning on brain development. As a research assistant I would go to the kids’ homes and periodically assess their progress. Many of our participants lived in neighboring South Central Los Angeles where poverty, violence and drugs were rampant, but given my own experience growing up in similar conditions, that type of environment didn’t shock my senses very much.

I arrived at my assigned child’s house one day and began my normal routine of introducing myself to the parent and figuring out where in the home was best to do the assessment. I was used to working just about anywhere given that most homes I went to were tiny and cramped and generally didn’t have a lot of room to work with, but on this occasion I noticed right off the bat that this was going to be different.

As soon as I walked into the tiny one-bedroom, single-story apartment, I looked around and saw things everywhere — dirty clothes, dishes, shoes, plastic and paper bags, and what seemed like countless other things — on just about every surface imaginable. There literally was not a single space to clear off or rearrange and the house smelled like it hadn’t been exposed to fresh air in weeks, so I decided to work with the child on the apartment stoop.

The child was about 5 years old — a young black boy who even despite his living conditions had a smile on his face and a twinkle in his eye. I made my way through my standard questions — “How often do you read?” “Sometimes, when I’m in school.” “How often does your mom read with you?” “Never.” “Do you enjoy reading?” “Yes.” “How much? On a scale of sad face to happy face, point to the face that shows how much you enjoy reading.” He pointed to happy face. So on and so forth. When we got to the end, I told him he did great and began to put away my things.

As I was packing, he abruptly pointed to something and said, “Can I have that?” I didn’t have anything special so I looked at him confused and asked, “Have what?” “That.” He said, still pointing. I looked down again and saw that my happy face assessment sheet was at the top of my stack of papers. I immediately realized he wanted to keep my sheet – my black and white, photo-copied a thousand times over, sheet that had sad to happy faces on it. Then I realized how anxious he seemed that I might say no, so I asked, “Do you have any books at all in there?” “No.” “Do you have anything to read at all? A magazine or something?” “No.” “Do you have toys? Or anything to play with?” “No.” “Do you have anything at all? Like crayons or pens or something?” “No.”

And then it struck me: this bright kid, this happy, starry-eyed kid, this kid with all the potential in the world, had nothing. He had a filthy, dirty apartment with no active parenting, no role models around, and I was about to make his week just by giving him my happy face sheet. So I said, “Well of course you can have my sheet!” Then I started to furiously dig around my bag to see what else I could find. I found some neon highlighters he could color with, a few extra happy face sheets, and some red and blue pens.

I gave it all to him. Then I said, “Ok, I have to go now. Have fun coloring your sheets. And remember to read at school every chance you get!” He happily nodded as he walked back into his filthy apartment. I walked to the sidewalk, sat on the curb, and sobbed uncontrollably. I sobbed with despair I hadn’t felt, well, ever. I knew as soon as I walked away what was likely in store for that kid — I knew the odds were against him, just like they were against me. I knew that statistically-speaking, he was likelier to end up in prison or dead than end up attending college. I knew that I had just witnessed the human tragedy that is wasted potential.

And I knew I was powerless to do anything about it. Until I realized that I wasn’t.

Until I realized that change is achieved one person at a time, one day at a time, and one vote at a time.

I think about this boy all the time. I wonder if he beat the odds. I wonder where he is. I wonder if he’s still alive. He still makes my heart hurt. I thought about him when I first heard Bernie Sanders speak.

Choosing which candidate to support for president was one of the most difficult tasks I have done in the recent past. I’ve always been strong in my resolve, firmly planted in my roots and guided by my sense of justice. I have never made a political decision based on what was the “smart” or “safe” thing to do (just ask any of my often times dismayed political advisors) and I have always done what I believed aligned with my values and my ideals. But this decision was difficult because both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are both accomplished and worthy candidates, and both are light years ahead of any of the Republican choices. And as the first Latina elected to the Nevada legislature in the history of the state, and as a young woman who has struggled mightily in this male-dominated world of politics, Hillary inspires a lot of pride.

But only one of these candidates makes me think of that young boy in South Central Los Angeles — and that’s Bernie Sanders. We used to live in a country where the “American Dream” was attainable for most. We used to live in a country where you could make it if you tried, where upward mobility was a tangible thing, and where education was the key to success.

But that’s not the America we live in anymore. Fewer and fewer Americans are able to break the cycle of poverty, wages are stagnant or declining for most except for the top 1%, and our political system is dominated by millionaires and billionaires. Secure retirements and pensions are becoming a thing of the past, and that key to success via education is instead becoming a weight of massive debt hanging around the necks of young people everywhere, myself included. How did we end up in a country where you can break the cycle of poverty only to end up in a cycle of debt?

I believe that Bernie Sanders wakes up every day with these things on his mind. That the unfairness of it all weighs on his heart, just like it does mine, and that when he is elected, he will do whatever it takes to make America the land of opportunity again. I believe that Bernie Sanders will lead the charge, with many millions of Americans behind him, against the unfettered Wall Street greed that has threatened the very existence of the middle class and shackled so many more to permanent poverty. I believe that now, more than ever, America needs a political revolution.

I hope you will join me.

Lucy Flores
Democratic candidate for Nevada’s 4th Congressional District

Bernie Sanders: 17 things the Democratic socialist believes
| January 24, 2016 | 6:29 pm | Analysis, Bernie Sanders, political struggle | Comments closed

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35364868

Bernie Sanders in Birmingham, Alabama, on Martin Luther King DayImage copyright Getty Images

1. He is a socialist. Sanders is running as a “Democratic socialist”, but in his long political career he became comfortable with just “socialist” (“I am a socialist and everyone knows it,” he once said.) He frames his political ideology this way: “Democratic socialism means that we must create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy.” His fight for equal treatment of the poor and middle class and against the “billionaire class” is a central tenet of his campaign, and the socialist mantle has positioned him further left of centre than Clinton.

2. Climate change is real. After the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration marked 2015 as the hottest year on record, Sanders tweeted: “The debate is over. Climate change is real and caused by human activity.” He wants to tax carbon emissions, repeal fossil fuel subsidies and invest in clean energy technology. He has opposed the Bakken and Keystone XL oil pipelines.

Sanders hugs one of his grandchildren onstageImage copyright Getty Images
Image caption Sanders often speaks of his grandchildren’s generation when he talks about climate change

3. College should be free. “A college degree is the new high school diploma,” Sanders wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece, arguing that class equality is impossible if a majority of Americans don’t have access to a college education. He has introduced a plan to make tuition at public universities and colleges free by taxing Wall Street speculators.

4. Gun ownership is a “lifestyle that should not be condemned”. Sanders’ record on gun control has been mixed which he says is due to the fact that his constituents in Vermont are pro-gun and “99 percent of the people in my state who hunt are law abiding people”. He supports universal background checks, but prefers to talk about reaching “common ground” when it comes to gun policies rather than sweeping new gun control regulation.

5. Black lives matter. Though Sanders was shouted down at his own campaign event by members of the Black Lives Matter group, he has since met activists and agrees that the high rate of unemployment and incarceration for African Americans is evidence of systemic racism in the US. He touts criminal justice reform as the answer to some of these issues.

6. He will not accept super PAC money. Sanders prides himself on the fact that his donors are mostly individuals and the average contribution to his campaign in the most recent quarter was just $27. He characterises the controversial Citizens United Supreme Court decision as “disastrous” and blames it for flooding the US political system with cash from special interest groups. “I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians,” he told the Washington Post.

Sanders speaks to supporters through a bullhornImage copyright Getty Images
Image caption Sanders sometimes prefers a bullhorn over taking the dais

7. The minimum wage should be $15 (£10.59) per hour, up from $7.25. Sanders argues that no one who works 40 hours a week should be impoverished, however, some economists from both sides of the political spectrum are concerned that such a dramatic increase could have unintended consequences for poorer cities and struggling businesses.

8. Americans are tired of the two-party system. For decades, Sanders has railed against both the Democratic and Republican parties, saying they are too beholden to corporate money. Sanders was elected to the Senate as an independent, and some have said his rejection of both parties left him bereft of allies and ineffectual. Sanders argues his outsider status is what has driven his grassroots campaign.

9. He prefers to fly economy. Pictures of Sanders flying in the rear of regular commercial airline flights have gone viral and supporters have seized on the practice with hashtags like #SandersOnAPlane to show that Sanders is a humble everyman who would safeguard taxpayer money. Some of the candid shots of Sanders working in the middle seat have inspired memes juxtaposed with Clinton or Donald Trump boarding private aircrafts.

Sanders sitting on a flight in coachImage copyright Twitter

10. The US should adopt universal healthcare paid for by the federal government. Sanders has often spoken of his admiration for government-run healthcare systems in Canada and Scandinavian countries. “Bernie’s plan means no more co-pays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges,” his website promises. He means to finance it mostly from a payroll tax hike.

11. $1 trillion should be spent on infrastructure. Sanders wants to create jobs by investing heavily in new infrastructure projects that he says will create 13 million jobs over the course of five years. His “Rebuild America Act” would put that money into roads, bridges, water treatment systems, railways and airport projects – and comes with a $1 trillion price tag.

12. Tax the rich. Sanders wants to pay for his most sweeping proposals with a series of tax hikes and fees, mostly levelled at the wealthiest of Americans: hedge fund managers, Wall Street speculators and big businesses.

13. There should never have been a US-led war in Iraq. Sanders voted against the US invasion of Iraq in 2002 and says today that he stands by that decision. He calls it the “worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country”.

14. No boots on the ground in Syria or to fight IS. Sanders has a diplomacy-first attitude towards foreign policy and believes that Middle Eastern countries must lead the fight in their own region against the self-styled Islamic State group.

Sanders supporter with white hair T-shirtImage copyright Getty Images
Image caption Sanders supporters celebrate his famously disheveled hair

15. Personal style is a waste of time. While the Obamas are said to be the most stylish presidential couple since the Kennedys, a Sanders White House will be decidedly more frumpy. Sanders’ wife Jane O’Meara once quipped that if he has “seven sweaters, that’s three too many for him”. When questioned about his frequently-rumpled hair, Sanders was brusque: “The media will very often spend more time worrying about hair than the fact that we’re the only major country on earth that doesn’t guarantee healthcare to all people.”

16. He likes to go by “Bernie”. While campaigning in his home state of Vermont, Sanders’ bumper stickers just said “Bernie”. “You have to reach a certain exulted status in politics to be referred to only by your first name,” Senator Patrick Leahy told the New York Times in 2007.

17. He would love to run against Donald Trump. “I have to tell you,” he said at a recent news conference, “on a very personal level, it would give me a great deal of satisfaction to run against Donald Trump”.

Assembled by Jessica Lussenhop.