[rad-green] It Is Clear the Establishment and Corporate Media Would Prefer Trump Reelection to President Bernie Sanders

*This applies to the Democratic Party establishment, as well!*









*https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/01/15/it-clear-establishment-and-corporate-media-would-prefer-trump-reelection-president
<https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/01/15/it-clear-establishment-and-corporate-media-would-prefer-trump-reelection-president>Common
Dreams          January 15, 2020It Is Clear the Establishment and Corporate
Media Would Prefer Trump Reelection to President Bernie SandersSanders is
likely to face two strikes—one in the capitol and one from capital—if he
wins the Democratic nomination and later the White House.by William Grover*

[image: Democratic presidential candidate, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
addresses the Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied
Professionals at the Mohegan Sun Pocono on April 15, 2019 in Wilkes Barre,
Pennsylvania. One of Sanders' proposals for his presidential bids is
Medicare for all. (Photo: Mark Makela/Getty Images)]

*Democratic presidential candidate, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
addresses the Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied
Professionals at the Mohegan Sun Pocono on April 15, 2019 in Wilkes Barre,
Pennsylvania. One of Sanders' proposals for his presidential bids is
Medicare for all. (Photo: Mark Makela/Getty Images)*

I am a child of the presidency.  I came of age politically in the early
1970s when the end game in the Vietnam War still stoked furious debate and
the constitutional crisis of Watergate brought down the Nixon presidency.
Historians, presidential scholars and politicians fell over themselves to
decry the excesses of what Arthur Schlesinger, Jr famously termed “the
imperial presidency.” And young minds like mine were entranced with sorting
it all out.  I have since struggled to convey to students the seismic
feeling that the tectonic plates of politics in the US were shifting under
our feet.

Today conjures similar tremors.  An obstructionist Senate leadership awaits
delivery of articles of impeachment against a criminally unhinged chief
executive who blithely walks us to the brink of war with Iran, the planet
faces the existential crisis of a sixth extinction with the relentless
march of climate change, and—OMG!—democratic socialist Bernie Sanders has a
serious shot at being elected President.  WTF!

In the ‘70s political leaders sought to allay such fears with the
comforting conclusion that amidst utter chaos, “the system works.”  Bad
guys got jail time. Nixon resigned. Elections brought change. And Congress
passed legislation to reclaim its budgetary and wars powers.  Our political
thinking was dominated by the imagery of a constitutional “balance of
power,” a metaphorical see-saw rebalanced with a now-chastened presidency
on one end and a reenergized Congress on the other.  Understandably
reassuring back then, the imagery was misleading; we should resist its
revival in today’s polarized climate. For beneath partisan differences lies
a deeper structure of political and economic power to which both parties
are beholden.

"The message is crystal clear: the Democratic Party establishment and
corporate media would prefer a Trump reelection to a Sanders presidency."

The modern presidency was rooted in the long tenure of FDR who confronted
the crises of the Great Depression and WW II.  His success was rooted, in
part, in his willingness to embrace reforms—stealing “the thunder of the
left”—that moved the US in a more progressive direction, thus appeasing the
populist agitation routinely out in the streets.  But the foundation of the
office was built upon the twin pillars of endless economic growth (defined
as ever-expanding GDP) and promotion of national security (defined as the
projection of American power against all “enemies”).  These twin goals were
bipartisan, a shared consensus wedded to corporate definitions of the ends
of US economic and military power, captured succinctly in Eisenhower’s 1961
farewell warning about the dangers of the “military-industrial complex.”

The shared ends are taken as a given, while the media highlight (sometimes
strong) tactical differences over means.  Yet this consensus on economic
growth and national security simply is not sustainable today in the face of
accelerating climate change and the decline of American empire.  Soaring
economic growth is assumed to be the antidote to all problems. Hence media
analysts, and especially liberals, didn’t bat an eyelash when President
Obama proclaimed his market-based climate policy, reassuring us that being
caretakers of the future of the planet involves “no contradiction between a
sound environment and strong economic growth,” a proposition with which
President Trump readily concurs.  As scientists continue to tell us, the US
(indeed the world) needs to reduce drastically the production of greenhouse
gases by 2030. Promoting soaring economic growth—even in pursuit of the
vital goal of expanding the economic pie and distributing it most
justly—risks making emission targets even harder to reach. Physics and
chemistry are spectacularly indifferent to who chairs the key environmental
committees in the House and Senate.

Similarly, our common understanding of “national security” must change.
Maintaining more than 800 military bases around the world, along with the
environmental hazards inherent in them, will not make us more secure.
Neither will the continued sophistication of our weapons and surveillance
capabilities, a lesson made ever more poignant by President Trump’s recent
drone assassination of Iranian Gen. Suleimani. As much as Democrats insist
on the need to be briefed before such an attack, this procedural argument
overlooks the deeper substantive agreement that historian Andrew Bacevich
terms the American national security “credo,” which “summons the United
States—and the United States alone—to lead, save, liberate, and ultimately
transform the world.” Both parties are marinated in American exceptionalism.

In justifying the death of some 500,000 Iraqi children subjected to a
punishing UN embargo, for instance, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
commented to CBS in 1996, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the
price, we think the price is worth it."  She elaborated on the hubris
underlying this imperial foreign policy mindset two years later, again with
reference to Iraq, allowing that while diplomacy can be useful, “if we have
to use force it is because we are America; we are the indispensable
nation.”  Not to be outdone, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—who
campaigned to the right of Trump on foreign policy in 2016—offered a giddy
off-air declaration to CBS following the 2011 killing of Muammar Gaddafi in
Libya:  “We came, we saw, he died.” This cheery sentiment should
reverberate in the ears of all who harbor hopes that the Democrats operate
on a fundamentally different moral plane than Republicans. To be clear,
unilateral presidential action is troubling within our constitutional
framework.  Ignoring it would be dangerous; accountability matters. But in
short, if we have an imperial presidency it is because the US has been,
since the end of WW II, an imperial power.

What can be done?  In this election season progressives have a viable
choice between Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. Both are impressive in
their own right.  The question for the progressive left is not the one
thrown in our faces every day:  which one can beat Trump? Either one can
pull that off, although Sanders’s grassroots support and fundraising
ability is deeper, the loyalty of his supporters more fervent, his message
to the working class more authentic.  He can erode Trump’s base. The larger
question is, which one is more likely to move the nation in a progressive
direction, beyond mere reformism? Like Sanders, Warren did not come from a
privileged background. While she was a registered Republican until 1996,
her views have evolved, and it is refreshing that her economic populism
frightens Wall Street.  Her views of foreign policy are less much less bold
and overall her political career leans toward accommodation and compromise.
At her core she does not appear to question the conventional bipartisan
consensus on economic growth and national security. She clearly articulated
her brand of reformism in a 2018 interview: “I am a capitalist. Come on. I
believe in markets.  What I don’t believe in is theft, what I don’t believe
in is cheating.” It is sad that in the age of Trump a candidate must come
out against theft and cheating, but such is our political life under a
narcissist with authoritarian impulses.

"The day after his triumph, President-elect Sanders would be staring in the
face of capital strike. The practical result not of some 'deep state'
conspiracy but of the normal protective reaction of elite interests,
capital strike must be given sober forethought among progressives."As the
longest serving Independent in American history, Bernie Sanders potentially
can take the movement further.  His presidency would open the door to
deeper change, what in the late 1960s used to be called “non-reformist
reforms,” reforms that facilitate more fundamental change—call it a
“revolution,” or democratic socialism, or call it creating a genuinely just
society with an honest chance of thriving.  He has a long and consistent
record of progressive politics and organizing vitality, working with
Democrats and Republicans, particularly on amendments to bills in the
Senate. So yes, he does compromise. Criticizing him from the left has
become a cottage industry. If you listen closely you can hear *The
Nation* columnist
Alexander Cockburn screaming from the grave about Bernie’s vote in favor of
the 1994 Crime Bill.  The bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 has led some on the
left to write him off. In a long legislative career, the votes are there to
criticize.  And, of course, he supported Clinton over Trump last time
around, although she continues to blame him for her defeat. Nonetheless, it
cannot be denied that to a significant extent Sanders has profoundly
impacted political discourse in the United States.  Has any other post-FDR
presidential candidate inspired the wrath of economic elites more than
Sanders? Has the struggle for universal health care and income and wealth
tax equity had a stronger advocate? His voice has had efficacy. And in
light of the current Democratic opposition to President Trump’s bombing in
Iran, can we imagine any other Democrat or Republican reminding us that US
policy in Iran goes back beyond the seizure of hostages at the US embassy
in 1979, back at least as far as CIA intervention to overthrow Iran’s
elected government in 1953 and the installation of the murderous Shah, the
US-funded bipartisan dictator for 26 years?  Warts and all, a President
Sanders would challenge the status quo and give non-reformist reforms some
breathing space.

What, then, are the biggest remaining obstacles to Sanders’s candidacy?
How does the deeper power structure threaten real change? Two major
barriers are most pressing, both in the form of strikes.  Think of
them as *capitol
strike* and *capital strike*.  The first, capitol strike, refers primarily
to the political, economic and media establishment that engulfs Washington,
DC.  The politics of Capitol Hill mitigate against ideas that seriously
threaten business as usual. Under the leadership of Rep. Debbie Wasserman
Schultz, the DNC loaded the dice against Sanders in 2016.  The process is
somewhat more open this time around, although the confounding power of
superdelegates still exists at the Convention if no one wins the first
round of balloting. And President Obama’s private admission in late
November that he would speak up to stop Bernie from becoming the Democratic
nominee should the race appear headed in that direction is instructive.
*MSNBC*—America’s alleged “left-liberal” network—renders Sanders
essentially invisible, bludgeoning its listeners with the vacuous concept
of “electability” among Democratic contenders. Led by the “steady hand” of
Biden, the “fresh new face” of Buttigieg, or the “sensible midwestern
centrism” of Klobuchar, we are assaulted by the professed wisdom of the
political middle. And if all goes to hell, there are two billionaires
waiting in the wings.  Of course, capitol strike could follow a newly
elected President Sanders into the White House, even if the Democrats were
to take control of both chambers of Congress. The message is crystal clear:
the Democratic Party establishment and corporate media would prefer a Trump
reelection to a Sanders presidency. Sanders is, in effect, the target of
capitol strike, a presidential “pre-impeachment” of sorts, being tried
daily for the high crime and misdemeanor of opening the door to
fundamentally challenging the “givens” of the American political economy.

"One of Sanders' campaign slogans is 'Not me. Us.' That thought literally
needs to become reality if Sanders is to address the challenges that await
him."

A thought experiment will clarify the even more troubling obstacle of
capital strike.  Assume that despite the odds, Bernie Sanders wins the
nomination and defeats Donald Trump.  After all, voters still have their
say, and right now Sanders continues to poll well in primary states.
Beyond the emolument of a lifetime supply of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, what
awaits President-elect Sanders the day after the general election?
Financial panic would immediately ensue. Global financial markets would
plummet in reaction to the rash decision of US voters. The swift negative
response would be amplified in corporate boardrooms as the specter of
severe market instability and declining business confidence shook the
capitalist world.  Mainstream media outlets will crackle with pundits
citing the “irony” that the champion of the working class is tanking their
already bleak economic prospects. The day after his triumph,
President-elect Sanders would be staring in the face of capital strike. The
practical result not of some “deep state” conspiracy but of the normal
protective reaction of elite interests, capital strike must be given sober
forethought among progressives.

Again, that is Day 1 of the end of Trump.  The economic tumult would not
ebb. Sanders would face enormous pressure to use his 11-week transition
period to calm market fears by announcing the appointment of “sensible”
moderate voices to his Cabinet—non-confrontational “level heads” acceptable
to corporate power holders.  Ben as Secretary of Commerce and Jerry leading
the Small Business Administration? Bill McKibben at the Interior
Department? Amy Goodman as Press Secretary? Rage Against the Machine
playing the inaugural ball? Possible, but not likely. The pressure to put
forward the name of nice, “safe” department heads would be intense,
personnel decisions that would undermine the very progressive agenda his
electoral coalition had worked so hard to create. Briefly put, the
economics of capital strike would threaten to reverse the verdict of
democracy.

These are not idle considerations.  It is not an exercise in negativism to
anticipate systemic responses to perceived threats.  Both types of strikes
likely would confront a Warren nomination as well, but with a greater
likelihood of capitulation to the realities of systemic pushback.  One of
Sanders’ campaign slogans is “Not me. Us.” That thought literally needs to
become reality if Sanders is to address the challenges that await him.
Howard Zinn once observed, “What matters most is not who is sitting in the
White House, but who is ‘sitting in’—and who is marching outside the White
House, pushing for change.”  Zinn’s words were never more relevant. A
president is, among other things, the nation’s educator-in-chief.  With the
backing of social movements, Sanders will need to educate the public about
how to redefine our basic notions of “progress” and “growth.”  Only a
sustained social movement—for climate justice, racial justice, economic
justice—can help him achieve that goal.  It must be more than an electoral
coalition; amassing the requisite 270 electoral votes is only the
beginning. Agitation and demonstrations need to guide him into power having
survived the initial strategic dilemmas of capitol strike and the even more
intense pressure of capital strike.  Unlike FDR, Sanders is not about
stealing “the thunder of the left.” He needs to mobilize it and ride it
beyond mere reformism. Emboldened and legitimized by “street heat,” Sanders
and the nation’s progressive hopes have a chance to prevail. Otherwise, the
titans of capitalism and faux democracy will be out on strike.

William F. Grover  <https://www.commondreams.org/author/william-grover>teaches
in the Honors College and Political Science Department at Montana State
University in Bozeman.  He is Emeritus Professor of Political Science at
Saint Michael’s College in Vermont.  He is the co-author (with Joseph G.
Peschek) of the book, *The Unsustainable Presidency: Clinton, Bush, Obama
and Beyond <http://www.powells.com/biblio/62-9781137371812-1>* (December
2014, Palgrave Macmillan).

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sid-l/CACKppcxQwgSCXAck9hA_HBTYRrkJr-R%2BAsr-B3_iy7R_qPyTKw%40mail.gmail.com.

---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>