Sanders says that democratic socialism means that we have a government that
doesn't just represent the super wealthy but represents everyone. How is this
possible as long as there are so many super wealthy people? It might be better
if he dropped his democratic socialism. How does what he says do anything but
confuse voters as to what socialism might be? How will it be that people will
be open to a more radical vision just because they find what he represents
appealing? How is this perspective much different than the view of many left
liberals, especially those in labor unions, that Obamacare will prove to be a
step in the right direction, toward socialized healthcare? Railing against the
billionaires and millionaires, against the big financial institutions is a
staple of populist politics in the United States. Unfortunately populism hasn't
gotten us very far, has it? It was rather remarkable that the Dem. debate was
held in Las Vegas, the most unionized city in the country, but Sanders said not
one word about unions, which, despite their numerous problems, actually do
reduce inequality, both between labor and capital and within the working class.
This isn't meant as a criticism of those who support Sanders. And much of what
Sanders says is on target. But I would like someone to explain just how the
Sanders campaign represents some sort of radical breakthrough in US politics. I
am certainly willing to listen.
Also, while we read that Sanders won the debate in many polls, today I saw a
poll that showed Clinton more trusted by Dem. voters on every major issue, even
on fighting income inequality. Is this just the outcome of the mass media
declaring Clinton the winner. Or is it that those polled did not include the
many people who might be energized to vote because of the Sanders' campaign? Or
is it that to most of those likely to vote, Clinton really did win the debate?
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
