Is Bernie Sanders a real voice of dissent?

Scan page 12

“… the oppositional criticism is nothing more than a safety valve for mass dissat­ isfaction, a condition of the stability of the social structure.” — Leon Trotsky in his preface to “The History of the Russian In early June, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told a con­ ference organized by Service Employ­ ees International Union members that she backed the $15-an-hour national minimum wage campaign. She praised the union activists and supporters “for marching in the streets to get a living wage” and added, “I want to be your champion. I want to fight with you ev­ ery day.”

She didn’t really mean it, of course.

Within 24 hours her campaign issued a clarification explaining that in gen­ eral Clinton favors higher wages for low-income workers, but she does not specifically endorse the demand for a $15 hourly minimum. So, union mem­ bers and activists heard their hoped-for message; big business and Democratic Party officials heard the more honest message.

Clinton’s cautious centrism permits her only a flirtation with leftist causes, thereby yielding the left-of-center space to another candidate. Thus, the stage is set for the entrance of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, whose campaign website boldly asks: “Ready to Start a Political Revolution?”

Sanders certainly intends to become the voice of “oppositional criticism” in the 2016 election. Thus far, the efforts of this sometime “socialist,” the indepen­ dent in the Senate who typically votes with the Demo­ crats, have been more successful than those of former Democratic governors Martin O’Malley of Maryland and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

Sanders has been drawing increasingly large crowds in the primary states for his campaign events, and in those states his poll levels are sharply rising. Clearly, Sanders is saying something different—which ener­ gizes Democratic and independent voters. The prom­ ise of radical change resonates with many whose lives have seen little benefit during the tepid years of the Obama administration.

At this stage in the primaries, the Sanders platform gives a public hearing to many progressive ideas. Most notably, the Sanders campaign directs a spotlight on the obscene levels of income inequality in America. Sanders speaks out for a national, single-payer health care system and pledges to pursue efforts to create sustainable energy to reduce global warming.

He would remove tuition fees from state colleges and universities. He supports the $15 minimum wage, argues for breaking up the mega-banks, and promotes a jobs package that would put people to work by re­ building the highways and bridges that are deteriorat­ ing throughout America. These are reforms that, if en­ acted, would benefit the lives of millions. No wonder Sanders’ poll numbers have risen dramatically.

Still, Bernie Sanders is hardly an unknown. Given his “socialist-light” political history and voting record, which is virtually indistinguishable from that of a typ­ ical liberal Democrat and includes support to funding Israel and the war in Afghanistan, it is fair to ask: Is Sanders really the voice of dissent? Is he really the figure who can galvanize the poor, the working class, women, racial minorities, and youth to lead the politi­ cal fightback that is so sorely needed?

Though audiences at rallies may be stirred by soar­ ing speeches, high-flown words accomplish little. What’s more, a geyser of popular rhetoric tends to erupt every four years around election time.

A socialist writer has noted that while the Demo­ crats proclaim themselves “as champions of the poor, their ‘soak the rich’ rhetoric is largely a misrepresen­ tation. They and their Republican counterparts use such rhetoric only to appeal to voters. Both parties, over the last decade in particular, have rushed to find tax breaks for the rich and lower the real income of working people. Today even two-income families are having a difficult time paying for basic necessities.”

This observation was made 25 years ago. The article, written by Hayden Perry, was entitled: “Congress ap­ proves new budget: Higher taxes and fewer services,” which certainly has a present-day ring to it. Though it was published in the November 1990 issue of Socialist Action, it could be reprinted today with little change.

Bernie Sanders is this year’s model of the token “left­ ist” who will make oppositional criticism as a safety valve for mass dissatisfaction. His commitment to his causes appears real enough, but it goes no further than the margins of the Democratic Party. Those mar­ gins cannot and have never sustained a popular move­ ment that would give real meaning to democracy.

Some 15 years ago, Ralph Nader launched his bid as the Green Party candidate for the president of the United States. Although Socialist Action gave no sup­ port to the Green Party’s electoral campaigns, which only proposed reforms to capitalism, Nader at least argued with a boldness and insight thoroughly lack­ ing in Bernie Sanders today. In his 2000 announce­ ment speech, Nader said that the foundation of his efforts would be “to focus on active citizenship, to create fresh political movements that will displace the control of the Democratic and Republican parties, two apparently distinct political entities that feed at the same corporate trough. They are in fact simply the two heads of one political duopoly, the DemRep Party.”

How did Bernie Sanders, the socialist who asks if we are ready for revolution, respond to the Nader cam­ paign? In his political memoir, Nader explains: “Ber­ nie had told me that while he sympathized and agreed with our pro-democracy agenda, he could not come out officially for us. The reason was that his modus vivendi with the House Democrats would be ruptured and he would lose much of his influence, including a possible subcommittee chair” (“Crashing the Party,” pp. 125-126). Nader was discreet enough not to in­ quire about the actual results of Sanders’ supposed influence.

Little has changed. The fix is still in. The Democratic National Committee has essentially offered Sanders a simple deal in words approximately like these: “We’ll let you speak out and give you a place in the six Demo­ cratic primary debates if you affirm your place as a Democrat. You get to say whatever you want in the state primaries as long as you support whoever we want in the national election.”

It is not a very good deal, but it is the only one on of­ fer, and though Sanders will haggle, pushing for more debates, he will accept what he is given. It’s what Ber­ nie does. In fact, Sanders has a built a career as the fighting socialist who takes a dive for the Democrats.

Sanders does not lead and does not intend to. He fol­ lows. His vision of the future is restricted to what has been made popular in the recent past. The ideas Sand­ ers offers, the program of his campaign, go no further than the demands raised by the significant social struggles of the last several years: the Occupy move­ ment and the environmental movement, especially.

The lesson for activists working for Sanders is quite clear: Do better work and be more effective by build­ ing social protest movements at the grassroots and national levels. The opportunities are many and var­ ied. The Ferguson National Response Network is a good source of information for protest actions taking place in cities all across the United States. The approx­ imately 100 organizations that attended the United (continued on page 11, in “Jill Stein calls for a ‘Green New Deal’”)

----- pull-quotes -----

12 SOCIALIST ACTION JULY 2015 The Sanders campaign misleads by asserting that the Democratic Party is a fit instrument to obtain social change.