When waging a 'revolution' against the Democratic establishment, what stays in, what should go?
Last edited Fri Jan 22, 2016, 01:50 PM - Edit history (1)
The spectacle of Sen. Sanders and his campaign spokesman opening a rhetorical barrage this week against Human Rights Campaign and Planned Parenthood highlights a reality about political revolutions. They're often indiscriminate in their effect and imprecise in their targeting. Moreover, there's always the potential of counterproductive, destructive effects when that political revolution focuses its efforts on intra-party politics.
We had a good preview of that revolutionary effort this week when Bernie Sanders and his campaign spokesman opened up a barrage of rhetoric against Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign, two Democratic-friendly organizations with progressive agendas.
here's Sen. Sanders on Maddow:
from the Blade:
“It’s understandable and consistent with the establishment organizations voting for the establishment candidate, but it’s an endorsement that cannot possibly be based on the facts and the record,” said Sanders campaign spokesperson Michael Briggs.
“So who knows what prompted the Human Rights Campaign to do what it does — I have trouble myself figuring why they do some of the things they do over the years — but I think the gay men and lesbians all over the country will know who has been their champion for a long, long time and will consider that as they make up their mind on support for his campaign,” Briggs said.
The complaints about these orgs wasn't based on, or prompted by policy differences - even though Sander's comment was couched in rhetoric about Wall Street - but on their endorsement of a political rival in our Democratic primary. Piqued that Hillary Clinton had received the endorsement of these two groups, The Sanders team went beyond defining their own record and worth and sought to discredit the organizations.
It's not as if they weren't prepared to accept any potential endorsement from the organizations, and would likely have done so without a word about including these institutions in their fight against the 'establishment.' Indeed, this campaign is the first time Sen. Sanders has seen fit to raise these concerns.
Despite his attempt to wrap his complaints around Hillary Clinton's 'long time' service in government, there's the glaring reality of Sen. Sanders' own establishment presence in Washington, D.C.; sharing membership, along with Sec. Clinton, as a longtime fixture of one of the most discredited political institutions in the country with dozens of committee assignments and chairs.
Point is, there is a record of service by Hillary and Bernie which is marked by the compromises inherent in our national legislature, and the effects of which haven't always comported with or adhered to progressive values. In my view, that reality doesn't negate their value as allies and champions of our progressive agenda.
Similarly, the two organizations which were the target of the Sanders campaign's ire may not always make progressively favorable policy decisions, but their mission and function remains vital to that progressive agenda. So where do we draw a line between our opposition to the status quo, or establishment, and those persons or institutions which remain as essential allies to our cause?
Maybe we could start by ditching the assault on the 'establishment' and make certain we're not advantaging demagogues in a broad brush campaign against established political institutions. Certainly we can refrain from that destructive effort in our primary election.
All that it takes is understanding that our progressive coalitions, our Democratic coalitions, are a necessary defense against right-wing extremism which is intent on their destruction. We seek political power through our collective efforts in advocacy and voting, much the same as our progressive initiatives and ideals advance in our political system. We bring our firm concerns to the political arena and are challenged to reconcile them with the myriad different interests and expectations from disparate regions of the nation. We are challenged to unite to achieve the necessary level of support to propel our progressive agenda into action or law.
That's not to say that we shouldn't hold firm to our own beliefs and expectations- many of the rights we are fighting for are immutable and not given to compromise - but that we should be mindful that we can't achieve political progress just among those of us who agree.
Bayard Rustin, a key organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, argued in his book, 'Strategies for Freedom', that for any movement to have a permanent and transforming imprint, it should have a legislative goal attached which will transcend the whims of the emotions of the moment. Describing a different struggle that America faced with the advancement of civil rights, he wrote that:
"Moral fervor can't maintain your movement, nor can the act of participation itself. There must be a genuine commitment to the advancement of the people. To have such a commitment is also to have a militant sense of responsibility, a recognition that actions have consequences which have a very real effect on the individual lives of those one seeks to advance."
"My quarrel with the "no-win" tendency in the civil rights movement (and the reason I have so designated it) parallels my quarrel with the moderates outside the movement," Rustin wrote in his book, 'Down the Line.'
"As the latter lack the vision or will for fundamental change, the former lack a realistic strategy for achieving it." he said. "For such a strategy they substitute militancy. But militancy is a matter of posture and volume and not of effect."
Another important point Rustin made in reference to unity among blacks within the movement rings true for our own diverse, progressive coalitions which have massed to march together in protest, and have advocated within and without the system (together or independently).
"In a pluralistic democracy," he wrote, "unity (among we who agree) is a meaningless goal. It is far more important to form alliances with other forces in society which share common needs and common goals, and which are in general agreement over the means to achieve them."
Achieving legislative solutions which will adequately confront the republican minority and cause them to move away from their obstinacy is no easy or certain task. That effort will, more than likely, take even more activism and advocacy, but, as long as we keep our legislative goals at the head of our demands, and form the necessary coalitions of support to advance those legislative efforts within the system, we can assume the necessary responsibility for the consequences of our actions and transform the direction of our movements from agitation to action.
Talking 'bout a revolution...what to leave in, what to leave out. That's something best done with a scalpel, rather than a cleaver.
= new reply since forum marked as read
...this isn't a Hillary support post, nor am I a Hillary supporter.
Such wasteful, political myopia.
NARAL (that racist homophobic org )weighs in:
Sadly, establishment is anti-choice forces out to end legal abortion & contraception, not our friends @PPact & @HRC https://t.co/lqA2OWC9rZ
— ilyse hogue (@ilyseh) January 20, 2016
Planned Parenthood responds:
We respect @SenSanders. Disappointed to be called "establishment" as we fight like hell to protect women's health. https://t.co/kiimTsVw2x
— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) January 20, 2016
Bernie does not set his sites on anything as small as the Democratic Party.
He is trying to get the people of this country to take back the reins of government from wealthy individuals and corporations. He's talking about government of, by, and for the people.
The "Democratic establishment." Honestly. 
