- Joined
- Dec 6, 2015
- Messages
- 10,349
- Reaction score
- 6,037
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I can agree with that, but I have doubts about the way Bernie wants to do it.
The Dem party is not as "homogenous" as you might think, and if Bernie lost the primaries it shows that not all Dems want "real, substantial change". (Which, yes, I agree is fundamentally necessary to take the US out of the stone-age of democracy.)
Progressives must have goals but understand that changing American mentalities is a long, hard slog.
For America, it seems that "success" is reduced fundamentally to one parameter. Called "Wealth". How much ya got relative to everybody else. Which is the foundation of our presently stark Income Disparity in the nation.
If you were to live in a truly Social Democracy, you'd understand that the calamity of concentration of Wealth, due to low upper-income taxation, is NOT THE PROBLEM. Yes, there are multimillionaires, but such an objective is not the mind-boggling pursuit of the entire nation.
Those living below the Poverty Threshold in the US are 14% of the population. In Sweden they are 7% - half that amount.
And a nation's goal should be 3/5%. Can we achieve that same reduced level?
Of course we can.
But not by voting Replicants in charge of Congress and the Presidency! And certainly not by voting Donald Dork as PotUS - a guy born with a 40Megabuck spoon in his mouth ...
I think you're seriously underestimating the thirst for real change.
The vast majority of Americans want money out of politics.
A majority of Americans actually support most of Bernie's substantive ideas on healthcare and education.
Beyond that, he was far more popular among the general populace (and remains so, as the most popular politician in the States) than both Hillary and Trump; significantly more popular among them in fact, than he was among the Dems during the primary. Fast forward from then till now, and I can only imagine that his vision for the party is now at better than 50% support among the Democratic party. Though it's true establishment types and the donor/consultant class/third way Clintonites continue a desperate stranglehold on its senior leadership and fight tooth and nail against necessary and meaningful change, I've no doubt that there's been substantive change in both the composition and predilections of the Dem rank and file since 2016.
Incrementalism isn't necessary to defeat the likes of Trump and the Republicans; in fact, it may well be actively toxic and counterproductive in this respect per Hillary's example and the historic recent electoral losses suffered by the Democratic party.