Democratic Socialism - Bernie Sanders in His Own Words

Brian T. Lynch, MSW

[NOTE: Now that he announced he is suspending his campaign, maybe people will be more willing to see what he as to say. It isn't so radical as it sounds.]

What follows is taken directly from Bernie Sanders's own writing in which he describes what he means when he calls himself Democratic Socialist. He isn't advocating government ownership of the private property or of replacing capitalism with "government ownership of the means of production" as extremists claim on the right. It is more about building on what Franklin D. Roosevelt began almost 100 years ago that remain so popular today. It is about how we must reign in oligarchs and harness capitalism to better serve everyone and not just the rich. 

But Senator Sanders expresses it better than most, so, here is Bernie Sanders defining his vision for democratic socialism in the United States... 

IN HIS OWN WORDS:

“If there was ever a moment when we needed to stand up and fight against the forces of oligarchy and authoritarianism, this is that time. – Sanders, 2019

· On one hand, there is a growing movement towards oligarchy and authoritarianism in which a small number of incredibly wealthy and powerful billionaires own and control a significant part of the economy and exert enormous influence over the political life of our country.

· On the other hand, in opposition to oligarchy, there is a movement of working people and young people who, in ever-increasing numbers, are fighting for justice.

· When we talk about oligarchy, let us be clear about what we mean. Right now, in the United States of America, three families control more wealth than the bottom half of our country, some 160 million American [while] tens of millions of working-class people, in the wealthiest country on earth, are suffering under incredible economic hardship, desperately trying to survive.

· Today, nearly 40 million Americans live in poverty and tonight [every night], 500,000 people will be sleeping out on the streets. About half of the country lives paycheck to paycheck

· After decades of policies that have encouraged and subsidized unbridled corporate greed, we now have an economy that is fundamentally broken and grotesquely unfair.

· Even while … the stock market and the unemployment rate are strong, millions of middle class and working people struggle to keep their heads above water

· In America today the very rich live on average 15 years longer than the poorest Americans.

· The issue of unfettered capitalism is not just an academic debate, poverty, economic distress and despair are life-threatening issues for millions of working people in the country.

· Across the globe, the movement toward oligarchy runs parallel to the growth of authoritarian regimes – like Putin in Russia, Xi in China, Mohamed Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary

· These leaders meld corporatist economics with xenophobia and authoritarianism.

· They redirect popular anger about inequality and declining economic conditions into a violent rage against minorities — whether they are immigrants, racial minorities, religious minorities or the LGBT community

· In the United States, we have our own version of this movement… led by President Trump and many of his Republican allies who are attempting to divide our country up and attack these same communities.

· The challenge we confront today as a nation, and as a world, is in many ways not different from the one we faced a little less than a century ago, during and after the Great Depression... deeply-rooted and seemingly intractable economic and social disparities led to the rise of right-wing nationalist forces all over the world.

· Anger and despair were ultimately harnessed by authoritarian demagogues who fused corporatism, nationalism, racism, and xenophobia into a political movement that amassed totalitarian power, destroyed democracy, and ultimately murder[ed] millions of people — including members of my own family.

· We rejected the ideology of Mussolini and Hitler

· We instead embraced the bold and visionary leadership of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then the leader of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

Roosevelt led a transformation of the American government and the American economy… at transformative change opposed by big business, Wall Street, the political establishment, by the Republican Party and by the conservative wing of FDR’s own Democratic Party. And he faced the same scare tactics then that we experience today — red-baiting, xenophobia, racism, and anti-Semitism.

· In a famous 1936 campaign speech, Roosevelt stated,

“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace:

• business and financial monopoly,
•  speculation,
•  reckless banking,
•  class antagonism,
•  sectionalism,
•  war profiteering.

· We know now that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob.

· Today, America and the world is once again moving towards authoritarianism — and the same right-wing forces of oligarchy, corporatism, nationalism, racism, and xenophobia are on the march, pushing us to make the apocalyptically wrong choice that Europe made in the last century.

· Today, we have a demagogue in the White House who… support brutal family separations, border walls, Muslim bans, anti-LGBT policies, deportations, and voter suppression.

· The United States must reject that path of hatred and divisiveness and instead find the moral conviction to choose a different path, a higher path, a path of compassion, justice and love.

· It is the path that I call democratic socialism.

· We must take up the unfinished business of the New Deal and carry it to completion.

· [We must commit] committing ourselves to protect political rights, to protecting civil rights – and to protect the economic rights of all people in this country. As FDR stated in his 1944 State of the Union address:

“We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.”

· Now, we must take the next step forward and guarantee every man, woman, and child in our country basic economic rights

• The right to quality health care

• The right to as much education as one needs to succeed in our society

• The right to a good job that pays a living wage

• The right to affordable housing

• The right to a secure retirement, and

• The right to live in a clean environment.

In the wealthiest country in the history of the world, economic rights are human rights. That is what I mean by democratic socialism.

· As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said,

“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God’s children.”

· We must see ourselves as part of one nation, one community and one society regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or country of origin. This quintessentially American idea is literally emblazoned on our coins: E Pluribus Unum. From the many, one.

· I do understand that I and other progressives will face massive attacks from those who attempt to use the word “socialism” as a slur.

· President Harry Truman was right when he said that: 

“Socialism is the epithet they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years…Socialism is what they called Social Security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.”

· When Trump attacks socialism, I am reminded of what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “This country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.”
· And that is the difference between Donald Trump and me. He believes in corporate socialism for the rich and powerful.  I believe in a democratic socialism that works for the working families of this country.

· Freedom is an often-used word but it’s time we took a hard look at what that word actually means. Ask yourself: what does it actually mean to be free?

· Are you truly free if you are unable to go to a doctor when you are sick or face financial bankruptcy when you leave the hospital?

· Are you truly free if you cannot afford the prescription drug you need to stay alive?

· Are you truly free when you spend half of your limited income on housing and are forced to borrow money from a payday lender at 200% interest rates.

· Are you truly free if you are 70 years old and forced to work because you lack a pension or enough money to retire?

· Are you truly free if you are unable to go to attend college or a trade school because your family lacks the income?

· Are you truly free if you are forced to work 60 or 80 hours a week because you can’t find a job that pays a living wage?

· Are you truly free if you are a mother or father with a newborn baby but you are forced to go back to work immediately after the birth because you lack paid family leave?

· Are you truly free if you are a small business owner or family farmer who is driven out by the monopolistic practices of big business?

· Are you truly free if you are a veteran, who put your life on the line to defend this country, and now sleep out on the streets?

· In 1944, FDR proposed an economic bill of rights but died a year later and was never able to fulfill that vision.

· I am proposing an  Economic Bill of Rights… that establishes once and for all that every American…is entitled to the right to:

• A decent job that pays a living wage
• 
  
• Quality health care
• 
  
• A complete education
• 
  
• Affordable housing
• 
  
• Clean environment
• 
  
• A secure retirement

· Democratic socialism to me requires achieving political and economic freedom in every community… the only way we achieve these goals is through a political revolution where millions of people get involved in the political process and reclaim our democracy

· At the end of the day, the one percent may have enormous wealth and power, but they are just the one percent. When the 99 percent stand together, we can transform society.

· These are my values, and [this] is why I call myself a democratic socialist.

· At its core is a deep and abiding faith in the American people to peacefully and democratically enact the transformative change that will create...

                             SHARED PROSPERITY

                             SOCIAL EQUALITY

                             TRUE FREEDOM FOR ALL

Why Democrats (and Everyone) Should Care About People Who Don't Vote

by Brian T. Lynch

Both political parties in America, along with virtually all television pundits and political opinion polling companies focus entirely on 60% of likely voters. We all ignore 40% of potential voters who don't vote. Polling surveys commissioned by both the Democratic and Republican Parties are always predicated on some variation of likely voters. The results are then grise for the mill of television and newspaper commentators and political party prognosticators. And so it is settled wisdom that all of our elections boil down to 7% of likely voters who are also the swing voters among us. Rightly or not, these much fawned over swing voters are considered most independent voters with centrist political ideology. These swing voters have a disproportionate influence over electoral strategies and policy positioning. As a result, we never hear much about the 40% of all Americans who are disillusioned with politics.

The conventional wisdom is that these non-voters don't care about politics, but it is equally true that the body politic doesn't care about these non-voters. We have come to the point where non-voters are the largest block of eligible voters in America. But are they really unreachable? Or are they justifiably disengaged because they are neglected by both the Democratic and Republican Parties? What is the potential for re-engaging this huge block of the electorate, and which political party has the most to gain? Which of our current Presidential candidates have the best shot at reaching out to these non-voters? And who are they anyway?

Why Democrats should care more about non-voters than swing voters

·      Among likely voters, there are about 10 million swing voters or 7% of all likely voters according to Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight

·      There were 91.7 million non-voters in the 2016 presidential election or 40% of all eligible voters. Non-voters are the largest group of eligible voters

·      54% of non-voters (49.5 million votes) are Democrats or left-leaning non-voters

·      Another 10% of non-voters (14.7 million votes) have no political leaning

·      52% of all non-voters (47.7 million votes) want more government services, not less

·      The 64.2 million non-voting Democrats, left-leaning or neutral eligible voters represent over 6.4 times the number of swing voters in the 2016 election

·      This compares with 65.9 million Democratic votes for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election

Who are the eligible voters that are not engaged in voting?

·      66   million non-voters (72%) are under age 50. They are mostly younger voters

·      59.6 million non-voters (65%) are dissatisfied with the way things are in the country

·      54.1 million non-voters (59%) are White (non-Latino) citizens

·      19.3 million non-voters (21%) are Latino citizens

·      11   million non-voters (12%) are Black citizens

·      55  million non-voters (60%) either graduated or dropped out of high school

·      54.1 million non-voters (59%) are single

·      46.8 million non-voters (51%) experienced unemployment in their household in the prior 12 months

     39.4 million non-voters (43%) have household incomes of $30,000 or less per year

      By far, the largest number of eligible non-voters are people who once made up the base of the Democratic Party. They are citizens for whom the rightward and upward shift of both political parties over the year has left them without a voice in government. It is not only the right thing to do to reconnect with these less-fortunate Americans, but it is also in the best interest of the Democratic Party and the Nation. These disillusioned, often angry citizens are most vulnerable to the nationalistic authoritarian appeals to which they are being targeted every day. 

-----------------------------------------------------------

The Centrist Threat to Democracy and the Globe

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW 

An editorial (and request for reader support) in The Guardian caught my attention because it so well states what is at stake for the United States and the world in the 2020 election. Please allow me to share part of it here and follow-up with an editorial comment of my own.

In his editorial, Hamilton Nolan of the Guardian writes:

"Even in our pitifully broken semi-democracy, rich people shouldn’t be in charge. The math is against them. There are, by definition, comparatively few rich people, and many middle- and lower-class people. In a two-party system where one party represents the interests of the rich and the other party is meant to represent the interests of everyone else, logic says that the rich people party should lose most of the time, based on sheer numbers. The political power of plutocrats should be arbitraged out of existence as parties seek a larger base." So true! This expresses in other words what I have been trying to say."

Here is the article:

THEGUARDIAN.COM

Bernie Sanders' real obstacle is not Trump. It's the Democratic establishment | Hamilton Nolan

More from the above Editorial:

"For the past four years, it has been clear that Sanders and Trump each represent a direct response to the severe (and warranted) disillusionment of average Americans, who have seen the American dream of economic mobility die during their lifetimes.
Trump represents the dark path of racism, nationalism, and division; Bernie represents the other path, of socialism, multiculturalism, and solidarity... Any sane and moral political party should want to do everything possible to make Sanders’ vision become a reality. The alternative is not a fresh flowering of centrism. It is something much, much worse.
America is at a tipping point, finely balanced between truth and lies, hope and hate, civility and nastiness. Many vital aspects of American public life are in play – the Supreme Court, abortion rights, climate policy, wealth inequality, Big Tech and much more. The stakes could hardly be higher."

Everyone, please hear me out!

We must reject the urge for safe, centrist candidates who believe they can still reach across the aisle for bipartisan support for their half measures and incremental steps. This didn't work in 2016 and it isn't going to work now. The number of disillusioned citizens far outnumber the entire Democratic Party, let alone the elites and centrists within it. A centrist candidate may feel safe, but we are beyond normal politics. We are in a war against a well funded, wells organized global authoritarian movement threatening democracies everywhere.

Donald Trump has had three more years to harvest disaffected "likely-voters" and 45% of all eligible voters who stopped voting for either party years ago. He is coaxing these folks to join his dark and vile plutocracy.

If the Democratic party doesn't boldly reconnect with poor people and the working poor (our traditional base), the opportunity to beat back the dark forces of fascist-style authoritarianism will be lost for a generation. The consequences will be atrocious, if not actually bloody. And a generation lost is enough time for the very worst effects of global warming to be baked into the future of the planet for a millennium.

Bernie/Biden Clash On Social Security Masks Real Differences

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

In an opinion piece by Paul Krugman, published by the New York Times on January 21, 2020, Krugman writes, “The Sanders campaign has flat-out lied about things Biden said in 2018 about Social Security… The last thing we need is another president who demonizes and lies about anyone who disagrees with him, and can’t admit ever being wrong.”

That is pretty damning. What did Sanders or his team actually do?

Krugman writes that the Sanders campaign promoted a doctored video clip that distorted Biden’s record on Social Security. He repeated a quote from another N.Y Times article from January 18th (and updated Jan. 21st) by Katie Glueck’s that said:

“There is a little doctored video going around,” Mr. Biden said, adding that it was “put out by one of Bernie’s people.”

But Glueck also wrote:

“Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Saturday accused Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign of distorting his record on Social Security, claiming without evidence that Mr. Sanders’ team was promoting a “doctored” video…” [emphasis mine].

In fact, the video clip linked to Krugman’s article is an unedited segment of an interview from January 7th between Senator Sanders and Anderson Cooper. While listing differences between Biden and himself, Sanders said:

“You know, Biden has been on the floor of the Senate talking about the need to cut Social Security, or Medicare, or Medicaid.”

That’s it! Sanders didn’t say exactly what Biden said or when he said it. Krugman’s comments about a doctored video, therefore, appear to convict him of the same false accusation that he accuses Senator Sanders of committing.

But in fairness to the truth, the released Sanders’ campaign materials Krugman refers to did make some misleading claims. As pointed out in the PolitiFact article linked to the Krugman article, item #1 on the Sanders campaign document said:

“BIDEN’S BRAGGED OF TRYING TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE”

So, from where did this accusation come? It came from the Congressional Record of the U.S. Senate, as did another article on the subject in the Intercept written by Ryan Grim on January 13, 2020. The lead sentence of Grim’s article reads:

“AS EARLY AS 1984 and as recently as 2018, former Vice President Joe Biden called for cuts to Social Security in the name of saving the program and balancing the federal budget.”

Grim then cites this excerpt is from the Senate Congressional Record just fifteen-years ago:

“When I argued that we should freeze Federal spending, I meant Social Security as well. I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the Government.”

In this case, it is Ryan Grim who distorted Biden’s record by taking it out of context. Biden was arguing that the budget sequestration under discussion should include all areas of the federal budget and not exclude the very popular and vital entitlement programs. In this same Congressional Record transcript, then-Senator Biden went on to say Social Security, “…is arguably the most important and most depended-upon program in the Federal Government.”

Joe Biden suggested taking Social Security off of the Federal Budget. He wanted to protect the billions of dollars in surpluses it generated each year back then, surpluses that Congress spent every year to cover deficits in other areas of the budget.

What this manufactured controversy misses, however, it the very significant point that the thrust of this and so many of Biden’s speeches always center on the middle-class. Biden has rarely ever focused on 45% of all Americans who live below middle-class economic standards. 

This is the real distinction.  Joe Biden is interested in maintaining stability in America by growing and sustaining the middle-class. Bernie Sanders, for his entire career, wants to bring hope and relieve the structural economic burdens of every American family living in or below the middle-class. It is this focus and message that is beginning to resonate in places around America where Biden's message just doesn't carry. It is this focus on economic inclusion for all segments of society that scares the heck out of the wealthy elites.

Here is one example of Biden's middle-class messaging. In his 2018 speech at the Brookings Institute, also cited in the same PolitiFact article to which Krugman linked his opinion, Biden said, “Folks, we’re here today for a simple reason: to talk about the middle class.” 

 He later goes on to describe the plight of a factory worker to make his point:

“Folks in the middle class are in trouble. It’s not just their perception. They are in trouble. Now it’s all about taking care of the folks at the top… take that guy working on the assembly line making 51 grand. We don’t talk about him anymore, by the way, if you notice politically. Not you, we in politics don’t. And his wife is a hostess at a nice restaurant, she’s making 28 [grand]. So they’re making almost 80 grand and they’ve got 2 or 3 kids, and they can’t make it if they live in Washington or New York or San Francisco.”

No one can seriously argue that the middle-class is in trouble in "high living" places like San Francisco and New York City, but how does this limited message resonate with half of all Americans in far-flung places who make way less than $80,000 per year. Wouldn't they love to have the financial problems of these middle-class families? What they get instead is a conspiracy of silence from politicians in both parties who are beholden to the donor class. These are many of the same families that responded to Donald Trump in the 2016 campaign. He spoke directly to them and they love him for that.

The real question before us now is which Democratic candidate for President has the message and credibility to take back that momentum?  Who has the spark to inspire the working poor to turn out and vote for the Democrat? It isn't the loyal base who needs to be motivated. They will "vote blue no matter who"(if we can believe that). It is the great mass of inactive voters we have been ignored for decades who will sweep Donald Trump and his Republican sycophants out of office if we offer them real change. 

------------------------------------

This reads as a companion article to one I wrote on the differences between Senator Elizabeth Warren, who I admire, and Senator Bernie Sanders, who I support at this time. In the Studebaker article I linked to that post the differences between Biden, Warren, and Sanders are discussed. That post and two important articles can be accessed here: 

https://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2019/08/differences-between-warren-and-sanders.html