The Nation: That focus on employment goes back to the historic message of the civil-rights movement. Civil-rights organizing was one of the ways into political activism for you, wasn't it?"
Sanders: Civil rights was a very important part of it. I was very active in the Congress of Racial Equality at the University of Chicago. I got arrested in trying to desegregate Chicago's school system. I was very active in demanding that the University of Chicago not run segregated housing, which it was doing at that time. We were active in working with our brothers and sisters in SNCC [the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee]... at that point helping them with some very modest financial help. So, yes, I was active. And I do not separate the civil-rights issue from the fact that 50 percent of African-American young people are either unemployed or underemployed. Remember the March on Washington -- what was it about? "Jobs and Freedom." The issue that Dr. King raised all the time was: This is great if we want to desegregate restaurants or hotels, but what does it matter if people can't afford to go to them? That's still the issue today.
The Nation: As long as we're talking about the evolution of public policy, let's talk about the evolution of a word: socialism. You appeared on ABC's This Week and, when you were asked whether a socialist can be elected president, you did not blink; you talked about socialism in positive, detailed terms. I don't believe a presidential candidate has ever done that on a Sunday-morning show."
Sanders: Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, often criticizes President Obama, incorrectly, for trying to push "European-style socialism," and McConnell says the American people don't want it. First of all, of course, Obama is not trying to push European-style socialism. Second of all, I happen to believe that, if the American people understood the significant accomplishments that have taken place under social-democratic governments, democratic-socialist governments, labor governments throughout Europe, they would be shocked to know about those accomplishments. One of the goals of this campaign is to advance that understanding... How many Americans know that in virtually every European country, when you have a baby, you get guaranteed time off and, depending on the country, significant financial benefits as well. Do the American people know that? I doubt it. Do the American people even know that we're the only major Western industrialized country that doesn't guarantee healthcare for all? Most people don't know that. Do the American people know that in many countries throughout Europe, public colleges and universities are either tuition-free or very inexpensive?
I have always believed that the countries in Scandinavia have not gotten the kind of honest recognition they deserve for the extraordinary achievements they have made... The Danish ambassador, whom I talked to a couple of years ago, said to me that in Denmark it is very, very hard to be poor; you really have to literally want to be outside of the system. Well, that's pretty good. In Denmark, all of their kids can go to college; not only do they go for free, they actually get stipends. Healthcare is, of course, a right for all people. They have a very strong childcare system, which to me is very important. Their retirement system is very strong. They are very active in trying to protect their environment". And, by the way, the voter turnout in those countries is much higher; in Denmark, in the last election, it was over 80 percent. Political consciousness is much higher than it is in the United States. It's a more vibrant democracy in many respects. So why would I not defend that? Do they think I'm afraid of the word? I'm not afraid of the word.
The Nation: Of course, if you're not afraid of the word, they can't attack you. You can actually focus on the policies...
Sanders: When I ran for the Senate the first time, I ran against the wealthiest guy in the state of Vermont. He spent a lot on advertising -- very ugly stuff. He kept attacking me as a liberal. He didn't use the word "socialist" at all because everybody in the state knows that I am that. It has lost its cachet.
The Nation: You're the son of an immigrant, and you've made an issue over the years of the exploitation of immigrant workers. What's your sense of how these issues will figure in the 2016 campaign?
ï » ¿Sanders: I've been a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, the Dream Act, a number of these initiatives. But as you know, the Republicans have blocked action; worse than that, they talk about "self-deportation" and these other draconian proposals. So I supported the president's executive action -- I think that was a good step. But we have to push harder: We have to fight against this politics of division that seeks to divide working families, that disrespects hard work, that disrespects the contributions immigrant workers make to our economy. This politics of division doesn't fix anything; it just makes it easier to exploit millions of workers who are vulnerable because of their undocumented status. We have to address that exploitation and end it. We also have to speak about who benefits from that exploitation: the same corporations that we see pushing these race-to-the-bottom policies. Instead of trying to divide workers, which is the oldest story in the book, we've got to be focused on uniting them, and the way to do that is by saying, "Look, the problem isn't with this group of workers or that group of workers. The problem is with the corporations and the policies that make the exploitation possible." We're going to talk a lot about that in this campaign.
The Nation: Another issue you've focused on over the years is mass surveillance. In addition to voting against authorization for the use of force in Iraq, you voted against the Patriot Act. That was almost 15 years ago, and you're still fighting on these issues."
Sanders: I did vote against the Patriot Act. I said at the time that it gave the government far too much power to spy on innocent Americans, and I believe I've been proven right about that. What frustrates me is this false choice that says the United States of America cannot pursue terrorists and protect people from harm while still respecting the Constitution and civil liberties. I didn't believe that was the case in 2001, and I do not believe that is the case now. So I've raised these issues, and I will continue to raise them. And one other thing: I believe it's important -- vitally important -- to recognize that it isn't only what the federal government does that should concern us. We have to recognize that corporations collect huge amounts of data on us. There is no question in my mind that technology is outpacing public policy in this area, and I do not think we should be casual about this or say that it's something we should let the corporations figure out. We should all be talking about this -- about how we're going to maintain our privacy rights in very rapidly changing times.
The Nation: You feel the same about corporations warping the future of the Internet to their advantage...
Sanders: Absolutely. I've been very involved in the fight to maintain net neutrality. This is about the free flow of information, the free flow of ideas, on the Internet. If we let corporations put a price tag on that, so that some ideas move more quickly than other ideas because a billionaire is paying for an advantage, that changes the debate in a way that harms democracy. This is common sense, and we've had some success in defending net neutrality -- but we have to be vigilant. These fights over communication policy are really fights about how our democracy is going to function -- if it is going to function -- in the 21st century...
The Nation: One line of criticism from the pundits goes: "Sanders is strong on the issues, but he can't get anywhere if he doesn't attack Hillary Clinton." You get attacked for not going negative!
Sanders: (laughing) I've had writers who have sat exactly where you're sitting, and I've talked for an hour on every major issue facing the American people -- gone on for an hour -- and at the end, somebody asks me for a word on Hillary Clinton. And the story is "Bernie Sanders [vs.] Hillary Clinton." That is the corporate media's worldview. That is their only understanding of how a campaign can be run: when one candidate attacks the other candidate.
Now, I've known Hillary Clinton for many years. Let me confess: I like Hillary. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on many issues. My job is to differentiate myself from her on the issues -- not by personal attacks. I've never run a negative ad in my life. Why not? First of all, in Vermont, they don't work -- and, frankly, I think increasingly around this country they don't work. I really do believe that people want a candidate to come up with solutions to America's problems rather than just attacking his or her opponent. If you look at politics as a baseball game or a football game, then I'm supposed to be telling the people that my opponents are the worst people in the world and I'm great. That's crap; I don't believe that for a second... I don't need to spend my life attacking Hillary Clinton or anybody else. I want to talk about my ideas on the issues.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
