2) The Sanders movement has grown bigger than Sanders himself, terrifying the establishment.
I saw this very clearly, when it wasn't left to Sanders or his campaign alone to understand and explain what had happened in Iowa and how to confront it. All over the country, people debated the nature of the catastrophe, the degree of danger it represented and whether it might yet rebound to the campaign's credit, and the form of counterattack it required. It's interesting that Sanders often seems to vocalize consensus that has already been developing or is crystallizing rapidly in his own community, rather than being the sole fount of wisdom, whom we must rely on as an authority figure. This is such a marked contrast to the high-minded platitudes we've grown accustomed to hearing from our national leaders following every crisis, which seems to have become an organizing principle for our society.
The Sanders movement has exceeded the persona of Sanders himself, because we seem to be getting the first glimpse of what it might be like to live in a society not driven by perpetual crises. The disaster economy is not just a financial boon to profiteers and wealth siphoners, but it creates a dreadful mental economy as well, pushing our ideals to the back-burner, as our very personalities undergo profound change: both our minds and bodies succumb to the never-ending assault, as we are made to choose between one of the two false options available, either to retreat from reality into cynical hedonism or aesthetic pleasure, or to participate whole-heartedly in the Darwinian pummeling of our fellow beings, in order to seize our own share of the spoils.
The Iowa caucus was one small example of that type of Darwinian competition. Its managed inconclusiveness (a steady feature of our paralyzed mental and financial economy) was taken advantage of by the candidate who declared victory prematurely (Buttigieg with his high-school level oratory, empty of any substance, with the backdrop of his seven overenthusiastic African-American supporters lining up the front row), or the one who, absurdly, called it "too close to call," namely Elizabeth Warren, acting as if it were the Florida recount all over again, or a division between the red and blue states without resolution in sight. In contrast, Sanders gave a low-key speech, despite his internal polling showing victory, acknowledging that "we're going to be doing very, very well here," and decently and gracefully exiting the stage. On the plane to New Hampshire, despite his manifest disappointment, he didn't engage in any malice, grandiosity, or vindictiveness.
Finally, I offer as the pià ¨ce de re'sistance, at a moment three days after the caucus when many of us were still reeling, the most statesmanlike response to a crisis situation I remember seeing, namely at the press conference in New Hampshire where he calmly described the nature of the Iowa victory and put the whole wreck in rational context. What struck me about this eventand it's worth watching the whole thing for what it reveals about his characteris the degree of respect the members of the national and local press showed him. A flagrant deceit like Iowaand as I said, the plots can only be audacious and ham-handed from this point on, not hidden or abstrusegenerates an unconscious response of sympathy even on the part of the generally hostile liberal press, who surely have no love lost for any kind of socialism, democratic or otherwise.
The Sanders movement has grown bigger than the man himself because of the numerous people running for office at every level around the country, often under the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) label, who are for the same basic measures toward greater equality as he is, but who are distinct individuals operating in specific political contexts. The message is honest because it is applicable to a variety of circumstances, and rings true with people of different classes, except those most resistant at the top tier of income and wealth, assisted by their allies in the media, who do not want to accept the truth. #NotMeUs is revealing for its inclusiveness (and it is such a contrast to Warren's self-centered corruption-cleaning act, as though her very arrival in Washington would have ushered in a sweeping out of lobbyists and grifters), as is Our Revolution, and the many shades of aspiration spawned amongst immigrants, minorities and poor people.
Sanders's movement, it seems to me, is already in good hands, and with Trump at the reins, rather than a compliant Democrat, the manufacturing of a global crisis to short-circuit the movement at this point seems difficult to manage. Even if it were attempted, within a short period of time its real nature would be exposed, and we would be back to the panicked realization of the spread of Sanders's ideology.
3) The Sanders movement is based on love, which is an unbeatable principle.
Marianne Williamson was right, to a large extent: It will take more than policies, no matter how sound they are in addressing the dominant problem of inequality, to defeat the dark hate spawned by Trump. Cory Booker spoke that message of "love" as well, mocked by the punditry for his naivety. But there is something real going on, because I see this as the essence of the appeal of Sanders.
The policies do not have to be sold like marketable commodities if they arise from a genuine feeling of compassion for everyone. No more leaving out half the population as "deplorables," a regrettable sentiment Sanders was never a part of, as is true of his movement in general. No more dividing the country according to who's in and who's out on the politically correct scales of righteousness: that program was taken to its extreme conclusion in the 2016 election, embodied in the absurdly politically correct persona of Hillary Clinton, and was shown to be a complete failure, when it was disattached from even a modicum of progressive policies, as might have been true of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Pure identity politics, the essence of divisionism, lost in that election, and it has rapidly lost traction in the last four years as well".viz., the rise of non-identity-based candidates for political office, who focus like a laser beam on M4A, the Green New Deal, and the living wage, while noting that everyone of every race and color and creed will benefit from a resumption of focus on the working class.
Neoliberal policies have divided us and made us hate each other for nearly 50 years. All Democratic candidates since Richard Nixon have followed this template, starting with the evangelical Christian Jimmy Carter, the first-ever neoliberal president who fought his most ferocious battles with his own party's progressive wing, intent as he was on fiscal responsibility and a definitive end to the idealism of the war on poverty initiated by Lyndon B. Johnson. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama followed and extended this model of appealing to personal responsibility, which is a form of both self-hatred (because the individual blames himself or herself for what are ultimately social failures) as well as hatred of others (because the spoils are appropriated in a selfish manner, oblivious to the demands of compassion). It is miraculous that the American experiment survives in any form whatsoever after half a century of this selfish neoliberalism, which refuses to acknowledge that working people even exist (the whole focus has been on the mythical "middle class" and its perceived desire for what is called pragmatism, centrism and suburban moderation, when it fact it is extreme self-interest of a kind that guarantees the death of any republic).
If half of the country is motivated by Trumpian hatred (although I suspect the number is actually much smaller, but neoliberal dominance of policy has permitted no channel for frustration and anxiety except in the overtly racist direction both George W. Bush and Trump embodied), then the other half is motivated by love and idealism and concern for our fellow beings. The Democratic party establishment is at the fulcrum of this division, directing liberal expectations toward a narrow channel of policy impossibility, which is where Bill Clinton arrived after the defeats at the hands of Reaganism in the 1980s. It is this dogma, founded on hatred and malice, that Sanders directly challenges, wanting to pick things up where they were left off in 1968, when "centrist" Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan abandoned the struggle for the dignity of the working class and threw in their lot with the politics of self-hatred and other-directed hatred. It is not surprising that 2016 in a parallel wayand 2020 certainly, if Sanders wins the nominationevoke the same dread among the liberal establishment as 1968, not to mention the frequent evocations of George McGovern four years later.
We move now, unlike 20 or 30 years ago, at the speed of light when it comes to transmission or dissemination of ideas. Buttigieg's classless, smirking, self-entitled appropriation of a leadership that does not belong to him and that he hasn't earned, not to mention the idea of a New York multibillionaire who has a sharp authoritarian streak in him, will be understood and transcended sooner than it takes me to propagate these words.
Love, not hatred; substance, not vacuity; us, not him or her: these are simple, almost Gandhian precepts. A poet friend asked me this week, "How could a person like Bernie, an honest person who truly cares about people, ever be president?" And I asked my friends if it's possible that Sanders desires to take us to victory by unilaterally disarming himself and our movement, against the most ferociously equipped opponents baring their fangs and arms, and if he thinks that a Gandhian message of compassion and peace can actually work in this country. I've now answered this question for myself.
Anis Shivani's recent political books include Why Did Trump Win?, A Radical Human Rights Solution to the Immigration Problem, and Confronting American Fascism. His novel A History of the Cat in Nine Chapters or Less was released in January.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
1
1
