The fall debates will be the first test -- or opportunity
-- for political revolution
Now that it's almost inevitable Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic
nomination, the talk is turning to what will come out of Bernie Sanders'
campaign after the Democratic National Convention.
Enthusiasm is growing for a post-Sanders movement. Khwaja Khusro Tariq writes "if one accepts that Hillary is the
most likely Democratic nominee for president does that mean we pack it up and
go home? No. We signed up for a political revolution, not just this
campaign."
Even Noam Chomsky is optimistic: Mr. Sanders has "mobilized a large number of
young people who are saying, 'Look, we're not going to consent anymore.' If
that turns into a continuing, organized, mobilized force that could change the
country--maybe not for this election, but in the longer term."
The post-nomination Sanders movement will face its first test -- or
opportunity, if you prefer -- in September. Will Mr. Sanders and his supporters
demand a place for the Green Party nominee in the fall presidential debates?
Or will they look the other way while ideas they claim to support are silenced
and only the Democratic and Republican nominees are allowed to participate?
The Green nominee will argue for many of the same things that Mr. Sanders has
advocated, from "Medicare for All" to dismantling the power of the
too-big-to-fail banks. The Green will go further than Mr. Sanders, calling for
an end to endless war, a halt to deployment of civilian-killing drones,
withholding of support for Israel's brutal suppression of Palestinian rights,
and drastic cuts in military spending.
Green Party candidates don't only call for relief from the crushing debt burden
suffered by college students, they call for debt forgiveness and free college
tuition that can be easily covered by reducing the slice of the budget pie that
goes to Pentagon contractors and military ventures.
It's essential that the ideas behind the political revolution remain in front
of the public after the conventions.
The debates are organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD),
which is controlled by the two establishment parties and their corporate
underwriters. The CPD took over the presidential debates from the League of
Women Voters in 1988 deliberately to bar independent and alternative-party
candidates and to ensure a format that poses few challenges to the D and R
nominees and doesn't offend the sponsors. (See George Farah's book "No Debate: How the Republican and
Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates").
If limited to Clinton vs. Trump, the debates can pretend that the political
revolution doesn't exist and the Sanders campaign never happened.
Will the post-nomination Sanders movement decide that helping Ms. Clinton
defeat the dreaded Donald should take precedent over an airing of the demand
for "Medicare for All" and other objectives?
No movement can be taken seriously if it tolerates the censorship of its own
agenda in the most widely watched forums of the election year.
Fair and democratic debates would admit any candidate whose name is on the
ballot line in enough states to win. In 2012, the Green Party's Jill Stein and
Libertarian Gary Johnson should have qualified. In 2016, two legal actions
filed against the CPD, the Level the Playing Field and Our
America Initiative law suits, may bring inclusive debates closer to
reality.
Recuperation Blues
The challenge I pose here raises a broader question: Will the political
revolution be independent or a subsidiary of the Democratic Party?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
1
