July 7, 2016
“We need a new, progressive political party in the U.S. because on almost every important issue the Democratic and Republican Parties, both controlled by Big Money, are indistinguishable.”
The “Reagan Revolution… was brought about with the active and strong support of the Democratic Party which controlled the U.S. House of Representatives for eight out of Reagan’s eight years and the U.S. Senate for two out of Reagan’s eight years….”
“We need a new, progressive political movement in this country because the Democrats and Republicans are not only incapable of solving any of the major problems facing this country, they are not even prepared to discuss them.”
“The mass media in this country is heavily censored by the corporate ownership and the companies that advertise…. Analysis of why things are the way they are–the unfair distribution of wealth and power, starvation and poverty, war, ecological destruction, racism, sexism, etc. – is not considered “news”….”
“The U.S. people, as almost never before, are rejecting the “two-party” system and are crying out for a political alternative….Everyone instinctively knows that the current system is failing, but the progressive movement is not getting out an alternative vision of society or an alternative program of immediate demands.”
“The boldness and clarity that we need to articulate can never be done through the compromised and corrupt Democratic Party – dominated by Big Money…. We must begin to have the courage to fight for power – not handouts. We are the majority of people and must act accordingly.”
“I understand the enormous difficulties that confront us when we take on the Democratic and Republican Parties and the economic oligarchy that controls this country. if we stop thinking about all the reasons as to why it can’t be done, and go out in the streets and do it, we can succeed. We can create a third party. We can raise the important issues which the Democrats and Republicans ignore. We can win.”
Click to access Sanders_1989_flyer.pdf
or see below
No need to point out that Sanders changed his tune.
Here we are, a quarter of a century after his words – hardly original even 70 years ago – still trapped in this two-party system. Breaking out of it is much more complicated than Sanders asserted. We have yet come to grips with what history demands of us.
The problem is not lack of sentiment for a party that represents the 99%. The problem is not that people don’t want to break with the two corporate parties. That is obvious in the mass rejection of established party politicians in the voting for outsiders like Sanders and Trump.
The problem is that the corporate elite, the 1%, and their Democratic and Republican governing machines still have US society under lockdown. First, they define the boundaries of American “democracy”, with the US people brought up in that faux democratic system, and conditioned to accept and to operate only inside it – including even radicals.
Democratic and Republican voters both agree that the corporate elite controls the political system yet they still cling to the irrational belief we live in a democracy, not an actual dictatorship. This year again showed we still believe – the way children believe in Santa Claus – that fundamental change can be made to this system through the use of our vote.
We still believe we live in a basically free and democratic society, one that still could be an example to the world. Even though we know people of color here live under a repackaged segregation system, even though we know the NSA has completely eliminated our right to privacy, even though we know the government does not prosecute anyone for implementing this blatant violation of the Constitution. The list goes on and on. Yet, we still believe we can end this dictatorship through our vote.
Second, the corporate rulers, through their Democratic and Republican Parties and their control of the state and monopoly of the media and wealth of the country, are easily able to shut down any viable alternative to their control. Recall how easily they shut down and co-opted recent mass movements: the anti-Iraq war movement, the mass protests in Madison, Wisconsin, the Occupy Movement. The rulers are ingenious at neutralizing and marginalizing any movements independent of their two parties, so much so that they have seen no need for mass political imprisonment or death squads.
Third, the 1% knows we are a long way from creating a sustainable organized opposition movement. The Bernie Sanders campaign illustrates this. Hundreds of thousands have attended Sanders events around the country, millions have been organized to vote for him. Here’s a base needed for an organized mass opposition to oligarchic rule.
But who controls this mass movement? Not us. The Sanders election operation does, and behind it the Democratic Party establishment, the very enemy Sanders supporters want to defeat. An excellent example of the powerlessness of voter opposition: the Sanders campaign, the “political revolution” against the 1%, will not turn over this information to his supporters, to build an independent party, but to the campaign of Ms. Corporate America herself.
The majority of Sanders supporters will go to a rally, donate money, vote. That’s it. But the change Sanders says is needed – in spite of what he is doing now – requires much more than that. The 1% have no problem neutralizing any damage to their rule caused by hundreds of thousands attending Democratic primary campaign rallies calling for a vote for basic change. They do that without fail almost every four years.
Had an even small organized opposition to the two parties existed before election season, it could easily have mobilized to blanket Sanders rallies with information on their struggle against the corporate rulers. After Bernie moved on to the next state, we could have followed up and organized meetings for Sanders supporters to set up neighborhood committees, then city and state networks. Then called local, state and national congresses to further build an organized national opposition and inject it with the added strength of this mass of Bernie voters. None of this happened.
Ann Robertson and Bill Leumer wrote, “to create a movement people must belong to an on-going organization where they participate in the important decision-making of that organization. In this way they play a significant role in defining the direction of the organization, and thus it becomes a part of their own identity as well. Even more, they establish relations with one another where they discuss and debate issues of policy, allow themselves to be influenced by the arguments of others, and influence them in turn. Participants are transformed from isolated individuals into members of a collective will.”
All this is a long way from happening. Does there exist even a small national organization, anti-1%, anti-imperialist, anti-racist, that hard-working activists look to and feel they have confidence in its leadership? There are tiny groups like this, which have carved out little niches where they operate and feel comfortable. But none have the goal of uniting similar groups in an equal-say front to actually fight to take on the 1% even on a city-wide level.
That is what is actually necessary to break with the two parties, not just what amounts repeating our versions of Sanders’ 1989 talk about the need to do so. Corporate America’s “democracy” has no problem defending our constitutional right to engage in empty talk. They will not tolerate those who can inspire and activate hundreds of thousands and millions, who know how to lead, and who fight like Martin Luther King, who willingly sacrificed his life for the struggle.
People who think Sanders could become the president have been dreaming. Those who view themselves as class conscious, yet encourage this fantasy that the Democratic Party can be refashioned into an agent for social change are guilty of misleading others with foolish illusions in American “democracy.” This disservice to the people serves only the rulers.
The Sanders campaign –and the Trump campaign – have provided a wealth of opportunities to reveal how the electoral system is deliberately set up to obstruct the popular will. It is shameful that people considering themselves class conscious have squandered this ruling class gift dropped in their laps where they could illustrate to people over and over how “the voters decide” is a sham.
The primaries showed the media often did not report on mass Sanders rallies. The primaries showed that millions of independent Sanders voters could not vote. Because of the appointed “super” delegates, even in states where Sanders won, Clinton was sometimes able to secure more delegates. Even if Sanders won the Democratic nomination, there is no reason to think the corporate media would not embark on a smear campaign against him in the fall, that the Democratic establishment would not defund him as they did to George McGovern.
And we saw in 2000 how the Supreme Court interrupted the Florida vote count and gave the election to Bush, how in 1960 the Chicago Democrats fixed the vote so Kennedy would win. The undemocratic nature of the US voting system is set up so that even if you win the popular vote, you can still lose the Electoral College vote. Even if Sanders did win the majority of Electoral College electors in November, they could still pick the loser as president, as it did with Rutherford Hayes in 1876.
Even if Sanders became president, Congress could block all his progressive measures, or impeach him on baseless charges, as happened with Dilma Rousseff. Even if that didn’t happen, the whole federal, state and local government machinery and police forces remain firmly in the hands of the 1 %. Or he could die in some “accident” as happened to a number of foreign presidents the US corporate elite deemed a danger.
The Sanders and Trump campaigns show the widespread discontent with corporate dictatorial rule, this American democracy. At this stage in our struggle for liberation, the corporate elite still so controls the anger at the 1% that its present expressions remain locked inside the very two-party confines they have set up to ensure their rule over us. We have a long way to go and we need to get over these every-four-years Sanders shows and start focusing our attention on what it takes to build an organized, united mass movement that will bring down the 1%.
Bernie Sanders in 1989: article in the September 27, 1989 The Guardian about the need for a progressive party independent of the two corporate parties, the Democrats and the Republicans.
Bernie Sanders says the following …
Democratic and Republican Parties Are Indistinguishable
We need a new, progressive political party in the U.S. because on almost every important issue the Democratic and Republican Parties, both controlled by Big Money, are indistinguishable. The “Reagan Revolution” of the 1980s was not created solely by Ronald Reagan and the Republicans. It was brought about with the active and strong support of the Democratic Party which controlled the U.S. House of Representatives for eight out of Reagan’s eight years and the U.S. Senate for two out of Reagan’s eight years.
During the Reagan era both parties supported huge tax breaks for the rich – and major cutbacks for working people and the poor. Both parties supported a huge increase in military spending – and cutbacks in education, housing and environmental protection. Both parties supported the illegal and immoral wars against Nicaragua – and efforts to weaken the trade union movement.
We need a new, progressive political movement in this country because the Democrats and Republicans are not only incapable of solving any of the major problems facing this country, they are not even prepared to discuss them. On the most important issues facing this country the Democrats and Republicans have nothing to say.
Mass Media Is Heavily Censored
The mass media in this country is heavily censored by the corporate ownership and the companies that advertise. “News” is increasingly presented as entertainment with exciting video of plane crashes, terrorists in action and other 30-second “news briefs.”
Analysis of why things are the way they are–the unfair distribution of wealth and power, starvation and poverty, war, ecological destruction, racism, sexism, etc. – is not considered “news.” Serious writers and cultural workers who wish to address the problems that most affect the U.S. public are completely out of the “public” broadcasting system. The simple truth is that ideas that are in conflict with the ruling-class ideology are almost never allowed on the mass media.
Has the Democratic Party ever once raised the issue of corporate control over the media, and the need to provide for a national media that will address the reality of U.S. life and allow for a diversity of opinion?
For over 150 years, under Democratic and Republican administrations, the U.S. government and U.S. corporations have overthrown, or attempted to overthrow, every government that has come to power in Latin or Central America or the Caribbean that has defended the interests of its workers and peasants.
Compromised and Corrupt Democratic Party Dominated by Big Money
The U.S. people, as almost never before, are rejecting the “2-party” system and are crying out for a political alternative. Half the people no longer vote for President, and fewer vote in state and local elections. Poor people are almost completely boycotting the current election system.
We need a new political movement in this country because our citizens desperately need to see and hear a radical alternative to the tired old status-quo politics of the Democrats and Republicans. Everyone instinctively knows that the current system is failing, but the progressive movement is not getting out an alternative vision of society or an alternative program of immediate demands.It is my strong opinion that the boldness and clarity that we need to articulate can never be done through the compromised and corrupt Democratic Party – dominated by Big Money.
We Can Create a Third Party
We need a new political movement in this country, one that must put an end to the ineffective single-issue syndrome that currently exists – where unions, environmentalists, women, people of color, farmers, tax reformers, and senior citizen groups fight their separate battles against a hostile establishment.
We must begin to have the courage to fight for power – not handouts. We are the majority of people and must act accordingly. Clearly, there will be differences within the progressive movement that will have to be worked out. We can do it.
I am not naive, and I understand the enormous difficulties that confront us when we take on the Democratic and Republican Parties and the economic oligarchy that controls this country. I believe, however, that if we stop thinking about all the reasons as to why it can’t be done, and go out in the streets and do it, we can succeed.
We can create a third party. We can raise the important issues which the Democrats and Republicans ignore. We can make politics relevant to working people and the poor. We can win.
4 thoughts on “Bernie Sanders in 1989 and the Fight Against Corporate Rule”
Very good analyze of current differences in solving economic, military and coorporate involvement with many from the Progressive side stating some very proven positions on these subjects. The whole issue of China and their support of Latin American countries is very important and and in most cases should be supported. Thanks, Wayne Alt, Co-founder of Western New York Peace Center &former Dem. Committeeman