Sanders rails against the 1%, against rising inequality,
against the big banks, against the way campaigns are financed, and much else.
But we rarely hear him say why there is so much inequality. What are its
causes? Why do the billionaires capture most of the nation’s income growth? Might
it not be just as reasonable to argue that dedicated activists within the
working class, through years of hard and tireless efforts had already built
militant, albeit not radical organizations, and it has been these that have
energized the Sanders’ campaign and not the other way around? And even if we
suppose that it is the candidate who has galvanized the workers, won’t the new
recruits be spending their time for the foreseeable future trying to win
converts to the election cause? When exactly will the movement building begin?
If Sanders and his supporters genuinely wanted a “political
revolution,” wouldn’t his campaign be a process of radical education. No
political event, no protest, no rally would be fail to have an educational
component. Sanders’ talking points could be used to deepen understanding, by
asking questions and pushing the discussions toward fundamental causes. And
connections between inequality and a host of other problems, including the
environmental catastrophes that threaten the viability of human life itself,
would be made so people grasp that it is capitalism that is the root cause of
all social ills. Sanders’ version of “socialism” is capitalism with a stronger
social safety net and stricter government regulation of business and for him
qualifies as socialism. A social movement has a larger aim that settling just particular
grievances. It is not enough to protest discrimination and inequalities that
are embedded in the economic, political, and socio-cultural institutions, even
though such protest is essential. Instead, we need to practice self-reflective
collective action that benefits not only our fellow citizens but also those
struggling around the globe for social justice and environmental security.
Unlike workers who have only their own personal voice to
influence conditions, a workers’ movement uses its collective organization to
make change. It is impossible to cure all the ills of capitalism by gradual
piecemeal reforms. The problems too far wide spread across the whole political
and economic spectrum. To carry the fight forward we must be demanding
together, an end to capitalist domination over our lives.
Attaching the label of “movement” to the Sanders’ campaign
mistakes appearance for reality. Sanders’ rallies have certainly attracted
large crowds – even larger than those of Obama in 2008. But an audience is not
a movement. In order 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. The Bernie Sanders
campaign is top-down — like virtually all institutions in capitalist society —
where Sanders dictates policy to his supporters. He is operating within the
Democratic Party, an entirely top-down organization that offers little more
than lip service to working people. Although Sanders was elected as a U.S.
Senator, no one elected him to run for president, and he is not accountable to
his supporters in his campaign for president. Sanders has borrowed the rhetoric
of democracy while waging an undemocratic campaign in an undemocratic party
surrounded by an undemocratic economy. Even in the very unlikely event that he
was to win the presidency, Sanders’ would go very little further than Obama in
producing “change.” Sanders is a flawed candidate to a flawed electoral system
that is designed to prevent the ruling elite from losing political power.
When anyone enters the voting booth, he or she is free to
cast a private ballot for any candidate he favors. On the surface, this seems
rather obvious, and easy. We each privately vote for the candidate we wish to
support. We choose based on our preferences. We call this “voting correctly.”
So we vote correctly, right? Well, maybe not. Over the past 10 US presidential
elections, an average of 26 percent of voters admit to voting incorrectly –
that is, for a candidate who doesn’t actually match their political beliefs or
expectations. In primaries, when candidates all share the same party
affiliation, the percentage of incorrect votes is far higher. In primaries and
elections, many people aren’t getting what they think they’re voting for.
Why do a quarter of voters end up picking candidates that
don’t match up with their own opinions? When people end up voting incorrectly,
it’s typically because they’ve made assumptions based on little information
and/or faulty impressions. In striving to vote correctly, the most useful
connection question is not “how much do I like or relate to the candidates'
personalities?” Instead, the very best question may be “what is each
candidate’s vision for the future, and how will they work with others to
achieve it?”
“It is better to vote
for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get
it.” Eugene V. Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment