Bernie Sanders and Common Sensical Ideas

Bernie Sanders continues to gain momentum in the Democratic primary.  Saturday night's Town Hall Meeting at Denver University's Hamilton Gymnasium was Sander's largest crowd yet.  An estimated 5500 people arrived to show their support for Sanders.  The energy and enthusiasm for Bernie was vibrant and loud, and it came from a broad range of people.  Early polls showed that Bernie was supposedly only a favorite for older white men.  However, a quick glance of Hamilton Gymnasium showed that the Denver crowd was filled with people of all ages and genders.

So what is going on here with Bernie?  And can he sustain this kind of turnout and energy throughout the primaries?  Or more specifically, can his supporters maintain their energy and monetary support to defeat the "Clinton juggernaut," which has an enormous amount of cash on hand from the corporate establishment?  And should he be concerned with the responses from the GOP and its operatives?

I'll start with the last question first: The GOP response so far to Bernie has been pretty weak.  Fox News has only really engaged in ad hominem attacks: calling Bernie a kook, or suggesting that he "won't be contender until he stops spitting and combs his hair."  These kinds of personal attacks only reveal the weakness of the GOP, which is really nothing new.

Colorado Republican Steve House could only muster a weak response to the Denver Post.  He threw out the typical "socialist" pejorative, then made an opinionated statement in the guise of fact, and then failed to make any kind of important distinctions between the "agenda" of President Obama and Sanders.  And other GOP operatives are throwing out unsubstantiated claims like, "the progressive agenda won't work."

What exactly won't work?  Be specific, rather than hiding behind distinction-less rhetoric.  Will tuition-free 4 year college really not work?  That would be strange because it works fairly well in many other countries.  And as Sander's stated, his $71 million per year program could easily be paid for by implementing a small tax on Wall Street speculation.  Will a Medicare-for-all program really not work either?  Strange, because guaranteeing health care as a right also works well enough, not perfectly, in every other industrialized country in the world.  Even a U.S. Government Accountability Office study argued that implementing a medicare-for-all system would save us billions of dollars per year and "would be more than enough to finance insurance coverage for the millions of Americans."

At any rate, starting honest discussions surrounding these kinds of important questions is exactly what Sanders wants to begin in America.  Sanders stated, "what we are here tonight for, is to lay out the [enormous problems our country is facing] on the table and to talk about how to find a way to solve them."  Thus far the GOP only seems interested in engaging in the typical personal attacks, or nonsensical arguments like this, that have been plaguing political discourse for far too long.

So will the "Clinton juggernaut" engage in honest discussions surrounding the enormous issues we face during the Democratic primaries?  And can Sanders' supporters maintain their energy and monetary support to defeat Clinton, who has an enormous amount of cash on hand?

The Clinton team is certainly paying attention to Bernie now.  However, and as The Hill reported, the question will be how to deal with Sanders in the upcoming primaries.  One thought is that attacking Sanders, or taking him head on, could "rally his supporters" or "alienate liberals the Democrats need in the fall."

Democratic strategist, Chris Lehane, suggested that Sanders doesn't have "the capacity to unite the different factions of the party beyond those who are naturally inclined to go against the establishment."  Though, the Denver crowd certainly appeared to contradict this statement.  And the author of the article went on to suggest that "the deck is stacked against Sanders" because he doesn't have the cash to go up against the corporately funded "Clinton juggernaut."

Essentially, the establishment that Chris Lehane is speaking about is Wall Street and corporate America. Thus Clinton has the cash on hand because she will continue to do the bidding of the corporate establishment.  But this is the very thing that Sander's supporters are tired of.  Senator Sander's also does not seem to be bothered by it, and the energy at Denver's Town Hall concretely showed a crowd that is anything but tired; rather it might be the beginning of what Sander's has called a much needed "political movement of millions of people who come out and vote, who educate and organize."  

In other words, Sander's success will greatly depend on whether or not his supporters can not only sustain their energy and monetary support, but continue to grow support for him across America.  It really will be up to the people because the corporate media will likely ramp up its campaign of attacks and misrepresentations of Sanders.

Sanders has obviously tapped into a deep spring of political energy.  Clinton and the corporate establishment Democrats will likely have a difficult time taking Sanders head on because it is, after all, their past corporate "free trade" policies, like NAFTA, that have helped to shutter over 50,000 manufacturing factories, and displaced millions and millions of U.S. jobs to cheaper foreign labor forces.

If more people begin to wake up to this reality, and the truth that Sanders is speaking about it, it could spell not a dissipation of energy and money for Sanders, but an increase in more energy and money to defeat the corporate "Clinton juggernaut."  Thus it is highly likely we will see a plethora of character attacks by the corporate Democrats (like Senator Claire McCaskill's recent attacks) and from the corporate media, from both the left and right.  

But here is the thing: the chances of a political revolution are likely, regardless of whether or not it is lead by a Sander's campaign, if our country keeps going the way it is; that is, if we continue to see a rapidly vanishing middle-class, cuts in welfare programs, cuts in education programs, further increases in the already insane inequality of wealth, and more power in the hands of the oligarchy and corporations).  When inequality is this enormous, history has shown us example after example that revolution is all but inevitable.  Political scientists have been sounding this alarm for years, and even one billionaire, Nick Hauner, has joined this crowd in suggesting the "pitchforks are coming."

Over 2400 years ago, Aristotle used empirical studies to show the many causes of revolutions in democracies and oligarchies.  Aristotle noted in The Politics, that in democracies there is a "notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal."  And in oligarchies there is a "notion that those who are unequal in one respect are in all respects unequal; being unequal, that is, in property, they suppose themselves to be unequal absolutely."

Aristotle went on to write that these two forms of government both "have a kind of justice, but, tried by an absolute standard, they are faulty; and, therefore, both parties, whenever their share in the government does not accord with their preconceived ideas, stir up revolution."

Furthermore, Aristotle stated that "political revolutions also spring from a disproportionate increase in any part of the state."  This disproportionate increase includes "the number of poor" in a given society.  Aristotle's ideal state was a constitutional polity that had a large middle-class that could check both the vices of the poor and the rich.  Excess and greed are the typical vices of the rich; and deficiency, meanness, and covetousness are vices of the poor.

So you might be asking by now what Aristotle's political insights have to do with the Bernie Sanders campaign?  Well, first, many of Aristotle's insights have been proven to be right over and over throughout the ages, and can be helpful in understanding today's political issues.  Secondly, the main issues that Sanders speaks about in his campaign complements the important insights of Aristotle's political philosophy.

Sanders is dead right when he states that "the unquestionable greed of the billionaire class is destroying this nation."  This is the very class that has shut down large sectors of America's workforce, and instead invests in foreign labor forces; profits over the American people is their mantra.  This act has helped to create the instability we are seeing in our country right now.  Even Adam Smith was against this kind of foreign capital investment. 

Sanders is also correct in saying that today's enormous wealth inequality "is the great moral issue of our time; the great economic issue of our time; it is the great political issue of our time," and that this massive inequality of wealth "is not sustainable."  Aristotle's writings, and historical example after example, show us that when inequality of this magnitude happens in any given society, and when the oligarchs focus too much on their own wealth and excess, the entire political system becomes unstable and is ripe for revolution.

Furthermore, Sanders has taken a bold position by rightly labeling our current political system as "an oligarchic system of government."  This position is also supported by some of today's brightest political scientists.  Thus if we look to Aristotle on the causes of revolution in oligarchies we see that "the masses make revolution under the idea that they are unjustly treated, because... they are equals, and have not an equal share."

However, it is important to note that the "political revolution" that Sanders is speaking of is not based in "radical ideas" or "utopian thinking."  In fact, many of the reforms he is suggesting are ideas that have already been successfully implemented in other industrialized countries, and many right here in America's past.  In fact, he is acting more akin to FDR in "saving the capitalists from themselves."  

Many in today's billionaire class seem to be blissfully unaware that the New Deal social safety nets weren't created just so "lazy people" could live off the government, but was created to stabilize a political system that was experiencing massive social unrest.  Or maybe they are aware of this fact and simply believe the highly militarized police forces across the country will protect them.

At any rate, this kind of "welfare" isn't a socialistic idea; rather it is an idea that has been in existence since at least Aristotle.  It is an idea that creates stability within society, and is used for maintaining "the welfare of the state."  Aristotle urged for practical reforms, and he was fully aware that there will always be the poor and the greedy rich among us.  

He wrote that the "poor are always receiving and always wanting more and more, for such help is like water poured into a leaky cask.  Yet a true friend of the people should see that they are not too poor, for extreme poverty lowers the character of democracy; measures should be taken which will give them lasting prosperity; and as this is equally the interest of all classes, the proceeds of the public revenues should be accumulated and distributed among its poor, if possible... [so that they can] make a beginning in trade or farming."  

And as how to deal with the greedy rich, Aristotle wrote: "The beginning of reform is not so much to equalize property as to train the nobler sort of natures not to desire more; that is to say, they must be kept down, but not ill-treated."  Thus if today's billionaire class cannot recognize how their insatiable greed for more is creating instability in this country, then it seems an appropriate reform would be closing tax loopholes and raising their tax rates, which is also not such a radical idea (i.e., see tax rates during the decades where America had the largest middle-class ever.)

In conclusion, Sanders' support is growing because of the popularity of his common sensical ideas.  As of now, the GOP continues to engage in fallacy, rather than honestly addressing his platform.  And how the Clinton juggernaut will engage Sanders is yet to be seen.  But one thing is for sure: Sander's campaign, and the common sensical ideas that he espouses, are resonating within a large and growing number of Americans.  And if his supporters can continue to grow this political movement through grassroots efforts... the oligarchic ruling class should be afraid.

Sincerely,
Mark Olson 

P.S. - I have no copy editor, nor do I swim in the donor pools who will give me money to shill for their interests.  Thus my perspective and any grammatical errors above are all mine.