Quote:
Originally Posted by imperiouskitten
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
so why did he amass a movement and then quietly shuffle it into the 2020 Democratic party? I don't know the circumstances of every day of his life, but to me it looks like this:
He took up oppositional politics in a small and quirky state and his career went fine. So fine that in time he almost became the president. But when the time came to hit the nuclear option, he chose his career and life (the last 10 years of it) over his policy goals. And supplicated very firmly for Joe Biden, well beyond what was called for or necessary to elect Trump, using the exhausted "Trump bad" as justification for throwing away all strategy and policy ambition beyond neoliberal party hijinks. Now he's dead silent, having missed a thousand opportunities to have used his leverage just like "the squad".
Warren showed herself a phony too when she stayed in to sabotage the winning candidate who shared many of her policy goals. Who cares for how long she had been native war chanting those policy goals? As soon as it actually mattered, she flaked to play for the team.
We call these types sheepdogs, controlled opposition, etc., although these imply intent. Some people are merely weak people who flip for convenience. They thereby wreck their legacy, that legacy you refer to with blinders on to the present. These are in fact less virtuous than confused and angry young boys who get taken for a political ride and improve themselves dramatically in just 4 years with much humility, admitting fault. One is slippery, the other is character. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I give him credit for shifting the narrative, but I subtract many points for going quietly into the margins. There's just no excuse. If he did it all because it was his life to advance progressive policy, he would have been willing to go nuclear. I guess he decided he'd done enough...and you agree.
I know there's a drought of heroes in the American public space, but don't let your standards too low. We need better than Bernie. |
What would you have had him do? Blacks robbed him of the nomination, again, so he's supposed to maintain conflict with the Democrat nominee and risk throwing the election to Trump? I think you're outlining a flaw in the two party system, not a flaw in Bernie Sanders.
He doesn't have the same signal strength as someone like Trump, or to a far lesser extent, AOC. He can't just hop on twitter and drum up news spotlight with his twitter trolling. In fact, that would probably be counterproductive to his appeal as an honest and decent person. It's not for a lack of trying, the dude goes after as much spotlight as he can get. He's on Maher like once a month and his rabid base memed hard during his contests.
He didn't go quietly into the margins, he was forced into the margins by a country that does not deserve him. I should be clear. I'm not entirely sure Bernie would have made an exceptional president. As great a person as he is, I think he lacks a certain shrewdness. He would have been stonewalled by both parties if he tried to accomplish even a single one of his policy aims. He works much better in the role of political symbol, a person who can rally support behind a discrete policy goals and build a grassroots base. Ironically, this was also Trump's most effective role, and Trump was far more effective at it to the extent that he created a cult.
But then, conservatives are much easier to herd than your average non-college campus white democrat. He still would have been a far better president than Hillary or Trump. Accomplishing little to nothing is better than actively destroying the country. Who knows what would have happened.