275
submitted 17 hours ago by geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml

Bernie Sanders caused a stir last week, when the independent senator from Vermont and two-time contender for the Democratic presidential nomination sent a post-election email to his progressive supporters across the country. In it, he argued that the Democrats suffered politically in 2024 at least in part because they ran a campaign that focused on “protecting the status quo and tinkering around the edges.”

In contrast, said Sanders, “Trump and the Republicans campaigned on change and on smashing the existing order.” Yes, he explained, “the ‘change’ that Republicans will bring about will make a bad situation worse, and a society of gross inequality even more unequal, more unjust and more bigoted.”

Despite that the reality of the threat they posed, Trump and the Republicans still won a narrow popular-vote victory for the presidency, along with control of the US House. That result has inspired an intense debate over the future direction not just of the Democratic Party but of the country. And the senator from Vermont is in the thick of it.

In his email, Sanders, a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus who campaigned in states across the country this fall for Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democratic ticket, asked a blunt question: “Will the Democratic leadership learn the lessons of their defeat and create a party that stands with the working class and is prepared to take on the enormously powerful special interests that dominate our economy, our media and our political life?”

His answer: “Highly unlikely. They are much too wedded to the billionaires and corporate interests that fund their campaigns.”

all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 45 minutes ago

More Americans align ideologically with the Greens anyways. What Workers need to do is organize and read theory. I have an Introductory Marxist Reading List if anyone wants to start somewhere but doesn't know how.

[-] huf@hexbear.net 2 points 54 minutes ago

go home, old man, you're finished

[-] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 97 points 17 hours ago
[-] Lussy@hexbear.net 14 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Seriously lol

They don’t control shit, they’ve barely had power outside the presidency for 15 years, and when they do it’s indistinguishable from the real deal. The controlled opposition might as well mot exist

[-] Maturin@hexbear.net 5 points 12 hours ago

They are saying the Ds and Rs are the same party

[-] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 1 points 15 hours ago

Where is this?

Must've hit hard.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world -5 points 15 hours ago

Both sides are the same! /s

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 47 minutes ago

They aren't different sides, just different factions in America's uniparty.

[-] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 hours ago

Just different wings of the same fundamental team.

[-] Iheartcheese@lemmy.world 9 points 14 hours ago

They aren't. One side wants to destroy everything and the other waggles their fingers and lines their pockets.

[-] pivot_root@lemmy.world 8 points 13 hours ago

To be fair to the other commenter, both are the same insofar that they ~~enrich oligarchs~~ are motivated by lobbyists and corporate interests.

[-] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 12 points 12 hours ago

Yes, and they need to run as third party. The Democratic Party has proven that they will destroy any attempt to push their party left.

[-] MyPornViewingAccount@lemmy.world 24 points 16 hours ago

Cant do that while Citizens United ruling still stands and Musk can buy whatever president he wants.

[-] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 hours ago

And who is going to undo any of that first?

The key is to look beyond myopic electoralism as the only way a party can express power and organize. Organize with direct action, organize labor, and teach socialism.

[-] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 19 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Dont forget to add Aipac to this lists. I have no idea how they aren’t scrutinized more commonly. I am sure they played a big part this election.

Imagine if there was a pro chinese organization being politically active in the US openly lobbying and funding both US parties for chinese interests.

Its bad on a silver plater.

[-] Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world 9 points 14 hours ago

Because it's anti-semetic if you stop them from bribing, blackmailing, and spying on our politicians.

[-] Xanis@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago

Musk is focused at his level. I say we sweep the foundations.

[-] MyPornViewingAccount@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

I see youre unfamiliar with the Supremacy Clause

Or how much he also spent down-ballot.

[-] Xanis@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago

Nah, you're right, better give up.

Or...

We try and do whatever we can, even at the smallest levels.

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago

Yes, maybe democrats should have pushed for political literacy in schools. Yet they kept their citizens in the dark on how to participate in using their right to run for office.

[-] comfy@lemmy.ml 11 points 16 hours ago

What will more candidates do?

I don't see how that addresses the issue, at least on a federal level. Bernie was one of the most popular candidates in previous elections and that didn't count for anything. It's clear that the game is rigged. Look at other countries, where the equivalent party to the Democrats (that is, the 'middle left') has a leadership still beholden to corporate interests despite their working class rank-and-file and substantial union lobbying.

Third parties already exist and you can see how viable they are. The FPTP spoiler effect isn't going away any time soon.

[-] chillBurner@lemmy.ml 13 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Third parties already exist and you can see how viable they are. The FPTP spoiler effect isn’t going away any time soon.

Well... if the issue of slavery was central to the development of the Republican Party, and the working class struggles of Europe led to the creation of Labour and SocDem Parties in Europe

There is a slim chance, that by precedent, one breaking issue could widen up, as to create a new political party that swallows up and destroys one of the moribund parties, through its absorption of its former key constituencies

(though it must take advantage of the power vacuum fully) (emphasis on the term 'slim', to refer to 1%)

Heck, we could follow Canada, and have it so that America relies on multi-partisan coalitions, rather than Dems, Reps, or even both alone

Then, again, Idk Americans, so mindlessly downvote me if ye want...

Nothing in life is ever so permanent...

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 8 points 13 hours ago

Aside from our need for voting reform, the bigger issue lies in that most prominent media outlets are owned by the same billionaires that are bankrolling the two parties. No third (or fourth, fifth, etc) will have chance in hell at gaining ground in the current media climate because they will immediately be scrubbed and erased from the narrative.

[-] chillBurner@lemmy.ml 2 points 12 hours ago

the bigger issue lies in that most prominent media outlets are owned by the same billionaires that are bankrolling the two parties. No third (or fourth, fifth, etc) will have chance in hell at gaining ground in the current media climate because they will immediately be scrubbed and erased from the narrative.

I couldn't agree more...

[-] entropicshart@sh.itjust.works 6 points 15 hours ago

Bernie didn’t stand a chance because both of the “parties” are corrupt af. More candidates that don’t require some corporate controlled party to endorse them to actually show up on the ballot, is exactly what we need.

You can then take it further by outlawing absolutely any lobbying and sponsorships of political campaigns; have an equal amount of funds set aside that allows each candidate an equal amount of airtime/advertising/etc.. You could take it even further by having a government owned and dedicated channel for each candidate to showcase their agenda and goals that they’d like to run on, with proper fact checking and ability for voters to hold those candidates accountable post elections.

Simply saying “more candidates won’t fix it”, is the same as not doing anything at all. We need to separate all the corporate parties and interests from our democracy.

[-] minnow@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago

at least on a federal level

The FPTP spoiler effect isn't going away any time soon.

You are 100% spot on. What we need are progressive candidates on the local level, were voting rules are determined, to push Rank Choice Voting. The Two Party System is a result of FPTP voting; take that away and implement RCV and the Two Party System will begin to crumble naturally.

[-] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago

Yep. And TODAY is the fucking time to talk about it. We just came off an election where a lot of folks were feeling bad about their choices.

[-] I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org 1 points 12 hours ago

More candidates down ballot, not just top of the ticket. Get working class people in local and state government, who can help drive forward voting reform.

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

The democratic party spent a ton of resources this election on barring progressive candidates from running. Bernie himself endorsed Kamala. Stop listening to anything any of them say, they are all fighting a battle to keep you from supporting progressive candidates.

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.ml 4 points 13 hours ago

Stop making campaigns so expensive and you might see that. We have had a couple "working class" candidates in the past but they were extremely niche so didn't garner much support

[-] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 14 points 13 hours ago

Bernie had a lot of support back in 2020, but he got ratfucked by the entire field moving to ensure that Joe had a clear path to beat him.

[-] NeoToasty@kbin.melroy.org 9 points 16 hours ago

They got until 2026 to figure it out. My hopes aren't high though. If they can turn the mid-terms into their favor and owe up to some of that loss in the 2024 elections, we'll see.

But has the Democratic Party ever owed up to the mistakes when it comes to campaigning? They just ignored the playbook of 2008 and 2012, then decided "oh yeah that one from 2016? yeah we want that one!" and went with it. And it burned up in their face.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 7 points 13 hours ago

Not even that, they went with the 2020 playbook of "Hey, at least I'm not Trump." It worked in 2020 due to Trump's shit being fresh in everyone's minds, plus his bungled covid response. Now that covid is basically in the rearview mirror (as far as the majority of the population is concerned) and prices are through the roof, it's once again time to blame the democrats for the previous administration's fiscal irresponsibility and go with the big spenders once again.

this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
275 points (97.9% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7233 readers
564 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS