******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
You ended your post with "Cheers". That was a joke, right? On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Mark Lause via Marxism < marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > I don't think the list has ignored the Sanders campaign. It's just that > there's very little new to say about this. > > Many of us who are not supporters of his campaign have been watching it > with interest and a great deal of gratification for his level of support > says about the political possibilities. I want as many people inclined to > support it to enter into it. Invest your blood, sweat and tears in the > effort. The more who do so, the more the Democratic Party will persuade > them--as it did me and many like me in 1968--that our views have ultimately > never mattered to it. > > And I do get the theoretical objections to supporting any party of the > class enemy . . . > > But I have been primarily concerned with the practical questions the > campaign raises. I've posed these here, on North Star, on Facebook > continually and they remain entirely unaddressed. > > In the last half century, the Democrats have never--not ever--picked the > most progressive candidate running. This includes candidates who outpolled > in the primaries the candidate who ultimately gets the nomination. > > In the past, when a progressive candidate starts showing strength, we have > seen the media give them less coverage and to make the lion's share of that > coverage quoting other people about how terrible they are? Hasn't that > happened more and more? What they did wheeling out the relics of the civil > rights movement to serve as slanderers and liars against Sanders was just > the beginning. Then they can always Howard Dean him. > > And--again as predicted by the skeptics--they've dealt out the delegates in > way to minimize the will of the Democratic voters. > > Does no one else remember 1968? Even in 1972, when McGovern got the > nomination (he wasn't nearly as progressive as Chisholm, btw), the powers > in the party stepped back and let the campaign crash so that they could > rebuild it into what they wanted it to become. > > Good grief, people! How oblivious are we to the history through which many > of us actually lived? Conversely, how eager are we to embrace a > faith-based willful ignoring of that history? What reason do you have for > thinking that will change? Do you think the party of Patriot Acts and > drones and oil spills and militarization of the police has become somehow > kinder and gentler than it was in the 1990s or earlier? > > I've heard no coherent response other than that I shouldn't be such a big > old cynic spreading the blue meanies among the cherubic youth. > > But certainly none of the very real support Sanders has gotten--which he > and his supporters have worked terribly hard to earn, I know--begins to > answer those concerns. > > Cheers, > Mark L. > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: > http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/sranz18%40gmail.com > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
