Even if your pessimistic view is more correct, we'd be much better off as a result of the exercise.
Sustained agitation itself can produce change. When the campaign for the Employee Free Choice Act was in full swing, my friend who works for SEIU told me, "Dealing with the NLRB has never been so pleasant as it is right now. These people are returning my phone calls immediately. Their attitude suddenly is, "What can I do today to help you defend the right of workers to organize?" Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Marv Gandall <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 25, 2016, at 10:08 AM, Robert Naiman < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > The President of the United States has tremendous power. It's certainly > true that President Sanders couldn't do everything he wants by himself. But > he could do a lot. And, on progressive economic populist issues, if he > fought with Congress and lost, and people made it a crusade to get rid of > the Members of Congress who opposed him, a lot of them could be thrown out. > When Harold Washington was elected mayor of Chicago, his opponents > controlled a majority of the Chicago City Council. After the next election, > Washington supporters controlled a majority of the council. > > > > On the first set of issues: President Sanders could reform U.S. trade > policy by himself. He could say: from now on, we're not going to do any > NAFTA/TPP type agreements. Done. Congress could not stop him from doing > that. He could reform U.S. policy at the IMF and World Bank by himself. He > could appoint his own people to the Fed. OK, that's not going to completely > transform the Fed, but it would certainly have an impact. He can issue an > executive order that no company that violates federal labor law can bid on > a U.S. government contact for 5 years. He can make aggressive appointments > to the NLRB, etc. There's a whole lot of stuff like that, so much. Plus he > has a huge bully pulpit to intervene in labor disputes on behalf of labor. > Remember the factory occupation at Republic Windows. It just took one word > from Obama and the company stood down. > > > > On the second set of issues: Sanders is proposing to pay for free public > college tuition by taxing Wall Street speculation. I saw Sanders make the > pitch to 2000 people in Cedar Falls last night. The crowd went wild. > > > > OK, so President Sanders sends his bill to Congress for free public > college tuition by taxing Wall Street speculation. And Congress says, no > way, President Sanders, we're not voting for that, because we have our > heads way too far up the butt of Wall Street. And so President Sanders gets > on TV, and he says: I demand that Congress get its head out of Wall > Street's butt to pass my bill. And, President Sanders says, the most > important thing is that *the American people must demand it.* If you want > this to happen, you must get off your couch, turn off the TV, call Congress > and yell at them. > > > > And then what happens is... > > > > Don't you want to see how this story ends? I sure do. > > > Of course I want to see how this turns out. I’m all in favour of raising > peoples’ political consciousness and going with them as far and as fast as > they’re willing and able to go. I’ve welcomed the latest Sanders and Corbyn > campaigns for this reason, and would like to see the same development > within the same constituencies which support the NDP here. > > I don’t want to be discouraging, but I do think you’re being overly > optimistic about what Sanders could do if he were elected. He could use the > Presidency as a bully pulpit in a way Obama has not done to keep moving the > process forward, and that in itself would be a significant accomplishment. > But passing meaningful legislation would be a much tougher slog. The > Republicans are unlikely to fully lose control of the Congress because of > gerrymandering and a right-wing populist base in the so-called red states. > Most of all, regardless of the colouration of the Congress, the global > interests of the US corporations will be the most powerful influence > dictating policy to “the executive committee of the ruling class”, even in > a Sanders administration. If the lesson of liberal/social democratic > governments has taught us anything, it is that they must capitulate or risk > being overthrown - by force if necessary - if they persist in mobilizing > their followers in a way the capitalists consider to be fundamentally > inimical to their interests. So far, they have always balked, daunted by > their perception of the balance of forces. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > [email protected] > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Marv Gandall <[email protected]> > wrote: > > How “realistic" is Bernie Sanders to expect that his single payer > healthcare and other sweeping reform proposals would ever be adopted by > Congress if he were elected President? > > > > Critics on both his left and right have assumed this is Sanders’ > expectation, and have scoffed at it. But as John Cassidy of the New Yorker > notes (see link below), Sanders has on several occasions indicated he is > under no such illusion, and appears to recognize that only the sustained > pressure of a powerful mass movement can induce legislation to curb the > corporations, redistribute wealth, create jobs, provide debt relief and > expand the welfare state. > > > > Sanders’ program has been rightly compared to FDR’s 1930’s New Deal, and > he is essentially trying to recreate the mass working class movement which > underpinned it. Like US social democrats of that period, he is working > through the Democrat Party to reform rather than replace capitalism. > > > > His aim may have little appeal on the far left, but at the present time > the process which Sanders has set in motion inside and outside the party is > drawing millions of Americans into the orbit of the left around the idea > that the US system is a plutocracy which requires a “political revolution” > to democratize it. > > > > If he loses, Sanders will undoubtedly endorse Clinton. His supporters > are likely to follow suit. Most dissident Democrats have remained loyal to > the party when their efforts to change its direction have been thwarted. > Whether the latest insurgency endures and fundamentally reshapes American > politics will depend much less on what Sanders does than it will on a > continuing decline in living standards and failure of the Democratic Party > to address US working class needs. > > > > > http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/bernie-sanders-and-the-realists?mbid=nl_TNY%20Template%20-%20With%20Photo%20(9)&CNDID=39951347&spMailingID=8464149&spUserID=MTE3OTEwOTgxMDc2S0&spJobID=842475623&spReportId=ODQyNDc1NjIzS0 > > _______________________________________________ > > pen-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pen-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
