In 2016 I was ready to die for Sanders. Not so much in 2020. Today I believe that he's never been with us. He was sheepdogging us into the Blue fold. Because he gave up sure victory - twice. I believe that we've been had. Twice. I will never again even consider voting for a democrat. Green or Socialist give me any day. No repubs, no conservatives. And the democrat garbage stay away from me.
The "Progressive Caucus" is a misnomer. They've proven, since the beginning of the Ukraine war, with every dishonest word about it- their collective eliding of all facts about the neocons' intentional, successful provocation of Russia's invasion, and every vote for billions of escalation-driving weaponry, and now this self-neutering in the face of establishment blowback - that they are just as supportive of Empire and war as the rest. They lack not only understanding of the awful history but also principle and spine.
With respect to Sanders in particular, like others, I was all in in 2016 for him, even though I thought him foolish to expect a fair nomination process and mistaken in any conclusion on his part that a 3rd Party run would only give Trump the victory. In 2020, I figured he used the same failed calculus- but even then defended him against "sheep-dogging" claims. But those who charged that now seem to be correct.
He's always been weakest on foreign policy, at any rate. His chops are pretty much confined to domestic economic populism. I've winced too often as he spoke about such things, such as when he spoke of "Venezuela's dictator" even as he was trying to dampen the neocons' wish for military-forced regime change. And he clearly has no clue about the CIA & State Dep't.-backed coup against a democratically elected Yanukovych in Ukraine- which began the sequence of events that left Russia with little to no alternative to an invasion of the Donbass. Either he is ignorant of all this- too distracted to look into it, perhaps, or else he is a blatant imperialist. Either way, he can not be considered any longer a progressive.
The young critics were right. His role, whether he was always conscious of it or not, was to shepherd the progressives once again into the Dem.Party fold. This is likely true of all those Congress-critters who have cloaked themselves in progressive rhetoric and garb. If I am bitter it is because they used me along the way. They took my money, made fine speeches. And then they rolled over to keep their Party bosses happy.
Seems to me that "progressive" Democrats are never actually progressive on foreign policy. They vote slavishly for endless funding of the military, no questions asked. And as a result, there are no funds left for domestic progressive needs, so one could say that even on domestic policy they are not actually progressive. If they don't fight for a redirection of funding from the already over-bloated military budget to domestic needs then they are hypocrites plain and simple. Thank you, Birrion, for another excellent article.
In 2016 I was ready to die for Sanders. Not so much in 2020. Today I believe that he's never been with us. He was sheepdogging us into the Blue fold. Because he gave up sure victory - twice. I believe that we've been had. Twice. I will never again even consider voting for a democrat. Green or Socialist give me any day. No repubs, no conservatives. And the democrat garbage stay away from me.
Et tu, Bernie? Those words also came to my mind when I first read of his crticism of the letter and remarks about the war. What a waste he became.
The "Progressive Caucus" is a misnomer. They've proven, since the beginning of the Ukraine war, with every dishonest word about it- their collective eliding of all facts about the neocons' intentional, successful provocation of Russia's invasion, and every vote for billions of escalation-driving weaponry, and now this self-neutering in the face of establishment blowback - that they are just as supportive of Empire and war as the rest. They lack not only understanding of the awful history but also principle and spine.
With respect to Sanders in particular, like others, I was all in in 2016 for him, even though I thought him foolish to expect a fair nomination process and mistaken in any conclusion on his part that a 3rd Party run would only give Trump the victory. In 2020, I figured he used the same failed calculus- but even then defended him against "sheep-dogging" claims. But those who charged that now seem to be correct.
He's always been weakest on foreign policy, at any rate. His chops are pretty much confined to domestic economic populism. I've winced too often as he spoke about such things, such as when he spoke of "Venezuela's dictator" even as he was trying to dampen the neocons' wish for military-forced regime change. And he clearly has no clue about the CIA & State Dep't.-backed coup against a democratically elected Yanukovych in Ukraine- which began the sequence of events that left Russia with little to no alternative to an invasion of the Donbass. Either he is ignorant of all this- too distracted to look into it, perhaps, or else he is a blatant imperialist. Either way, he can not be considered any longer a progressive.
The young critics were right. His role, whether he was always conscious of it or not, was to shepherd the progressives once again into the Dem.Party fold. This is likely true of all those Congress-critters who have cloaked themselves in progressive rhetoric and garb. If I am bitter it is because they used me along the way. They took my money, made fine speeches. And then they rolled over to keep their Party bosses happy.
Seems to me that "progressive" Democrats are never actually progressive on foreign policy. They vote slavishly for endless funding of the military, no questions asked. And as a result, there are no funds left for domestic progressive needs, so one could say that even on domestic policy they are not actually progressive. If they don't fight for a redirection of funding from the already over-bloated military budget to domestic needs then they are hypocrites plain and simple. Thank you, Birrion, for another excellent article.