Bernie’s Revolution

Hillary has learned from Bernie. Now Bernie needs to learn from Hillary.

If he does, and urges his followers to work year round to transform the Democratic Party, we could build an actual “political revolution” that endures. If he does not, his impact will be more cultural than political.

Electing a President and changing a few policies, however important they are, do not constitute a political revolution. A revolution is “a fundamental change in political organization” that involves “the overthrow...of one government…and the substitution of another by the governed.” To sustain itself, a revolution needs to involve lasting structural change in how government is organized, as well as a shift in its guiding philosophy.

A democratic revolution would empower all people in all aspects of their lives by establishing structures that foster empowerment. The most viable path to that goal is to turn the Democratic Party into a truly democratic organization that:

1. works year-round to implement the platform that it adopts at its national convention, and;
2. helps to meet neglected human and environmental needs throughout the year. 

The Party needs to be concerned about more than electing people. It also needs to focus on genuine service. If it did, as a byproduct, it would nurture more loyalty from its members, which would help win elections.

The Democratic Party is structured so that its members could, if they decided to do so, control the organization from the bottom up. At open caucus meetings and during statewide elections, registered Democrats elect leaders to the state Party, whose members elects leaders to the national Party.

Those members could elect representatives who shared a commitment to turning the Party into a year-round activist organization dedicated to implementing the national platform by building self-organizing, precinct-based, supportive communities that attend to local needs.

Unfortunately, however, most local and state Democratic parties are dominated by elected officials and elected representatives loyal to those officials who do not want to risk burning their bridges with those officials. Most of those officials and representatives in leadership positions seem to be most concerned about moving up the ranks and becoming more powerful, for the sake of power itself. Power and access to power become intoxicating “aphrodisiacs.” So Democratic Party members who are elected to positions of power within the Party become submissive and do not push the Party to become a truly democratic, service-oriented, activist organization.

Unfortunately, Bernie’s track record in Vermont does not indicate an inclination to use his campaigns and his office as organizing tools to help build an ongoing, member-controlled activist organization.

Bernie’s campaign has placed important economic issues on the table. Increasingly, Clinton’s speeches echo his. Fortunately, Bernie and his supporters will push those positions all the way to the convention, where they will impact the Democratic Party platform. So the more delegates Bernie wins, the better.

But Hillary has a point when she criticizes Bernie for being “single issue.” As Bill Fletcher commented on Pacifica Radio the night of the Iowa caucus, when Bernie has talked about social issues, it has been as an “add on.” He has not spoken about those issues, such as racism and sexism, as “integral” to economic issues.

Fletcher’s use of the word “integral” suggests a systemic analysis, which is essential. How do the dots connect? How are the issues inter-related? References to “the system” are commonplace. When Elizabeth Warren first declared, “The system is rigged,” the audience erupted. The Oscar-winning film, Spotlight, affirms going after “the system” rather than scapegoating individuals, which is a critical distinction.

On a recent CNN post-election analysis, Van Jones suggested that Hillary is being effective by adopting “intersectionality,” a term coined by Kimberle Crenshaw that was new to me. As summarized by wikipedia:

The theory suggests that—and seeks to examine how—various biological, social and cultural categories such as gender, race, class, ability, sexual orientation, religion, caste, age, and other axes of identity interact on multiple and often simultaneous levels. The theory proposes that we should think of each element or trait of a person as inextricably linked with all of the other elements in order to fully understand one's identity. This framework can be used to understand how systemic injustice and social inequality occur on a multidimensional basis. Intersectionality holds that the classical conceptualizations of oppression within society—such as racism, sexism, classism, ableism, biphobia, homophobia, transphobia, and belief-based bigotry—do not act independently of each other. Instead, these forms of oppression interrelate, creating a system of oppression that reflects the "intersection" of multiple forms of discrimination.

From that perspective, economics is not primary, with personal and social issues being secondary, as Sanders suggests. Rather, all forms of oppression and domination must be addressed simultaneously by pushing for complete liberation and empowerment, both individual and collective. I hope to learn more about how to talk about those issues from those writers who affirm intersectionality.

Hillary’s evolving call for more compassion seems to be moving in that direction, as when she said:

I want this campaign, and eventually my administration to be more about inspiring young people, and older ones as well, to find that niche where kindness matters, whether it’s to a friend, a neighbor, a colleague, a fellow student—whether it’s in the classroom, or a doctor’s office, or in a business—we need to do more to help each other. That’s what my campaign is about. I want more kindness.

That spirit needs to guide the Democratic Party on every level. The contrast with Trump’s anger and meanness could help illuminate the issue. Somehow we need to help one another set aside our preoccupation with “what’s in it for me” and create a truly compassionate society.

Hillary may be returning to the compassion-grounded roots of her college days and adopting Van Jones’ position, “the 99% for the 100%,” rather than Bernie’s “us against them” approach. His strident, angry, confrontational approach mobilizes many people, but it turns off others. A movement that is clearly based on “love and kindness” could be more enduring if it promotes structural changes that nurture compassion.

As Vox.com has reported extensively, across geographic, demographic, and ideological lines, Trump is attracting support from authoritarian personalities who fear “outsiders” and desire order. Identified by answers to questions about parenting, authoritarians prefer respect for elders, obedience, being well-behaved, and having good manners over independence, self-reliance, being considerate, and being curious. In politics, they are more likely to want strong leaders who suppress “scary changes, if necessary by force [with] simple, powerful, and punitive” measures.

By tapping fear and anger, Trump has coalesced an authoritarian political force that will likely endure post-Trump. The pending crippling or splitting of the Republican Party provides the Democrats with an opportunity to take over both the Senate and the House as well as the Presidency, if not this year, soon.

If he doesn’t already have a plan in mind, maybe Bernie will soon see the light concerning how to institutionalize his movement, perhaps by re-organizing the Democratic Party. And maybe he’ll begin to talk about personal and social issues more effectively, which would enhance his prospects.

But at the moment, my intuition is that Hillary would be a stronger candidate in November because Trump would mercilessly attack Bernie for being a “socialist” (a label that is still problematic) and an “old man.”

If we suffer one or two more terrorists attacks between now and then, we may need our strongest candidate to defeat Trump and his fascist tendencies. I used to believe that total fascism was not a threat in this country, given our commitment to civil liberties. Now I’m not so sure.

But who knows? A case can be made that Bernie would be stronger than Clinton against any Republican. If we’ve learned anything from this campaign season, it’s that more humility is in order.