Bernie Can Do It

It's not too late. Bernie may still lead a revolution. What he does with his database will indicate his direction and our prospects. 

A revolution needs an organization with a clear mission, a long-term strategy, short-term victories to build momentum, the ability to modify methods as conditions change, and  a structure to involve members in key decision-making. And to sustain itself over time, it can’t be dependent on any one leader.  

By rooting itself in small, self-governing clubs, Bernie’s revolution could enhance its effectiveness by nurturing face-to-face community. By serving local needs -- personal, social, and environmental -- it could build loyalty to the organization. By being member-run, it could enable members to “own” the organization. By authorizing members to define their own activities within the framework of the organization’s goals, it could deepen member involvement, enhance self-empowerment, and provide the opportunity for meaningful engagement. By growing supportive communities, it could aid members in helping one another become more effective. 

Electing Congresspersons who support Bernie’s platform, as some former Sanders staffers are preparing to do, could be beneficial. But it is not sufficient. We also need a broad, inclusive, democratic organization with the muscle to fight for its platform, regardless of who is elected.

After the Convention, Bernie may decide to use top-down methods to continue to push his own agenda. Hopefully, he’ll take a different path, because his “single-issue” platform, with its economic focus, is limited. 

When other non-economic issues are raised, Bernie quickly shifts to his “more serious” issues. In fact, however, non-economic issues are integral to the social system that we must transform. 

Our primary problem is not the concentration of wealth and power. Rather, it is “the system,” which is woven into our entire society -- our institutions, our culture, and ourselves as individuals. The system leads most young people to believe they will be rich some day. The system produces a growing gap between the top 20%, for example, and everyone else (“the 1%” and “billionaire” thresholds are arbitrary). The system instills selfishness, materialism, and a widespread desire to climb the social ladder and lord it over others (who are deemed less worthy). With what we buy, what we think, and what we do, each of us reinforces that system daily. 

Bernie’s approach discounts non-economic issues and pushes away people who are primarily concerned about those other issues. But countless issues are also serious. We can focus on our primary concern without discounting those who choose a different focus. 

Transforming the system will require evolutionary revolution throughout society and within ourselves as individuals. 

By addressing internalized oppression and affirming intersectionality, holistic politics, social transformation, spiritual politics, and spiritual activism, Bernie could avoid the legitimate criticism that he arrogantly treats non-economic issues as a distraction. And he could dampen his bombastic, self-righteous tone that alienates many people, including some who support his program.

The desire to be recognized as superior fuels the system. Transforming that system will require learning how to collaborate as equals. And it will require a new, more humble definition of leadership that involves leaders facilitating collaborative problem-solving rather than merely mobilizing people to do what the leader wants them to do.

Bernie’s “class warfare” reinforces economic determinism, selfishness, and materialism. “The 99% for the 100%,” as proposed by Van Jones, is a more effective frame.

Prospects for a never-ending revolution will be enhanced if Bernie continues to push his principles within the Democratic Party, negotiates compromises with Hillary and her supporters, wholeheartedly supports the platform that emerges, and then urges his supporters to help transform the Party into an activist organization that meets neglected needs and fights for its platform year-round. 

As I have argued in "Bernie's Revolution," "Dear Bernie and Hillary: Transform the Democratic Party," "Proposed: Year-Round Precinct Organizing," and "Winning Is NOT Everything," I believe precinct-based clubs could cultivate cost-effective, person-to-person, neighbor-to-neighbor relationships that would maximize our effectiveness.
 .
The Democratic Party is already a broad, inclusive, democratic coalition -- probably more so than any new organization that Bernie might initiate. But the Party needs new energy, new ideas, and new leadership.

To motivate participation in an effort to rebuild the Democratic Party, rank-and-file Democrats would need to know that large numbers of other Democrats were involved in that effort. Bernie could inspire many of his supporters to make that commitment and develop that critical mass. 

We could then join with Hillary’s supporters to defeat Donald Trump, who is in fact a serious threat, and eventually transform this nation into a compassionate community.

Bernie, Democrats, and Precinct Organizing

Earlier today I sent the following email to the Chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party:

Dear Mary Jung:

I would like to meet monthly with Democrats in my precinct to advance the goals of the Democratic Party.  

Might the San Francisco Democratic Party help me with that effort? 

Having discussed the idea with a number of other Democrats, I believe that If the Democratic Party encouraged and supported year-round precinct organizing, at least several Democrats in most precincts would devote at least a few hours a month to work with one another to help build the Democratic Party. That base of steady, consistent workers could engage in a wide variety of activities and accomplish a great deal.

Self-organizing Democratic Party precinct clubs could inspire meaningful social engagement and enrich the lives of participants by nurturing face-to-face community. Doing so could help rebuild the Democratic Party, as Paul Starr calls for in “The Democrats as a Movement Party.”  

The more the Party supports and encourages precinct organizing, the more effective that effort will be. Scale is important. If potential participants know that a large number of others are participating, or soon will be, they will more likely get involved.  

For those reasons, I recommend that you and the San Francisco Democratic Party urge the California Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee to encourage and support year-round precinct organizing. In addition, I ask you to directly and/or indirectly encourage Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to back year-round precinct organizing. 

During the most recent Presidential debate, Sanders said:

I will do everything I can to open the Democratic party to the young people who are flocking into our political campaign.... Millions of young people who previously were not involved in the political process are now coming into it, and I do believe that we have got to open the door of the Democratic party to those people.

Year-round precinct organizing could be one way those young people could get involved. 

I live at 1280 Laguna Street. If you already know someone in my precinct who wants to work with me on this project, please ask them to be in touch with me.  

Otherwise, if the Democratic Party gives me information about residents in my precinct and indicates that it will support and encourage precinct-based organizing elsewhere, I will reach out to my neighbors to form a precinct club, with the understanding that my colleagues and I will provide the Party with updated voter information as we obtain it. 

Such initial efforts in my precinct and other precincts could serve as models that would motivate Democrats and the Party elsewhere to organize precinct clubs. 

So I would appreciate knowing your thoughts, which I may share publicly. 

Might you support year-round precinct organizing in San Francisco and encourage the entire Democratic Party to do the same? 

Sincerely,
Wade Hudson  wadehudson.net  415-722-5852

I also sent that email to thirty-one Democratic Clubs in San Francisco as well as numerous individual Democrats, with the following introduction:

Earlier today I sent the following email to Mary Jung, Chair of the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee.  

I’d be interested in your thoughts about these ideas and whether you might encourage the Democratic Party to undertake year-round precinct organizing.

As I receive responses to those communications, I’ll post them at http://www.wadeswire.org/?p=1580 as comments. 

Time is urgent. With enough grassroots energy rooted in a shared commitment, we could transform the Democratic Party into a vital, activist organization that: 1) fights effectively for progressive policies backed by a majority of the American people, and; 2) addresses local personal, social, and environmental needs that are currently neglected, including the need for more meaningful face-to-face community. 

The Party structure is already remarkably democratic. Rank-and-file Democrats elect leaders of the state Party, who elect the leaders of the national Party.  The door is open. All that is needed is for enough people with enough unity to walk through it. 

If Bernie decides to maintain tight control over his database (as did Barack) and use it only to support a few candidates here and there that he chooses to support (as he has done so far), he will diminish the prospects for building a participatory, self-organizing movement through the Democratic Party.

In Starr’s article, he reflects on how political parties have grown weaker, which undermines what any President can accomplish. He argues, “if progressives want large-scale, institutional change, they must rebuild the Democratic Party and animate it with a progressive agenda.”

Bernie has not yet clearly articulated a commitment to consistently pursue the transformation of the Democratic Party into a more democratic, progressive force rooted in the daily lives of ordinary Americans. If he chooses to do so, the possibilities are enormous. 

At the outset, no one predicted what Bernie would accomplish. If he plays his cards right, the future could be even more remarkable. Self-organizing precinct clubs within the Democratic Party could play a major role in the “political revolution.” 

Winning Is NOT Everything

Oakland Raiders’ owner Al Davis made “Winning is Everything” his team’s motto. That hyper-competitive spirit permeates American culture. It also afflicts political activism.

Activists tend to see issues as black-or-white. We divide the world into good guys and bad guys, blame individuals rather than the system, and launch personal attacks. Anger at oppression devolves into rage at individuals. Righteousness slips into self-righteousness. Self-confidence morphs into arrogance.

As if one side must always win, the mainstream media promotes simplistic polarization by labeling issues as either “left” or “right.” Cable networks magnify minor conflicts into bitter battles, the more vicious the better.

But most moral and political issues are ambiguous. especially when it’s impossible to predict the future. Drawing on gut reactions as well as rational analysis, we can only do our best to divine right action.

In campaigns, candidates focus too much on their own election. Barack Obama even once told workers in his Chicago office that his election would itself constitute “transformation.”

Another example is the contest between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Many partisans on each side believe defeat of their candidate would be a disaster. History, however, suggests the need for humility.

Any number of scenarios could produce a Republican president. Given that threat, despite the many flaws in the Democratic Party, we must elect the Democrat. And no one knows for sure whether Clinton or Sanders would be the stronger candidate. If Sanders is nominated, the Republican machine will hammer him on his weak points much more than Clinton has.

We might be better off if Bernie loses the nomination and helps to build a real grassroots organization as an “outsider.” Our greatest priority is to build a democratic, inclusive, national organization dedicated to systemic reform. Bernie could help with that.

With “Dear Bernie and Hillary: Transform the Democratic Party,” “Proposed: Year-Round Precinct Organizing,” and “Bernie’s Revolution,” I offered some ideas along that line. Other options are available as well.

Sanders’ supporters, who are better organized than the Tea Party was at its outset, could have even more of an impact on the Democratic Party than the Tea Party had on the Republican Party. A few victories in primary campaigns by candidates who support transforming the Democratic Party into a year-round activist organization would provide great leverage.

The Democratic Party structure is remarkably democratic. There’s no need to form a new organization. All we need is for enough people with enough unity to transform the Democratic Party, face-to-face, neighbor-to-neighbor, precinct-by-precinct.

Until I hear some substantial, convincing analysis of why a critical mass of like-minded people can not transform the Democratic Party, I’ll remain hopeful and follow through on my offer to my local Party to help build the Party in my precinct. Year-round precinct organizing could be fun, rewarding, educational for all, and perhaps a model for others.

Despair is a self-fulfilling circle. People don’t get involved because people don’t get involved. Precinct organizing could break that pattern. The need is urgent. The vision is compelling. Why not try?

Electing any one candidate is not everything. We can only do our best, stay even-keeled, and prepare for the long haul.

Proposed: Year-Round Precinct Organizing

If Bernie’s supporters follow his example and become involved in the Democratic Party year-round, and Hillary’s supporters practice what she preaches and promote kindness throughout society, “whether it’s to a friend, a neighbor, a colleague, a fellow student, or in the classroom, doctor’s office, or business,” as she put it, we can transform the Democratic Party and our nation into compassionate communities dedicated to promoting the general welfare.

Considering Bernie’s strength among young people, the future may be ours. The Democratic Party could lead a political revolution.

The Party’s structure is democratic and its membership is diverse. With some tweaks, grassroots activists can strengthen the Party.

Trying to form a new national organization or a third party would be much more difficult. We don’t have to establish a new decision-making process. We already have one.

The Democratic National Committee, which directs the Party, is composed of over 200 members elected by Democrats in all 50 states and the territories, as well as the chairs and vice-chairs of each state Party Committee who are elected by registered Democrats.

On the basis of one person, one vote, the national convention adopts the Party’s platform every four years. The latest platform is solid. But it can be improved to better reflect the will of the vast majority of the American people.

At present, the Party focuses almost entirely on electing Democrats to public office. It does not fight for its platform year-round by nurturing neighbor-to-neighbor relationships. With concentrated effort, we can turn the Party into an activist organization that serves unmet needs and fights for the Party’s platform throughout the year.

Nation-wide, political precincts (or voting districts) contain an average of about 300 registered Democrats. If ten or more of those 300 Democrats cultivate with one another cost-effective, potent, face-to-face connections, we can promote the common welfare and build the Party. If we are patient, persistent, and humble, we can empower one another and ourselves and grow a stronger sense of community with like-minded neighbors who engage in right action together.

Even in heavily Republican precincts, Democrats can work together to push for progress. One example is to act on the appeal from the national party to urge Senator McConnell to hold hearings on the President’s Supreme Court nominee.

By organizing precinct-based clubs, Democrats can get to know their neighbors through house parties, political action, and other rewarding activities. Possibilities include peer learning, public forums, registering voters, social events, mutual support, social service, and environmental cleanup, as well as get-out-the-vote during elections.

Most precinct club members might only participate in one monthly meeting (in a member’s home or community center) and work on one specific task between meetings. In addition, members with time available could engage in activities like volunteering together at a soup kitchen, participating in a political demonstration, helping one another compose a letter to an elected official, meeting with an official or their representative, becoming more familiar with their neighbors, welcoming newcomers, registering voters, organizing activities like a picnic, or raising funds to pay for special projects.

Each club would organize its own activities and share with the Party updated information about the residents in their precinct. At Party conventions, club members could gather in sessions to share notes about their efforts.

To promote year-round precinct organizing, Democrats can do one or more of the following:

• Sign the “Dear Bernie and Hillary: Transform the Democratic Party” letter  by posting a comment there or sending an email to <wadeATwadehudsonDOTnet>.
• Share this statement with friends and colleagues.
• Distribute and discuss these ideas at a Democratic county committee meeting.
• Let me know about any year-round precinct organizing already underway so I can share that information.
• Help develop one or more models by experimenting in your own precinct. Contact your local Party (as I have done) and tell them you want to work on organizing your precinct year-round. Perhaps they will give you their voter list for your precinct or connect you with someone who has it so you can start reaching out to neighbors.
• Report on the results of your efforts to me so I can facilitate horizontal communication between those who explore these possibilities.
• Vote for candidates for local and statewide Democratic Party positions who support year-round precinct organizing.

If this effort develops, we might post petitions (including one on the White House site directed to President Obama) and discuss these issues during campaign events. We might also circulate a pledge asking Democrats to promise to engage in precinct organizing if and when the opportunity arises.

Ideally, perhaps after the Democratic nomination is resolved, both Clinton and Sanders will encourage their supporters to get involved with year-round precinct organizing. Eventually, hopefully, the Democratic National Committee will invite every Democrat in their database to engage in consistent precinct organizing and ask them to help organize a club.

No one organization is the solution. We need many organizations that specialize on specific issues. But we also need one major coalition that enables us to overcome our fragmentation and occasionally unite behind a timely priority.

The American people need a bottom up, grassroots organization whose members help one another be all they can be and help this country live up to its ideals. The Democratic Party can be that organization -- a grand, inclusive coalition that enables neighbors to cultivate face-to-face community with one another.

Our situation is urgent. One way or the other, we must transform this nation into a compassionate community.

Dear Bernie and Hillary: Transform the Democratic Party (Draft)

Friends and Colleagues:

You’re invited to help rewrite the following letter to Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. 

Anyone with the link, https://goo.gl/FYjASx, can edit the document directly or insert a comment. 

Or you can email me feedback or post a comment here.

So far, Mary Hudson, and Roger Marsden have reviewed and offered (valuable) comments.

I believe the letter to Bernie and Hillary should be no more than 750 words. 

On Sunday, April 24, from 12 Noon - 6pm, I’ll hold an Open House in my apartment to discuss this project. Soup will be served. Everyone is invited. Please RSVP.

If sufficient support develops, we can launch a Kickstarter campaign to raise funds to print copies for distribution at campaign events during the June California primary. 

With this approach, we might bring these issues to the attention of Sanders and Clinton, dialog with them and their supporters, and have an impact on the Democratic Convention in July.

Thanks for your attention.

Yours,
Wade Hudson

+++++

Dear Bernie and Hillary: Transform the Democratic Party (Draft)

Throughout society, Americans are held back, beaten down, and suppressed. To counter that oppression, we urge you to call on your supporters to transform the Democratic Party into an activist organization whose members fight for the Party’s platform and build precinct-based communities that serve local, unmet needs year-round. 

Our society is run by individuals at all levels who aim to get as much money and power for themselves, their families, and their organizations as they can, regardless of consequences. 

Most Americans struggle to survive financially and focus on trying to gain some economic security. Many live so close to the edge, one emergency can push them over. Millions who want to work can’t find a job. Millions more work but still go hungry or become homeless.

Citizens don‘t have enough voice with their government. Workers don’t have enough voice in their workplace. Students and parents don‘t have enough voice in their schools. Worshippers don‘t have enough voice in their religious institutions. Clients don’t have enough voice in their social services. Victims of police brutality don‘t have enough voice in the criminal justice system. Consumers are manipulated by incessant advertising. 

Far too many people are abandoned, forsaken, locked up, or isolated with no close friends with whom they can confide about personal problems. Large numbers dull their pain with drugs or alcohol. Many are running faster without getting anywhere, taking in more information and processing it more quickly, without taking the time to listen to and understand one another. Some feel trapped. Others are drifting. Almost everyone seeks deeper meaning, wanting to make a significant difference in the world and help relieve suffering. 

Afflicted with economic anxiety, people become angry and take it out on scapegoats. We indulge in personal attacks and judge others based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or some other arbitrary characteristic. We impose labels that distort reality. We fall into either/or thinking. We become dogmatic and want to win ideological battles. 

Oppression damages the human spirit. The glorification of “winners” undermines the self-confidence, self-worth, self-acceptance, and self-empowerment of everyone else, who are considered “losers.”  The competitive pressure to climb the social ladder weakens the ability to collaborate as equals. 

The result is a divided society with divided selves who do not have the personal and collective power to threaten the status quo. 

To make this nation more democratic, we need a bottom up, grassroots organization whose members help one another be all they can be and help this country live up to its ideals. 
The Democratic Party could be that organization, a grand coalition. 

Registered Democrats elect Party leaders to local and statewide bodies, whose members elect leaders of the national Party. As such, it is democratic. But the Party focuses on elections, and merely electing Democrats is not sufficient. 

Between elections the Party does little to advance its platform and engages in little or no precinct organizing. Party activists who are elected to positions of power within the Party tend to defer to elected officials. Many of those activists are ambitious themselves and want to gain favor with elected leaders. Party leaders reduce members to functionaries who fit into the electoral machine. 

Given the will and discipline, a unified grassroots effort can change those patterns. Staying involved with the Democratic Party throughout the year, we can empower one another in our daily lives. We can nurture vibrant, compassionate communities by getting to know our neighbors and engaging in activities like peer learning, public forums, registering voters, social events, house parties, mutual support, and environmental cleanup, as well as get-out-the-vote during elections. Party members who share that commitment might create and join a new Party caucus to advance this project. Elected officials could use their office and their campaigns as organizing tools to grow community. And in primary campaigns, Democrats could back candidates who support this effort.

So we ask you, Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders, to endorse this statement and urge your supporters to help transform the Democratic Party and this nation into compassionate communities dedicated to promoting the general welfare. When we do, all Americans will benefit. 

692 words

Van Jones, CNN, Fascism, and the Republicans

When he lived in the Bay Area, I bumped into Van Jones, the CNN commentator, several times. On each occasion, he left a positive impression. To my mind, the most significant instance was during a book release party for Alternet.org. During the panel discussion, he said, “We need to be more con-fessional and less pro-fessional” -- that is, activists need to more frequently acknowledge mistakes, and pause professing our opinions. 

That is an extremely important point. Deep, strong feelings, including righteous anger and a sense of urgency, motivate activists. Too frequently, those feelings lead to self-righteous preaching rooted in arrogance, which can prompt us to try to forcefully persuade others to agree with us. That arrogance is wrong and counter-productive. Truth and justice call for humility and honest self-examination.

I’m glad to report that in one recent instance Van practiced what he preached. He made a mistake on CNN and when I pointed it out to him, he accepted my criticism. 

On two occasions, he said that in order to overtake Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders must win 60% of the remaining delegates. But according to my calculations, he only needs 54%, which is much more achievable. So, via Facebook and Twitter, I sent Van messages arguing that he was wrong. Given the high volume on his feeds, I was unsure he would ever see my messages, much less respond. But I feared that using the 60% number would discourage potential Bernie supporters, so I persisted. 

My first message, about which I assume Facebook sent Van a notification, read:

Van Jones did a great job on CNN last night, especially concerning the erosion of Hillary's African-American "firewall" and her potential vulnerability to Trump among white working class voters. But I believe he made a mistake when he said Bernie will need to win 60% of the remaining delegates. If the super-delegates switch away from Hillary as they did in 2008, that is not the case.

My second message read:

I don't understand why Van Jones continues to say that Bernie will need to win 60% of the outstanding pledged delegates to win. If he wins 53.6% of those delegates, he will have more than Hillary, with great momentum behind him. That could prompt superdelegates to switch, leading to a majority of those delegates to back Bernie. If they did not, they would have hell to pay.

I also posted:

Thanks, Van Jones, for squeezing in that final comment about Hillary saying Bernie had supported the Minutemen, and for earlier pointing out the cynicism of her saying he opposed the auto bailout -- and repeating it last night even after being so roundly criticized for it! Not only does such dishonesty hurt her relationship with Bernie, as you pointed out, it hurts her relationship with voters and potential voters.

Then, The New York Times reinforced that assumption about the superdelegates. So yesterday I posted a link to that article and the following comment:

Van Jones, the last sentence of this article reads, "Superdelegates generally support the candidate who receives the most pledged delegates." Please stop saying Bernie needs to win 60% of the remaining delegates. Adjust that interactive graphic, and it shows Bernie winning if he gets 54%, as I've said before. You're doing a great job on CNN, but you're wrong about that.

To that post, Van replied, “Ok. He has to get 55%, not 60% ... That's actually a significant distinction in the world of politics.” I responded, “Good to hear. Thanks.”

Moments after his first reply, Van also commented, “Thanks! Any other feedback, always welcome.”

That comment led me to post the following:

I appreciate the invite. 

In “Bernie’s Revolution” I wrote, “On a recent CNN post-election analysis, Van Jones suggested that Hillary is being effective by adopting ‘intersectionality,’ a term coined by Kimberle Crenshaw….” Was my memory correct on that point? If so, can you document an instance when Hillary has adopted an intersectional stance? 

It seems to me that merely presenting a list of “barriers” is not intersectional. Rather, one would need to discuss how those barriers interact in a systemic way. And though Hillary has at times talked about nurturing “love and kindness” throughout society, that theme also does not seem to be necessarily intersectional. And as I expressed in “The March 6 Disappointment,” it seems she articulates that theme only occasionally, and unfortunately has not done so during the debates. If she were sincerely committed to that perspective, it seems she would have talked about it during the debates.

Consequently, though your comments prompted me to re-evaluate her candidacy, I’m now less impressed with her “electability,” especially after her dishonest and cynical charges that Bernie opposed the auto bailout and supported the Minutemen, two claims you rightly strongly criticized. I fear the “honest” Trump would be stronger against the “dishonest” Clinton than he would be against Sanders, whose integrity is highly regarded.

I’m also concerned that Trump will appeal to white working-class voters with his attacks on the “free trade” agreements that Hillary supported. And he will more effectively tap the anger that is widespread. So, not even considering the looming email issue, it’s far from clear that Hillary is more electable.

And if Trump gets the nomination, he must be stopped. In recent decades, I’ve argued that the United States, with its deep libertarian bent, is unlikely to go fascist. But if we have one or two more major terrorist attacks on our soil, all bets are off. Trump or the next Trump could inflame the authoritarian, racist tendencies deeply embedded in at least one-third of the American people and use that passion to somehow seize power, as did Hitler who took over without a majority of votes.

Watching the violence at the Trump rally site in Chicago last night and the reporting on his encouragement of violence reinforced my fear, which prompted me to post on Facebook:  

Watching CNN coverage of violence at Trump rallies. Appreciate the good work they're doing, especially Van Jones. Glad that Cruz and Rubio strongly criticized the tone of Trump's rallies. Worried about the violence spiraling down. Sad, scary. Reminds me of Reagan saying, if they want blood let them have blood period, and how the American people supported him.

We must not forget that Nixon brought us to the edge of a police state with his Huston Plan, which called for suppressing “left-wing radicals” and the anti-war movement with domestic burglary, illegal electronic surveillance, opening the mail of domestic "radicals," and the creation of camps in Western states where anti-war protesters would be detained. Neither the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, or the National Security Agency objected to that plan to centralize intelligence operations in the White House. However, J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, saw it as a threat to his power and objected. Fortunately, the subsequent Watergate scandal undermined Nixon’s power play.

But let us not forget, as documented in the powerful film, “The Day the 60s Died,” that in 1970 most of the American people opposed the anti-war movement even more than they opposed the Vietnam War. So when the National Guard shot and killed protesters at Kent State and Jackson State, though those protesters threatened no lives, most Americans supported those actions.

Recalling that history, both in Germany (which faced a “threat” from “socialism” as we may here) and in this country in the late 60s, leads me to be very concerned about the nature of protest demonstrations. So when Van last night on CNN said , “I do not support the”shut it down” approach," I agree with him. Traditional nonviolent civil disobedience is both more moral and more effective.

While explaining that one reason protesters try to stop speakers from speaking is that they otherwise get little or no media coverage and that kind of disruption gets attention, Van recommended that protestors at Trump rallies make their statement early and then allow themselves to be peacefully arrested or removed.

No doubt many young people and their older supporters will tell me that as a white man, I am not entitled to make any such recommendations. But the threat of fascism impacts me as well, which gives me the right to speak. Trying to impose our opinions with anger-rooted force or stop others from speaking, even if it is with “nonviolent” force, can easily lead to a downward spiral. So us old folks who experienced that threat in the late 60s feel compelled to speak up. And I thank Van and CNN (who continues to call out Trump this morning) for giving voice to my concern.

The March 6 Disappointment

Last night’s Democratic Party debate reinforced my apprehensions about both candidates. Sanders still said nothing concrete about how he envisions his revolution being organized, and he stuck with his narrow focus on economics. And Hillary strengthened my mistrust and dampened the optimism concerning her that I expressed in  “Bernie’s Revolution.” 

On occasion, Hillary has challenged Bernie’s “single issue” focus and said that her campaign is about nurturing “love and kindness” throughout society. She recently told Buzzfeed:

I’ve been working for several months now on how to really inject this [“love and kindness”] more into my speeches at every turn, and to try to link it with my vision of where we can go in our country. And I’m hoping that I am getting closer to that. I’ve made some progress — not enough.

Reportedly, “Every so often, at a town hall or rally, there was Clinton, asking for more love and kindness.” Quoting a mentor, Marian Wright Edelman, the founder of the Children’s Defense Fund where Clinton began working in 1970, Hillary has often told audiences, “Service is the rent we pay for living. It is the very purpose of life and not something you do in your spare time.”

Melanne Verveer, one of Clinton’s closest advisers, said, “This has been a continuum with her. Nobody said to her, well, you should talk about community, and you should talk about service, and you should talk about how we should treat each other. I mean, that was fundamentally who she was. This is a woman who taught Sunday school. This is deeply who she is.” 

But last night, though she had ample opportunity to do so, she never used the words “love” or “kindness” and I heard nothing about the “intersectional” approach she has at times suggested. Even in her closing statement, she only said:

America didn't stop being great, we have to make it whole again. We have to knock down the barriers, we have to end the divisiveness, we have to unify the country,...knock down every barrier that stands in the way of America realizing its potential and every American having a chance to live up to his or her God-given potential. 

We have economic barriers…. We have barriers that stand in the way of quality health care…. We have barriers to education…. And I do want to take on the barriers of systemic racism. 

Then she merely presented policies that the government can adopt to eliminate those barriers. If she’s really committed to nurturing compassion throughout society, it seems she would have talked about it last night. The fact that she did not solidified my suspicion that she will say one thing to one audience and another to the next audience, and often not do the right thing after saying it.

The debate mostly consisted of wonkish policy disputes. There were some heartfelt moments. But by and large the event avoided personal issues, including the importance of underlying values and compassionate action in daily lives.  

The only time either of them came close to encouraging grassroots organizing was when Bernie thanked a Flint resident “for not being resigned to that horrendous situation, but being prepared to stand up and fight back.” Organizing a revolution requires more than individual, spontaneous action.

Unfortunately, Bernie embraced Hillary’s description of him as a “single-issue” candidate. He said, “My one issue is trying to rebuild a disappearing middle class.” If he’s going to focus primarily on economics, he needs a stronger mission statement than that.

I would prefer to hear something like the following from our Presidential candidates:

I am concerned about everyone who is held back or beat down, however and wherever it happens. I want to encourage and support the growth of a more compassionate society that empowers everyone, and enables everyone to live the good life. I ask not only what our governments can do for us; I also ask what can we do for each other. Increasing economic opportunity is one way to help achieve that goal. But it’s not the only method. We must more fully care for each other throughout society and organize new social structures that help us do that.

Until I hear those themes, my enthusiasm for any candidate will be limited.

I still don’t know who would be the strongest candidate in November. If Clinton develops her “love and kindness” theme convincingly and consistently, I might vote for her in the June California primary. But if the election were held tomorrow, I would vote for Bernie, if only to help him push his issues at the convention. 

In the meantime, I’ll continue to do what I can to foster “transformative politics” rooted in compassion and a commitment to serve the common good of the entire Earth Community.