The Democratic Stockholm Syndrome

This is an excellent and well articulated article that very accurately describes why it is that so many continue to be indoctrinated and pulled in by the obvious (to me and many others) destructive false narratives of the oligarchs, and again and again unknowingly voting against the best interests of us all. I keep coming back to wishing everyone would listen to Democracy Now! or read Thomas Franks' latest book Listen Liberal or seek out any number of other resources that move away from "opinion" and instead illuminate facts and truths. So imperative that we all take responsibility for informing ourselves. I'm a new grandmother yet again today, which fuels my passion even more for fighting for a better world for my grandchildren and children and all the children everywhere and for the next seven generations.

Bless us all ~ Molly

 __________

New Yorkers voted overwhelmingly for those holding their progress captive

by

Peter Bloom

Supporters of Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders cheer during a Sanders rally at Safeco Field in Seattle, Washington March 25, 2016. (Photo: Reuters)

After weeks of hard and increasingly heated campaigning, Hillary Clinton scored a decisive victory over Bernie Sanders in last night’s New York Democratic primary. Despite losing a majority of the state’s counties, she won in huge margins in New York City and the popular vote overall. The triumph was a potential serious blow to Sanders’ progressive momentum and a just as dramatic boom to her now seemingly inevitable march to the nomination.

"A funny thing happened on the way to the end of history – it started to change rapidly."

A crucial question in the wake of such a defeat is whether Sanders should continue to soldier onwards. He has both the resources and a vast amount of popular support to do so. Nevertheless, his often media cited path to the nomination just got significantly narrower and less straightforward.

Yet the fate of Sanders’ candidacy pales in comparison to the future success of the political revolution he is trying to create and ferment. What does losing the Empire state mean to the progressive movement he is helping to inspire? What does it say about its own long march to changing the country and the world?

A key takeaway from the Primary is that regardless of where the movement goes from here – it must recognize the affective hold that establishment Parties and candidates still have on voters, even those committed to and desiring of real change.

Kidnapped by the Establishment

A crucial narrative driving the Sanders’ candidacy is that he and his movement are the real standard-bearers for 21st century progressive values. While this may be substantively true, it misses how and why so many see Centrist Democrats like Clinton as their advocate even when they are so willing to betray them when in power. They represent a now established fantasy of incremental rearguard progress that seeks to inspire not by its idealistic ambition but its clear eyed “realism”.

In the wake of Reagan’s Conservative revolution, this narrative arguably made more sense. The writing appeared to be on the wall – Americans had chosen social conservatism and economic capitalism. The only answer for the mainstream left - always bordering on a contradiction in terms during the best of times - was to moderate the negative effects of this rightwing turn through a pronounced politics of moderation.

Yet a funny thing happened on the way to the end of history – it started to change rapidly. Once third rail issues of gay marriage and drug legalization became not only part of the public conversation but also increasingly the law of the land. The fight for a 15 dollar minimum wage began to gain traction and real legislative victories.

The immediate fear is that the Centrists will unfairly hijack these progressive triumphs to their political advantage. Already, Clinton has been rightly criticized for suddenly being at the forefront of the campaign for increasing the minimum wage – using its victory in New York as a photo-op for her campaign. More broadly, unions and progressive groups like theHuman Rights Campaign and Planned Parenthood have been critiqued for supporting Clinton despite her inconsistency on the issues that are most important to their members.

These objections are not, furthermore, overshadowed by the argument that Sanders has substantively moved Clinton and her ilk to the left policy wise. Undoubtedly he has changed the public debate. So too have movements like Black Lives Matter. This should not be underestimated. Yet even after a heated primary season, Clinton remains as hawkish on foreign policy as ever and only slightly less compromising on domestic issues.

Her victory would do more than simply put another middle of the road candidate into the Whitehouse. Indeed it would be worse in that while Clinton is an absolute opportunist domestically, she is a principled neo-con internationally. Still her victory would only be the symptom of a much more serious disease. It would represent the continued kidnapping of progress by the political establishment.

Please continue this article here: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/20/democratic-stockholm-syndrome?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork