Our Revolution: Yes; But First Some Questions

Following Bernie Sanders Almost Anywhere
[NOTE: Since writing this, the Web site Support Progressives has been brought to my attention. It creatively addresses many of the questions and concerns about Our Revolution discussed, below, in the sections on "Candidate Selection" and "Coalitions." -- N.J., Sept. 1, 2016]

[Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign] was a campaign about doing, not about being [president]. Indeed, he would reject his crowds' chants of "Bernie! Bernie!" from the beginning of the campaign through his Santa Monica rally two nights ago [June 7, 2016], by telling them that it is they, not just he, who are "part of the political revolution."

-- Nicholas Johnson, "On Being, Doing and 'Compromise;' What's Next for Senator Sanders' Revolution? Here's My Suggestion," June 9, 2016

Contents

So what's the current status of "Our Revolution"?

What Can Be Learned From the Web Site?

"Who's on first; What's on second"

God or Mammon, that is the Question

Governance

Candidate Selection

Coalitions

The Money

Transparency

Conclusion

Yes, Senator Bernie Sanders made it clear from the beginning of his campaign for the the Democratic Party's nomination for president. He was in this race for many reasons but, win or lose the Party's presidential nomination, the overriding reason was the creation of an ongoing organization, a political revolution to bring about the populist programs he had been advocating for at least 30 years. That organization now bears the name, "Our Revolution."

I had been involved in some way with every presidential election since 1948, but never before with the emotional and financial support I gave to the Bernie campaign. As some evidence, here's a list of some 14 blog essays I wrote, starting in June of 2015.

• "On Being, Doing and 'Compromise;' What's Next for Senator Sanders' Revolution? Here's My Suggestion," June 9, 2016
• "When 'The Morning After' Looks Even Worse," June 8, 2016
• "Searching for the Media's Soul," June 7, 2016
• "Why Won't Media Give Bernie a Break?" March 23, 2016
• "The State of the Media," February 28, 2016
• "Bernie's Extraordinary, Unacknowledged Accomplishment," February 3, 2016
• Why Nobody 'Wins' the Iowa Caucus," February 1, 2016
• "Caucus With Your Heart And Head -- For Bernie," January 28, 2016
• "Why I'm Caucusing for Sanders and You Should Too," January 22, 2016
• "Feeling the Bern at The Mill," December 9, 2015
• "Anyone for Democracy," November 22, 2015
• "Senator Bernie Sanders and America's 'Mainstream,'" July 25, 2015
• "Bernie's Media Challenge," June 19, 2015
• "Bernie! Why the 99% Should Support Bernie's Campaign," June 1, 2015

Now the primaries and caucuses -- and the Bernie Sanders for President campaign -- are over. On July 26, 2016, the Democratic National Convention delegates selected Hillary Clinton as their nominee for president of the United States. Notwithstanding his having run against Hillary -- with speeches noting the disparity between what each of them has chosen to fight for, and against, during the past 30 years -- Senator Sanders made the motion for her nomination at the Convention, endorsed her, and indicated he would campaign for her.

So what's the current status of "Our Revolution"?

The organization was officially "launched" with an hour-plus video stream into 2600 home gatherings across America the evening of August 24. David Weigel and John Wagner, "Bernie Sanders Launches 'Our Revolution With Electoral Targets -- and a Few Critics Left Behind," Washington Post (online), August 24, 2016.

Our Revolution is by now, among other things, a Web page: http://OurRevolution.com. I would have preferred it was an "org" (as I am: nicholasjohnson.org) rather than a "com." But a superficial search suggests "OurRevolution.org" may already be held by someone else. Hopefully, that's someone affiliated with OurRevolution.com, and confusion between the two can be controlled.

At the moment -- from July 26 through November 8 -- Our Revolution is in a kind of limbo. Bernie's enthusiastic throngs have nothing further they can do to get him elected. Many may end up voting for Hillary, but may feel that they never signed up to campaign for her. Moreover, 20 months into a 22-month presidential campaign season (Jan. 2015-Oct. 2016) most Americans inclined to political action have long since committed their time and other resources to presidential and other candidates for public office they probably want to stick with through election day.

After the votes have been counted in the national election on November 8th, and a presumptive president selected, Our Revolution's participants and programs can be more specifically self-selected.

Make no mistake, Our Revolution already has my support; it doesn't have to earn it, it just has to keep from losing it. I certainly want to give it a chance. But I do have some questions for which I will be seeking answers.

What Can Be Learned From the Web Site? The Web site opens with an invitation to "join," "Watch the Launch Event" (which occurred August 24) and to "Help five of our candidates win" with an option to click on "Take Action." Scrolling down further is an "In the News" section with three stories, including the August 29th announcement of an 11-person "board" chaired by Larry Cohen, former CWA President, 2005-15. Although at the "Launch Event" Senator Sanders named the organization's president (Jeff Weaver, formerly Sanders' campaign chair) and an executive director (whose name I can't find or recall), I was unable to find their names, descriptions -- or how and by whom they were chosen -- anywhere on the Web site. (That information may very well be there; it's just that I didn't see it.)

There are four locations on the Web site: About, Take Action, Issues, and Candidates -- along with a number of suggestions that we donate money.

"About" provides three general aspirations: "Revitalize American Democracy," "Empower Progressive Leaders," and "Elevate Political Consciousness."

"Take Action" promotes an anti-TPP project urging us to call and register our opposition with members of Congress. If you think to scroll down there are 7 state ballot initiatives for which a click will take you to the sponsoring organization's Web page or other information.

"Issues" reads like a party platform, itemizing and describing 18 policy areas familiar to Bernie supporters.

"Candidates" lists, with pictures, 62 presumably progressive individuals running for office (primarily state legislatures). A click on a candidate takes you to more information about each.

"Who's on first; What's on second." I'm sure things will become clearer with time, but at this point I'm reminded of the story of the city cousin who visited his country cousin's farm. Leaning against the fence, but wanting to be helpful, the city cousin inquires, "What can I do to help?" He's told, "Just grab a plow and start plowing."

That's about as much specific instruction as is provided those who "join" Our Revolution. Maybe that's enough. Look over the ballot initiatives; if there's one in your state, or elsewhere, that interests you check out its Web site and contribute money or other efforts to assist. Ditto for the candidates. Look 'em over. If you're willing to support one or more on the basis of the information provided, have at it.

But I would think there would be some reason to have a way of reporting back to someone what you did. With the links going directly to the Web sites of the ballot initiatives' organizations and candidates it would appear that's not going to happen. Even if one wished to report what was going on in one's hometown, or another location chosen for action, it's not clear to whom they would report or how.

God or Mammon, that is the Question. A more serious, fundamental question is the core heart and purpose of this organization. As California's Big Daddy Unruh was credited with observing, "Money is the mother's milk of politics." To run multiple local and statewide campaigns all across the country is going to require enormous sums of money. Will Bernie's followers be capable and inclined to provide it?

There's a big difference between an individual contributing money for a single candidate -- especially a presidential candidate, and more especially one like Bernie Sanders -- and contributing money to a fund diversified among 100 or more individuals running for everything from school board to U.S. Senate, candidates from distant cities whom one does not know and had no role in selecting.

The Web site shouts that Our Revolution is a Section 501(c)(4) organization (ineligible to provide donors a tax deduction). Is what is envisioned, in effect, just another PAC for millionaires and billionaires with progressive inclinations to give money subsequently distributed by Our Revolution staff members to candidates of their choosing? If so, I don't see that there is much role for the participation of at least most of what were once Bernie's enthusiastic followers.

I once asked Senator Hubert Humphrey what he told new U.S. Senators when they arrived. He said, "Nick, I tell 'em they have to give four years to the Lord, and then two years to get re-elected; four more years to the Lord, and then another two years to get re-elected."

Today's new senators are told, from their first day on the job, that it's six years of fund raising and campaigning to get re-elected, and then another six years to do it again. To make sure this happens, they are provided with targets for hours on the phone each day and week, and the sums they are expected to raise.

The question for Our Revolution is whether God and Mammon can co-exist; whether wealthy donors, and their large contributions, can co-exist with a progressive grassroots organization; and if not, whether either can bring about Our, or anyone else's, Revolution all by itself.

An insightful and fuller exploration of these and related issues can be found in Lambert Strether, "Is 'Our Revolution' the Way to Build Transformative Politics?" NakedCapitalism.com, August 30, 2016.

Governance. There is a literature regarding board governance. See, for reading suggestions, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "Board Governance: Theory and Practice," April 28, 2000.

Governance involves all stakeholders thinking through, agreeing upon, and putting in writing, the assignment of responsibilities, delegations, and the relationships between Senator Sanders, the Board chair Larry Cohen, other Board members, President Jeff Weaver, other administrative persons, staff, and Our Revolution "members."

For example, will board members be limited to providing direction, determining mission and goals, and overseeing a management information reporting system regularly disclosing accomplishments along a timeline toward measurable goals, or may they also involve themselves in some administrative decisions? Must all board statements and actions come from the entire board, acting as the board (including accompanying concurring or dissenting opinions), or can the chair -- or any individual member of the board -- speak on their own, whether to the president, a staff member, or the public?

Will the Board members create their own meeting agenda, or will "board meetings" become in effect "president's meetings" to which Board members are invited to attend for purposes of listening to reports from the president and other members of the staff? Will the president sit in on all board meetings, or are they just for board members -- and whomever else the board may invite to discuss a specific item at a single meeting?

What will be the day-to-day role of Senator Sanders with Our Revolution, given his responsibilities to his Vermont constituents and his Senate colleagues?

There is no one "right" way to answer these, and dozens of other challenging questions regarding governance. The only truly "wrong" way to proceed is to fail to identify, address, and resolve them as the board's very first order of business.

Candidate Selection. If the, or at least a, major purpose and strategy of Our Revolution involves the election of populist, progressive candidates "from school boards to the White House," a central process question is the way, the process, and the standards for Our Revolution's selection of those candidates. There is then the process question of what resources (whether campaign worker hours or money) will be provided these candidates, how much will be accorded each (and the standards for making those decisions), and what kind of oversight and regular reporting will be used.

Will the final decisions be made by Senator Sanders, the Board, its chair, the president, a staff group, a referendum of the members? How heavily will the decisions be influenced by major donors (if any)? Or will there be no such decisions? Will Our Revolution simply accept nominations from any of the above, put together a little information about each, post them on the Web site (as now), and leave it to members and donors to do the due diligence, and then put their time and money wherever they choose?

Or will there be a consensus as to who will receive Our Revolution's support, and will the goal be to limit the number of candidates to a number that can be supported (with workers and money) sufficiently to make a real difference in the outcome of their election? Will there be a preference for first-time candidates -- or for progressive incumbents in close races?

Will there be a preference for candidates whose polling numbers and other evidence indicate a real chance of winning, or is the goal to provide at least some token support and encouragement to as many first-time progressives as possible? What are the standards for deciding who is a "true progressive" worthy of Our Revolution's support?

Coalitions. Is it the goal of Our Revolution to be recognized as the single, preeminent, progressive policy and political organization in America? Or is the goal to bring some order and focus (on, say, electing progressive candidates) to the sometime chaos of America's progressive individuals, organizations, and media?

As the old saying has it, "There's no limit to what you can accomplish if you're willing to let others take the credit." Will Our Revolution be willing to stand by while "others take the credit"?

We've seen what splintered, underfunded, off-again-on-again efforts produce. What might a true coalition, a United Nations-style effort, be able to produce? What goals might be shared across all progressive organizations -- as was sort of the case with the coming together that was the Senator Sanders' presidential campaign -- while still leaving each organization to pursue its own other issues and strategic choices? (See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "Bernie's Extraordinary, Unacknowledged Accomplishment," February 3, 2016.)

The Money. I would be stunned if there was anything even mildly inappropriate, let alone illegal, in the way the money was handled in the Bernie Sanders campaign. But I also think transparency is even more important for Our Revolution. So I ask the following questions:

One of the most valuable assets of the campaign, and could be for Our Revolution, is the campaign's mailing list of donors, volunteers, and supporters. Has it been made available to the DNC, Hillary Clinton's campaign, other candidates? Are there plans to do so in the future? Who now has access to copies of this list? Will it become the main list for Our Revolution?

How much campaign money was left on July 26 -- the formal end of the Bernie for President campaign? What has happened to it? Has any gone to the Clinton campaign? The DNC, or other groups funding Democratic candidates (chosen by someone other than Senator Sanders)? How much has gone to candidates Senator Sanders supports? Is any used for his expenses while campaigning for Clinton? How much (if any) will ultimately be transferred into Our Revolution's resources?

Transparency. Transparency is important for any organization that requires the trust and support of its stakeholders. This is especially true for non-profit, progressive organizations. Members (and the public) need to know where Our Revolution's money is coming from, and what it's going to. Our Revolution needs to comply with the standards used by those evaluating non-profits. (A Google search on "evaluations of non-profit organizations' fundraising and salary expenses" brings up over 3.5 million hits.)

How do the salaries of Our Revolution administrators and staff, and expenses for Board meetings, compare with organizations of similar size? How do its expenses for fundraising, as a percentage of money raised, compare?

For Our Revolution, salaries and benefit packages are relevant to stakeholders not only because some may consider them "too high," but more likely because they might be thought to be "too low" -- given our "Issues" that focus on "Income Inequality," "A Living Wage," and "Creating Decent Paying Jobs."

And of course, Our Revolution being what it is, there will be member and public interest in the organization's employment practices with regard to gender equality, LGBT rights, and diversity of all kinds within the workforce.

Conclusion. There could be more, but there need not be. I'll simply close as I began: "Make no mistake, Our Revolution already has my support; it doesn't have to earn it, it just has to keep from losing it. I certainly want to give it a chance. But I do have some questions for which I will be seeking answers." What is spelled out above are some, illustrative, examples of those questions. Whether I hear from any Our Revolution administrators or staff or not, I'll keep looking for answers as I weigh whether Our Revolution has retained, or has lost, my support. (And see Roots Action's email and petition, "If It's Our Revolution, Let's Make It Better," Roots Action, August 31, 2016.)

# # #

On Being, Doing and 'Compromise'

What's Next for Senator Sanders' Revolution? Here's My Suggestion

In one way, what Sanders and Clinton will be doing is common at the end of spirited nomination battles. . . . Leading Democrats say that this time is different and potentially more difficult.

For one, Sanders operates outside the Democratic Party structure. He has run in Vermont as an independent and self-described democratic socialist. And although he caucuses with Democrats in the Senate, his ties to the institutional party are decidedly looser than were Clinton’s.

Even more important, however, is that his candidacy . . . generated great enthusiasm and spawned a powerful grass-roots movement made up of independents and others who do not identify with the Democratic establishment.

-- Philip Rucker and Dan Balz, "Next for Democrats: A Delicate Dance to Broker Peace Between Clinton, Sanders," Wasington Post (online), June 8, 2016.

For Sanders, as his remarkable White House bid runs out of next stops, the only question is when. Just as important for Sanders is how to keep his campaign alive in some form, by converting his newfound political currency into policies to change the Democratic Party, the Senate or even the country itself, on issues including income inequality and campaign finance reform. . . .

Clinton told The Associated Press in an interview, "I think it's time that we move forward and unite the party and determine how we are going to defeat Donald Trump, which is our highest and most pressing challenge right now." . . .

Sanders ended his final California rally with three simple words — "The struggle continues" — but his brief address in a Santa Monica airport hangar felt at times like a valedictory as he thanked supporters for "being part of the political revolution."

-- Erica Werner and Josh Lederman, "Sanders Under Pressure to Quit as Democrats Look to Unite," Associated Press, June 8, 2016.

"Being" and "Doing"

In 1960, fresh-faced in my early twenties, I arrived in Berkeley, California, to begin my career as a law professor at Boalt Hall, the University of California's College of Law. It was only two years of judicial clerkships after having been a law student. The offer had come from the Boalt Hall Dean, Bill Prosser -- a colorful torts guru, formerly only known to me as the author of my torts textbook.

I was so inexperienced, naive, and curious that I once simply asked Dean Prosser straight out, "What is it that law school deans actually do?"

He smiled and replied, "Nick, it is the job of the dean to do those things that even the janitor refuses to do."

His reply has stuck with me over the years as colleagues at Iowa, and friends elsewhere, have expressed interest in applying for law school or other deanships. Recalling that a department head has been described as "a mouse training to be a rat," I ask them, "Now tell me, is it that you really want to do what it is deans do, or is it just that you've always wanted to be a dean." When they reply, "I've just always kind of wanted to be a dean," I say, "Very well then; go and be a dean, but my guess is that in two or three years you'll decide you'd really rather do what it is professors do" -- as often later proves to be the case.

Being and Doing in Politics
And what applies to teachers and professors aspiring to be educational administrators goes ten-fold for politicians seeking ever "higher" public office. They may talk a good game regarding what they will do for their constituents once elected. It may all be disingenuous, or may be partially sincere, if naive. But for many, it's not what they want to do. The enormous effort and sacrifice that goes into campaigning is largely, even if not exclusively, an ego-driven desire to be -- a congressperson, senator, or president of the United States.

Clearly, Hillary Clinton has been a legitimate policy wonk -- from her early days on the board of Marian Wright Edelman's Childrens Defense Fund through her unsuccessful efforts with health care reform during her husband's presidency. (Ms. Edelman was later enraged by the harm to children from the Clintons' "welfare reform" efforts. Her husband, Peter Edelman, resigned his White House job over it.) And although her speeches now focus on Trump's less endearing qualities, as the Democrats' earlier presidential primaries moved on she certainly weaved into her stump speeches some of Bernie Sanders' substantive talking points, either in whole or in part.

But equally clearly, Clinton, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Party's Establishment, so-called "superdelegates," and their own major donors, have from the beginning of this year's presidential campaign devoted their efforts to what they wanted Hillary Clinton to be -- namely, president of the United States -- rather than what they wanted her to do. (That is, aside from some Wall Street backers who declared themselves to be quite comfortable with what she would do on their behalf). After all, some 400 superdelegates endorsed Clinton before the primaries even began. Their futures and fortunes depend upon a perpetuation of Establishment control. It's probably fair to assume she has wanted to be president since at least 2000, when she ran, and won, a Senate seat from New York -- if not decades before. At a minimum, since she actually ran for president in 2008, we know what she wants to be goes back at least eight years.

Compromise Requires Shared Values and Experience
Those who want to be elected officials, and the campaign advisers and staff who live to experience the excitement of helping them win, have much in common with each other. They know for every winner there's at least one loser. If they want to run again, or work again -- as most do -- they know that, regardless of how vicious the rhetoric the day before, once the winner is obvious it's time to make amends and fall in line.

Shared experience binds those in many professions, up to and including the military. Most military personnel support the Geneva Conventions -- a sort of "Golden Rule of War." They know what it's like to be a soldier, regardless of whose side you're fighting for. Perhaps one of the most dramatic proofs occurred during World War I. David Mikkelson, "Christmas Truce," Snopes.com.

During World War I, in the winter of 1914, on the battlefields of Flanders, one of the most unusual events in all of human history took place. The Germans had been in a fierce battle with the British and French. Both sides were dug in, . . ..

All of a sudden, German troops began to put small Christmas trees, lit with candles, outside of their trenches. Then, they began to sing songs. Across the way, in the "no man's land" between them, came songs from the British and French troops. [T]he Germans . . . were able to speak good enough English to propose a "Christmas" truce. . . .

A spontaneous truce resulted. Soldiers left their trenches, meeting in the middle to shake hands. [T]hey exchanged gifts. Chocolate cake, cognac, postcards, newspapers, tobacco. In a few places, along the trenches, soldiers exchanged rifles for soccer balls and began to play games.

It didn't last forever. In fact, some of the generals didn't like it at all . . .. After all, they were in a war. Soldiers eventually did resume shooting at each other. But . . . for a few precious moments there was peace on earth good will toward men.

Similarly, those who focus on "being in politics" can ultimately come together. Like James Carville and Mary Matalin, they can sometimes even literally intermarry across party lines. At a minimum, within one's party, so long as the winner is within the circle of reason, all party members can reasonably be expected to fall in line for the good of the party and support the winner. (Donald Trump is an example; he is so far beyond the borders of that circle of reason that even members of the Republican Establishment find it necessary to disassociate themselves from him, or at least criticize his actions and remarks.)

The Difficulties of Compromise Between Those Want to Be and Those Who Want to Do
The problem now, for those searching for compromise between Senator Sanders and the Democratic Party Establishment is that it's like trying to find a compromise between rabbits and alligators, bicycles and cruise ships, Iowa summers and snow.

He's just not that kind of politician. Of course, whatever he thought of his chances when he informally declared on April 30, 2015, he could not have been unmindful, as his number of pledged delegates increased along with the size of his crowds, that he might actually win the nomination. But this was not something he and Jane had spent their lives working toward. It was neither the goal of his life nor the centerpiece of his campaign. His was a campaign about doing, not about being. Indeed, he would reject his crowds' chants of "Bernie! Bernie!", from the beginning of the campaign through his Santa Monica rally two nights ago, by telling them that it is they, not just he, who are "part of the political revolution."

Sanders' campaign was just the latest in a lifetime of doing and saying, blending the analysis from his brain with the warmth in his heart, that government can, and should, focus on the needs of the least of us. He was, and is, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist. He has been advocating the same things over the past 30 years as he was talking about for the last 13 months. His core beliefs, his consistency, authenticity and caring, his desire to build a revolution that could change our government and improve our lives, was not only at the center of his appeal to the millions in his campaign, it is what has made him the single U.S. senator with the highest approval rating from his constituents -- 83%. He had the highest positives among all the candidates. (Clinton and Trump had the highest negative ratings.) He got the largest crowds, the greatest enthusiasm. He was the favorite, not only among the young, first time voters, but those under 45 years of age -- the people any party needs to build its long term growth.

Put aside the Democratic Party's mistakes -- with Party membership down to 29% of the voters, it needs someone who can attract the independents, new voters (and even Republicans) it often excludes from its primaries. It needs someone who is viewed as a genuine advocate by the poor, working poor, working class, and trade union members -- once the Party's natural, winning constituency. It needs to be able to project the prospect of real change, rather than perpetuation of Establishment control, to the millions involved with the Tea Party, Occupy Movement, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders' campaigns. Everything the Party's leaders do to trivialize, ridicule, and reject Sanders' campaign and proposals, cutting back on opportunities for debates, treating him as a spoiler, putting roadblocks in his way, urging him to abandon his campaign, only drives home the message that the Democratic Party not only does not really care about the less fortunate, it affirmatively rejects those who do.

Why Bernie Cannot, Should Not, and Need Not "Endorse" Hillary -- But Can Still Help Elect Her
While conventional politicians can turn on a dime and start endorsing the opponents they've spent a primary season excoriating, those who are leading "revolutions" cannot. For Bernie to now "endorse" Hillary Clinton -- the poster grownup embodying all he finds objectionable in a politics favoring the rich -- would be the end of his revolution. It would be like Dr. Martin Luther King finishing a speaking tour opposing the Viet Nam War, and then announcing he had just accepted a job as spokesperson for a major defense contractor.

Moreover, whatever Senator Sanders does or doesn't say or do about Hillary Clinton's campaign is not likely to have much impact on his "revolutionaries." Some will end up writing in his name. Some will vote Green, Libertarian -- or even Trump (the Washington Post reports 9% will do so; others report as high as 20%, and 44% in West Virginia). Some will leave their ballot's presidential choice blank. Some will stay home. Some will formally resign from the Democratic Party. And some will end up voting for Hillary Clinton.

Sanders should certainly be permitted to actively participate in the D.C. Primary, June 14. He should be permitted to continue making the case to superdelegates, to and throughout the Democratic National Convention, July 25-28, that if they really want to beat Donald Trump -- more than they want to perpetuate the Democratic Party Establishment from which they feed -- they might want to consider the poll results showing how much stronger a candidate he is against Trump than Clinton.

Does this mean he should continue to criticize Clinton by name, even after she has actually, in fact, been nominated by the Convention? Of course not; nor need he do so. What he can do, indeed has already indicated he will do and has begun to do, is to help her cause by campaigning against Trump -- while continuing to spread his lifelong message, and falling short of doing anything reasonably considered an "endorsement" of a candidate who represents much of what he's been fighting against throughout his life. A significant "detail" in this connection is what happens to Sanders' lists of supporters (the email list) and donors. To simply turn them over to the Clinton campaign would also, legitimately, be seen as a betrayal of a movement challenging much of what the Democratic Party Establishment stands for and does. Perhaps a compromise, if one is thought to be needed, could be an "opt-in" email to supporters -- a sort of, "If you wish to remain on the Bernie Sanders list, and not have your name shared with the Clinton campaign, do nothing. If you wish to have your name and information shared with the Clinton campaign, click here. If you wish to be removed from the Bernie Sanders list click here."

That's the best win-win-win that occurs to me -- for Clinton, Sanders, and the followers of both. That doesn't force him to appear a turncoat to his followers -- thereby reducing further any influence he might otherwise have with them -- while assisting Clinton by beating on Trump. It holds his revolution as together as possible following his failure to win the nomination -- its emailing lists and crowd funding network -- enabling his and his followers' ability to affect the election of progressive candidates and lobby Congress (and the White House) following the election.

# # #

Caucus With Your Heart and Head -- for Bernie

Why I'm Caucusing for Sanders

Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette
January 26, 2016, p. A8
Some 40 years ago in Washington, D.C., I agreed to host a series of TV interviews with presidential candidates. Questioning the first few proved problematic. Their responses to questions seemed to come from tape cassettes implanted in their skulls. They’d heard the questions before, and we’d heard their answers.

How to make their performances more revealing? The possibilities of someone tipping over a candidate’s chair, or unexpectedly throwing them a baseball, were attractive but rejected by the producer.

The ultimate solution was found in a question I have put to presidential candidates then, and throughout the years since, often in Iowa living rooms. “Senator, let’s make two assumptions. One, those of us here think you are ‘right on the issues.’ And two, you are elected president. Now tell us, why will coal mine owners have less ability to maintain coal miners’ unsafe working conditions than they do now?” (One could substitute the military-industrial complex’s control of defense budgets, or oil company subsidies.)

Some candidates would stare blankly. Some would become angry. Apparently, few if any had ever thought about the problem, and none offered a solution.

When I put the question to Senator Barack Obama in 2007, he replied, “Well, Nick, I’ve been a community organizer.” I’d visited with Saul Alinsky and read his books. Both Obama and I were familiar with Heather Booth’s Midwest Academy in Chicago, where I’d learned community organizing. I too quickly leapt to the conclusion that Obama got it. He would become our national community organizer-in-chief! I was mistaken.

Senator Sanders not only gets it, he makes it explicit. He rejects chants of “Bernie, Bernie” by saying, “this is not about ‘me,’ it’s about ‘we.’” “This campaign is about creating a movement of millions of Americans fighting to transform our country with demands that government represent all of us,” he’s said.

Of course, like most Americans, I like his specific proposals — increased minimum wage, health care for all, higher taxes on the wealthy, avoiding unnecessary wars, tuition-free college, jobs improving infrastructure, and many more.

But far more important than the specifics is his belief that government should serve all the people, the socio-economic bottom as well as the top 1 percent. That a government of the major donors, by the lobbyists, for the wealthy is not what the founders had in mind. That when candidates of either the Democratic or Republican parties’ establishments talk of proposals, the results look a lot more like capitulation in the cause of campaign contributions than compromise on behalf of the American people.

Of course, I’m impressed with the more conventional things said about Sen. Sanders. His authenticity. His enormous, enthusiastic crowds, and millions of supporters. That he not only talks against Wall Street and PAC funding, he walks the walk by refusing their money — while raising enough from small donors. He’s had experience as a mayor, congressman and senator, one who understands the federal government’s working and impact. Up against Republican candidates, he’s as easily (or more) electable as the others. He has the best “unfavorable” numbers.

But most important to me? His lifelong advocacy that governments exist for the 99 percent. His ability to answer my 40-year-old question; his knowledge of what’s required before a government can serve the people. A campaign that’s already begun building that citizen organization.

Are you in the 1 percent? There are establishment candidates for you. If not, whether Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Green, it serves your interest and mine if Sen. Sanders’ vision and voice comes booming out of Iowa’s precinct caucuses, loud and clear across America throughout 2016. It’s up to you.
__________
Nicholas Johnson of Iowa City has held presidential appointments during the administrations of three U.S. presidents, and been involved in presidential elections since 1952. He maintains nicholasjohnson.org and FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com. Comments mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

[This column appeared online as Nicholas Johnson, "Why I'm Supporting Bernie Sanders for President," The Gazette (online), January 26, 2016, 10:51 a.m.]

____________________
Why Support Sanders

Nicholas Johnson
The Daily Iowan
January 28, 2016, p. A4
This is the story of how I came to support Sen. Bernie Sanders. It’s a true story — or at least as true as a fading memory can provide.

Some 40 years ago in Washington, I agreed to host a series of TV interviews with presidential candidates. Questioning the first few proved problematic. Their responses to questions seemed to be coming from tape cassettes implanted in their skulls. They’d heard the questions before, and we’d heard their answers.

How to make their performances more revealing? The possibilities of someone tipping over a candidate’s chair or unexpectedly throwing them a baseball were attractive but rejected by the producer.

The ultimate solution was found in a question put to presidential candidates then, and throughout the years since, often in Iowa living rooms. “Senator, let’s make two assumptions. One, those of us here think you are ‘right on the issues.’ And two, you are elected president. Now tell us, why will coal-mine owners have less ability to maintain coal miners’ unsafe working conditions than they do now?” (One could substitute the military-industrial complex’s control of defense budgets or oil-company subsidies.)

Some candidates stared blankly. Some became angry. Apparently, few if any had ever thought about the problem, and none offered a solution.

When I put the question to Sen. Barack Obama in 2007, he replied, “Well, Nick, I’ve been a community organizer.” I’d visited with Saul Alinsky and read his books. Both Obama and I were familiar with Heather Booth’s Midwest Academy in Chicago, where I’d learned community organizing. I too quickly leapt to the conclusion that Obama got it. He would become our national community organizer-in-chief. I was mistaken.

Sanders not only gets it, he makes it explicit. He rejects chants of “Bernie, Bernie” with “this is not about ‘me,’ it’s about ‘we.’ ” “This campaign is about creating a movement of millions of Americans fighting to transform our country with demands that government represent all of us,” he has said.

I like his proposals for increased minimum wage, health care for all, avoiding unnecessary wars, tuition-free college, justice for African-Americans, and equal pay for women, among others.

I’m impressed with his authenticity, enthusiastic crowds, rejection of PACs, and funding a campaign with millions of supporters making $27 average contributions. He’s had experience as a mayor, congressman, and senator. He understands the federal government’s working and impact. Up against Republican candidates, he’s as (or more) electable than the others. He has the highest Net favorability numbers.

But most important to me? His belief that a government of the major donors, by the lobbyists, for the wealthy is not what the founders had in mind. That the establishment’s proposals, whether from Democrats or Republicans, look a lot more like capitulation in the cause of campaign contributions than compromise on behalf of the American people.

It’s his lifelong advocacy that governments exist for the 99 percent; his knowledge of what’s required before a government can serve the people — that the people must lead before their leaders will follow. His campaign has begun building that citizen organization.

Are you in the 1 percent? You have many establishment candidates to choose from. Otherwise, whether you’re a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Green, it serves your interest and mine if Sanders’ vision and voice comes booming out of Iowa’s precinct caucuses, loud and clear.

[This column appeared online as Nicholas Johnson, "Why I Support Sanders," The Daily Iowan (online), January 28, 2016.

Earlier, yet a third variation of this material appeared in the Iowa City Press-Citizen as as Nicholas Johnson, "Sanders the Right Democrat for Caucus," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 21, 2016, 4:04 p.m., and in the hardcopy edition as Nicholas Johnson, "Sanders the Right Democrat for Caucus," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 22, 2016, p. A7, a copy of which is embedded in this blog site in an entry headed, "Why I'm Caucusing for Sanders and You Should Too," January 22, 2016.]

# # #

Why I'm Caucusing for Sanders and You Should Too

Sanders the Right Democrat for Caucus

Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 22, 2016, p. A7
This is the story of how I came to support Sen. Bernie Sanders. It’s a true story — or at least as true as a fading memory can provide.

Some 40 years ago in Washington, I agreed to host a series of TV interviews with presidential candidates. Questioning the first few proved problematic. Their responses to questions seemed to be coming from tape cassettes implanted in their skulls. They’d heard the questions before, and we’d heard their answers.

How to make their performances more revealing? The possibilities of someone tipping over a candidate’s chair, or unexpectedly throwing them a baseball, were attractive but rejected by the producer.

The ultimate solution was found in a question put to presidential candidates then, and throughout the years since, often in Iowa living rooms. “Senator, let’s make two assumptions. One, those of us here think you are ‘right on the issues.’ And two, you are elected president. Now tell us, why will coal mine owners have less ability to maintain coal miners’ unsafe working conditions than they do now?” One could substitute the military-industrial complex’s control of defense budgets, or oil company subsidies.

Some candidates would stare blankly. Some would become angry. Apparently, few if any had ever thought about the problem, and none offered a solution.

When I put the question to Sen. Barack Obama in 2007, he replied, “Well, Nick, I’ve been a community organizer.” I’d visited with Saul Alinsky and read his books. Both Obama and I were familiar with Heather Booth’s Midwest Academy in Chicago, where I’d learned community organizing. I too quickly leapt to the conclusion that Obama got it. He would become our national community organizer-in-chief! I was mistaken.

Sen. Sanders not only gets it, he makes it explicit. He rejects chants of “Bernie, Bernie” with “this is not about ‘me,’ it’s about ‘we.’” “This campaign is about creating a movement of millions of Americans fighting to transform our country with demands that government represent all of us,” he’s said.

Of course, like most Americans, I like his specific proposals — increased minimum wage, healthcare for all, higher taxes on the wealthy, avoiding unnecessary wars, tuition-free college, jobs improving infrastructure and many more.

But far more important than the specifics is his belief that government should serve all the people, the socioeconomic bottom 50 percent as well as the top 1 percent. That a government of the major donors, by the lobbyists, for the wealthy is not what the founders had in mind. That when candidates of either the Democratic and Republican parties’ establishment talk of proposals, the results look a lot more like capitulation in the cause of campaign contributions than compromise on behalf of the American people.

Of course, I’m impressed with the more conventional things said about Sen. Sanders. His authenticity. His enormous, enthusiastic crowds, and millions of supporters. That he not only talks against Wall Street and PAC funding, he walks the walk by refusing their money, while raising enough from small donors. He’s had experience as a mayor, congressman and senator, one who understands the federal government’s working and impact. Up against Republican candidates, he’s as equally electable as the others. He has the best “favorability” numbers.

But most important to me? His lifelong advocacy that governments exist for the 99 percent. His ability to answer my 40-year-old question; his knowledge of what’s required for a government to serve the people. A campaign that’s already begun building that citizen organization.

Are you in the 1 percent? There are establishment candidates for you. If not, whether Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Green, it serves your interest and mine if Sen. Sanders’ vision and voice come booming out of Iowa’s precinct caucuses, loud and clear across America throughout 2016. It’s up to you.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson of Iowa City has held presidential appointments during the administrations of three U.S. presidents, and been involved in presidential elections since 1952. He maintains nicholasjohnson.org and FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.

# # #

Feeling the Bern at The Mill

December 6, 2015

[Looking for ""Regents, UI, and Bruce Harreld Resources"? -->Click Here<--]

Note: On Sunday evening, December 6, Bernie lovers, music lovers, speakers and musicians gathered at The Mill in Iowa City for music and talk.

Here's a video of Dave Moore's song, -->"Feelin' the Bern,"<-- played at the Rockin' the Bern event (but recorded in this video earlier). It ought to be the campaign's theme song!

I was one of those asked to speak, and opened the evening with energized remarks along these lines.

Rockin the Bern
Nicholas Johnson
Are you feeling the Bern?

Let's show our appreciation for those who made this evening possible: Mike Carberry, Matt Grimm, and Bernie staffers Nate Rifkin and Kate Revaux.

I've been involved in presidential campaigns since Harry Truman's victory in 1948, when my social studies teacher, John Haefner, came to class the next day displaying the Chicago Tribune page-one headline, "Dewey Defeats Truman." That was my first awareness of the role of media in the political process.

As it happened, President Truman would later be the first U.S. president that I would meet in the White House.

So my role here this evening is to provide a little historical context, and to bear witness that those my age do not hold Senator Sanders' relative youth against him. In fact, we're very impressed with how much he's learned in such a short time.

So why Bernie?

It's not that presidents since Truman have given us nothing. President Eisenhower gave the country that great socialist interstate highway system. We even have a stretch of it in Iowa City. President Kennedy started the Peace Corps. President Lyndon Johnson, for whom I worked, provided a package of civil rights and remedies. Even President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. OK, so since President Reagan it's been kind of a slow slide down.

But you get my point. For 67 years I’ve been waiting for a presidential candidate who would offer us not merely a few crumbs of progressive legislation, but would turn the entire political dialog, and role of government, away from a to-get-along-go-along compromise and stalemate, dominated by major donors and their puppets. Someone who would turn our entire government and national political dialogue on all public policy issues a full 180 degrees -– to programs of, by and for the people, programs that start with service to the public rather than the 1%, programs designed to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

That is why I responded to Senator Sanders as I have.

Of course, I like his specifics proposals: tuition-free college, paid maternity leave and child care, a full employment economy tending to our nation's infrastructure, universal single-payer healthcare, a living wage, Wall Street reform, and taking the corruption out of our current campaign finance system.

That last one is central to all the rest. And he lives it. He's running this campaign without the money from billionaires' PACs. And that's one of the reasons he, and I, encourage you to make regular monthly contributions to his campaign. Don't give more than you can afford, given your income and other demands -- even if it's no more than $5.00 a month. But the Bernie campaign needs income every month because it has expenses every month -- just like you and me. And if he's not going to get that income from the 1% then those of us in the 99% have to provide it.

But more than his specific proposals is his totally different orientation, his 180-degree reverse direction toward a government focused on what is best for all the American people. It is the very different way of thinking about government that I have been hoping for during the last 67 years.

It is so important that we keep this approach to government in our public political discussion. And that is why I urge every Iowan -- Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Independents -– regardless of who your favorite candidate may now be, to come out and caucus for Bernie. You’ll still get to vote next November for whoever the parties’ nominees may be. But between now and those national nominating conventions next year it is in the best interest of every American in the 99% to make sure all of the presidential candidates continue to hear both his unique message and our roar of support from Iowa.

Thank you.

_______________
For additional blog essays regarding Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, see:

"Bernie!", June 1, 2015

"Bernie's Media Challenge," June 19, 2015

"Senator Bernie Sanders and America's 'Mainstream,'" July 25, 2015

Bernie Shirts August 27, 2015

# # #

Senator Bernie Sanders and America's 'Mainstream'

July 25, 2015, 8:45 a.m.

Like Mark Twain's Mississippi River, the "Mainsteam" Has Shifted
Contents
Face the Nation Exchange

Senator Sanders' Uniqueness

The Media's Problem with Senator Sanders

Senator Sanders' Positions

Just Where Is America's Mainstream?

Conclusion

Face the Nation

JOHN DICKERSON: What do you think . . . of Bernie Sanders and his challenge to Hillary Clinton? . . .

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: . . . [H]ere you have got one of the most liberal people in the Democrat Party running against Hillary Clinton . . ..

DICKERSON: What does it say about the Democratic Party?

BOEHNER: That they're out of step with mainstream America.
. . . SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: All right. Well, let me respond to that issue by issue. And you determine who is out of the mainstream.

I want to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. A recent "Wall Street Journal" poll said a majority of the American people want to do that. . . . [M]any of [Speaker Boehner's] members want to do away with the concept of the minimum wage.

I want to see this country expand Social Security benefits, not cut them. John Boehner, his party, want to either privatize Social Security or cut Social Security benefits to the elderly and disabled vets. . . .

I want to create millions of jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. And I have introduced legislation to do that. [The] Republican Party is very reluctant to spend a nickel to rebuild our infrastructure.

DICKERSON: Senator, you ...

SANDERS: I want -- so, I think in terms of who is out of touch with the American people, I would say the Republican Party is. They want to give tax breaks to billionaires, not help the middle class.

-- "Face the Nation Transcripts, July 12, 2015: Boehner, Sanders, Cotton,"

.
Senator Sanders Uniqueness
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont sent out a letter in June 2015 explaining why is is running for president. This is a serious campaign, make no mistake. But it is otherwise relatively unique among presidential campaigns in general -- and amongst this year's mob of candidates in particular. See generally, "Bernie! Why the 99% Should Support Bernie's Campaign," June 1, 2015.

Sanders is neither someone who runs every four years, nor someone running the first time who has hired expensive, professional campaign managers, media manipulators, pollsters, and fundraisers who tell him what to say and do. For starters, he won't take money from billionaires, PACs, or others seeking to enrich themselves through their campaign contributions. (Years ago I once calculated such contributors get a 1000-to-one to 2000-to-one return on their money; give a million dollars, get a billion dollars or more in return: "Campaigns: You Pay $4 or $4000," Des Moines Register, July 21, 1996. I simply assume, with today's $1 billion-plus campaign seasons and unlimited Citizens United corporate contributions, it's probably worse.)

Even more important, he neither engages in new-found, crafted slogans, nor does he change positions with the political winds. Senator Sanders is still saying what he has been saying all his life as mayor, as a member of Congress, and as a U.S. Senator. "Authentic" is a word often used by political junkies who have spent their lives in a world of political "shuck and jive" and are now hearing Sanders for the first time.

He's not a college professor (though he could be). He's a politician running for the presidency. But he believes democracies are supposed to serve the 99%, not just the 1%, and that in order to do that campaigns need to include serious efforts to explore and resolve the more serious challenges facing the people, and to build the multi-million-member political organizations that will make possible the implementation of solutions.

The Media's Problem with Senator Sanders
This poses a double-barrelled problem for the media -- and therefore for Senator Sanders.

First, the media's owners are, by definition, well within the 1%. They have every possible financial, political, ideological, and social motive to try to prevent him being taken seriously. Savvy media employees who wish to stay employed can't help but be aware of the advantages offered them if they will cut back on or eliminate coverage of him (see description of the shameful exclusion of him by "Meet the Press" in "Bernie's Media Challenge," June 19, 2015), and when unavoidable (perhaps because he is getting the largest number of contributors and audience members of any candidate) diminish his reputation with ridicule, marginalization, and dismissal as "a socialist" whose views are "out of the mainstream."

Second, with rare exceptions, profit-driven media do not have the space or time, or a sufficient number of highly educated, informed and analytical journalists, to present lengthy print, online, or televised discussions of major public policy issues in a way that will involve, inform, and hold an American audience. (See "Three-Legged Calves, Wolves, Sheep and Democracy's Media," Dec. 1, 2014.) Thus, even if media owners were supportive of Senator Sanders' views, they aren't really set up to present anyone's views at length. Thus, political coverage tends to focus on fundraising (e.g., Senator Rand Paul's mediocre contributions; Jeb Bush's $100 million), poll results (e.g., leading Republicans excluded from Fox News debate), gotcha moments (e.g., Governor Rick Perry's 2012 "oops" moment), the bizarre (e.g., Donald Trump's behavior, characterized by Dan Rather as somewhat similar to "a manure spreader in a windstorm"), physical appearance (e.g., the Donald's hair; women's clothing), and those portions of candidates' past history they'd rather forget (e.g., Hillary Clinton's Arkansas Whitewater, 1990s healthcare efforts, Benghazi, 50,000 emails).

Senator Sanders' Positions
So what is this establishment-bucking Senator Sanders talking about? That brings us back to the June letter referenced above. This is certainly not the only written source, you should also check his campaign Web site generally, BernieSanders.com (Issues).

For now, here is just a brief summary of the headings for the topics he touches upon: jobs, wages, income inequality, progressive taxation, Wall Street reforms, campaign finance alternatives, climate change, universal single-payer health care, poverty programs, college for all, opposition to endless war, and finally "a political revolution." Here is where you can read a pdf of the entire Bernie Sanders' June 2015 3-1/2-page letter. A more current (yesterday) comparable and updated statement was included in a July 24, 2015, email from the campaign which you can read here.

Just Where is America's Mainstream?
Which brings us back to the question of whether his proposals position him in or out of the mainstream. The problem with conducting that inquiry without data, of course, is that the discussion tends to disintegrate into 'tis-'taint shouting matches.

That's why it seemed to me useful to find out precisely what recent polling on Americans' views actually reveals on the matter. Here are some of those results, either directly from the polling organization or as reported by others:

Josh Hakinson, "America's Views Align Surprisingly Well With Those of 'Socialist' Bernie Sanders," Mother Jones, May 19, 2015 (Wealthy should pay more taxes -- 68%; Close offshore tax havens -- 85% (small business owners); Public funding of elections -- "half" Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions - 64%; Universal single-payer healthcare -- 50%+; Breaking up big banks -- 58%; Free community college (2 years) -- 63%; Oppose fast-track for TPP trade deal -- 61%; Raising minimum wage to $15/hour -- 63%; Make union organizing of workers easier -- 53%; Expansion of Social Security and Medicare -- "majorities")

Philip Bump, "Bernie Sanders Says Americans Back His Agenda -- and He's Mostly Right," The Washington Post, June 12, 2015 (Support infrastructure spending -- 50%; Trade restrictions to support domestic industries -- 50%; High quality preschool programs -- 50%; College student loans, lower costs, longer to pay off -- 50%)

Drew Desilver, "State of the Union 2014: Where Americans Stand on Key Issues," Pew Research Center, Jan. 27, 2014 (Dissatisfied with income inequality -- 67%; One year extension of unemployment benefits -- 63%; Path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants -- 71%). And see, Drew Desilver, "5 Facts About Social Security," Pew Research Center, Oct. 16, 2013 (support for increases varies by party).

"Poll: Most Americans Support Raising Investment Taxes for Wealthy; More Than Two-Thirds Say the Rich Pay Too Little in Federal Taxes, Most Back Obama's Proposed Tax Hike on Investments,"> Associated Press-GfK Poll, Aljazeera America, Feb. 23, 2015.

Senator Elizabeth Warren presented comparable numbers in a recent speech as evidence that a majority of Americans can, in fact, be accurately labeled as "progressives."

• Last November, when Democrats across the country had a terrible day, four -- four -- Republican states voted to raise their minimum wage. In South Dakota, 55% of voters supported a minimum wage increase. In Nebraska, 59%. Arkansas, 66%. And in Alaska, 69%. That shouldn't surprise anyone: 70% of Americans across this country support an increase of the federal minimum wage to at least $10.10 an hour. Republicans may vote to keep workers in poverty, but on minimum wage, the American people are Progressives.

• Progressives believe that students shouldn't be crushed by debt and the federal government should not make a profit on student loans. And so do 73% of Americans. Beltway Republicans may vote to stomp on people who are deep in debt, but on student loans, the American people are Progressives -- and to them debt-free college sounds pretty darn good.

• Progressives believe people should be able to care for sick family members without fear of losing their jobs, and so do 80% of Americans. Republicans may pander to their big business pals, but on paid sick leave, the American people are Progressives.

• Progressives believe that millionaires and billionaires should pay the same tax rates as their secretaries, and so do two-thirds of all Americans. Republicans may support special breaks for the rich and powerful, but on tax fairness, the American people are Progressives.

• Progressives believe that after a lifetime of work, people deserve to retire in dignity and that means a commitment to strengthening and expanding Social Security -- and 79% of likely voters in last year's election also supported increasing Social Security benefits. Republicans may try to cut benefits, but on Social Security, the American people are Progressives and they are ready to take on the retirement crisis in this country.

• Progressives believe in trade, but not the kind written behind closed doors by corporate lawyers that leave American workers eating dirt. Nearly two-thirds of Americans favor some sort of trade restrictions, and more than half oppose fast tracking trade deals. Republicans -- and some Democrats -- may want to make it easier for multinational corporations to ship jobs overseas, but on trade, the American people are Progressives.

• Progressives believe that powerful corporations and billionaires have far, far too much influence over our politics and their stranglehold over our government rigs the game. Nearly three-quarters of America agrees. Republicans may cozy up to their billionaire sugar-daddies, but on campaign finance and Washington reform, the American people are Progressives.

• Progressives believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher legal enforcement -- and that, five years after Dodd-Frank -- it's time to stop pretending and really end "too big to fail" with rules like the Glass-Steagall Act. And 79% of Americans believe Wall Street should be held accountable with tougher rules. Beltway Republicans may be willing to let the biggest banks break our economy again, but on Wall Street reform, the American people are Progressives.

• And finally, I want to make one more very important point: Progressives believe that it shouldn't take a revolution on YouTube to drive a revolution in law enforcement. It shouldn't take a hurricane in New Orleans or a massacre in Charleston for Americans to wake up to what is happening -- what is still happening -- to people of color in this country. And it sure as heck shouldn't take poll numbers to unite us in our determination to build a future for all our children. House Republicans may still want to fly the Confederate flag and Republican leaders may cower in the shadow of Donald Trump, but the American people understand that black lives matter and America is not a country that stands for racism, bigotry or hatred. To build an economy that creates real opportunity, that doesn't lock up millions of our fellow human beings and that uses the talents of all our people, Americans must prove that on equality and justice, the American people are Progressives.

Amber Ferguson, "Elizabeth Warren's Message At Netroots Nation," Huffington Post, July 17, 2015 (as prepared for delivery).

Conclusion
Of course, merely because a majority of your fellow Americans hold one view or another doesn't mean that it is "right," or that you are obliged to follow. Clearly, most who number themselves in the establishment's wealthiest 1% disagree, and you may be among them -- or agree with them even though you are not so financially blessed. Nor does it mean that no one should be elected who is not "in the mainstream."

But these polling results, and others that are comparable, should at least put to rest that, whatever else Senator Sanders may or may not be, he is clearly waist deep in the mainstream.

Today's "radicals" who really are out of the mainstream, as he has pointed out, are those who want to hold down, or even eliminate, the minimum wage; continue endless wars in the Middle East; deny climate change; oppose universal single-payer health care, federal jobs programs to rebuild infrastructure, increases in unemployment benefits, and want to repeal "Obama Care;" want to reduce taxes on the wealthy, continue college student debt, cut back on Social Security.

Wherever they may be on the river bank, it is they who are clearly not in the mainstream. Senator Bernie Sanders is.
# # #

Bernie's Media Challenge

June 19, 2015, 11:40 a.m.

See also, Bernie!, June 1, 2015.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Radio Station

Our corporate media's approach to politics in general and the presidential primaries in particular [is] as a horse race, and delights over their gotcha presentations of candidates' gaffs. When Sanders is mentioned at all it's usually to compare him with Hillary. Seldom has any report devoted even a single sentence to each of his policy proposals -- most of which, polls show, are supported by a majority of Americans.

However one might characterize what the media is currently doing, it's not an effort to inform and involve the American people in a discussion and debate regarding the "best practices" approach to our nation's challenges. Since that's what Bernie wants to do, no other candidate seems to, and therefore ought to be one of the most newsworthy elements of his campaign, the fact that it's impossible to report his exciting platform in the media's 20-second sound bites is a substantial campaign challenge.

-- Bernie!

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting's research discloses that between January 3rd and May 3rd of 2015, Meet the Press (NBC; host, Chuck Todd) made no mention whatsoever of Senator Bernie Sanders, notwithstanding 16 mentions of Hillary Clinton, 13 of Jeb Bush, 12 of Scott Walker, 11 of Chris Christie, and 10 each for Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee. In total, 24 presidential candidates received mentions during this four-month period. Bernie? Zero. "Meet the Press Breaks Its Silence on Bernie Sanders," Extra!, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), June 2015, vol. 28, no. 5, p. 3 ("Meet the Press host Chuck Todd . . . declared on the show's May 3 episode . . . 'I'm obsessed with elections.' Yet the one major candidate who had announced he was running that week -- Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who declared on April 30 he was running for the Democratic nomination -- was strikingly ignored on that same broadcast.")

Bernie Sanders is the only avowed "Democratic Socialist" serving in the United States Congress. Defeating both Democrats and Republicans, he served as Vermont's only member of the House of Representatives for 16 years (1990-2006). Sanders has now served in the United States Senate for more than nine years (2006 to the present). As acknowledged by Todd himself . . . , in all those years, Meet the Press never saw fit to have Sanders appear on "America's most watched...Sunday morning public affairs program" until September 14, 2014 when Sanders was interviewed about his "possible" run for the Presidency. (One month earlier than the October date initially cited by Todd in response to FAIR.)

Ernest A. Canning, "Bernie Who? Media Watchdog Documents NBC's 'Meet the Press' Marginalization of Sanders," The Brad Blog, May 11, 2015

Only following FAIR's report was an invitation extended, which Bernie accepted. "Meet the Press Transcript - May 31, 2015." While it certainly counted as an after-the-fact "mention" of his candidacy, it was scarcely an effort to explore his past and approach to the issues.

As one of Sanders’s first nationwide appearances as a presidential candidate, you might think that Todd would take the opportunity to probe more deeply into the senator’s not uncontroversial policy proposals, such as providing free tuition to students attending public colleges, or raising the marginal tax rates, or how he might deal with ISIS. But you would be wrong. To begin, Todd spend the first part of the program discussing the unfolding Dennis Hastert scandal in a not-so-subtle effort to tell us what it says about Congress as a whole. (Answer: nothing, but that’s not newsworthy, so….) When Sanders finally made his appearance about midway through the program, Todd begin with one useful question regarding whether the senator would support the House bill to extend the USA Patriot Act, then under debate in the Senate. . . .

At that point, the interview degenerated into full horse-race, candidate-personality mode. Specifically, Todd sought Sanders’s views on a topic arguably of far less relevance to the senator’s qualifications to be president: Hillary Clinton. He began indirectly by asking Sanders to weigh the relative merits of Bill Clinton’s presidency versus Barack Obama’s. When Sanders appeared to praise Obama more than Clinton, Todd pressed further: “You singled out President Obama for praise but not President Clinton. Why?” You might wonder why Todd raised this issue, since Bill is not a candidate for higher office, but Todd’s intention soon became clear when he asked Sanders to comment on Hillary Clinton’s apparent leftward movement on a number of issues, including “same-sex marriage, on immigration … on NAFTA, on trade, on the Iraq War, on Cuba. She has moved from a position, basically, in disagreement with you, to a position that comes closer to your view. So I guess is, do you take her at her word?”

Cue the horse race! To his credit, Sanders refused to take the bait. Instead, he expressed hope that “the media will allow us to have a serious debate in this campaign on the enormous issues facing the American people” and tried to move the conversation to his policy views. Todd, however, had no interest in having a serious debate on the issues; he followed up with: “Do you trust these changes that Hillary Clinton has made? Or do you think she’s been doing it just for primary politics?”

When Sanders again refused to engage Todd in a discussion of Clinton’s motives, the MTP [Meet the Press] moderator closed with his zinger: Sanders’s 43-year-old essay discussing women’s “rape fantasy.”

Matthew Dickinson, "Bernie Sanders and Chuck Todd's 'Meet the Press' fiasco: 50 shades of bad; Bernie Sanders deftly refused to engage in media-generated controversy and expressed hope that 'the media will allow us to have a serious debate in this campaign,'" Christian Science Monitor, June 1, 2015.

Earlier this week I heard a radio call-in talk show addressing the matter of the media's coverage of politics. A professional journalist, one of the formal guests, was offering as advice to journalists that they should not just repeat what the candidates say (however fairly and accurately they do so) but go beyond that to the candidates' experience, consistency and credibility, dig into the issues that really made a difference for ordinary Americans, understand and explain candidates' positions on those issues from Americans' perspective, and provide the information that will enable voters to participate more intelligently in the democratic process.

Realizing that the story of the media's treatment (or non-treatment) of Bernie Sanders, told above, was dead center on topic, and that somehow Bernie had not even been mentioned by name during the first part of the program, I decided to give the station a call. I was asked my name, city, what I wanted to add to the program, and was left with the impression I would soon be up. While placed on hold, I could listen to the program. Soon the person I'd spoken to came back on the phone. Although there did not appear to have been any caller ahead of me, I was told that I would not be put on the air anyway. Explaining that I'd be happy to wait through the break, I was told that the topic was going to change. So I thanked her and hung up -- but continued to listen on the radio.

For some reason my mind wandered back to my time as an FCC commissioner, when most networks and local stations seemed anxious to put the "controversial commissioner" on the air. (Apparently I was good for ratings. Following my appearance on CBS' Sunday show, Issues and Answers they told me it produced the most mail they'd ever received for the show.) When scheduling permitted, I'd usually accept.

The networks all had their late night shows, too. Dick Cavett hosted the one on ABC show, Merv Griffin was on CBS, and Johnny Carson on NBC. Cavett and Griffin both had me on their shows. Carson did not. But it was not for his young staff's not trying.

I'd get an invite from some young producer inviting me on the Tonight Show. I'd accept, but add, "However, you may find yourself calling me back in a couple weeks and uninviting me." "Why do you say that?" she would ask. "Oh, never mind," I'd reply, "let's just wait and see." Sure enough, the call would come, "Oh, it turns out we'll not be able to have you on that night." "Well, how about another night then?" I'd reply, knowing what was coming next: "There just don't seem to be any open right now." Someone had slipped me the information much earlier that NBC had an internal memo indicating that neither Ralph Nader nor I was ever to appear on the Tonight Show. Apparently, the newest assistant producers for the show "never got the memo."

There was another occasion in a station's studio, when in the middle of an interview, ranting on about the abuses brought on the American people by the AT&T telephone monopoly, the station's phone lines suddenly went dead.

It's true that AT&T was then everywhere. They had one lobbyist just devoted to me. They were in the White House, the Congress, governors' offices, state legislatures, and city councils. AT&T had eyes and ears everywhere. I used to joke that they probably supplied most of the scout masters and den mothers for scout troops. So they certainly could have cut off the service because of what I was saying. But I really think that was unlikely; that it was probably just a coincidence. But it makes a good story regardless. (As Mason Williams once ended a song lyric, "This is not a true tale, but who needs truth if it's dull?")

So it is with my recent radio experience. I think the irony makes a good story; "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Radio Station" (with apologies to the Broadway show, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum").

What's the irony? Not only does the media not give Bernie his due, ignoring him completely, or refusing to permit him to discuss the issues he is raising -- which is the real "news" of his campaign, making him unique among the army of candidates -- but a citizen is kept from even raising the media's failure during a program discussing the media's inadequate coverage of politics.

FAIR and others, such as Project Censored, have amassed considerable evidence of the impact of big business, the wealthy, media owners, and advertisers on what subjects are covered at all, and how they are covered. More than one broadcast journalist has done a mea culpa or two over their cheerleader presentation of President W. Bush's "preemptive war" in Iraq. Even as lung cancer surpassed breast cancer as a threat to women, MS magazine continued to carry cigarette advertising and no articles about the dangers of smoking. There are hundreds of examples. So it is not surprising that the same forces from the outside, and self-censorship on the inside, would result in some favoritism toward the candidates with a pro-corporate ideology and Wall Street contributors.

Consider: ""During his campaign kickoff Saturday, [candidate Martin] O'Malley referenced reports that Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein had told employees that he would be happy if either Bush or Clinton were elected. 'I bet he would,' O'Malley said '. . .. 'I very much was supportive of Hillary Clinton the last go-round,” he [the Goldman Sachs CEO] told Politico last year. 'I held fundraisers for her.'” Ali Elkin, "Martin O'Malley Uses Goldman Sachs to Hit Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush," Bloomberg, May 31, 2015.

In fairness, as with my AT&T story, I need to make clear that this week's radio program is one of its network's best, hosted by one of its finest hosts. (I don't mention names because I don't want to risk this blog essay being interpreted as criticizing either.) My call did come toward the end of the program's first segment. And while the second segment also dealt with politics, it did switch from the media coverage issues.

I could make fun of its second segment choices: Clinton, Bush, and the Republican's clown, Donald Trump -- and ask why Sanders is not at least as important as Trump. But there was a rationale to the program's choice: those three were the most recent additions to the field of 20-plus. Moreover, before the second segment was over, however insignificant, Bernie did get one mention of no more than his name, and another in the context of how his positions (not identified) might have influenced Hillary's move to the left (both mentions together probably totaling less than 10 seconds).

It's still kind of a wonderful irony. It illustrates the point that no one on the radio program mentioned Bernie's treatment as one of the best examples of media failures in political reporting, and that when it was offered the information from a caller, it chose not to put it on the air.

Oh, and that when I tried to upload this blog essay just now Google told me, "An error occurred while trying to save or publish your post." Et tu, Google?! Maybe later.

# # #

Bernie!

June 1, 2015, 3:45 PM

Why the 99% Should Support Bernie's Campaign

Contents
Who is Bernie Sanders?

His Campaign's Challenges

What is Socialism?

Is Bernie's Platform "Socialist"?

Reference Sites

Who is Bernie Sanders?

Senator Bernie Sanders is a solid, widely experienced, accomplished, popular, and well-regarded student of public policy, legislation, and spokesperson for the people.

Presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent from the state of Vermont, raised $1.5 million during the first 24 hours after his announcement -- more than any Republican candidate did in a comparable time -- and is getting wildly enthusiastic crowds of ever-increasing size in Iowa and wherever else he appears. We witnessed this phenomenon at close range here in Iowa City this past Saturday (see video of presentation, below). Trip Gabriel and Patrick Healy, "Challenging Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders Gains Momentum in Iowa,", New York Times, June 1, 2015, p. A12.

[In Davenport, where Martin O'Malley announced his candidacy to a "crowd" of 50, Bernie Sanders had earlier attracted 700 -- the largest crowd for any presidential candidate in Iowa this year. In little Kensett, Iowa, population 261, some 300 turned out to hear him. His Vermont kick-off drew 5000; his post Iowa stop in Minneapolis, 4000.]

Neither Democrat nor Republican, he's sufficiently well regarded by his Senate colleagues that they've given him the coveted position as ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. He often caucuses with the Senate Democrats, and will be running as a Democrat during the forthcoming caucuses and primaries. He is sufficiently well regarded by Democratic Party voters that 15% of them are already leaning his way in what had been predicted to be the Party's Clinton coronation nomination process.

A part of his appeal is his authenticity. He tells his followers what he thinks, not what some campaign manager told him to say. Part of the reason he comes across as genuine is that he says the same things in Iowa that he does in Washington or Vermont. Another reason is that he's been saying the same things all his life. This is no etch-o-sketch candidate, changing the message as the audience, times and polls require.

Bernie is a graduate of the University of Chicago, 1964, who has been winning elections since 1981:Mayor of Burlington, 1981-1989; U.S. House of Representatives, 1991-2007 (in Vermont a statewide office); and U.S. Senate, 2007-present -- most recently re-elected with 71% of the vote. [Photos credit: Nicholas Johnson. These three photos of most of the crowd inside the hall (though not all) give a sense of the numbers. All chairs were taken by 9:20 or so for the 10:00 a.m. event. I was tasked with monitoring the mob outside the only entrance -- glass with a view of some of the lobby. Although I could not see the entire area, if there were over 300 inside the hall there were possibly as many outside as well. -- N.J.]

Not only does he have proven popular appeal, the political professionals give him comparable reviews. This is no ineffective, isolated, independent, iconoclast, shouting from the sidelines. The Almanac of American Politics calls Sanders a "practical and successful legislator." Last year, when he succeeded in his efforts to pass legislation reforming the VA health care system, the Congressional Quarterly said Senator Sanders was able “to bridge Washington’s toxic partisan divide and cut one of the most significant deals in years.”

His Campaign's Challenges
His personality, presentations, and positions on the issues are such that every member of the 99% ought to be supporting him. Why isn't everyone there -- yet? There are two challenges.

Central is our corporate media's approach to politics in general and the presidential primaries in particular -- as a horse race, and delights over their gotcha presentations of candidates' gaffs. When Sanders is mentioned at all it's usually to compare him with Hillary. Seldom has any report devoted even a single sentence to each of his policy proposals -- most of which, polls show, are supported by a majority of Americans.

However one might characterize what the media is currently doing, it's not an effort to inform and involve the American people in a discussion and debate regarding the "best practices" approach to our nation's challenges. Since that's what Bernie wants to do, no other candidate seems to, and therefore ought to be one of the most newsworthy elements of his campaign, the fact that it's impossible to report his exciting platform in the media's 20-second sound bites is a substantial campaign challenge.

The other major challenge is Sanders' association with what for many Americans is the dreaded word "socialist" -- the modern day equivalent of Senator Joseph McCarthy's irresponsible use of the label "communist."

What is "Socialism"?
Socialism might be loosely thought of as government (federal, state, county, or city) ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, the provision of services or facilities. "Capitalism," by contrast, suggests a system in which these things are the province of private individuals or corporations.

Thus, our interstate highway system might be characterized as "socialist highways." Privately owned toll roads and bridges (there are a few) would be "capitalist highways."

In the real world there are few pure "communist," "socialist," or "capitalist" countries. China is ruled by a "Communist Party" and yet is best known today for its galloping capitalist advances that are providing a real challenge to the rest of the world's economies, including ours.

Like China, ours is also a mixed economy. Americans may not be unanimous, but most seem to like the idea of socialist roads and bridges; national, state, county and city parks; public K-12 schools and state universities; and public libraries. They like cooperatives, whether for farmers, rural electricity, grocery stores, or credit unions. They don't seem to mind -- at least not enough to abolish them -- the blend of government and corporate institutions known as"corporatism" that transfers taxpayers' money to private "capitalists" (in the form of grants, tax breaks, TIFs, subsidies, price supports, earmarks, and other creative schemes -- limited only by the imaginative abilities of business persons and those whose campaigns they fund).

So I think it's a little silly to treat "socialist" as a "slur word" when we're all living in the midst of it and liking it -- the sidewalk and road in front of my house, the trash collection truck that just drove by on it (and the recycling truck that will soon follow), the water plant and main that just provided the water I needed to make tea, the fireplug on the corner of our lot, the public library book that sits on my desk as I keystroke this blog essay, the park across the street, the street cleaning machine that drove by the other day.

Besides, I think living a life of labels -- whether of ethnicity, gender, race, religion, or political ideology -- is dangerous, limiting, and not very productive. When it comes to public policy, we're better off evaluating the challenge, the data, and the options for solutions than to accept, or reject, proposals on the basis of ideological labels. Of what relevance is it to adequate funding for our roads and bridges whether the tax, and the projects it funds, are labeled "capitalist," "socialist," "libertarian" -- or "communist"? A pothole, or a falling bridge, has no ideology.

Is Bernie's Platform "Socialist"?
It would be amusing if it were not so serious that anyone would want to use "socialist" as a pejorative in trying to diminish Senator Sanders. He's as American as Vermont maple syrup. He is brighter, more creative, compassionate, accomplished, experienced, and committed to his constituents than most. But aside from that, he is otherwise merely engaged in the same kinds of political and legislative activities of other U.S. senators since the beginning of our nation.

Those who do find labels useful would probably consider the Cato Institute either "conservative" or "Libertarian" or both. Here's what it has to say about Senator Sanders:

According to the National Taxpayers Union, 42 senators in 2008 voted to spend more tax dollars than socialist Bernie Sanders. . . . Meanwhile, the American Conservative Union rated 11 senators more liberal than Sanders in 2008, . . .. The Republican Liberty Caucus declared . . . Sanders voted better than 31 colleagues in support of personal liberties.

David Boaz, "Is Bernie Sanders the Most Liberal Senator?" "Cato at Liberty," Cato Institute, April 30, 2015.

As Ralph Nader has said, "This country has more problems than it deserves and more solutions than it uses."

Bernie Sanders wants us to address those problems, search for and then use those solutions.

Here are a couple of illustrations, followed by links and a video of Bernie's Iowa City presentation to fill you in on more details.

Bernie advocates "Medicare for all," otherwise referred to as "universal, single-payer healthcare." This is not some risky, radical, never-tried-before idea of his. Variations of this idea have long been the global standard, the moderate, middle-of-the-road approach by the industrialized nations for economic growth as well as better health and associated happiness for their entire populations.Those nations' peoples have longer life expectancies, and lower rates of infant mortality, than we do, with more of their people covered, and at lower cost. We chose a costly health insurance approach, although now expanded to more Americans. They chose health care provided to all.

Bernie advocates free higher education. This is no more a radical idea than Medicare for all. As I wrote last January, "Germany is only the latest country to realize that free higher education for all world citizens promotes economic growth in each of its states ("Länder"). Other countries with similar programs include Brazil, Finland, France, Norway, Slovenia and Sweden. . . . Providing free college education to all, like the free food samples at Costco, is just good business.

"Germany is part of a global economy. The more world citizens with German ties, the more the Länders' economies grow. It's true whether students from abroad stay, or return home with networks of German contacts. It's equally true of German students otherwise without access to higher education. The German economy benefits when they stay; it benefits when they study abroad, stay, and do business from there.

Iowa, unlike Germany, does not grasp this simple truth. Our leaders believe if Washington can pay for a war with tax cuts, Iowa can create prosperity with tax cuts. Both Washington and Des Moines are in desperate need of remedial math."

Nicholas Johnson, "Free College Education for Iowans? Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 16, 2015, p. A7, embedded in, "Free College Education for Iowans? Will Germany’s Economic Formula Work for Iowa?" January 16, 2015.

For more of Bernie's proposals and their details, see on his Senate Web page, Agenda for America: 12 Steps Forward"; and for a fulsome description of Senator Sanders and his positions on numerous issues, see "Bernie Sanders Presidential Campaign, 2016," "Balotpedia," and the "Political Positions" section of the Wikipedia "Bernie Sanders" entry.

If you'd like to watch Bernie explain these ideas to thunderous applause and standing ovations, here is a video of his entire Iowa City presentation, May 30, 2015, prepared by Gregory Johnson of ResourcesForLife.com:



You owe it to yourself to learn more about this man, his policy proposals and stands, and the process he proposes to get us there.

Reference Sites
Bernie Sanders' Presidential campaign Web page: http://www.BernieSanders.com

Senator Sanders' Web page: "Bernie Sanders: United States Senator for Vermont"

Bernie Sanders' Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/berniesanders

Bernie Sanders on Wikipedia: Bernie Sanders

# # #