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.

# # #