Elections Discussion--Saunier

Click here for more comments on the elections

by Hal Engel

Well said! The action we need is people in every state, especially in the states that Trump won, who can present these ideas with the strength of commitment of candidates like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. We also need organizers who can build and sustain the movement well beyond the next several election cycles.

Finally, we need a progressive national spokesperson who can not only get the votes of progressives but also the millions of more conservative people in red states who are over-worked and under-paid and voted for Trump because Bernie was not leading the Democratic ticket.

Bernie's absences at the top of the ticket left a void that Trump completely filled notwithstanding his many well-known character and psychological flaws. We need Bernie, Elizabeth, or someone else who shares their ideas, ideals, and leadership qualities.

I'm 73 years old, not in the best of health, but am willing to do whatever I am able to do to help the growing class of poor people who deserve a better chance at life. Under Trump we are looking at trickle-down economics on steroids. As with the original trickle-down economics, the trickle stopped at the pockets of the top 1%. The rest of us marched in place, empty handed.

Since 1981 the upper class has remained roughly the same size, the middle class had shrunk, and the lower class has grown dramatically. And the top 1% has most of the wealth in America. These are the conditions that lead to revolution. Trump's victory is the first step down the revolutionary path. What will happen four years from now if the rich continue to get richer (a likely result given what has transpired during the first two weeks of Trump's presidency) and the poor get poorer? To quote a song written by Kris Kristofferson: "Freedom's just another word for 'nothing left to lose.'"

Deborah Engel-Di Mauro replies to Hal Engel:

Electoral strategy is a question that deeply divides the left in the US, particularly the revolutionary left. And it is a thorny problem. I agree that it's a good idea to pressure the more left-leaning figures in the Democratic Party to adopt less ecologically destructive practices and to defend and expand what is, in fact, democratic within the political structure in the US. But I don't think it is the only thing we need to be doing.

It is important to note that no matter who heads the Democratic ticket in any given election cycle, the party as a whole is dedicated to preserving rule by the 1 percent. It is oriented toward maintaining US imperial power in the world. This was the substantial flaw in the 2016 Sanders campaign. Whatever his proposals might have been to develop a more just distribution of wealth within the borders of the US, he was nevertheless committed to maintaining a US empire, which is the source of this wealth. I don’t think we should be fighting for a more just distribution of the spoils of empire. We need to be talking about how to overthrow that empire. On the electoral front this will require promoting candidates who reject empire, and I seriously doubt that anyone like that will ever head the Democratic Party ticket.

So, on the one hand I do think there is value in harnessing the influence and momentum of the more popular left-leaning Democratic Party figures and the people who support them. It makes sense to develop allies, find common ground, and work collaboratively with as many people as possible. On the other hand, I hesitate to look to the Democratic Party for leadership in a revolutionary movement.