explain that to me again, Sam

Here is a link from Sam Webb's blog objecting to my support for Bernie Sanders. He is not alone in these thoughts. But I am not persuaded.

Here is my response to this article, posted mostly as it is previously on Facebook.

Sam is one of my best friends. I have respected and admired his careful and generally sober thinking for many years. Yet I fail to understand his entire line of reasoning on Sanders. 

First it implies Bernie Sanders is not focused on the defeat of Trump. That's a false statement I feel there is no need to refute. And it has served, in more than one article, as a cover for damning Sanders entire campaign with faint praise. 

Second, it implies that the main thrust of Sanders' campaign has been splitting the "anti-Right struggle". False again. The campaign serves instead, to make that struggle mean something besides hot air to working families. 

Third, it implies that that the "well articulated" anti-right campaign should just shut up for now about the class issues related to austerity, #BlackLivesMatter, Fergusons, corporate domination of political institutions, and the absence of a goddamn raise in 40 goddamn years for the median worker, etc. Maybe we should mosey on another 40 defeating the right without a raise. To hell with that! 

Fourth, it suggests that sectarian "anyone-but-Hillary" forces -- half of whom are Republican operatives, IMO -- are actually being directed by Bernie -- a charge he has repeatedly renounced. Also false. 

Fifth It implies Bernie is on the verge of doing a Nader and effectively electing Trump -- another charge Sanders has repeatedly renounced. 

Sixth, it implies that the composition of Bernie's campaign is too narrow among African Americans to support, Really? And thus the composition of Hillary's campaign trumps (no pun intended) all these "too soon in the great strategic struggle to mention class questions" issues and truths Bernie has raised??? The composition of his campaign has steadily improved as people found out more about him -- he comes from a rural state and was virtually unknown outside Vermont and northern New England until last year. 

Seventh -- not in this article-- but in others, the surge in California and the west is dismissed as too late to do anything but increase tension at the convention. Message to socialists and progressives: Run, but don't run to win. Campaign, but not to the limit. This argument refutes itself and more than anything reflects the alienation and marginalization of so much of the Left from real electoral politics, or even an NLRB election campaign.

I reject all these implications. But most of all I question the concept that there is the slightest meaning to an "anti-right" campaign that does not address the class questions of inequality, racism, austerity, peace, and the excessive billionaire-too-big-to-fail-corporate power. I can't imagine what such a campaign. would consist of. It would be to the right of Hillary's current positions -- both her own original positions, and not a few others that have been taken BECAUSE of the Sanders campaign surge. A campaign against Trump that does not raise these questions will, IMO, have not the slightest effect on the forces moving in a fascist direction in this country. Even if he is defeated, another, and another, and another will rise from the wastes spreading in this economy and political paralysis. Such a campaign will have the slimmest of coattails and is highly unlikely to reverse the stalemate in congress. If anyone thinks that African-American, Latino, or women voters supporting Hillary Clinton will tolerate continued stalemate on these vital, life and death matters, they should head immediately to Colorado and stay stoned so the consequences won't be so horrifying. 

What should Bernie do after endorsing Hillary (he has promised to do that if she is the candidate) -- still shut up about the "class" questions? It would be a campaign with demands too shallow to actively enroll the 8 million votes, not to mention the huge mobilized crowds Sanders has drawn across the country, needed to truly roll back the R catastrophe. 

A Sanders-less Clinton campaign would -- this is my worst fear -- be just like the speech she gave in San Diego on Foreign Policy and national security --- virtually no substantive policy vision, but loads of rhetoric exposing Trump's personal unfitness for ANY political office. Gail Collins thought it was HRC's finest hour. To me, it just reinforced the appearance of cold war style tendencies and an "I can pull the trigger" attitude, which, IMO, is her WEAKNESS, not her STRENGTH. Hillary's strength actually IS policy expertise. She is reported to be among the most astute and competent, evidence-based policy wonks in the world. 

I am sure if Bernie loses in California on Tuesday, all who admire the line in Sam's arguments will heave a huge sigh of relief. Personally, I am profoundly disappointed in that poor solidarity and support for the finest electoral performance for a socialist -- and not a phony, bullshit socialist, but a real one -- in the history of this country. Bernie Sanders is good, honorable, and decent man who has NEVER swerved from advocacy and solidarity with the vital interests of working families. Perhaps this is all such new territory to all of us that foundering is to be expected. 

But I am ashamed of it.

John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show

7-9 AM Weekdays, WSHC-Listen Live, Shepherd University

Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.