Understanding Bernie

Bernie and Noam Chomsky are long time friends. Bernie, in the 1980s and then mayor of Burlington Vermont, invited Noam to give a talk on American intervention in Nicaragua.

Recently Chomsky was asked by the Guardian what he thought Bernie’s chances of winning the election were and what Bernie would face in Washington if elected. The following is a quote from Noam’s response.

"I'm glad that Sanders is running. A good way to bring important ideas and facts to people. His candidacy might also press the Dems a little in a progressive direction. In our system of bought elections he has scarcely a chance of getting beyond the primaries, and even if by some miracle he were elected he wouldn't be able to do anything, lacking any congressional representatives, governors, etc. As far as I can see he's a thorn in the side of the Clinton machine, which is not a bad thing."

When I read this from Bernie’s friend and a thoughtful and knowledgeable political analyst, I tasked myself with trying to further understand Bernie and what he had in mind should he win.

Bernie Sanders is no fly-by- night. He knows America has to radically change its economic system and its social services. He has studied the Scandinavian system. He knows this has to be done with people not money.

Thom Hartmann has expressed his view that Bernie can productively govern through an effective use of the bully pulpit. He has shown a remarkable ability to communicate with Americans from all regions of the country. Hartmann also notes that Bernie would have the Congressional Progressive Caucus to work with. Considering the media onslaught that the “billionaire class” would bring to bear against him, he will need the millions of people he has called for. We should not forget that J. P. Morgan, et. al., sought to stage a coup against FDR.

Thom Hartmann has published an article titled Bernie Sanders could be the Next FDR. This, to me, indicates that Hartmann may be underestimating Bernie, which, parenthetically, Bernie has warned the media not to do. FDR came by much of his progressivism after he became president. Bernie would bring decades of progressive and socialist thought and action to the presidency. That office would reflect a depth of concern and understanding it has never seen before.

Finally, under Bernie, the United States could lead a global change in world government. Bernie’s support for the Greek revolution evidences his concern to rid the planet of financial corporations that make money off of money and contribute nothing to a genuine economy of products and services, then use this massive phantom wealth to control the global economy. This must be done to heal the planet from the ravages of a money-based economy, end massive human misery and death and bring our human numbers and level of consumption to a sustainable level. Bernie, unlike other candidates wants  humanity to succeed and will challenge those self-centered  maniacs who think otherwise.

Sanity must reign. Let us all help Bernie bring it to pass.

Bob Newhard

On Bernie, Foreign Policy and Integrity

I had read several comments by writers about Bernie Sanders’ failure or reluctance to present his foreign policy should he be elected. If true, I could understand such reluctance, especially this early in his campaign.

The functions of foreign policy are so varied, so multipurposed and so remote from the understanding of ordinary people that it can easily become the playground of those who seek to deceive and distract. Bernie is trying to build a common concern and understanding of the major reasons this society has failed and is failing the American people.

That said, I asked myself what might be some of the features of his presumed policy.

One writer who tried to do this decided to review Bernie’s extensive voting record in Congress. He found, for example, that Bernie had voted against every war except one. But these votes were in response to proposals by others and could not be expected to represent Bernie’s own developed thinking.

Knowing that Bernie’s political and social thinking was largely based on the experience of social democrats in Europe, especially in Scandinavia, I decided to look at their foreign policies. One feature stood out, that of peace and the promotion of peace. Indeed, Sweden’s foreign policy expresses that country’s desire to play the role of disinterested facilitator for countries faced with the prospect of war. An especial area of interest is Africa where the world’s major countries are vying for African land and resources.

Sweden has excellent credibility for playing the role of peace facilitator. It has had no war since 1864. All through World War II, in the midst of conflict all around it, it was able to maintain its neutrality. The closest it came to war during that period was when the Nazi regime demanded that Sweden allow them to move troops from Norway to Finland to fight the Russians. The pressure from the Germans became so intense that the Swedes set about arming their nation. The Nazis apparently decided the risk of ocean transport of troops in the Baltic Sea was, after all, preferable to an additional war.

At about this time in my research and in the current election campaign the controversy over the Iran nuclear deal broke out. Obama was trying desperately to find the support he needed in the Senate. Chuck Schumer, the presumed leader of the Democrats once Harry Reid retires in January 2016, declared his opposition to the agreement, whose major opponent was Israel and their immense lobby in Congress.

When Obama contacted Bernie on what his vote would be, Bernie asked some questions and then said he would support the deal the administration had negotiated.

Here were two Jews faced with an issue of war and peace revolving around nuclear warfare. Schumer gave as his primary objection the fact that the agreement would only last for ten years. Even on this basis was not 10 years of peace better than 10 years of almost certain warfare?

If one takes note of the fact that Bernie was raised a devout Jew, going to Hebrew school in the afternoon after public school, and that his father’s family was exterminated in a Nazi concentration camp, whereas I could find no such background for Schumer, Bernie’s integrity and commitment to peace versus the slaughter and suffering of war comes shining through. His commitment to mankind’s wellbeing is greater than that to the special interest of his birth culture. It is this way of thinking and fundamental valuing of humanity as a whole that our times and the future so badly need.

His sterling behavior in this matter reminded me of the behavior of the socialist party in Europe prior to World War I. The socialists sought to prevent the war by calling a general strike that would prevent mobilization and munitions manufacture. It failed because in the end the allegiance to country was greater than that to socialist principle. Not so with Bernie Sanders.

We have a candidate with a long-established concern for humanity’s welfare, an effective politician, a teacher of the populace and a realist who believes we the people can reclaim our democracy. The rarity of this circumstance should prompt all persons concerned for a better world and the survival of our species, to vigorously support him.

Bob Newhard

The Social Value of Diversity

One of the things that has long intrigued me is how unique cities arise when surrounded by a plethora of others opposed to its culture. How, for instance, did a democratic Athens arise when surrounded by arbitrary empires and militaristic city states. This time it was the anomaly of Austin, Texas in a state dominated by Southern values derived ultimately from slavery and racism.

Austin is the home of Jim Hightower, and until she died it was the home of Molly Ivins. James Galbraith teaches at the Austin campus of the University of Texas. In short, it has been home to more progressivism than many Northern cities. Granted, Austin is a university town and the State capital. One might expect a higher level of intellectualism than the rest of Texas. However, the University of Texas has 9 campuses, e.g. Dallas, San Antonio, which do not exhibit the level of progressivism that Austin does.

While Austin is the state capital, the legislature, which Molly called the “lege,” provided a constant target for Molly’s wit with its follies, ignorance and corruption.

In a Texas born of the desire for another slave state, whose legislature still regards a woman’s body as governable by the state, Austin progressivism is indeed an anomaly.

Not to mention Governor Rick Perry brandishing his sixguns in public.

 

I found a website (Google Why did Austin become so different from the rest of Texas?)  where a number of citizens were voicing their views on how Austin liberalism came to be. Prominent among the reasons was the accumulation of diverse human beings gathering over time for a variety   of reasons. This reminded me of philosopher Morris Cohen’s view that the unusual vigor of New York City was due primarily to its ethnic mix.

Reflections of this sort led me to see diversity as more than just the tolerance that is often used to defend it. Diversity creates social conditions that many people find attractive, if not essential to the freedom they require.

Why is it that creative and intellectual vigor have always been associated with cities? Is it not the freedom to be oneself, born of the absence of a stifling monoculture?

Diversity is thus as essential a condition for civilization as it is for ecological survival. Let us stop the dangerous nonsense epitomized by the burgeoning practice of building fences around our nations and deal with the real problems--overpopulation and overconsumption.

Bob NAewhard