Bernie Sanders: Democrats Need to Wake Up
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
This is a cute bit of rhetorical fakery here. Bernie is argues that, globally, the economy isn't working out for most people (in a real income sense and an income inequality sense). It's a global problem so it seems to follow that the "global economy" isn't working. Then he blames trade agreements, the basis of the "global economy". Nice one!
Why exactly does he think that reducing free trade will help the lower income percentiles? At best it will shift some money in lower-paying jobs around. How about doing something really politically risky and trying to attack income/wealth inequality directly? There's plenty of overall income (GDP) in the US under current trade rules -- it's just not distributed in anywhere near a way to maximize overall happiness or even overall ability to pay for basic necessities.
Also, somehow, even after his last paragraph, he still refuses to say "vote for Hilary". My respect for him is rapidly dwindling.
Also, automation is coming, eventually you don't have to move product, only a few high-performance efficient machine (the factory).
I think the argument is basically that free trade redistributes working class incomes to the poorer countries that they trade with. I am not endorsing this idea, I know nothing about economics, but I don't think I've seen another explanation for this particular inequality.
> A just-released analysis of government data shows that as of 2015, middle-income households have become the minority. The trend is so firmly established that it may well continue; Americans have experienced "a demographic shift that could signal a tipping point," Pew researchers concluded Wednesday.
Also, you're not exactly saying how these free trade agreements are working out, and he's been consistent with why the trade agreements don't work, like TPP. The economy is not working for a lot of people, unemployment isn't too high in the US, but underemployment is high. People without access to health care is high. The number of people unable to afford higher education is growing.
Sure, for you (possibly) and myself, it's probably work pretty well. But there are a lot of people that it's not working for. When corporations have the influence they do on politicians, we end up with policies that favor them and not the people.
Bernie spends much of the article warning about Trump and saying "In this pivotal moment, the Democratic Party and a new Democratic president need to make clear that we stand with those who are struggling and who have been left behind." There are only two realistic outcomes of the election: Trump or Hillary. Presumably he considers Hillary to be a much better outcome than Trump. So he should ask his supporters to vote for her and lobby as hard as they can for her and the Democratic party to shape up to his vision. As brexit made clear, voting for an outcome you don't want (or not voting) just to make a point could gasp have the outcome of causing the outcome you don't want.
> Also, you're not exactly saying how these free trade agreements are working out, and he's been consistent with why the trade agreements don't work, like TPP.
I looked it up at feelthebern.org (I can't readily tell whether this is his official opinion). It says:
Instead of passing such trade deals again and again, Bernie argues we must “develop trade policies which demand that American corporations create jobs here, and not abroad.” Visit our Job Creation page for specifics on how Bernie wants to do this.
The linked page says, literally, "infrastructure jobs", "supporting small businesses", and "youth employment". So no, I don't actually know what he means by "fair trade".
Its worth noting that Sanders doesn't oppose free trade agreements, he opposes free trade agreements that don't incorporate what he views as adequate common labor protections (this is a long-time position of the American Left in opposition to neoliberal trade pacts.)
He doesn't want to "reduce free trade", he thinks that demanding free and fair trade will cause more improvement from the "fair" part than the losses from the reduction of the "free" part (that come from more difficulty in securing deals, since the interests that push for neoliberal deals aren't just an influence on US preferences, so a US policy change won't eliminate that preference from counterparties.)
> How about doing something really politically risky and trying to attack income/wealth inequality directly?
While one might debate how well they would work, pretty much of all of the positions Sanders has advocated in his campaign and continues to advocate for in the platform on domestic policy are directed at this, so this complaint is somewhat bizarre.
Is he still in the race or is he just trying to steer the Democratic party policy?
Both. There's a chance Clinton will still be indicted.
He's still officially in the race, and there's extreme circumstances one can imagine where he might be able to actually win the nomination, but mostly he is focusing on shaping the party through the platform, for mobilizing people to run for office, etc.
Another major strategic error is you can't divert political momentum by saying "we're gonna be just like the winner except way more boring, lower energy, less controversial, and far less interesting". As a thought experiment, say for the sake of argument you hate heavy metal music and want people to stop following it because you're that kind of person. If you propose broadcasting even more formulaic top 40 girlpop on a different station, that's really going to excite the base of formulaic top 40 girlpop listeners. But the cool kids listening to the heavy metal station are just going to laugh, have a good time, the good time leads to more heavy metal listeners...