Yet another article that understands there is no comparison between these two. Hillary is all talk when it comes to the issues Sanders has proven to support over a long history. Hillary is of the old order, Sanders of the new. An excerpt:
"She [Hillary], Bill and Barack Obama practically invented neoliberalism and remain
members in good standing until proven otherwise. If your speeches are
long on weepy tales of “everyday Americans” you met on the campaign
trail, but short on policy prescriptions, the credit goes to David
Axelrod, not Paul Krugman. If you’d raise the minimum wage but won’t say
how much, you’re Mitt Romney. If you back the Trans Pacific Trade
Partnership–and despite recent evasions she’s all for it–you’re fighting
for capital, not labor."
"Voters prize civility and long for a populism without culprits or
conspiracies–but sorely want to hear their righteous anger expressed.
Clinton won’t do it, in part because she can’t offend the delicate
sensibilities of her donors but also because [...] she mistakes
the mood for a leftist insurrection. Many of us [...] have
long argued that the old categories are defunct and that much of what
the old order calls radical has long since gone mainstream. Soon
everyone will see it. For now, let me suggest a rule: any policy
enjoying majority support in every poll must henceforth be called
centrist, not 'radical' or 'left wing.'"
"Clinton’s speech had its isolated moments but if it sparks a debate it
won’t be because she made common cause with a category of unicorns
called paleoliberals, but because Bernie Sanders seizes the chance it
presents. Clinton still doesn’t get it. It is the neoliberals who are
paleo now. The ferment Sanders has tapped into is the future. But to get
there coalitions must be broadened and policies rethought; when the old
order collapses you don’t seek the old center, you invent a new one."
"Sanders has long recognized that 'fair growth' demands not just a little
profit sharing but economic democratization through employee ownership,
consumer and producer cooperatives, cooperative banks and a host of
other new and old economic forms that struggle to survive under present
rules. Clinton says she wants to be the “small-business president.” I
think she means it, but I don’t think she knows what it means. Again,
Sanders is miles ahead of her."
The issue of the day is 'trade.' [...] When jobs cross borders in nanoseconds
the advantages everyone seeks are low wages and weak governments.
Somebody must tell the neoliberals this is no longer about who has the
best weather to grow bananas in. In fact, it is no longer about trade.
It is about whether democracy rules commerce–or commerce rules
democracy. It’s a subject Sanders knows well. Clinton appears clueless."
"This is the debate we need: how best to turn back the impersonal tide of
globalization and begin conscious creation of a new, intentional
economy. This isn’t the debate Clinton or the media is prepared to have.
But it’s the one the country urgently desires, and one progressives can
win. Like the polls, the throngs flowing to Sanders’ events and the
small-dollar donations to his campaign attest to the ripeness of the
moment. The real proof’s in the power of ideas."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.