BERNIE SANDERS - HALFWAY THERE? by Michael Brenner

 
No - not to the nomination, much less the White House. What Sanders has done is to establish himself as a force in the Democratic Party's selection process. He has done so by demonstrating two qualities that have largely disappeared from America's political life over the past few decades. One is conviction and intellectual honesty. The other is articulate statement of a progressive creed that was the party's heart and soul when it dominated the country's electoral life, before lapsing into the "me-too" wing of our current Establishment uniparty. Sanders, thereby, has flinted a spark of life into those nominally liberal circles whose lazy and complacent inertia had led them to declare the compromised Hillary Clinton as their latest champion. 

None of this was foreseen by the commentators and strategists who set the tone for our political discourse. Their domination of the electronic airways generates the Washington Consensus that few dare dispute. That consensus is invariably wrong - on almost every matter of electoral and policy consequences. They boast a record of unrelieved obtuseness that does nothing to undermine their authority in delimiting what or who qualifies for "serious" discussion. One could amass a fortune simply by betting against the Washington Consensus. A quicker and more socially responsible alternative to joining in the corrupt shenanigans that pass for finance these days.  

The "experts," in their typical blinkered way, overlooked or grossly underestimated some stark truths. Most Americans are poorer today than they were 45 years ago. Stagnant salaries may have left them on a par with or very slightly ahead of where they were in 1970 in absolute terms, but they have lost all purchase on the kind of lives led by those who are infinitely better off in relative terms. In America's status society where well-being is measured in life style terms, that counts for a lot. Especially so, when the outlook for your children is a struggle even to keep up with their parents. Moreover, tens of millions of earnest workers have seen themselves degraded and downgraded as "temps" and part-timers, shorn of job security and benefits, in the name of "productivity" and "efficiency."  They are marooned in a limbo just a layer above migrant agricultural workers. This is taken by their leaders to be the inescapable price to pay in order to keep up with the Malaysians and the Chinese. Democratic President Barack Obama rubs their noses in it by promoting the Trans-Pacific commercial Pact, largely written by big business, which will undercut the authority of the United States government to alleviate their condition.

 

For the cognoscenti of the political class, this blunt reality is a revelation - ignored for decades and now filed away under the label "inequality." For them and for the candidates they promote, "inequality" is just another abstraction about which nothing practical will be done - like the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process." So long as they themselves are comfortably off, all is more-or-less right with the world. 

Consider this: Apple and GE, two of America’s most profitable corporations, are paying Zero federal taxes. Their aggregate taxes paid to governments worldwide is 0% and 3%. Apple – always the most innovative – declares itself headquartered somewhere in cyber space where no tax laws apply. That assertion is uncontested by Washington.  President Obama has ignored this scandalous tax evasion, his administration has taken no executive initiatives and proposed no legislation remedy. Democrat leaders in Congress are equally inert. Candidate Clinton ignores it.

 
Another overlooked truth is that it is finally dawning on some Americans how misled and ill-served they are by self-absorbed, careerist politicos. They have suffered from two kinds of abusive behavior: the perversion of our public institutions, legislative and executive and regulatory, by the onslaught of moneyed interests; and the calculated stratagems designed to keep the populace distracted and ill-informed through distortion and misrepresentation. These features of American democracy are not entirely new, of course. However, in the past they were offset by party competition wherein one party - the Democrats for the past century - felt an interest at once principled and electoral to expose and denounce at least a segment of these schemes and machinations, at least the domestic ones. That no longer in the case. The Democratic Party has sold out - with a few exceptions - on most significant issues.

Selling out means a number of things: actively allying with the vested Establishment interests; staying mute due to dependence on big money's campaign contributions; concentrating on cosmetic reform and minimal steps in a progressive direction (e.g. Dodd-Franks and its non-implementation).  This has been institutionalized during the Clinton and Obama administrations in concert with Democratic Congressional leaders.  An historic landmark of incalculable importance was the sequester initiative of President Obama whereby all federal spending was cut substantially across the board (with the notable exception of off-the-books military spending on the global wars against terror). This reckless action gave the Republicans a long dreamt of boon: a weakening of government programs in line with their laissez-faire ideology. Those cuts are now the baseline for the fights over further reductions. Federal spending as a fraction of GDP is at its lowest level since the 1920s.

 
The full implications have been masked by a) a negligent, pandering MSM; and b) the takeover of the Republican Party by radical reactionary elements that make the Democrats look liberal - if only by comparison. This swing toward the conservative end of the political continuum is supposed to have helped the Democratic Party win elections. It hasn't. The picture presented across the country is of a Republican tide that has swept state houses, governorships, and local offices. Republican ideology frames issues and shapes public discourse. Success in presidential elections by Clinton and Obama had more to do with the feeble opposition they faced in congenial circumstances and some artfully contrived posturing as savior of the Republic.

 

The political landscape sketched above is doubly important: it helps explain why a liberal revival such as personified by Bernie Sanders was written off by the "professionals," and why it nonetheless so quickly has made a mark. Where exactly this will lead is unclear. Some changes, though, are already visible. The most obvious is that Democratic candidates cannot continue to slight the party's progressive wing. They cannot simply take it for granted and keep it calm by the dual strategy of offering a few tokens of half-hearted rhetoric while keeping attention fixed on the "social" issues of abortion and gay marriage. That obviously had been Hillary's strategy.  Now, she is being forced to pronounce on matters like taxes for the 1% and serious financial regulation. Her credibility in the minds of those who know her record and who have a measure of discernment may be zero, but she at least had to lay down a few markers.  The same holds for Joe Biden were he to jump into the fray.

 

A second change is to thrust before Democratic leaders the awkward fact that their constituents are well to the "left" of the official party. Opinion surveys, for whatever they're worth, show clearly that on a wide range of socio-economic issues there are significant majorities that favor, inter alia, an expansion and strengthening of Medicare, a strengthening and expansion of Social Security (both of which Barack Obama has shown himself ready to curtail), meaningful financial regulation, stronger not diluted regulation of the pharmaceutical industry, and polluters, rejection of business friendly and job unfriendly "trade" deals, and even gun control.  Bernie Sanders, by harping on these very issues, has increased the electoral risks for Hillary to continue playing hide-and-seek with her potential voters.

 

Third, Sander's manifest commitment and integrity places in stark relief the evasive, manipulative manner of the current crop of politicians - Hillary outstanding among them. The psychology of this is elusive. There seems little doubt, though, that her lack of forthrightness on matters ranging from her home basement server while Secretary of State to her cozy and dubious dealings with big money donors will cost her more now that there is an example of a quite different conception of public responsibility on the screen.

 

The cumulative effect of these changes induced by the Sanders phenomenon could take a variety of forms. That Sanders actually would win the nomination is the most unlikely.  For several reasons. Hilary's money, machine and cynical ruthlessness will be hard to overcome. Much of the electoral territory, in the South and West, is not yet ready to accommodate a "Socialist" from Brooklyn/Vermont. It will take years for the Democrats to revive the tradition of Southern populism eclipsed by race and facilitated by their own lassitude. Moreover, the Establishment is mobilizing to stop in its tracks the sort of progressive populism that Sanders represents. It is too unsettling - in terms of policy, ideology, and personal comfort. The New York Times, for example, has given us abundant evidence that it wants to see a HRC-Bush contest. For them, that is the "safest" pairing for the country's good. The paper's massive coverage of all things Hillary began more than a year ago with the assignment of a full-time reporter to the Clinton beat - a sort of Keeping Up With The Kardashians. Their occasional reporting of her numerous misadventures does not begin to offset the effect of exhaustive, sympathetic coverage in an age when celebrity is what it is (almost) all about.

 

This week they outdid themselves in running a featured front page story claiming that Biden may lose the respect of friends and relatives – and his legacy – were his challenge to Hillary to deflect this Jeanne d’Arc from Destiny’s call to the White House.  If Hillary’s rendez-vous with destiny turns out to be no more than a tryst with destiny, copious tears will be wept on West 43^rd Street.

One must also speculate about the fortunes of Joe Biden were he to take the plunge. Sanders in a sense has opened the way for Biden by softening up Hillary. He has forced her to take some positions (however tentatively) that she wanted to avoid,  her lack of authenticity has been implicitly made to stand out,  and her luke-warm supporters who saw her as their best hope to avoid a Republican Armageddon now are beginning to rethink their reliance on a savior who simply may not have the "right stuff."  In this sense, Sanders might be playing Gene McCarthy to Biden's Robert Kennedy in 1968. Biden is no Bobby Kennedy; but then Hillary is no LBJ.

 

There are, in fact, two worries about Hillary. One is that there is yet another scandal hovering beneath the surface that could sink her credibility once and for all. With the Clintons, anything is possible. We don't know what was on the thousands of emails she "accidentally" deleted before sending on the residue to the State Department. No doubt they contained the most sensitive, potentially damaging material.  If somebody else has retained copies, there may be enough there to capsize Hillary's would-be ship of state once and for all. The other is that her cumulative negatives will leave her so tarnished and deflated as to render her the under-dog. There is a chance that Hillary could arrive in Boston with the nomination locked-up but DOA insofar as the general election is concerned. That presumes a Republican nominee who himself is viable.

 

Jeb Bush probably will be the nominee. If the election were held on the basis of video images and puff reporting by the MSM, he would be formidable. However, every time he opens his mouth, primitive and reactionary views come out of it. "When I hear the sound of gunfire I hear the sound of Freedom." The effect is reinforced by an evident lack of nimbleness and quick-wittedness which appears to be a family trait.

 

Even were Bush, and his advisers, to reprogram him as they did his brother, he runs up against the arithmetic of Republican primaries now dominated by the far-Right crazies of various stripes. No more than 15% of the total electorate, their high turn-out in Republican primaries and their fanaticism make them an intimidating force.

Bush's hope is that whatever he must do to win the nomination will be forgotten come next fall. Given the short attention span of Americans and their self-absorbed lives, that is a reasonable calculation.  Anyway, Hillary's own shortcomings make her too tentative and over calculating to pursue the kind of all-out aggressive strategy that could leave Bush dazed and stumbling.  It will be a challenge to lose to Jeb Bush. The Democrats are up to it, though. Remember that Al Gore managed to 'lose' to his brother George under far more favorable circumstances

 

In other words, the forecast is for another Presidential contest between losers - from the progressive vantage point. The fruits of Bernie Sanders heroic efforts will not be ripe until four years from now - assuming that there will be someone ready to harvest them.   
 

Comments

[Timothy Holland]

I read this website for the unparalleled expertise in foreign and military policy, particularly as applied to the Middle East. Every once in a while you come up with commentaries in other areas that excel everything Else I have been able to find on the web.

This piece is one the reasons I check out this site five days a week.

[Mark Gaughan]

Here, here!

[BabelFish]

I agree as well.

[William R. Cumming]

Thanks Professor Brenner! THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE? I hope so!

[LeaNder]

"In America's status society where well-being is measured in life style terms, that counts for a lot. Especially so, when the outlook for your children is a struggle even to keep up with their parents.
...
For the cognoscenti of the political class, this blunt reality is a revelation - ignored for decades and now filed away under the label "inequality." For them and for the candidates they promote, "inequality" is just another abstraction about which nothing practical will be done - like the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process." So long as they themselves are comfortably off, all is more-or-less right with the world. "

A prof, I loved a lot, once told me in a private conversation even the most ardent macho, mind you some of my best friends are, has a second thought once it concerns his own daughter.

this was a joke!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machismo

I am sure, were I American I would vote Bernie Sanders, but how will he manage to update "inequality" to times where no doubt, maybe not only over here millions of people consider our inequality relatively equal, or at least a better chance to survive. Not only the ones that have a good reason to flee war in their countries?

Concerning Apple, I noticed some of the creatives had a second thought on Apple, considering earlier revelations, but they are also used to it. I doubt the revelation that Apple doesn't even pay taxes in the US won't change a lot.

I didn't recognize a big impact as far as success and shares are concerned. Besides if it had, where will the money go?

Never mind the 1970s, they feel a comparatively safe age looked at in hindsight from the via the Western prism.

[Dave Schuler]

Per Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx) ten years ago 35% of Americans considered themselves Democrats. Twenty years ago 44% of Americans identified with the Democrats. It's hardly surprising that Democrats have drifted to the left--it's the left wing of the party that has remained. The Republicans can take no solace in the change in fortunes for the Democratic Party: their own party has done no better. Most of those who remain are the more extreme in their caucus, in the case of Republicans social conservatives and Tea Party Republicans.

The short version of all of this is that Americans are not as satisfied with either party as they used to be and becoming less satisified rapidly. Whether the dissatisfaction takes the form of more than just not showing up to vote is another question.

[Tyler]

That debate last night proved you just can't chump the Trump.

The biggest loser? Fox News openly announcing that its controlled opposition for the Borg and nothing else.

[mbrenner]

I recall Will Rogers' advice: "Don't vote, it just encourages them"

[jerseycityjoan]

Dave Schuler and All:

I don't think things will stay as they are, with so many discontented and unaffiliated voters. It's an unnatural and undesirable state in a democracy.

We have a long history of two parties. Will one or more our two big parties fade or change? Will one or more new parties rise up? I do not not know.

But the current state of affairs has lasted too long as it is. Why would today's kids agree to perpetuate what's going on in 5-10-15 years once they become adults?

[Lesly]

"It's hardly surprising that Democrats have drifted to the left--it's the left wing of the party that has remained."

I am a leftist/liberal/progressive. Pick a label. I haven't identified as Democratic since the 110th voted to extend provisions of the unPatriot Act. Granting retroactive immunity to telecoms didn't help. They convinced me to vote for them. I made small donations. Only to turn around and act like their morally inferior opponents.

In hindsight I shouldn't have bothered. Welfare reform, Glass-Steagall's repeal, giving Bush the Medicare Modernization Act with little to show for it in terms of savings for healthcare consumers. The party proved my disassociation was the right choice with stellar examples like the bank bailout and its reluctance to oppose Obama on Syria, at least publicly. They are too like Republicans, comfortable with neoliberal economic policies and willing enough to wage war against states better left alone that do not pose a threat to this government. The only thing the party has going for it is its refusal to mirror the GOP on social issues.

[HankP]

Michael Brenner -

The big problem you identify is economic insecurity, and it seems that problem is not going to get any better. Someone like Bernie Sanders can help dull the sharp edges, but the relentless logic of automation and capital accumulation does not point to a more egalitarian future. If anything, we're likely to see employment continue to shrink as only the brightest and best connected get and keep gainful employment. In the near future we may see areas like driving, food prep, harvesting, distribution, and even police and military automated away. There will always be creative jobs, but they will not provide employment for a majority. Will we see a more socialized society, with something like a guaranteed annual wage, or an even more stratified society with increasing numbers of working poor? Unfortunately, if history is anything to go by the latter seems far more likely.

As to why the media didn't expect Bernie, they're well paid and insulated pretty well from everyday life. I like Bernie, and I'll vote for him if i get a chance. But I don't think I will get the chance.

[Fred]

Tyler,

Nah, the biggest loser was John Stewarts ratings for his final show. One more notch in the marketing belt for Mr. Ailes. I wonder how much add revenue Fox generated for that show?

[readerOfTeaLeaves]

Completely agree that people are fed up with careerists.

The tax code has been so obsequious to 'capital' that it has now become an impediment to widespread economic growth. I honestly don't think Hillary or Biden understand how badly the tax code, plus private equity, junk bonds, and financialization have screwed up the American economy. (See also: careerists, careerism)

As for missing emails: Hillary should have observed how many of us utterly loathed Dick Cheney after thousands of White House emails went missing. What's sauce for the gander is also sauce for the goose. (See also: transparency; lack of)

[William R. Cumming]

IMO if there is some kind of long-term political party realignment going on I have predicted it will be complete on and after the 2028 Presidential Election having started in the 1992 Presidential Election.

My reasoning to long and complicated for the blog but my belief that Ross Perot gave US Bill Clinton now seems to be Republican Party mantra. Thus, worry over Trump defection to third party.

[William R. Cumming]

The lineup reinforced the ridiculousness of the Republican quest for certainty of election.

[confusedponderer]

The point about the Washington consensus is that in the US it is a consensus domestically also.

[Jay McAnally]

Thank you for an excellent discussion.

[Jack]

Mr. Brenner

I am glad that Bernie Sanders is in the race. However, I doubt even so called Progressives will vote for him in the primaries. In both parties its always voting for the lesser evil which results in The Borg in power.

I agree with you that average Americans continue to fall behind. The chart of median real household income says it all. However, I have to disagree with several of your assertions and of course your prescription of even more government.

First, as far as the sequestration is concerned you claim federal spending was reduced. Is that correct or was it only the growth rate of spending that was temporarily reduced? Second, you assert that federal spending as a percent of GDP is the lowest since the 1920s. This is incorrect according to the chart of federal government spending since the Founding of the US (link below). Throughout the 19th century and early 20th century federal spending was single digit percent of GDP except during periods of big wars. Since the 70s it's been around 20% of GDP. That is a far cry from the single digits of the early 20th century. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1792_2020USp_XXs1li111mcn_F0f_US_Federal_Spending_since_the_Founding

Total government spending (local, state & federal) is over 35% of GDP, in the range of many "socialist" western european states. At least they get health care for all that government spending and in many cases government financed education too.

I worked in the CFOs office at a regional bank for over a decade. Believe me, the number of regulatory filings and compliance requirements are rather voluminous. The issue IMO, is not insufficient regulation, it is no skin in the game - it is a lack of capitalism as Schumpeter would say. As we saw with the last financial crisis, both political parties used the power of the state to bailout Wall St financial speculation, privatizing speculative gains and socializing losses. The Fed has been an instrument of large banking interests to financialize the economy, concentrate financial power and incite speculation while making the average American the bagholder for inevitable losses. Despite 6 years of ZIRP, trillions in federal government debt growth, trillions monetized by the Fed, we have one of the weakest economic recoveries with growing tens of millions on food stamps and no growth in productivity. Yet, the stock market is at all time highs.

Both parties as well as the "left" and "right" on the political spectrum want bigger government and they sure have big government. The Federal Register is as big as it has ever been. Yet, the median real household income has gone no where and the wealth disparity grows bigger. But the "progressives" and "conservatives" call for more government intervention. One problem with more and more complex regulation, is regulatory capture. The revolving door. Eric Holder, Henry Paulson, Bob Rubin, Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Mary Jo White being some recent examples. As this article notes Obamacare architect Liz Fowler exemplifies how the revolving door is used by moneyed interests to use the power of the state to feather their nest. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/05/obamacare-fowler-lobbyist-industry1. The other problem with complex regulation are the loopholes that only those with the resources can take advantage. As you noted the biggest corporations hardly pay much federal income tax, just as Warren Buffet pays a smaller percentage of his income relative to his secretary.

What I shake my head about is that both the left and right believe that the problems created by big government should be fixed with more government interventions.

[Medicine Man]

Nah Fred, I think Tyler's right this time. If the chief consequence of an event intended to chose the leader of the Republican party is Mr. Ailes' ad revenue then you can see the outlines of the problem.

I didn't watch it but I heard the moderators tried pretty hard to sink Trump -- one gotcha question after another -- but gave Walker and Rubio nothing but Vaseline on the camera lens softball questions.

[mbrenner]

My reference was to the 1920s - not the 1820s, and only to federal spending.

"Total government spending (local, state & federal) is over 35% of GDP, in the range of many "socialist" western european states."
I believe this in incorrect - only Luxembourg and perhaps Switzerland approach that number. The Scandinavians, French, Germans etc are above 40% In Denmark, it is above 45%. Oddly, Denmark had the highest rate of GDP growth from 1990 until 2008.

I agree with you about what we get for our tax money. We would get more if there were More regulation not Less regulation by competent government agencies dedicated to public service rather than cultivating the organizations into which they plan to parachute, and agencies not run by political appointees like the morons at Health & Human Services or at the Personnel agency that couldn't figure out how to safeguard its employee data. The same could be said for the NSA and Pentagon. There was a story this week that the NSA depends on a Microsoft system for administrative matters that is so outdated that they are forced to pay Microsoft a special fee to keep it going. In addition, a government run health care system rather than a for-profit system would save us literally hundreds of billions. In terms of efficiency, Medicare is head and shoulder superior to any of the private insurance or care delivery outfits - by objective measures.

[mbrenner]

Sorry it is the US Navy not NSA that uses antique Microsoft software.

The NSA has its own obvious problems with data security.

[mbrenner]

I have discovered the reason for a discrepant conclusions. The US government site you reference uses figures for the consolidated budget, i.e. it includes spending for Social Security and Medicare. This is rank dishonesty on the government's part since both programs draw their monies from dedicated trust funds into which we pay through withholdings separate from IRS withholdings.

I am not qualified to make the adjustments. There are a few obvious conclusions which were discussed on SST a few years back, however.

1. Since the Soc Sec trust fund has been running a big surplus for years, and since that money is budgeted to cover non-Soc Sec spending, the true deficit is - and has been - much larger than reported.

2. Honest accounting would show that both programs are in far better shape than the bipartisan claim of looming insolvency suggests

3. The proposed cutbacks, supported in principle by Obama and the Republicans, in effect will cheat millions of Americans of what is due them since the Treasury will never honor the IOUs in places in the trust funds when it siphons off the current surpluses.

4. The Scandinavians and other 'socialist' European governments do not engage in sort type of plunder

[Michael Parks]

Bernie will become president if the vote is not stolen again like what happened with Bush and the Supreme Court. We won't get another chance in our lifetimes to elect someone who isn't owed by the wealthy.