In Friday night's "First in the South" Democratic Forum, emceed by Rachel Maddow, Bernie Sanders missed a golden opportunity to capitalize on his self-distinction as a "Democratic Socialist". He drew a question which was obscured in an unmarked envelope among several which any of the three candidates could have been the one to choose. In it, among several meant-to-be-light questions was one about perceptions the candidate would like to change about themselves. If ever there were a time paint a more flattering self-portrait than the one rivals within his own party as well as his pin-head political opposition on the other side have red and white-washed him with. Regrettably IMO, light spirit of the moment prevailed and Sen. Sanders answered that some perceive him as "grumpy". Oye.
Rachel Maddow had not succeeded in getting anything of concrete sense out of her previous interviewee, Martin O'Malley, about why the Democratic Party is being flogged into smaller and smaller proportions in election after election in the south and elsewhere, and the question remained palpable in the wake of last Tuesday's election results. No one is a straighter shooter than Bernie. And though he displayed the passion which has brought so many people out to see him in person and much of the crowd that night to its feet at the end of his segment, the question of why the Democratic Party is in retreat, especially when Republicans are so much rolling manure cart of dangerous question marks has only been answered with off-the-cuff subjective generalizations and guesses rather than the biting and persuasive truth which is distinctively evident.
That truth may not yet be packaged and rubber-stamped for teaching but we adults have lived it and can judge it. The convergence of the first "Republican Revolution" of the ‘94 election with the fragmentation of the three-network broadcast media world into hundreds of alternatives, the invention of the browser in ‘94 to make the Internet a ready-made vehicle for social and anti-social media alike—this convergence of sea-changing events has extended unique opportunity for right wing opportunists actually “industrialize” paranoia. And in doing so they have made skape-goating and vilification of other Americans who differ on values and beliefs the new national pastime. Democrats, progressives, liberals just don’t do this. Yes, there is partisan media on the left but it is a reaction and somewhat of a check keeping an eye on the virtual secession of the right from American democratic decorum and traditions in favor of tactics we’ve seen lead the world to its darkest days before.
Some of we progressives have come out against a turn of events like the privatization of prisons for instance because for one, we know it's a surrender by society to a belief born of paranoia and skape-goating that social problems like crime cannot be solved by better means. But we also know that once something becomes industrialized (privatized), the fortunes of investors and providers of the service expect growth, don't tend to care much about anything but the size of ROI, and will spend big on lobbyists to influence politics to advance their economic engines. So why have we not viewed industrialization of partisan media which works the levers of paranoia and judgementalism the same way? The proof of its thirst for growth is being reflected in the industrial way the right is taking over, even though they offer nothing in the way of progress for the average American. I know it's not just me--lies in politics over the last decade are now told by the bushel basket load--just as industrial want of growth stunts adherence to truth. What kind of independent "fourth estate" can there be if commercialism underpins most journalism and sponsors have found they no longer have to even appear fair and neutral? They are on the same gravy train with industrial lie tellers and spinners.
Socialism as some kind of organized totality intent on replacing models of government and economy just does not exist in America. But what is keeping America from falling all the way into self-destruction and a heartless dog-eat-dog capitalist totality where there is no one to call a lie a lie or make sure there is an infrastructure ten years from now to upkeep our nation's ability to maintain competence in the world is the influence of social consciousness or, if you will, social “ism”. IMO Bernie Sanders needs to make this distinction at every turn—and that adding the three letters of "ist" or "ism" to the word social is just a matter of expedient language to get to the critical point that unlike free market purists or those who put all faith in a capitalist totality, a country is doomed without a social conscience guiding its priorities and policies. The right has not only industrialized--truly and not rhetorically—industrialized fear and loathing. Careers, fortunes, perks and promises have been allowed to tie themselves for a whole generation to a heartless corporate machine. It's too late to roll that back now. But passive acquiescence is no answer to a terrible slide that is putting out the lights of the party of inclusive progress. Democrats must be led to observe this truth and not dismiss themselves or each other. “Bringing people together” is a nice platitude but eight years of watching President Obama try it time after time only to get his political teeth bashed in should say enough that no one can just sway Americans to fight their way out of the bubbles or compartments they have committed themselves to. Bernie Sanders has been bold all his life. It appears he understands that the country is not going to come to him but that a new contingent must rise from the country to challenge every American to really look at themselves and look at the rubble of good intentions obstructed and brought to an end by the ideologues and acolytes of capitalism without conscience. He has the guts to ask the hard question: if you have one choice of association would it be to the social or to the anti-social? because that’s what it really comes down to. But there must be no further failures to “capitalize on socialism”.
I cast my lot with the social and a future for all versus hopes for a trickle of scraps from some monopolist's table.