In yet another survey such as the Princeton one that concluded the United States government is ruled by an oligarchy whose wishes repeatedly supplant those of voters, these just-published Public Agenda/WNYC survey findings are perhaps even starker, in that they reveal just how perfectly well the public understands the depths of how badly they've been bamboozled by a government of, by and for the 1%. Brian Lehrer of WNYC is devoting an entire week to discussions about this elephant in the room.
And so on the eve of the first Democratic debate, this survey, coupled with the New York Times piece exposing that "Just 158 families have provided nearly half of the early money for efforts to capture the White House" (though they glaringly chose to skirt using the "O" word), would seem to be a magical confluence of evidence that sets up Sanders to bring his winning populist case right into the living rooms of American voters for perhaps the first time. Add to this the announcement today of Scottish microeconomist Angus Deaton winning the Nobel Peace Prize for Economics for his analysis of consumption, poverty, and welfare, along with venerable Socialist Jeremy Corbyn's recent, landslide win in the United Kingdom, and the soil is ripe for Sanders to espouse the virtues of Democratic Socialism to middle America.
From the press release, "According to the survey, residents are alarmed about their poor economic prospects and the growing gap between the wealthy and everyone else. They say that the government is not doing an adequate job addressing these issues, a concern coupled with a sense that the wealthy have a disproportionate influence on government.
The survey was conducted by Public Agenda with over 1500 people across New York City and surrounding suburbs in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey. It paints a picture of an increasingly unaffordable metropolitan area where the costs of housing, living expenses, education and taxes are threatening people's ability to make ends meet."
Here are some of the findings:
- 86 percent say the high cost of living is a serious problem
- 80 percent say the high cost of housing is a serious problem
- 77 percent say high taxes are a serious problem
- 73 percent say the high cost of college is a serious problem
- 79 percent say they mostly favor more government spending on public colleges so that students can study without taking out loans
The study is an almost point-by-point validation of Bernie's economic platform. Furthermore, the high percentage of dissatisfaction and distrust of government are similar nationwide. The results here echo the "Tale of Two Cities" campaign that current progressive NYC Mayor DeBasio rode to a landslide victory with over 70% of the vote. If that platform resonated with voters then, how could it not now with Sanders?
The staggering numbers in both of these findings are a firm validation of the core principles and platform positions that separate Sanders from the pack. He's been out early and more forcefully on these issues, and his believability absolutely overshadows all of the candidates on both sides of our vaunted two-party system. Clinton and the other contenders will certainly try to co-opt his extremely popular positions, but in the end scrutiny of her campaign will reveal a Johnny-Come-Lately who blows with the wind, and of the kind of typically pandering political speak Bernie is also confronting. In that sense, the unmatched consistency of Sanders on these issues most confronting and concerning to the vast majority of Americans will be his calling card. These have been his positions for decades. There's only candidate not taking Big Money, completely supported by large numbers of small donations and unions.
At some point, dear reader, you need to examine your conscience, and ask, "what kind of society do I want?"
Democracy that is reduced to an auction sold to the highest bidders is not democracy. It is plutocracy. It must end. If you claim to be a true liberal progressive then at some point we must join together to reclaim the mantle of the original American Dream, the term first used by historian James Truslow Adams in his book "The Epic of America" published during the Great Depression.
"The American dream of a better, richer and happier life for all our citizens of every rank, which is the greatest contribution we have made to the thought and welfare of the world. That dream or hope has been present from the start. Ever since we became an independent nation, each generation has seen an uprising of ordinary Americans to save that dream from the forces that appear to be overwhelming it."
The idea of "The American Dream" must be updated and re-fitted to reflect something altogether different than how it's been misused. The term, it seems to me, has been co-opted as some sort of RW Libertarian think tank malarkey to prop up the myth of he-man individualism and hard work as the keys to success, with a subtext to shame the poor as not working hard enough. The Guardian published an excellent article
"The Great Gatsby and the American dream," in which journalists at the time of Fitgerald's book were criticizing "get-rich-quick and gambling" as the bane of their time (eerily foreboding; does anybody read history anymore?). Adams continues:
"Throughout our history, the pure gold of this vision has been heavily alloyed with the dross of materialistic aims. Not only did the wage scales and our standard of living seem to promise riches to the poor immigrant, but the extent and natural wealth of the continent awaiting exploitation offered to Americans of the older stocks such opportunities for rapid fortunes that the making of money and the enjoying of what money could buy too often became our ideal of a full and satisfying life. The struggle of each against all for the dazzling prizes destroyed in some measure both our private ideals and our sense of social obligation."
Which is to say our economic system of unbridled capitalism has destroyed our moral barometers. We've been thrust into a churning grinder of it, forced to be capitalist businessmen gladiators fighting to the death in a profit over people system that also worships the rich and famous; and this all comes at the expense of the commons, a sense of community and erudition.
When it really comes down to it what we really each seek at the end of the day is a dignified existence, which could be summed up simply by a system in which all have fair access to publicly-owned energy sources, taxpayer and financial transaction-paid free healthcare system and college education and a less monopolized business sector, which results in better-paying jobs and more time for loved ones/less in the crunch of having become overworked consumers and debt-slaves, which is the real American Dream. We keep flirting with it but end up walking away without completing the job, easily frightened away by little fear-mongering propagandists. Sanders is unfazed by that garbage and wants to finish the job. The time for true Democratic Socialism has been staring us in the face for decades now.
Similar to the reflection of the above findings, an overwhelming majority here feel deeply impassioned that Sanders speaks for us. You don't have to be a sage to recognize how imperative it is in elections to turn out the base, (which even Kos himself acknowledges), and there's no question who is generating the crowds, passion and volunteers. The best path by far to achieving a progressive agenda is through a Sanders presidency. Let's start getting real about it.
For these reasons isn't it way past time to issue a serious wake-up call to the Democratic machine brass, who are stubbornly keeping their heads buried deep in the sand again? I'm tired of reading of Democratic "insiders," such as Barney Frank, knock his campaign with defeatist "pragmatism," and the repeated ad nauseum retort that "I like Bernie but he can't win." I can remember distinctly, like it was yesterday, hearing a friend say to me in early 2008, "can you imagine if we elect a black guy with a Muslim name as POTUS?" "Yeah, it's gonna happen too."
Clinton may have carpet-bagged her way into a Senator position in my State but I don't sense any special loyalty to her here.
If DeBlasio can win a NYC primary by speaking frankly on issues and confronting the public directly in a very real and personal way, i.e. Stop & Frisk, affordable housing and economic disparity, then so can Sanders. With these numbers as an indication he can win the NY primary.