51吃瓜

It is a mistake to ignore the US primary elections, where Bernie Sanders was crushed by so-called democratic institutions.

For all the hand-wringing over the US presidential candidates, for all the from whence rose the 鈥淭rump Monster,鈥� for all the reminiscing for the Democratic primary鈥檚 more-substance filled days, insight is here. Yet it comes by examining the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders鈥攁ka the anti-Trump鈥攊n which he advocated for love and compassion to be etched into American policies. The American public did want to see his etchings, and they made him competitive throughout the presidential primaries.

Ultimately, Sanders was crushed by the establishment, a term mocked by Hillary Clinton鈥檚 supporters during the primary, who were known to be deeply committed to her advocacy. Thomas Frank鈥檚 new contribution in听贬补谤辫别谤鈥檚听Magazine and a review of this author鈥檚 previous articles provide a useful look into an important chapter of American progressive history, upon which the US must understand, correct and build.

THOMAS FRANK ON THE WASHINGTON POST鈥橲 EXTERMINATION

Frank鈥檚 blistering听贬补谤辫别谤鈥檚 article, 鈥�,鈥� looks at the January to May 2016 coverage of Sanders in The听Washington Post, a publication 鈥渢hat defines the limits of the permissible in the capital city.鈥� Frank is already famous for his groundbreaking work describing tectonic 听political听. This article is more than up to par.

Frank鈥檚 fascinating look includes all articles, op-eds and blog posts of this period. By and large, they heap scorn on Sanders. Opinion articles were five times more likely to be negative鈥攙ersus an even balance for Clinton鈥攁s part of nearly continual, varied attacks.

Why? Sanders was an affront to the 鈥減rofessional class worldview鈥濃�攕omething Frank documented extensively in ?

鈥淪anders may refer to himself as a progressive,鈥� Frank writes, 鈥渂ut to the affluent white-collar class, what he represented was atavism, a regression to a time when demagogues in rumpled jackets pandered to vulgar public prejudices against banks and capitalists and foreign factory owners.鈥�

Thus, Bernie was greeted with an unending stream of negative coverage. Early on, they dismissed him for not planning social security cuts or debt reduction. (听for this ludicrous inside-the-beltway thinking). Later headlines include, 鈥淣ominating Sanders Would be Insane鈥� and 鈥淎 Campaign Full of Fiction鈥� as The Post 鈥渉it every possible sort of anti-Sanders note, from the driest kind of math-based policy reproach to the lowest sort of nerd-shaming.鈥� Sanders was even criticized for disparaging the Wall Street bailouts, TARP and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). They also objected to his putting down of President Barack Obama.

鈥淲hat the Post is saying is that the American system, by its nature, doesn鈥檛 permit a president to achieve anything more than 鈥榠ncremental change,鈥欌�� writes Frank of the newspaper鈥檚 mentality. 鈥淥bama did the best he could under the system 鈥� therefore he should be exempt from criticism at the hands of Democrats.鈥�

As for the popular bold reforms that were championed by Sanders? Irrelevant! 鈥淐ertain ideas, when voiced by certain people听鈥� are inadmissible. The ideas themselves might seem healthy, they might have a long and distinguished history, they might be commonplace in other lands. Nevertheless when voiced by the people in question, they become damaging.鈥� And thus, Frank describes, 鈥渢he machinery by which the boundaries of the Washington consensus are enforced.鈥�

鈥淜nee jerk incrementalism is a nifty substitute for actually thinking difficult issues through,鈥� he writes. 鈥淏ernie Sanders ran for presidency by proposing reforms that prestigious commentators … found distasteful. Rather than grapple with his ideas, they simply blew the whistle and declared them out of bounds.鈥�

Frank ends with questioning why often lowly paid journalists would choose to align themselves with policymakers instead of promoting key ideas鈥攍ike college tuition and affordable health care鈥攖hat might one day benefit them.

MEDIA COVERAGE OF BERNIE SANDERS

So too is it worth reviewing this author鈥檚 coverage of the election, largely borne out and expanded by WikiLeaks.

In 鈥�The High Cost of Ignoring Bernie Sanders,鈥� the author called out the biased coverage:听,听with a similar number for Clinton, versus just 10 for听Sanders听on ABC, CBS and NBC news programs. This came despite Trump and Sanders鈥� often polling similar results.

51吃瓜 provides you deep and diverse insights for free. Remember that we still have to pay for servers, website maintenance and much more. So, to keep us free, fair and independent.

鈥淏ernie鈥檚 alternate and compelling 鈥榩olitical leadership鈥� has drawn overflow crowds, record donors and heavy millennia support,鈥� this author wrote at 51吃瓜. 鈥淵et a message that could trump the Trump is virtually muted by for-profit media 鈥� and that has shaped our national descent into hate- and violence-filled debate.鈥�

The three factors behind 鈥�,鈥� which were documented by 51吃瓜鈥檚 Atul Singh in a recent talk at Google鈥攏arrow and technocratic elites being removed from the working class; the rise of income, wealth and educational inequality with falling social mobility; and the failure of collective identity鈥攁lso helped lift up a progressive with inclusive humanist policies. And, thus, Bernie could have served as the counterpoint to Trump through to November 8.

Yet in 2016, the mainstream media tilted the playing field to scary angles. As this author documented in 鈥�A Presidential Candidate Exploits American Democratic Institutions,鈥� famed media critic Robert McChesney 鈥榯he greatest story [a journalist]听could ever possibly ever cover鈥澨齛s being reported on 鈥渂y the mainstream corporate media 鈥榯hrough the eyes of the Clinton campaign.鈥欌��

Mainstream media failed to fact-check misleading debate statements that allowed them to call Clinton鈥檚 first debate a win, despite abundant evidence to the contrary. Press releases by the Clinton campaign were issued only to be grabbed by news outlets to distract from popular Sanders policy ideas or Clinton campaign blunders.

Americans heard near-constant allegations of sexism鈥攖hough Hillary鈥檚 establishment power far outweighed individual sexism, and she was far from a feminist candidate as this author wrote in听Hillary, It鈥檚 Not Us, It鈥檚 You.

Attacks on Sanders鈥� social media were linked to Clinton supporters; calls for him to drop out echoed across the Hillary-friendly media; and Bernie鈥檚 leadership was virtually ignored as highlighted听The Most Important Speech: Bernie on the Banks.

Perhaps most egregiously was the bait-and-switch used on voters for superdelegates, who aligned with Clinton before the primaries started because of what the American public were told was 鈥渨innability.鈥�

This author, in Superdelegates Should Support Bernie, and others made the case that Sanders was more likely to win: he polled better against Trump; suffered from highly questionable election results; drew more crossover votes; and had a better record. So, then, Americans were absurdly told that superdelegates鈥� votes needed to reflect the popular vote.

Heavy media bias is painstakingly examined in Frank鈥檚 analysis.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN THE PRIMARIES

Of course, Americans now know that the Democratic Party was in Clinton鈥檚 corner too. The hugely biased 2008 Clinton campaign co-chair and Democratic National Committee head Debbie Wasserman Schultz stepped down after disclosures by WikiLeaks, which conclusively showed听听by the DNC and outright bias.

In听A Presidential Candidate Exploits American Democratic Institutions,听this author described the DNC鈥檚 鈥渕oney laundering鈥�: the rare step of setting up an early political vehicle for Clinton, which collected up to $330,000 from a person; sending it to states; then getting 99% of it back to try scare small donors.

The presidential primary debates were at inconvenient times and limited. And President Obama was clearly in Clinton鈥檚 court, and his unwillingness to attack corporate malfeasance from the bully pulpit for eight years shaped Americans鈥� vision of the possible.

While the feel-good Democratic National Convention is largely out of bounds of this article, it painstakingly undermined key gains of Bernie鈥檚 candidacy, including his serious misgivings around American intervention and wars鈥攚ith it now being clear听that 鈥攁nd his strong advocacy for climate change and the environment. This author documented these in听Dems in Philly Fail to Confront Corporate Power. While the Democrats chose to highlight inclusiveness, today there seems to be a clouded illusion.

OTHER INSTITUTIONS

Finally, it鈥檚 important to note that this took place in an era where major American institutions are largely funded by and serve the interests of elites, as Chris Hedges has written about eloquently and thoroughly in . This author published听The Miracle of Bernie鈥檚 Candidacy, The Holiday Story You Won鈥檛 Be Told.

Colleges鈥攈undreds that are funded by the Koch Brothers and many whose boards are dominated by financiers or corporate executives鈥攈ave abandoned much of their research and teaching on human rights, labor rights, environmental sustainability and climate sustainability. (This in addition to not 听living听,听and spending just a few percent of the massive听.)

Think tanks accept major foreign government and corporate donations, . As a result, they are largely unwilling to take on corporate power by framing issues as the power struggles that they are, at the scope on which they exist, or as lapses in core values.

Establishment nonprofits often have weak messaging and strong establishment ties. Those that might have thought to be neutral鈥攚ere they voting based on record鈥攕trangely endorsed and worked with Clinton, and movements (and the media) who were doing their job were dismissed as 鈥溾�� or described as needing to 鈥�.鈥�

Many, including the founder, CEO and editor-in-chief of 51吃瓜, have asserted that听Clinton is a stronger candidate than Trump听and, despite massive imperfections and issues, deserves to be elected president.

But as recently departed author and activist Tom Hayden said: 鈥淸T]he听听鈥� Each generation has to wrestle with the history of what came before, and ask: Whose interest does this history serve? How does it advance a legacy of social movements? How does it deny that legacy?鈥�

It is a mistake to brush off a presidential primary with huge significance. One where the popular and populist candidate was crushed by so-called democratic institutions, one that seems to presage the death of America鈥檚 dreams for the future鈥攕hould the struggle for accountability and democracy not continue.

To refuse to revisit the past is to settle for the expansion of empire, inequality and suffering.

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.

Photo Credit: