- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/22940159
Bernie Sanders caused a stir last week, when the independent senator from Vermont and two-time contender for the Democratic presidential nomination sent a post-election email to his progressive supporters across the country. In it, he argued that the Democrats suffered politically in 2024 at least in part because they ran a campaign that focused on “protecting the status quo and tinkering around the edges.”
In contrast, said Sanders, “Trump and the Republicans campaigned on change and on smashing the existing order.” Yes, he explained, “the ‘change’ that Republicans will bring about will make a bad situation worse, and a society of gross inequality even more unequal, more unjust and more bigoted.”
Despite that the reality of the threat they posed, Trump and the Republicans still won a narrow popular-vote victory for the presidency, along with control of the US House. That result has inspired an intense debate over the future direction not just of the Democratic Party but of the country. And the senator from Vermont is in the thick of it.
In his email, Sanders, a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus who campaigned in states across the country this fall for Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democratic ticket, asked a blunt question: “Will the Democratic leadership learn the lessons of their defeat and create a party that stands with the working class and is prepared to take on the enormously powerful special interests that dominate our economy, our media and our political life?”
His answer: “Highly unlikely. They are much too wedded to the billionaires and corporate interests that fund their campaigns.”
That pales in comparison to the vast wealth of billionaires which is needed to fund an entire movement and not just one person. It’s easier to have one or a small handful of billionaires coordinate their wealth than to get millions of individuals to pool their money together to fund a cohesive movement.
40% of Harris’ funds came from small donors, that’s 400m, and I don’t believe for a sec that there wouldn’t be major donors for an actual progressive movement.
Harris was handpicked by the party to be the presidential candidate, making her a conduit for such funds. That’s not going to happen with a progressive candidate because, as we’ve seen multiple times in the past, the party will work hard to stop any progressive candidate from actually getting the presidential nomination. Additionally, funding continues in the form of lobbying. Money is funneled through lobbyists to influence legislation and to my knowledge, there isn’t much in the way of small donors for lobbying efforts.
You just ignored what I said…
I’m talking about the big progressive names in the Democratic party up and leaving to form their own party OR launching their version of the Tea Party to move the whole party left, I’m not talking about them trying to put Sanders at the top of the Democratic party.
I interpreted what you said with the tea party as meaning to change the party from within by funding candidates to push the party in a specific direction and to run against candidates who stand in your way. That’s why I talked about the presidential candidate, because that will be the highest concentration of funding from regular people. A movement like the tea party only works when you have one or a handful of very wealthy people able to direct money in well-coordinated and specific fashion. That cohesion is important to actually move things in the direction that you want.
When you require the cooperation of millions of individual donors, it’s like herding cats. Not only do you have to have all those people agree enough with all your agenda to donate, they also need to actually be aware of where to make their donations for it to count (which takes even more money to advertise). Good luck convincing all those people to consistently donate where you want them to.
As for starting another party, that’s a complete non-starter. It’s been tried multiple times in the past and results in nothing but a few votes peeled off one of the two dominant parties and tons of screaming from which of the two big parties loses that election, so people feel discouraged from trying. While you’re trying to build your alternate party, the part of the duopoly that most aligns with you (even if they still differ greatly in values) will be losing voters so you’ll lose even more power as the other party packs courts and fills all positions of power with their own candidates.