[[link removed]]

BERNIE SANDERS: WE NEED MORE WORKING-CLASS CANDIDATES TO CHALLENGE
BOTH PARTIES  
[[link removed]]


 

Bernie Sanders, John Nichols
November 26, 2024
The Nation
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The senator says in this exclusive interview that challengers to
status quo politics can run in Democratic primaries or as
independents. _

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks at a labor rally for Harris-Walz
in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on October 27, 2024., Photo by Nathan
Morris / NurPhoto

 

Bernie Sanders caused a stir last week, when the independent senator
from Vermont and two-time contender for the Democratic presidential
nomination sent a postelection e-mail 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
[[link removed]] 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 e-mail, 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.”

In the face of that stark circumstance, Sanders speculated about how
activists can “build a multi-racial, multi-generational
working-class movement” in these times. Among the prospects he put
on the table was that of challenging corporate-aligned candidates of
both major parties. “Should we be supporting Independent candidates
who are prepared to take on both parties?”

Sanders’s question was rooted in his own experience as a candidate
who won his first campaign for mayor of Burlington, Vermont, in 1981,
as an independent challenger to a five-term Democratic mayor, and who
has run winning campaigns for the US House and Senate as an
independent progressive. It was also influenced by the campaign of
former union leader Dan Osborn, who ran this fall as a working-class
independent in the deep-red state of Nebraska.

Against an entrenched Republican incumbent, and without big money
backing or party support, Osborn shocked pundits by winning 47 percent
of the vote. Sanders and other progressives might not have agreed with
Osborn’s approach to every issue, but they recognized the success of
an independent candidate who, as Dustin Guastella, a research
associate at the Center for Working Class Politics and the director of
operations for Teamsters Local 623, and Bhaskar Sunkara, president
of _The_ _Nation,_ noted in a recent _Guardian_ article
[[link removed]],
“outperformed Kamala Harris in Nebraska by 14 percentage points
while running an assertively anti-establishment, pro-union
platform.”

Amid much speculation about just what Sanders meant with his advocacy
for independent candidates who take on both major parties, I spoke
with the senator about his e-mail, which he acknowledged had “struck
a nerve.” Here’s a lightly edited portion of a longer conversation
we had about the future of working-class politics in America.

—_John Nichols_

_JOHN NICHOLS:_ DAN OSBORN OVERPERFORMED THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET BY A
HIGHER PERCENTAGE THAN OTHER CHALLENGERS TO REPUBLICANS IN KEY SENATE
RACES. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT WAS THE CASE?

_BERNIE SANDERS:_ I think that what Dan Osborn did should be looked
at as a model for the future. He took on both political parties. He
took on the corporate world. He ran as a strong trade unionist.
Without party support, getting heavily outspent, he got through to
working-class people all over Nebraska. It was an extraordinary
campaign, and it tells me that the American people are sick and tired
of seeing the rich getting richer. They think billionaires dominate
both political parties. They want real change, and Dan’s campaign
raised those issues in a very significant way.

_NICHOLS:_ IN YOUR POST-ELECTION E-MAIL SATURDAY, YOU SUGGESTED THAT
ACTIVISTS SHOULD EXPLORE BACKING AT LEAST SOME INDEPENDENT
CANDIDATES—ESPECIALLY IN RED STATES WHERE THE DEMOCRATIC BRAND LOOKS
TO BE A TOUGH SELL. YOU’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CREATING A THIRD PARTY,
OR CREATING A NEW POLITICAL GROUPING, ARE YOU?

_SANDERS:_ Not right now, no. What I am saying is that, building off
of Osborn’s campaign, first of all, we need strong working-class
candidates who are prepared to run on working-class issues. That’s
number one. Number two, where people can run in the Democratic primary
and win, that’s fine. Where it is more advantageous to run as an
independent, outside of the Democratic primary process, we should do
that, as well.

At the end of the day, in a three-way race, it takes 35 percent of the
vote to win. So, if you have a strong progressive candidate, running
on economic issues, do I think that in certain circumstances that that
candidate can defeat establishment Democrats and Republicans? The
answer is, “yes.”

_NICHOLS:_ YOU’RE COMFORTABLE WITH CHALLENGES THAT TAKE ON BOTH
PARTIES?

_SANDERS:_ Absolutely.

_NICHOLS:_ EVEN IF THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
LEADERSHIP, IN THE CONSULTANT CLASS, WHO WILL NOT APPROVE OF THAT
APPROACH?

_SANDERS:_ Of course. The Democratic Party is, increasingly, a party
dominated by billionaires, run by well-paid consultants whose ideology
is to tinker around the edges of a grossly unjust and unfair
oligarchic system. If we are ever going to bring about real change in
this country, we have got to significantly grow class consciousness in
America.

The questions that have to be asked [by activists who are serious
about developing a powerful alterative to  the Republicans] are:
“Why in the wealthiest country in the history of the world are 60
percent of our people living paycheck to paycheck? Why do 60,000
people a year die because they don’t get to a doctor on time? Why
can’t young people afford higher education?” Those are the issues
that have got to be talked about, that have got to be carried into the
political sphere. And the Democratic Party—with few exceptions—is
by and large not interested in doing that.

_NICHOLS:_ THAT’S A SHARP CRITICISM OF THE APPROACH THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY HAS TAKEN IN RECENT YEARS.

_SANDERS:_ There was a time in history—under FDR, even [under]
Harry Truman, all the way up to Kennedy—where the Democratic Party
was the party of the working class. I don’t think very many people
believe that is the case today. In fact, what this last campaign was
about was the Democrats doing much better among upper-income people,
while the Republicans did much better in working-class communities.

Unfortunately, Trump had an appeal to working-class people. But his
“solutions” will make a bad situation even worse.

So, we need candidates who say, “Yes, the system is broken. Yes, we
need fundamental change, but it’s not Trump-type change. It’s a
change that takes big money out of politics and creates an economy
that works for all—and not just the few.

_NICHOLS:_ YOU RAN YOUR HOUSE AND SENATE CAMPAIGNS AS AN INDEPENDENT.
SO, IT IS CLEARLY POSSIBLE, IN AT LEAST CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IN
CERTAIN STATES, TO CHANGE THE POLITICAL CALCULUS.

_SANDERS:_ Absolutely. Yes, absolutely. My own history, as you’ll
recall, is that we have one seat in the US House in Vermont. In 1988,
I ran for that seat. It was a three-way race, and I came in a close
second behind a Republican. A third candidate, a Democrat, got 19
percent of the vote. The next time around, it turned out that the
Democrat did not run and I won by 16 or so points.

We just cannot sit back and accept candidates who are not prepared to
stand up to Big Money interests and fight for the working class. We
cannot continue to do that. So, in one way or another, we have got to
bring forth candidates who [will stand up to Big Money].

I think you can [in many circumstances] do it in Democratic primaries.
The very first demand has got to be to get super PACS—AIPAC[-aligned
groups] and other super PACS—out of Democratic primaries. And if the
Democratic leadership is not prepared to do that, if it is not
prepared to take steps to assure that billionaires do not dominate the
Democratic primary process, you know where they are coming from. And
that is not acceptable.

_NICHOLS:_ IN YOUR E-MAIL, YOU ASK, “HOW DO WE CREATE A 50-STATE
MOVEMENT, NOT POLITICS BASED ON THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND
‘BATTLEGROUND’ STATES?” IN STATES SUCH AS WISCONSIN AND
NEBRASKA, WE’RE SEEING DEMOCRATIC PARTIES BEING REVITALIZED. BUT
THERE ARE MANY STATES WHERE THAT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE HAPPENING NOW.

_SANDERS:_ Absolutely. What has gone on in recent years is, instead
of saying, “How do we grow a grassroots movement in every state in
the country to take on the incredible power of the billionaire class?,
Democratic politics [have] been about, “How do we win elections
tomorrow, and focus on the battleground states and pour enormous
amounts of money into those states?”

So, there are probably 10, 15 states where the Democratic Party
virtually doesn’t exist—despite the fact that there are great
progressives activists out there, great working-class activists out
there, great trade unionists out there, people who are fighting for
justice in every state in this country. And they largely have been
ignored [by Democratic Party donors and leaders].

[The work of rebuilding political infrastructure in the states] speaks
to long-term politics—to winning elections in Nebraskas, in West
Virginias.

But even shorter term, the fact that there was a decline in the
Democratic turnout [at the presidential level in the vast majority of
states in 2024], that impacted House races, obviously, which allowed
Republicans to retain control over the House.

So, it goes without saying that anyone who is serious about
transforming America has got to develop a 50-state strategy and put
money and resources and people into those states [that have been
neglected by the Democratic Party].

_NICHOLS:_ AND YOU BELIEVE THAT A BIG PART OF THAT IS RECRUITING
WORKING-CLASS CANDIDATES?

_SANDERS:_ They’re out there. I’ve met them all over the
country—great working-class people starting to run for office and
taking on the powerful special interests who have so much power today.

_BERNIE SANDERS is a U.S. Senator from Vermont and candidate to become
the next President of the United States. In 2006, he was elected to
the U.S. Senate after 16 years as Vermont’s sole congressman in the
House of Representatives. Bernie is now serving his third term in the
U.S. Senate after winning re-election in 2018 with 67 percent of the
vote. Born in Brooklyn, New York, he attended James Madison High
School, Brooklyn College, and the University of Chicago. After
graduating, he moved to Vermont where he worked as a carpenter and
documentary filmmaker. In 1981, he was elected as mayor of Burlington,
the state’s largest city, by a mere 10 votes._

_As mayor, Bernie’s leadership helped transform Burlington into one
of the most exciting and livable small cities in America. Under his
administration, the city made major strides in affordable housing,
progressive taxation, environmental protection, child care, women’s
rights, youth programs and the arts._

_In Congress, Bernie has fought tirelessly for working families,
focusing on the shrinking middle class and growing gap between the
rich and everyone else. Bernie has been called a “practical and
successful legislator” and he was dubbed the “amendment king” in
the House of Representatives for passing more amendments than any
other member of Congress. As chairman of the Senate Committee on
Veterans’ Affairs, Bernie worked across the aisle to “bridge
Washington’s toxic partisan divide and cut one of the most
significant deals in years.” In 2015, Democratic leadership tapped
Bernie to serve as the caucus’ ranking member on the Senate Budget
Committee._

_Bernie lives in Burlington, Vermont with his wife Jane. He has four
children and seven grandchildren._

_JOHN NICHOLS, The Nation’s national affairs correspondent, has
covered Bernie Sanders for many decades. Together, they wrote the New
York Times bestseller, It’s O.K. to be Angry About Capitalism.
Nichols is also the author of the book, The Fight for the Soul of the
Democratic Party._

_Copyright c 2024 THE NATION. Reprinted with permission. May not be
reprinted without permission
[[link removed]].
Distributed by PARS International Corp
[[link removed]]. _

_Founded by abolitionists in 1865, The Nation has chronicled the
breadth and depth of political and cultural life, from the debut of
the telegraph to the rise of Twitter, serving as a critical,
independent, and progressive voice in American journalism._

_Please support progressive journalism. Get a digital subscription
[[link removed]] to
The Nation for just $24.95!_

_Thank you for reading The Nation! _

_We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many
examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we
publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues,
uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and
perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160
years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on
issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug._

_In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity,
independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to
do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking
readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support
The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors
Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team
of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to
report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take
weeks or months to report, and much more._

_There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the
presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for
bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is
only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate
today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just
the price of a cup of coffee._

_The Nation does now bow to the interests of a corporate owner or
advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work
possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue
to hold the powerful accountable._

_Thank you for your generosity._

_Donate $10 monthly to The Nation.
[[link removed]]_

* elections
[[link removed]]
* Politics
[[link removed]]
* Working Class
[[link removed]]
* Democratic Party
[[link removed]]
* independent candidates
[[link removed]]
* organizing
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]