FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

When Chivalry Fails: St. Bernard and the Machine

by

shutterstock_267790595

Did Hillary Clinton really win the diversionary spectacle known as the Iowa Caucuses by two-tenths of a percent? Probably not. But we will never know. Why? Because Bernie Sanders refuses to call the results into question and demand the release of the raw vote totals, which would likely show the senator won the actual vote by a decisive margin.

Sound familiar? It echoes Al Gore’s “honorable” tactic during the 2000 recounts, when he refused to fight not only for his own election but also the voters (and members of the Congressional Black Caucus) who put it on the line for his campaign. As much as I like to credit Ralph Nader, Gore had only himself to blame for the debacle. Ditto: Bernie Sanders. Sanders had one real chance to derail Hillary Clinton: win Iowa and then New Hampshire. And he let it slip away.

The deflating outcome Iowa campaign must be a bitter disappointment to the young people flocking to his rallies, eager for a taste of real radical politics. I find Sanders’s speeches rather dreary, the lugubrious moth-eaten rhetoric of a distant era. But you can’t deny the continent-wide yearning for someone, anyone, who will attack the banks, Wall Street and grinding economic inequality that is rupturing the republic. Those spirited Sandernistas are also rightly angered by the manifest corruption of a political system that treats them as outcasts.

The specious nature of the Iowa results only confirms those suspicions, from coin flips to missing precinct workers to the notorious Microsoft vote-tabulating app (who would ever trust the company that created MS Windows?). Bernie should have been as furious as his band of collegiate san culottes. Instead, he raised the white flag of surrender. At that moment, the Clintons must have known they had his number. Panic averted.

Sanders seems to have learned how to campaign from reading Andreas Capellanus’s Art of Courtly Love, the medieval code of chivalric conduct for romantic knights. Bernie could have taken a tutorial in how to confront the Clinton machine from Nader, but Sanders has stubbornly distanced himself by the most courageous populist political figure of our time. By contrast, the Clintons honed their political chops from Machiavelli and Charles Bronson movies. Even as shanks are being driven into his back, Sanders meekly refuses to frontally attack Clinton. He won’t even deploy surrogates to blitz the Clintons on his behalf.

Yet the Clintons stand for everything Sanders claims to be against. They are the chief architects of the neoliberal takeover to the Democratic Party. They push austerity programs at home and abroad, while giving Wall Street traders the keys to the treasury. The slashed banking regulations and weakened environmental and food safety laws. They’ve rammed through job-killing trade pacts, from NAFTA to GATT and the WTO. They have supported interventionist wars from Kosovo to Colombia, Iraq to Libya. They gutted welfare, expanded the drug war and institutionalized the federal death penalty. All in the name of political realism. But Clintonian pragmatism only runs one direction: to the right. (See Diana Johnstone’s Queen of Chaos for Hillary’s full rap-sheet.)

Hillary knows Sander’s pressure points. Any time Bernie even talks abstractly about her perfidious ties to Wall Street and Goldman Sachs, she emits a yelp of faux-outrage, charging “sexism” and demanding that Sanders apologize for “going negative.” The Clintons must chuckle every night on their Snap Chat account about how easy it is to shame Sanders back into a posture of dutiful impotence. He’s the dog that doesn’t bite or even bark.

It’s one thing to chivalrously declare that Hillary Clinton’s email scandal is a manufactured controversy beneath debating. (It’s not.) But it’s something else entirely to let Hillary (who won Henry Kissinger’s seal of approval) slither off the hook for the Libyan debacle itself, an intervention that Clinton seemingly had to force down Obama’s throat. Libya is now the latest staging area for ISIS in North Africa. Of course, Sanders also supported the overthrow of Gaddafi and he’s not one to apologize for his own mistakes.

Meanwhile, the Clintons are sharpening their campaign cutlery. These are the same people who deployed two staffers to Iowa in the heat of the 2008 campaign to publicly smear Barack Obama as a cocaine dealer. In fact, the entire premise of HRC’s run against Obama was that America would never elect a black president and so, perhaps most notoriously in South Carolina, she and Bill played to racial prejudices within the party and the press. But Obama was made of sterner stuff and fought back aggressively, tagging Hillary again and again for her rancid vote to authorize the Iraq War. In revenge, Hillary drug out her doomed campaign until the last primary, refusing even then to concede. Why? Obama was squeaky clean. It seemed unlikely that a bimbo might erupt from one of his closets. Alexander Cockburn and I joked (with the creepy sensation that we just might have stumbled on to something) that Hillary was secretly hoping that Obama (who had been the target of more than 1,000 death threats) might be assassinated before the Democratic convention.

The Clinton hit teams are using the same playbook against Sanders. This time round the Clinton attack dogs are red-baiting Sanders, while seasoning the anti-communist slurs with a sprinkling of southern anti-Semitism. Did you know, Bernie’s a red? America will never elect a socialist. If he’s nominated he’d bring the entire party down with him. There’s even a whispering campaign now sweeping South Carolina about Sanders’ religion. Did you know he was a Jew? Not only a Jew, but an atheist Jew? A communist, atheist Jew!! So it goes. What else would you expect from the Clinton’s current political sicario, David Brock, the man who slimed Anita Hill?

In reality, the Sanders revolution was over before it started. The revolutionary aspiration expired the moment Sanders decided to run in the Democratic Party primaries, instead of as an independent, where he might have proved a real menace to the neoliberal establishment. Sanders even pledged to support HRC in the general election. What kind of “revolutionary” agrees to leave Marie Antoinette on the throne?

Revolutions aren’t led by well-meaning wimps. Revolutions are about seizing power. They are about righting wrongs. Revolutions demand fierce confrontation and, as Robespierre might say, sharply-administered accountability. But Sanders was never interested in a real revolution. He’s more Hubert Humphrey than Che Guevara–a timid reformer, an old-time liberal ranting in the antechambers of a party that has long since made its Faustian bargain with the agents of austerity. For the Democrats, there’s no going back from that deal of shame.

Left and right, the sour mood of the country burns for a true political and economic rebellion. It may well happen. But look for it out on the streets, not in the hollow rituals of these elections.

More articles by:

Jeffrey St. Clair is editor of CounterPunch. His new book is Bernie and the Sandernistas: Field Notes From a Failed Revolution. He can be reached at: sitka@comcast.net or on Twitter  @JSCCounterPunch

November 21, 2017
Gregory Elich
What is Behind the Military Coup in Zimbabwe?
Louisa Willcox
Rising Grizzly Bear Deaths Raise Red Flag About Delisting
David Macaray
My Encounter With Charles Manson
Patrick Cockburn
The Greatest Threats to the Middle East are Jared Kushner and Mohammed bin Salman
Stephen Corry
OECD Fails to Recognize WWF Conservation Abuses
James Rothenberg
We All Know the Rich Don’t Need Tax Cuts
Elizabeth Keyes
Let There be a Benign Reason For Someone to be Crawling Through My Window at 3AM!
L. Ali Khan
The Merchant of Weapons
Thomas Knapp
How to Stop a Rogue President From Ordering a Nuclear First Strike
Lee Ballinger
Trump v. Marshawn Lynch
Michael Eisenscher
Donald Trump, Congress, and War with North Korea
Tom H. Hastings
Reckless
Franklin Lamb
Will Lebanon’s Economy Be Crippled?
Linn Washington Jr.
Forced Anthem Adherence Antithetical to Justice
Nicolas J S Davies
Why Do Civilians Become Combatants In Wars Against America?
November 20, 2017
T.J. Coles
Doomsday Scenarios: the UK’s Hair-Raising Admissions About the Prospect of Nuclear War and Accident
Peter Linebaugh
On the 800th Anniversary of the Charter of the Forest
Patrick Bond
Zimbabwe Witnessing an Elite Transition as Economic Meltdown Looms
Sheldon Richman
Assertions, Facts and CNN
Ben Debney
Plebiscites: Why Stop at One?
LV Filson
Yemen’s Collective Starvation: Where Money Can’t Buy Food, Water or Medicine
Thomas Knapp
Impeachment Theater, 2017 Edition
Binoy Kampmark
Trump in Asia
Curtis FJ Doebbler
COP23: Truth Without Consequences?
Louisa Willcox
Obesity in Bears: Vital and Beautiful
Deborah James
E-Commerce and the WTO
Ann Garrison
Burundi Defies the Imperial Criminal Court: an Interview with John Philpot
Robert Koehler
Trapped in ‘a Man’s World’
Stephen Cooper
Wiping the Stain of Capital Punishment Clean
Weekend Edition
November 17, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Thank an Anti-War Veteran
Andrew Levine
What’s Wrong With Bible Thumpers Nowadays?
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
The CIA’s House of Horrors: the Abominable Dr. Gottlieb
Wendy Wolfson – Ken Levy
Why We Need to Take Animal Cruelty Much More Seriously
Mike Whitney
Brennan and Clapper: Elder Statesmen or Serial Fabricators?
David Rosen
Of Sex Abusers and Sex Offenders
Ryan LaMothe
A Christian Nation?
Dave Lindorff
Trump’s Finger on the Button: Why No President Should Have the Authority to Launch Nuclear Weapons
W. T. Whitney
A Bizarre US Pretext for Military Intrusion in South America
Deepak Tripathi
Sex, Lies and Incompetence: Britain’s Ruling Establishment in Crisis 
Howard Lisnoff
Who You’re Likely to Meet (and Not Meet) on a College Campus Today
Roy Morrison
Trump’s Excellent Asian Adventure
John W. Whitehead
Financial Tyranny
Ted Rall
How Society Makes Victimhood a No-Win Proposition
Jim Goodman
Stop Pretending the Estate Tax has Anything to do With Family Farmers
Thomas Klikauer
The Populism of Germany’s New Nazis
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail