Image by Vidar Nordli-Mathisen.
Senator Bernie Sanders spoke in the Senate on February 11. Warning of the “authoritarianism” of “modern day kings,” namely President Trump and Elon Musk, he highlighted violations of the U.S. Constitution and abuse of American workers.
We look at how U.S. socialists ought to react to a flood of outrages from on high. Speaking out, Sanders implies that U.S. socialists are uniquely qualified for defending both the U.S. Constitution and the working class.
He vigorously defended the workers’ cause, warning that people “will remember whether we stood with President Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg who in 1863 … stated … ‘that a government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish’ … Or do we allow this country to move to a government of the billionaires, by the billionaires and for the billionaires?”
“Meanwhile, while the very rich become much richer, 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, 85 million are uninsured or under-insured, 25% of seniors are trying to survive on $15,000 or less, 800,000 are homeless and we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth.”
And the essence: “As modern-day kings, who believe they have the absolute right to rule, they will sacrifice, without hesitation, the well-being of working people to protect their privilege. …Bottom line: The oligarchs, with their enormous resources, are waging a war on the working class of this country, and it is a war they are intent on winning.”
That Sanders with his remarks bore down on protecting working people was consistent with his advocacy for democratic socialism. He also vigorously defended the U.S. Constitution.
“President Trump,” he pointed out, “attempted to suspend all federal grants and loans – an outrageous and clearly unconstitutional act. As I hope every 6th grader in America knows, under the Constitution and our form of government the president can recommend legislation, he can support legislation, he can veto legislation, but he does not have the power to unilaterally terminate funding passed by Congress.”
Elon Musk, according to Sanders, is “attempting to dismantle major agencies of the federal government which are designed to protect the needs of working families and the disadvantaged. These agencies were created by the U.S. Congress and it is Congress’ responsibility to maintain them, reform them or end them. It is not Mr. Musk’s responsibility. What Mr. Musk is doing is patently illegal and unconstitutional – and must be stopped.”
Additionally, Musk “proposed that ‘the worst 1% of appointed judges be fired every year,’ and demanded the impeachment of judges that have blocked him from accessing sensitive Treasury Department files … Mr. Musk, you don’t impeach judges who rule against you. You may or may not know this, but under the U.S. Constitution, we have a separation of powers, brilliantly crafted by the founding fathers of this country in the 1770s.”
Sanders laments that the oligarchy in charge disregards formative principles and constitutionally imposed checks and balances. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, products of the American Revolution, provided the principles and restraints. In this sense the Trump government is pursuing counterrevolution.
Not all socialists realize that the new autocrats are fighting a battle that began long ago and whose outcome is still contested. A victorious political revolution, we suggest, is no short-term happening, but actually represents a process, usually a prolonged one.
The values and ideals reflected in the Declaration of Independence had taken shape over the course of decades, even centuries, while the Constitution, as approved, was far from complete. The concept of a long, multi-faceted process of change is essential.
As feudalism waned, new horizons ─ geographical, intellectual, and aspirational ─ were in sight. Onerous demands of a land-based aristocracy, subservience to the Church in Rome, and obstacles to social and economic advancement weighed heavily. Kingly rule and feudal remnants were out of sync.
The rising bourgeoisie were restless. New knowledge, the dynamism of growing cities, entrepreneurial possibilities, new religious currents, and free expression of ideas had their appeal. The new class latched on to burgeoning technologies, possibilities for political participation, and new legal resources and financing modalities. Societal institutions were in flux.
The so-called American Revolution ran its course and brought change. A people’s army won the war; the king and his ministers were out. The people’s representatives governed. The Constitution outlined how government would work, who would participate, what they would do, how they would be selected, and how to avoid autocratic rule.
Revolutionary change continued. Capitalism emerged. Factories spread, production and commerce expanded, and wealth accumulated. The unleashing of productive forces fostered exploitation of factory workers, plundering of overseas resources, and enslavement of workers in the cotton economy. Revolutionary socialism arrived, assertive in thought and action.
Bernie Sanders with his speech was addressing still unsettled issues tending to disturb this long process of change and revolution. He upholds social and economic rights not yet guaranteed to working people, and due now. Equally, he expressed support for political freedoms and constitutional provisions, each the product of that early phase of revolution.
To the point: U.S. socialists following Sanders’ lead would regard attacks on the Constitution and war on the working class with equal seriousness. There is a melding of the two. Working people gained political strength from the Constitution, but those unmet needs still remain. The struggle is long. Socialists giving up on immediate gratification might be content with the Constitution someday being fixed, through continuing struggle, so as to guarantee more than political rights. Unbalanced focus on class war and immediate victories may interfere with perspective.
U.S. socialists owe much to their revolutionary ancestors, whose concepts of political rights and equality still inspire. Socialists defending working-class victims rely on notions of equality and guarantees of rights contained in the founding documents. They, themselves, also rely on constitutional protections when political repression comes their way.
Sanders finished with an observation on tactics: “[T]his is what I do know: The worst fear that the ruling class in this country has is that Americans … come together to demand a government that represents all of us, not just the wealthy few. Their oligarch’s nightmare is that we will not allow ourselves to be divided up by race, religion, sexual orientation or country of origin and will, together, have the courage to take them on.”
His plea for unity is a reminder that the idea of socialists attending to both constitutional crisis and working-class needs is incomplete. A future agenda item would center on what to do about wishful thinking. The remedy may lie in rigorous attention to the reality, as per the historical record, that goals and purposes may be undermined by opportunism and inappropriate compromise.
