Blue Mass Group

I’m a big fan of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whom I see as the most effective communicator on the left. This weekend she officially endorsed Bernie Sanders.

By endorsing Sanders in order to help build his movement, Ocasio-Cortez is taking seriously the campaign’s motto, “Not me, us.”

“For me, it wasn’t even about helping the senator. It was a moment of clarity for me personally in saying, What role do I want to play?” Ocasio-Cortez told NBC. “And I want to be a part of a mass movement.”

And AOC’s remarks this weekend in support of Sanders are moving and psychologically astute — the toll that inequality and exploitation take on our spirits, much less our bodies and bank accounts. If there’s any Democratic candidate out there who isn’t speaking directly the these concerns, they should hang it up right now and get out of the way.

From NYT:

At the end of his address, he urged audience members to look around and find someone they didn’t know. Then he asked a series of questions designed to promote a sense of unity.

“Are you willing to fight for that person who you don’t even know as much as you’re willing to fight for yourself?” he asked. “Are you willing to fight for young people drowning in student debt even if you are not? Are you willing to fight to ensure that every American has health care as a human right even if you have good health care? Are you willing to fight for frightened immigrant neighbors even if you are native born?”

This is a statement of fundamental decency — the answer to the eternal “And who is my neighbor?”

So I can’t help but be struck by the ongoing contrast between “Not Me, Us”, and the Cult of Bernie, which constitutes a segment of his campaign that simply can’t be ignored, with a repertoire of abrasive behaviors that weaken the ties that bind. Us, Not You.

I’ll stipulate that a candidacy will inevitably have cult-of-personality tendencies. Every campaign has its “stans”, and it’s foolish to hope otherwise. Primaries have ever been the “silly season”, where differences get blown out of proportion in an attempt to create daylight between candidates. (Remember PUMA?)

Movements are bigger than candidacies, since they are about issues that spring from the lived experiences of people. One talks about the feminist, climate, or health care movements; or even a progressive or socialist movement that includes a number of relatedconcerns.

Movements are protean, flexible with tactics. They can be co-opted, for better or worse, but it’s a success when outside actors adopt a movement‘s positions, whether or not they are original “true believers”. Movements take yes for an answer. A candidacy is a tacticof a movement — maybe the best of all. But they’re not synonymous.

Regrettably, Sanders himself has not discouraged this cult of personality. Many of his supporters are prone to language like “we’ll roll over you” and “bend the knee”. It’s not just on social media; the message comes from the top — if not directly from Sanders’ own mouth. His campaign staff and surrogate list is shot full with toxic personalities seemingly as interested in destroying the Democratic Party as in gaining health care for everyone, say: Nina Turner, David Sirota, Nomiki Konst, Briahna Grey, et al. Some of these folks even encouraged voting for the odiously compromised Jill Stein over Hillary Clinton. Stein’s vote total was more than Trump’s margin of victory in several swing states — and as such was one of countless “deciding factors” in 2016.

I don’t share the notion that Bret Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, family separation policy, and other horrors of the Trump years have been an acceptable price to pay for such “integrity”. Those of us who stuck with the Democratic coalition — flawed as it was — view this as a betrayal with enduring consequences. Sanders has surrounded himself not with coalition-builders; but with bridge-burners.

Sorry, but that’s a massive turnoff for anyone not already in the club. And it portendsvery badly for the scrutiny Sanders would face were he to become a front-runner; or whether he could profitably use the movement if he is indeed elected. A recalcitrantCongress will still exist; and while less cozy than before, it still works on relationships. Who will Bernie surround himself with, if he wins? What advisors, liasons, and surrogates? This group? Really?

I’m resigned to the fact that this will be received as concern trolling by Sanders die-hards, as evidence of my insufficient dedication to good and right things, and inherent neoliberal false consciousness. Well, I can swear up and down that I was a persuadable voter in 2016, right up until the MA primary; that I admire his moral vision, and fully support much of his program. He has succeeded in moving the party to the left. He is sincere and nothing if not consistent. There are a million excellent reasons to vote Bernie; I don’t begrudge them in the least, to AOC nor anyone else.

But the movement at some point is going to have to separate from the cult of Bernie — whether he wins or not. It will have to define itself by a set of policy goals — not even policy mechanics, like a particular vision of “Medicare for All” — but what those mechanisms are supposed to accomplish on behalf of the people. It will have to be tactically flexible. It will build coalitions.

And if Bernie truly wants a “Not Me, Us” movement, he’s going to have to set the tone starting with his own campaign staff — much less the Twitter hordes.

After all, there is another option for bold progressive leadership that doesn’t seem to be here for all the drama.

Someone else has noticed it: Within a lot of vague talk about “Washington is broken” and “a new generation”, there really isn’t much reason for Joe Kennedy III to be running for Senate.  Except, of course, for the fact that he took a poll, and the poll told him his last name was Kennedy.

Seriously … Is anyone getting much off of this?

“Because our system is broken,” he said at the start of an interview on Thursday night. “And I think the moment we’re in demands that people do everything they can to try to fix it. And that’s making sure that the voices out there that feel like they are left out, cut out, taken advantage of, looked over, not part of that system — that they’ve got a senator out there that’s going to meet them where they are, that’s going to show up, that’s going to champion those voices.”

You’ll notice that exactly none of this has anything to do with a.) any shortcomings, real or alleged, of the incumbent Ed Markey; or b.) the strengths, real or alleged, of Joe Kennedy. He’s trying to sound like Ayanna Pressley … which he is not. It’s not at all clear what he would bring to the Senate: what particular policy background; what demographic representation; what enduring cause or undying dream.

At least with Markey, I know a handful of things for which he’s going to fight:

1. Green New Deal. It is his life’s work — now with a youthful grassroots upsurge, and a charismatic partner in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (whose name Markey clearly enjoys dropping). It is a sweeping policy blueprint on the existential threat to humankind and the most comprehensive political challenge certainly in my lifetime. Ed took it on; he’s ready to do the work; he’s done it before.
2. Opioids. Markey recognized the opioid/fentanyl crisis relatively early on, in 2014. He has consistently advocated for the wider availability of Narcan to first responders, which can prevent overdose deaths; and for more treatment beds.
3. Internet: Safety, privacy, and freedom. Ed’s Privacy Bill of Rights, modeled on European Union protections, has garnered praise from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Free Press Action:
   

   “Senator Markey’s bill will help enable people to use the internet without fear of exploitation or discrimination from companies intent on mining their private data. People must have the right to safely choose who they give their personal information to and need enforceable rules over how it can be used.”

   He has co-written privacy protections for kids — a bipartisan issue, as it turns out. And he has fought back against Patriot Act intrusions of privacy via cell phone carriers.

   This also includes Markey’s leadership on Net Neutrality, which is more than a consumer protection — it’s a linchpin of democracy itself. And given Elizabeth Warren’s eagerness to take on Facebook and Big Tech generally, one can hardly imagine a more valuable legislative wingman for a President Warren.

4. Consumer protection. On sketchy cable fees, including set-top boxes; on robocalls; and on and on and on. He’s always on top of these.

Markey embodies public service: A rather simple and old-fashioned idea that government should protect the ordinary person against the wealthy and predatory. He represents the bridge between the 1970’s post-Watergate, Unsafe At Any Speed era; and our own era of Trumpian corruption, social media disinformation, and endless data breaches.  He is constantly engaged in these fights, big and small — whether anyone notices or not. He brings knowledge, expertise, and professionalism to his work — each of which is under attack in this corporate/Trumpist era.

Now, dealing with the threat of global warming is by far the most important of these. Perhaps I am mixing rah-rah political exhortation (Go Ed!)with the prophetic, judgmental mode: “The end is nigh, wake up you dumb @#$%” — but under the exceedingly grim circumstances, I won’t apologize for that. And I reject jconway’s  dismissal of the climate movement as “lily-white”, or of the issue as something distant. Both assertions are false. The youth climate movement is multi-cultural, and in fact largely female-driven. And the consequences of global warming will be borne wildly disproportionately by the most vulnerable among us — right here: The poor; the urban; the Central American refugee (for example). Furthermore the economic program of Green New Deal is aimed to benefit those who have been left out of our economy today. This is a program meant to be rolled out and executed within the next ten years, as the exigency of climate change requires. It is real; it is now; it is tangible; and it is equitable — finally.

So I know why we need to send Ed Markey back for another term — especially this coming term, hopefully with a President Warren (et al) and a Democratic Senate.

Joe? I don’t know — and I’m not sure he does, either.