OPINION: Why Every American Should Vote for Bernie Sanders

Eric Zuesse, commenting about Thad Beversdorf’s article about Sanders’s record

On August 19th, the brilliant Thad Beversdorf opened by posting a five-minute-long 2003 video of Vermont’s then-congressman Bernie Sanders, who was interrogating the deified Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, and ripping to shreds Greenspan’s record — and Sanders pointed out Greenspan’s falsely opening his response by Greenspan’s saying then, “Congressman, we have the highest standard of living in the world.” Bernie immediately shot back against that, “No, we don’t,” and he promptly cited several nations whose standard of living is, in fact, higher than ours. And that’s just for starters.

Beversdorf followed this video by his own documentation, which showed that everything which was being cited by Sanders in this exchange with Greenspan was true, including what Sanders was predicting would become the increasing problems for the U.S. economy up until the present time, now under both  a Republican and  a Democratic President.

Beversdorf then pointedly observed, “essentially every accusation Sanders lays on Greenspan could be repeated today to our subsequent central banking gods.”

However, Sanders there is implicitly ripping to shreds not only Greenspan, and the current Fed chief Janet Yellen, but the two Presidents who appointed them both. Sanders was doing this back in 2003, partly as a historian about the past, and partly as a prophet about the future — the present that we’re experiencing today. It’s today’s news, but described twelve years ago by Sanders.

This is the type of person America needs in the Oval Office: someone who not only recognizes what the nation’s real problems are in the present, but whose diagnosis of where the current policies are taking this country has already been confirmed by the subsequent 12 years of American history following the prediction. Unlike other politicians who are basically poll-driven blather, Sanders is a proven progressive leader, somebody with both insight and guts, which is exactly what this nation needs.

After watching that brief video, all the ‘progressives’ who complain that Sanders isn’t 100% in accord with the views that those particular individuals hold, and who say that this supposed progressive imperfection of Sanders is reason they won’t vote for him, will just be displaying their arrogance, because they think they’re so ‘progressive,’ and so  correct in everything they believe, so that only someone who is 100% in agreement with them  is ‘adequate’ to vote for. Let such perfectionist ‘progressives,’ then, go off to some dictatorship, where a ‘progressive’ fool who suits them because he or she is 100% in agreement with them, is trying to ram down everyone else’s throats their particular ideas and policies and calling this ‘democracy’ instead of dictatorship — which it would be. Nobody has an overall record of actions, not mere words, that’s better than Sanders’s. He is so real, in both words and deeds, that he has always said what he believes, and believed what he said, and done what he promised — even up till today. It’s an authentically remarkable political record.

I say this though I’ve often disagreed with Sanders’s deference to many of President Obama’s international policies that I consider to be atrocious. But I also understand the political reasons why it might be an unconstructive waste for Sanders to take issue with those policies until he is inside the White House and in a very different position, where he can change Washington, and not merely complain about it (which isn’t his objective; he has never pandered). On all matters where Sanders has supported Obama’s wrong foreign policies, almost 100% of Congress also did. Sanders would have achieved nothing by either speechifying or voting against it. He did vote against our invading Iraq. Hillary Clinton voted for that catastrophic invasion. But that’s the smallest of the differences between his record and Hillary’s. (After all, Obama in 2002 spoke out against invading Iraq, but as President, he has actually invaded, and perpetrated coups and attempted coups, in perhaps more countries than any other President. Hillary participated eagerly in this.)

Sanders isn’t merely a bit  better than any Democratic Presidential candidate in a very long time; he’s enormously  better, and it’s shown in his record in public office, not by mere words. But it has also been shown in words.

Sanders has always said: after the 2008 crash, all the bailouts should go, and should have gone, to Main Street (consumers and workers), not to Wall Street. Beversdorf, in his explanation of America’s continuing economic malaise up to the present time, noted especially the soaring consumer debt that has accompanied the soaring stock market, which are the two opposite sides of the Obama-Bernanke-Yellen continuation of the Bush-Greenspan-Bernanke policies of trickle-down instead of percolate-up economics. Beversdorf said: “The above chart depicts that every worker in America today has increased their consumer debt levels by about 40% since the ‘end’ of the credit crisis [in 2009]. Think about that for a moment.” The more that the rich have become rich, the more that everyone else has gone into debt to the rich. The Fed’s low-interest-rate policies haven’t reduced interest-rates for consumers, but have instead boosted corporate profits and the stock market, and CEO pay. (The entire theory behind it is trickle-down.) Meanwhile, wages have declined. Where will the money come from to pay those soaring consumer debts? Beversdorf concludes: “There is no other end than a bad one and I’m sorry my friends but that is a (simple) mathematical certainty.” Bernie was predicting all of this back in 2003. Furthermore, even Warren Buffett, long in contention for being the world’s wealthiest person, admitted on 26 November 2006, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” With a little help from their friends. And, even some insiders have admitted that the people at the top are gangsters. Books have even been written about it. And yet it’s the people at the top who received the bailouts. The result has been a $7 trillion increase in the U.S. federal debt since 2009. So: not only consumers’ debts have soared, but so has the debt that future Americans will be paying in their taxes — all going to today’s mega-gang.

As Jeffrey Sachs said (12:30 on the video): “I meet a lot of these people on Wall Street on a regular basis right now. I’m going to put it very bluntly. I regard the moral environment as pathological. And I’m talking about the human interactions that I have. I’ve not seen anything like this, not felt it so palpably. These people are out to make billions of dollars and nothing should stop them from that. They have no responsibility to pay taxes. They have no responsibility to their clients. They have no responsibility to people, counterparties in transactions. They are tough, greedy, aggressive, and feel absolutely out of control, you know, in a quite literal sense. And they have gamed the system to a remarkable extent, and they have a docile president, a docile White House, and a docile regulatory system that absolutely can’t find its voice. It’s terrified of these companies.” And that’s why people like Greenspan and Yellen are at the Fed. After all, gangsters were even able to hire a hit-team with impunity to murder a retired CIA chief. If Sanders will get the bodyguards he needs, who will pay them? He’s an incredibly courageous person, and needs the public’s support — our votes, if not also donations of time and/or money.

At least (as shown in that video which Beversdorf presented) Greenspan later acknowledged that the views that he had championed while he was the Fed chief were wrong. But will those of today’s ‘progressive’ voters that are rejecting Sanders, come to recognize they too were wrong? Or, are their views even more set in cement than Greenspan’s libertarian views were? Sanders needs all of them to join his battle, because Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Ag, etc., will be supporting the other candidates. Sanders is not for sale; he’s for serious. We, the people, will be make-or-break for him, because he has always been, and is, make-or-break for us, in this extremely corrupt country.

Here is that superb and thought-provoking article from Beversdorf:


If you’re going to leave a reader-comment that objects to something said here, please click on the links first. Too many people don’t do that, and so leave objections that were already answered. The links are the documentation, which is intended to respond to any possible objections. If you haven’t read the links, please don’t waste the time of the readers of comments here.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Energy / Environment, General, Media, Politics / World News, propaganda and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • kimyo

    isn’t extra-judicial death by drone a war crime? if so, your guy is a non-starter, at least if you are truly a progressive.

    ‘This Week’ Transcript: Sen. Bernie Sanders and Gov. Bobby Jindal

    RADDATZ: Would you do away with the drone program? Would you do away with the drone program because you have clearly had problems with that. You didn’t vote for CIA director John Brennan because of the drone program and how it was run.

    SANDERS: I think what you — Martha, what you can argue is that there are times and places where drone attacks have been effective, there are times and places where they have been absolutely countereffective and have caused more problems when they have solved. When you kill innocent people, what the end result is that people in the region become anti-American who otherwise would not have been.

    So, I think we have to use drones very, very selectively and effectively. That has not always been the case.

    • Aguy

      Drones piloted by soldiers can legally kill anyone that soldiers can. The problem is not that drones have been used, but HOW they have been used.

      • kimyo

        conversely, if it was drones at my lai, who’s guilty of war crimes? the drone operators? the president who authorized the attacks?

        • Aguy

          Drones are basically weapons. They’re not such a paradigm shift that we can’t figure out who’s guilty if they’re used as tools to commit war crimes under orders.

    • EvanVanVan

      It’s hard to pin point Hillary’s exact position on drone strikes but she does seem to be defending their use as well.


      As Secretary of State and now as a presidential hopeful, Clinton has defended the government’s use of drone strikes, calling them “one of the most effective and controversial elements of the Obama Administration’s strategy against al Qaeda and like-minded terrorists” in her book, Hard Choices. She added that “dozens of senior terrorists had been taken off the battlefield by drones.””


    • Jessica Dejah

      I can’t say I’m thrilled with the continuation of the drones, but it’s an unfortunate political reality in this country right now that any POTUS who backed away from using them would be impeached at the first terror attack after that – even if it was a right-wing domestic terrorist. Bernie wants to demilitarize the police, put more of the burden of dealing with the Middle East on countries in the Middle East & using drones “very, very selectively & effectively” sounds like an improvement to me. What is your solution? & who would you vote for that would eliminate the use of drones completely?

      • kimyo

        when selecting a candidate, i opt against using the ‘least worst’ selection criteria.

        Lousy Food, Small Servings — Sanders Foreign Policy: Backing Saudi Intervention

        In discussing ISIS, Sanders invariably has talked about Saudi Arabia as the solution rather than a large part of the problem. It’s couched in language that seems somewhat critical, but the upshot is we need more Saudi influence and intervention in the region. In effect, more and bigger proxy wars, which have already taken the lives of hundreds of thousands in Syria and could even further rip apart Iraq, Libya and other countries.

        He’s said this repeatedly — and prominently. In February with Wolf Blitzer on CNN: “This war is a battle for the soul of Islam and it’s going to have to be the Muslim countries who are stepping up. These are billionaire families all over that region. They’ve got to get their hands dirty. They’ve got to get their troops on the ground. They’ve got to win that war with our support. We cannot be leading the effort.”

        What? Why should a U.S. progressive be calling for more intervention by the Saudi monarchy? Really, we want Saudi troops in Syria and Iraq and Libya and who knows where else? You’d think that perhaps someone like Sanders would say that we have to break our decades-long backing of the corrupt Saudi regime — but no, he wants to dramatically accelerate it.

        Even worse, after the Saudis started bombing Yemen with U.S. government backing earlier this year, killing thousands and leading to what the UN is now calling a “humanitarian catastrophe,” and suffering that is “almost incomprehensible,” Sanders continued. In another interview, again with Wolf Blitzer in May, Sanders did correctly note that as a result of the Iraq invasion, “we’ve destabilized the region, we’ve given rise to Al-Qaeda, ISIS.” But then he actually called for more intervention: “What we need now, and this is not easy stuff, I think the President is trying, you need to bring together an international coalition, Wolf, led by the Muslim countries themselves! Saudi Arabia is the third largest military budget in the world, they’re going to have to get their hands dirty in this fight. We should be supporting, but at the end of the day this is [a] fight over what Islam is about, the soul of Islam, we should support those countries taking on ISIS.”

        • diogenes

          If you opt out of “least worst” voting then you have to opt out of the Two Party system, because those are the ONLY kind of choices it EVER presents. As it is designed to do.

        • Jessica Dejah

          Great, I hate the “least worst” selection criteria, myself. Let’s change it – how? What “selection criteria” do you use?

  • diogenes

    Bernie Saunders is certainly the candidate being mentioned by the mainstream media who most appeals to most progressives on most issues. But let’s act like adults and be real and go on and ask: SO WHAT? For that very reason his chances of nomination are nil and his chances of election are negative nil cubed. What “Every American” who is a thinking adult should do is realize that the Two Party System will NEVER produce anything other than more of the same. If we want change, we need to formulate a specific program — like the corporations do — and engage in independent voter action — outside media, outside money, mutual citizen education and action — and force that program through by electing representatives pledged to put it across — and fire those of them who sell us out and elect others. That’s called democracy. What we have now is finance fascism by fraud. But the fraud only works as long as we agree to be gulled. Bernie is a nice man with some nice ideas. So what? Let’s stop pretending like children and start thinking and acting like adults and like responsible, concerned, thinking citizens. Rather than consumer addicts, debt-slaves, zombie robots, fools. “Won’t get fooled again”??? America gets fooled every four years. By the same pathetic trick. ENOUGH ALREADY.

    • Jessica Dejah

      OK – so if an independent Democratic Socialist running on the Dem ticket so as not to throw the vote to the side he most disagrees with isn’t independent enough for you, what would you recommend to get past the 2 party system? Bernie is trying to unite that “outside media, outside money [refuses PACs, average donation $31-33], mutual citizen education & action” so that we’re all working in more or less the same direction with Bernie’s specific plan, which centers on economic equality & getting rid of Citizen’s United, among other things – & working on that unified plan between elections, not just for elections. I hope this doesn’t sound snarky, because in all seriousness, I am interested in how your plan is better than backing Bernie – ? (thank you)

      • diogenes

        Go ahead. Back Bernie. See what happens. How many times will you fall for the same hoax? Until you’re dead, by the looks of it.

        You flunk reading comprehension. Go back and try again.

        • cettel

          You didn’t answer her question. But you did say that Jessica had “flunk reading comprehension.” Your the one who did that. So: answer her question.

          • kimyo

            sanders is either qualified or not. the presence or absence of an alternative is not germane.

          • ClubToTheHead

            The Republican and Democratic Parties need to be decertified for their complicity in war crimes.

            Of course the question of why a dominant crime syndicate would ever disqualify themselves solely on shame for their crimes, when no one has any say on this matter but the criminals themselves.

          • jandr0

            [You didn’t answer her question.]

            But diogenes did answer the question. diogenes said go read again the original comment, which will make it clear that diogenes is FIRMLY of the opinion that Jessica Dejah’s comment does not make an IOTA of difference to the original comment!

            And diogenes is correct. Jessica Dejah’s comment does NOT address diogenes’ key proposition in the original comment that the current two party setup and system and the citizens’ (shall I say) acquiescence to it IS the problem. in fact, Jessica Dejah blithely continues seeking some “answer” WITHIN the current two party setup (Sanders is by definition IN the two party system if he is electioneering on the platform of one of the two parties).

            Furthermore, Jessica Dejah asks “what would you recommend to get past the 2 party system?”

            Again, diogenes had ALREADY clearly indicated that in the earlier comment. It is in there, if you and Jessica Dejah just actually take the trouble to read (obviously with comprehension, one should hope).

            LOGICAL conclusion: Either Jessica Dejah had not read the comment or had read it without real comprehension.

            So, considering your reply to diogenes, the above logical analysis suggest it is not just Jessica Dejah, but apparently also YOU who flunked reading comprehension.

          • diogenes

            Thank you for spelling out the obvious. Some people seem to need it. Maybe you better spell it out again. Or two or three more times. Seriously. 😉

          • onsightit

            “Sanders is by definition IN the two party system if he is electioneering on the platform of one of the two parties” – Not true. Senator Sanders, as Jessica stated, is an Independent running in the Democratic party. This is the only viable strategy in our current two-party system. It is incorrect to state that he is running ON the Democratic party platform. Senator Sanders has in fact created the 2016 platform, even pulling HRC towards more progressive policies (albeit simply to get elected).

          • jandr0

            [Senator Sanders, as Jessica stated, is an Independent running in the Democratic party.]

            That is still in the system. In fact, very much in the same way Ron Paul was also running in the system. And very unlike (say) Perot.

            [This is the only viable strategy in our current two-party system.]

            Agreed that it is a most eminently viable strategy.

            [It is incorrect to state that he is running ON the Democratic party platform.]

            Disagree. Your claim sounds like word games. If what you claim is the case, then neither would Hillary be running on the Democratic party platform.

            And note: She is NOT claiming that she is running on some eternal, inviolable, minutely prescribed and circumscribed Democratic party platform, since there is no such thing. A party platform is a broader positioning within the larger space of political options (e.g. a more or less interventionist stance or not). Hillary is therefore running “on” her platform of policy proposals – which spell out and distinguish her detailed position within the broader party platform – just as much as Bernie is doing (where his detailed positions are different from hers, but still located within the same broader party platform).

            So if we would take your argument further, the same can be said for each of the Republican candidates.

            And taking the argument to its absurd conclusion, therefore essentially everybody running in one of the two parties are running on their own platform.

            But they are ALL broadly positioning their policies within the general paradigms (or platforms) of the party they select.

            So, there are no rigidly defined “party platforms” until such time as the candidates are selected, at which time the specific features of the candidate’s platform are superimposed on the implicit underlying party platform, and they become (for the purpose of the election) essentially one and the same thing – the election-specific detailed platform.

            For all practical purposes therefore, Sanders is running ON the Democratic Party platform. He is simply hoping he is the one chosen to impose his SPECIFIC DETAILS on the underlying, pre-existing vaguer and broader (i.e. not rigidly defined) party platform – which makes him just like every other politician associated with the US two-party dominance system.

            Suffice it to say that I am unconvinced by your argument.

          • diogenes

            I implied, and suggest that she, and you, should re-read my comment. Go ahead. See if you do better this time.

          • Nathaniel Petterson

            I would love to see you draft something like you proposed in you comment. Instead of yapping about it, make a plan for it and take action on it. Or are you afraid of public opinion because of your absolute certainty of being right?

          • jandr0

            [I would love to see you draft something like you proposed in you comment.]

            That is a fair enough expression of a wish. Would you have stopped there.

            [Instead of yapping about it, make a plan for it and take action on it.]

            But then you denigrate the arguments previously put forth by the other commenter as “yapping” (without actually engaging with the content of the arguments), and then proceed to dictate actions (acceptable to you, of course) that the other party should take.

            [Or are you afraid of public opinion because of your absolute certainty of being right?]

            But you don’t stop with implicit denigration and dictating, in the next sentence you blithely assume and ascribe socially negative attributes, namely fear and intellectual arrogance, to a person you have never yet met in your life.

      • truthtime

        Ahem. Jill Stein. Look her up. THIRD party.

        • diogenes

          We don’t need a third party. We need direct citizen voter action to forward specific progressive policy initiatives, WITHOUT PARTIES. Parties are a waste of time and energy and enable power-freaks and corruption. We need to focus on forwarding issues and electing congressmen who will forward them for us — or else serve one term and get tossed. By placing parties between our wishes and our representatives, our government, we defeat our wishes and ourselves.

      • babotaengi

        Jessica is right. The original article is right. Sanders is trying to change the political landscape from the ground up. He is doing this from within the two-party system to fast-track his plan. You independents yelling “All Lies”, “Sheep-dogging” aren’t seeing the bigger picture. Bernie already has the “children” thinking and ACTING to organize people to start demanding throughout every election cycle, both local and national, that elected representatives start representing their interests in action, not just words.

        This is much bigger than Bernie. I strongly urge you obviously thoughtful gentlemen to join and be a part of this movement at its beginning, because there is clearly a lot you could contribute to help speed it up. But the movement has already started and it can’t be stopped now. It would behoove you not to be simple bystanders to something so historic.


    • Jessica Dejah

      So the consensus seems to be (trying my hand at reading comprehension again….) working to elect a Democratic Socialist who rejects corporate donations is the same exact thing that’s already been done every four years, & won’t work because Bernie’s too far outside the mainstream to get elected, but Jill Stein (Green Party candidate in 2012, who, among other things, got arrested on our behalf trying to get into the debates) is a shoe-in. & the only reason I don’t see the specifics of Diogenes’ “formulated specific program” or why working on the same proposals united around a central candidate rather than as disorganized anarchists is because I flunked reading comprehension. Apparently so, because it seems to me y’all are more interested in calling strangers names than specific discussion – but I’m sure that’s my fault, too – but thanks for the giggles. (& thanks, cettel.)

  • gamesjon

    I mean yeah out of the candidates running Bernie is the best, but even if it were possible to still fix the s**t system we have with that system (which I’m pretty doubtful about) let’s remember that even if he wins the Presidency that despite all the Obama is a dictator nonsense a President can’t actually do much of anything himself. So, then what would happen if he won? You thought obstructionism was bad with Obama now it would both parties refusing to work with him. (outside of literally a handful of officials) so nothing would get done, especially nothing Bernie (and most people) would want.

    Honestly like diogenes I have an extremely difficult time seeing a possibility that we will actually ever be able to do s**t about any of the issues in the country within the framework of our current institutions since they are doing exactly what they were intended to do, have always done, and seem to show no hint that even slightly altering that fact.

    • diogenes

      The Two Party system is a private arrangement funded by the 0.1%. It is not a constitutional “institution.” We need to work around it. This is possible. All we have to do is think like adults and act like citizens. Rather than drugged children and puppets and fools.

      • gamesjon

        I mean you make it sound easy, but I have serious doubts if there are enough people in the country who would do that to make it possible. I mean what solution do you propose if the problem is the people in America not just the politicians?

      • babotaengi

        Sanders is planning to bust it up from within. You oughta get on board. The DNC is already at panic stations. They are begging Biden to get in the race. They don’t even care that he doesn’t want to. They are terrified of Sanders winning the nomination in a landslide. It is brilliant.


    • babotaengi

      You haven’t kept up on what Sanders is proposing. Intelligent people like you all here are needed to help get people organized to start holding their representatives accountable throughout their terms or be replaced by someone more willing to represent the constituencies come the next cycle. Instead of being cynical, you should maybe look at what Sanders’ plan is (tip: it ain’t about him walking on water once he’s in the Oval Office):


  • parzival

    Bernie Sanders brags about being more anti-Russian than Obama. “You’ve got to totally isolate them politically,” he says.

    “You’ve got to totally isolate them economically…You freeze assets that
    the Russian government has all over the world…International corporations
    have huge investments in Russia…You could pull them out…”

    All Republican and Democrat presidential aspirants represent America’s
    lunatic fringe. Reject them all. None deserve popular support.

    • Ralph Garner

      Only an outright revolution that replaces the entire criminal cabal in Washington would cure this countries ills. Completely clean out Washington and install citizen Police and Citizen Tribunals to be used 24/7 to control the re-entrance of the same criminal element. A new Constitutional referendum to give the citizenry the power to control the Public servants and secure their ethics.
      The citizens need the power to hold all of the Washington electorate accountable for every dollar and death and war.

  • Charlie Primero

    Is Eric Zeusse really so clueless he thinks poking a ‘like’ button on an electronic screen determines who “wins” the POTUS clown show?

  • ClubToTheHead

    If Bernie Sanders is to be taken as a man of principles,
    then his vote in support of Zionist Netanyahu is one of his principles.

    The crimes and abuses of an empire always find their way home.

    If he knows this to be true, then he lies about his plans for American

    If he doesn’t know this to be true, then he is a danger in his naïveté.

    If he does not oppose the apartheid of Palestinians on principle, then he does
    not, on principle, oppose the apartheid of Blacks in America.

  • jandr0

    This whole article is a prime example of political propaganda.

    The techniques are well executed, for example in the tidbits how Sanders took various issues with certain policies long ago (which, of course, he wouldn’t do if he expected them to work out well according to his value system), and now becomes elevated to the level of “prophet” because things didn’t turn out as perfect as the author (and, we must assume Sanders) insist they should be.

    Oh, for goodness sake, where are the critical thinkers who can see a blatant fluff piece for exactly what it is!

    Firstly, it is implicitly arguing from the nirvana fallacy.

    Secondly, everyone (even Sanders) gets a “prediction” (or two-three) about the future right some time in their lives – but that doesn’t suddenly turn them into prophets! Clearly this is not what this article is really about – it is rather about Eric Zuesse using every trick in the book (like awarding his favourites with emotionally appealling labels like “prophet” while downplaying others) to play with the reader’s mind.

    Thirdly, even if Sanders was lucky enough to have his warnings, likely only through sheer serendipity, now play out in his favour, it DOES NOT mean that his assessment of the problem was correct, nor any of his proposed “solutions.” Many others at the same time warned of likely problems, BUT, their causal chain explanations differ dramatically from that of Sanders.

    So, if the any of the various other different explanations are right, then Sanders analysis is potentially (and in my, admittedly personal opinion, most likely) wrong, and absolutely no insight or foresight can be ascribed to Sanders.

    There are many more clear propaganda techniques employed in the article, but sheer despair after reading such a biased article leaves me enough energy to highlight just one more:

    [After watching that brief video, all the ‘progressives’ who complain that Sanders isn’t 100% in accord with the views that those particular individuals hold, and who say that this supposed progressive imperfection of Sanders is reason they won’t vote for him, will just be displaying their arrogance…]

    The above contains, in my personal opinion, a despicable technique. Notice how the author prejudges people who might not agree with the author’s canned opinion and then essentially tries to SHUT DOWN OPPOSITION by what is known (although not widely by the general public) as anticipatory name calling:

    If you don’t conform to what the author clearly DICTATES as “the truth” like all good sheep targeted by clever indoctrination should do, then you are “displaying” your “arrogance.”

    Slow hand-clap for Eric Zuesse who knows all the Orwellian Big Brother techniques, and is not afraid to apply them and to label readers lest they even dare to think for themselves.

    • Nathaniel Petterson

      Out of all of that ranting you didn’t disprove anything in this article. Add some substantial material to your rant to change the minds of the people reading this. Giving a personal, but hurt, opinion does absolutely nothing…

      • jandr0

        [Out of all of that ranting you didn’t disprove anything in this article.]

        Firstly, if it makes you feel morally superior to label my earlier comment a rant, I have no intention to stop you nor do I really care.

        Secondly, my earlier comment clearly enumerated and explained each fallacious proposition I highlighted from the article, pointing out the exact places where the article drew false conclusions.

        Strangely then, that YOUR comment does not offer up even one sound argument disproving any of my arguments. Instead, you simply lob an amorphous claim ( with NO substantiation) that I did not disprove anything.

        In short: YOU prove literally nothing, yet insist I should (while you blatantly ignore the proofs I had clearly made). Oh, the irony!

        [Giving a personal, but hurt, opinion does absolutely nothing…]

        Erm, that seems to be exactly what that remark of yours is! Oh, even more irony.

        [Add some substantial material to your rant to change the minds of the people reading this.]

        Well, YOU have not even tried to do yourself (that is, provide substantial material) what YOU are (somewhat sanctimoniously, it seems) trying to preach to me. Oh, the irony just keeps on coming!

        Now, if you decide to debate honestly, feel free to go right ahead.

  • jadan

    Sanders brings a revolutionary perspective to this election. This is not recognized, nor even understood by many on the left, some of whom seem to gather here to have a little bitchfest to take him apart and whine about the less than propitious political arrangements we have in this country.. To challenge the billionaire class head-on, to consistently and persistently descry the political rule of wealth, is a revolutionary posture. I suppose some people think you can’t be a true revolutionary if you’re working within the DP and you aren’t instead some invisible entity in a 3rd or 4th party that a tiny fringe of the people even recognize. That’s how Sanders got his start, by working for a far left fringe party no one ever heard of. And he never went mainstream. He became Independent. He’s using the DP because the Green Party or the Peace & Justice Party, or the Aging and Foolish Idealistic Party, has no national infrastructure, no presence on the political map. This is not a choice between lesser evils. This is a choice between a candidate calling for political revolution and a whole slew of other candidates who are calling for business-as-usual. There is no choice.

    • diogenes

      It doesn’t matter what Sanders calls for or doesn’t. In the end the Two Party system will produce two candidates who suit the ideas of the 0.1% who own and operate both parties. Sanders won’t be there, his ideas won’t be there. There will be change only for the worse in America as long as we play along with the political party hoax. For an alternative, see below.

      • jadan

        If it were up to you, Sanders won’t be there ( in the role of DP candidate.) The two party system is designed to deliver the right candidates, but these are extraordinary times, and the political plumbing isn’t working. An outsider is enlivening and capturing the DP voters interest. This isn’t supposed to be happening. Neither is the loudmouth egoist Donald Trump supposed to be taking over the RP. I predict that you will be jumping on the Sanders bandwagon when you realize the two-party “safety valve” just isn’t working as planned.

        • diogenes

          Let me speak for myself, jadan, and you speak for yours. Don’t be putting words in my mouth — it’s a dirty tactic, in case you don’t know. It doesn’t matter one bit whether Bernie is a “DP candidate” or not. Both parties are owned by Wall Street and have been for over 100 years. History shows it and proves it. It is a waste of progressive energy, time and spirit to try to work with either of the two parties or with ANY parties. As Washington warns us, they are corrupt by nature and an attack on the general welfare by nature. Get a clue. Grow up. Open your eyes. “Think. It’s not illegal yet” — to quote a Clinton (not Bill or Hillary).

          • jadan

            Like your “avatar”, Diogenes, you are politically irrelevant.

  • cstahnke

    I don’t have time to answer every one of these posts essentially attacking Zuesse. But, in general, I am always stunned by the political naïveté of American progressives and radical progressives. Here is the first progressive Presidenatial candidate with general appeal since when? Anyway, so you know that the power elite have a stranglehold on power and that the only candidates for change or several on the right and on on the left and you abandon his because he has decided to make a deal with the National Security State so they won’t kill him? They will you know if they see him as threatening. Then what? You imagine that there will be a popular revolution–if there is it will only come from the right for a whole lot of very obvious reasons. Zeusse, who is a shinning light and a very rare an precious part of the Internet who actually has real insight into how power works and has worked should be taken a bit more seriously than he’s been taken here. I have been in and around Washington most of my life and Zeusses assessments generally match my own. Sanders is the last chance we have of setting the ship of state from avoiding disaster. He doesn’t even have to win. The last real progressive to get the nomination was George McGovern and he lost to Richard Nixon who talked as a conservative but who instituted the most liberal/progressive measures of any President since. If Sanders does get the nomination he will win–any of the possible Republicans are so divisive and neo-fascist that a majority of Americans will not and cannot vote for any of them including Bush.

    • diogenes

      You’re the one who is “naive” if you actually believe that anything besides more of the same filth will ever emerge from the Two Party system, and you are delusional if you think Bernie Sanders has any chance whatsoever of being nominated. What you and people like you do is divert progressive energies into dead-ends where they are wasted. This forwards the fascist agenda you pretend to oppose.

  • diogenes

    It is “naive” to believe that anything besides more of the same predatory filth will ever emerge from the Two Party system. History demonstrates plainly that it won’t. And it is delusional to think that Bernie Sanders will be nominated. People who attempt to divert progressive energies into one more round of this stupid pointless futile charade merely perpetuate the system that defeats us and forward the predatory Wall Street agenda they pretend to oppose. Wall Street has owned and operated both parties for over 100 years. Read a little history. Wake up. Try to act like an adult rather than a fool.