Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist

Dear Friends,

Notwithstanding the lack of press coverage, Bernie Sanders gave a very important speech yesterday.  Initially, it was to explain what it means to be a democratic socialist, but as a result of the recent terrorist attacks, Senator Sanders expanded it to cover his approach to eliminating ISIS.  If you have the time, you should read it here.

His speech made it very clear that Senator Sanders is a modern version of President Franklin Roosevelt.  The two men have a very similar view of the role of government with respect to providing for the people.  FDR was President in a time of great economic disparity, and he referred to those at the top of the economic ladder who wanted to have it all as "economic royalists"; Bernie Sanders refers to the same type of people as the "billionaire class".  Senator Sanders references President Roosevelt often, including his second Bill of Rights.  The following is an excerpt from President Roosevelt's 1944 State of the Union address.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

As Senator Sanders goes on to enumerate what it means to be a democratic socialist, it is easy to see FDR's second Bill of Rights as well as his view of the role of government.  Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist believes

• we must have an economy that works for all not just the few
• healthcare is a right - we need Medicare for all
• education is a right - we need free public college education
• full employment is an obligation of the government if the private sector fails - we need a significant infrastructure building jobs program
• a person working full-time must not live in poverty - we need a $15/hour minimum wage
• wellbeing is a right - we need programs like paid family leave
• a secure and dignified retirement is a right - we need to expand social security
• we need a fair political system not one controlled by the rich 
• we need a tax system where everybody and every corporation pays their fair share

Bernie Sanders made it clear that he agrees with President Roosevelt that freedom requires economic security.  In his 1944 State of the Union Address, FDR said

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men.

Bernie Sanders also echoed Martin Luther King, Jr. who said in 1968

This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor.

Senator Sanders went on to give a perfect example of what Reverend King meant.

It is a system, for example, which during the 1990s allowed Wall Street to spend $5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions to get deregulated. Then, ten years later, after the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior of Wall Street led to their collapse, it is a system which provided trillions in government aid to bail them out. Wall Street used their wealth and power to get Congress to do their bidding for deregulation and then, when their greed caused their collapse, they used their wealth and power to get Congress to bail them out. Quite a system!

And, then, to add insult to injury, we were told that not only were the banks too big to fail, the bankers were too big to jail. Kids who get caught possessing marijuana get police records. Wall Street CEOs who help destroy the economy get raises in their salaries. This is what Martin Luther King, Jr. meant by socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for everyone else.

Senator Sanders also made the direct connection between our economic security at home and our ability to bring peace in the world.  As did President Roosevelt when he elaborated on his second Bill of Rights.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

When Senator Sanders turned to the question of how to defeat ISIS, he was very clear that the United States must play a very important but supporting role.

But let's be very clear. While the U.S. and other western nations have the strength of our militaries and political systems, the fight against ISIS is a struggle for the soul of Islam, and countering violent extremism and destroying ISIS must be done primarily by Muslim nations - with the strong support of their global partners.

These same sentiments have been echoed by those in the region. Jordan's King Abdallah II said in a speech on Sunday that terrorism is the "greatest threat to our region" and that Muslims must lead the fight against it. He noted that confronting extremism is both a regional and international responsibility, and that it is incumbent on Muslim nations and communities to confront those who seek to hijack their societies and generations with intolerance and violent ideology.

With a strong understanding of history and our past foreign policy mistakes, Senator Sanders is clear that he will provide all the support needed to defeat ISIS, but the Muslim nations and communities must take the lead.  He also calls out some of our so-called allies who have not only not done enough to fight ISIS but who have in many ways provided support to radical clerics.

Equally important, and this is a point that must be made - countries in the region like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE - countries of enormous wealth and resources - have contributed far too little in the fight against ISIS. That must change. King Abdallah is absolutely right when he says that that the Muslim nations must lead the fight against ISIS, and that includes some of the most wealthy and powerful nations in the region, who, up to this point have done far too little.

All of this has got to change. Wealthy and powerful Muslim nations in the region can no longer sit on the sidelines and expect the United States to do their work for them. As we develop a strongly coordinated effort, we need a commitment from these countries that the fight against ISIS takes precedence over the religious and ideological differences that hamper the kind of cooperation that we desperately need.

The bottom line is that ISIS must be destroyed, but it cannot be defeated by the United States alone. A new and effective coalition must be formed with the Muslim nations leading the effort on the ground, while the United States and other major forces provide the support they need.

Senator Bernie Sanders is not an extremist.  All of the great programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were called socialist by their detractors, but they provide the bedrock to provide the economic security that all Americans should enjoy.  There is nothing radical or new about providing free public education or government rebuilding our infrastructure or every person paying his or her fair share of taxes or providing paid family leave or having Medicare for all or a minimum wage of $15 an hour so a full-time worker does not live in poverty or regulating and taxing Wall Street so that the banks are not too big to fail and the CEO's not too big to prosecute or any of the other policies that Bernie Sanders advocates.  All of those policies are well within the second Bill of Rights proposed by FDR and at the time commonly accepted.  In addition, Senator Sanders' plan for defeating ISIS is the only realistic one that I have heard; as it is clear that a US lead ground war in Muslim countries will only lead to more terrorism.

Bernie Sanders is the person we need as President.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Hillary Clinton's Plan to Defeat ISIS

Dear Friends,

After Hillary Clinton's speech yesterday to the Council on Foreign Relations about how to defeat ISIS, I googled to see what she had to say.  Among the hits were these two headlines:

From Politicususa (here): "Hillary Clinton Rejects New Middle East Ground War By Opposing Sending US Troops To Syria"

From The Guardian (here): "Hillary Clinton calls for more ground troops as part of hawkish Isis strategy"

Last night Chris Hayes, on his show All in with Chris Hayes also made what I consider to be a contradictory statement about her position.  He stated her position was "... rejecting calls for expanded use of ground troops in the Middle East, Clinton urged a new phase in the fight against ISIS, including more special operations forces..."

It was clear to me that I needed to read the transcript of her speech, if I were to understand what her plan was.  She did in fact say

Like President Obama, I do not believe that we should again have 100,000 American troops in combat in the Middle East. That is just not the smart move to make here. If we have learned anything from 15 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s that local people and nations have to secure their own communities.

I completely agree with her on this point, and I assume that is the paragraph that lead commentators to say that she was rejecting additional ground troops.

She also said,

To support them [Syrians whom we support who are taking on ISIS], we should immediately deploy the special operations force President Obama has already authorized, and be prepared to deploy more as more Syrians get into the fight.

This sentence is probably the reason why The Guardian headline said she called for more ground troops and why Chris Hayes said she called for more special operations forces.

Certainly not all ground forces are special operations forces but all special operations forces are in fact ground forces.  My view of what she said is that she rejects large numbers of ground troops but will increase the number of ground troops.  She also argued for more direct involvement of the ground forces that are already authorized to be in the area.

As part of that process, we may have to give our own troops advising and training the Iraqis greater freedom of movement and flexibility, including embedding in local units and helping target airstrikes.

There can be no doubt that if our "advisors" are embedded with the Iraqi troops, that they will be much more in harms way, and we will be forced to protect them which will lead to an even greater escalation.  We should remember how we started in Vietnam.

Secretary Clinton's plan is more aggressive than President Obama's plan, particularly with respect to more ground troops, embedding troops and a no-fly zone. While I disagree with those positions, she makes some very good points about the need for the people of the region to overcome their differences and fight ISIS as a common enemy and the need for more and better intelligence.

Now, much of this strategy on both sides of the border hinges on the roles of our Arab and Turkish partners. And we must get them to carry their share of the burden, with military intelligence and financial contributions, as well as using their influence with fighters and tribes in Iraq and Syria.

As difficult as it may be, we need to get Turkey to stop bombing Kurdish fighters in Syria who are battling ISIS, and become a full partner in our coalition efforts against ISIS.

The United States should also work with our Arab partners to get them more invested in the fight against ISIS. At the moment, they’re focused in other areas because of their concerns in the region, especially the threat from Iran. That’s why the Saudis, for example, shifted attention from Syria to Yemen. So we have to work out a common approach.

We should not stop pressing until Turkey, where most foreign fighters cross into Syria, finally locks down its border.

And once and for all, the Saudis, the Qataris and others need to stop their citizens from directly funding extremist organizations as well as the schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path to radicalization.

I particularly applaud her for calling out the Turks, Saudis and Qataris.  It is well past time for leaders in the United States to tell the truth about what some of our so-called allies are doing.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal