Bernie Sanders caused a stir last week, when the independent senator from Vermont and two-time contender for the Democratic presidential nomination sent a post-election email to his progressive supporters across the country. In it, he argued that the Democrats suffered politically in 2024 at least in part because they ran a campaign that focused on “protecting the status quo and tinkering around the edges.”
In contrast, said Sanders, “Trump and the Republicans campaigned on change and on smashing the existing order.” Yes, he explained, “the ‘change’ that Republicans will bring about will make a bad situation worse, and a society of gross inequality even more unequal, more unjust and more bigoted.”
Despite that the reality of the threat they posed, Trump and the Republicans still won a narrow popular-vote victory for the presidency, along with control of the US House. That result has inspired an intense debate over the future direction not just of the Democratic Party but of the country. And the senator from Vermont is in the thick of it.
In his email, Sanders, a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus who campaigned in states across the country this fall for Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democratic ticket, asked a blunt question: “Will the Democratic leadership learn the lessons of their defeat and create a party that stands with the working class and is prepared to take on the enormously powerful special interests that dominate our economy, our media and our political life?”
His answer: “Highly unlikely. They are much too wedded to the billionaires and corporate interests that fund their campaigns.”
What will more candidates do?
I don’t see how that addresses the issue, at least on a federal level. Bernie was one of the most popular candidates in previous elections and that didn’t count for anything. It’s clear that the game is rigged. Look at other countries, where the equivalent party to the Democrats (that is, the ‘middle left’) has a leadership still beholden to corporate interests despite their working class rank-and-file and substantial union lobbying.
Third parties already exist and you can see how viable they are. The FPTP spoiler effect isn’t going away any time soon.
Well… if the issue of slavery was central to the development of the Republican Party, and the working class struggles of Europe led to the creation of Labour and SocDem Parties in Europe
There is a slim chance, that by precedent, one breaking issue could widen up, as to create a new political party that swallows up and destroys one of the moribund parties, through its absorption of its former key constituencies
(though it must take advantage of the power vacuum fully) (emphasis on the term ‘slim’, to refer to 1%)
Heck, we could follow Canada, and have it so that America relies on multi-partisan coalitions, rather than Dems, Reps, or even both alone
Then, again, Idk Americans, so mindlessly downvote me if ye want…
Nothing in life is ever so permanent…
Aside from our need for voting reform, the bigger issue lies in that most prominent media outlets are owned by the same billionaires that are bankrolling the two parties. No third (or fourth, fifth, etc) will have chance in hell at gaining ground in the current media climate because they will immediately be scrubbed and erased from the narrative.
I couldn’t agree more…
Bernie didn’t stand a chance because both of the “parties” are corrupt af. More candidates that don’t require some corporate controlled party to endorse them to actually show up on the ballot, is exactly what we need.
You can then take it further by outlawing absolutely any lobbying and sponsorships of political campaigns; have an equal amount of funds set aside that allows each candidate an equal amount of airtime/advertising/etc… You could take it even further by having a government owned and dedicated channel for each candidate to showcase their agenda and goals that they’d like to run on, with proper fact checking and ability for voters to hold those candidates accountable post elections.
Simply saying “more candidates won’t fix it”, is the same as not doing anything at all. We need to separate all the corporate parties and interests from our democracy.
I don’t understand how these good ideas will become law until there are a majority of elected representatives outside of the two corrupt parties.
I also don’t believe a majority of elected representatives outside of the two corrupt parties will form until those ideas become laws.
The game is rigged.
It is absolutely not. If we can analyze a situation and conclude ahead of time that a strategy is not viable, then we can avoid wasting huge amounts of effort, time and money on something as functionally useful as doing nothing at all. When I say ‘the game is rigged’, I’m not saying do nothing. I’m saying don’t play the game and expect to win. There is a world of politics outside the 4 year cycle of elections which has historically proven itself capable of gaining workers rights, protecting minority groups and improving our lives. (This also don’t mean to simply ignore electoral politics, even Bernie’s campaign was pragmatically useful in some ways, but don’t expect that we’re going to topple the mafia with trendy campaigns and ballots)
You are 100% spot on. What we need are progressive candidates on the local level, were voting rules are determined, to push Rank Choice Voting. The Two Party System is a result of FPTP voting; take that away and implement RCV and the Two Party System will begin to crumble naturally.
Yep. And TODAY is the fucking time to talk about it. We just came off an election where a lot of folks were feeling bad about their choices.
I agree that FPTP systematically promotes a two-party system and ranked choice voting enables it to me more easily removed, but I would point out that it’s not an automatic inevitability that RCV will . Australia, for example, has had RCV (IRV) since 1918:
Yet I would classify Australia as effectively a two party system for many of its decades (if we treat the Coalition as a single party), with 90%+ of votes going to one of two parties, until the past few decades.
I want to emphasize I’m not disagreeing, because one could characterize this recent change as it naturally crumbling, albeit with factors causing it to only really catalyze recently: [quote re: 2022 federal election]
That’s a really great point and some interesting information. Thanks for sharing!