Battling Bernie Has Never Been Easy

Thirty years ago Sanders also challenged a woman  

"Win Some, Lose Some," Chapter 20 
The People's Republic: Vermont and the Sanders Revolution 

By Greg Guma

Madeleine Kunin was offended. She was being judged unfairly, she told the reporter from the Village Voice. Along with dozens of other writers, James Ridgeway was looking for insights into the race between Bernie Sanders, the Vermont "neosocialist," and Kunin, the "neoliberal."

The governor protested this classification. "You can't have the strategies that were true in the 60s or even 70s: simply spending money," she explained. "You've got to be accountable for every cent. You have to leverage the private sector and get them involved... I consider myself to be in the mold of governors like Dukakis, Cuomo, and to some extent Robb who is more conservative."

It was vintage Kunin -- cautious and firmly in the middle of the road. For years already she had lived with the nickname Straddlin' Madeleine and had learned to make the best of it. Elected a state representative, she proved herself as a strong chairperson of the House Appropriations Committee and defeated Peter Smith, Vermont's preppy Republican version of Robert Redford, to become lieutenant governor. After four years in Governor Richard Snelling's shadow, she challenged him in 1982 in her first gubernatorial run and lost. 

But Kunin didn't straddle when it came to setting goals or building a personal organization. In the 1984 election, with Snelling temporarily retired, she squeaked into office over Attorney General John Easton, becoming Vermont's first female chief executive, and began to set her own agenda.

In many ways, Kunin was an archetypal moderate: she favored social programs but fiscal conservatism. To progressives, her support of feminist and labor issues seemed weak and equivocal, yet she used her first term to bring women into state government and to prove, just as Sanders had done in Burlington, that being different -- in her case, female -- didn't mean she was incompetent. When it came to keeping the state in sound financial shape or protecting water quality, she could be as strong as Sanders and Snelling.

But Kunin was no world-shaker. She shied away from raising the minimum wage or demanding that corporations give notice before closing down plants. She wanted nuclear plants to be safe, but she didn't think they should be shut down "overnight." In the estimation of Sanders and his Rainbow backers, Kunin was just another "lesser evil"; supporting her would not be worth losing the chance to expand the Progressive base. If a Sanders run meant that Smith would be elected, so be it -- he would be only marginally different from her.

"If you ask her where she stands," said Sanders of Kunin, "she'd say, in the middle of the Democratic party. She's never said she'd do anything. The confusion lies in the fact that many people are excited because she's the first woman governor. But after that there ain't much."

Kunin was not much kinder to her socialist opponent. "I think he has messianic tendencies," she told Ridgeway. "That's not uncommon in politicians. But it does mean he dismisses everyone else's alternative solutions... His approach is always to tear down. But I think you can make progress and change for the better by working within the structure... A lot of what he says is rhetoric and undoable... He has to create a distinction between us, and to do that he has to push me more to the right, where I really don't think I am. I don't think it's fair. He's not running against evil, you know."

The third player, Smith, had some kind words for Kunin. "She's a good person," he said, "she's got some commitment." But he also felt that she was a case of "vision without substance." In Sanders, Smith saw passion, confusion, and noise. "If Bernie were as gutsy and honest as he says he is, he'd run as a Socialist," charged the Republican. "He is a socialist! That's why he went to Nicaragua.That's why he goes to Berkeley."

But if Sanders was a noisy neosocialist and Kunin was an empty vessel, what did that make Smith? He had begun his career as an educational reformer, launching Community College of Vermont. But his liberal leanings didn't prevent him from joining the Republicans; he supported first Bush, then Reagan, in 1980. He was intelligent and a creative thinker, and yet willing to play the compliant foot-soldier in Reagan's conservative revolution.

Kunin didn't view either of her opponents as devils, but she was concerned about how to survive the campaign, particularly the series of public debates that would give Sanders his best opportunity to win more votes. On the podium, she realized, nobody in Vermont did it better than the mayor.

Her press secretary, Bob Sherman, contacted me early in the summer. He knew I wasn't in Sanders' camp this time, and he wondered whether I would be available to help Kunin prepare for her debate ordeal with a rehearsal. The idea was to stage a mock debate between the governor and stand-ins for her two challengers. Would I be able to "play" Bernie? The offer was irresistible.

We met in a Montpelier "safe house," accompanied by key staff members. Democratic legislator Peter Youngbaer had prepared himself to be Smith; I had reviewed recent Sanders speeches and tried to unravel the magic of his style. With a video camera recording our face-off, we tackled environmental, tax, and development issues. Kunin's problem, I discovered, was her preoccupation with details. She often answered questions by trying to explain the thinking that led to her policy choice rather than by simply taking a strong stand. Bernie's strength, in contrast, was his ability to turn any question to his own advantage -- even if that meant ignoring it -- in order to get his point across.

In the end I summed up with some classic Sanderisms. "In my view, the Reagan administration has been a disaster for Americans," I barked. "We are planning to spend a trillion dollars on Star Wars and hundreds of millions to overthrow the government of Nicaragua while, in Vermont, we don't have enough money to adequately fund education or social services. That has to change.

"The other candidates think we can just say a lot of nice things and tinker here and there to make everything okay. I don't. I believe we need fundamental change, and that the governor of Vermont should be leading the fight. We can be the conscience of the nation. We don't have to settle for Reagan's insanity or the indecision of the Democrats."

Afterward, when Kunin saw her image on the screen, she was a bit shaken. "Sanders" and "Smith" had won some points, while she had been tedious and indecisive. Yet she balked at the suggestion that she challenge Sanders if he went on the attack, arguing, "He's not the enemy."

To support Kunin over Sanders was, of course, progressive heresy. Even  those who felt he was authoritarian could see no reason to support his Democratic opponent. As labor organizer Ellen David-Friedman put it, "Challenging the system is considered a better goal than maintaining the status quo." 

Queen Madeleine, Preppie Peter, and Lord Bernie -- the nicknames created by columnist Peter Freyne were apt descriptions of Vermont's new political royalty. Each was an established star with a proven popular base. But Sanders' early boast that he was "running to win" was soon revised by his campaign organizers. A July poll put the Lord of Burlington at a mere 11 percent statewide, while the Queen, also a Burlingtonian, had 53, well outdistancing Preppie.

By October, the Sanders campaign, if not the candidate himself, had lowered its sights to seeking a respectable 20 percent. Within his organization, feelings were frayed and hopes disappointed. Writing in the Guardian, a radical newsweekly, Kevin Kelley explained that even David-Friedman, who had managed the campaign for several months, felt it hadn't become a grassroots movement. "Bernie had trouble," she said, "recruiting activists and contributors who had been involved in his previous campaigns. Some of them felt it was the wrong race to be running, and others thought it was more important that he stay in Burlington to consolidate the gains we had made there."

She also noted that "middle-class progressives" weren't enthusiastic since Sanders wasn't organizing but simply running. "Bernie acts in a way that's similar to [Jesse] Jackson in terms of focusing more on a candidacy and less on an organization," she felt. She was still committed to his campaign, but she acknowledged his limitations. In a public letter to the left two weeks before the election, she praised Sanders' leadership but scored his resistance to accountability or organization.

Murray Bookchin, a libertarian socialist thinker and leader of the emerging Green movement, was more blunt. "Bernie's running a one-man show," he said. "The only justification for a socialist campaign at this point is to try to educate people, and Sanders isn't doing that at all. Instead, he's running on the preposterous notion that he can get elected as governor this year."

In truth, however, Sanders was running on issues as well: reducing reliance on the property tax, a more progressive income and corporate tax system, lowering utility bills, raising the minimum wage, and phasing out Vermont Yankee, among others. It was basically the same thrust he had always pushed -- redistribution of income and wealth. But neither his reform program nor his powerful speaking style were enough to overcome the barriers in his way. His opponents could still outspend him, and his own ranks were split.

Working with Patrick Leahy, who was fighting Snelling to keep his US Senate seat, Kunin staged an impressive get-out-the-vote effort. It was the most sophisticated voter-identification program in state history. With unemployment at a record low and no state deficit, she had economics on her side. On Election Day, Kunin failed to win 50 percent of the vote, but she left both her opponents well behind and was dutifully confirmed by the legislature.

Sanders came away with 15 percent -- far less than he had been hoping for, but nevertheless remarkable. Running as an Independent, he had established a solid base, and his percentage was far too big to be simply a protest vote. But it wasn't just the total that was significant, noted Chris Graff, Vermont's Associated Press bureau chief. "It is the fact that it came from the conservative hilltowns, the Republican strongholds, the farm communities." Sanders had, in fact, won his highest percentage in the conservative Northeast Kingdom. Once again he had touched a chord and transcended traditional lines.

(Originally published in 1989)

The Casting of the President

We can do better than Donald Trump. We all know it. But I'm not talking about his politics. I'm talking about his performance and entertainment value. After all, he's just a reality TV star who has played the corporate version of Judge Judy. Before that it was all bit parts and walk-ons, mainly self-promotion for his gaudy real estate empire.

    No wonder his presidential campaign feels like a political sitcom featuring Biff Tannen, the Back to the Future bully to whom Trump is often compared. The plot, gags and catch phrases are already wearing thin, as if Veep morphed into Breaking Bad.

    But seriously (not), if we want an entertainer-in-chief, at least let's get first-rate talent. Personally, I'm for Bernie Sanders. Not showy, but believable and increasingly entertaining (and right on the issues). But if being believable and entertaining are what make you electable these days, actors and other performers may have an edge. We’ve already had one actor in the role, Ronald Reagan, who knew how to sustain his appeal and sell almost anything – from Borax to Star Wars.

    For a while we also had an actor in the 2008 race, Fred Thompson. He had even played a real president, although it was Ulysses Grant in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. But Thompson's real problems were that he couldn’t find a decent script and seemed uncommitted to the part.

     What about someone who has played a fictional president? That could provide experience imagining and handling a crisis, especially one that hasn't happened yet. Feels like some sort of advantage. Remember when  Bill Pullman saved us from an alien invasion in Independence Day, or when Harrison Ford faced off terrorists in Air Force One? Those were terrifying times, they boldly took charge, and everything worked out. Or how about John Travolta? He played a charming, fictional Bill Clinton and he can fly a plane. 

    For a while Martin Sheen seemed destined for the role. First, in The Dead Zone, he played a presidential candidate whom Christopher Walken foresaw blowing up the planet. Years later he returned as the longest running president in TV history, keeping America witty, safe and fast-talking on The West Wing. Clearly, he had learned from “experience.”

     Other qualified prospects, all of whom have played the President at some point, include Sam Waterston, James Earl Jones, Jimmy Smits, Alan Alda, Morgan Freeman, Tom Selleck, William Petersen, Dennis Haysbert, Tim Robbins, Michael Douglas, Rip Torn, Robert Duval, Michael Keaton, James Brolin, Billy Bob Thornton, two Quaid brothers, both Jeff and Beau Bridges, and even Kris Kristofferson.

    Want a comedian, someone far more entertaining than Trump? You can't do better than Chris Rock, a stand up president in Head of State. Imagine his State of the Union speech.

    A female alternative to Hillary? The supply of tested candidates is growing. Julianne Moore almost crashed the glass ceiling as Sarah Palin in HBO's Game Change. But let's not forget Geena Davis, who kicked ass on Commander in Chief – and won a Golden Globe for Best Actress. Glenn Close, Patty Duke, Patricia Wettig … they all have recent presidential experience, plus acting chops. 

     We must also seriously consider Meryl Streep, who nailed an Oscar as Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady -- with a flawed script. Sure, Thatcher was a British head-of-state, but Streep is pure American, born in New Jersey. 

     Some names on this list are past their box office dates. But it's just a starting lineup. Look at it this way: In addition to serving as commander-in-chief, the president must now deliver a sustained public performance on the biggest stage of all. Whoever gets the job will be in our living rooms almost every day for at least four years. That's something to consider. The role calls for believability, authenticity, a bit of star quality, and a talent for conveying both compassion and righteous outrage, plus a talent for improvisation and an instinct for public taste. Oh yes, also good judgement and such...

     Anyway, restricting the field to amateurs -- governors, senators and other so-called political "insiders" -- clearly isn't working out. The best they can deliver is awkward guest shots on SNL and The Daily Show. What do they know about building a fan base, staying in character, and looking comfortable on TV? Isn't it time to for someone who can really handle the role?

Is a Progressive/Libertarian Movement Possible?

If a multi-issue movement could bring people together across the usual ideological barriers around galvanizing issues, how about this list: end corporate welfare, bring the troops home, new economic priorities, roll back repressive laws, and full financial transparency.

.

When was the last time a politician came across like the lone voice of principle railing against the dangers of an imperial presidency? That’s what it looked in Spring 2011 when Ron Paul, the Texas libertarian running for the Republican presidential nomination, wrote candidly about the War Powers Resolution, the Patriot Act and mission creep after 9/11. The column was called “Enabling a Future American Dictator.” At times he sounded a lot like Bernie Sanders.

In the column Paul noted that the 60-day deadline for getting congressional approval of military action in Libya under the 1973 War Powers Resolution had passed without notice. Predictably, he chided President Obama for not seeking a congressional OK and wondered whether he ever would. Forget Paul’s party for a moment. Wasn’t he right?

The Constitution, specifically Article 1 Section 8, clearly states that the power to declare war rests with the legislative branch. The original idea was to prevent the president from exerting the powers of a king. But presidents have been manipulating and ignoring such constitutional limitations for more than a century. Given the expansive nature of the federal government, Paul warned that “it would be incredibly naïve to think a dictator could not or would not wrest power in this country” at some point in the future. A bit of negative extrapolation there, but still, many people across the political spectrum do worry that it could indeed happen here.

It’s the kind of argument you expect to hear from Sanders. Actually, the two lawmakers did sometimes join forces when Bernie was a Congressman. Later, the godfather of the Tea Party movement and the junior Senator from the People’s Republic of Vermont teamed up to propose military budget cuts and push for a more thorough audit of the Federal Reserve.

Were these just isolated moments of Left and Right collaboration? Or could a movement that attracts both progressives and libertarians actually develop?

Paul also pointed to the Defense Authorization bill. It “explicitly extends the president’s war powers to just about anybody,” he claimed. The problem --- Section 1034, which asserted that the US is at war with the “associated forces” of al Qaeda and the Taliban. Bringing in civil liberties, Paul asked how hard it would be “for someone in the government to target a political enemy and connect them to al Qaeda, however tenuously, and have them declared an associated force?” It’s an argument that Left-leaning activists should find relevant.

His forecast was that even if we assume the people in charge at the moment are completely trustworthy – a major assumption – the future is far from certain. “Today’s best intentions create loopholes and opportunities for tomorrow’s tyrants,” Paul warned. Given the current crop of potential national leaders, it’s hard to disagree.

While a Texas Republican may not be the best messenger for a new alliance, Paul did have a following, based largely on his strict libertarianism and 2008 presidential run. Then the financial crisis seemed to spark something new: the potential for a convergence between progressives, liberals and traditional libertarians. In January 2011 Ralph Nader called the prospect of such an alliance the nation’s “most exciting new political dynamic.” Another element was generational change. Sparked by the excesses of elites and the wealthy few, a resistance movement fueled by youthful energy – an American Spring? – began to show the potential to catch fire and break down political boundaries. Among the issues that framed its agenda were intervention and military spending, individual freedom, and financial reform.

One of the unifying themes is the desire to limit, and whenever possible reverse the influence of centralized wealth and power. Sanders, who describes himself as a democratic socialist, has frequently expressed this perspective, forging alliances that cross party lines to challenge corporate secrecy and the powers of international financial institutions.

Much of Sanders’ early legislative success came through forging deals with ideological opposites. An amendment to bar spending in support of defense contractor mergers, for example, was pushed through with the aid of Chris Smith, a prominent opponent of abortion. John Kasich (now Ohio governor), whose views on welfare, the minimum wage and foreign policy as a congressman could hardly be more divergent from Sanders’, helped him phase out risk insurance for foreign investments. And a “left-right coalition” he helped to create derailed the “fast track” legislation on international agreements pushed by Bill Clinton.

The impact of the strategy was clearly felt in May 2010 when Sanders’ campaign to bring transparency to the Federal Reserve resulted in a 96-0 Senate vote on his amendment to audit the Fed and conduct a General Accounting Office audit of possible conflicts of interest in loans to unknown banks.

Here is Sanders’ overall view in a nutshell: International financial groups protect the interests of speculators and banks at the expense of the poor and working people – not to mention the environment – behind a veil of secrecy. Meanwhile, governments have been reduced to the status of figureheads under international management, both major political parties kowtow to big money flaks, and media myopia fuels public ignorance. Many libertarians, even a good number of Tea Party people, agree.

But how do you mobilize and unite people across traditional cultural and political lines? A key may be found in sovereignty and nullification campaigns. Diverse as these efforts are, most rest on the proposition that the states and sovereign individuals created the national government. Therefore, they have the right to at least challenge the constitutionality of federal laws, and potentially even decline to enforce them. Though this may sound more conservative than not, liberals and leftists do also adopt such a stance at times.

The unifying idea goes something like this: In the face of oppression (however you define it) withdrawal of consent can make all the difference. When people refuse their cooperation, withhold their help, and maintain their position, they deny their opponent the support that oppressive, hierarchical systems need. Gene Sharp, author of Social Power and Political Freedom, once observed, “If they do this in sufficient numbers for long enough, that government or hierarchical system will no longer have power.”

Centuries back, the tactic was used when American colonists nullified laws imposed by the British. Since then states have used it to limit federal actions, from the Fugitive Slave Act to unpopular tariffs. Before 1800, support for nullification emerged in reaction to the Sedition Act, which prompted the Kentucky Resolve of 1798, written by Thomas Jefferson, and the almost identical Virginia Resolve penned by James Madison. In Section One of his version, Jefferson wrote:

Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force . . . .

That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well as of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

In plain English, this means that federal authority isn’t unlimited, and if it goes too far government actions need not be obeyed. In essence, Jefferson suggested that the federal government isn’t the “final judge” of its own powers, and therefore various states have a right to decide how to handle any federal overreach. Madison’s Virginia version declared that in the case of a deliberate and dangerous abuse of power, states not only had a right to object, they were “duty bound” to stop the “progress of the evil” and maintain their “authorities, rights and liberties.”

After Jefferson enacted a trade embargo as president in response to British maritime theft and the kidnapping of sailors, state legislatures nullified the law using his own words and arguments. On February 5, 1809, the Massachusetts legislature declared that the embargo was “not legally binding on the citizens of the state” and denounced it as “unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional.” Eventually, every New England state, as well as Delaware, voted to nullify the embargo act.

Moral for Jefferson: Be careful what you resolve.

Two centuries later, in August 2010, the Missouri legislature used similar logic to reject the health care mandate in the Democrat’s health care reform, followed by a flood of legal challenges from state officials. In recent years, several states have also either passed or proposed legislation or constitutional amendments designed to nullify federal laws in the areas ranging from firearms to medical marijuana.

The Tea Party movement, set in motion in 2009 by widespread disapproval of the federal government’s bailout of financial institutions, initially swelled into a tidal wave of anti-big-government sentiment that helped the Republican Party regain control of the US House in 2010. Supporters said the movement marked a return to core values. Critics called it reactionary and possibly racist.

It is certainly funded in part by wealthy interests who see its angry members as tools to advance their own deregulation, limited government agenda. And yet, the Tea Party phenomenon is also a loose and relatively diverse association that includes fiscal conservatives, Christian fundamentalists, secular libertarians and more. A March 2010 poll estimated 37 percent support for its basic economic agenda, although that may have been its high water mark. The main take away is that it encompasses a variety of impulses, from orthodox libertarianism and neo-isolationism to populist anger directed at elites, deficit spending and perceived threats to US interests.

Some have written off the recent anti-federal government rebellion as a Republican ploy. But there have certainly been Left-wing crusades against federal abuse of power in the past, and liberal nullification campaigns to decriminalize marijuana and bring National Guard units home from wars overseas.

Will most Tea Party people join forces with progressives? Not likely. The main obstacle is several generations of cultural war, passionate and sometimes violent disagreement over racism, abortion, immigration, entitlements and climate change, among other things. In fact, progressives and Tea Party people can sometimes perceive different “realities.” Since 2008 many on one side have decided that Obama is a socialist, maybe even a Muslim Manchurian Candidate. On the other side, many say he is at best a sell out, and in some ways has doubled down on the mistakes and abuses of the previous administration. One group says climate change is a hoax or at least exaggerated, and the government should institute literacy tests for voting. The other sees ecological (or economic) catastrophe around the corner, thinks guns should be carefully controlled, and sometimes even argues that states ought to seize public resources as “trustees” of the commons.

At the same time, however, there’s enough common ground to attract people from across the conventional divide. Don’t both libertarians and progressives believe that the size and reach of the US military should be limited? Don’t both think that civil liberties are being eroded by executive orders and legislative overreach? Beyond that, they also agree, perhaps more than either has yet acknowledged, about the greed and dysfunction of big institutions, and the need for more transparency and oversight. In this regard, Sanders has pointed the way. At times libertarian voices are even bolder than progressive counterparts, especially those who say that the War on Drugs should end and most if not all drugs should be legalized. But Sanders is gradually joining this campaign.

If that’s not convincing, ask yourself what could happen without some attempt to create a progressive-libertarian connection. Most libertarians, Tea Party members and others dissatisfied with the status quo will be actively wooed and deceived by conservative demagogues. Many will be sidetracked into grievance and resentment. Where else will they have to go? So, shouldn’t there be a struggle for the hearts and minds of all those disillusioned casualties of the financial crash and culture war?

Still, it remains to be seen whether the issues on which there isn’t much common ground – and these should not be underestimated – will make it impossible to create or sustain some solidarity. It would certainly help if an alliance of some sort had a chance to grow outside the two-party system. But that requires credible leaders and a basic agenda.  

In any case, if a multi-issue alliance could bring people together across the usual ideological barriers around galvanizing issues, how about these: end corporate welfare, bring the troops home, new economic priorities,roll back repressive legislation, and full financial transparency.

Such a list is probably incomplete, and for some, may not go far enough. Fair enough. But it does potentially bridge some of the divisions that keep many people fighting among themselves while realigning conventional politics. In the long run, a Progressive-Libertarian alliance probably wouldn’t last. But before it faded – if people overcame some traditional divisions, if the debate really changed and some  new thinking took hold – wouldn’t the stakes be worth it?

This is adapted from Greg Guma's Rebel News Round Up, originally broadcast live on The Howie Rose Show, Friday, June 3, 2011, on WOMM (105.9-FM/LP – The Radiator) in Burlington. 

We're All Socialists Sometimes

Like most western democracies, for many decades the US government has been operating with some socialist programs – within an undeniably capitalist economic system. But what are we really talking about? We clearly don’t have the state running the economy. It can barely manage itself. But we have adopted programs designed to increase economic equality – and sometimes programs that have done the opposite. 

In other words, we’ve had redistribution of wealth. As Bernie Sander has been arguing in his presidential campaign, during the last few decades it’s largely been redistribution toward the top.

What do socialists believe? Most would probably agree that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth, creating an unequal society. Basically, a no brainer so far. Where they disagree is about how much and what type of government intervention will work. A few advocate complete nationalization of production. But more prefer some state control of capital within a market economy, while democratic socialists often talk about selective nationalization of key elements in a mixed economy, along with tax-funded social programs. On the other hand, libertarian socialists don’t favor state control and prefer direct collective ownership – workers coops, workers councils, basically workplace democracy.

Libertarian socialists, like libertarians in general, weren’t happy about the 2008-2009 financial bailouts. Democratic socialists, in contrast, felt they didn’t go far enough. And most capitalists? Well, many decried the situation but went along. Some even chirped that “we are all socialists now” – at least as far as losses are concerned.

The truth is, Americans have been adopting socialist ideas – although not living in a socialist society – for many years, and the sky hasn’t fallen. But this doesn’t matter to the politicians and talking heads who hawk “out of control” government and a hostile takeover of the country. 

The attempt to stir up fears about socialism, and link it to xenophobia and un-American activity, is a cheap but tried-and-true political ploy. That's probably why it appeals to Donald Trump. It’s also the latest incarnation of an ongoing culture war based on resentment, ignorance, and selfishness. The subtext is that we are not equal, that being "truly American" includes a very narrow set of values, and that the government shouldn’t be a force for equality. How Sanders defines the issue -- and handles the topic from here on -- may determine whether voters decide he's electable or ultimately just a protest candidate. 

But let’s give a conservative the last word. During the 2008 presidential campaign, George Will put it this way: “Ninety-five percent of what the government does is redistribute wealth. It operates on the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Case in point: we have sugar subsidies. Costs the American people billions of dollars but they don’t notice it it’s in such small increments. But the few sugar growers get very rich out of this. Now we have socialism for the strong – that is the well-represented and organized in Washington like the sugar growers. But it’s socialism none the less and it’s not new.”

Taking Charge: Bernie Sanders' First Term

The race didn't look serious at first. Democrat Gordon Paquette was running for an unprecedented sixth term as Burlington mayor. Restaurant owner Richard Bove had opted for an Independent bid after losing the caucus. Joseph McGrath, a relative unknown, was also in the race as a Northender concerned about crime. And former Liberty Union candidate Bernie Sanders was piecing together an Independent coalition.


The 1981 ballot was crowded: a referendum on waterfront access, a nuclear freeze advisory vote, and a 10 percent property tax increase, among other items. But Paquette blocked an article asking voters whether to separate two road projects -- the northern and southern connectors -- so that the northern route could be finished first. A Fair Housing Commission proposal was delayed at the last minute, with the promise of a special election later.

On March 3, things turned out differently than anyone predicted. After rapidly gaining credibility, winning neighborhood allies and receiving the police union endorsement, Sanders squeaked to victory. But he hardly knew a soul in City Hall and would have just two allies on the City Council.

His campaign literature urged, "It's time for a change." At his first post-victory press conference, he added, "No more boring meetings."

Month One: The Pomerleau project for the waterfront came under fire as the new mayor took office in April. The Council meanwhile declared a hiring freeze due to the defeat of the local tax increase, and two different housing commission items were placed on a special election ballot.

Sanders set up task forces to develop ideas and used a personal braintrust to look for ways out of the fiscal bind. Most councilors were cool to this new presence in city government, and greeted him in early April by firing his new secretary because he had failed to go through the proper channels. She was soon reinstated.

May-June -- Confrontation Politics: Although Sanders had run on a "no tax increase" platform, he found that a five percent increase was the best he could do. It was one of the few times that he and the Council majority agreed. On Reorganization Day, they even parted company on his nominees for key city posts, initially rejecting future City Clerk James Rader and Assistant City Attorney John Franco -- without asking for their qualifications. For Sanders this was an obvious sign that the Council planned to stonewall his administration.

In late April, the two housing initiatives were both defeated, largely thanks to a scare campaign, funded by local landlords, that brought in California consultant Bernie Walp. Despite demands from neighborhood groups the Planning Commission was sticking with its municipal development plans. Further fueling divisions an anonymous publication, The Flea Press, covertly circulated slanderous commentary through official channels.

Eventually, the Council did approve two Sanders appointments, Steve Goodkind as Health and Safety Director, and David Clavelle as head of Civil Defense. But Sanders would have to keep working with key Paquette aides like Frank Wagner and Lee Austin.

Summer -- Digging in: Bernie was making a name for himself with TV appearances, print features, even a July 5 Doonesbury strip. At home his biggest success was organizing a series of successful concerts in Battery Park. Meanwhile, he began a dialogue with the university and hospital officials and testified against a 30 percent Blue Cross rate hike. He also learned enough about the proposed McNeil wood chip plant to support its construction -- despite the arguments of environmental activists.

A campaign to organize retail workers was launched, toxic muck in the barge canal blocked progress on the southern connector, and the city's urban renewal developer demanded (and received) a property tax break based on citywide appraisal inequities. Sanders actively supported the retail workers drive, especially when a local lawyer began advising business owners on how to combat unionization. Both the campaign and opposition eventually faded away.

Sanders was becoming effective but clashes with the Council majority persisted. By September his allies were busy planning a strong challenge in the next Town Meeting Day council races. His two supporters on the City Council -- Independent Sadie White and Terry Bouricius, who had won as a Citizens Party candidate -- needed more allies. 

Fall -- Before the storm: Although voices were lowered, the City Council's monthly budget review remained a challenge to the patience of all involved. The Flea Press vanished once its author, pollster Vincent Naramore, was discovered. But the atmosphere in City Hall was still tense.

In September Sanders unilaterally appointed his partner Jane Driscoll as Youth Coordinator, a new "volunteer" position that would be funded by having Driscoll seek money from foundations and grants.

Near the end of the year a questionable letter by City Clerk Wagner raised new questions about the funding of the southern connector. Meanwhile, a voter registration drive by the Citizens Party and Sanders supporters prompted the Voter Registration Board to impose new restrictive rules. Campaign '82 had begun.

Council Upset: Citizens Party and Sanders backers formed the Coalition for Responsible Government to develop a unified slate of candidates. The result was a crop of Council and School Board hopefuls that covered every ward, plus more competition for minor offices than the city had ever seen.

Local election experts doubted that Rik Musty and Zoe Breiner could defeat incumbent Democrats Joyce Desautels and Russell Niquette. But the Council majority had alienated voters by blocking Sanders; "give the mayor the chance to do his job" became a persuasive campaign theme. Over 100 volunteers canvassed the city with tabloid newspapers and staged an impressive get-out-the-vote effort.

Days before the election the Superior Court ordered the Voter Board to add all newly registered voters to the checklist. In Montpelier, an attempt to revoke Burlington's right to impose a Gross Receipts Tax turned into a "home rule" victory and PR plus for the Sanders team.

When the votes were tallied, there were now five Sanders supporters on the Council, along with five Republicans. After the runoffs, the Democrats were left with just three votes and Sanders had the ability to sustain a veto.

A New Broom: Tax reform had been Bernie's promise. In 1982 he tried to deliver. But his Gross Receipts proposal was narrowly defeated in June, again thanks to consultant Bernie Walp.

The city's new treasurer Jonathan Leopold and his assistant Barr Wright (later Swennerfelt) phased in a cash management system, central purchasing, and other innovations that improved the local financial picture. City Clerk James Rader started a city-sponsored voter registration drive. Housing inspection picked up and the mayor set up an economic development committee that included business leaders and his own people.

Some Democrats remained unimpressed. Writing to Rutland mayor John Daley, State Senator Thomas Crowley warned his colleague to "watch this group from Burlington." Opposition to the southern connector was just a front, Crowley wrote, and "they have apparently targeted Rutland as Bernie Sandersville number 2."

Nevertheless, the Sanders administration was not turning out to be the radical regime predicted. Instead, Sanders was courting city workers, a move that angered many department heads. And he was opening City Hall to various groups that hadn't previously been welcome. Workers' Pride Week in late September was an attempt to increase the self-respect of working people. In general, however, Sanders' team spent its greatest effort refining city management and saving money.

More progressive initiatives were proposed, things like rejection of crisis relocation planning, establishment of neighborhood assemblies as advisory bodies on matters such as community development, and contributions from tax-exempt institutions like UVM. The Council sometimes agreed, at least in principle, realizing that too much obstruction was not in anyone's best interest.

Toward the end of 1982, as people began to focus on the next mayoral race, Sanders announced that his team had discovered a $1.9 million surplus. Auditors were hauled in for a special Council session. The surplus turned out to be real. It had been growing for years without official notice.

Not much was happening on the waterfront. Pomerleau and friends were backing off their plans due to public skepticism. But Sanders' proposal to implement interim zoning under Council control failed to win GOP or Democratic support. The mayor had successfully blocked the condo and hotel plan, as promised, but no alternative had emerged.

In less than two years local politics had been transformed. Burlington had a three-party system -- with some hazy dividing lines. Some Democrats were moving into the Republican camp, others were supporting Sanders programs or the mayor himself. Hundreds of people were participating in various councils and neighborhood meetings. And the whole state watched with increasing fascination.

Sometimes Council sessions were still boring, but not often, and especially not once the electoral battle for City Hall began again.

Will Sanders' BFF Democrat stick with him?

In 1984 Peter Welch was already a fan and urged Mayor Bernie Sanders to seek higher office

It should come as no shock that Vermont's leading Democrats are lining up with Hillary Clinton for president, despite the emergence of Bernie Sanders as a contender. The list of prominent Clinton backers in Vermont so far includes Governor Peter Shumlin, Sen. Patrick Leahy, former governor (and 2004 presidential candidate) Howard Dean, and Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger, whom Sanders endorsed in 2012.

Welch to Sanders: "Perhaps another day."

In a way, it's understandable. For decades Sanders was a thorn in the party's side. In 1974, he ran against Leahy as a Liberty Union candidate, in the race that first put the young Chittenden County prosecutor in the Senate. In 1981, Sanders defeated a five-term incumbent Democratic mayor, Gordon Paquette, ushering in almost 30 years of Progressive-led government. 

In 1986, he ran against Vermont's first female governor, Democrat Madeleine Kunin. 

After Sanders entered Congress, he and top Democrats did find a way to co-exist, developed mutual respect, and sometimes collaborated on projects.  But one leading Vermont Democrat is absent from the Clinton list -- and maintained a cordial, supportive relationship with Sanders from the start -- Rep. Peter Welch. 

In 1984, Sanders was in his second term as mayor and thinking about another run for governor; he had run as a third party candidate in 1972 and 1976. Welch had become a state senator. But Sanders decided to stand aside and consolidate locally. On April 3, 1984, shortly after the local Progressive coalition made gains in City Council races, Welch, who lived on the other side of the state, sent a hand-written note of congratulations and urged Sanders on.

"Congratulations on your recent victories. Perhaps your opponents have come to the reluctant conclusion that the politics of obstruction doesn't work," Welch wrote. "While I understand your recent decision," he continued, referring to the decision not to run for governor, "many had looked forward to your campaign. Perhaps another day."

A few days later, Sanders wrote back, recapping the local victories and telegraphing his plan to focus on education as a priority. "I am sure we will be talking," he concluded.

Vermont's Mt. Rushmore - Welch, Sanders and Leahy


In 1990, Sanders helped convince Welch to run for governor -- instead of the US House of Representatives. Sanders wanted to make a second bid for the office, having come close in 1988. Sanders won, launching a three-decade congressional career. Welch lost and returned to the state senate. But the two remained allies. When Sanders became a US Senator in 2006, Welch succeeded him in the US House.


Leahy endorsed Clinton more than a year ago, long before she officially announced. According to NBC, at least 29 out of the 44 sitting Democratic senators have already endorsed Clinton in some form. Asked recently about his presidential preference, however, Welch said it's still too early to choose between Clinton and Sanders. But he spoke glowingly about Sanders' courage and looked forward to the debates. Perhaps that other day he wrote about is still ahead.

Bernie Sanders: Social Control and the Tube

Published Feb. 13, 1979, Vermont Vanguard Press

THE function and impact of television on our society cannot be adequately discussed in a few pages. All that this article can do is to raise a few basic points and, perhaps, stimulate discussion on a subject which has not received the critical examination it deserves.

There are several major functions of commercial television as it presently operates. First, it is supposed to make as much money as possible for the owners of the industry and for the companies who advertise. Second, like heroin and alcohol, television serves the function of an escapist mechanism which allows people to "space out" and avoid the pain and conflict of their lives -- and the causes of those problems. Third, television is the major vehicle by which the owners of this society propagate their political points of view (including lies and distortions) through the "news."

The major networks are owned and controlled by some of the most powerful institutions in this country. In 1974, the U.S. Senate Committee on Government Operations reported that the Chase Manhattan Bank was the largest stockholder in CBS and NBC and the third largest at ABC, behind Bankers Trust and Bank of New York.

The television industry earns huge sums of money because it can demand, and receive, extraordinary rates for advertising time. The companies pay the price because television is (to say the least) extremely effective in selling products -- be they underarm spray deodorants, automobiles, beer, cat food, politicians, or whatever. Using the well-tested Hitlerian principle that people should be treated as morons and bombarded over and over again with the same simple phrases and ideas, the astute minds on Madison Avenue are capable of converting millions of TV viewers to one or another product in a matter of months.


WHAT is the relationship between the kinds of programming that appears on commercial TV, the advertising that appears on TV, and the goals of the people who own the networks? Is it possible, as some people believe, that commercial television can be significantly improved without fundamentally changing the ownership and control of the networks -- for example, by taking them out of the hands of the banks and giant corporations who presently control them?

Could Alpo Dog Food, Close Up Toothpaste, Ford Motor Company, or Coca-Cola present programming which attempts to allow Americans to understand the world that they are living in, and provide ideas as to how the world could be significantly improved?

Like many other aspects of capitalist society, there is a fundamental contradiction in the television industry. The owners of the television industry, very consciously, do not want to use that potentially extraordinary medium to educate people, to uplift people, or to improve the quality of life in our society. To do so would be to act against their own best interests.

What the owners of the TV industry want to do, and are doing, in my opinion, is use that medium to intentionally brainwash people into submission and helplessness. With considerable forethought they are attempting to create a nation of morons who will faithfully go out and buy this or that product, vote for this or that candidate, and faithfully work for their employers for as low a wage as possible.

A recent study has indicated that the Scholastic Aptitude Test results of high school students has declined precipitously over the last decade. Teachers throughout the country complain that many of their students are unable to read or concentrate for any length of time on a concept. There is almost no American politician alive who would dare give a 30-minute speech on TV for fear of boring his/her audience, and the 30-second "spot" us the major means by which candidates convey their weighty political analysis of the world situation to the voters. (In fact, some TV stations will not sell a political candidate more than a 60-second block of time.)

NOT too surprisingly -- given the nature of the medical and psychiatric establishments -- very little attention has been given to the psychological damage that constant advertising interruptions have on the capacity of a human being to think. If one is watching an hour-long program, of whatever kind, and one's thought pattern is interrupted 20 or 30 times within an hour by totally separate concepts such as talking cars, feeling free with Coke and Pepsi, improving your sex life with Close Up Toothpaste, getting relief from hemorrhoids, donating money to wipe out cancer, doing away with bodily odors, getting whiter washes, etc., etc., etc. -- what happens to the ability of the mind to think, to concentrate, to analyze?

Could one conceive of a serious program -- something which reflects real life and is produced in order to have an impact on people -- being interrupted every seven minutes by moronic commercials? Obviously not. People would be totally incensed, just as they would be if they were involved in a serious conversation which was constantly interrupted by extraneous noise.

If the television industry encouraged intellectual growth, honesty, and the pursuit of truth, it would put most major corporations out of business. Most advertising consists of lies designed to sell products which are either identical to the competition, totally useless, grossly overpriced, or dangerous to human health or the environment. The last thing that the owners of the TV industry would want is for people to know the truth about the products sold on the air

"Good evening. I hope that you will buy Coca-Cola. Although we sell a bottle for 50 cents it only costs us 5 or 6 cents to manufacture. In addition, Coke is guaranteed to rot your teeth, and upset your stomach. In large amounts the high sugar content can affect your brain functioning."

"Good evening. We hope that you will buy X automobile. We sell it for ten times as much as it costs to produce and, in addition, have built it so that it will break down in a few years time so that you'll need another one real soon. Furthermore, we have  converted the men who built the car into assembly line machines, and have seriously polluted the city in which it is manufactured.

"We have also created a situation in which incredible amounts of energy are consumed in one of the least efficient forms of transportation imaginable.

"Rush out and buy X automobile. Don't wait another day."

THE potential of television, democratically owned and controlled by the people, is literally beyond comprehension because it is such a relatively new medium and we have no experience with it under democratic control. At the least, with the present state of technology, we could have a choice of dozens of channels of commercial-free TV.

At the moment serious writers are, by and large, not allowed to write for commercial television for fear they might produce something that is true and hence, upsetting to the owners of the media. Under democratic control people with all kinds of views could make their presentations, and serious artists would be encouraged to produce work for the tube.

There is no question that television has an enormous impact upon our society, and that the controllers of that medium have far more power than almost any politician. For those of us who are concerned about living in a democratic and healthy society, it is necessary to address the control of television as a political issue, and organize to win.