Robert J. Fisher: Bernie Sanders is a modern-day Eugene Debs

[portlander23]

Robert J. Fisher: Bernie Sanders is a modern-day Eugene Debs

One of the most prominent labor union leaders to embrace socialism was Eugene V. Debs, the founder of the American Railway Union in 1893. During the Pullman strike of 1894, in which 13 strikers were killed by police and private armies hired by the railroads, Debs was labeled in a New York Times editorial as "a lawbreaker at large, an enemy of the human race" who should be tried for interfering with the U.S. mail.

Impressed by the rising appeal of both socialism and Debs, Wilson, a moderate Democrat, became the architect of the New Freedom, one of the most progressive periods in American history. During that era, the first income tax, the direct election of U.S. senators, the federal system to regulate banking, child labor legislation and the Federal Trade Commission and the Clayton Antitrust Act to regulate big business were enacted. Although he failed to win at the ballot box, Debs and his socialist philosophy had a major impact on American history.

In many respects, Sanders is the modern-day embodiment of Debs, campaigning on behalf of the eradication of income inequality, stricter controls on Wall Street, establishment of a living minimum wage, free college tuition and legislation to combat climate change. These ideas apparently are beginning to resonate with working- and middle-class voters.

[MineralMan]

1. Debs ran for President and lost 5 times.

Not a parallel people should want to draw. This country has not evolved to that point, really. If anyone thinks it has, they're ignoring almost half the voting population.

[portlander23]

2. This is why

This is why I suspect Mr. Sanders is hijacking the Democratic primary rather than running independently.

[HooptieWagon]

3. Hijacking?

The DNC approved Sanders running as a Democrat. He views align with FDR, who's policies were core Democratic Party policies until the party was 'hijacked' by the DLCorporatists.

[portlander23]

5. I'm supporting Mr. Sanders

But let's not pretend he's put himself forward as a Democrat. I completely agree that Mr. Sanders' politics is more in line with New Deal Democrats of old, but compared to the modern party, he's an outsider storming the gates, and I 100% support that.

[MineralMan]

6. OK. I'll certainly vote for him if he's the nominee,

and campaign for him too.

[HooptieWagon]

7. The Democratic establishment of today...

Aligns with the Republicans of the 20s-70s. That makes Wall Street very happy. Main Street not so much. That is the source of Sanders popularity....he is an 'Old' Democrat, attempting to return the party to where it was before the 'New Democrats' took control. That old Democratic Party guided us out of the Great Depression, gave us Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights, and environmental, worker and consumer protections. The party took us to victory in WW2, made unions stronger, and gave us the biggest middle class and economic growth in the country's history. Since the New Democrats took over, they've been chipping away at it on behalf of their corporate sponsors.

[Eleanors38]

11. That's alright. After decades, SOMEONE had to do it.

[MineralMan]

4. He's not hijacking anything. He's entitled to run as a

Democrat. However, the socialist label will be hung on him constantly if he manages to win the nomination. That will have an impact on the general election, too. That is when it will come into play, not now, during the primaries. Are we ready to elect a socialist? I doubt it, but I could be wrong.

[Gothmog]

8. That was my reaction also

The negative ads almost write themselves

[LostOne4Ever]

9. Of course, the US demographics is way more diverse/different today than it was back then nt

[MineralMan]

10. Is it? Not really. We are still divided into two major

parties, and most voters are suspect of any other affiliations. The Republicans will use the "socialist" word constantly if Sanders is the nominee in attack ads. Polls demonstrate that voters are suspicious of "socialists" and are less likely to vote for someone who is a socialist.

Here on DU, most of us are reasonably educated and knowledgeable voters. In the regular world, most people identify with either the Republican or Democratic party. They worry about anyone who isn't clearly in one of those two groups, and hesitate to vote for them. It was pretty much the same in the 1900-1930 period, as well, when Debs was getting about 1% of the popular vote.

Certainly Sanders would do better than that, but there will be voters, including some Democrats who will balk at voting for someone who has called himself a Democratic Socialist for a very long time. The Republicans won't let anyone forget that, either. That's a certainty.

It's a real problem, not just a vague worry.

Here's a poll for you to examine:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

Oddly enough, more people said they'd vote for an atheist than a socialist, which is a major change.

[LostOne4Ever]

12. Actually it is quite different

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Back in the 1920's whites made up ~90% of the population. Today it is ~72%.

Back when Debs was alive, a black president was a pipe dream. Today it is a reality.

Back when the country started there was two parties. Then one died. Then it was one major party and several smaller ones. We only went back to two parties when many of the smaller parties combined into the Republican party.

Things change constantly.

George Double dumb had an nearly 80% approval rating at one point, then it changed. Most the US opposed the Iraq war, then they supported it once we went in, then they opposed it again once it turned out to be a disaster like we told them it would be.

Opinions change and can change quite quickly. Just like US demographics which are turning more and more against the GOP. Note that the socialist you are mentioning would beat the current GOP frontrunner in a national election as of now:[/font]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Sanders beats Trump by 5 points compared to Clinton who beats him by 2. Similarly, Bush would beat clinton and while ending in a tie with Sanders.

But again, things can change and change quickly, and unless one of us gains the mystical ability of foresight neither of us can know for certain if Sanders can win or not. In a way, that is part of what the primary is about:

To see if a candidate is capable of winning. [/font]