Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Corbyn v. Sanders
anti-war
Corbyn v. Sanders
by Stephen Lendman
Differences between them are stark. Sanders is more opportunist than populist, nearly always supporting Democrat pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-business, anti-human/civil rights policies - voting with party members 98% of the time, more than most Democrats, polar opposite his high-minded rhetoric, hiding his real agenda.
In over three decades as a Labour party member, Corbyn opposed its policies over 500 times - according to the Financial Times and London Telegraph.
Sanders pledged support for Hillary if she’s nominated. He refuses to attack her pro-war, pro-business, anti-populist agenda - or denounce Obama’s endless wars on humanity. Silence = support.
All Sanders speeches are alike, rhetorically backing social justice, decrying the “massive injustice in terms of income and wealth inequality” in America, he told Liberty University students, founded by Christian fascist Jerry Falwell, a deplorable venue for a so-called progressive to visit - arguing against “the top one-tenth of 1%…own(ing) almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%.”
His voting record belies his rhetoric - a self-proclaimed socialist/progressive in name only. He’s done nothing to help create an alternative to bipartisan extremist policies. His idea of a “political revolution” is old wine in new bottles, business as usual policies he rhetorically opposes.
He told LU students “there is no justice when thousands of Americans die every single year because they do not have any health insurance” to pay for expensive treatment. He was the only Senate member rhetorically for universal healthcare - then disgracefully voted for Obamacare.
His “no” vote would have killed an anti-populist rationing scheme benefitting insurers, drug companies and large hospital chains, providing healthcare on the ability to pay, ignoring Martin Luther King saying “(o)f all the forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and inhumane.”
In denouncing greed at LU, he ignored his do nothing record against it. He said nothing about endless US imperial wars, human refugee floods they cause, decades of Israeli persecution of Palestinians, killer cops in America murdering Black youths with impunity, and repressive laws he supported turning America into a police state.
He’s no populist/anti-war savior. His voting record belies his stump speeches. He represents business as usual dressed up in phony high-minded rhetorical mumbo jumbo.
Corbyn opposes business as usual. His voting record shows it. He wants humanity saved from the scourge of endless wars, urges challenging US-dominated NATO, advocates renationalizing Britain’s utilities and railways, as well as demanding business pay its fair share in taxes.
He opposes austerity, wants public welfare cuts reversed, and tuition-free higher education for all qualified students, not affording it on the ability to pay.
He backs nuclear disarmament and quantitative easing for ordinary people - to stimulate economic growth and jobs creation. He supports investing in vital infrastructure projects, public transportation and renewable energy - to end dependency on environmentally destructive fossil fuels.
Hours after his landslide victory as new Labour party leader, he addressed a pro-refugee rally in London, vocally supporting desperate people in need, an issue Bernie Sanders ducks.
When asked how he’d handle the crisis as president, he gave a noncommittal/weasel word answer saying “(i)t’s impossible to give a proper number (to how many he’d let in) until we understand the dimensions of the problem.”
Daily headlines scream them - explaining floods of desperate people risking life and limb to reach Europe and other safe havens - without blaming US imperial wars for the crisis, nor does Sanders.
Corbyn told Labour party supporters his “first action…as leader…would be to come to a demonstration in support of refugees, the right to asylum and the human needs of people all over the world.”
He expressed shock “beyond (being) appalled at the way so many (in the) media…describe desperate people in desperate situations as ‘the problem.’ “
“They’re victims of war. They’re victims of environmental degradation. They’re victims of poverty. They’re victims of human rights abuses all over the world. We have a responsibility as one of many countries that signed the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Right to Asylum.”
Sanders is still trying to figure out if there’s a crisis to address, showing contempt for desperate people in need.
“Together in peace, together in justice, together in humanity - that surely must be our way forward,” Corbyn stressed.
It’s one thing to be on the right side of major issues as a longtime backbencher, quite another as party leader. In his new role, Corbyn needs to back his rhetoric with anti-business as usual policy endorsements. His bona fides depend on it.
Sanders’ House and Senate voting record shows he’s part of the dirty system he rhetorically opposes. He’s no Jeremy Corbyn.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen [at] sbcglobal.net.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.
by Stephen Lendman
Differences between them are stark. Sanders is more opportunist than populist, nearly always supporting Democrat pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-business, anti-human/civil rights policies - voting with party members 98% of the time, more than most Democrats, polar opposite his high-minded rhetoric, hiding his real agenda.
In over three decades as a Labour party member, Corbyn opposed its policies over 500 times - according to the Financial Times and London Telegraph.
Sanders pledged support for Hillary if she’s nominated. He refuses to attack her pro-war, pro-business, anti-populist agenda - or denounce Obama’s endless wars on humanity. Silence = support.
All Sanders speeches are alike, rhetorically backing social justice, decrying the “massive injustice in terms of income and wealth inequality” in America, he told Liberty University students, founded by Christian fascist Jerry Falwell, a deplorable venue for a so-called progressive to visit - arguing against “the top one-tenth of 1%…own(ing) almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%.”
His voting record belies his rhetoric - a self-proclaimed socialist/progressive in name only. He’s done nothing to help create an alternative to bipartisan extremist policies. His idea of a “political revolution” is old wine in new bottles, business as usual policies he rhetorically opposes.
He told LU students “there is no justice when thousands of Americans die every single year because they do not have any health insurance” to pay for expensive treatment. He was the only Senate member rhetorically for universal healthcare - then disgracefully voted for Obamacare.
His “no” vote would have killed an anti-populist rationing scheme benefitting insurers, drug companies and large hospital chains, providing healthcare on the ability to pay, ignoring Martin Luther King saying “(o)f all the forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and inhumane.”
In denouncing greed at LU, he ignored his do nothing record against it. He said nothing about endless US imperial wars, human refugee floods they cause, decades of Israeli persecution of Palestinians, killer cops in America murdering Black youths with impunity, and repressive laws he supported turning America into a police state.
He’s no populist/anti-war savior. His voting record belies his stump speeches. He represents business as usual dressed up in phony high-minded rhetorical mumbo jumbo.
Corbyn opposes business as usual. His voting record shows it. He wants humanity saved from the scourge of endless wars, urges challenging US-dominated NATO, advocates renationalizing Britain’s utilities and railways, as well as demanding business pay its fair share in taxes.
He opposes austerity, wants public welfare cuts reversed, and tuition-free higher education for all qualified students, not affording it on the ability to pay.
He backs nuclear disarmament and quantitative easing for ordinary people - to stimulate economic growth and jobs creation. He supports investing in vital infrastructure projects, public transportation and renewable energy - to end dependency on environmentally destructive fossil fuels.
Hours after his landslide victory as new Labour party leader, he addressed a pro-refugee rally in London, vocally supporting desperate people in need, an issue Bernie Sanders ducks.
When asked how he’d handle the crisis as president, he gave a noncommittal/weasel word answer saying “(i)t’s impossible to give a proper number (to how many he’d let in) until we understand the dimensions of the problem.”
Daily headlines scream them - explaining floods of desperate people risking life and limb to reach Europe and other safe havens - without blaming US imperial wars for the crisis, nor does Sanders.
Corbyn told Labour party supporters his “first action…as leader…would be to come to a demonstration in support of refugees, the right to asylum and the human needs of people all over the world.”
He expressed shock “beyond (being) appalled at the way so many (in the) media…describe desperate people in desperate situations as ‘the problem.’ “
“They’re victims of war. They’re victims of environmental degradation. They’re victims of poverty. They’re victims of human rights abuses all over the world. We have a responsibility as one of many countries that signed the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Right to Asylum.”
Sanders is still trying to figure out if there’s a crisis to address, showing contempt for desperate people in need.
“Together in peace, together in justice, together in humanity - that surely must be our way forward,” Corbyn stressed.
It’s one thing to be on the right side of major issues as a longtime backbencher, quite another as party leader. In his new role, Corbyn needs to back his rhetoric with anti-business as usual policy endorsements. His bona fides depend on it.
Sanders’ House and Senate voting record shows he’s part of the dirty system he rhetorically opposes. He’s no Jeremy Corbyn.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen [at] sbcglobal.net.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.
For more information:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$110.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
Dear Senator Bernie Sanders,
I am shocked and I denounce your description of the late President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, as a "dead communist dictator." I expect better from you, but perhaps I need to re-evaluate such expectations.
I'm a longtime supporter going back to the days when you were running for re-election as Mayor of Burlington, even though I live in Oakland, California. I've made a modest financial contribution to your current campaign and expressed support for your call to build a grassroots movement to take on the power of the Billionaires and their corporations - what you've referred to as a "political revolution". You've said that this is what your campaign is about. It was precisely such a stance that got Hugo Chavez elected and re-elected President of Venezuela.
Pres. Chavez was neither a communist nor a dictator. If you don't know that, you should.
Your use of the term "communist dictator" is code designed to pander to those who favor and justify U.S. intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean, and around the world. U.S. intervention in the politics of other countries , including bloody military interventions, is an absolute disgrace. It has resulted in the needless suffering and death of millions. It resulted in the imposition and maintenance of real military dictatorships throughout Latin Americas and much of the world. Most of these military dictatorships have only been overcome by democratic movements in the last twenty-five years.
It is the shameful history of U.S. intervention and how it is driven by the interests of Billionaires and their corporations that you need to address, not denounciations of those whom rise to leadership in their countries because of their opposition to it.
I'm not going to get into a detailed defense of Pres. Chavez. It is sufficient to say that it is a fact that Hugo Chavez was elected and re-elected President of Venezuela in what international observers, including former President Jimmy Carter, have described as basically free and fair elections. No dictator holds such elections. It is sufficient to say that Pres. Chavez identified himself as a socialist and specifically said that he was not a communist.
I do not rise to defend Pres. Chavez against all criticism. All politicians and political leaders deserve to be criticized for the bad things they say and do, as well as praise for the good, including you.
I am a socialist and a supporter of the Green Party. I stand for social justice, the protection of our environment, and for real democracy. My donation to your campaign and the good things I've said and written about you are expressions of my support. This open letter is an expression of my criticisms.
I have defended you against charges that you are not really a socialist, pointing out the fact that there are many types of socialists. Even though I am a more radical socialist than you, I think you have a right to label your politics and that right should be respected, as long as it is within reason. The legacy of Pres. Chavez also deserves that respect.
In general, I think you have failed to articulate foreign policy positions that distinguish you from those of Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, or the leadership of the Democratic Party, all of whom are true advocates and instruments of the foreign policies driven by the interests of the Billionaires and their corporations, in other words, U.S. imperialism.
How is it that you attack the Billionaire's control of domestic policies, but not the interventionist and militarist foreign policies which they also control? How is it that you oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but not other imperialist policies?
My parents taught me to be a critical thinker. Specifically, they taught me to pay attention to what politicians say, but also be aware that they often make promises that they have no intention nor ability to keep. They also taught me to never expect that politicians will do better than what they say they'll do. With those lessons in mind, I will continue to praise and respond to your call to build a grassroots political movement to take power away from the Billionaires and their corporations, but I have to denounce your support of U.S. imperialism, its wars, both overt and covert, the military industrial complex, the so called "Homeland Security" apparatus, and all interventions in the political affairs of other countries. These foreign policies are driven by the interests of the Billionaires and their corporations, not the interests of our people, nor the people of the world.
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Nack
Oakland, CA