











Bernie Sanders: the upstart who pointed the way toward a political revolution Read more

Jeffrey W Rubin: ‘Protests and grassroots movements are key to change’



The Clinton-Sanders race has distracted progressive Democrats. The truth is, Bernie-as-president wouldn’t have gotten anywhere on his own, and Hillary-as-president won’t be progressive unless she feels she has no choice.



To make fundamental changes in how the US economy works, as Bernie Sanders promised, requires more than a progressive Democrat in the White House.

What our democracy needs to deliver on fairness and well-being are grassroots social movements. The combination of changing viewpoints and mobilization in the streets – of dialogue and mass protest – can press reluctant moderates on both sides of the congressional aisle to support major reforms they would at other moments oppose.

As our national demographic becomes less white, and the 99%, #BlackLivesMatter, and $15 minimum wage enter our consciousness and daily vocabulary, our awareness of the presence – and power – of protest grows. Progressives who have passionately supported Bernie need to sustain, in the streets and in the institutions, the intensity we’ve seen around the primary.

When we look ahead to a potential Hillary Clinton presidency, we should see a politician who might respond to grassroots mobilizations by forging progressive change – if sufficiently empowered and sufficiently pressed. That’s why we should make those mobilizations.

Jeffrey W Rubin is a professor of History at Boston University

Raúl M Grijalva: ‘Progressive leaders can make a long-term impact’



Bernie Sanders’ campaign puts him squarely in the company of Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean and other progressive leaders whose campaigns and movements changed our country permanently for the better.

Just as Dean made sure campaign finance reform and universal health care entered our national political conversation and never left, Bernie’s historic campaign has already centered the 2016 election – and our politics more broadly – on economic fairness, an end to corporate favoritism and a more peaceful foreign policy.

The future of the party and the country much more closely resembles Bernie Sanders’ vision than the pundits are willing to acknowledge. The generation of young voters that grew up with the cynicism of the Bush White House and the economic struggles of the Great Recession could easily have rejected politics. Bernie’s campaign empowered them, and millions of other Americans of all ages, to demand a more responsive political system and an economy that rewards hard work instead of a large bank account.

I expect my friends in Washington to realize very soon how significant Bernie’s accomplishments in this direction truly are. Like his supporters, Bernie is just getting started. I’m excited to be a part of where we’re headed.

Congressman Raúl M Grijalva represents the Third District of Arizona

Keli Goff: ‘You can’t take voters of color for granted and win’

The Sanders campaign was fueled primarily by the passion and anger of many white males, who saw it as a revolution. While the Trump campaign found success by framing certain racial minorities as part of a growing problem, the Sanders campaign approached racial minorities as a constituency that needs saving.

They relied on the notion that any racial minority with sense would obviously turn to the most liberal candidate running to save them. (After criticizing Sanders I was informed by some of his white supporters that I needed to be better educated on the needs of “my people”.)



The strategy played into the worst stereotypes of white liberalism: paternalistic and patronizing. The Sanders campaign is to be commended for raising certain progressive issues, some of which are of great importance to minorities (making college more affordable for instance). But his campaign’s unwillingness to rein in some of its angriest white males (the so-called “Bernie Bros”), even when they harassed and threatened minority and female journalists and activists, permanently shattered the stereotype that liberals are more kind and cuddly than conservatives – or more deserving of our votes.

After 2016, it is unlikely any candidate will underestimate the voting power of people of color – no matter how many angry white males they have supporting them.

Keli Goff is a Columnist for The Daily Beast and Host of Political Party with Keli Goff on NPR affiliate WNYC

Kim Phillips-Fein: ‘Long excluded political ideas are viable’

The Sanders campaign demonstrated the popular viability of a set of ideas that have long been excluded from electoral politics: how the democratic use of government power might be able to make a more egalitarian and just society.

He was willing to attack economic inequality – with all that it means in terms of poverty, racial injustice and environmental devastation.

He called attention to it as the central moral and political problem of our day. This helped to bring some sense of the difficult realities of life in America today into the horse-race of the presidential contest.

His campaign has brought hope to a bleak electoral season.

Kim Phillips-Fein is a professor of American history at New York University

Matt Laslo: ‘People don’t trust the establishment’

The long-shot presidential bid by Sanders should teach Washington insiders a lesson that’s often missed by the puppet masters who run the nation’s capital: the American people don’t trust them.

Congressional Democrats fell in line early behind Clinton, but Democratic voters don’t believe in coronations. That’s why while Sanders’ progressive message was scoffed at by his fellow senators and the press corps, it took root and blossomed among voters who haven’t felt represented in Washington in years, if not decades.

Before formally becoming a Democrat, Sanders was one of only two Independents in the Senate. But, in reality, he was always a caucus of one. That independent streak allowed Sanders to remain an outsider, even though he’s served in Washington since 1991.

But, true to form, Capitol Hill missed what Democratic voters had been longing for. While Washington pundits viewed Sanders as a curmudgeon with wrinkled suits and unkempt hair, voters saw him and his righteous anger as an answer to a political system that’s kept them feeling locked out of Washington.

When Sanders returns to Capitol Hill, the establishment in both parties should take notice: he’s now got a national following and is one email blast away from making their lives hell.

Matt Laslo is a reporter and professor at Johns Hopkins University

Barrett Holmes Pitner: ‘The revolution can’t be about one man’

A revolution determined by one person’s success is destined to fail. The lofty goals of Sanders’ revolution coupled with the improbability of defeating Hillary Clinton meant that he needed to plan for beyond 2016 – win or lose – from the inception of his campaign.

By mid-April, following his defeat in the New York primary, a Sanders nomination became highly improbable, and his campaign lost direction and purpose. Anger and frustration soon became their modus operandi.

Tackling Wall Street, strengthening the middle class and shaking up the political establishment was always going to need more than one man and one campaign. Energizing voters so that the movement lives on well into the next administration should have been the top priority, yet it seemed like an afterthought.

Supporters should have been shown that the campaign was about much more than a quest for a nomination or even the presidency. The idea of Sanders using the bully pulpit of Congress to continue his revolution beyond 2016 could have galvanized his supporters, regardless of the outcome of the election.

Voting for a revolution should have been something bigger than one campaign, Sanders’s electoral success or the democratic status quo. Sanders campaigned on a revolution, not a nomination, and he might deliver neither.

Barrett Holmes Pitner is a Washington DC-based journalist and political commentator

Barbara Lee: ‘Women still have a long way to go’

Bernie Sanders’ campaign reminded us that voters hold women to a different standard. For him, likeability was a non-issue, while for women it’s non-negotiable.

A staggering 90% of voters claim it is very important to like a woman in order to vote for her. This double bind for women is why Sanders’ curmudgeonly candor is considered cool, while pundits wonder if Hillary Clinton’s voice is too loud.

His singular focus on revolution generated much energy and excitement. Would it have been the same if he had been a woman? The qualifications and accomplishments of women are more highly scrutinized. Their policy prowess needs to be expansive and detail-oriented.

Even with these double standards, we’re seeing positive change. It took 70 years from the first women’s rights conference at Seneca Falls until the first women won the right to vote in 1920. It took us until 2014 to see 100 women in Congress. Progress is slow but steady.

Barbara Lee works on women’s equality and representation in American politics.

Maria Cardona: ‘Competition makes parties stronger’

We always knew that Secretary Clinton would have competition from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Many thought it would be Senator Warren. It ended up being Bernie Sanders.

His movement was great for the party, great for the country and made Hillary Clinton an infinitely better candidate. He also made Democrats acknowledge the important issues his supporters hold dear.



What we have seen happening is that the majority of the nation now believes we need to do something about income inequality, climate change and that we need to take big money out of politics. Secretary Clinton believes this, as do most Americans. Thanks to Bernie Sanders and his passionate supporters, these ideals are closer to reality than ever before.

Maria Cardona is a veteran Democratic strategist



