by Jimmy Franco, Sr.
 |
| Congressman Raul Grijalva and other Latino Leaders from Arizona endorse Sanders. |
The intense struggles taking place within the presidential campaign have heightened the social conflicts between various social classes and demographic groups along with their respective economic and political demands .
A sizable number of young people were involved in the past Obama presidential campaigns and many of them subsequently felt let down by his administration’s turn to the right and lack of follow-through on idealistic campaign promises. Particularly among young Latinos, the ensuing traditional policies and widespread deportation of hundreds of thousands of immigrants during Obama’s administration were disheartening especially since the Democrats enjoyed a congressional majority during the president’s first term. Once Obama’s presidency began, the anti-war rhetoric of his campaign was also discarded for more hawkish policies as the constant support by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Pentagon for armed intervention and regime change abroad became the dominant US foreign policy. Rather than continuing forward with the energized political force that had been created by the Obama campaigns, most of that valuable mobilization and organizational structure was simply discarded as no longer useful once the elections were over. Along with it, were the lofty promises made by Obama’s campaign rhetoric about vigorously regulating the banks, immigration reform, decreasing military spending and enhanced opportunities for a college education which soon withered away and dissipated with the passage of time and growing Republican obstruction. This has created a sense of dissatisfaction among many young people and fertile ground for Sander’s leftist political views.
What attracts the younger generation to Bernie rather than Hillary ?
These two candidates possess different ideological outlooks which are expressed within their contrasting political positions and this explains their distinct appeal to different sectors of voters. Bernie represents the views of social-democracy and advocates increased social services and fundamental structural changes to fix our unjust society while Hillary represents the more moderate liberal views of capitalist-democracy. The large monopoly-sized banks who had a direct role in almost collapsing the economy a few years ago still continue to exist with their firm stranglehold and corrupting influence on the political system through large campaign superpacs.
Within the fractious Republican Party, a right-wing pyramid exists which ranges from conservative to outright reactionary. The bottom rungs of this conservative pyramid consist of primarily older white voters from rural areas some of whom are well-educated while a great many others are working-class elements with lesser education. The elite top of this GOP political pyramid is represented by the leading candidate Trump, but it is essentially controlled by the most reactionary sector of the US financial plutocracy which has a traditional financial stranglehold on the economy and political system. Also, majority of evangelical Christians firmly supports the GOP and its bigoted policies. White supremacist groups from the far-right have recently declared their support for Trump and his nativist movement as their nationalist ideology and hate mongering coincide with his positions. In addition, within this pyramid are moderate conservatives who previously refused to criticize Trump’s bigotry and are now desperately trying to derail their party’s Frankenstein Trump monster who is on his way to victory for the GOP nomination.
 |
| Congressman Raul Grijalva and Bernie Sanders |
The Democratic Party with moderate candidate Hillary Clinton and Socialist Bernie Sanders has endorsed a more progressive agenda for social change to the US public. In particular, Sander’s political platform has affected the politics and policy discussions of the Democrats and moved them further to the left. Clinton is positioned to the political right of Sanders and finds herself having to adopt many of his positions in order to appeal to younger and minority voters. She is now parroting some of Bernie’s most positive and popular proposals from his platform such as tuition-free college, eliminating super PACs,, eliminating inequality and taking on the big banks. A developing political trend reflected in the recent Super Tuesday voting has shown that many union bureaucrats, established Democratic Party machines and traditional minority civil rights organizations are hedging their bets and throwing in their lot with Clinton along with many moderate and older African-American and Latino voters. This more conservative trend within the party also includes the Democratic National Committee, and the super delegates who also favor Clinton as well as Spanish-language media giant Univision. Sanders has dominated in five states while Hillary has won seven primarily southern states which are a part of the Solid South that usually votes Republican in presidential elections. Despite generally being ignored by the mainstream media, the surprising and unexpected surge for Bernie’s campaign has come from a broad and growing cross section of ethnically diverse younger voters. Many of these young and disenchanted voters are independents who are attracted to Sander’s political platform and its principles which advocate real change to the present system.
Who is the motive force that is driving the Sanders campaign forward?
A year ago the initial Sanders presidential campaign was not given much hope for success by the chatting pundits and political strategists as he was polling at a mere 3 percent in comparison to Clinton’s dominant numbers. Since then, many ethnically diverse young people including many females have viewed and accepted Sander’s platform and joined his ranks. They have emerged as the growing and energetic social force that has fired up the “Feel the Bern Movement” to 40 percent in the recent polls and this has helped his small donors to raise more money in February than Clinton did. During the past decade, a rapid change has occurred within our society’s demographics and especially within the broader Latino communities spread out across the country. Millions of
Younger voters are dissatisfied and demand real structural change.
millennials and other young voters have recently come of age as adults and they have been confronted by the harsh decline and inherent inequality within our economic and educational systems and other related problems that are especially detrimental to their generation. Many of these young people that make up this rising demographic sector of our society have now emerged onto the political scene as political activists with valuable experience gained from college campus struggles where many of them protested issues such as unfair budget cuts and tuition hikes, institutionalized racism and efforts to establish ethnic studies programs. Others are active in the Occupy Now and Black Lives Matter Movements and campaigns for immigration reform. A sizable number of these young people were involved in the past Obama presidential campaigns and many of them subsequently felt let down by his administration’s turn to the right and lack of follow-through on idealistic campaign promises. Particularly among young Latinos, the ensuing traditional policies and widespread deportation of hundreds of thousands of immigrants during Obama’s administration were disheartening especially since the Democrats enjoyed a congressional majority during the president’s first term. Once Obama’s presidency began, the anti-war rhetoric of his campaign was also discarded for more hawkish policies as the constant support by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Pentagon for armed intervention and regime change abroad became the dominant US foreign policy. Rather than continuing forward with the energized political force that had been created by the Obama campaigns, most of that valuable mobilization and organizational structure was simply discarded as no longer useful once the elections were over. Along with it, were the lofty promises made by Obama’s campaign rhetoric about vigorously regulating the banks, immigration reform, decreasing military spending and enhanced opportunities for a college education which soon withered away and dissipated with the passage of time and growing Republican obstruction. This has created a sense of dissatisfaction among many young people and fertile ground for Sander’s leftist political views.
What attracts the younger generation to Bernie rather than Hillary ?
These two candidates possess different ideological outlooks which are expressed within their contrasting political positions and this explains their distinct appeal to different sectors of voters. Bernie represents the views of social-democracy and advocates increased social services and fundamental structural changes to fix our unjust society while Hillary represents the more moderate liberal views of capitalist-democracy. The large monopoly-sized banks who had a direct role in almost collapsing the economy a few years ago still continue to exist with their firm stranglehold and corrupting influence on the political system through large campaign super PACs. Sander’s platform demands the break-up of the big banks and a ban on these large campaign super PACs and their corrupt influence on the political system as exemplified by Citizens United. Bernie has no pac and relies on small donations while Clinton states that banks and pacs somehow need to be regulated, yet, she has a large super PAC which funds her election with money donated from large banks. Hillary has proposed an improvement in education and continuing Obamacare while Bernie’s platform proposes tuition-free college and universal healthcare based upon expanding our system of Medicare to all members of society. He is also proposing higher taxes on the upper financial one percent within our society and the closing of tax loopholes and off-shore accounts which are used by the wealthy to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Hillary in response has offered to raise some taxes on the very wealthy.
The two candidates also differ on trade agreements such as NAFTA and others presently being negotiated all of whom Sanders has firmly opposed as being rigged by corporations against the interests of US workers while Clinton has supported them. In regard to foreign policy, Hillary supported the invasion and overthrow of the governments of Iraq and Libya and the toppling of the present Syrian government which has resulted in the creation of ISIS/Al Qaeda and inflamed the Middle East in war . All of these US supported regime changes which had initially been advocated by the Republican neocons during the Bush administration have subsequently led to a chaotic situation dominated by violence and the growth of terrorism within the region. Bernie opposed the Iraq invasion and other regime changes and asserts that the contrasting viewpoints held by the two candidates on these vital issues are pertinent to the question of who has better judgement in regard to key foreign policy decisions. Hillary’s reaction to the upsurge in police shootings of minorities and particularly African-Americans has been to call for more investigation and reform of these departments while Bernie’s position is that any police officer involved in illegal shootings of innocent people needs to be tried and if guilty convicted. Both have taken a position advocating comprehensive immigration reform. Lastly, pertaining to past civil rights involvement by these two, Bernie who is from a working-class area of Brooklyn was involved as a student in the 1970’s with the Congress of Racial Equality in Chicago and was arrested protesting segregationist laws, while Hillary’s prominent family sent her to England to study at Oxford where she met her future husband Bill. There is also an ongoing issue of mistrust in this campaign by many younger voters who believe that Hillary is inconsistent in her views, merely says whatever is necessary to win votes and is conveniently tying herself to Obama’s political coattail in order to win the votes of African-Americans .
Vibrant political movements led by young people have influenced previous elections
There have been a few presidential elections during the late 1960’s and 1970’s when large numbers of young people have enthusiastically organized for certain candidates and their relatively progressive platforms. These include Democrats Eugene McCarthy in 1968 who opposed the Vietnam War and George McGovern in 1972 who also demanded the end of the war along with a deep cut in military spending for use on civilian programs. There was much enthusiasm and mobilization by youthful activists for these campaigns especially those who were involved in the Chicano, black, Puerto Rican and Asian Movements. Also, out of the Chicano Movement there emerged a broad effort throughout the Southwest to organize La Raza Unida Party. Activists involved in the struggle for civil rights and against the war at that time were searching for a progressive presidential candidate who could bring peace and effect fundamental structural change within our unjust society. However during that period, the tiny number of progressive politicians were firmly opposed by both parties who supported the Vietnam War. These progressives were also overwhelmed by a large majority of conservative white voters and even many fellow Democrats who crossed over and cast their votes for the corrupt Nixon who was eventually removed from the presidency. Presently, the rapid demographic changes in society reflect a tremendous growth of educated young urban dwellers and minorities in contrast to an older and more politically conservative white population whose numbers are declining. Many of these older whites are confused and angry due to their deteriorating economic situation and are resentful of emerging cultural changes. This has created an impatient demand among them for a quick fix to problems and a return to a past of ethnic white privilege and so-called greatness as promised by the demagogue Trump.
Young Latinos and others of this generation can become real agents of change
The growth of Mexican-American and other Latino communities across the country constitute a potential source of political strength and leadership. What is required to develop this strength is a continuous effort to improve the level of educational opportunities for these young people. However, just as important is the necessity to provide them with a campaign of ongoing political education that raises their social consciousness on pertinent issues, organizing tactics and develops their leadership which can then be used to carry
A new generation of Latinas and Latinos are stepping up in the struggle for equal rights.
out real social change within their communities. An important method to achieve this is the shared experience of veteran organizers along with the widespread use of social media as a means to raise awareness on key issues, explain their importance to the community and to mobilize other young people to take the appropriate political and organizational action which includes voting to defend their interests. There is a wide array of pressing issues facing this emerging generation which range from an unequal educational system, increased tuition fees and rising student debt, a lack of decent jobs, police misconduct, immigration and ongoing wars that drain our vital resources. Sanders may not win the presidency nor even the Democratic nomination as voting still needs to take place in thirty five more states. However, what is of primary importance in this election is not the actual candidates, rather, it is the influence of Sander’s concrete and principled platform which is supported by a growing and progressive political movement that demands urgent changes be made to transform and democratize our inequitable society. The positive aspect about Sander’s platform and supportive movement is that they have pressured Clinton to adopt many of their positions and this has moved her and the Democratic Party further to the left and this has had the positive effect of disseminating her new progressive views to a broader sector of voters. She also has the advantage of her husband’s popularity among black voters as well as positioning herself as the best one to continue Obama’s policies which seems to have the approval of the president. This political movement led by Sanders needs to broaden out its outreach to minorities and begin organizing to participate in the upcoming Democratic Convention in order to get policies adopted that will concretely improve the lives of working people. The right-wing has their organized and growing political movement comprised of the demagogue and likely presidential candidate Trump, the tea party, numerous white supremacists and the banks and corporations, all of whom have as their goal the maintenance of the status quo. The Republicans have now become the party of bigotry and fascist views as this backward alliance constitutes the main danger to working and minority people within our society. In order to counter this reactionary force we need to continue developing a diverse and ongoing united front and progressive movement. For young Latinos and other millennials, their present and future role is key in regard to exerting new leadership, fresh ideas, developing an ongoing strategic movement and organizing mass and independent political action.
Reposted with permission.
Copyright: March 5, 2016, Jimmy Franco Sr.
Facebook: Jimmy Latinopov
Twitter @xicanomc
Today, March 31 is Cesar Chavez' birthday. On this day throughout the nation there are many observances honoring Cesar’s work. We are grateful for all these recognitions, which continue to grow 23 years after Cesar’s passing in 1993. But Cesar said that if the union he helped build didn’t survive his death, then his life’s work would have been in vain. The UFW takes this responsibility seriously and carries on Cesar’s work of making the lives of farm workers better by aggressively helping farm workers organize, negotiate union contracts and win new legal protections. 
