Like Chris and others, I am disturbed by the turmoil in Bernie's new organization, even though I agree completely with I. Wallerstein's diagnosis of the Left. I am not fearful that some big donations from left-wing billionaires will soil the purity of the movement. That way of thinking is essentially religious and I have no patience with it. Rather, I think Weaver is misreading the nature of the movement he is attempting to fund. Bernie's run for the Democratic Party nomination demonstrated convincingly that in a huge rich country like America, it is quite possible to raise all the money one needs for a movement or a political campaign from on-line contributions by small donors, so long as their level of enthusiasm is sufficiently high. Five million faithful donors giving ten dollars a month will contribute six hundred million dollars a year, year after year, more than enough to underwrite a real Progressive movement. If a fifty million dollar buy-in from a billionaire chills that enthusiasm, it could easily cost two or three times as much in lost donations.
I was equally disturbed by the unrepresentative character of the top leadership of the new movement. Bernie failed to win the nomination because he could not draw a healthy share of the non-White Primary vote. The eggregious Wasserman-Schultz had nothing to do with it. If Bernie has not learned that lesson, then he is a very flawed vessal.
However [or "that said," the latest talking-head cant phrase], in the immortal words of Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the army you have. Bernie is the best thing to come along in a generation, warts and all, and I plan to support him as best I can. When I get to heaven, I will hold out for perfection.
To quote yet another of my favorite TV opinion makers -- Kermit the Frog -- it's not easy being green.