Democrats
Subterms
More stories
125 Shares169 Views
in ElectionsCandidate Marianne Williamson hit by claims of ‘foaming, spitting rage’
Less than two weeks into her second campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, the self-help author Marianne Williamson was hit by claims her public message of love and compassion is undermined by behind-the-scenes behavior including “foaming, spitting, uncontrollable rage”.Speaking to Politico, 12 former staffers painted a picture of unpredictable anger, tending toward verbal and emotional abuse, beneath the bestseller’s promotion of spiritual calm.“It would be foaming, spitting, uncontrollable rage,” said one former staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity. “It was traumatic. And the experience, in the end, was terrifying.”Williamson launched her second campaign earlier this month, saying that while she did not expect to win she was seeking to challenge the “system”.The author of 14 books describes herself as “a leader in spiritual and religiously progressive circles”. She established a national profile on Oprah Winfrey’s TV talkshow and has taken often controversial positions on issues including depression and vaccine mandates.“I want to be president because this country needs to make an economic U-turn,” Williamson told ABC, adding that free healthcare, college and childcare were among her priorities.“The system that effectuates and perpetuates that kind of income and opportunity inequality is not changing itself,” she said, adding: “It’s not going to change if we continue to elect the same-old, same-old.”In 2020, before dropping out of the primary, Williamson made a splash when, addressing Donald Trump from the debate stage, she said: “I’m going to harness love for political purposes. I will meet you on that field. And, sir, love will win.”Speaking to Politico, however, three former staffers said Williamson, 70, was apt to throw her phone at them amid outbursts so intense that on four occasions hotel staff knocked on her door to check if all was OK.In one incident, four former staffers said, Williamson became so enraged about a poorly planned swing through South Carolina she repeatedly punched a car door. After her hand started to swell, she was taken to hospital.All 12 staffers said Williamson would yell until people were brought to tears.Williamson called the descriptions “slanderous” and “categorically untrue”. She denied ever throwing a phone at staffers but acknowledged the car door incident, saying a “car door is not a person”.“Former staffers trying to score points with the political establishment by smearing me might be good for their careers but the intention is to deflect attention from the important issues facing the American people,” Williamson said.Williamson also said she expects “concerted efforts to dismiss and denigrate … but the amplification of outright lies should not occur”.Paul Hodes, a former congressman who was Williamson’s New Hampshire campaign director, said reports of her behavior were “consistent with my observations, consistent with contemporaneous discussions I had about her conduct with staff members, and entirely consistent with my own personal experience with her behavior on multiple occasions”.Staffers acknowledged that the accusations could been seen to be misogynistic, of a sort of criticism that unfairly targets women. But, they said, Williamson’s behavior went beyond any that could be viewed through such a lens.During her 2020 candidacy, Politico reported, Williamson burned through two campaign managers and multiple state directors, field organizers and volunteers.“She would get caught in these vicious emotional loops,” said one former staffer. “This was day after day after day. It wasn’t that she was having a bad day or moment. It was just boom, boom, boom – and often for no legitimate reason.”The staffers said they were required to sign non-disclosure agreements. The message, one said, was: ‘Don’t fuck with me because I will make your life a living hell.’”Demands to sign NDAs extended to taxi drivers and other service sector workers, staffers said. Williamson denied that.Some people said they joined the campaign simply because they needed a job and Williamson was offering them one. Others said they thought that there was room in the race for a dark horse candidate to push people, including Biden, on topics such as reparations. And some said that Williamson’s books on compassion and forgiveness had helped them through their own struggles of divorce, addiction and loss of family members.Instead, they walked away feeling emotionally tormented.“It’s cliche, but all I can say is: don’t meet your heroes,” said a fifth former staffer. More
138 Shares99 Views
in US PoliticsPat Schroeder, Democrat and feminist pioneer in Congress, dies aged 82
Pat Schroeder, a pioneer for women’s and family rights in Congress who confronted and angered conservatives, has died. She was 82.Schroeder’s former press secretary, Andrea Camp, said the former congresswoman suffered a stroke recently and died on Monday in Celebration, Florida.Schroeder took on the elite for 24 years, shaking up institutions by forcing them to acknowledge women had a role in government. Her unorthodox methods cost her key committee posts but Schroeder said she wasn’t willing to join “the good old boys’ club”. Unafraid of embarrassing colleagues in public, she became a feminist hero.Schroeder was elected in Colorado in 1972 and won re-election 11 times from a safe district in Denver. Despite her seniority, she was never appointed to lead a committee.She helped forge several Democratic majorities before leaving in 1997. Her parting shot was a book, 24 Years of Housework … and the Place is Still a Mess: My Life in Politics.In 1987, Schroeder tested the waters for the presidency, after her fellow Coloradan Gary Hart pulled out. Announcing she would not run, she said her heart was not in it and fundraising was demeaning.Schroeder said legislators spent too much attention on donors. When in 1994 House Republicans gathered on the Capitol steps to celebrate 100 days in power, she and several aides climbed to the dome and hung a 15-ft red banner reading: “Sold.”She was the first woman on the House armed services committee but was forced to share a seat with Ron Dellums of California, the first African American. Schroeder said the chair, F Edward Hebert of Louisiana, thought the committee was no place for a woman or an African American and they were each worth only half a seat.Republicans were livid when Schroeder and others filed an ethics complaint over a televised lecture series given by the speaker, Newt Gingrich, charging that free cable time amounted to an illegal gift. Gingrich became the first speaker reprimanded by Congress. He said he regretted not taking Schroeder and her allies more seriously.According to her House biography, Schroeder once told Pentagon officials that if they were women, they would always be pregnant because they never said no.Asked by one congressman how she could be a mother of two small children and a congresswoman, she replied: “I have a brain and a uterus, and I use both.”It was Schroeder who branded Ronald Reagan the Teflon president for his ability to avoid blame.One of her biggest victories was the signing of a family leave bill in 1993, providing job protection for care of a newborn, sick child or parent.“Pat Schroeder blazed the trail,” said Nita Lowey, a New York Democrat who took over from Schroeder as chair of the congressional caucus on women’s issues. “Every woman in this house is walking in her footsteps.”A pilot, Schroeder earned her way through Harvard law school with her own flying service. She became a professor at Princeton and led the Association of American Publishers. But she continued working in politics after moving to Florida. She campaigned for Hillary Clinton in 2016.Schroeder was born in Portland, Oregon, on 30 July 1940. She graduated from the University of Minnesota before earning her law degree. From 1964 to 1966 she was a field attorney for the National Labor Relations Board.She is survived by her husband, James W Schroeder, whom she married in 1962, their children, Scott and Jamie, her brother, Mike Scott, and four grandchildren. More
188 Shares139 Views
in US PoliticsRubio rejects DeSantis opposition to Ukraine aid as Republican split grows – as it happened
From More
188 Shares189 Views
in US Politics‘I’m a little hard to pin down’: country star Brad Paisley becomes unlikely Ukraine advocate
Wearing white cowboy hat, black suit and black tie, country singer and guitar virtuoso Brad Paisley strode on stage in the East Room of the White House before a bipartisan audience.It was a Saturday night and, fittingly, he began the 40-minute set playing his hit song American Saturday Night – but with an amended lyric. “I had to change the second line because it mentioned Russia, and I don’t do that any more,” he explained.When Paisley delivered its substitute – “There’s a Ukrainian flag hanging up behind the bar” – no one applauded louder than Joe Biden in the front row.It was a moment that illustrated Paisley’s engagement with Ukraine’s fight for survival and, before a gathering of governors from blue and red states, his efforts to bridge political divides. The 50-year-old from West Virginia, a three-time Grammy winner, describes himself as hard to categorise but optimistic that America can move beyond what has been called a cold civil war.That night last month at the White House, Paisley compelled Spencer Cox, the Republican governor of Utah and an amateur musician, to join him in a duet. He also performed a new song, Same Here, marking the first anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.Speaking by phone Nashville, Tennessee, Paisley recalls: “You had most of the states represented and you had all sides. I could see it in the room: let’s not lose what this is saying because it works. Face to face, left to right, it works. That’s the thing about something like this: when you put it out there, it’s going to be uncomfortable, but that’s OK. Art can be uncomfortable. I welcome the discussion.”The commercial release of Same Here features a voiceover from the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, speaking proudly about his country and people. Paisley’s royalties for the track will be donated to the United24 crowdfunding effort to help build housing for thousands of displaced Ukrainians whose homes were destroyed in the war.He describes the song – the first from his new album, Son of the Mountains – as an expression of empathy. “It’s about anybody who longs for freedom. Around this time last year, when I was seeing all this begin to happen, I was moved by the images of people fleeing – mothers, daughters, grandmothers crossing the border, all huddled in the backseat of a car, fleeing for their lives as the husband stayed behind to fight.“It’s unlike anything I’ve seen in my lifetime. It’s unlike anything any of us have seen in our lifetimes. It just felt so helpless to watch this and be a witness to this with nothing we could do. Maybe the most exciting thing for me in having this out is the idea that this is going to help rebuild homes for people, and it’s also raising some awareness.”Zelenskiy has worked tirelessly to promote his cause and build support around the world. The former actor, comedian and screenwriter delivered a rousing speech to the US Congress in Washington and has given video addresses at the Golden Globe and Grammy awards.Paisley reflects: “It’s an amazing thing. Who would have thought? You almost can’t write the script – they did, actually, that was his TV show – but he seems to be the right man at the right time in a way that just seems divine. It’s unbelievable.”The Ukrainian president was happy to collaborate with Paisley and even had some songwriting suggestions. “When he heard it, I got word that there were a few lines that he wondered about and so we worked on those and made sure that it came off the way it did.“It’s funny how much better it is now than when we began in the sense that it’s truly remarkable to hear this voice in the middle of this conflict with a melody. He had great suggestions. I don’t know if he’s got aspirations to write songs or not.”Paisley’s public shows of support for Ukraine has drawn attacks from bots – fake, automated accounts that became notorious after Russia employed them in an effort to meddle in the 2016 presidential election.It would be no surprise to find Paisley caught in political crossfire. The perils facing country music artists who venture into the political arena were spelled out when the Dixie Chicks faced fierce blowback for their condemnation of President George W Bush’s invasion of Iraq.During the 2016 election, a survey by the trade publication Country Aircheck found that 46% of industry professionals favored Republican Donald Trump while 41% preferred Democrat Hillary Clinton. Many stars prefer to remain apolitical, which may be pragmatic considering the risk of alienating half their audience.Nashville, the home of country music, has a Democratic mayor, but is surrounded by Republican red in Tennessee. Paisley does not declare himself to be either Democrat or Republican. “The bottom line is I defy category. I definitely am one of the more confusing people that way. The minute you affiliate, ‘Here’s what I am,’ are you all those things? I’m certainly not all of those things on either side.”“I’m a little hard to pin down. There will be songs when this album comes out where a lot of liberals will go, ‘Wait a minute, you can’t say that!’ I have written an album that does not pull punches. If I believe in something or if I want to tell a story, it’s on here on this album. I have literally bled for it – I’ve cut my hand a couple of times playing the guitar. I’ve written it to the degree that I’ve really tried to scope every word all the way from the very first line to the last line of this album.“The far left may say, ‘What are you doing?’ Harlan Howard, one of our great songwriters in country music, they used to give him flak. So many of the songs were cheating songs, drinking songs. They’re like, ‘Why do you write about that so much?’ He said, ‘When people stop, so will I!” He laughs. “That’s the thing people do. If people don’t do that any more then we’ll have to write country songs about all the other things. But there are songs in here about things people do.”It would not be the first time that Paisley has faced criticism from the left. Next month marks the 10th anniversary of Accidental Racist, Paisley’s ill-fated collaboration with rapper LL Cool J.Paisley began the song with an anecdote about a Black man taking offence at his Confederate flag T-shirt, explaining: “The only thing I meant to say is I’m a Skynyrd fan” – a reference to the southern rock band that often used the flag. He went on to sing about white people are “caught between southern pride and southern blame” a century and a half after the civil war.Paisley insisted that he was trying to foster an open discussion of race relations, but critics said it was tone deaf. An analysis by Ta-Nehisi Coates in the Atlantic was headlined: “Why ‘Accidental Racist’ Is Actually Just Racist.” Demetria Irwin of the Black culture website the Grio called it “the worst song in the history of music”. Actor and comedian Patton Oswalt tweeted: “I can’t wait for Brad Paisley & LL Cool J’s next single: “Whoopsy Daisy, Holocaust, My Bad.”Did he learn lessons from the experience?“You can’t think of everything, and at some point the art you make should exist as the way you want it to exist, but if it can be better, and somebody has an opinion, you should listen to them. If it’s a valid opinion, if it’s not a bot, if it’s not some sort of strange agenda. In that sense, it’s all been a part of my journey for sure, learning from these things.”The entire nation has been on a vertiginous learning curve in the 10 years since Accidental Racist, witnessing a racial reckoning that has a reframing of American history via the 1619 Project and the removal of many Confederate statues across the south.Paisley comments: “I drove by these statues my whole life since I was 20 here in Tennessee and never really thought about them at all. Obviously I’m the wrong one to ask on whether they come down. It’s not important what I think. To me it’s about the people that feel something so deeply and feel so much hurt. Let’s talk about that.”The musician has long used his platform to advocate for causes, opening a free grocery store in Nashville with his wife, Kimberly Williams-Paisley, and donating 1m meals during the coronavirus pandemic. He visited US troops in Afghanistan and has talked with Zelenskiy about performing in Ukraine. But he rejects that idea that Same Here is a case of mixing music with politics.“To me in no way, shape or form is it a political statement. I guess I have a world leader on and it’s interesting to say something is avoiding politics when you do that. But truthfully, for me, when you boil it down, here’s what we care about: crying at weddings, having a beer together in a remote place, families and soldiers and flags and freedom and all these things.“To me, if you want to call it political, call it whatever you want to call it. But let’s talk about this. These are key things in life that make us human.” More
188 Shares179 Views
in US PoliticsA crime bill was supposed to fix Washington DC’s problems. Instead, it polarized a city
A crime bill was supposed to fix Washington DC’s problems. Instead, it polarized a cityThe new code revised 120-year-old criminal laws, but the effort was stymied by Joe Biden and an unlikely alliance of Republicans and DemocratsIn Washington DC, the law prohibits the playing of bandy and “shindy” in the streets, the arson of one’s own steamboat and potentially even being a “common scold” – a common law offense levied against those who quarreled with their neighbors.Aware of the need to clean up this 120-year-old criminal code, lawyers in America’s capital city have spent more than a decade and a half going through the law books in a modernization campaign described by those involved as long overdue, only to see the effort stymied this week at the hands of Joe Biden and an unlikely alliance of Republicans and Democrats.“Many residents are worried about taking their kids to school or going to the grocery store. But rather than attempt to fix this problem, the DC city council wants to go even easier on criminals,” Republican House speaker Kevin McCarthy said in February, when the chamber’s lawmakers approved a resolution blocking the city council’s passage of the new code.Weeks later, Biden surprised his allies by announcing he would sign the House bill, and last Wednesday, the Senate passed it overwhelmingly – even though the president and many Democratic lawmakers support making Washington DC, the country’s only federal district, a full-fledged state.That Republicans would meddle in Washington DC’s politics is no surprise: they have few friends among the leadership of the overwhelmingly Democratic city. But for Democrats, their willingness to go along with the GOP effort is a sign of just how nervous the party has become to accusations of being weak of crime, which played a role in their loss of the House in last November’s elections. Residents’ frustrations with violence are also seen as a reason why Democrat Lori Lightfoot failed in her bid for a second term as mayor of Chicago.No city in America has political dynamics quite like Washington’s, where Congress has the power to overturn the city council’s will – which it did, for the first time in 30 years, over what local officials say was merely an update that would bring its criminal code in line with national standards.“We are an easy mark,” said Charles Allen, a city councilman who chaired its judiciary committee as the body was considering the revisions. “We don’t have representation in Congress, we have no senators out there that are arguing for us. We don’t have any full members of Congress in the House.”Sandwiched between Virginia and Maryland, Washington DC’s population of nearly 700,000 is greater than Vermont or Wyoming, but unlike those two states, the capital city’s only representation in Congress is a House delegate who can’t cast votes. The city government officially backs Washington DC becoming America’s 51st state, which Republicans universally oppose.In 2006, the council started reviewing the city’s criminal laws, which date back to 1901, and sought out the thoughts of the public defenders office, local prosecutors and criminal justice reform advocates across the city. The outcome of the 16-year process was a new code that removed mandatory minimum sentences for nearly all crimes, aligned sentences with what judges were actually handing down, added new offenses and raised the potential penalties for others, while also stripping out common law penalties that lingered in the turn-of-the-century document.But after the council unanimously passed the revised code last November, the city’s Democratic mayor Muriel Bowser announced she would veto it, citing its reduction in maximum sentences for gun offenses, among other issues. Republicans pounced after the council overrode her veto in January, and the following month, Biden unexpectedly signed on to the GOP effort.“I support DC statehood and home-rule – but I don’t support some of the changes DC council put forward over the mayor’s objections – such as lowering penalties for carjackings,” the Democratic president tweeted.Although police department data indicates overall crime in the city fell by about 4% last year, carjackings have jumped dramatically since the pandemic. Under the current code, armed carjackers could face jail sentences of between 15 and 40 years, but the new code sets the highest penalty at 24 years, in line with what judges were actually giving defendants and comparable to similar penalties nationwide, said Jinwoo Park, executive director of the DC Criminal Code Reform Commission.“I do think this has been completely inaccurately and unfairly painted as some kind of bizarrely radical bill, when really it’s just not the case when you compare it to the norms across the country,” Park said.Studies have repeatedly shown that long prison sentences don’t act as deterrents for criminals. And for Washington’s current batch of carjackers, the code’s revisions would not have made much difference: it was only supposed to come into effect in 2025.“Every crime people are talking about, from yesterday to today to tomorrow, happens under our current criminal code,” said Allen.There’s little evidence that message was received by Congress, particularly not by Republicans, who cast the code revision as consequence of left-wing government run amok – even though they held no hearings on the code before voting to overturn it.“It seems to me that DC is trying to compete with other liberal-led cities to see just how woke they can be. So, just imagine if Congress didn’t have this authority and the DC council was left to its own devices, and this dangerous bill would’ve become law,” said Bill Hagerty, Tennessee’s Republican senator, after almost all the chamber’s Republicans and most Democrats voted for the disapproval resolution.Yet the new code doesn’t address progressive concerns such as mass incarceration or racial equity, which Park said weren’t included in the commission’s mandate.“There’s an enormous amount of compromise built into the bill,” said Patrice Sulton, executive director of the DC Justice Lab, which advocates for reforms of the city’s system of crime and punishment.Local leaders scrambled to react to Congress’s renewed meddling in the city’s affairs, with city council president Phil Mendelson withdrawing the revised code from the legislature’s consideration, and Bowser proposing another round of revisions to the code.“What’s important for this issue is to try to put Democrats in the light of being soft on crime,” Mendelson said as he announced his ill-fated attempt to stop the Senate from blocking the code. “But citizens don’t understand that because [of] the way this has been demagogued, and that’s the challenge we have to overcome.”The GOP has signaled it’s not done yet: House Republicans now want to override a city council bill that would change, among other procedures, how the police department uses force.While he believes there’s still momentum for reform in many cities nationwide, Nick Turner, president of the Vera Institute of Justice, warned that the episode in the capital underscores how rising crime presents a headwind to the calls for change in policing and punishment that George Floyd’s death sparked nearly three years ago.Biden’s veto tell “opponents of good, evidence-based criminal justice policy that scare tactics work. And the risk is that what it signals to other responsible government leaders is that it will show efforts to make sure that we have both safety and justice,” Turner warned.To Sulton, the revised code’s downfall also represents a setback in the city’s desire to take full control of its affairs.“Until we have a new code, we continue to live under laws that are vague, overlapping gaps in law, and just a penal code that the district didn’t make itself,” she said. “And I don’t think you can talk about local control if we don’t have control over our most fundamental freedoms. And I can’t think of anywhere that the stakes are higher than when we’re talking about whether to put a person in a cage.”TopicsWashington DCUS politicsDemocratsRepublicansUS crimenewsReuse this content More
163 Shares199 Views
in US PoliticsIt’s OK to be Angry about Capitalism review: Bernie Sanders, by the book
ReviewIt’s OK to be Angry about Capitalism review: Bernie Sanders, by the bookThe Vermont senator and former presidential candidate offers a clarion call against the American oligarchsThe Vermont senator Bernie Sanders has a predictably unsparing view of the effects of “unfettered capitalism”: it “destroys anything that gets in its way in the pursuit of profits. It destroys the environment. It destroys our democracy. It discards human beings without a second thought. It will never provide workers with the fulfillment that Americans have a right to expect from their careers. [And it is] propelled by uncontrollable greed and contempt for human decency.”Has Bernie Sanders really helped Joe Biden move further left?Read moreThe two-time presidential candidate makes his case with the usual horrifying numbers about the acceleration of inequality in America: 90% of our wealth is owned by one-tenth of 1% of the population; the wealth of 725 US billionaires increased 70% during the pandemic to more than $5tn; BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street now control assets of $20tn and are major shareholders in 96% of S&P 500 companies.Sanders recites these statistics with religious fervor, and poses fundamental questions for our time: “Do we believe in the Golden Rule? [or] do we accept … that gold rules – and that lying, cheating, and stealing are OK if you’re powerful enough to get away with it?”Bernie believes (and I strongly agree) that it’s long past the time when we should be paying at least as much attention to American oligarchs as we do to those surrounding Vladimir Putin. Our homegrown plutocrats “own” our democracy.“They spend tens of billions … on campaign contributions … to buy politicians who will do their bidding. They spend billions more on lobbying firms to influence governmental decisions” at every level. And “to a significant degree”, the oligarchs “own” the media. That is why our prominent pundits “rarely raise issues that will undermine the privileged positions of their employers” and “there is little public discussion about the power of corporate America and how oligarchs wield that power to benefit their interests at the expense of working families”.We were reminded this week of how this system works. Joe Biden released a budget with perfectly modest proposals for tax increases, like a 25% minimum tax on the wealthiest Americans and a seven-percentage-point raise in the corporate tax rate to 28%, which would still leave it seven points lower than it was before Donald Trump gutted it with his gigantic tax giveaways.Instantly, experts owned and operated by the billionaires started spewing their familiar bilge, like these moving words from the Cato Institute: “Higher tax rates on the wages of a narrow segment of the United States’ most productive executives and business leaders will have strong disincentives against their continued work and other negative behavioral effects that translate into a less dynamic, slower growing economy.“Higher taxes on investment income target the financial rewards to successful entrepreneurs who undertake risks and persevere through failure to build high return businesses that provide welfare enhancing goods and services to people around the world.”Sanders quotes one of the most prescient Americans of the mid-20th century, from 1944: “As our industrial economy expanded [our] political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness. We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.”The name of that dangerous revolutionary: Franklin Delano Roosevelt.Several decades before that, Theodore Roosevelt similarly bemoaned the “absence of effective state, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting” which “has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power”.There is something extremely refreshing about an author who assumes it should be obvious that billionaires should not be allowed to exist – and has perfectly reasonable proposals about how they should be eliminated. At the height of the pandemic, Sanders proposed the Make Billionaires Pay Act, which would have imposed a 60% tax on all the wealth gained by 467 billionaires between 18 March 2020 and January 2021.“But why stop at one year?” he now asks. After all, the 1950s were economic boom times in America – and under a Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, “the top tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was around 92%. America thrived. Unions were strong. Working-class Americans could afford to support themselves and buy homes on a single income.” And the richest 20% controlled a measly (by current standards) 42.8% of the wealth.Bernie Sanders: ‘Oligarchs run Russia. But guess what? They run the US as well’Read moreSanders’ 99.5 Percent Act would only touch the top 0.5% of Americans. “But the families of billionaires in America, who have a combined net worth of over $5tn, would owe up to $3tn in estate taxes.” He would accomplish this with a 45% tax rate on estates worth $3.5m and a 65% rate on those worth more than $1bn.There is much more here, including a convincing case for Medicare for All and an excoriation of a for-profit healthcare system which spends twice as much per citizen as France or Germany and still manages to leaves tens of millions of Americans un- or underinsured, all while nourishing an obscene pharmaceuticals business in which profits jumped by 90% in 2021.I first toured the castles of the Loire Valley as a teenager in the company of the family of my uncle, Jerry Kaiser, a 60s radical and a very early opponent of the war in Vietnam. As we absorbed the opulence of one chateau after another, Jerry had only one question: “What took them so long to have a revolution?”The noble purpose of Bernie Sander’s powerful new book is to get millions of Americans to ask that question of themselves – right now.
It’s OK to Be Angry About Capitalism is published in the US by Crown
TopicsBooksBernie SandersUS politicsDemocratsUS SenateUS CongressUS economyreviewsReuse this content More