Here’s the basic political reality right now: Hillary Clinton has the nomination. Trump is a colossal raging goon. I think the Democrats are going to have a field day romping over the Republicans.
But there is danger in that attitude, the problem of complacency and of being able to continue in the same old unsuccessful way, because the opposition is a lunatic. Matt Taibbi explains the problem brilliantly. If there’s anything we should learn from the Democratic campaign so far, it’s that there is a rising insurgency, a dissatisfaction with business as usual, and the victory of the establishment candidate means that the conservative leadership of the Democrats can heave a sigh of relief and can avoid making substantive changes in how power is administered.
Democratic voters tried to express these frustrations through the Sanders campaign, but the party leaders have been and probably will continue to be too dense to listen. Instead, they’ll convince themselves that, as Hohmann’s Post article put it, Hillary’s latest victories mean any “pressure” they might have felt to change has now been “ameliorated.”
The maddening thing about the Democrats is that they refuse to see how easy they could have it. If the party threw its weight behind a truly populist platform, if it stood behind unions and prosecuted Wall Street criminals and stopped taking giant gobs of cash from every crooked transnational bank and job-exporting manufacturer in the world, they would win every election season in a landslide.
This is especially the case now that the Republican Party has collapsed under the weight of its own nativist lunacy. It’s exactly the moment when the Democrats should feel free to become a real party of ordinary working people.
But they won’t do that, because they don’t see what just happened this year as a message rising up from millions of voters.
So we have to accept that Hillary Clinton is our designated champion to defeat the ogre Trump. But there are ogrish elements in the Democratic party, too, and they’re going to do just fine. In many ways, the absence of a principled, intelligent opposition (and conservatives can be that) has meant the Democrats are able to continue bumbling along, drifting ever rightwards towards the money, and is not being honed by competition…except within its own ranks, by people like Bernie Sanders.
So I’m glad Sanders is going to keep on applying pressure, right up through the convention. But the fighting part is over, and now he’s got to use diplomacy.
I also have to point out that there’s another factor to consider, that I think Taibbi glosses over. Democrats and Republicans aren’t uniform blocs. The Republicans have become the party of rabid fools, but we’ve got more than a few fools within the Democrats, and just turning the direction of the party to “ordinary working people” has its dangers, too. Just as a proxy for general foolishness, look at the views towards evolution by members of our political parties. We all associate “Republican” with being anti-science now, but 43% of Republicans accept evolution, and about half of those believe it was entirely by natural processes. That’s a strong minority. You think Democrats are pro-science? But 27% of Democrats outright deny evolution.
Populism is great and can be an engine of change, but one ought to worry when the “ordinary working people” are poorly educated, and a quarter of your base is dead wrong on simple facts, that there is also potential for disaster.
I think the idea that the votes of working-class whites are there for the taking if only Democrats become more populist is flawed, because what you find is that they’re more motivated by racism than class. That’s how Reagan back in 1980 was able to talk about “welfare queens” who were, you know, not like “us” but were “those” people who didn’t deserve free government stuff. You’re not going to get those voters by making populist appeals and Sanders didn’t get them either. You might get them if you start talking about how the Chinese are stealing our jobs, or how illegal immigrants from Mexico are driving wages down, etc., but of course no one is complaining about buying their iPhone from China or eating lettuce harvested by migrant workers. In other words, people are basically selfish and while they’re happy to complain about NAFTA, they don’t want to give up their cheap goods either.
In a way, this is what happened both 2008 and with Sanders this time around, too. Clinton’s complacency, her feeling so sure of her nomination, her underestimating her opponents allowed Obama to outdo her in 2008 and allowed Sanders to go from an unknown, fringe candidate to almost half the Democratic electorate.
She still seems too confident, too sure of her impending victory at times and with Trump, the risk of her underestimating him and the Republican establishment behind him is truly frightening. Imagine if she lost.
That said, they’ve been pretty good about attacking Trump thus far and as long as they don’t let up, I’m sure she’ll succeed. Trump is so incompetent and so ill-tempered he always seems just a few steps from imploding. I think it’ll happen eventually, although perhaps he’ll hold on until the general election.
To be fair, I’m very skeptical it has anything to do with not seeing it, it’s more that they don’t want it. Sure, you can pretend to be populist once in a while, but if you do it too often with no results, no change in who you ask for money, no desire to fix the system demonstrated in action at all, eventually you’ll lose your base due to how betrayed they feel. And I don’t for a second believe that the people in charge would actually want to address these issues like Sanders would’ve. At best, they’d pay lip-service to those issues.
Is the Democratic party drifting to the right? I would have said that Obama is further left than Clinton I and Clinton II likely to be in practice further left than Obama.
Also, evolution is a nice marker, but hardly the only one. What percentage of Democrats are anti-vaccine? What percent oppose GMOs while having no idea at all how seedless grapes (as an example) are produced? How many deny global warming or believe that there is nothing to be done about it (or have completely unrealistic views about what should be done about it)?
#2
Trump has been imploding. If you are waiting for his supporters to turn away from him, keep waiting. If folks haven’t realized what he is by now, why would more examples of the same have an effect?
Dead on correct. That is exactly why we have Hillary as the nominee.
My concern is not that Trump will win. I just don’t see it happening. But we desperately need to re-sway this Congress to the Dems, especially the Senate, so that we can get some proper nominees on the Court, or the current stagnant stalemate (which plays to the conservative agenda) will continue. And while Hillary has the campaign-organizing chops, I don’t know that she has much of a coat-tail for Democratic challengers to ride on. For that, she needs to get people excited, even if they have no chance of tipping their state to her column, because that’s how you get Representatives in office.
For that, she’ll need the avid and avowed support of Bernie–that’s where your populist appeal actually does some good.
It’s weird how if the Republican party were to just collapse the Democratic party would probably become the new Republican party.
Or the old one.
I’m not really sure.
It would have been interesting if Elizabeth Warren had run. Bernie stepped in when she bowed out. She was better known and, frankly, is a better speaker. But Bernie tapped into the fact that a lot of us have felt left out of left behind by trickle-down economics, which we’ve been following since the Reagan years, even under Democrats. It’s long past time for change. We’ll see if Hillary is up to it.
The Democrats, like the Mets*, have a deep track record of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (as the cliche goes). Complacency is a huge problem for the Democrats.
But I suspect Hillary learned from 2008 not to get complacent. She went into that primary season thinking she was the ordained candidate, and got schooled by the Obama team’s incredible ground game. Bernie just gave her a solid run. And she knows Trump pulled a magical win out from under the rest of the Repubs who flat-out didn’t see it coming.
Yes, they need to keep on the alert. I think of all possible candidates, Hillary is the one who knows that better than anyone. Leastways, I certainly hope so.
*I am both a Democrat and a Mets fan
@Duth Olec #6
It’s not weird at all, look at the history of the main federal parties in the US:
The Federalist Party forms.
The Democratic-Republican Party forms.
The Federalist Party dies.
The National Republican Party splits off from the Democratic-Republican Party.
The Democratic-Republican Party changes its name to the Democratic Party.
The Whig Party forms from the remains of the National Republican Party and elements from the Democratic Party.
The Republican Party forms from the remains of the Whig Party and elements from the Democratic Party.
The Republican Party refreshes itself by absorbing the 2nd wave Dixiecrats from the Democratic Party.
The whole “Democratic Party becoming the new (insert other main party here),” thing has been the norm for almost two centuries now.
I read this article right after this one—How Bernie Sanders Exposed the Democrats’ Racial Rift—that talks about why Sanders failed to capture 2/3 of young minority voters who participated in the primaries. Yes, I don’t think establishment Democrats will learn enough from this race. However, I’m a bad Democrat—I only vote Dem because I don’t see better viable options. While Sanders exposed a vulnerability, I don’t much care whether that hole is eventually filled by the Democratic party or by another party that creeps in from the left (and maybe displaces Republicans as the new 2nd party [dare I hope?]). So, in that way I read the Rolling Stone piece as a warning to the party but as somewhat hopeful for voters like me who are pragmatic progressives who’ll take the hopey changey stuff however we can get it.
What the Rolling Stone article failed to take into consideration—which is the focus of the article I linked above—is the racial divide within the Democratic party. How will shifting demographics will play out as the young Clinton POC voters age? One of the things the Politico article points out is that minority voters tend to see compromise as necessary and, conversely, that a radical position without room for compromise is an expectation of white privilege. My question is, will these voters always choose gradual changers over radicals who are less certain to deliver on their promises? e.g., If we had an African American democratic socialist candidate, would a candidate like Clinton still win? I don’t see these voters being particularly loyal to the Dem party in principle but also don’t see Democrats moving off the center that they’re occupying (and expanding into)—thereby freeing those voters to vote a more-left party—anytime soon. If it’s the case that the gradual changer will always win in this voter bloc, then the Dems have a lot more wiggle room.
And I agree with dianne @3, I’m not convinced that the party is drifting right in absolute terms. It’s probably not moving left as quickly as it could, though. The consolation I take with more gradual change is that maybe it will trigger less reflexive conservative blowback?
* This article may have been shared here previously, but I can’t find it right now.
I’ve been convinced for years that Bill Clinton and Barak Obama are more progressive than what was passed as legislation during their terms makes it seems like. One needs to remember that both are consummate politicians, and won’t waste effort on something that simply won’t fly. Given that both had rethug controlled House and/or Senate during most of their terms, simply getting the business of governance done was a major task. Any truly progress program would DOA in Congress.
I’m certain that BC wanted to allow gays to openly serve in the military. The best he could get was DADT due to opposition in Congress, and in the populace. Obama was finally able to achieve that goal, but he went through the military first, and they went to Congress to change the law. It is hard for the rethugs to challenge the top brass when they say being openly gay is no problem for the unit.
BC also tried for a form of universal health coverage, and it was derided as “HillaryCare”, since she chaired the committee. From the Wiki Article:
Seems straight forward, progressive, and logical. Except for the rethug and industry response, which killed it.
Obama took an idea originally enacted in Massachusetts by (wait for it) Mitt Romney, and transformed it into the Affordable Care Act. Romney enacted an idea from a conservative think tank. The Rethugs have been trying to kill the ACA ever since it passed. Evidently, they don’t like their own programs, if it helps the poor.
I’m sure HC would like to put in a “public” option for ACA insurance. But the rethugs, and certainly not the House Speaker, would allow such heresy. Think of all the profits lost….
If HC wins in November, she will need down ballot support. At least she could potentially retain many of the low level political appointees already confirmed, even if they move up notch. I’m practicing my mark for Tammy Duckworth (D) for the Senate, and Brad Schneider (D) for the house, to aid in a progressive agenda being enacted.
Trump could be filmed raping a puppy to death, eating the corpse then shitting it on its siblings’ litter, he would lose zero vote from his core of supporters.
That’s always been the problem with fascist candidates: their voters want to put a violent bully in power, because they hope that once he’s in charge, they’ll be rewarded by having him channel his ruthlessness toward people they don’t like.
Nerd of Redhead: I agree about Obama, though I think part of the problem with him was also that his opponents were so consistently inclined to self-destruct that he typically ended up never really having to work to excite his base–he just had to be infinitely better than the other person, which he always managed. Had he had to actually get people to prefer him, he might’ve been more willing to start from a more leftist point and negotiate inward, rather than beginning at the middle.
Bill Clinton… I’m less forgiving of. DADT was a gay rights ~disaster~; more people were ousted under it during the first few years, at least, than had been in the years prior. And it was an explicitly broken promise.
He signed off on continuing numerous mineral-rights leases that were basically gimmes for the companies involved.
And if the Republicans hadn’t decided they were willing to lose big rather than win small, we would’ve had the most severe federal restriction on abortion since Roe v. Wade signed into law. Fortunately, the GOP choked on the ‘or health’ bit and we dodged a bullet.
That said, I think Hillary is more liberal than her husband ever was, and I do think it’s unfair to condemn her on the basis of his actions, which a lot of Bernie supporters have done during the campaign.
freemage wrote:
To be fair, Hillary brought up her husband’s legacy as a positive several times, and suggested that he would be engaged to help determine fiscal policy. It’s likely unfair to assume that her social policies would match her husband’s, though.
I think it’s cute that Taibbi thinks the establishment Democrats aren’t really establishment, they just can’t see how good it could be if they took this opportunity to be radical.
“But they won’t do that, because they ….”
are as closely connected to the American socio-political elite as the GOP.
Here, fixed it.
What, at the time, could he have gotten better, considering the rethug/populace resistance? I’m talking political reality, not wises are fishes.
Nerd:
link.
If you’re going to vote for the Democrats no matter what they do anyway then how can you even make the claim that your criticisms matter?
Wow. Just wow. The self-congratulatory preening of the so-called “progressives’ is frankly kind of sickening. And the refusal to recognize a few realities is a bit daunting.
First, electing Bernie would accomplish exactly zero. Why? Because unless you have the legislature in place to back his proposals, nothing will happen, and Bernie has just about no support down-ballot. Why? Because he’s not a Democrat, people. He drifted into the party fro the sole reason of raiding its voter lists and raiding its money. A party is an organization, not just one man. And Bernie has never played well with others. Anyone who has listened to him nearly weekly for years would realize this. Every Friday, “Brunch with Bernie.” Oh, here’s Bernie again, reminding all of us how everyone else gets it wrong, only he understands what needs to be done, and America would be Utopia if we just did what Bernie says. I got sick of his nonsense long before he announced.
Again, if you don’t really create an organization, you won’t get anything done.
And anyone moderately familiar with governance would have seen the disaster that is Bernie when he met with the NY Daily News board. He proved he is 100% aspiration, and 0% preparation. He had no idea how to accomplish anything and, worse, clearly had never even given it any thought. Now whether you like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, or even if you don’t like any of them, I will guarantee you one thing: If you asked any one of them about one of their stated goals, they would have given you chapter and verse, statutory citation and constitutional citation, and the names of who in the legislature they needed to get that goal accomplished. Hell, Bill Clinton would even be able to tell you when those legislators’ birthdays are.
I also find it amusing that those who are most outside of the government in their obsession with being “progressive” are no better than Tea Party types who just know “it’s all rigged.” Get a clue, people. It takes money to win. Hillary time and again challenged Bernie to name one instance where a Wall Street donation led to improper action on her part. Bernie couldn’t. What all the precious snowflakes seem to forget is that Wall Street and other donors give to BOTH sides. They hedge their bets. And by the way, when you lump all Wall Street people together as “soulless, corporatist Nazis,” you are no less bigoted than Trump going after “Mexicans.” And what’s even worse is it demonstrates massive intellectual laziness.
Finally, our government is not designed for much in the way of “revolution.” And that’s purposeful. It is designed to rely on the interplay of competing interests and the necessity of compromise. It is a deliberative, not spontaneous, system that requires that actions have a firm foundation, and are not the result of passions or prejudice.
You might also go to the West Side of Chicago sometime and ask whether they want Bernie’s “free college tuition,” or some progress toward restoring and expanding government assistance to the most poor among us. They don’t really give a shit about Wall Street, either. Maybe Bernie should have thought about that a little more. Maybe he should have tried for public office somewhere other than Vermont, too, because I can tell you Vermont, pretty as it is, ain’t much of a microcosm of America.