The DNC platform negotiations are gathering rather more attention than usual. And how they’re going, and who’s exercising influence … well, depends on whom you ask.
ST. LOUIS (AP) — A draft of the Democratic Party’s policy positions reflects the influence of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign: endorsing steps to break up large Wall Street banks, advocating a $15 hourly wage, urging an end to the death penalty.
Impressive! By any previous standards this is pretty darned progressive. Yet here’s the take that’s typical of the Sanders supporters on my various feeds:
During a 9-hour meeting in St. Louis, Missouri on Friday, members of the DNC’s platform drafting committee voted down a number of measures proposed by Bernie Sanders surrogates that would have come out against the contentious Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), fracking, and the Israeli occupation of Palestine. At the same time, proposals to support a carbon tax, Single Payer healthcare, and a $15 minimum wage tied to inflation were also disregarded.
Two thoughts on this:
First, it’s right for the Hillary delegates to take their lumps from the Sanders progressives on the substance. I obviously support a carbon tax, and we need to run screaming away from fossil fuels ASAP. Fracking should end. Palestinian dignity ought to be supported — we’re overdue for a new narrative and public language on Israel/Palestine and Hillary’s not giving us that. Single payer would be great.
That being said, there’s a tendency to measure the strength of one’s commitment to goals (stop global warming; health care for everyone) with a particular set of means (carbon tax; single payer). And simply put, those two policy tools are really, really hard to get passed and stay passed. In some really fine posts, (here’s the other one) David Roberts at Vox has taken on the political problems of the carbon tax*. In Australia they passed it (yay!) … and then repealed it (boo!). With single-payer, the Vermont legislature agreed to it in theory … and then couldn’t fund it. Oh well.
Political sustainability is a big part of economic and environmental sustainability. Simply put, the HRC platform people are looking towards the general election, and they see the political cost to Dem candidates as prohibitive. And with the House and Senate potentially in play, one can see the reason for playing it “safe”; whereas flipping both houses of Congress would really be a “political revolution”.
Somewhat dishearteningly for political true believers, you typically make a choice between the strength and “purity” of your ideas, and the breadth of your coalition. But considering the mood of the country — and the demonstrated appeal of Sanders’ agenda — I’m willing to bet a Democratic Congress would be pretty darned progressive. But you gotta win first.
The necessities of stopping climate change and getting health care for everyone haven’t gone away. There’s more to come in the platform negotiations. The Sanders people are doing their job, and bringing energy, vision and passion. I hope they will come to acknowledge their own power, and claim credit for their victories and influence along the way. This will keep people engaged, thereby growing their influence.
Keep pushin’. We can get things done.
*I would be remiss if I didn’t include this hopeful rebuttal from Judy Weiss of the Citizens Climate Lobby, a very fine pro-carbon tax group.
Christopher says
…should not be in an American party platform at all, except to maybe very narrowly define what our role might be. We must be engaged there as in many other global hotspots, but we need to stop treating the Holy Land like a domestic political issue, and in so doing may even make us safer. People talk about the TPP as if they forget the current Democratic President supports it. You say Clinton people should take their lumps; I say there’s room for generosity, but let’s remember who won this primary.
stomv says
Generosity? Nah. You weigh the ideas on their merit, and you vote upperdown. It doesn’t matter of the proposal comes from a Berniac or a Clintonista. And part of being generous is not smashing the pride of the person to whom you’re being generous by reminding them of your so-called generosity.
jconway says
I can’t think of a single swing voter who ever made up their mind based on the platform. The Religious Right gets to put their impossible laundry list into the GOP platform every four years and if doesn’t really affect their party prospects in the general.
These are long term goals and values and I don’t mind seeing single payer, the fight for $15, something about college debt, and the carbon tax on there. It won’t lose us any votes and it will let the Sanders side have a few symbolic victories to take back to their base. It’ll give that side dignity and respect, and while Clinton won it was a very narrow victory. Remember he wasn’t supposed to get past Iowa and fought hard in every state, this is a signal his side gets some say.
That said, I agree with Christopher about Israel/Palestine. That *is* an issue that matters in the platform and says a very core bloc of voters. The last time we had a pro-PLO platform in 1988 thanks to Jesse Jackson’s race, it severely undermined Dukakis in the general. It shouldn’t be a domestic issue but it is, and I’d much rather Clinton win Florida and the White House. The unpopularity of the Iran deal in the American Jewish community is understated, but it’s real and we don’t need to take any further risks on symbolism when in substance this administration and the next one will be more pro-peace than the alternative.
Charley on the MTA says
Not sure about that. Not directly, maybe. But the general sense that the GOP is controlled by the religious Right does lose them votes, I’m sure.
jconway says
There was an understanding that fiscal and social libertarians, neocons and security Hawks, and social conservatives could co-exist in the same party/movement and they did for a generation. Reagan won 49 states in 1984 with largely the same platform Romney ran on in 2012, and the abortion question has consistently been 55/45 or 60/40 pro choice since Roe.
Massachusetts voters had no issues electing a Republican governor last fall who doesn’t feel bound to that platform and the donor class is widely to the left of the party base on social questions. Steve Stringer, a Rubio bundled, gave millions to back equality in New York. The Koch brothers are socially liberal. The big reason Trump is different has nothing to do with the religious right, but with too may business and globally oriented donors realizing he can’t be trusted and Hillary isn’t the devil, or at least, she’s the devil the know.
johntmay says
From what I’ve seen over the past 40+ years, playing it safe until after the election leads to playing it safe again until after re-election and then playing it safe until leaving office and getting that cushy job on K-Street.
Playing it safe means more of the same. Obama played it safe and yeah, the DOW rebounded and unemployment is down but the labor class is still suffering and the middle class is shrinking in 9 of 10 US cities. Playing it safe in Massachusetts where in Boston, middle class adults are no longer the majority. It’s a city of rich and poor. Playing it safe and the health care I have to buy is not as worthless as the health insurance I used to have to buy, but still not even close to the health care in the developed world.
I fail to see how playing it safe will flip both houses if what Democrats are offering is more of the same with different wrapping paper.
I’ve seen Hillary’s plan to save the Middle Class
And it’s safe. And it expects a citizen in this nation to be able to support themselves on a yearly income of less than $25K a year. She says she will raise taxes on the rich and close loopholes, but I’d like to know a whole lot more about that. But playing it safe means telling me she’s going to do something without telling me what it is, playing it safe to get my vote…..and then playing it safe again to win re-election in 2020.
methuenprogressive says
1. Sanders lost.
2. There’s nothing “progressive” about a mansplaing candidate that ignored POC’s and supported the NRA’s positions.
3. He still hasn’t conceded or endorsed.
4. Screw him and the BernieBros he rode in on.
Charley on the MTA says
The Bernie delegates on the platform committee are the likes of Bill McKibben and Keith Ellison — not your bog-standard Facebook/Salon Bernie ranters. They are right on fracking and a carbon tax — on the merits. This is a discussion that needs to happen.
“Screw him”? You need him and his bros. And they need you — which granted, they tend to forget.
I liked Joan Walsh’s article in The Nation, which consists mostly of Keith Ellison quotes. Pretty hopeful. (Ignore the headline — I don’t care if Bernie endorses now or later, as long as he gets there around convention time.)
Let’s get together and feel all right, people.