in a recent speech Barney Frank summed up the difference between liberalism and democratic socialism this way : ” The opposite of pragmatism isn’t idealism — it’s wishful thinking.”
BARNEY FRANK
I believe that best explains the dilemma of conscience many Democrats and Independents are struggling with today.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Please share widely!
positions were so unelectable, then why has Hillary Clinton continuously shifted towards them throughout the campaign?
It seems Hillary Clinton doesn’t agree with Barney Frank about the efficacy of Democratic Socialist ideals.
If she moved any further to the left in a rush to flank Sanders, she’d be talking about single payer.
The truth is this country has been electing Democratic Socialists from Teddy Roosevelt all the way through to the rise of Neo Liberalism. Republicans Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon had heavy flavors of Democratic Socialism. Heck, Nixon almost passed a truly universal health care program, heavily public in nature, and a guaranteed minimum income for all.
rather Welfare Statism in the mold of Bismark and young Winston Churchill.
If you were at the Democratic State Convention and heard Howard Dean list all the key reasons he supported Hillary Clinton, you could just as easily insert the name “Bernie Sanders” and the key issues would still fit, and more.
to preserve the honor for Democrats
and that’s a good thing. Sanders can rightfully take a lot of the credit for this positive development.
However, our standard bearer must demonstrate an ability to unite moderate independents, women, Blacks, Hispanics and labor to build a successful governing coalition.
With a consistent 20 point national polling advantage Clinton has thus far shown herself to be the only candidate that has demonstrated the chops to win. Now it’s still early in the process and these trends can change.
But until I see empirical evidence to the contrary I still maintain that Clinton has the longest coattails to keep the White House and win back BOTH the Senate and the House — and reshape the Supreme Court for a generation.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
The polls show Sanders performing well against the Republicans in a national election and in many swing states.
Given his still very low name recognition, Sanders’s current performance and trends (including raising nearly the same amount as Clinton last quarter) raise many questions about Clinton’s strength, and certainly the length of her coattails. Hillary Clinton is the best-known non-incumbent to ever run for the Presidency. There is not another candidate in the race who is both so well-liked and so well-hated. She may be at or near her ceiling now, which is something to worry about.
Maybe in August or July.
They’re about even with Bernie vs. Republican opponents now, even though virtually 100% of the population knows Hillary from 25 years of public life, versus only 60-70% of the population that’s heard Bernie’s name and very few who know him well.
I like Hillary Clinton a lot. Voted for her in 2007. But her polling at this stage of the game versus the GOP, for someone so well known, is really bad. She may be the most electable candidate in the primary, but that’s far from the case when it comes to the general.
I think people should vote for Hillary Clinton if they feel like she’d be a better President or because you agree with her on more things, and so on and so forth (all reasonable positions – we’re a big tent party, after all), but if you want to based on electability issues, empirically, from everything we know today, she’s no more electable than Bernie Sanders and, given how well known (and defined) she is to the public already, there’s a strong case to be made that she’s less so.
My primary vote is precious to me, and I want to spend it on the candidate I agree with most. Period. Particularly this year when we have two choices with a shot at the nomination, both of whom I like but one of whom I like significantly more. I long ago made my peace with the 2008 primary and Hillary’s strengths and weaknesses, where our values align and where they do not. I would be backing Bernie if he was polling at 1%, I expect the many sincere Clinton supporters on this site would be doing the same.
This leads me to my second point-there are many passionate Clinton supporters here. Feel free to make a case for why she will be the more effective progressive President, at this stage, the electability argument isn’t holding much weight judging by the relatively competitive polls and fundraising pace. I would focus on her resolve, experience with dealing with Congress, and her foreign policy experience where I think she has relative strengths compared to Bernie (though liabilities in terms of foreign policy values). I think she undersells her experience as a legislator, the coalitions she built in New York, and the real diplomacy she did as Secretary of State. I think Bernie undersells his mayoral experience and similar coalition building in Vermont. So let’s hash that stuff out-it’s more interesting and could be more persuasive than the horse race.
I don’t hear anybody talking about “pragmatism versus idealism” — that’s a narrative some segments of the Democratic Party turn to when they know their candidate is out of step with what most Democrats want.
Is it “idealistic” to want to increase taxes on the wealthy — especially the very wealthy? Is it “idealistic” to want to stop some of our cops from killing the rest of us (especially in minority communities)? Was it “idealistic” to oppose the TPP or the Keystone Pipeline?
Was America better served in 2003 by the “pragmatism” of Hillary Clinton, who voted for the Iraq invasion, or by the “idealism” of Bernie Sanders, who voted against it? In 2001, when the latest assault on the constitutional rights of every America began with the Patriot Act, was America better served by Hillary Clinton’s “pragmatic” 2001 vote in favor, or by Bernie Sander’s 2001 vote against it?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but during the 2006 mid-term elections Barney Frank personally assured me in a town meeting in Brookline that if I would help the Democrats win a majority in the House, investigations of war crimes committed by the then-sitting administration would be “number one on the list of things the new Congress will do”. Was that the “pragmatic” or the “idealistic” Barney Frank? After he and we won (with my enthusiastic support), and he went along with the rest of the Democratic majority and did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, was THAT inaction the “pragmatic” or the “idealistic” Barney Frank?
I love Barney Frank. He was a great Representative, I was honored to vote for him in every election during the 10 years I lived in Brookline. He was WRONG on the war crimes investigation.
He’s wrong about this as well.
It seems to me that Mr. Sanders’ candidacy, while attractive in the same way Mr. Obama’s was, bears a greater risk than Mr. Obama’s. That is the risk of disillusionment.
The most amazing thing to me, at this point, is that the people who were attracted to what Mr. Obama offered, and who admit that they have been enormously disappointed by his performance, are again taking up the banner for Mr. Sanders. While I understand that, for some, hope springs up eternally, I am especially concerned about the generations between age 20 and 45 who may not be able to rebound if Mr. Sanders is not able to change the way things work (or don’t work) at all. For that reason I continue to warn that nothing will change unless Congress is changed to a more progressive profile (unless, of course, a Regressive is the next President). The tragedy for Mrs. Clinton is that her history has so many weaknesses in it. It’s hard not to imagine the ugly delight in the minds of House and Senate Regressives just anticipating the fun of crippling her from day 1. Even with a better balance in Congress I expect she will be harrassed endlessly, as her spouse was.
Mr. Sanders has fewer vulnerabilities, but that doesn’t mean he will be able to be effective, only that the Regressives will have to work a lot harder and more obviously to cripple him.
Many of the Progressives I know have already given up on Climate Change. They’re still holding out a hope for Universal Health Care, and smaller issues like drug legalization and reduction in wasteful energy use. But the really big issues like redefining corporations as lacking personhood, or fixing education, or taming the fundamentalist mind, or even fixing the roads, seem ever more and more unlikely to them. Fearful people do stupid things and loss of social stability is making a lot of fear. True, it’s enflamed by the shallowness of our media, and the failure of the economy to provide work worth doing, but the real problem is one of time.
I am not sure the country can survive another 8 years of disappointment like we’ve just had with Mr. Obama and I don’t have any confidence in Mrs. Clinton to address that.
But I’m also quite certain that Mr. Sanders won’t be much better.
I think many people were so captivated by Obama’s tone, they thought his program matched it. However, reading his platform instead of his rhetoric showed otherwise. He spoke a lot about hope, but enacted education and economic policies that thwarted it. That’s why I supported Hillary over Obama.
However, Sanders’s platform — and his record as senator — match his rhetoric.
Whatever people think of tones, her platform was more progressive than Obama’s on domestic issues. That made Obama’s broad-brush-strokes, can-mean-anything-you-want-it-to Axelrod-speak feel really disingenuous to me in the 07 primary. It’s why I haven’t at all been surprised by him as President. He’s exactly the President I thought he’d be: middle-of-the-road neoliberal on domestic issues, but a big change of pace from the GWB shoot-first-ask-questions-later doctrine on foreign policy.
As you note, Sanders is very, very different than Obama or Hillary, though. He’s been saying the same things bout the economy, labor, health care, the environment and the middle class for his entire career — as Mayor, as Congressman and as a United States Senator.
That’s not to say no one will feel disillusioned when The Revolution isn’t instant, but given what Bernie did the only time he held executive office, it’s pretty clear we’d see a radical, big-changes person in the White House if Bernie Sanders was elected…. so maybe, just maybe, the people-power will continue on well into a Bernie Sanders administration.
Ha. They’ve already started.
I think there is a big difference between the two campaigns and the two men. It may come down to style versus substance. Obama has the best style ever, and Sanders pretty much has the opposite. There are risks with every choice and I think there’s a lot to the argument that Sanders would be ineffective at achieving his goals, but I think it won’t be for lack of trying, which I think is where so much of the disillusionment with Obama.
I trust Sanders to do the right thing. I trust Clinton to get things done. I worry that Sanders won’t be able to get things done, and I worry that Clinton won’t always do the right thing (and may do the wrong thing on many issues). On balance, that leads me to Sanders. I’d rather have someone fight and lose than someone not willing to fight.
I think sometimes that even as Obama may have started to her left we might have gotten more progressive results with her because she would fight harder. As for Congressional GOP trying to cripple her from day one, I say bring it on. Many people thought choosing Obama would get us away from the Clinton wars of the 1990s, but look how that worked out. Part of me is even relishing the revenge component against what they did to the first President Clinton. To me preparedness is key. I’ve taken a few of those online quizzes where you answer questions about your issue positions and then are matched to the candidate you most agree with. That rubric puts me mostly with Sanders, but I’m not deciding by issue checklist and I suspect their sign/veto record and SCOTUS appointments will be largely similar anyway.
Barack Obama is not competing in the 2016 election. A comparison between Hillary Clinton and Mr. Obama therefore seems irrelevant.
Since we agree that the GOP will attempt to destroy any Democrat who is elected, then a more relevant question is whether Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton is more able to prevail against that attempt.
It seems to me that Bernie Sanders has spent the last thirty years getting things accomplished and winning elections in the face of relentless — and relentlessly personal — attacks against him (“He’s a SOCIALIST”, “He’s too liberal”, etc.). I do not see a comparable record for Hillary Clinton. It seems to me that she has either lost the battle (as in her health care plan) or retreated from her liberal position (as she did as Senator).
To the extent that the “revenge component” is a factor in this choice, it seems to me that we’re better off choosing the person who has been winning, rather than losing or retreating, for the last twenty-odd years. Meanwhile, you seem to be getting data from those quizzes that Bernie Sanders is, in fact, better aligned with you on the issues than Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps you might reconsider your motivations for supporting Ms. Clinton during the primary. It seems to me that you’ve made a stronger case for Bernie Sanders in this comment.
Bernie Sanders — in your heart, you know he’s right. 🙂
I’m actually not sure how much Sanders has had to contend with labels in VT, a state that I believe has elected him overwhelmingly a number of times. If this were a congressional race my calculus might be different (hence Warren, Eldridge, and even O’Reilly, the latter ran against a Senator I believed in 2004 to be the best prepared for the presidency and was therefore my choice in that race). I referred to Obama because the comment above mine did. I believe ultimately that HRC probably does also have a better chance of winning both the general election and legislative battles. Best prepared trumps in my mind, unless there does happen to be an issue stance I just cannot accept. Hence Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and Clinton in 2008 and 2016.
How does that experience translate into tangible Presidential accomplishments that a President Sanders couldn’t achieve?
I guess that’t the main X factor for me if you wanted to convince me to change my primary vote.
The way I see it, as President Obama plainly put it last night, this Congress has spent the past 5 years doing nothing, and it will go on doing nothing no matter who the Speaker is or who the President is, since it is unlikely we swing the House in 2016. At best, we can take enough Senate seats to claw back to a thinner majority there than the one we lost in 2014. But the GOP is enjoying a structurally secure majority that only a significant landslide could topple. And I am starting to feel we are looking at 2012 rather than 2008 as our baseline electoral projection.
That’s presuming Dem wins Senate races in at least Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Illinois. We already know they are ready to destroy a Clinton presidency on day 1, and we will likely endure four years of investigations and impeachment. At best, she could use that to her advantage to eek out a majority in 2020, when hopefully we revert back to the 50 state strategy and actually get some statehouses back so we can have a decent census apportionment. Her embrace of Howard Dean is a hopeful sign in that regard.
How does that dynamic change with a President Sanders? I guess the GOP won’t have Benghazi to talk about, and for a change a real socialist to pummel with ads, but I honestly see both of them having an equivalently low chance of getting their agenda passed through Congress. That’s where Clinton may get a domestic advantage since she seems more comfortable with executive orders, especially on guns an issue where she is legitimately to Sanders left, and has been through executive and legislative capacities in divided government before.
On foreign policy, obviously she has more gravitas and cache with world leaders and would be ready on day 1 to lead, though I am concerned some of her ideas are significantly more hawkish than Sanders. I am confident he wouldn’t change the course too much from Obama, maybe scaling back the drone operations in Afghanistan and certainly doing more on NSA reform, but I see Clinton based on her only extensive interview on foreign policy over a year ago, taking a far more assertive course against ISIL, Assad, Syria, Iran, and Russia than President Obama.
At the end of the day on domestic issues it is probably a wash, Sanders will be pushing for more rhetorically on day 1, whether that makes a difference in terms of policy accomplishments depends on how big the movement supporting him has become and whether it can be tapped upon to influence legislation in a way similar movements President Obama and Gov. Patrick allowed to atrophy did not.
On foreign policy I’m torn. I obviously think Sanders values align more with mine, but I also honestly worry that he lacks substantial qualifications or interest in that part of being President and it’s his biggest weakness. I feel the same way about Elizabeth Warren who is plainly uninterested in foreign policy. He is still more qualified than any of the Republicans, including Jeb Bush, maybe even especially Jeb Bush who still feels his brothers strategies were a success. But that is honestly where I think Clinton has the biggest advantage in terms of experience and one of the biggest weaknesses in terms of using that experience to pursue dumb policies.
…as long as Congress is not just Republican, but obstructionist. She had an eight-year apprenticeship that even many VPs don’t really get and I am talking mostly about managing the executive branch. Of course, I get the sense that I’m more comfortable than many here with an assertive foreign policy so that is in fact a plus in the Clinton column for me.
I’m actually not sure how much Sanders has had to contend with labels in VT, a state that I believe has elected him overwhelmingly a number of times. It seems you don’t know a lot about VT. Both my parents grew up there, and I still have a ton of relatives there. In their day, a Democrat was the next-worst thing to a Methodist. Things have changed, but there is still a very strong old-conservative streak there. For Sanders to repeatedly succeed there is an enormous testimony to his ability to win over people whose political inclinations are very different from his own.
He toppled a huge machine establishment in first coming to power, who called him all the worst things… and those were just Democrats.
It was international news when he did that, btw — he was the first socialist to ever win a mayoral campaign in the US, at least in modern times.
He defeated a Republican who outraised him by a margin of 3-4 and went terribly negative to become United States Senator.
Before he was elected, Vermont was very much a competitive state for Republicans, frequently electing Republicans to all branches of Government. It was a very competitive state.
It’s rare that you can point to one person and say he “turned a state” to one party or the other, but Bernie Sanders has had more to do with ousting Vermont Republicans from power than any other… and he’s done that because he’s winning most of their rural conservative votes.
So, yes, Bernie Sanders has had to “contend with labels.”
The polling says the opposite and given how well Hillary Clinton is known — one of the longest and best known public figures in this entire country — that’s not likely to change.
Furthermore, Bernie’s quickly caught up with Hillary on fundraising and will likely surpass her next quarter.
Vote for Hillary if you think she’s a better fit for you, but the electability argument just isn’t holding up.
That’s a long list of people who’ve lost who were heavily favored at some point in their race. Just saying.
NH has moved from red to purple (and sometimes all blue) without Sanders.
Most people cite
1.Yankees dying off, and being replaced by crunchy types.
2. Influx of newcomers from other states.
3. Low percentages of religious affiliation in the Northeast.
4. Disappearance of the liberal wing of the Republican party.
No diss to Sen Sanders as a candidate, but he’s been to some extent been the right person at the right time in VT.
When the distracting noise from Fox News is filtered, it seems that America is moving from red to purple (and sometimes all blue) without Bernie Sanders as well.
1. People are tired of being plundered, by both the “red” and “blue” teams.
2. Influx of immigrants from other nations
3. Low percentages of actual religious influence (regardless of claimed affiliation)
4. Purging of everybody left of (and including) Barry Goldwater from the Republican Party.
Today’s GOP House delegation has more in common with the John Birch society than the GOP of, say, 1980. The party has successfully merged the racists ejected from the Democratic Party (it’s “Southern Strategy”) with the religious cranks that made wealthy men of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
America is now learning that nihilistic slogans shouted at a Tea Party rally may fire up a mob and even win an election. They do not, however, help to actually GOVERN a nation. America has populated the House with ignorant, angry, nearly illiterate extremists who can barely spell “GOP”.
All this has happened without Bernie Sanders.
And yet Bernie Sanders IS in the race. He has been speaking to the pain and suffering that the GOP has pandered to for his entire career. He offers a straightforward and effective approach: tax the wealthy, and stop the police from beating the bejeesus out of anybody they choose.
I don’t think it’s disrespectful to observe that Bernie Sanders was the right person at the right time in Vermont — that’s an essential element of being a successful politician.
I suggest that Bernie Sanders is the right person at the right time in America.
There is something going on out there. I would suggest the major issue is “economic unease” and it’s currently (meaning during this election season) manifesting itself in the political process.
For some people that means retrenchment (Trump voters) for others it means “let’s try something new, because what we have isn’t working” and I think Sanders is the only guy in the race that isn’t backed by some faction of the powers that be, so this may be the right time for him. I would only suggest the those who want to continue to funnel a big chunk of American wealth in their direction have the backs of not just the GOP but many Dems, and in particular the Clintons.
I agree with your last sentence.
…that Clinton is just as bad as the GOP on wealth concentration I would submit has not been paying attention.
He cautioned those of who care about wealth concentration to pay attention to the big-money backers of both parties, including “the Clintons”.
For example, George Soros has advocated higher taxes on higher incomes. I’m not sure he’s been as vocal about, for example, significantly increasing the gift/estate tax. Meanwhile, multiple published reports describe Mr. Soros as having a $7 B tax obligation resulting from his use of a loophole closed in 2008 (and requiring payment by 2017).
It is certainly true that Ms. Clinton has recently been evolving towards some of the proposals that Bernie Sanders has been advocating for decades. It is also true that both Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are advocating much different proposals than any of the GOP candidates.
Promises made during a campaign are not, however, the same as actions taken once elected. GITMO is, after all, still open. The war criminals of the prior administration are still not even investigated, never mind prosecuted or convicted. The big banks that caused the crash of 2008 are larger today than they were then.
I think the point here is that Democrats feel the same pressures from big money as Republicans. While both Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are espousing positions that are very different from any of the GOP candidates, I think it’s also fair to say that Ms. Clinton is far more dependent on those big money donors than Mr. Sanders. Ms. Clinton has a history of cooperation with big money players that Mr. Sanders does not.
Big money is a threat to all Americans. It attempts to use its power against both Democrats and Republicans. Anyone who thinks otherwise is also not paying attention.
Ben Bernanke thinks that more should have been charged in the financial meltdown. Why weren’t they? I know it’s hard, and Justice was discouraged by the results of early trials, but this is a point of Sen Warren as well.
If a Democratic administration won’t do it, who will? Do you think a President Clinton (elected 2008) would have had more WS prep walks? Unlikely.
Perhaps America, and the Democratic Party, needed the counter example of the Obama administration in order to actually LEARN what needs to be done.
I heard candidate Hillary Clinton call for more WS perp walks several times in the first Democratic debate. If she is elected, it will be because she gains the support of a large number of Americans who learned from 2008 what we will and will not tolerate.
The obscene wealth of the very wealthy (the top 0.6%, according to last night’s debate) WILL be reclaimed by the 99.4%. I think our choice is to do that through the rule of law or to do it by the rule of the mob. I think our politicians are finally starting to get that.
Those four things are all surely much bigger influences than Bernie, but the fourth thing in particular is something that Bernie’s done a lot to make happen.
I’m not trying to claim Bernie as a prophet or messiah or anything, just that he had more of an influence in ousting GOP influence in Vermont “than any other.”
A lot of those rural voters in Vermont were and are very conservative — yes, often conservative in traditional New England ways, but conservative nonetheless. I don’t think you can discount how much of a difference Bernie made in getting them to vote against Republicans, by bringing economic populism into Vermont in a big way, and by showing Democrats in Vermont a basic model they could use to appeal to those rural conservative voters — and beat the GOP. If there’s a populist who’s had a bigger influence in Vermont politics over the past 25 years, let me know.
Finally, you’re right to compare Vermont to New Hampshire — the two states have a lot of similarities. But unlike Vermont, New Hampshire hasn’t had a lot of truly economic populist politicians running in that state — most of their Democrats have tried to run to the right like the Clintons. While occasionally they win, the end results are consistently much worse for the NH Democratic Party. NH could very much use its own Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders — and if they got one, I think we’d see the days of Republicans being competitive in state or federal races, or able to gain majorities in the state legislature, as a thing of the past.
It’s all a question of people vs. bigger trends, and some of that is personal point of view.
I once had a professor who saw all results (Battle of Britain, Vietnam were his favorite examples) as a result of greater economic output of one side vs. the other. I’ve had a hard time shaking that thought- that the leaders are just actor in a play where the script is already written by larger forces.
I am 100% confident the next Democratic President will get nothing past the Republican house. So no, the fact that Bernie is coming in pushing for single payer in a way Obama did not does not suddenly make it more likely to pass the most conservative and most obstructionist House majority since the 19th century. Anyone who thinks a President can fix Congress should do well to read Norm Ornstein’s book on the subject.
Where I think Bernie could make a difference is by revitalizing the New Deal coalition, bringing in a significant number of white working class voters, and building a movement focused around class based political activism.Yet, that movement building has already clashed with the equally valid priorities of the race and gender equality movements, and it will take exceptionally talented leaders to bridge that divide and focus on an inclusive agenda that also appeals to the displaced and disgruntled pockets of white America that feel left behind by globalization, while explicitly condemning the kind of bigotry and xenophobia that often accompanies that displacement. I hope our nominee, whoever he or she is, turns out to be that leader.
be willing to truly lead a people-powered movement, holding rallies and getting thousands and thousand of people in conservative districts across the country.
Add to that mix the fact that Bernie’s had a lot of success appealing to rural conservatives in his state, and there’s no reason to think he can’t have that same success in others.
Do I think it’s likely that Bernie suddenly gets the Do-Nothing Congress to become a Do-Something Congress? No.
But we’ve tried a lot of the alternative — playing nice with Republicans, watering things down hoping for some GOP votes, and it just doesn’t work.
Maybe the only way to get the Republicans to do something is to put their feet to the fire — and maybe them worried about their districts back home.
There are people who could run as Republicans in those some of the many gerrymandered GOP districts with a Bernie Sanders platform and win. Faced with that reality, the GOP may just pass a minimum wage hike, a health care affordability bill or raise taxes on hedge funds… and then who knows what happens.
holding rallies and getting thousands and thousand of people in conservative districts across the country to call and meet with their legislators, demanding change.
Not on domestic issues. Her platform was a good deal more progressive than his in 07, aside from foreign policy issues.
One more thing…
If you think Sanders and Hillary would appoint the same kinds of people (to *anything*) I’ve got a nice bridge over the Mystic River to sell ya.
Bills that would be signed or vetoed would perhaps be a bit closer (given the GOP crazies and do-nothings littering Congress), but a President Hillary would have had no issue with TPP and other bad neoliberal ideas, whereas Sanders would consistently stand up against them.
you know he’s right.” BARRY GOLDWATER
I’m curious as to why you would use the mantra of a right-wing, extremist conservative like Barry Goldwater to bolster your case for a self identified left-wing democratic socialist ?
I’m sure Christopher wasn’t around in ’64 but I was and I remember Goldwater as the destroyer, along with Nixon, of the moderate/liberal Rockefeller wing of the Republican party.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Then again, I believe HRC was, and I also believe that Goldwater wouldn’t pass muster with today’s GOP.
1. There’s a smiley — it’s a joke
2. The GOP has moved so far to the right that Barry Goldwater would today be viewed as “too liberal”. During his lifetime, he steadfastly supported abortion rights. He supported rights for the gay and lesbian community and opposed discrimination against them. He was outspokenly critical of the GOP embrace of religion, and was contemptuous of right-wing GOP stalwarts like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
3. He described Richard Nixon as “the most dishonest man I’ve ever known”.
4. Hillary Clinton was, as a teenager, a Goldwater Girl. She laughs about it, I laugh about it. Perhaps you, too, can laugh about it.
I encourage you to perhaps lighten up!
Oh, and Christopher is absolutely correct, I was not a Goldwater supporter (I was also twelve years old in the 1964 election, I’m five years younger than Ms. Clinton).
Just Dixiecrats and Birchers. Extremist elements that in their own way, those ferocious rivals for the heart and soul of the mid-century Republican Party went out of there way to expel and keep away from their movements.
Obviously there are individuals left who embrace this. My conservative friends at my old firm are authentic Goldwater conservatives. Socially liberal, deficit and foreign policy hawks. Our own Porcupine is a Rockefeller Republican of sorts, and Charlie Baker is one or the other depending on the day. But at the national level nobody comes close. Maybe Mccain in 2000 as a continuation of the Goldwater tradition, and we saw how well he did.
I read his memoirs recently, and his take on the nature of politics is eye-opening. If y’all political junkies haven’t read it, you should.
There’s certainly a lot of good history of the movement for LGBT rights, but there’s also some key broad points about politics:
To the people who say “I’d rather have someone who’ll fight and lose,” Barney Frank’s experience is that that attitude is not as smart as someone who fights and gets some progress. For instance, when President Bill Clinton tried to use an executive order to allow gays to openly serve in the military, conservatives in Congress outmaneuvered him. But Frank did get Clinton to remove an old provision that automatically declared LGBT people in intelligence a security risk.
We Democrats do politics to create a more perfect union, to help more people have fair lives.
The choice between a loss with no gain and a compromise with some gain is no choice at all.
I particularly found the section on his days at the Massachusetts State House most illuminating, there are good lessons from throughout his career though. Definitely a must read.
Absolutely.
I’m one of those who has said that I’d rather have someone who will fight and lose than someone who will not fight, so I want to clarify what I mean. It’s not about purity or wishful thinking, and it’s definitely not about taking one’s ball and going home. I’ve seen this argument here a lot (for this race and also re: Berwick in the Governor’s race) that we are only interested in supporting purists, that we’d make the perfect the enemy of the good, and so on.
I’m not against compromise at all (and neither are the candidates I’m supporting). I’m against candidates who don’t show a willingness to fight on important issues or those who would compromise away an important policy before even beginning negotiations. Given Clinton’s history, I’m very worried that could happen (and also that she might be downright terrible on some issues).
In terms of Sanders’s career, he’s been sticking to his values and fighting, which is why he’s been very effective (and not at all anti-compromise), especially when it comes to areas where he could win important victories, like with amendments – and it’s why his colleagues on both sides say he is effective and well-respected and liked.
I, too, have great regard for Barney Frank and great respect for his opinion. Still, we sometimes disagree. Such is life.
Bernie Sanders reminds me of Barney Frank, especially when I watch video clips of each (I’ve not yet met Bernie Sanders face-to-face). Each is refreshingly candid, acerbic, and outspoken. Each demonstrates a deep appreciation for nuance and complexity. Each is very effective at staying on-message, especially in their interactions with the media.
Each has a long history of accomplishments, and each has occasionally stumbled (in my opinion).
Bernie Sanders is running for President. Barney Frank is not.
Personally, I enjoy the bluntness of people from that part of America.
I see some similarities between the two–though I’d Barney’s wittier.
I like a lot of what Bernie pushes for, especially for more equality, ending private prisons, a $15 minimum wage, respect for unions.
But I am really, really happy to see Hillary Clinton push hard for executive action to expand background checks on guns. Moreover, she’s opposed to TPP (which might help more Dems in the House vote against it–let’s hope the crazy Republicans decide to sandbag TPP too), so she’s listening to the people.
While I support Hillary because of her experience & stances, it will be an added bonus for the Democratic Party (the party where feminists are welcome!) to have a woman atop the ticket.
“I’d say Barney’s wittier.”
Bernie Sanders has a very long history of helping pass pragmatic legislation.
For example, he was no fan of the Affordable Care Act and is no great fan of it today, but he voted for it and still argues passionately in its favor today as a bill that at least did something.
Your comment is a great look at Barney Frank’s ideology and in favor of pragmatic progressivism, but it isn’t a good argument against Bernie Sanders.
so I discovered an autographed copy of “FRANK” — A LIFE IN POLITICS FROM THE GREAT SOCIETY TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE at my back door this summer when I retired from public service. It was signed : ” To Fred…Barney Frank”.
It came with a gold embossed note on Congressional stationary : ” Dear Fred — For some enjoyable retirement reading ! Best, Katherine ”
from my dear friend, Congresswoman Katherine Clark.
My take away is linked to the scene in Spielberg’s movie “LINCOLN” where the President argues for compromise to pass the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery with the radical Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, who wants to punish the South by confiscating white property and giving it to black voting farmers. Using the compass as a metaphor, Lincoln says : ” What’s the point of knowing true north if you ignore all the hazards along the way thus preventing you from reaching your destination ? ”
Progressives share the same vision of a more egalitarian world based on economic, social and political justice for all. Where we disagree is to how best to get there.
I agree with Lincoln and Barney that a steady, pragmatic, incremental approach yields the most progress and that is why I want to see Hillary Clinton elected President.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Um, I think it needs to be said that the policy of reconstruction that actually emerged from the process you describe was an unmitigated DISASTER that played as central a role in creating America’s deeply-rooted racial issues as slavery.
“Jim Crow” happened because of reconstruction. The mass migration of blacks from the South happened because of reconstruction. One hundred fifty years of lynchings, riots, police beatings, slums, and — most of all — relentlessly grinding poverty happened because of reconstruction.
It’s all well and good to talk of compasses and applaud artfully-constructed scenes in movies.
The “steady, pragmatic incremental approach” that America followed after the civil war produced an UTTER DISASTER that we are still struggling to recover from more than one hundred and fifty years later.
Perhaps reconstruction is not the best metaphor to use in promoting any candidate today.
…that it was the premature END to Reconstruction that caused the problems you cite. Reconstruction was designed to remind the South that we meant it in terms of the 14th and 15th amendments.
Historians have been debating reconstruction and the role it played in American history ever since it played out the way it did.
It is not a metaphor that I would choose for a candidate I support.
I was not re-litigating the Civil War and Reconstruction.
I WAS attempting to illustrate that proven diplomatic skills, experience and consensus building are necessary in order to reach an agreed upon political goal.
I believe Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy record as Secretary of State makes her uniquely qualified for the Presidency in a way none of the other candidates are.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
If our legislators focus on the wrong goal, or are too willing to accept short term “incremental progress” as “good enough”, then the outcome can be very very bad.
There are indications that Ms. Clinton would pursue an even more “muscular” ME policy than the policy decisions she helped implement as SoS. I see no evidence that such a shift would do anything but worsen an already terrible situation.
In my view, neither the outcome of Reconstruction nor, for that matter, the current situation in the Middle East is a good argument for electing Ms. Clinton.
between Sanders and Clinton. Philosophically, I feel closer to Sanders. I do think there’s an issue about electability; although, I confess that I’ve had a hard time putting my finger on it. I’ve always considered myself to be a progressive. HRC is certainly much more hawkish than what I want in a president, and I frequently get concerned about whether she’s really a progressive at heart or she simply takes progressive positions as a matter of political convenience. If I described my philosophy to someone and they said “you sound like a Democratic Socialist” there would be some truth to that as it concerns social programs and economic justice. But, as an employer and business owner now for decades, I’m a capitalist, too, and I believe in capitalism. But, we should be doing much more in this country to strengthen the safety net, and provide greater economic opportunity to the poor, working-poor, and middle class—this goes for tax structure, tax burden, health care, education, environmental justice. I think that on those large bore issues, Sanders is correct on much of it. Yet, it bothered me to hear Sanders say that he’s not a capitalist or doesn’t believe in capitalism. Do I know that someone who is a Socialist doesn’t believe in capitalism? Sure but it’s jarring to hear him say that. It attacks, to me, one of the central tenants of this country. Capitalism and the workers who execute it in this country have created the economy that makes us the wealthiest country in the world. I’m not sure that I want a president who doesn’t believe in capitalism. I want a president who believes in capitalism, but recognizes its weaknesses and shortcomings and takes steps to strengthen the social and economic fabric of society. I reserve my right to vote for Bernie when the time comes, but I see a philosophical issue that might create some electability issues for him.
It is not the same as Marxism, Communism, or pure Socialism where the state nationalizes every industry and obtains full property ownership. It is awfully close to a social market economy or New Deal liberalism, with minor differences. To quote the Catholic political thinker G. K. Chesterton-“The problem with capitalism is not too many capitalists, but not enough capitalists”, and I think that is where Bernie is focusing is energy.
Too much wealth at the top, power in the hands of too few, and a need to break up these modern trusts and rebuild the middle class. This is awfully close to the progressive project of Teddy Roosevelt, William LaFolette, and to the greatest extent the mid century liberalism of FDR-HHH. As Robert Kuttner has pointed out, on domestic issues, he is no more radical than Harry Truman.
My friends Fred and Joel Patterson support Hillary, my fiancee has moved into the undecided column within the primary but fully expects to vote for Hillary in the general. I am still 60% sure that is what I will be doing, but the odds have certainly moved in Bernie’s direction since the start of this race when I would’ve been 95% sure. I have a great respect for the more pragmatic tradition she represents within the party, for winning incremental victories and defeating radical right wing extremism. I really do, but social democracy deserves a chance in the mainstream. It is certainly less radical than libertarianism or whatever passes for ‘modern conservatism’ these days now that the inmates are running the asylum on the right.
kind of big in the United States. Just saying.
Yes capitalism is “big.” Is it virtuous, in your view? Not in mine. I see capitalism and corporations as amoral, and requiring firm restraints for the good of society.
If I understand you point of view, you believe in political democracy but socialist economy.
When you don’t explain what you mean, as when you say capitalism is “a big thing,” you make people try and figure out what you do mean. You didn’t answer the question I asked, in an attempt to understand you.
In the latest comment, you engage in your own making up of stuff, in order to fit me into your chosen categories. I believe in government serving the needs of the people before serving the needs of corporations. That does not mean I think we should nationalize industries; it means I think banks, insurance companies, and energy producers should not get to self-regulate or obtain exemption from regulation.
Sanders with a Marxist, or a Communist. I’m not sure what you mean by “pure socialism”—but Sanders isn’t a capitalist, and calls himself a Socialist, or Democratic Socialist. On the policies that he advocates, I agree on much of it, as I said. On social (not government, but social) ownership and control of the means of production, I think that you start to run into serious electability issues. I like him, may vote for him, think he’s added a ton to the race thus far and expect that he will continue to do so. But, if we’re explaining away his own label of himself (which has a dictionary definition), by saying that he’s not a “pure Socialist” then we may be missing an electability issue. Not for nothing, but at the end of the day, sometime around September 30, next year, some undecided voter is going to wake up from his summer haze in some purple state and say I need to decide if I’m with this guy Rubio, or this guy who calls himself a Democratic Socialist. If he goes to dictionary.com, and looks up the definition, he’ll definitely need someone as smart as you to explain to him why it’s not as bad as it sounds. These are the people who’ll decide the next election in a handful of states. Note: this is not an endorsement of HRC. She has her own issues. As usual, jconway, I agree with much of what you write in your response.
No conservative ever worried what some guy in a purple state thought of conservatism, they just ran with it, win or lose, they continue to run with it. Rubio has a position on abortion 15% of Americans agree with, a position on guns 10% of Americans agree with, and positions on gay marriage 35% of Americans agree with. Nearly 70% of Americans want single payer, nearly 70% of Americans are tired of corporate run elections, nearly 70% of Americans want to expand social security-the only place where draconian cuts are a ‘centrist bipartisan’ is somewhere between David Brooks’ head and Tom Friedmen’s behind. That’s it. Bernie is the first Democratic candidate in a long time to express the truths FDR and Truman believed in without any kind of waffling or equivocation. Even Dean when cornered retreated to his A+ rating and 8 consecutive balanced budgets. Bernie doesn’t give two fucks about pretending to be a moderate, he is running as a severe liberal and loving it.
Real Americans support the positions of Bernie Sanders, and are actually looking past labels. Coal country likes him, folks in Highland Indiana have invited me to a debate watching party, that place not only voted against Obama it voted against Bill Clinton twice. That is where we need to go, this defensive posture is a very 90s mentality that is simply outdated. Under 30 voters, who increasingly feel alienated from both parties have libertarian impulses on social questions and among that cohort, socialism is outpolling capitalism.
Not saying your concerns are invalid, I am saying liberalism is no longer a dirty word and socialism is not that far behind. The sooner Clinton embraces the reality that this is not her husbands party, the better.
Cuba is a socialist country, it is not a democratic one. Germany has a social market economy and is one of highest participatory democracies on the planet. So there is a distinction. I want Germany, I don’t want Cuba, and Bernie feels the same way. We ran a centrist and 45% of the country thinks he’s a socialist anyway, so what does it matter if we nominate a real one? He won’t lose any Democratic votes and he may actually be competitive in places like West Virginia, since he’s a class warrior rather than a culture one.
I never said that there wasn’t a difference. But, as defined, the difference is in how leaders are elected—not in economics. Germany is largely free market. I guess because of its social programs, it’s perfectly fair to call it “social market economy” and it’s certainly to the left of the US. I’m not accusing Sanders of wanting a system like Cuba, so please don’t throw that nonsense my way. Economically, I think that Sanders is more in line with Scandinavian countries, which I think are to the left of Germany. Again, I like him. My point is that he may have an electability issue. He won’t be competitive in WV, and he will lose some Democratic voters. Of course, he will generate turnout with a progressive base that could offset some loses. The question is does being a Democratic Socialist, and disavowing Capitalism create an electability issue that he cannot offset by turning out his own base of support.
the kinds of people he’s appealed to in Vermont for decades.
It’s actually one of the states that he has the best chances of playing well in that Democrats have been failing at for quite some time, if he continues to pick up steam.
But it’s nice they get to hear from a Democrat who actually has a jobs plan for a post-coal economy. Losing a real birthplace of unionization and one of the clearest examples of how neoliberal economics leaves so many behind us a real self inflicted travesty. And it’s not the solid south-that was a Dukakis state that gave Bill healthy margins of victory.
Remember the 50 state strategy? This guy does.
“No conservative ever worried what some guy in a purple state thought of conservatism, they just ran with it, win or lose, they continue to run with it.”
Remember “compassionate conservatism”—you don’t think that was designed to appeal to moderate voters in purple states?
In 2000 and 2004, remember ‘values voters’. It’s why McCain felt he had to pick Palin, there was more to gain consolidating the right than playing for the center and having his base stay home. Considering Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and won it in 2004, it seems playing to his base was the better strategy.
I am also making a broader point that conservatives are willing to lose an election or two if it advances the movement. George Will once remarked, Barry Goldwater won the election, it only took 16 years to count the votes (referring to Reagan winning in 1980). I am not arguing I support either their ends-I am arguing that we reacted to Reagan by moving or own party to the right, and we always seem to be stuck in a defensive posture where we are always playing for the middle and always making concessions on their terms.
And guess what? Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are already socialists in the eyes of half of the electorate, despite being centrists. So I say, if we are going to get labeled as far left and socialistic, we might as well welcome their hatred and earn it like Roosevelt did.
I would argue that Bernie or Hillary will have the same floor and the same ceiling as Barack Obama. The GOP is committing hari kiri and we are really wetting the bed over the socialist label? They called Obama a socialist and he won two elections, I am confident the next Democrat will likely win as well. So we should focus on who we think will be the best President, and there are good arguments that Clinton is better prepared, and good arguments Bernie has a better gut about the issues affecting America. This is why a debate and vigorous primary campaign is a good thing, but cowering in the corner worried about being labeled a socialist is exactly the opposite of what our party should be doing.
You can agree with a lot of things with anyone, doesn’t mean that they should be president. Don’t really know who I will vote for, but Bernie is off the list. How the F do you say No?
Are you saying you won’t vote for him because he denies being a capitalist? If so, why is that disqualifying?
but IMO a socialist economy not what I’m interested in. I’ve read a great deal of this baloney that people are shoveling that it’s not really socialist. BS.
USA is not pure capitalism, we have laws. Sanders has been trying to blur the lines to make it sound like he’s similar to Elizabeth Warren. He’s not.
I’m actually going to watch the debate even though I didn’t want to think about this until 2016. But at this point I have no candidate. Sanders might be better suited to run under a different party. I haven’t made up my mind but my hope is that he didn’t run as a Democrat for the wrong reasons.
Everyone supports some kind of mixed economy->regulations and a safety net are a form of social democracy, Europe just has more of that than the US and folks like Warren and Sanders are trying to bring America towards it-probably meeting it in the middle. But to argue Warren is a great defender of Democratic capitalism while Bernie is a radical outsider is an odd tack to take. He isn’t significantly more radical than Roosevelt or Truman-it is our party that lurched to the right and is finally rediscovering its values.
Sorry, but this exchange exemplifies the way that media (owned by the 1%) fragments opposition to the total domination of our economy by the 1%.
It’s a stupid question, intended to be polarizing, and Mr. Sanders gave a too-brief answer.
The word “Capitalist” is freighted with all sorts of garbage, and Mr. Todd knows it — that’s why he asked the question. Mr. Sanders treats his audience with respect, and gave a nuanced answer.
I view this as similar to questions like “Do you believe in God” — questions intended to produce lots of buzz and no content at all.
Grasping.
And it’s not like Wall Street or it’s prefered candidate is particularly popular right now. I really don’t get the bedwetting on this.
The word socialism isn’t.
This would have killed his candidacy in 1985, but not 2015. Not after 40 years of neoliberal pain inflicted on this country, with the Great Recession still fresh in everyone’s minds.
If he wins the primary and the Republicans try to crucify him for saying this, they’re defending Wall St. speculation and the Big Banks — while Bernie Sanders is standing for the people. Because he’s not afraid of the label, the label doesn’t hurt him. It’s never hurt him. Republican attacks on him for being a Socialist isn’t going to play nearly as well as you may think — they’ve been failing to hurt him for 25 years now.
And it certainly hasn’t hurt him during this election. Of the 60-70% of the population who even knows Bernie Sanders’s name, the media has spent a lot of time and effort into making sure they only know three and precisely three things about him: His name and that the’s a Socialist from Vermont.
And despite the fact that 30-40% of the population hasn’t heard of him yet, and that the rest only know his name and that he’s a socialist, he *still* polls as well as Hillary Clinton does in Republican match-ups.
People like the guy and trust him. He has a legion of enthusiastic supporters, and he’s very likely going to surpass Hillary Clinton in fundraising in this next quarter — almost all from small donors.
Boomers need to stop living in 1985 and join the rest of the world. “Socialism” isn’t a bad word anymore, Capitalism isn’t a “good” word anymore, and a Democratic Socialist can and I think will defeat any Republican the GOP puts on the ticket.
WaPo
Those 47% must want free stuff and the Dem nominee needs to appeal to the makers rather than the takers? Is that what you’re saying? Last guy who tried that tack didn’t do so hot.
but it’s dead last. See how it’s at the bottom of options.
So let me explain it to you, there was a comment on polling, so I added a poll which was reference a poll few months back, I did note that it’s older.
Are you with me. Let me go on.
I noted attitude might have changed, don’t know, hence the word might. See how that works?
Okay, you might be confused now, too much information. But from that you got that I’m a right wing nut.
Very impressive. Slow clap.
My point is, 47% is almost half of America and its the half that is largely in our party. We can win over the next 4-5% by being bold and focused on the future of capitalism-which requires significant reform and regulation-rather than stick with past policies that haven’t worked.
What we have today is too rigged to be called real capitalism, just like our Cold War adversaries had strayed too far from Marx to be true Communists.
insofar as people are free to do what they want, open up a business or so on and so forth. In fact, in many ways, it makes being an entreprenuer much easier — since if you’re in a country where the prevailing ideology is Democratic Socialism, you get free or very affordable higher education, health care and child care as a right of citizenship, and safety nets to fall back on in case it fails (whereas in the US, many people who would like to take a risk and start a business can’t because they have to worry about health care or child care, or simply don’t have the skills because they couldn’t afford the education/training — and no safety nets if it fails).
Democratic Socialism just makes sure that the free market works for the working and middle classes. America’s brand of capitalism, increasingly only works for the rich.
They set the policy to privatize profits and socialize their costs; they’re the ones who can afford education and start up costs; they’re the ones who can afford child care or health care while starting a new business; they’re the ones who can afford to fail.
So being a Democratic Socialist and supporting your right to enter into the ‘free market’ isn’t in any way mutually exclusive. Plenty of people are entrepreneurs in Norway, Sweden, France and Canada — all countries with more “Democratic Socialist” flavor. Democratic Socialism just ensures regular people have access to that free market.
—
There’s a lot of power in labels, and the right used the Cold War and the “Red Scare” to try to turn the word socialist into the American equivalent of Voldemort — a taboo to even say, never mind study and praise.
The Great Recession has dramatically changed that for people too young to remember the Cold War (these people already have a higher opinion of the word “socialism” than “capitalism” in polling today), and the increasing numbers of people who were born after it — but it’s still a word difficult to say and contemplate in many circles, including political leaders, most baby boomers and the donor class — who has a vested interest in the status quo.
Because of that taboo, Americans don’t really know what it is — and what it isn’t. It’s not Communism and doesn’t have to remotely look like Communism. It can in fact look a helluva lot like Capitalism, just like it does in much of the free world today. Democratic Socialism is a brand that looks particularly similar to capitalism, because the parts of capitalism that works for regular people is embraced by Democratic Socialism — while the parts that don’t can be tossed aside or regulated to make it work.
Things like health care, transportation, etc. work better as public services — and thus Democratic Socialism makes them public services. Things like Wall St. speculation and environmental policy can be hugely abused by the elites, in ways that hurt the common good — and thus are heavily regulated to ensure they won’t, or at least mitigate the damages.
But getting to choose your own field? Or starting a business? Democratic Socialism not only allows that, but gives people more freedom and opportunity to do it.
You don’t need to be scared of Democratic Socialism, and you don’t need to cling to Capitalism (which is almost as poorly understood as Socialism in this country because of how much it’s been propagandized and taught in dumbed-down ways by our elites).
…most of western Europe, which it should be noted were our allies in the Cold War.
No more a rock ribbed Republican than Ronald Reagan awarded Ben and Jerry Small Businessmen of the Year, and would he or his successors argue that Ben and Jerry are not exalted job creators entitled to their private property? Yet they are Feeling the Bern.