For the last ten years, it feels like we progressives have been waiting for a savior for the Democratic Party. Deval Patrick, who gave us an eight-year respite from Republican governors, offered a sort of salvation with one of the best campaigns in the last 30 years and an undeniable charisma.It was Barack Obama, marking the end of the Bush presidency, who really had true messianic appeal. As the anti-Bush, he was smart, cool, competent, and interesting. Shepard Fairey‘s iconic poster personified him as hope, and his opponents demonized him. Progressives saw someone true to their cause and backed him enthusiastically, only to find out that he was not the messiah, but a man, and a centrist man at that.
Now it’s Bernie Sanders. He’s pure, so pure that his disdain for the Democratic Party was articulated until he joined it a few months ago. He speaks the truth loudly, often angrily, and calls for a better future. He’s not afraid to speak it to power. Bernie is no savior, but he is a prophet. There are occasional prophets in politics, but never any saviors. Politics and government are a messy business involving too many people for true salvation. Nonetheless, many Bernie supporters treat him as the only solution to our national problems. If we can only get him into the Oval Office, a hard rain of progressivism will fall, washing corruption and inequity from the American streets. As essential as he is to transforming the Democratic Party, Sanders is far from sufficient. Also needed is a movement that extends beyond his candidacy, a movement that sinks its roots into deep down the ticket. And as much as some of his supporters deny it, the Democratic Party establishment is also essential.
Paul Starr’s article in The American Prospect The Democratic Party as Movement connects the dots between movement politics, their prophets, and the parties that eventually do the work. Movements and their prophets possess the energy and thought necessary for change, but parties provide the organization and money to affect policy and legislation and the direction of the country. Real change takes all of us.
In other words, movements aren’t enough.
…Their leaders have sometimes miscalculated and brought on their own defeat by driving out elements of the previous party coalition. Since movements bring new energy to parties and imperil old alliances, there is no general rule as to whether they lead to electoral success. They are indispensable to transformative change, but sometimes the transformations they bring about are not the ones they intend and come from victories they hand the opposition.
So…
…if progressives want large-scale institutional change, the prerequisite is rebuilding the Democratic Party under the presidency and animating it with a progressive agenda.
That is not what’s happening, however, at least not yet. If 2016 were a genuine transformative moment comparable to those in the past, we would be seeing a lot more than a contested presidential primary. We would be seeing more progressive candidates running for Congress and state government; indeed, some of those progressives would already have won office and used their states as “laboratories of democracy” to test out new policies. There are some examples of progressive innovation in cities, but not many in the states. Democrats with those ambitions have yet to show in significant numbers that they can win statewide office, carry out an expansive program, and—in the critical test—get re-elected.
It will take more to truly make the Bern felt in the Democratic Party. Sanders has been like an Old Testament prophet, speaking the truth, often angrily. But politics takes more than overturning a few tables in the temple; it requires working with the pharisees to reform society:
Throughout his career, Sanders has taken pride in not having anything to do with party politics. “Outsider” is his self-description in the title of his autobiography; for decades, he described Democrats and Republicans as Tweedledee and Tweedledum. As recently as 2013, he told The Progressive magazine, “I am not a Democrat.” The writer Ignazio Silone once said the crucial political judgment is “the choice of comrades.” Sanders has had his comrades, but they haven’t been in the Democratic Party. He initially planned to run in 2016 as an independent for president, but in an interview on MSNBC on March 14 he said he became convinced to run as a Democrat because of the media coverage he would get. “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party,” Sanders told Chuck Todd.
That history of not just standing apart from the Democratic Party but frequently denouncing it helps explain why Sanders has had so little support from elected Democratic leaders. On a practical level, they owe him nothing. He hasn’t raised money for Democrats, and the same arguments he uses against Hillary Clinton for her fundraising would apply to most of them, too.
The Democratic Party needs Bernie Sanders as much as Bernie Sanders needs the Democratic Party. Many of us realize this. Hillary Clinton realizes this. It’s less clear that Bernie understands this. It’s even less clear that enough Bernie supporters understand this. The presidency is not enough, and as Starr writes, “The hopes that ride on presidents are destined for disappointment if there isn’t a party capable of carrying them to fruition.” Our success as liberals, the success of the progressive agenda, depends on integrating the movement that has developed from Sanders candidacy.
There will be tension. There will be resistance. But we need to get real. Sanders’ jeremiads have great appeal and tell important truths, but speaking the truth is not enough. A better world doesn’t spring from a new orthodoxy alone. Correct belief is not enough. We live in a material world, not a world of ideals. The Occupy Movement was prophetic, providing us with a vocabulary for inequality, but to endure it would have had to join electoral politics. And that’s the question for Sanders and his supporters:
how the model of the Sanders campaign could work as a strategy for party rebuilding on a national scale. The party undoubtedly could use the grassroots-organizing capacity the Sanders campaign has developed. But winning national elections does require raising a lot of money. If money weren’t a factor in the outcome of elections, campaign finance wouldn’t be something to worry about. Sanders’s purism on campaign finance—no super PACs, no big financial donors—can work in states like Vermont with low-cost media markets and in congressional districts with lopsided Democratic majorities. It might even be enough to win a presidential nomination, thanks to all the free media coverage. But it is not feasible in most congressional and statewide elections. Candidates who follow that approach are likely to be outspent by a wide margin, and the difference will doom many of them. That’s why most Democrats who want to reverse Citizens United and see more public financing have nonetheless decided to work within the regime the Supreme Court has established.
But, as a lapsed Democrat, I admire Bernie for his stands on Universal Medicare and income inequality. Do you think that Hillary will really want to or be able to move the progressive agenda forward? I see the “purism” not as a negative but as a desire to be honest and straightforward with people. And this year that is what most independents and middle class voters want.
progressive agenda. I think it’s a mistake to think she is the same person politically speaking as she was twenty years ago. I don’t think the’s the same person she was politically speaking as she was 15 years ago.
Leaders follow as much as lead. This is as true for Bernie as it will be for Hillary. I think Hillary has the political chops to get things done.
…more progressive 20 years ago than given credit for too, and as I recall generally seen as to the left of Bill.
Political chops….she picked the easiest state to run for US Senate, and won. That’s it. That was her victory. She totally blew the 2008 race against Obama when all along she was the favorite and now, she is being threatened by a 74 year old guy from Vermont who few have ever heard of, and he has the momentum to win in her “home state” of New York.
In political campaigns, she has at best, a 50/50 record.
Yes, she is “running to the left now”, but only because she is afraid of losing again, not because she believes in any of it. Or maybe she does believe in it but positioned herself against it because she though that was the way to win more votes. So she was against it, then for it, now against it but tomorrow is another day.
She wins one election. One. Her role as Secretary is equally unimpressive, backing TPP as the gold standard, now against it. And then there are the Panama Papers….
Political chops?
namely, that parties aren’t enough either. (Based on what you’ve said perhaps you agree.)
My biggest criticism of Sanders is that he may be, as you say, a prophet, but he is not much of an organizer. Revolutions, political or otherwise, need organization to crystallize and focus the energy of the moment, or the movement passes leaving a sort of fevered dream in its wake.
It’s not the failing I would have expected from a pragmatic sewer socialist who is not afraid to get his hands dirty.
Maybe I’ll be proved wrong, which would be great.
We need the prophets, the movements/organizers, and the party. Parties provide organization and money. The GOP’s strength up until now has been strong movements driving a party willing to serve them. The movements are now less influential (ex. religious right), and the party establishment has lost influence with what is left. Until this year, we haven’t had any sort of movement driving Democrats since (ugh) the Third Way .
Remember, the 1956 Republican platform is well to the left of anything Bernie Sanders is proposing. The 1856 Democratic platform is well to the far right of anything Donald Trump or Ted Cruz are proposing. The two parties have existed in tension for centuries and flip flopped and reversed their positions on every issue imaginable to win votes, cease power, and provide patronage to their patrons.
We must never forget this is the prime function of parties. Nowhere is this clearer than in Massachusetts where the state level Democratic party exists as an incumbent protection union without any regards to opposing the corporate agenda of our center right governor or actually passing a progressive agenda it theoretically has the votes to achieve.
I think we have to work locally, rather than nationally, to make Massachusetts into a real model of small d democratic government, small p progressive government, and big H honest government. I am proud to be part of a movement seeking to do that, but it definitely feels lonely sometimes. We need members, we need volunteers, and we need money like anyone else. I strongly suggest this is a platform where progressive should invest their time and energy after the dim of the convention lights die down. This is our moment.
But movements are needed and not having one is what got us here. Electing leaders whose only bold promise is to maintain the status quo with maybe a few tweaks along the line (because doing otherwise is just a dreamers theory that will never, ever happen) leads to voter apathy, especially among the young. I disagree wholeheartedly that Bernie (and his supporters like me) does not believe that the Democratic Party needs Bernie Sanders as much as Bernie Sanders needs the Democratic Party. He aims to save the Democratic Party from what it has become and where it is headed. American is a two party system, that is plain and clear, for better or worse.
But what is it about the Democratic Party that he needs? Does he need the financial connections to Wall Street donors? No. Does he need the inside connections with health insurance corporations? In short, does he need the “third way” element that has delivered boatloads of cash and $225,000 “speaking fees” to our candidates, incestuous relationships with Wall Street; so entwined as to blur the difference between the two? No. This Third Way, while a source of fortune for some of our candidates, only alienates those of us at the grass roots and blurs the distinction between our candidates and those of the Republican Party. But what is it about the Democratic Party that he needs? He needs the roots; not the roots into Wall Street, the roots into the people. Not knowing the difference is what got us here today.
Bernie criticizes Hillary for all of the fundraisers she does. What he either doesn’t know or doesn’t say is that she gets a fraction of the money at many fundraisers.
…she is a team player raising money for other Democrats, which I like presidential nominees to do.
I know this isn’t the main point of the diary, but the issue of Sanders being angry is one of the strangest subplots of this campaign.
If anyone talks about HRC being angry, the responses range from accusations of sexism to various justifications of why she has every right to be angry. And for the record all those responses are correct.
But why is it an issue that Sanders gets or sounds angry? It’s a really curious double standard.
..I like the promotion comment’s “charismatically grumpy”.
Than any of the Republicans. As Sanders said so well.
To the article: One of Obama’s many disappointments is his failure to transform his impressive 2008 online effort into a permanent lobby for progressive action: all the fight went out of Obama for America when it became Organizing for America. Interestingly, a similar thing happened with the Patrick campaign’s online efforts: impressive during the elections and then … a fizzle. I hope that doesn’t happen to Sanders’ online posse.
Agreed. I was an independent when I first voted for Obama. I decided to remain an independent on the notion that “What’s the difference, I live in Massachusetts and no matter what, Democrats win. Why bother to get involved to a greater degree?”
Then came Scott Brown.
It was clear to me then that Massachusetts Democrats were losing the populist vote. I thought I could help in that regard. I’m the quintessential blue collar guy, the same guy that overwhelmingly voted for Brown. Heck, Brown took the union vote!
The posse is not going to rally around an establishment candidate in a way they did for Brown and then Warren. If Clinton wins the primary, yeah, sure, I’ll fill in the oval next to her name on the ballot. But the independents? I don’t think so. What’s in it for them? Trump offers something. He’s full of crap, but to the casual voter who’s pissed off about nothing going on, hell, why not vote for Trump? If it’s Clinton versus Ryan, the independent stays home, believing that the game is rigged. We all know what low voter turnout means. I recall sitting in a meeting where the Coakley supporters were blaming the Berwick supporters for not doing enough for their candidate. I replied, we voted for her, what more did you want?
John, that the party’s spin on why Coakley lost was activists and especially Berwick supporters. I had no desire to go door to door for Coakley after Berwick lost but I did it anyway. There’s only so much you can fake in enthusiasm and effort. The writing was on the wall already that Coakley was going to have a tough time. I was told by at least 15% of the voters I talked to that they weren’t going to vote for Coakley no matter what. I did my level best to promote her, even though I thought her platform and her message were less than inspiring. To get blamed for her loss on top of that is pretty insulting.
I fear we misinterpret Martha Coakley’s loss. I encourage folks to examine the polling over the course of her campaign. I think we’ll find that:
1. Martha Coakley was an unpopular choice to begin with (in the general electorate)
2. Her campaign, in fact, did a magnificent job of building support for her throughout the campaign season
3. The final results, in the general election, were FAR closer polling in the early stages of the campaign would suggest.
Against that backdrop, there is little evidence that Berwick supporters harmed her candidacy (sadly, there is precious little evidence that Berwick supporters had any measurable effect on anybody anyplace, but that’s a different thread).
If there is a takeaway from the Martha Coakley gubernatorial loss, it is that modern and effective GOTV efforts combined with smart campaign tactics allowed an unpopular candidate and mediocre campaigner to very nearly win against a popular and well-known GOP opponent.
I certainly hope that by the time of the general election, and if the GOP nominee is Donald Trump, the Democratic nominee — whomever it is — will ensure that “the casual voter” has a LONG LIST of responses to the question of “why not vote for Trump”.
If the independents who have leaned towards the GOP in the past few elections stay home, and the independents who have leaned towards the Democrats show up, then a “low voter turnout” election might mean that Democrats retake the House and Senate.
I don’t know about anybody else, but here are my biases:
– I WANT the GOP base to stay home.
– I WANT the “independents” who have been voting Republican to stay home
– I WANT the Democrats to put forward a nominee who will attract the Democratic base.
– I WANT the Democrats to put forward a nominee who will attract independents who have been voting Democrat
I think that if those four things happen, we Democrats win the Oval Office, the House, and the Senate. That’s good enough for me.
Rand Wilson and the UMASS for Bernie group are just some of the Bay Staters hitting the pavement in Wisconsin. Hillary absolutely needs them to win a general and she should do her best to reach out to them.
perhaps a President! Could now be Bernie’s moment?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrsI0Sw2hq8
But yes, we must all, together be our country’s Saviors.
Progressives are starting to take on establishment candidates. Tim Canova is taking on Debbie Wasserman Schultz and just raised $500K for his primary, and there are several other instances of progressives taking on establishment candidates. What Mr Starr misses is that this is starting to happen.
There are several movements like the fight for $15 and BLM which are moving public policy in a very progressive direction on the state level. Did anyone think corporate Democrat Andrew Cuomo would embrace a $15 minimum wage? Hell no.
Many of us Bernie supporters are displacing status quo Democrats who were fine with Reagan and Clinton. Quite frankly, much of the local Democratic infrastructure has been asleep at the wheel.
There’s no question that the revolution has to be more than the Sanders candidacy. My argument is that it already is. We’ll see if it has the kind of staying power to make a real difference.
Bernie folks should take over DTC’s or join the UIP or at least campaign for our candidates. The Republicans aren’t the problem in this state, it’s the massive number of Democrats who run the legislature and are bought and beholden to special interests. I talked to a Cambridge city official yeserday morning frustrated with her party registration and the lack of energy there is in this state to innovate in government. West Virginia (!) just passed automatic voter registration and Galvin’s office had to be dragged into online registration just a year and a half ago.
There are many fine progressive activists, many of them contributors here, working to be part of the solution. But we all have encountered many more content with the problematic status quo. It’s time to act locally, whether it’s by organizing an alternative party as I am or actually working to pressure legislators to do a better job. But let’s stop making excuses for them, and actually work to change the situation on ground right here in the bay state.
Jconway, please post a list of your candidates, where they are running and a contact point so folks here can offer their energy during the important early days of the campaign season.
DWS is odious. Cuomo is worse, but I agree, he’s seeing the future.
One problem with parties is that the get asleep at the wheel. Much of what makes them effective–providing a stable electoral infrastructure–can easily become stagnant. Movements shake things up. It can be tense and annoying, but it’s necessary.
My father is a healthy 82 years old. He reads the blogs and watches the news. He has been saying for a few years now that eventually things would hit a tipping point. We may be at that point.
I don’t recall Bernie or any significant number of my fellow supporters expressing that sentiment – can you provide some links?
Bernie’s been clear, and his supporters seem to concur, that it will require a larger revolution to un-@#$& America, and that we’ll need to work for that. But with Bernie at the helm, there is hope. He has shown good judgement for decades on issues ranging from war to civil rights to unlimited government spying. Although he’s excoriated for it by some folks, he calls it like it is and will boldly point out that the naked emperor isn’t wearing clothes.
After three decades of Third-Way Democrats who have – at best – not stopped the awful assaults against the 99%, it’s time to try to stop the assaults.
I don’t think that either Bernie or most of his supporters have indeed acknowledged what is needed for this “larger revolution”. So far it is nothing more than rhetoric. You don’t like establishment Democrats? Fine. I don’t either, but who are you going to replace them with and how? Are you going to take over the existing Democratic party or create a new one? In either case, what concrete steps have been taken to accomplish that?
It’s the central message of the campaign, including this comment. How else shall we understand your final paragraph?
The point you miss is that if the larger revolution happens — a vision shared by most progressives — then either Mr. Sanders or Ms. Clinton will do well. If the larger revolution doesn’t happen, then electing Mr. Sander’s won’t help.
In the absence of the “larger revolution” (which, by construction, has never happened before, otherwise we would not call it a “revolution”), then having someone who CAN at least slow the awful assaults against the 99% is crucial.
Bernie=revolution. Bernie will take care of it. I agree almost 100% with what Bernie says when he identifies problems, but I have serious doubts about his ability to get things done. What has he accomplished in 30 years besides get re-elected? He’s not a light-weight, and he’s infinitely better than any of the GOP, but as President, he’s in way over his head.
Any of us could point of out the problems. You can. I can. He’s got the pulpit, and I’m glad he’s pointing them out. The problem is, Bernie doesn’t know very much more about the problems than you and I. His solutions are skin deep. Break up the big banks. Sounds good. But how? The New York Daily News asked him. He had no clue. He also knows bupkis about drones. And Israel.
Bernie has suffered and benefited from minimal press coverage. The lack of coverage prevents a better, fairer hearing of his message, but it also prevents serious questioning and criticism.
Want to read about how much he doesn’t know? Read this interview carefully.
I read the hubbub about the interview and then read the interview. The hubbub makes a lot less sense after.
That’s the general coverage of the interview, but not that accurate. It takes legislation. That’s what he said. Could he be clearer? Of course. Does he fundamentally misunderstand the issue? Not at all.
Here’s Peter Eavis with a different take in the NYT.
Or Mike Konczal at the Roosevelt Institute. Or Dean Baker.
The typical headlines of “Sanders can’t explain how he would break up banks” is a stretch, but makes for more controversy and more clicks.
How the breakups would be specifically implemented doesn’t seem that relevant or something that a candidate for President should be expected to have detailed plans on – it’s akin to asking Obama how to set up state health insurance exchanges. Sanders should have a more thought out answer on the contours of the new banks, like capital limits, types of activities, etc. but those also make more sense to be developed when you have the policy-making infrastructure of an administration and agencies at your disposal to create the implementation plan.
I’m not bullish on Sanders’s “revolution” sweeping these policies into practice. I do, however, like that he’s been a successful operator and incrementalist in Congress for decades. (No, he doesn’t have major major legislative accomplishments to his name, but neither does Clinton, and neither does anyone except for those in powerful committee positions, which Sanders wouldn’t have largely given his party issue). In terms of passing anything, Sanders and Clinton face the same issues, but only Sanders gets dismissed. Clinton’s more moderate agenda would still be facing a GOP congress (at least the House) full of people that full-on hate her. The simple answer of “we’ll compromise and get things done” seems fine as her answer, but would be unacceptable for Sanders’s.
On the revolution front, we have seen revolutions, and we’re seeing one right now! In 2012 a couple hundred fast food workers walked off their jobs to protest for a higher minimum wage. Two days ago the governors of California and New York signed legislation in their states to increase the minimum wage in their states to $15. That’s a grass roots revolution. Only one candidate supports it.
I admit, I’m not confident that Sanders can bring the revolution to action and make these changes happen. I am confident that Clinton can stifle any chance at a revolution and face just as many challenges getting a more moderate agenda enacted. It’s a risk versus the status quo. I’m pushing for the risk.
Both Eavis and Konczal’s pieces state that Sanders knows what do to, but imply that he hasn’t spoken well. He may, in fact, know what needs to be done, but it’s puzzling that he couldn’t really explain it. With some careful analysis, Eavis and Konczal basically say the believe Bernie knows what needs to be done, and imply that he doesn’t communicate it well. Konczal characterizes Bernie’s answers as “some fairly normal answers on financial reform.” Eavis says, “Mr. “Sanders is mostly cogent here.” The words “mostly” and “fairly” are embarrassing in my opinion. Sanders may indeed know what he’s talking about, but he does a lousy job talking about it. I like Baker’s stuff generally, but he’s more interested in “Beating the Press” here.
Taibbi’s piece, I think, is good. I didn’t know about his use of amendments. He doesn’t need his name on a bill to be effective. Mostly due to certain Bernie supporters, I’ve been getting sick of him. Like you, I like and respect the operator and incrementalism in him. I also respect your support of him. I’m in favor of Clinton, but I don’t think Sanders supporters are wrong.
I’ll just say that I strongly believe the status quo is off the table for all candidates. It’s too early to tell, but I think things have changed. The change may destroy the GOP.
I have been surprised by the Sanders campaign’s failure to focus earlier on his amendment strategy. He has been extraordinarily successful at it for his career. Generally in legislative bodies, an amendment strategy is the way for independent player and tiny minorities s to gain the most ground. Sanders has played the game well, but one of the most common attacks against him by HRC and the media is that he has not gone anything done.
It is a big problem for Tad Devine to turn that malodorous charge around so late in the game.
….that he will have very long coattails, both for fall primaries and the general election for Congressional seats. However, it is Clinton who is headlining high-dollar fundraisers to help other Dems and the Hill Committees. Sanders not only hasn’t done that, but sees what she’s doing as yet another example of the money problem in politics. I say if a nominee wants coattails, and either of them would be better served by a Dem Congress, then said nominee has to help make it happen.
Sure he condemned those who believed in evolution, backed the Paris Treaty which made us an imperial power, and refused to condemn the KKK at the 1924 Dem convention, but gosh darn-it, he fought big banks!
OR how about Estes Keffauver, Eugene McCarthy, Jimmy Carter or…OK i see your point.
Although, LBJ, through pragmatism rather than idealist completely reoriented the party by embracing civil rights.