The state of the Democratic Party since the election seems to be one of unease. That may be putting it too kindly, though. Some of the fights that started during the primary are still smoldering, and some seem hotter than ever.
I don’t think that’s a bad thing. (I expect I will be in the minority holding this view.)
After a disastrous loss, casting blame is to be expected, and soul-searching is critical. What we have now is a continuation of what happened in the primary. It’s an attempt to answer a fundamental question – what kind of party should the Democratic Party be? I’ve missed not being able to have these debates here at BMG in recent weeks.
As the inauguration approaches it has become increasingly popular for pundits and various partisans to label those engaging in this kind of “infighting” as “part of the problem” or “why we lost” or any number of other epithets. I think they are wrong. These debates are healthy.
It also seems that those who most fervently want to move on from these debates are often the same people who most aggressively blame third party causes (Comey, Russia, even Bernie Sanders) for Clinton’s loss. They may cite Clinton’s popular vote victory as a sign that everything is alright, while conveniently forgetting that the Democrats control no branches of federal government and are even more decimated in most states. Something is seriously wrong, and it wasn’t just losing the 2016 Presidential race.
There are many hollow overtures about the need to “come together,” but I think those overtures are just that, hollow. The problem is that we don’t know what we’re supposed to be coming together to do. We know we need to fight Trump and the Republicans, but what should that fight look like and what kind of opposition party will the Democratic Party be?
Should it look like Hillary Clinton’s response to Trump’s victory or Elizabeth Warren’s? Will the party be largely aligned with corporate interests with a liberal slant on most social issues or will it be a truly progressive party with American families and the environment as the main focus? Will it be an unquestioning supporter of Israel’s actions and support a bill designed to condemn a Democratic President’s actions? Will it fight Trump with a better vision for the country or with “Make America Sick Again”? Will it align more with Chuck Schumer or with Bernie Sanders? Will we try to work with Republicans or try to undermine them at every turn? Will the resistance be real and organized or will it be fact-checking articles and responses to tweets?
Arguments about whether Bernie would have won won’t get us anywhere, but trying to stamp out debate within the party also won’t get us anywhere. In fact, it will probably get us to running with the same program in four years and in eight years (and maybe longer).
Today we see reports of what Clinton’s administration likely would have been. In an alternate reality it may have been different, but nothing on this list looks out of place. This list represents one vision of the Democratic Party.
I have concerns about many (including the billionaire in the Labor slot), but the fact that Sheryl Sandberg was anywhere near a shortlist for a cabinet position is deeply concerning, and I think important to consider when thinking about the direction of the party. Sheryl Sandberg’s career has three main acts – being Larry Summers’ Chief of Staff during the time he was instrumental in setting up the deregulated system for the 2008 crash, leading efforts at Google to bring us Adwords, and turning Facebook from a pure social network into an algorithm-based ad platform (I think we’ve learned pretty well how absolutely destructive that development has been). She’s no doubt incredibly smart and competent and I applaud her support of social causes and fighting for women and girls, but the core thrust of her career is little different than what one might find from a Goldman Sachs managing director. What is good for the world is certainly not the animating purpose.
Sandberg’s inclusion in any list for a cabinet position I think illustrates a pathology that has taken hold in elite circles – that smart, high-achieving rich people are best, regardless of the work they’ve done. This is especially important to confront now as we need to defeat Trump. Again, what kind of party will we be?
I think we need strong leaders with strong moral compasses who are willing to fight. What it comes down to for me is that being right is more important than being smart. Of course the best are both right and very smart, and there are many people like that, but will we choose to have them lead this party?
I think we still need to have this debate.
…between the two “wings” of the party than I do. What you seem to see as two sides I see as complementary rather than mutually exclusive.
In either cabinet. As the man said, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference in either party in too many areas crucial to the American working class. We can note that Steven Mnuchin is Trump’s pick for Treasury. Mnuchin “donated” to Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Bradley, Forbes, and Trump. (did anyone notice that “Sanders” is NOT on that list?)
Great post. Thanks. In particular, your point that “those who most fervently want to move on from these debates are often the same people who most aggressively blame third party causes (Comey, Russia, even Bernie Sanders) for Clinton’s loss.” I have to mention that prior to the primary, I was lectured by a Clinton backer that “I had better support the nominee” whereupon I told them that after I, as a Berwick backer was blamed for the Coakley loss, I was certain that I would be blamed for the Clinton loss. Sure enough, at a meeting after the huge loss suffered by the party, this individual brought out charts and graphs “proving” that a lack of support from the Sanders people cost us the election.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about the popular vote. It’s like a football game where your team loses 15/14 and you’re whining because “we scored two touchdowns, the crowd was cheering loudly for us, our GB had more complete passes, and all they did was score five field goals”…yup, and the score is 15/14. Get over it. You lost. And as long as you are losing, you are not going to be in a position to change the rules.
I’m currently debating my fellow Democrats as to whether we need to remain as we are, emphasizing Identity and Issues as our core, or do we try and broaden our base by becoming a party of values, values that remain simple and constant regardless of one’s physical identity or economic position? So far, I am getting more push back than interest, especially from those yelling about the popular vote and I tell them, we can win the popular vote again in four years, and with that, the states of Massachusetts, New York, California….and guess what? Trump wins a second term.
Trump winning is about as rare as a safety.
There was not enough time for the polls to reflect the effect of his Weiner laptop announcement. At least Clinton’s potential cabinet picks believe in the missions of their respective departments. I reject the football analogy. A game is a game and does not give a mandate chosen by the fans. It says the team was better at TDs than FGs, but every game starts as a 0-0 clean slate. From a political standpoint it is absolutely relevant to keep pointing out she won by 2.8 million votes, albeit badly distributed. The DUMB guy has no mandate and Dems should never forget it.
Sometimes it feels like a dysfunctional relationship tropes.
Acting “entitled” to voters affection/support, abusing and insulting them to keep the relationship going, blaming others for their own problems, etc.
I think you’re a bit harsh on Sandberg. I don’t know that much about her, but her path doesn’t seem all that different from, say, Deval Patrick’s. It is just a fact of life that presidents will gravitate to prominent, successful people, and that those people will have a lot of cash.
The party absolutely has two wings (and to Christopher’s point, they are complementary). One wing is now post-Clinton, and the effects will be unpredictable.
The debate is also definitely healthy, if we keep it healthy. Eyes on the prize and all that. One thing to notice: conservatives go after individuals a lot on their side (think Newt calling out people), whereas liberals tend to go after whole swaths of people vaguely (calling out the “loony left,” for example). We would do better to stick together, no rhyme intended.
Governor Patrick joined Bain Capital in 2015 and is a managing director of the Double Impact business. Bain Capital was founded in 1984 by Bain & Company partners Mitt Romney, T. Coleman Andrews III, and Eric Kriss…..
Sigh…..yup, her path is the same as Mitt’s…..and here we are.
… ??
It’s hard to take you seriously when you stretch a tenuous guilt by association past the point of credulity: Mitt Romney hasn’t had anything to do with Bain Capital since 1999 and Bain Capital’s “double impact” business was, in fact, created in 2015 precisely FOR Deval Patrick, specifically, to run sustainable and environmentally sensitive investments. Associating Deval Patrick today with what Bain did as late as 1999 would be rather like me associating johntmay with the talk radio he listened to in 1999…
Deval Patrick is doing exactly the kind of ”put your money where your mouth is” investment activism many progressives say they want. Why would we fight against that?
He’s not working for Greenpeace. Mitt has not been with Bain since 1999. And that means what, exactly? Who is making these investments? Where is the money coming from and who is befitting from the profits? Me? You? Ordinary working class stiffs? I’d be interested if that is true.
But as they say today “Look at the Optics”.
Mitt Romney worked at Bain, Patrick works at Bain, Trump appoints Treasury Secretary who “donated” to Clinton and Obama.
To a guy on the street, this is all the same crap, the same insiders, the same “Political Struggle Between Two Parties”…..that’s about as real as professional wrestling.
this doesn’t make any sense. Honestly, this is not rational.
If you are going to allege that all and every investment is irredeemably evil, we’re done. We have no common ground to engage and debate.
Choice is yours.
All and every investment is irredeemably evil.
Yup.
Please, I do not typically engage in hyperbole, so using that as your straw man is boring.
I said: Deval Patrick is doing exactly the kind of ”put your money where your mouth is” investment activism many progressives say they want.
To which you replied: it’s still investments
This suggests that, for you, there is no situation for which ‘investments’ is an acceptable and legitimate activity. How else am I supposed to take it?
It’s the whole rentier class, the rent seekers, the .01%. It’s people like Trump and his ilk, born into wealth and as Picketty explains, amass so much wealth under this system that ordinary working class people will never catch up, never be able to gain control of their governments.
Is all banking evil? No, of course not. Is living off investments evil? No, not in some cases, such as one I hope to enter in another six years.
But it’s this whole banking system delivered to us by neoliberals and conservatives that is the problem. It’s naked credit credit swap derivative futures contracts on short sale….(whatever that means)…it’s hedge fund managers paying a tiny portion of their wealth in taxes as they take no personal risk, add nothing to society, amass a fortune and tell us they are doing “God’s Work”.
It seems clear to me that Mr. Patrick, like so many of our elected leaders, has seen fit to leave office for greener fields and the revolving door continues.
He’s has experience as a civil rights lawyer. I’m sure he as enough money. Why not go the route of Jimmy Carter and work for Habitat for Humanity….unless it’s because that sort of thing does not pay well.
Can you really imagine him giving the infamous 47% speech?
Was he a friend of the working class? Can you cite actual results?
He championed a bill that expanded the number of charter schools in Massachusetts.
He legalized casinos.
…but don’t necessarily detract from progressive cred either. Would you have preferred Gabrieli or Reilly in 2006?
Ah, the standard “But it would be worse with a Republican” defense!
…and surely you know that Gabrieli and Reilly were the other DEMOCRATS in that race! Besides, Deval Patrick is a hard-core liberal according to one of my favorite go-to sites so you can stop your concern-trolling now.
I was not politically active at the time. Gabrieli and Reilly were the other DEMOCRATS…okay. Either way.
Deval Patrick is a hard-core liberal? Then we are in really deep weeds and may never ever win back Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Blackstone, Sagus, Plainville….
…of how he HURT the working class, and if so, how did MA AFL-CIO not get the memo?
Okay Massachusetts Working Class…VOTE Democratic because….there is no concrete examples where it has hurt you!
And remember, Donald Trump is a bad man, a very bad man.
Keep it up and Charlie stays in office and Donald gets another term.
Tax policy, marriage equality, certainly more progressive than Romney in so many ways. We are entering a dark time in this country. I for one could do without your perfect the enemy of the good attitude for Dems right now.
Did tax policy or marriage equality help the typical working family in Massachusetts? Did the gini coefficient change for the better under his leadership? Was poverty reduced?
…and I’m sorry I don’t have this at my fingertips, but you have to consider the alternatives. What I remember is that he proposed a progressive tax plan which the legislature shot down. We have some of the strongest efforts in the nation to alleviate the effects of income inequality from what I have read. Don’t forget, Labor LIKED casinos for the jobs they would create. Marriage equality was still a huge deal when he first ran. People like you were/are probably a lot better off here than in a lot of states, so unless you can name a specific candidate or state that is better you don’t have a case, especially since you once again separate yourself from the organized lobby for the working people.
again, I need more than “it would be worse with Republicans”. and if you are no expert, please stop with lines like Deval Patrick is a hard-core liberal /
….and provided a link with plenty of evidence.
Deval isn’t governor anymore and he won’t run for higher office again. Let’s focus on the future for once around here. He’s was great for a 2006 Democrat, but he’s not my first choice for 2020 in the highly unlikely chance he runs. He definitely won’t be on the ballot in 2018 while a progressive income tax and fair vote amendment will be.
In essentials unity, in non essentials liberty, in all things charity.
What are our essentials? Our first principles and non-negotiables? What are our non-essentials? The areas where we can be pragmatic and flexible and inclusive? How can we maintain charity with one another, with the diverse components of our movement? With our opposition? Where is it appropriate to fight and where is it appropriate to compromise?
These are the bigger picture questions we have to ask and have to stand on. For me our party has always been about fairness. Fairness means our working class shouldn’t pay the most in taxes and get the least in benefits. It shouldn’t do the dying in our wars while the elite in their enclaves are making all the decisions and are removed from facing the consequences. Fairness means nobody is too big to jail or too small to save. Fairness means you’re judged by your character and not the color of your skin, the name of your god, or your sex or sex.
That’s where I’d start the conversation. What say you?
n/t
but ” Fairness means you’re judged by your character and not the color of your skin, the name of your god, or your sex or sex.” ain’t going to cut it with our present party alignment.
….exchanging the word “fairness” with “justice”?
Let’s adopt Augustine’s axiom as our moral compass moving forward : ” In essentials unity, in non essentials liberty, in all things charity.”
Fred Rich LaRiccia
“Debating JTM”
I was hoping he’d lost interest during the outage.
It’s really very tiresome.
Are you not aware of where we are and how we got here? We now live in a nation ruled by a wealthy family whose patriarch surrounds himself with generals, stifles the press, and sees us as his enemy. We live in Ameristan and you want me to lose interest?
Quality over quantity is a good mantra for all of us on site and off.
and not judging others posts as being of poor quality?
…Treading (one hopes,lightly) upon merrimackguy’s province, I daresay the hoped-for loss of interest would be in respect to continually reshifting the same points without gaining some of the insight offered in response to those points. You dash off a response, somebody calls you on it, you reply with a shifting array of angry retorts and misdirection. That’s not debate. It is, however, tiresome… as has been mentioned.
I, and I dare hope others too, want to both learn from you and to help you learn. That is what allies do, and is the clean antidote to ‘infighting.’ So far, we’ve learned that you are angry, you don’t like rich people and that you seem to think the most oppressed and underrated strata of our society is ‘poor white trash.’ Many of us have responded to you directly on these issues and yet any response and/or respondents get little more than aggressive pushback from you unless what is said resonates with your anger and, frankly, prejudices and you re-cycle the arguments. Neither you nor I are helped by this cycle.
Yup, angry. Nope, don’t hate rich people. Never said that. I seem to think the most oppressed and underrated strata of our society is ‘poor white trash.’ Nope, never said anything even close to that.
Many of us have responded to you directly on these issues …yup, just as you did here, responding to things I have not said, attacking positions I to not take…and you want me to debate?
He diminishes even my casual enjoyment of this blog.
I learn from everyone by reading their posts, not just the information they provide, but I also learn how to frame my thinking or how I would debate an issue. I would say that my view of charter schools has changed significantly by reading this blog for example.
Once I see JTM has weighed in and people are engaging him, I stop reading. That might not matter to some, but I’m sure I’m not alone out here in thinking this, which is why I broached the issue.
Thanks.
Google “Jim Acosta net worth” and you’ll see he’s worth $2 Million.
Blog and let blog, I say.
It would be better for everybody if more people posted more often.
My new rule was entirely personal. Saying what I want to in fewer words and limiting my posts to places where I feel my voice offers unique insights is how I want to conduct myself going forward. And I’m going to try and avoid divisive commentary that relitigates the past.
Obama won’t be our president in a week, neither will Hillary nor Sanders. It’s incumbent on all of us to focus on obstructing as much of the negative agenda we see coming down the pipeline while proposing a positive one.
I was getting emotional driving home on Lake Shore Drive after McCormick Place had emptied and everyone had gone home. My wife reminded me that once Trump is President, he’ll have no one else to shift blame to or compare himself to. The buck will stop with him. He’ll have to console the country during tragedy and rise above politics to be head
The short version is, I’m going to try and post less frequently but hopefully more intelligently. And my wife’s insight is that once he is in the hot seat and the buck stops with him; it’s likely he won’t be teflon Trump for long.
I’ll just quote Sanders:
“When you lose the White House to the least popular candidate in the history of America, when you lose the Senate, when you lose the House, and when two-thirds of governors in this country are Republicans, it is time for a new direction.”
What is the NEW direction? That should be the focus, but it seems that too many here and there are not interested in a new direction. Could be pride, ignorance, habit, stubbornness….beats me.
I’m currently getting involved in Project 351, trying to expand the party base into towns that don’t even have a Democratic Town Committee. I’m marching into new territory. I’m going to need a message for these people. The old one did not win them over.
So yeah, I’m going to keep asking this group for answers, for a new direction.
It seems to just be re-posting recycled comments from the last 12 months, over and over again.