[Warning, long post]
As referred to by Hester, there’s a very clearly-stated and fair-minded article at the Guardian, describing the left and left-center divide in America. It is evident here at BMG; on social media with its argument-by-meme dopamine highs; in the Boston mayoral election; in parallel opinion outlets; at the DNC itself. The wound has not been cauterized.
This moment requires discernment: To let Trump and the enabling GOP retain power is unacceptable. We mustn’t let our grievances with each other on the left-of-center outshine the necessity of winning power in 2018. We already let it happen, and now we’re living the consequences. (Given Trump’s willingness to smash what’s left of a functioning constitutional democracy, with GOP assistance and consent, we may already be too late: Wait for the fallout of tomorrow’s arrests.)
So this is not a time for anyone to be smug or engage in told-you-so’s, or to assert without evidence that only we’ve got the winning formula for victory. Every minor factor was the deciding factor in such a close election. We. All. Lost. Big time.
I’ve been quite worried about this divide going back since before the primaries, because of the harshness of tone towards Hillary from the left (“#NeverHillary” et al), even as I agreed with many of their substantive points. My bewilderment was evident in my “endorsement” of Hillary Clinton. I’m probably closer ideologically to the Bernie wing; I’m no “centrist”. I certainly don’t oppose an assertive left wing in the Democratic Party.
But I want them to get it right — to think strategically, constructively, and relationally; to build coalitions where possible; to challenge in primaries as necessary; and to take yes for an answer from legacy Democrats when it’s offered. In short, to play to win, not merely to oppose — either in the form of electoral wins (leading to policy wins), or in the form of concessions from electorally viable leaders.
Like former MassDems chair John Walsh, I enthusiastically approve of “rock-em, sock-em” primaries. This is not energy or money wasted on internecine warfare; it is a training ground for messaging, fundraising, and organization. Especially in off-year elections, the left may well be correct that elections are won by motivating the base. The mere existence and size of a Bernie Sanders wing in the Democratic Party suggests that there’s a left flank waiting to be summoned. Primaries can test that hypothesis. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
And as Pete Davis frames them, the leftist critiques of the Democratic Party are poignant indeed. They ought to make rank-and-file party loyalists squirm. Hillary Clinton, along with many other Dems, voted for the Iraq War and was slow to come around to apologizing for it; she was too close to Wall Street; she cheered the expansion of the incarceration state in the 1990s. And more recently and regrettably, new DNC chair Tom Perez has apparently replaced left-wing members with lobbyists. I may not be a card-carrying member of the Bernie wing, but there sure ain’t no Harold Ickes wing.
There’s much more where that came from: It is nine years after the start of the Great Recession; the middle class has been crumbling for two generations; and we are well and truly a multi-cultural society. Reconsideration of political norms from (say) 1972 to 2004 is due, and the left is doing it. They say “things are different now”, and they may well be right. (The MA Senate’s passing of Criminal Justice Reform is an example of actual fruit of this re-evaluation; these were ideas that would have been mocked as “bleeding heart liberal” not all that long ago, and which are now common sense.)
But what tools to use? The threat of withholding support might well be an effective tool to make the Party move left. Experience shows that is far easier to make Democrats lose than to get progressives into office. But as we’re seeing, there’s a tremendous cost to substituting practically any Republican for even a mediocre Democrat.
The leftist wing proposes an energetic role for government — single-payer health care; prosecution of financial crime; minimum basic income; aggressive steps to curb greenhouse gases; and so forth. What is this if not establishment? And establishing things — through coalition-building and the inevitable compromises, before and after elections, is harder than tearing things down.
Today’s leftists I think correctly view politics as combat. This springs out of a response-in-kind to the GOP’s scorched-earth mentality, now being applied to decimating the federal government itself. The left rejects Obama’s futile attempt at “post-partisan” politics; and his community-organizer’s respect for accepting the presence and influence of certain constituencies — austerity scolds, Wall Street interests, and so on. His temperament was to play it as it lies: He was managerial and conciliatory, not confrontational and transformational in the face of an onslaught of right-wing money and media-ideological power.
But each side has its story, its rationalizations. Why is there a Democratic establishment that acts this way? Those who are living the shock waves of the 2008 Great Recession but may not remember the 1972,1980, 1984, and 1988 elections, will have little sympathy for an accommodationist, mealy-mouthed Democratic Party. But legacy Democrats see themselves as managing (at least) three essential problems:
- Campaign finance, particularly in the post-Citizens United era, which requires vast amounts of money to counter the deluge from the Kochs et al. (The Kochs have been quite focused on state legislatures, for instance — with devastating results.) The money has to come from somewhere and somebody — and bundlers are standing by.
- The assumption that the United States is at its heart “center-right” nation, based on the pre-1992 electoral results.
- The assault on structures that provide the infrastructure for the Party and progressive politics generally — particularly unions. Scott Walker’s attacks on public employee unions in Wisconsin, and the recent charter-school ballot issue in Massachusetts are two such examples: Destroying unions is politics by other means.
These habits of thought exist because of bitter experience, not merely because of cowardice and ulterior motives (though neither does it exclude those). People don’t want to lose forever.
And since 1992, Democrats have won the popular vote in six out of seven presidential elections, even as they lost Congress except for a brief post-Iraq interregnum 2006-2010. It’s not an overstatement to say that it is the fluke of our idiotic Electoral College that led to the Iraq War; Samuel Alito, John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court; and the open sewer of the Trump presidency.
Dems have been cheated by GOP bad faith, Russian skullduggery, and plain-old terrible, terrible luck. (Red Sox fans of a certain vintage know what that looks like.) Recent history would be far, far different with the proverbial flap of a butterfly’s wing.
I cannot improve upon Davis’ conclusion here — it’s exactly what I’ve been thinking:
These political tribes have their benefits. They help draw people into politics, bring people together and give members purpose. But political tribalism can also be hazardous. At its worst, it creates enemies out of neighbours, turning complex people into “sell-outs” or “purists”. Tribes trick us into thinking that political participation is about being well-versed in tribal rhetoric – say, being able to list the correct takes on past inter-tribal skirmishes – rather than about pursuing tangible goals. They encourage confirmatory, self-validating thought, rather than the exploratory thought that helps our politics stay aligned with reality. The focus that comes with tribalism can lapse into myopia, such as when some liberals can see Trump’s wickedness regarding immigration so clearly, but were unable to support immigration activists protesting Obama; or when some leftwingers can see the corporate corruption of Democrats so clearly, but fail to articulate the massive gap in corruption between the two parties.
A final danger of political tribalism – one specific to the intra-party divide – is that it is a danger to the coalition-building required to gain power through electoral politics. If a party coalition is divided against itself come election day, it may not stand. And if the coalition loses, both tribes lose. And with each passing of month of Trump’s presidency, the stakes get higher.
Davis suggests an ethic of “vigorous critical loyalty”:
And finally, by agreeing from the start that everyone, no matter their level of criticism during ordinary time, is fully on board to support the party when general election time comes, concerns about party loyalty are reduced. All intraparty fights are tolerated – and even encouraged – because everyone can trust that we will be unified when it counts.
Vigorous critical loyalty presumes that people can change, and that there is a potential to re-integrate the left and liberal tribes. As issue campaigns gain support from current party leaders and improbable primary challengers become party leaders, party sceptics become more loyal, while party loyalists start showing loyalty to leaders and issues formerly seen as heretical.
Solidarity, to each other, must be the motto. We get caught up in loyalties to candidates and figureheads, cults of personality; to ideologies, modes of analysis (class vs. race, eg); a particular set of language or jargon words; or to a single issue. Solidarity is the only thing that has ever won us the things we need. Even as we struggle with each other, we only ever have each other.
I think this was a very measured and well thought out reflection on two similarly handled reflections from Hester and the Guardian piece. I hope we can all use this as an opportunity to reset and recommit to working with one another on what we have in common and ways to move forward. Such a commitment is needed for this blog to function better and remain relevant. Such a commitment is needed for our broader community in grassroots to work together on where we need to go.
Solidarity is not easy with a membership of individuals each with their own issue or issues. I’ve been criticized on BMG for being a “single issue voter” and I corrected that by saying I am a two issue voter. As I reflect on that, it’s still a division within the party. It still says that I care about working class wages and health care……..but many take that to say that I do not care about GLBTQ issues or women’s reproductive rights issues. In the same way, I call out the chairman of the state party for rallying about those two issues and not caring about my two issues.
If we are issues voters, there is no chance of solidarity.
Our only chance at solidarity is by becoming a party of values. Values can cover a broad range of issues and not be in competition with each other.
What are the values of the Democratic Party in Massachusetts and the United States of America that we can all embrace and reach solidarity?
To answer your last question I think our values should be and largely are to stand up for those who often have no voice: racial, religious, and sexual minorities, as well workers. To me this has always been the broader theme which is why it has always baffled me that fighting for workers and fighting for minorities are seen by some to be mutually exclusive.
Okay, what is that value? What is it that excludes people from having their voice heard?
I join in you in your call that we address working-class issues and single-payer government sponsored health care. That has NEVER been my quarrel with you.
The reason I criticize you for not caring about other issues, including GLBTQ or women’s reproductive rights, is that each time those come up here you argue loudly and, in my view, dishonestly against them. You have, for years, accused me of writing things I have never written and of being someone I am not.
When we want solidarity with black and Hispanic voters, then we cannot dismiss their concerns each time they are raised. Blacks have been more affected by the on-going class warfare than whites. When out-of-control police go on brutal violent killing rampages, it is blacks they maim and kill, not whites. So if we want solidarity with blacks, then I suggest that we middle-class whites must direct the first fruits of any victories we obtain in the class war to go those blacks who have suffered so much more than us for so much longer.
Similarly, if we want solidarity with women then we must not dismiss their concerns when they are raised. Massachusetts recently passed legislation demanding equal pay for equal work. You argued frequently and loudly against it. If we as a party take up your call, then we drive away women who face wage discrimination here in Massachusetts — that is, essentially, EVERY woman who lives in Massachusetts.
I quarrel that you distort my words, misquote me, put words in my mouth, and demonize me. I am no more a “wall street sellout” than you. You’ve done that for years, and I find it rude and offensive.
If we are to attain solidarity, then I think we must be much better at listening to ALL of us. We must be much better at acknowledging our faults.
When we are talking to someone whose children are at risk from being beaten up by out-of-control cops on their to or from school, I suggest that we must be willing to hear that THEIR pain is those out-of-control cops. They care MUCH more about BLM, and about our response to BLM then what our white suburban colleagues discuss at the coffee machine in the break room.
When we are talking to a woman who has been an “acting director”, and has just watched a male colleague be named as “director” in that same role — and pick up a thirty percent increase in doing so — then I suggest we must be much more willing to say “you deserve that thirty percent, even if it means I have to wait longer for my next raise”.
Solidarity is impossible unless we are willing to let somebody else go first. Solidarity requires that respect and love those around us. We do not insult, berate, attack, and demean those we respect and love.
Jeez fellas I don’t know what to say, except that it’s not really about just you, specifically. 😐
I get it, I’m good with your editorial decision.
I want to make sure that the things that matter to me are said and written, loud and clear.
Sigh, it’s not about me. Count the number of “you!” in the reply. It’s not about me, nor should it be.
When posts and commentary are grievously incorrect, I will continue to speak out. When particular errors are repeated over and over, even after being corrected, I will call them out as lies. When participants attack me instead of my words (“Wall street sellout”), I will respond.
There are, thankfully, only a handful of such participants.
I can think of only one participant here who has attacked the Massachusetts equal pay legislation so relentlessly. I can think of only one participant here who has attacked Democratic Party proposals to make it possible for working-class students to attend college — and has so relentlessly mis-characterized those efforts. No Democrat EVER has said that ANYONE doesn’t “deserve” a fair shake, yet one participant repeats that lie over and over and over again. I can think of only one participant here who has said that rampant racism of Charlottesville should be ignored. I can think of only one participant here who has grouped BIll Clinton and John Edwards with Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein. That grouping is a despicable lie.
So when one participant is responsible for so much misinformation and abuse here, then I’ll end up responding to that participant.
Tom, how about this, starting today….you stop lying about things that I stand for or against and I’ll drop all references to your comment about how to finance the campaigns.
As the Howie Mandel says….deal or no deal?
I accept that, regarding the third item you quoted, it is perhaps more accurate to write:
Other than rather minor edit, I stand by the above characterizations. Each has already been cited and argued about so many times here already that I’ll not bother going through all the links again.
You advanced each of these passionately, relentlessly, and sometimes rudely.
I stand be these characterizations. No deal.
Okay.
Let the record show that I offered an olive branch but you not only refused it, you went further in attacking my character, misrepresenting things I have said, twisted them out of context and will not stop.
I am not the only one capable of searching BMG for your commentary about each of the points you raised.
For example, on the second point you quoted, consider the following (picked in arbitrary order):
From this September:
From another comment:
From another comment
From another comment
From another comment
These are just five of MANY examples. Each is a distortion, an attack, an insult, or an out-and-out lie. Nobody here has EVER said that “ONLY those with a college degree deserve a sustainable wage.” Nobody. The reason most of these exchanges happened is because “the data” shows clearly that those without a college degree face significant disadvantages over those with a degree — and even more so for minorities and women. Yet you deny this data, or attack those who talk about it.
There was no “olive branch” in your comment. There was only a demand to deny the things you’ve spent years saying here.
The record shows what the record shows, and that record is available to each of us.
To paraphrase Adlai Stephenson, when you stop lying about my commentary, I’ll stop telling the truth about yours.
And … one more time … you have made “Wall Street sellout”, directed at me, a signature phrase of your commentary here. That’s a personal attack and a lie.
Don’t talk to me about “olive branches” while you continue that smearing that shit around.
If there is no solidarity, then all is lost. We will isolated and unsuccessful. This is exactly the “left-wing” problem discussed in the article: working on an issue, but not for the greater good of the party and country. Both are more than the sum total of issues.
If issues voters don’t come around to a greater good, if they insist on being individuals at the expense of a greater good–and yes, the party and governance are greater goods; they may also be considered necessary evils–then we are lost.
My dad likes to tell the story of going to Democratic State Conventions back in the 1970s and 1980s. Gay rights supporters pushed for platform language that supported gay rights long before the idea was mainstream. My dad could never quite figure out why they bothered, but eventually, they made an issue of gay rights. My dad finally saw understood their strategy. The rest is history. These people were pushing for their issue, but they were also part of the party. Issues and party are not mutually exclusive.
If all this doesn’t resonate with you, perhaps this does (PAYWALL):
The party is part of things, however, it’s not the font of everything our side does. Trying to perfect it, to make it live up to our ideals, would not only be fruitless but a waste of time. We’re more like a rugby team than a football team, moving sideways and forward. Organized like a scrum.
Charley, I have to pick one nit regarding something you said above. You appear to have fallen for the idea that Tom Perez on his own gets to replace certain DNC members with others. Members can only be removed for not supporting the nominee and vacancies get filled by a vote of the entire DNC.
Appreciate that … so what do you make of the replacement, then? What’s going on, as far as you can tell?
It’s hard to say, not being super plugged in to DNC internal politics. It’s just that I am not as quick as some to assume the worst motivations and have commented elsewhere that what people do for a living should not automatically exclude them from participation.
Also I would be interested in Kate Donaghue’s take as I believe she is the only regular BMGer who is a member of the DNC.
I canvassed Haverhill for Andy Vargas, Democratic nominee for State Representative this weekend — on a beautiful fall Saturday and in the rain yesterday.
I only say this because it was inspiring for this baby boomer, legacy Kennedy Democrat to be with so many enthusiastic young Democrats working their butts off to bring progressive change to Beacon Hill.
This is for the November 7 Special Election for the seat (3rd Essex) formerly held by retired Rep. and Ways and Means Chair, Brian Dempsey.
Go to andyforhaverhill.com if, like me and Daryl Davis , you believe : “This country is going to be one of two things : what we make it, or what we let it become.”
In the not-too-distant past, the parties were much less ideologically coherent than they are now. I don’t mean to say that the bundle of views that “liberals” or “conservatives” are supposed to hold are particularly coherent, but rather just that in the old days you had liberal and conservative Democrats and liberal and conservative Republicans. Most of the debate was on whether our socio-economic policy should be center-right or center-left. There was broad bipartisan agreement, at least when not actually in campaign season, on our big national interests and the foreign policy that supported them (NATO, trade pacts, Pacific alliances, etc.).
We’re in a moment of crisis or at least in a moment of transition. But at the end of this tunnel, I hope we can return to our traditional model of big-tent parties, with all the unsightly hacks and tricks that made the system work—logrolling, back-room dealmaking, the growth of the bureaucratic state, etc. I think we are seeing now what the American alternative to that kind of system can look like.
This relates to the post because, in my view at least, the left/liberal divide lines up with what folks think about the old system. As I’ve just suggested, I’m mostly sympathetic with the liberal view here. I would rather muddle through, try to nudge policy in a good direction, avoid polarization that harms the national interest abroad, etc., than seek political perfection, which has always been the risk for those towards the ends of the political spectrum.
In the not-too-distant pants, ALL parties agreed to a framework of rational debate informed by actual objective facts. ALL parties agreed that when such debate led to a specific outcome, that outcome would be accepted and embraced even if it was at variance with the dogma or platform of any participant. In the past, ALL parties agreed that objective science, even if imperfect, was neither “liberal” nor “conservative”.
In my view, our collapse is driven by the betrayal of those foundations by the GOP. The Democrats did not advance the birther conspiracy. The Democrats do not claim that global warming is a hoax. The Democrats have not filled our media with accusations of “fake news” — ironically, even while the Democrats have not made a major news network their owned-and-operated communications arm.
I uprated your comment because I agree with it. The quibble I want to make is with your last sentence. In my view, we are not seeing some evenly-balanced spectrum with extreme views on each boundary.
The GOP is trashing the very bedrock of western Democracy, and has been for at least ten years. Al Gore wrote about this in 2007, and his book remains horrifyingly accurate and prescient.
This IS the doing of the GOP. It is NOT some evenly-balanced partisan split. Some things are objectively true and objectively false. Climate change is NOT a “hoax”.
I agree with you that the contemporary GOP is uniquely bad in some of the ways you say: birtherism; anti-intellectualism; climate denialism; etc, Regarding the last sentence, I don’t want to hijack the thread, but I do think there are similar stirrings on the left of the Democratic party now, having to do with anti-intellectualism, free speech, and a social agenda that is not in step with big parts of society–you may prefer to say a social agenda that is ahead of society. Of course, I think the threat posed by the right is the greater threat now for obvious reasons. You’re right that this is “not some evenly-balanced partisan split.” I do see problems on the far left, though, similar in style to the problems on the far right.
@ tedf: Agreed about some aspects of the far left. A particularly egregious example is the utterly delusional assertion that vaccines cause autism.
As doubleman articulates so well below, a HUGE distinction is that GOP is owned and dominated by their extremist fringe, as evidence by the current occupant of the Oval Office.
The far left is, thankfully, still a relatively insignificant part of the Democratic party. I think it will be a very long time before Democrats across the nation demand that all vaccinations be banned because they cause autism, and then proceed to strip ALL references to autism or vaccines from government websites, block government scientists from publishing papers about vaccines or attending conferences, and so on.
We must not allow the media to perpetuate the lie that the two parties somehow occupy two positions on a single neutral “partisanship” dimension.
I agree. I think it goes back further than ten years, though. It probably starts with people like Lee Atwater in the 80s and really took a foothold with Gingrich during the Clinton impeachment. It’s only accelerated since then with the rise of Fox News stewing racism and paranoia and further enhanced by Breitbart and exploitation of Facebook’s algorithm. (Related: Facebook is so unbelievably bad and bears so much responsibility for what has happened, and if Democrats want to embrace Zuckerberg or Sandberg as a savior, screw any of this come together stuff.)
I’m deeply concerned about the “both sides” arguments about the right and left. They are in no way comparable. The GOP is now beholden to the far right, which is explicitly racist and seemingly has no qualms with genocide. The Democrats certainly are not beholden to the far left at this point, and even calling them “the far left” is pretty ridiculous given that the main goals of the “far left” are single payer health care and environmental justice – something that’s baked into the center-left parties of basically the entire industrialized worlds. Even entertaining the idea that “both sides” are in any way comparable will serve to normalize the far right or marginalize those seeking justice.
I admit that there are some on the far left who are problematic, but the numbers of those people are exceedingly small and they have very little leverage (no, they aren’t the “Berniecrats” pushing for Medicare for All) while the views of the far right are now absolutely mainstream GOP thinking. The only thing separating those marching in Charlottesville and many GOP members of Congress is that the members of Congress know that it currently looks bad to be so direct about the viewpoints, even though they adhere to those same viewpoints. It’s similar to all of these weak statements from GOP members challenging Trump. They don’t have a problem with any of his ideas, they just don’t like the rudeness because they think it looks bad.
Originally published here – the article in the Guardian was edited.
On the bright side, I feel like vigorous critical loyalty is pretty much the status quo.
It used to be that being a Democrat was about being a Democrat. Now it’s about what it can do for you…. What levers can it turn? What outcome can be achieved? What outcome can be prevented…? For so called ‘independents’ it’s just a tool to work with, or against, to sate their appetite. And when we don’t get the outcome we want, or we get the outcome we don’t want, then we have to blame somebody, viciously. And not only do I think that’s wrong, in and of itself, but also think it a form of dishonesty. It is this, and only this, fallow kind of reasoning that first allowed a socialist like Sen Sanders to bungee into another party at the very last minute (in what is essentially the diametric opposition of ‘vigorous critical loyalty’) and secondly, for a great deal of people to not only take him seriously but to upend the entire notion of the perfect and the good and the relationship they have to each other… and, thirdly, and most weirdly, to turn the whole narrative on its ear as a problem of the Democrats. The Democrats had a candidate. A good ‘un. Sane. Steady. Experienced. She ended up getting nearly 66 million votes. The much reviled, establishment, centre-left, Democrats did the right thing and came up with a good candidate who made the appeal on qualifications and rationality. Now, it seems, we’re supposed to apologize for that?
Reading the article referenced, I was forcefully reminded of a long-ago debate in college in which I described Karl Marx as the man I most agree with regarding an analysis of the problem and the man with whom I find absolutely no agreement regarding his proposed solutions. I thought it entirely possible that an understanding of the problem, however deep, doesn’t necessarily inform an appropriate solution… and it certainly can’t be used to will an outcome. And I continue to think that, to this day… Thus, by my lights, this is the central dilemma of the Left, especially as directed by ‘socialists,’ like Sen Sanders, et al. and, as such, is the central dilemma of the referenced article. ( And I mean ‘dilemma’ in it’s cleanest form: two theorems, more or less derived from the same variables, that have difficulty co-existing)
So I’m going to go with that. I think the article is brilliant in its description of the divide, but, unfortunately, rather puerile in its prescription of a cure…. I HONESTLY do not think that Sen Sanders nor many of his more febrile groupies are CAPABLE of either ‘critical’ or ‘loyal’ are will only double-down on ‘vigorous’ — see previous “Anger is not a Political Position so why should I, stolid Democrat that I am, genuflect, in any manner whatsoever to anything they want? If they want to be Democrats they have to BE Democrats. If they want have an occasional dalliance with the Democrats, they should know, up front, that I don’t go to bed with whores. But fuck ’em, in toto and sum, and twice on Sundays, if they think they can dictate the terms by which the Democratic party governs itself from the outside.
Hear hear, six-sixes, and an “amen, brother”.
Two distinct replies:
The first is an Amen to Petr on this point:
And an Amen to TedF’s point that illiberalism is creeping into the left in terms of intolerance for dissent, coalition building, civil liberties, or private property. DSA Boston wants its members to support the abolition of prisons entirely-leading me to ask where all the crooked bankers should go.
No doubt there are excesses on the left. But I also have an Amen to Doubleman that the extremist left, such as it is, is a largely campus and urban entity largely irrelevant and nowhere near power. It may even be allergic to electoral politics and gaining real power.
Yet the far right has hijacked the entire center right party and made it far right. Jeff Flake’s dissent was small enough to drown in a bathtub, which is exactly what happened to his political future. There is no space for centrists, libertarians, or even neoconservatives in that party anymore. Just neofascists.
This is critical. I do think Petr lays it on think against Sanders, and I think the entire point of this piece was to force both “sides” to work toward coalition building. Saying “never Hillary” is politically immature of the left, keeping Bernie and his supporters out is just as shortsighted on the center left.
If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of his revolution…. conversely, I don’t want to be part of his revolution if it means having to dance to his tune, only.
Regarding ‘coalition building’…. Both ‘critical’ and ‘loyalty’ were invoked, both of which are well outside the precis of a ‘coalition’. While there is nothing, in particular, wrong with a coalition of interests working to affect a particular outcome. it gets beyond when one part of the coalition decides to tell another part what to do or to be. That’s too mercenary, by half, for me. I am *NOT* an ‘independent.’ I am a Democrat. I’m being loyal to the Democratic party by being critical of those on the outside trying to grab the steering wheel, within…. and those on the inside who would let them.
I expect ‘vigorous critical loyalty’ from others WITHIN the party. I don’t expect anything from those outside the party… and I don’t particularly think it either critical, nor loyal, for some inside the party to genuflect to those who refuse to join the party: They can join the party. Or they can go have their own. Choice is theirs, entirely. But if they don’t join the party they should have no pull with the party. It’s as simple as that.
Ach, here’s the problem … both sides on this bitter divide make such strong cases against each other. 😂😂😂
I dunno, Charley… I don’t know that somebody who refuses to join the Democratic party has all that much too say about the Democratic party. What has Sen Sanders to be ‘loyal’ to, if he’s not even a member of the party…? And so it sounds, to me, more like feckless “independents” saying ‘you can have your party as long as we can use it to get our way…” Sorry. No sale.
I think, having said all that, that IF Bernie Sanders was a Democrat, worked for the Democratic cause and not just brazenly manipulating it when useful to him, and tepidly acknowledging it when not, there would be much more merit to any such case he, or his adherents, might make. But he doesn’t and won’t, so any strength to his case melts away.
Sanders and Clinton are in the past. The voters that supported them in the primaries are not and all of them are Democrats.
Also, the next election (and every one after) will not be decided by the Democrats or the Republicans intramural pissing contest, it will be decided by the independents and who they trust as representing their core values.
The article, that was herein referenced, and about which we are discussing, prominently displayed art featuring both Sanders and Clinton and used the 2016 election, and its aftermath to make some points. You may want to be past them, fine, but the article references them heavily and we’re discussing the article.
What evidence do you have that so-called ‘independents’ have anything resembling ‘core values’? Or that any such ‘core values’ of J. Random Independent, Esquire aren’t in complete and dire conflict with the ‘core values’ of Mr and Mrs John Q Independent? And we should pander to that?
Nearly 66 million people trusted Hillary Clinton as representing their core values… more than trusted the other guy….
Independents outnumber either Democrats or Republicans.
What evidence do you have that only voters registered as Democrat or Republican have core values? Independents are a majority in the USA. Is it your contention that a majority of American voters have no core values/
Okay, if you want that to be our compass for the next election, that will result in a second Trump presidency.
I’d like to try something different next time. However, if there are more people like you than me in the party, it looks like we will try the same thing and expect a different result…
People, unions, issues?
Ok. Let’s try a little running with this…
IF Sen Sanders is ‘loyal’ to “people, unions, issues.”
AND IF Sen Sanders wants the Democratic party to be loyal to “people, unions, and issues,” as the article referenced posits that he should be. What, THEN, is the best way for Sen Sanders to achieve this goal?
It’s ok. You can say it. … That’s right: He can JOIN the Democratic party.
If, however, Sen Sanders REFUSES to join the Democratic party, on the grounds (no less) that it is insufficiently as loyal than he to ‘people, unions, issues’ , is he not, fulfilling the very prophecy he has made?
Is this not, in fact, true of all ‘independents’ who might otherwise share that loyalty to ‘people, unions, issues’?
But, of course, it’s so much more self-aggrandizing to stand on the outside telling the Democrats what they should, or shouldn’t, be. They would rather stand outside the tent, scolding in, then jump in the tent and get to work.
Or, put another way, It’s extremely difficult to express solidarity with someone who explicitly states they don’t want to have solidarity with you.
All of your argument assumes that joining the one party is the only way to accomplish these things. The experience historically and certainly over the last year and a half is that this assumption is not true.
It’s good to know how you feel about the activists regularly putting their lives on the line for change who are working outside a party structure.
Yup. The Dems did a great job on that front with Labor during the 90s.
You wish. And that’s the problem, an a priori dismissal of the party. Then you turn around and justify that dismissal… You can’t criticize the party for not having something you may have withheld from them….
Without a doubt, solidarity is better than disunity. But it’s not the Democratic party that has eschewed solidarity.
LOL. Nope. Never turned their back on groups that always supported them. Not ever. LOL.
I’m sorry, it’s a little early for the “democrats ain’t perfect, therefore, your argument is invalid” portion of the show. That, usually, is your last resort…oh, wait…
…never mind
For most workers, real wages have barely budged for decades……I’d call this evidence that the party turned its back on the working class. (and prefers to mingle with Wall Street)
You say “hey, nobody’s perfect”…others tell us “hey, the money HAS to come from somewhere”…
It’s no wonder we lost in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin.
Maybe no one will listen to him in the tent as the people in control of the conversations in the tent have their own agenda and will allow no others? In that case, being outside the tent can be used for ones advantage.
Almost no one dared run against the “tent’s” choice for the presidency last time.
We see similar things over on Beacon Hill where the guy in charge of the tent is not someone anyone in the tent wants to cross.
So I passed this piece along to my good friend who worked on the Clinton campaign and is now working in Chuck Schumers office, and basically he says the divide is overblown and Bernie is a team player. He didn’t go to the women’s convention since he didn’t want to take the focus away from Maxine Waters, he isn’t going to Virginia to campaign for Northam since he was asked not to by that campaign since it’s running a centrist campaign, and he went to Puerto Rico with Liz Warren who he works closely with. Manchin didn’t back ACA repeal and quietly Sanders worked with Schumer to make sure the caucus was united on that. He reached out to co-sponsors for the single payer bill and took their input to improve it. Etc.
Ellison and Perez are friends and working closely together in a real power sharing arrangement. At the end of the day it’s partisans bitter from the primary relitigating it constantly online. The real work of legislating is continuing with Sanders working closely with his Senate colleagues.
OR isn’t acting like a left wing tea party or Bannon by going after swing state senators; it’s being pragmatic. It may back a primary against Feinstein b/c she has a Lieberman voting record in the bluest state in the union so she’s fair game.
At the end of the day the argument around Sanders is that he and his allies don’t want to call themselves Democrats or participate in party machinery but work with their own organizations. They are also coordinating those activities in conjunction with Democrats. So it’s a way to organize independents around progressive candidates without damaging the Democrats. Sounds like a way better outside game than the ones the Greens played that definitely helped Bush and may have helped Trump. Bernie and his people are staying honest to their values, which includes a deep skepticism about the donor class that fuels the official party apparatus, while working as best they can with the team.
Toward a Cure for What Ails Us
Community thrives on mutual understanding, and as such, this article is a good way to start. If we’re going to build on it, however, we need to listen to others more and judge them less. We probably also need to listen to ourselves less and judge ourselves more.
I’ve been at fault as much anyone else in sniping at Lefties for what I’ve seen as their failure to understand the party system. The sniping relieves an itch, but it doesn’t solve any underlying problems.
Lefties, socialists, Bernie-Bros, whatever, simply can’t have their own facts. And they are absolutely forbid from substituting their own make-believe for something they don’t understand. Hillary Clinton did a good job. She got orders of magnitude more votes than Sen Sanders did in the primaries and, in the General, nearly 66 million votes, or, as noted in the New Yorker, more votes than any white man in US History.. Are we Democrats to APOLOGIZE for that? Sure seems that way… This entire article is one long plaint to the Democrats to pull out the hair-shirts and start the self-flagellation. We are to change everything we do and embrace Sen Sanders specific form of fulmination and recriminations because… Because why? Because Hillary Clinton got nearly 66 million votes? Absurd.
And before you chime in with your simpleminded animosity, JohnTMay, let me point out that this is not, at all, about Hillary Clinton. It is about the 66 million voters whom you would dismiss as invalid. There are 66 million people out there who made the right decision and in direct response to the efforts of the purportedly impotent DEMOCRATIC FUCKING PARTY.. But we would rather throw all SIXTY SIX MILLION votes away and, in fact, SPIT IN THEIR FACE so some lefty socialist can feel good about already having done so…
The next campaign that will win 66 million votes is NOT going to look like the Sanders campaign. The Democratic party does not have to make amends to Sen Sanders or to anybody for their showing in the 2016 election. If you want to start with some loyalty, how about some loyalty to those 66 million people who voted the right way? How about some .loyalty to the truth, as it is on the ground? Solidarity in what is makes so much more sense than any solidarity to the fantasies we wish would be.
Yeah, President Trump would agree.
Well, we ought to learn from it. eh?
Yeah, well, I’m not going to respond to personal attacks anymore.
…..A friend of mine and I entered a talent contest put on by a local radio station. Top prize was $1,000. According to everyone who saw it on the news, our act was the best. According to the DJ’s that talked about the contest the next day, our act was the funniest, most original. A picture of our act was featured as the lead photo in a newspaper article that covered the contest.
We came in second.
The rules of the contest stated clearly that audience applause was to be the criteria by which the winner would be chosen. My friend and I did not bring anyone along with us to the contest. Another contestant clearly “packed the house” with friends and as such, received the loudest cheering and applause from the audience when the judges asked for them for the official measured results on a sound level meter.
Even though our act got louder laughs and applause during the actual event, the other act knew the rules and played them to their advantage and won the $1,ooo.
If we were smarter, we would have read the rules and packed the house, or at least invited friends to attend. But we did not. We were 100% certain that our act was the most outrageous act, and the contest was promoted as “Most Outrageous Act”. We were so certain that we forgot to learn the rules. If we were more professional, smarter, perhaps less certain of our superiority, we might have won.
Hillary Clinton and her campaign forgot the rules and even though they had millions more votes, they came in second place. She should have known better if she was a brilliant, savvy, and experienced as her supporters say.
By the way, in our act, my friend posed as a human chicken wing, strutted on the stage like a chicken, I painted him with hot sauce and he dived into a pool of blue cheese dressing.
The winning act was a guy who lipsynced to “Rhythm of the Night” played at 78 RPM while wearing funny sun glasses.
As I said above, independents are skeptical of both parties since they are disgusted with the donor class and feel both parties are bought by them. I think we underestimate this here or gloss over it with savvy but cynical arguments about fighting Koch fire with Soros fire. I think Sanders and Our Revolution is a great alternative to test small dollar politics without risking losing more power to the right.
Look at what they are doing differently than the Democrats: it’s bottom up, member supported, small donor funded, local first organizing at its finest. It’s already won impressive races in our state and NH, including competitive seats that may have gone Republican in other years with lower turnouts.
Look at how they are different than Bannon or the Greens. They reject a third party, they reject running outside Democratic primaries and splitting the progressive vote, they reject running moderates out of critical swing seats while primarying from the left in safe seats. If that’s not vigorously critical loyalty I don’t know what is. A lot of them are uncomfortable with the D next to their name, but who cares if they ultimately help Democrats win power?
The very fact of independents weakens each party. That’s fine, if that’s what they want. Probably, it’s also a necessary check on the parties in a sane Republic.
But independents can’t turn around and criticize the party for a weakness they helped create. If they’re uncomfortable with the party because of the ‘donor class’ guess who’s going to be predominant component of the party? That’s right, the ‘donor class…’ Prophecy made. Prophecy fulfilled.
This is the central dichotomy of the independents: The party would be stronger for them in it but they would prefer to not strengthen the party by their participation and, instead, criticize it for a purported lack of strength…. when not bungee-ing in at the last moment to take maximum effect of the party apparatus… and then bungee-ing out to continue the criticism after you lose, that is…
I used to agree with this back when I was a more devoted Democrat. Talking to leftist friends around Boston, and talking to a lot of unenrolled voters of all stripes during my work with the UIP, I really have come to the conclusion that it’s like asking people to join Knights of Columbus first in order to help with the Special Olympics. Or like forcing gentiles to become Jews before they can become Christians. I think the Pauline approach is better than the Petrine approach, go to where the outsiders are and meet them where they are. That’s what successful movements do, be they religious or political.
Joining the traditional party works for you, I think it’s foolish for leftists to mock that. Working outside the party is where they are comfortable, I think it is counterproductive to insist that isn’t a valid way of making change.
Yeah, but even Paul wanted people to commit themselves to Christ and not just participate in church activities when it was convenient for them.
If independents joined whichever of the two parties represented the closest agreement with them AND regularly participated in the primaries thereof, our politics wouldn’t be nearly as polarized as it is now. Independents who are too cool for parties end up ceding control of them to the more ideological activists who make incumbents more afraid of a primary than general challenge. Then they are usually the first to complain that politics is too polarized when they are a large part of the cause of that.
Good advice all around. Let’s also not make personal attacks anymore. After all, we agree with each other on 95% of the issue. Public option v single payer isn’t a hill to die on or take personally in my view. Both candidates are flawed, both candidates aren’t coming back for 2020, so let’s talk about who’s next and what they should fight for on our behalf.
How did you come to this conclusion? Is that what a Hillary supporter like Charley is saying in his additional comments building on what this post was supposed to start?
You/Tom and John are often two sides of the same coin. Angry and bitter at the other over past results we cannot change. I would urge all three of you to read this in the spirit of reconciliation that it was intended. As someone who respects all three of you but often feels your arguments drag this site down to the dregs.
No James. I am not angry over “past results we cannot change”. I’m angry over present efforts to paper over the truth about those results with calls for me to show solidarity with the feckless. I’m not playing that game.
You didn’t want to believe it was racists. You didn’t want to believe it was sexists. You don’t want to believe that Hillary did the best of all possible jobs. Because you don’t want to believe all of those things, I am now supposed to put on a hair-shirt and repent. Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party got nearly 66 million votes, but because you don’t like the outcome, I have to turn my back on those 66 million votes and genuflect to Bernie Sanders? I don’t think so.
The very fact that you try to redefine what I’m angry (and bitter) about suggests, yet again, that you’re not paying attention to what I write because you don’t want to believe it… and that, in fact, makes me even angrier because you’re not stupid. You don’t have that excuse.
A simple question. If we, as you assert, lost the election because the American voters are racists, sexists, and the system is so rigged that even “the best” will lose with 66 million more votes, how do we win the next election? It seems rather hopeless when one accepts your analysis of the loss.
I assert that what is, is. No more, nor less, than that.
‘
I don’t know how we are going to win the next election. I only know it won’t be through lying to ourselves about what happened in the last election. 66 million votes is a job done. Saying we have to go off in an entirely different direction is ludicrous on the face of it and dismissive of the reality of it.
You think these are the longest odds? You don’t think that, maybe, Lincoln had it worse and yet prevailed? You don’t think that MLK Jr faced fiercer, more entrenched opposition? A racist, sexist, backlash against Barack Obama and the progressive US is a good deal easier to swallow than having the promise of RFK ripped away from us when he was gunned down. That, my friend, was despair. This is not that.
You offered no other causes for Clinton’s loss.
I can see that. If you don’t know why something failed, it’s a difficult thing to change, eh?
Not an entirely new direction, just a different one, by degree. Would you not agree?
I think repeatedly analyzing why we lost is not a productive use of this space or our collective energy going forward. I won’t do it anymore.
Nobody is doing that here. The article we’re discussing, and analyzing, is about an existing divide. My response, — a response to which you have already given an ‘amen’ — agrees wholly with the diagnosis and disagrees vehemently with the prescribed cure exactly because, as noted, it requires me to turn my back on what actually happened
Like Charley said, there are a 100 valid reasons why Hillary lost and racism and sexism are at the top of the list. Also no denying in any other Western democracy she would’ve won the election in a walk. But everything that could go wrong did, none of us saw it coming, and no one can say with any accuracy that Bernie or some other strategy from Hillary would’ve won it.
I am done with 2016. What we need to figure out is how to work together. I think a group of Clinton supporters telling Bernie to shove it and stay out of the party isn’t the way to do that. I think a group of Bernie supporters still shivving Hillary long after she has departed from party leadership isn’t the way to do it. Let’s work together. And that means admitting that race and gender matter. It means admitting that class matters. It means admitting it’s all the same fight against wealthy elite racist interests trying to slice us up and conquer.
And to the extent I have done either of these things I offer a mea culpa and a renewed pledge to sin no more.
But we can’t work together because your form of ‘working together’ is for me to get on board with your version of events, do what you say and ignore what I know to be truth. “Do it my way’ is your version of “working together”… And the same is true for Sen Sanders and most independents: they want to use the Democratic party when it suits them and criticize it for weakness when it doesn’t.
And you want me to get on board with that. That’s what YOU mean when you say ‘we need to figure out how to work together.’
What version of I will not do that, ever, do you prefer? Can I say it differently so you’ll understand? Is there some combination I haven’t yet stumbled upon that will make you understand?
The only anger and bitterness I feel is towards one or two participants here who lie about me and our party, attack me, our party, and our candidates,, and betray our collective values at every turn.
When the lies about me stop, I’ll be far more willing to embrace the “spirit of reconciliation”. An apology for “wall street sellout” from its source would be an excellent starting point.
It’s not a failure of understanding, but a palpable disgust at the big money donor class that seems to have bought and paid for the DNC. We can critique that process without endorsing some of the more outlandish conspiracy theories about that organization trafficked in some quarters. OR has out raised the DNC, and to me, that is no accident. Even Clinton supporters like sabutai and SomervilleTom admitted they don’t give money to any of the ‘D’ outlets anymore but to individual candidates. Locally I think the DTC’s and state party’s can be pretty intimidating, sometimes useless, and often parochial and unwelcoming to outsiders. I know the Cambridge ones have violently split into factions over local endorsements and the like. Not worth the drama for a lot of younger and newer activists when Raise Up, PM, DSA or OR give you immediate direct access to grassroots action.
And if it is a failure of understanding that is a two way street. Insiders should always welcome and educate outsiders on how to get involved through the proper channels.
I am involved with PM and Raise Up and increasing my involvement while at the same time, decreasing my involvement with the party. I have stepped down from my position of chairman of my town committee. I have also come to the conclusion after attending four or five of them that the state conventions are a colossal waste of my time and money.
You work your lane, Christopher and Mark will work theirs. Both of you are progressives I respect, and we need both the inner and outer lanes to function. I think that’s the entire point of this post and the Guardian piece.
Regarding your Cambridge split reference, this is exactly why when I’m involved in writing local party committee bylaws I have pushed for clauses prohibiting the committee from endorsing candidates in contested primaries and non-partisan local races. Individual committee members are of course still free to support their favorite candidates on their own.
I want to be VERY clear about my decision to avoid giving to the DNC and other similar organizations:
1. It predated the 2016 election by a decade
2. It had nothing to do with “palpable disgust” at any person or group of people, other than at candidates and public officials who betrayed Democratic principles at every turn.
3. It had, and has, EVERYTHING to do with the TERRIBLE choices these groups made in directing my contributions.
The Affordable Care Act was nearly derailed by “Democrats” who demanded anti-abortion provisions in the legislation. These organizations funneled my contributions to self-professed “Democrats” who fought against Democratic principles at every opportunity.
For example, the DSCC was eager to support Mr. Lieberman in 2006. The issue, in 2006, was the implied DSCC support for an Independent candidate — Joe Lieberman. My issue with Mr. Lieberman was NOT that he ran as an Independent. It was, instead, that he made that choice because of his own refusal to embrace core Democratic values.
My loyalty is to values. I am loyal to organizations and candidates to the extent that they reflect and embrace those values. I am a “values” voter — I support, contribute to, and vote for ONLY candidates who support my values and priorities. I stopped contributing to these groups when I realized that these groups demonstrate no value system whatsoever.
I think we’re collectively on very thin ice when we talk about “palpable disgust” using criteria like “big money donor class”. Surely the evidence is all around us, worldwide, that “populist” grass-roots movements have a strong tendency towards despicable prejudice, racism, and worse. It is not the “big money” donors that are putting Nazis into the governments of Germany and Austria. It was not “big money donors” who form the core of Donald Trump’s “base” here in America.
Surely our “palpable disgust” should be directed at those who aggressively attack blacks, women, Hispanics, immigrants, Jews, and core American values rather than people with big or small wallets. At the moment, our “populist” uprisings — the Trumpists and the Tea Party before them — are just as palpably disgusting as George Soros or Tom Steyers.
Corruption is corruption whether it is practiced by large or small donors. Intellectual sloth, ignorance, and blind self-interest knows no party or demographic boundaries. In my view, it is much more important that we evaluate our candidates, organizations, and campaigns by what they stand for, what they say, and the values that motivate them.
I hope and assume the DSCC did not support Liebermann over Lamont in the general. That would be a betrayal of its core mission and heads should have rolled if they did. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they supported him in the primary since they do tend to protect incumbents.
My own objection was to the DSCC support for “Democrats” who demanded the expansion of anti-abortion provisions (beyond the already-existing Hyde amendment) in exchange for their support of the ACA.
At what stage of the race and in which context? I for one hope the DSCC would support prolife incumbents in tight races against Republicans who would be even worse.
@Christopher: Those “Democrats” emboldened the already-intransigent GOP with their anti-abortion antics. The Hyde amendment was already in place.
I was ashamed that money I contributed helped elect them.
That’s my bottom line.
In related anti-choice news: Tim Kaine, Joe Donnelly, and Joe Manchin voted today to confirm a virulently anti-choice 44-year-old judge to a lifetime appointment on the 7th Circuit.
Hear, hear.
I have similar feelings and my feelings around these organizations also extend to general incompetency. Like today, with the messaging coming from the Senate Dems. They try to be hip rather than direct. Funny, rather than meaningful.
Let me start with some personal background. First presidential primary vote I ever cast was for Jesse Jackson (I’m at the front end of Gen X). In subsequent Dem primaries I voted for Jerry Brown, Bill Bradley, Howard Dean, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders. In describing my own political leanings, “socialist” would be an accurate term. I’m pro-single payer, pro-free college, pro-financial transfer tax, pro-publicly-funded elections.
And I’m thoroughly disgusted with Sanders and his Our Revolution movement.
I was never a fan of Hillary Clinton’s politics, considered her too much of an incrementalist. Plus, I questioned her political judgment. However, you’d need to be walking through life with blinders not to recognize the enormous amount of false accusation piled on her over the years. Feel free to disagree with her or to bemoan her placement among the rich and powerful, but the woman is not crooked.
Anyway, a crazy thing happened during the 2016 campaign: Hillary Clinton earned my respect. She was informed and articulate on the issues. She veered left, embracing much of what Sanders put on the table. She actually had a superior child care proposal and her Marshall Plan for coal country idea was music to my ears (every bit as a good an idea as single payer). She even brought Sanders inside the tent and we got the most liberal Democratic platform of my lifetime.
I also watched the election through the eyes of my Gen X wife, Boomer mother and Millennial sisters. They were severely affected by watching a woman (even they voted against in the primary) wade through an ocean of garbage while running up against a pompous, unqualified, insulting male opponent. As my wife put it afterward, “We failed a character test.”
And that’s a big part of my problem with the Sanders movement. They’re piling on after the fact. What they’re doing is every bit as egregious as Trump trying to smear Clinton as a way of distracting people from the indictments now being handed out to his former campaign manager and operatives. I’m watching supposed leftists use the word “liberal” as a pejorative, just like they were movement conservatives.
First off, Hillary Clinton is many things, but “liberal” isn’t one of them. Second, socialism without liberality has a fairly horrific history. Third, every socialist thing our nation has done (and there have been many) has been the work of liberals.
This “movement” is starting to take on the hallmarks of a lazy incursion. What the hell is Sanders doing in Somerville and Cambridge? I mean other than being used by candidates who want to get ahead without having to do messy stuff like community involvement. If this were a real movement designed to bring in the people from the outside, Sanders would be in Framingham, Springfield and Lawrence. Instead he’s indulging in an effort to have the left eat itself.
I’m particularly bothered by the “bro” element at play here. I’m seeing a lot of mediocre white boys who bring nothing to the table but obnoxiousness and a sense of entitlement. They don’t seem to care about the issues (or at least many of them).. They’re just reaching for a cudgel to claim some comfortable political territory for themselves. As someone caught between two massive generations, they’re really starting to remind me of their parents. In a couple of decades they’ll have fun stories to tell about their rabble rousing days over cocktails in their comfortable suburban homes. I mean, what were they thinking?
Anyway, I’ve cast my last vote for Sanders, who seems to crave cheap adulation rather than pushing his policies in areas where they are not yet popular. Someone else (and, yes, someone younger) needs to become the standard bearer for a new social compact with the American people.
Could you be more specific? I live out in the suburbs so I am not tuned into the Somerville Cambridge stuff. I do know that many of my friends supported Sanders and still consider themselves to be progressives and strongly against the neoliberalism that was Clinton – and what many in the party still want to remain that way.
Yes, and not someone who is another neoliberal, eh?
First off, I can’t think of anyone I want to be in a foxhole with less than someone who identifies as “progressive.” Outside of coffee, I’m not sure what they stand for.
If you can’t spot the overlap between the “neoliberal” branding you’re doing and the “liberal” branding of the right, then you’re emblematic of the problem. As someone who proudly identifies as liberal, I’m disgusted.
Clinton wasn’t a great candidate. Then again, she was better than Gore or Kerry (it’s not even close on which one has the more leftist platform) and I don’t remember people on the left turning either one of them into punching bags. Yet apparently it’s all right to take endless swings at the woman – yes, I think it’s that ugly a practice. What’s particularly troubling is Clinton got behind most of the things the Bernie acolytes claim to want and yet she’s subjected to endless hammering. We’ve veered far away from policy and into cults of personality.
I want pretty much everything Bernie put on the table. Yet I have become convinced this nasty, entitled movement he’s created around himself is wholly incapable of delivering any of it.
We stand for values of equal opportunity, social and economic justice, consumer and environmental protection, health care as a right, equal access to quality public services, respect for all residents and accountable and transparent government are given top priority.
Do you know what a neoliberal is?
Again, I have yet to see that. The election is over. Neither Sanders nor Clinton is running in 2020 (at least I hope not). This is now a discussion as to where the party goes. Do we continue on the course that has led to the loss of the White House, the senate, the house and a majority of state governments…..or do we make changes?
If you’re not seeing the conflation of liberal and neoliberal taking place at this moment, you are simply not paying attention.
I’ve been pro-leftward movement my whole life. I was born in the wake of the Great Society, which was conceived and delivered by liberals. It forms the backbone of our nation. I’ve yet to see a damn thing achieved by progressives (other than getting together to have coffee – thus my comment).
I’m not seeing anything compelling from these folks at the local level (at least in this neck of the woods). They’ve got one move – call the other person a neoliberal and then claim purity. I’m disgusted, to my core. Guaranteed when they get tired of this little game they’re swinging right, where that kind of nonsense actually works.
And it’s not a discussion about where the party goes. It’s a never-ending tantrum in which white boys take constant swipes at the female candidate from the last election. We’re miles beyond constructive criticism. And I say that as someone who’s long been down with the original premise (a new social compact).
Cool. Check this out.
Clinton was a neoliberal. Our own Seth Moulton. As that relates to the working class, it’s “sorry folks, you’re on your own.”
I was born in 1955 and entered the work force in 1973 which, according to most economists, was the last year of a growing middle class (what I call a working class that can sustain itself and prosper). Since that time, many Democrats have drifted to a mindset that believes that America is a meritocracy, that free markets are best, and that government programs that help build the “middle class” are no longer necessary.
Senator Elizabeth Warren is one of the few “full time” pro-working class Democrats out there. While many are only pro-working class part-time, when it does not offend their donors.
Check out this line from the “New Dem Pac” :
Industrial-era policies won’t work in an office economy
There’s plenty more where that came from. I wrote them a few times, asking what were those “policies” that worked once but can’t work now? Needless to say, no one replied.
In the industrial era, the working class grabbed political power and the wealthy class has successfully taken most of it back and even help to elect Democrats to do their bidding by donating large sums of cash to their campaigns that some Democrats are happy to take because “the money has to come from somewhere”.
What about the younger, African-American woman from Ohio who runs Our Revolution?
These people? That group doesn’t look particularly white or boyish.
I’m having a hard time understanding why pushing for very progressive and very diverse candidates at all levels of government across the country is a bad thing.
I’m most familiar with the local slates they’re pushing. The Cambridge slate is fine (and diverse). The Somerville slate is nauseating.
Yet, where are they in Framingham or Springfield? Non-existent as far as I can tell and those are cities with real things at stake. Fortunately Framingham seems to be moving in a positive direction despite Our Revolution’s indifference.
The shock troops for the movement work mostly in the online realm and it’s a dogpile of Bernie bros. They seem to think the future will be won by being the bigger jackass. Looks like a gathering of future Republicans to me.
Please expand on the problems with the Somerville choices. I’m not that familiar with their choices or whom they chose not to endorse.
The organization seems to be quite grass roots so gaps in coverage are likely due to limited on the ground members in those areas. After all, the organization is less than a year old. The organization did endorse Gwendolyn Holbrow for the Framingham selectboard and she lost in a primary. As far as your claim about Sanders not being interested in areas where his ideas are not popular, Our Revolution has been very active in Nebraska, Montana, Idaho, and similar locations. They also endorsed Paul Feeney in that recent close South Shore race.
I don’t disagree that there are a lot of obnoxious and sexist Bernie Bros out there. There are, however, many more other supporters who are diverse and deeply involved in their communities who I think you are choosing to ignore.
Never met one, myself. As far as I can tell, that was just a myth perpetrated by the Clinton campaign. Most of the most fervent supporters of the Sanders campaign that I knew were young women. I do recall them being denigrated by Clinton supporters.
Never met one? Yet here you are using the Internet. They’re a plague.
Yup, never met one, even on line. I’ve met plenty of rabid Clinton supporters who will defend all things Clinton, from sexual harassment to getting chummy with Wall Street and dissing the working class, but no Bernie Bros. Again, that, I have learned was a myth perpetrated by the Clinton campaign, a sort of identity politics that was weaponized, so to speak.
,
That’s one of my favorite moves. When the subject turns in a direction you don’t like – deny, deflect and yell “Clinton!”
I’m standing outside the window and the Trump folks and Bernie boosters are all starting to look like pigs to me.
The subject remains the same. I’ve never met or experienced contact with a Bernie Bro. I saw him when he spoke in the Boston area and the school gym was filled to the limit, not one “Bernie Bro”. Again, this myth is simply that, pushed by the Clinton Campaign and now, “drikeo”.
There you go again.
Yup, I just a working class voter, looking out for the working class. That’s me.
I think we all get that that’s how you see yourself.
Hey, look at that – someone heard Clinton’s plans for coal country beyond acknowledging that those jobs were disappearing!:)
The left makes up a majority of the party’s rank and file, based on just about any poll looking at what the party members support. (And on many of these issues, independent voters widely support the leftwing position too, from Medicare for All to living wages to free public college.)
How much voice is the left given in the party leadership, so we can have people fight for these issues? Barely a token when times are good. How often will the party establishment love up behind the leftwing candidate over a corporate friendly one, even in districts where there lefty would win? All of about never.
Please don’t lecture anyone on how the recalcitrant left just won’t compromise or talk. The problem is quite reversed. We have a party apparatus and national political climate that won’t even let the left speak, and opposes it at every direction.
Charlie: this blog is gaslighting.
Some autocorrect typos:
-Line up, not love up.
-The lefty, not there lefty.
-And, of course: Charley, not Charlie.