Why I Support Joe Biden
Too many Democrats continue to treat this like any other election, picking their favorite fantasy candidate like they’re picking a commercial product, pretending that electability is utterly indiscernible.
In 2016, I was a Bernie supporter, since his policy positions were the closest to my values. And I will gladly vote for whoever the nominee is.
But this is an emergency – not a normal year.
Only one candidate has the ability to bring together both centrist Democrats and the black community into a strong coalition that has the likeliest chance of victory.
That candidate is Joe Biden.
There’s a reason there’s a Republican movement to enter the open primary in South Carolina to support another candidate. They know that Biden is the greatest threat.
On substance, by reading this blog, one would think the only things Biden has ever done are vote with virtually the entire Congress to authorize military force after 911 and take the wrong positions decades ago on banks.
In reality, there was a reason Barrack Obama chose Joe Biden. He was a trusted figure in the United States Senate, the civil rights community, and among those knowledgeable on foreign policy.
There is also a REASON that the black community thus far has made clear in polls that Biden is their overwhelming choice. Not only is Biden a known and trusted figure, the black community has as much to lose as any other should Trump be re-elected.
Similarly, Biden has substantial support in both the LGBTQIA community and among Latinx people. This is for the same reason. When you are the likely first victims of a second-term Trump, you do not have the luxury of purity tests and candidates that are unproven.
Can Biden stand up to Trump in a debate? Absolutely. You cannot out-Trump Trump. The only way to shrink Trump down to size is to show the true size of his character with a devastating side by side comparison: Biden’s human warmth, humor, and teflon with gaffes will prove to be impenetrable kryptonite for Trump.
Anyone who saw Biden’s town hall with CNN’s Anderson Cooper tonight saw the real Joe Biden. Warm, lucid, quoting poetry, and evoking real emotion in the audience on the topics of health care and his mentoring of fellow stutterers.
I hope the voters of New Hampshire are paying attention. I will be spending all of my available time there between now and next Tuesday to nominate Joe Biden, to bring this party together, to save us from falling into even darker times, and to begin to heal this country.
doubleman says
He was chosen to assuage worries from white moderates. I think that much has always been clear.
The poll numbers here are changing quickly. Sanders has always been a strong second choice. Around 90% of black voters polled are happy with either Biden or Sanders. There is a preference for Biden now, largely based on the thinking that he is the most likely to beat Trump. That issue is also changing. His awful performance in Iowa and clear signs he has little campaign infrastructure strength probably won’t help that.
And that brings up an important issue, do you see any signs that Biden has the campaign in place to wage a winning campaign? His ground game was non-existent in Iowa and rumors are that other states are no better. His fundraising numbers have been unremarkable. He doesn’t have the support of many in the Obama universe.
He seems to be running on the idea that “people know me” and assuming they will come out. We’ve been down that road before. You need a campaign that will not only inspire turnout, but has the operations and resources in place to organize it.
Right now on their respective websites, the Joe Biden campaign has 9 upcoming events listed for California, between now and the CA primary. Only one is a canvassing event. The Bernie Sanders campaign, on the other hand, has 804 events between now and the CA primary. Almost all are canvassing events.
Doesn’t the strength of Biden’s campaign terrify you?
terrymcginty says
No, because politics is fluid. Money will flow in like the Ganges when the black community holds firm, the field whittles, and Bloomberg then withdraws.
As for Bernie, I was a part of that movement in 2016, and it is just that, a powerful movement. In fact, I would go further and say among his most ardent followers it’s more than that. It’s a culture. That is powerful stuff.
So of course he’s got a large organization. But intensity is not how large-turnout elections are won in America.
When Bernie:
1. Has the wisdom to declare himself a Democrat, thereby discontinuing the implicit insult to those of us who are proud to be Democrats;
2. Turns that intensity of support into an expanded electorate in places like Iowa (which he, notably, did not do), and states with large populations of people of color; and
3. Starts talking about ways to work with all Americans, not just progressive ones, I’ll believe he is electable.
Until then, I remain more than concerned- terrified- at the prospect that a real vetting of Bernie will only finally occur in a general election (simultaneous with the inevitable smearing that any Dem with receive).
I share most of his values (except his isolationism, anti-immigrant history, and pro-NRA history), and would happily support him if he could make in himself electable in a GENERAL ELECTION.
I will vote for him with pleasure if he is the nominee, since I agree with him in everything else, but I remain extremely concerned that it will be the pleasure of a last meal before a sacrificial disaster.
Luckily, as usual, I will not have to do that. The black community will save this country from itself one more time.
SomervilleTom says
Sigh.
On the planet that I live on, 51 Republicans just voted to disembowel and castrate Congress. Joe Biden is, so far, silent about that.
On the planet that I live on, Donald Trump’s response to being acquitted was a twitter video promising to stay in office forever.
I don’t think Mike Bloomberg is going to just walk away. I don’t think the black community will be any more supportive of Joe Biden than it was of Hillary Clinton. I think that relying on the black community to rescue a failing campaign is just more dangerous and delusional denial of reality.
I’m not sure that any of the candidates can do what must be done.
I am becoming increasingly sure that the deal is already sealed and done. The media is already bought and paid for. The ignorance and bigotry of the American voter will not be solved between now and November.
I hope that I am wrong. I expect the Trumpist Blitzkrieg, led by Fox News, to crush our token and symbolic resistance between now and November.
I think it’s time to start thinking about the reality of what four more years of Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell will bring.
terrymcginty says
This is not Hillary Clinton. This is not 2016. This is an obvious emergency for the black community (and all of us, but ESPECIALLY vulnerable minorities).
SomervilleTom says
I do not suggest that this is Hillary Clinton or 2016. I fear we are headed into a campaign whose outcome might be worse — perhaps even much worse. The 2020 campaign has been crowded, divisive, vicious, and singularly unfocused. There was nothing in the 2016 primary campaign comparable to the utter incompetence of the Iowa primary.
Hillary Clinton ran a better, tighter, and more persuasive campaign in 2016 (and, for that matter, in 2008) than any candidate today with the possible exception of Elizabeth Warren.
Hillary Clinton did not finish fourth in Iowa in 2016, she finished first (by a hair). Joe Biden is not going to finish first or second in New Hampshre.
At the moment, there are three Democrats contending for the lead — an aging socialist rabble-rouser, a young gay “centrist” (there are still large parts of America where that is an oxymoron), and an aging Harvard professor who would likely run as a moderate Republican in the America of 1968.
Joe Biden is already done.
I have a hard time seeing the Democrat Party of early February 2020 coming together into a coherent blue landslide by November.
doubleman says
That fluidity better have started yesterday. His campaign has 1 canvassing event planned for the largest Super Tuesday state. If he’s giving up CA already, he’s done. He lost heavily among voters of color in Iowa. (Small group, yes, but he lost it badly). He appears to be falling hard in NH tracking polls. And the most recent SC poll shows his lead down to 5. But it’s not just money, he needs the campaign. He has more than enough to have hired the right people, built structure, and have the right strategy. That doesn’t seem to be the case.
I agree that this can be a problem for Democrats. It’s a problem for the primary. For the general, it is, without question, a huge benefit.
I agree here. He has not shown an overwhelming growth in non-voters coming in. But he has shown progress and you saw it in Iowa with first time caucus goers up, young voters way up from 2016, and immigrant voters coming in. In certain satellite caucuses of heavily immigrant populations, Bernie was getting upwards of 90% of support. The other campaigns have shown less than zero ability to bring in new voters.
He does, well at least about the 99%. And that is why he is the most popular among the candidates with independents.
“The real vetting” This is one of the best myths out there. He’s received roundly negative and broad media coverage for 5 years and attempts at gotchas for things in the 70s. None have stuck. He has been vetted. A lot more than most. He will be smeared, of course, and that could do him in. I’m worried about that too. But vetting?!!? That is silly.
terrymcginty says
I agree with most of this response. You are clearly extremely knowledgeable and up to speed on what is happening, although I do not think you are appreciating either Biden’s strengths nor accurately assessing the importance (lack thereof) of field this year. It will be less important than usual.
Caucuses skew left in the Dem party. Notably this one didn’t in Iowa when all candidates votes are categorized ideologically. This is yet another warning sign for Bernie.
But as to the issue of vetting, I could not disagree more. You do not really get vetted and also painted (as distinct from actual smearing, which is different), until you are the Democratic nominee.
This year, more than any other, we need to figure all of these vulnerabilities out now, not later, as normally happens.
terrymcginty says
PPP poll from North Carolina today. Biden’s firewall holding:
Biden 25%
Sanders 16%
Bloomberg 14%
SomervilleTom says
Joe Biden got his butt kicked in Iowa.
Joe Biden is STILL in abject denial about how deeply evil today’s GOP is. In my view, the single most glaring weakness of the Barack Obama administration was its naive and self-destructive eagerness to compromise before the racist hostility of Mitch McConnell and the ENTIRE GOP establishment. Joe Biden proposes to double-down on that failure.
I reject the claim that there is just one candidate who can defeat Donald Trump. That claim is not supported by evidence, history, or current events.
ANY Democrat who does presents anything but steel and stone to the ENTIRE GOP is both suicidal and dangerous to each and every one of us.
Today’s GOP must be CRUSHED. Their supporters must be crushed. Their explicit and criminal dealings with Vladimir Putin and Russian organized crime (the two are inseparable) must be investigated and prosecuted.
What I saw on display Tuesday night was raw Nazi-style propaganda, right out of the Goering playbook. The talking heads of MSNBC and CNN flatly refuse to call it what it so obviously is.
America itself is in an existential crisis. Our institutions of government are failing. Our “fourth estate” is failing. A Blitzkrieg of tyranny — yes, Christopher, I use the word as an explicit and intentional reference to Nazi Germany — is sweeping through America.
Joe Biden shows ZERO awareness of what is actually happening right now.
doubleman says
I wish a candidate was forthright about ending the GOP. None are and that is unfortunate.
Continuing to make overtures of embracing them is outrageous right now, though.
terrymcginty says
He’s not talking about “embracing them”. He’s talking about finding a path back to being one polity. That is all.
doubleman says
He has said they will “return to normal” and be reasonable. He also said that the current VP is a “decent man” within the past year. It’s as if Mitch McConnell never existed during the Obama years.
terrymcginty says
What’s the alternative? Saying there is no chance they will return to normal? What does that accomplish? Denying this POSSIBILITY is the kind of approach that led to civil wars in places like Bosnia.
I lived my entire life up until ten years ago being told that I did have the right to marry. Now I’m supposed to be shamed into believing that I’m not being ‘tough enough’ on Pence because the leader (Biden) who stood up for that right at a key moment in history is, what, trying not to dehumanize in return one of those who would deny that right and dehumanize me?
I wasn’t born yesterday, and I’m not 14 years old. And we do not need to stoop to that level. In the 1980’s, when I put myself on the line for these I Im rights many times when it wasn’t easy, I could have said the 90% of politicians who opposed that right were indecent. What would that have gained us? (Nothing.)
SomervilleTom says
The alternative is to fight fire with fire — a proportionate response that uses all weapons at our disposal and yields no ground.
Specifically, the alternative is:
– Identify specific federal programs and REFUSE TO FUND THEM. Refuse to even allow VOTES on them so long as the GOP maintains its intransigence.
– Make full compliance with congressional subpoenas a prerequisite for any funding of any program
– NO approval of any judges that are not previously vetted and approved by Senate Democrats
– NO participation in White House photo-ops.
etc, etc,etc
@Denying this POSSIBILITY is the kind of approach that led to civil wars in places like Bosnia.:
This argument is easily countered by noting that appeasement is the kind of approach that leads to a Holocaust when genuine evil is confronted
Desmond Tutu outlined one alternative and avoided a bloodbath after the fall of the Apartheid regime in South Africa. The key sequence is:
1. Confession
2. Repentance
3. Forgiveness
4. Reconciliation
Note that the first step originates in the sinner, and that forgiveness and reconciliation are possible ONLY after confession and repentance. I see no evidence that Mr. Biden and his campaign recognize the importance of this sequence.
The ruling party in South Africa was never reconstituted. Germany has never had another Nazi party. The institutional GOP must be similarly shamed and dismantled.
I believe that we must be fearless in our enthusiastic embrace of the values and priorities that make us strong. We must be equally fearless in our rejection of the dark forces that strive to defeat us.
We must offer no quarter to those who strive to destroy us. We must offer forgiveness and reconciliation to those who genuinely recognize and publicly confess their betrayal of our shared moral values and priorities.
SomervilleTom says
I think we can put at least three more angels onto the head of the pin.
There is no path back to anything with today’s GOP. The party and its Trumpist supporters must be crushed. The only way forward for America is create a polity that has at least one brand-new party, and perhaps two or even more than two.
Mitt Romney’s GOP is dead. The party that carries that brand today has nothing to do with Mitt Romney’s GOP. The Tea Party created a fissure. Vladimir Putin drove a wedge into that fissure and broke it to smithereens. He used money from Russian organized crime to accomplish a hostile leveraged buyout, buying the Presidency directly and flipping a long and growing line of GOP Collaborators. Whatever was left of the old party flipped, retired from politics, or died.
There is no path back. That reality lies at the heart of Joe Biden’s denial.
Christopher says
No Dem candidate is going to end the GOP nor should they try. If the GOP ends it will be under its own weight, but more likely there will be a reckoning and they will finally learn what they need to do to survive as one of our major parties.
SomervilleTom says
I passionately disagree with this.
The GOP has always been a vicious, bigoted, and deceitful force that has pandered to the worst elements of the electorate for as long as I’ve been alive. It is no accident that the major scandals, the constant “dirty trick” operations, the economic lies, and so on all originate in the GOP.
There were at one time a few politicians who attempted to reject at least some of the worst aspects of the party. They were effectively purged.
If our candidate doesn’t strive to crush the GOP politically, we will never regain the majorities we need to even begin the decades-long process of repairing the damage the GOP has already done.
Christopher says
Maybe I took “end” too literally, but I certainly won’t be upset if we sweep all 23 Senate seats they are defending, win the WH and get a supermajority in the House. I do, however, believe that two healthy parties are vital to elective democracy.
SomervilleTom says
I enthusiastically agree with you that at least two healthy parties are vital to elective democracy, wrote exactly that just upthread yesterday (emphasis here):
America needs to obliterate the GOP. Crush it to dust, put it next to the Whigs in the dusty back-shelves of a big library. Just as a forest fire clears the way for new growth to emerge, so to does the total destruction of the GOP clear the way for a healthy new party to emerge.
I love the prospect of more than one healthy new party emerging. The Greens have become a potent political force in Germany over the past few decades. If a healthy third party can emerge, its presence can transform the current dysfunctional political dynamic.
So, one more time — absolutely YES that we must have at least two healthy parties. In order for that to happen, the GOP must be destroyed.
fredrichlariccia says
Center left candidate (Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar) won more Iowa caucus votes than left candidates (Sanders. Warren).
SomervilleTom says
Absolutely. Iowa is lily-white and Trumpist, and the Iowa caucuses reflected that.
In my view, the “left-center-right” dimension is misleading and obsolete. I think that lens is irrelevant to what is happening today.
The dimension at play right now is poor-moderate-wealthy. The Democratic power elite is absolutely freaked out by the strength of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and simultaneously freaked out by the incompetence of the Joe Biden campaign.
The Democratic power elite wants a nominee who will not threaten the current wealth and power dynamic of America. Mike Bloomberg epitomizes that view. In New York City, Mr. Bloomberg ran and won as a Democrat when that was his path to victory and then ran and won as a Republican when that was necessary. Mr. Bloomberg is loyal to just one thing: wealth and power.
Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar are FAR more appealing to the Democratic power elite than Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.
Joe Biden is the venerable quarterback who is no longer competitive in the current season. The power elite will bench Joe Biden. My guess is the Mike Bloomberg will be the nominee.
Mike Bloomberg will buy primary victories with his enormous personal fortune. He will outspend the Democratic field by an order of magnitude. He will be loved by the non-Trumpist mainstream media and tolerated by Fox.
I think Mr. Bloomberg is the current candidate most likely to give Donald Trump the thrashing he deserves. Mr. Bloomberg is smart, savvy, and FAR more successful than Mr. Trump ever was and ever will be.
Mr. Bloomberg will ensure that absolutely nothing is done to address the economic suffering that tears us apart. If you liked Mike Bloomberg’s New York City, you’ll love Mike Bloomberg’s America.
I do not support Mr. Bloomberg. I expect him to be nominated and to win. I expect Elizabeth Warren to end her campaign well before the convention and return to her Senate seat.
I spent two days this week with my 26 year old son, who believes that this is a meaningless election that will make zero measurable difference in the day-to-day life of Americans, and especially of Americans born after the baby-boom. He is not dumb, and I am beginning to believe he has a better handle on reality than me.
Christopher says
You’re calling the nomination for Bloomberg – really? I don’t see where his votes come from in a Dem primary context.
SomervilleTom says
I don’t want it to happen, but that’s the way I think this mess will play out.
SomervilleTom says
@I don’t see where his votes come from…:
See my answer to doubleman.
doubleman says
Bloomberg has no reasonable path to the nomination by winning states and delegates. His only way is to win enough to deny a majority of delegates to the person who has won the most delegates. This would force a brokered convention. If the Democratic party chooses to give the nomination to Bloomberg when he is not the person with the most votes in primaries, the Democratic Party will be over, for good. Fully fractured and irreparable. Kaput. Done. It will almost assuredly allow for a Trump re-election as well. For many of the Party elites (meaning donors), however, that would be preferable to a Sanders or Warren Presidency.
If Bloomberg somehow won the Presidency, it would be the complete end of American democracy. President Bezos would be next. Frankly, President Bezos might be coming anyway. He is far richer than Bloomberg and would use all instruments of the Amazon network to make it seem like Americans only have one candidate for President.
What Bloomberg is trying to do should be resisted by everyone who hopes to not live in an absolute monarchy.
SomervilleTom says
@Bloomberg has no reasonable path to nomination by winning states and delegates:
I think you’re profoundly mistaken about that.
Have you seen the MSNBC graphics about Mr. Bloomberg’s advertising spending on the Super Tuesday states? Tom Steyer alone outspent the rest of the field combined. Mike Bloomberg has already spent about ten times as much as Tom Steyer.
Mike Bloomberg is buying advertising. While the rest of the field is fighting with bows and arrows, Mr. Bloomberg is sending in squadrons of flying gunships. All that ad spending means that he’ll get LOTS of mainstream media coverage aside from the ads, and that coverage will be very friendly. That will be true for all forms of mainstream media — television, internet, and print.
I think he’ll be the candidate with the most votes, just like Donald Trump was the candidate with the most GOP primary votes in 2016.
I’m not saying I like any of these, I’m saying what my instincts tell me given what I see already.
All this happy-talk about revolution and grass-roots sounds really awesomely great to 20-somethings in college or recently graduated. Do people realize the extent to which “anarchy” is being mainstreamed, and therefore co-opted? Staples is running ads touting its new internet cafes as places to “break the rules”. Americans, voters, and the power elite want no part of actual anarchy and actual revolution. A.T. A.L.L.
We live in a world where the most powerful technologies for manipulating public opinion ever discovered are available to the highest bidder with ZERO regulation. We’ve told the ENTIRE WORLD that anybody with cash has complete license to do WHATEVER THEY WANT with no consequences whatsoever.
I suspect you’re absolutely correct about Jeff Bezos — not because he has more money, but because he WANTS to.
If nothing else, all of us will be getting an object lesson in exactly what it means to have personal fortunes in the realm of tens of billions of dollars. The fact that one oligarch has $150B and another “only” $50B doesn’t matter.
In the 2016 campaign season, advertising spending for the entire field totaled about $10B (depending on the data source). Mr. Bloomberg can spend that all by himself!
There may come a time when bottom-up grassroots mobilization can take actual power and wealth away from the ultra-elite without violence.
It isn’t going to happen in 2020.
doubleman says
Yes, I have seen the ads and the spending. It’s still incredibly unlikely that he can get a majority of delegates. He needs outright wins in many Super Tuesday states to have a chance. Getting 15% in lots of states isn’t going to cut it.
Steyer spent $14 million in Iowa alone and he’s walking away with zero delegates. He got 1.7% of first ballot votes despite polling at double that number.
This is still the primary where voters are much more engaged. TV ads alone can only drive so much.
SomervilleTom says
Time will tell. Iowa is completely meaningless. Iowa is not representative and it’s not an election. Similarly, NH is more like a pre-season game than anything real.
I think you’ll see Mr. Bloomberg doing much better in the Super Tuesday states, and he’ll be just getting started.
I hope I’m wrong about this. I’m just saying that I think we progressives are all living in la-la-land if we think Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is going to lead a blue wave that sweeps all three branches of government.
If there is any lesson in Iowa at all, it is that Joe Biden’s campaign is done. Stick a fork in it. The same is probably true of Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Andrew Yang.
Christopher says
IA is not make or break. It’s not just Sanders and Buttigieg from this point forward, and the latter in particular may hit speed bumps in later states. There are also a couple of candidates who did not compete in IA who are betting on NH.
Christopher says
All the money in the world means jacksquat if there is no constituency for the candidate.
SomervilleTom says
Money CREATES a constituency for a candidate, just like money creates customers for a product. Do you think “Pokemon” has any intrinsic value? If you know any children, where do you think “Polly Pocket” customers come from?
Tens of millions of American live their lives through television. They believe what Fox News tells them to believe. When Fox News tells them something happened, they believe it happened. When Fox News tells something didn’t happen, they believe it didn’t happen.
Television and now internet advertising is expensive and lucrative because it works.
Anybody who has bought pretty much ANY product in the past five years knows full well that price has only a vague correlation with quality at best. Price reflects demand, and demand is created by advertising.
Constituencies are created by money, not candidates.
Christopher says
Only if there’s an audience, and I can think of advertising campaigns lots of money was poured into that did not amount to much.
SomervilleTom says
Time will tell.
My prediction is that whether or not Mr. Bloomberg wins the nomination, he will create a constituency that is much larger than you currently acknowledge.
Christopher says
I’m pretty sure the days are over when even a brokered convention turns to someone not already leading or close, but keep in mind these are delegates WE elect. When you show up at your CD caucus on 4/25 it might be wise to ask candidates for delegate whom they would support second.
SomervilleTom says
I agree with you about this.
If Mike Bloomberg gets the nomination, it will be because he has won the primaries.
terrymcginty says
“If the outcome of the presidential race seems predetermined after one set of caucuses where no candidate received more than 45k votes or a quarter of vote share, maybe our society is a little too obsessed with political prognostication, and it’s becoming self-fulfilling prophecy.”
@whstancil
bob-gardner says
I think you have a beef with the prognosticator who wrote this post.
couves says
The moderate centrist has already lost to Trump. We beat Trump with a candidate who is equally despised by the establishment… ie, Bernie.
SomervilleTom says
I’m not sure it’s that simple, and I don’t buy the moderate-vs-radical dichotomy.
The “moderate centrist” won the popular vote, and lost the electoral college vote because of a surge in racist white male voters in MI, WI, and PA and a parallel slump in urban minority voters in those same three states.
I don’t think Mr. Sanders reverses the surge of racist white males in those three states and I don’t think he causes a surge of urban minority voters in those same three states.
The only election I can think of where a radical who is despised by “the establishment” won is the 1932 victory of FDR. I invite you to consider the presidents elected since then:
Truman
Eisenhower
JFK
LBJ
Nixon
Carter
Reagan
Bush I
Clinton
Bush II
Obama
Trump
Which of those was radical? I suggest it is only Reagan.
Which of those was hated by the establishment? Only Donald Trump
None of the Presidents since FDR was both radical and hated by the establishment.
I don’t think there is any logical connection between your first two sentences. I get that you support Mr. Sanders. I don’t think that support has anything to do with the 2016 campaign.
couves says
Establishment candidates had previously supported reform, to head off popular discontent and the election of less establishment-friendly candidates. FDR is the classic example of this, but there are of course others. I don’t see that happening this time. The Democratic establishment is more interested in stopping progressive reform than adopting it.
This is true even in policy areas where there is a general consensus in favor of progressive policy… ie, not supporting foreign extremists who will later fly planes into your buildings. To this point, Tulsi Gabbard offered a rather moderate critique of our Syria policy, while avoiding the language progressives generally use to describe such CIA operations. The establishment knows they can’t argue on substance, so they go straight to propaganda. Gabbard gets labeled as an “Assad apologist” and a “Russian asset” and has dealt with almost every smear in the book.
I’m not the first to make the observation, but today’s Democratic party is right wing — both in policy and tactics.
SomervilleTom says
I see. So in your view, FDR was another “establishment candidate” and today’s Democratic party is “right wing — both in policy and tactics”. This language is so laughably extremist that is meaningless.
Commentary like this reinforces my view that the nomination of Mr. Sanders would be a catastrophic blunder for the Democratic Party and for America.
couves says
Moderates will at times enact progressive policies, for a variety of political reasons. Yes FDR was very much an establishment politician vs. the socialist radicals of the time. Some have said his adoption of progressive policies prevented the socialists from gaining ground. Some have said he saved capitalism.
Historically-speaking, our political establishment (the Democratic party included) has shifted right in the last several decades. I’m not actually averse to much of that — I support free trade (ideally not in its current form) and I think the government is terrible at running industry or setting prices. I am perhaps more liberal than progressive.
But the reality is that our leadership has become so stuck in its conservatism that it can’t respond to new and emerging problems, or to even correct mistakes. And for those of us dealing with reality, we’re suddenly “extremists” or “Bernie Bros” or “Russian Bots.” Ok, good luck with your right wing talking points…
SomervilleTom says
You are redefining terms such that “moderate” means anyone who is not at the extreme of the arbitrary left-right dimension you’ve described.
It isn’t clear from the context of your comment what you mean by your use of “socialist radicals”, “socialist”, and “communist”. The meaning of “socialist” and “communist” changed wildly between when the words were coined in the 19th century, the Bolshevik, and its aftermath. Many historians agree that FDR played a major role in ensuring that communism, as it was known in 1932, did not gain a political foothold in the US. He did that by radically transforming the American government and economy to provide many or most of the same tangible results as communist.
FDR certainly was not the most extreme leftist of his day. I think only the most rabid leftists would argue that he was an “establishment politician”.
I agree that the American society has veered right-ward in since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The shift began even before then — Jimmy Carter was far more conservative than the Democrats that came before him. My perception, having lived through it all, is that Democratic Party resisted that rightward turn at every opportunity.
The rightward shift, like virtually everything the GOP has done in my lifetime, was based on lies, racism, and sheer ignorance. There was enough suffering from the Vietnam war, the racist draft, the reaction to the Civil Rights movement of 1965, the assassinations of MLK and RFK, and so on, that the GOP found fertile soil in which to plant its vicious seeds.
All of us feel that we’re dealing with reality. I suggest that any of us who categorize any but the most extreme leftists as “right wingers” are, well, misguided.
couves says
Just to clarify, I don’t think most Democrats are right wingers. But the party leadership certainly is.
terrymcginty says
“The black community will save this country from itself one more time.”
I wrote those words on February 6, 2020, at a very dire time for the Biden campaign.
Today I can say that the black community is indeed in the midst of saving us from ourselves. We Americans are blessed to be the recipients of undeserved grace and wisdom from communities of color.