2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Sanders-Clinton distinction: Running to do, not to be something
From today's Raleigh News and Observer:
The first reason is obvious. Sanders and Clinton have dramatically different visions of politics.
Sanders is potently ideological. He has pressed the same economically egalitarian agenda for decades. He runs to do something, not to be it. If someone else could trigger a populist revolt as effectively, hed likely have given way. I doubt hes berned to be president. He has, though, Im sure, longed to help create a different kind of society. Forever.
Clinton, like her husband and probably most politicians, has had her eye on the levers of power. Shed say shes pragmatic, shes effective, she knows how to get things done. This has meant, for decades, that she has been as flexible and shape-shifting as the desert sand.
Shes one of Americas leading globalists, until, reportedly, shes not. She hawks international pipelines until shes horrified by them. She votes for war, then declaims for peace. She demands mass incarceration until shes appalled by it. Shes Wall Streets best friend until she detests it. She sells the Lincoln bedroom and embraces super PACs, as she commits to strain money out of politics. Its a different approach.
So different, in fact, that its rejection comprises a core component of the Sanders revolution. The intense loathing of chameleon politics is, perhaps, the main procedural plank of the platform. Clinton and her cadre seemingly believe this to be naïve, unschooled saying one thing while doing another is, after all, politics. Maybe so, the Sandersistas reply. If it is, its like a bath in warm creosote. They want nothing to do with it.
.....
In fact, concern for those at the bottom was standard Democratic fare until the Clintons. They were triangulating, third way, deregulating, corporatist, New Democrats famously ending big government, crushing welfare, demanding NAFTA, linking the party to a marriage with Wall Street and Hollywood that mirrored Republican economic policy and removed the interests of the bottom third from the American political agenda.
In this sense, Clinton is a more pointed and specific adversary of the Sanders movement than even Republicans like Mitt Romney and, now, Donald Trump.
.....
The Clintons, on the other hand, are likely more responsible for the Democratic Partys modern drift than any other humans. They looked hard at a traditional party commitment to low-income people, concluded it jeopardized their electoral fortunes and determined to abandon it.
Its understandably nauseating, therefore, for the Sanders folks to be told it is their obligation to make the nomination process easier for Clinton. When that includes lectures about the high ground, it is more than activists ought be asked to bear.
North Carolinians may be in the jaws of GOP governance, but they see clearly what is afoot.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)This lays out the story so well.
The Clintons get things done,
They have made themselves billionaires via government positions.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)I do think that they might have different approaches to promoting egalitarianism. I understand that a President's ability to promote egalitarianism in any meaningful way is going to require the cooperation of the Congress.
Trump talks a lot about what he is going to do immediately upon becoming President. If he really is that confused, someone will tell him on the first day that there exists a legislature that has to be supportive.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)and needs no legislature.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)That's their number one goal. To do that they've sold their souls to the corporations that own the Oligarchy.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)Many of the Republicans and conservatives that I know believe that the Clintons are communists trying to remake our society into some sort of Marxist utopia. It takes all kinds, I guess.
Anyone who thinks that the Clintons sold their souls (I'm picturing Robert Johnson at the Crossroads) is not likely to be interested in my views.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I am sure you mean well but it's just my policy.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)But you left out the best line "Draining politics of its meaning has its costs too."
seafan
(9,387 posts)Yes, that is a great line from the op-ed piece. Bernie Sanders is fighting to restore it.
Another piece I ran across gets into the gritty details even more:
How openly perverse a mockery of democracy is it that a significant portion of Hillarys convention delegate lead over Sanders enough to give her the nomination without a contest on the convention floor derives from the 525 explicitly unelected and so-called superdelegates pledged to her before Sanders even declared his candidacy?
Adding more insult to insult and injury, Hillary plays the timeworn elite Democratic game of fake-progressive and pseudo-populist posing, trying to steal Sanders rhetorical thunder on her left while smilingly knifing him in the back.
.....
Why are the Hillary campaign and its allies in the DNC so arrogantly disrespectful towards Sanders and his followers, even as the Senator from Vermont continues to rack up primary victories and come in with more than 40 percent of the vote? Dont they worry that their contempt will make it more difficult for them to garner votes from Bernies millions of followers in the general election? (By some polling estimates, close to a third of Bernies backers wont vote for her). Unless Clinton is able to convince a large proportion of Sanders supporters to vote for her, a progressive Democrat writes in the liberal weekly The Nation, shes unlikely to win in November.
The Clintonites are calculating, I think, that identity politics and Trumps related high negatives will hold the day. They expect The Donald to be so toxic to female, nonwhite, and immigrant voters as to make his victory impossible. They are banking also on lots of crossover votes and funding from Republicans who cant stand Trump. They are counting on enough Bernie supporters acting in accord with Sanders advance promise to deliver his voters to the partys eventual nominee (Hillary) in the name of blocking the horrible Republican Party (recently described by Noam Chomsky as possibly the most dangerous organization in human history) a promise they expect Sanders to deliver on soon and during the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia this summer. And they expect the ugliness theyve spewed at Sanders and his supporters and the related hostility that many progressive Democrats feel for the Clintons and the DNC to slip down Orwells memory hole once the quadrennial extravaganza boils down to either Hillary or Donald (two of the most widely disliked people in the nation and on Earth).
But dont forget the hate the sheer unmitigated contempt that elite corporate Democrats from the Clintons on down feel for progressives in the ranks of their party, and indeed for anyone who challenges their superior wisdom and right to rule. As Ron Fournier noted in The Atlantic last February, there has always been a (dark) side of the Clintons. They cant fathom why anybody would challenge their motives, doubt their veracity, or criticize their policies. The Clintons self-conceptions are yoked to their sense of public service and joint commitment to making lives betterand they believe their ends justify their means If youre not for them, youre not just an opponentyoure beneath contempt.
(Making lives better? As the economist Robert Pollin noted in the progressive Democratic journal The Nation earlier this year: Clintonomics was a disaster for most Americans Under Bill Clinton, Wall Street created a ruinous bubble, while workers lost wages and power Bill Clintons presidency accomplished almost nothing to improve conditions for working people and the poor on a sustained basis. Gestures to the poor and working class were slight and back-handed, while wages for the majority remained below their level of a generation prior. Wealth at the top exploded with the Wall Street bubble. But the stratospheric rise in stock prices and the debt-financed consumption and investment booms produced a mortgaged legacy. The financial unraveling began even as Clinton was basking in praise for his economic stewardship.)
.....
That toxic, viciously circular, and self-fulfilling game is part of how to we got in current big tangle of a situation wherein the top 1 percent owns more than 90 percent of the nations wealth along with most of government and the media while their soulless and cancerous profits system (capitalism) pushes humans and other living things over the edge of economic, military, authoritarian, racist, sexist and (last but not least) ecological catastrophe. If voting changed anything, the great American anarchist Emma Goldman once said, theyd make it illegal.
.....
'We welcome their hatred.'
The Sanders Revolution is just beginning.
Response to seafan (Original post)
silvershadow This message was self-deleted by its author.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)So many people forget that DU is a business and we DUers are the product. I get the sense that it's the people who have consistently racked up hide after hide for being assholes no matter which or any side they might be on who will be gone along with those who have or are socks.
Skinner said he put his ass and credibility on the line with the amnesty and I don't think he's pleased with those who took amnesty and then doubled down on the immature behavior that got them a time out in the first place.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I'm watching it slide down my list of visited sites and have no desire to ever return.
I may feel that way about DU soon, I get closer every day.
Response to Fumesucker (Reply #15)
silvershadow This message was self-deleted by its author.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)If Hillary is the nominee and loses to Trump DU is going to be simultaneously totally unbearable and unbelievably funny.
There was a post the other day about Trump using mass psychological techniques, I think this whole "Trump is stupid" idea I see here is ridiculously wrong. Trump doesn't care if you think he's dumber than dirt if it get him what he wants.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Scrutinizing candidates?
AzDar
(14,023 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Ouch, I haven't heard that one before, it about covers it though.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Response to seafan (Original post)
cyberpj This message was self-deleted by its author.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...means siding with We the People, not Wall Street and War Inc.
In fact, concern for those at the bottom was standard Democratic fare until the Clintons. They were triangulating, third way, deregulating, corporatist, New Democrats famously ending big government, crushing welfare, demanding NAFTA, linking the party to a marriage with Wall Street and Hollywood that mirrored Republican economic policy and removed the interests of the bottom third from the American political agenda.
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article80314017.html#storylink=cpy
Thank you seafan! Democratic Action.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)Give him a Pulitzer...and a
K & R to the galaxy.