The "establishment" - what is it?

[auntpurl]

I've seen the word "establishment" used to describe Hillary Clinton, Pres Obama, and many other Democrats throughout this election cycle. I have questions about the term and how it is used here on DU.

Hillary Clinton is "establishment" why? Is it:

- because she's been in politics for 30 years?
- because she's been an elected politician in the past?
- because she has mainstream political positions?

I am genuinely asking these questions.

President Obama has also been described as "establishment". His political career is much shorter than Hillary's, so presumably that rules out the "30 years in politics" argument. Does "establishment" just mean you've been elected to a political office? Because in that case all politicians are establishment. That seems to rule out the second explanation above. Which leaves the "mainstream political views" argument.

If "establishment" means "mainstream", and mainstream views represent the majority of Democrats, then...why wouldn't the majority of Democrats vote for a candidate that best represents their views? And why is that a bad thing? This is a representative democracy, right? Our elected officials are supposed to represent our views to the best of their abilities?

Thank you in advance for your thoughts.

[BlueMTexpat]

1. THIS ...

If "establishment" means "mainstream", and mainstream views represent the majority of Democrats, then...why wouldn't the majority of Democrats vote for a candidate that best represents their views? And why is that a bad thing? This is a representative democracy, right? Our elected officials are supposed to represent our views to the best of their abilities?

Somehow, I had the idea that was what "democracy" was all about.

[tonyt53]

2. And I'm standing with you! This IS how democracy is supposed to work.

[baldguy]

3. The "establishment" is a mythical beast

Which the Don Quixotes of the world need to set up as a windmill to joust at.

[BobbyDrake]

9. Definitely the best description of the concept I've ever seen. nt

[pandr32]

77. Exactly!

A mythical beast of a very broad brush, too.

[seabeyond]

4. PP, NERAL are establishment too. Anyone who doesn't support Sanders are identified as establishment

Whereas Sanders being a white male in politics for over 30 yrs is the very definition of establishment. So ya.

[PragmaticLiberal]

43. "Anyone who doesn't support Sanders are identified as establishment"

Basically.


Clearly someone like John Lewis has made a living of "being establishment".

[casperthegm]

5. Establishment

Means the politicians who have embraced the status quo and are unwilling to move toward progressive values and issues. Or they can't see/won't acknowledge that they have actually shifted toward conservative values and issues(I can list specifics if you'd like). Or even worse, they are aware of the shift toward working for corporate American and the war machine rather than the common people and they don't care and count on party loyalty to carry them. That's the establishment.

[BobbyDrake]

10. Definitely the worst description of the concept I've ever seen. nt

[casperthegm]

16. See post #4

"Anyone who doesn't support Sanders are identified as establishment." I'd nominate that as the worst description. That's simple arrogance and part of the reason that Sanders supporters don't feel inclined to fall in line with the party. Individual candidate and they're record > party loyalty.

[auntpurl]

18. But Senator Warren was described by Bernie supporters as "anti-establishment"

until she endorsed Hillary, after which she was and is still described as "establishment". How does that fit with your post?

[casperthegm]

25. That's an excellent question actually

I really like all of the things that Warren has said. She says a lot of the same things that Bernie does. I can't speak for all Sanders supporters, but since you asked me, here's my take;

If Warren really felt as strongly as she claimed to, then backing a candidate who has many views that you'd find on the gop platform is essentially selling out her own supposed values in order to support the party. Choosing party loyalty over individual candidate is where I think many of us differ.

I will not blindly swear an oath to someone that I feel is simply not qualified. If taking a close look at a candidate's record and stance on issues is frowned upon and blind party loyalty is expected, then so be it- that's not the party for me. If Warren had simply come out and pointed out the numerous flaws with Trump, that would seem appropriate. Because I think we can all agree that he is dangerous.

*And I don't know if this will help, but I often get a sense that Clinton supporters roll their eyes every time I or another Sanders supporter make an "outrageous" claim that Clinton holds conservative views and track record. So, I'll list some here, just to at least show that I'm not just throwing out vague talking points; fracking, regime change, no fly zones, opposition to Glass Steagall, using super pacs while at the same time opposing them, speeches to Wall Street for hundreds of thousands and no transparency, opposition to healthcare for all, opposition to free tuition, and the list goes on.

[auntpurl]

31. In reply

I've probably done this 100 times on this site, and it probably won't do any good, but here goes again - maybe there is one person reading who is undecided, so it's worth doing:

1. Fracking: Hillary is not in FAVOR of fracking. If the choices are foreign oil, coal, and fracking AT THE MOMENT, she chooses fracking as the least damaging option - as a stop-gap solution to keep people heating their homes and getting to work. At the same time, she has a comprehensive plan to build a renewable energy infrastructure and create thousands of jobs in the process: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/

2. Regime change: I don't know exactly what you mean by this, but Hillary enacted President Obama's policies as SOS. She has promised to use diplomacy up and until it is no longer a viable approach. Whether you believe her comes down to character, but in terms of her stated positions, she is no warmonger. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/national-security/

3. No-fly zones: as above. And I would add there IS no diplomatic solution for ISIS.

4. Opposition to Glass-Steagall: Hillary has a comprehensive plan to eliminate the banks' ability to take dangerous risks and weaken the economy. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/wall-street/

5. Super PACs: Hillary is in favour of comprehensive campaign finance reform. We need a majority in Congress to get this passed - and I am extremely opposed to our Democratic candidates playing a game of chicken and being the first to stop taking big money BEFORE everyone else has to stop too. We need to get into office before we can make these changes. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/

6. Speeches to Wall Street: Hillary was a private citizen, all former presidents make speeches for big money (in addition to loads of other kinds of celebrities), and there has never been any proof of quid pro quo.

7. Opposition for healthcare for all: Hillary supports expanding and improving the ACA. Removing it entirely and hoping to get something even more left-wing passed is not reasonable in our political climate. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/

8. Opposition to free tuition: Hillary has added debt-free college to her platform: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/

I understand it probably makes no difference to you. But it might to someone else reading.

[casperthegm]

46. You're right

We don't see things the same, but there's nothing wrong with trying a little back and forth on the issues. You never know who you might sway.

1. Fracking. That's a convenient way of saying it, but in the end she supports it- even if it is explained away as the best option for now. Bottom line for me and many others who care about the environment; it's not a safe option.

2. Regime change; This encompasses everything ranging from the vote to invade Iraq to Syria. The vote for Iraq is the one that bothers me the most I think. There is such a stark contrast between candidates here. And it's funny/sad how Clinton touts her foreign policy "experience." Come on, really? Ok, Clinton was fed a bunch of lies by the Bush White House and voted for the war- I get that. But here's the thing; Sanders was fed that same nonsense and had the foresight to see that it would create a power vacuum and destabilize the region. Which it did; Hello ISIS.

3. No fly zone; That is in reference to challenging Russia not to cross a proposed no fly zone in Syria. Yeah, what could go wrong? Brilliant foreign policy again.

4. I keep thinking back to the debates with Bernie where she told everyone how she said she went to the banks and told them to "cut it out." But yeah, I have a ton of faith now.

5. Yeah, I know. Once everyone else stops doing it, I'll stop doing it too. Funny how one candidate had the strength of conviction to forgo the super pacs and did just fine raising money. Hillary considers super pacs legal bribery and wants to put an end to it, but only after she's elected. And unlike all of the other candidates who might succumb to the legal bribery, she's above it all.

6. Speeches to Wall Street. You're not wrong. She was a private citizen who had every right to do what she did. I'm sure she had no idea that she'd be running for president again. And just like super pacs, there's no proof of quid pro quo. But for a candidate with nationwide trust issues, does that seem like good judgment to you? Or just ethical in general to give the speeches and refuse to disclose the transcripts? You sure have a lot of faith in this woman, when up to this point, I can't see the reason for it.

7. My understanding of the healthcare for all option is that it does not require the removal of the existing ACA. So rather than expand and improve, let's keep the ACA in place and at the same time work on getting something done to give healthcare to all Americans.

8. Free tuition; I see that Hillary has now adopted Bernie's plan for free tuition, somewhat. (for families with household income under $125k) Nice olive branch. It doesn't simply make everything else go away, but I'll give credit where it is due.

Anyway, thanks for the conversation.

[auntpurl]

48. Most of your arguments come down to

not believing her regarding her stated positions. These are issues of character not policy. You think she's a liar. I don't. Apparently most Democratic voters don't.

I would also add that you say Senator Sanders did "just fine" not taking superPAC money - but he lost. Hillary ground game was superior and the money was a part of it. I want the whole thing scaled down - there's no need for these campaign cycles to last the better part of 2 years, and there's no need for the over-the-top bombing of the airwaves. I'd like to see a 6-week process, and a single day primary. Of course, Senator Sanders would have been absolutely destroyed in that case as he had virtually no name recognition.

[Lord Magus]

90. I'm not sure you're right about the money issue.

Bernie was able to raise enough money from small donations to put up a decently competitive primary campaign. But raising enough to win a general election is a much higher bar. As long as the Repukes have access to unlimited money, it's going to require upward of a billion dollars to run a successful campaign against them. And that $1 billion is direct donations to a campaign; forgoing super PACs would mean the campaign itself would need even more money to counter the Repuke super PACs.

That's why I'm not a fan of giving Repukes an artificial advantage by letting them be the only ones to rake in the unlimited cash. A candidate voluntarily not taking the money will not fix the system, just like a billionaire voluntarily donating extra money to the IRS wouldn't fix our tax code. The only way to get money out of politics is to pass laws applying it to everyone and (thanks to the vile Citizens United ruling) confirming SCOTUS justices who would uphold those new laws.

[Squinch]

71. You HAVE posted this many times before, but I love it every time I see it.

[auntpurl]

72. Thank you.

A bit like screaming into the wilderness, but I try to remember there are a lot more people who read this site than actually post here.

[Squinch]

76. You should ask about tacking it to the top of the HRC group. Then we can just paste the address.

It's a great resource.

[auntpurl]

78. Huh, you think?

I would have assumed that people who are active on DU, a political website, would have at least done the due diligence to actually read the candidates' own websites before casting judgment? Hell, I read Donald Trump's website policies, at least what there are of them, which as you might expect isn't much. I read every word of Senator Sanders' website; it was a big way I made my decision of who to support. Hillary's policies were the most comprehensive and reality-based; hence, I supported her (the fact she's so personally appealing to me was a bonus!).

But maybe people make more emotionally-based and less rational decisions than I assume? I would find that very disappointing. To think many of the most vitriolic anti-Hillary posters here on DU have maybe never even read her policies would be so disheartening.

[Squinch]

81. You silly! Many many people here have never clicked on HRC's website.

The most vitriolic are the ones who, when they say, "Well Hillary is against THIS!" and then you link them to her support for THIS on her website, you never hear from them again.

[auntpurl]

82. Yes, you're right, they do tend to disappear.

I am a babe in the wilderness! The scales are falling from my eyes.

Seriously though, that's just crap. Anyone who is politically active who can't be bothered to read a candidate's platform should probably take up another hobby.

[casperthegm]

87. True

Though it's not as important as looking at their record. Sometimes what they say they plan to do doesn't always jive with what they've done. But it's still important to review, I'll agree on that much.

[Chathamization]

94. Warren's probably closer to Clinton on a lot of those issues. Warren distanced herself from

single-payer in 2012, and her college plans seem to focus on debt-free college like Clinton, not free tuition like Sanders. Her foreign policy seems to be the typical Democratic establishment positions (to be fair, Clinton seems to be a bit more hawkish than that). Support of Glass-Steagall and opposition to Wall St. seem to be the main areas where she's closer to Sanders than Clinton.

Also worth noting that she was firmly against Marijuana legalization in 2011, even more so than many of her primary opponents.

This isn't to trash Warren - I like her, and think she's gotten better while in office. But I think too many people have seen her opposition to Wall St. and assumed that she had great progressive positions on other issues without looking at those positions. She's one of the better Senators, but she shouldn't be held up as the progressive standard-bearer.

[seabeyond]

28. And I find it awfully arrogant, condescending and down right offensive to shut down women's voice

with PP by defining them merely as "establishment", by a white, upper middle class man in politics since his forties. The very definition of establishment.

[BobbyDrake]

29. Except Planned Parenthood and NARAL were labeled "establishment" for that very reason, so it's true.

John Lewis, a civil rights icon, too. It is factually correct that Bernie and his campaign and his supporters labeled anyone who did not endorse him as "establishment." And if you could prove otherwise, then why didn't you already?

[bettyellen]

74. That wasn't how Sanders used it against Planned Parenthood- he slammed them for having

A long standing mutually supportive relationship with Clinton. For some reason it was implied that it was a bad or corrupt thing. I love the work they did together- wish Sanders had done more for women.

[840high]

85. .that^

[Bluenorthwest]

6. A person who spent years 'Defending the Sacrament of Marriage' was defending the established order

and attempting to enforce established status and gender roles. Such persons opposed the rights and equality of others in order to serve the serene privilege of their own class.
The 'Establishment' are the people who call the visionaries 'radicals' until the future starts to catch up to the present, then the 'Establishment' adopts the formerly 'radical' positions and declares they are now the owners and originators of the ideas. First the oppose, then they resist, then they evolve then they co-opt the entire thing and attempt to erase those whom they initially castigated as radicals for believing that which is now 'establishment' orthodoxy.

If you wish to claim that seeking to alter the established system is a bad thing, you need to be ready to defend all the established systems that have been altered in the past
'Established' is not a word meaning 'wonderful and unchangeable' but rather just a word meaning
"having been in existence for a long time and therefore recognized and generally accepted."

I can name many things that existed for a long time that were generally accepted and also very wrong. Thus 'established' just means 'ongoing' and not 'the best option possible'.

[NCTraveler]

11. You first paragraph is the definition of successful grassroots campaigns. nt.

[BobbyDrake]

32. It's the classic double standard in Bernie's favor. If he does something everyone else is doing...

it can't be "establishment" because he's Bernie. But everyone else is still "establishment" for doing the same exact thing.

Another word for this behavior is "hypocrisy."

[seabeyond]

12. Then Sanders too falls under your definition good with status quo until 2009.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. My response has nothing to do with Sanders at all, of course both comments back to me are

snark about Sanders. It's several stops short of impressive.

Establishment views at various times have been 'Gays are bad, defend marriage' and 'women should remain at home with the kids' and 'it's ok to buy and sell human beings as if they were property. That's fact. Another fact, the primary is over.

Established powers currently seem to involve a great deal of abusive actions on the part of the police. Institutional and systemic biases are aspects of establishment.

Or just sputter about Bernie. Either way readers can see what is and what is not a priority here.

[NCTraveler]

23. "Both comments back to me are snark about Sanders."

I don't see two snarky comments about Sanders.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. I certainly see zero words in response to what I actully wrote. But that's what I expect from

guardians of the established order of things. They can't discuss so they dismiss, reduce and make snide comments.

Can you think of any time in history when the established order was not acceptable? I sure can. That is, by the way a direct and simple question and the answer is not 'but Bernie Sanders'.

[NCTraveler]

44. My initial reply directly pertained to your comments. Not a word about Sanders.

There were only two replies when you made your "both" comment. That is clearly why I asked the question.

Thanks and have a great Thursday.

[seabeyond]

27. Sanders has used "establishment" as a weapon against all Democrats as you well know.

We also know why the Op was written and what it refers. We have also heard enough of your comments, to get why you chose the argument you did.

I was not being snarky, I was making a point. Per your definition Sanders too is "establishment". Personally I think it is a fool argument. Good and bad in "establishment". Subjective definition.

My addressing establishment is merely Sanders using it as a weapon against anyone that does not support him, including women's voice in PP.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Again, you are the one gnawing at Sanders here, I am the one talking about the word 'Established'

and 'establishment' and what those words actually mean.

Let me make it simple. A short time ago, the establishment said women's place was in the home and her husband was her superior. The establishment argued against LGBT rights. Discrimination was established, accepted. It was also wrong.

We speak of institutional racism. Systemic bigotry. Those terms indicate established biases. Established and also immoral, incorrect and in need of change.

Slavery was an established and accepted industry. It was also evil. Established and evil.

So you are saying you always favor the established order? Or just right now? How about the issues we see with police and the justice system? Are those aspects of the establishment also above criticism? It's how it is and how it has always been, does that make it right or desired? Not to me it doesn't.

Fact is the established paradigms are often in need of great and profound change. To endorse that which is established simply because it is established does in fact lead to endorsement of very great wrongs.

Or, 'Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders' as you put it.

[seabeyond]

39. Establishment is not inherently evil, immoral or wrong. Again, how Sanders uses it, ergo

the conversation today, is in fact using it as inherently evil, immoral, bad.

es·tab·lish·ment
iˈstabliSHmənt/Submit
noun
1.
the action of establishing something or being established.
"the establishment of a scholarship renews that personal interest of donors in students"
synonyms: foundation, institution, formation, inception, creation, installation; More
2.
a business organization, public institution, or household.

It is clear the conversation is the accusatory tone of being define as establishment for the use of attacks and insults.

[Bluenorthwest]

88. So you can't let go of the Bernie thing. You won't even discuss what the OP claimed to want to

discuss. Neither does the OP. It's demonstrative of the respect you give to the issues I mentioned, which you simply ignored in order to crank on about Sanders. For you, it's all about Bernie.

[Silver_Witch]

14. ^^^^^

Well stated!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. In this election it is meant anyone who has not supported sanders

from John Lewis to planned parenthood

[NCTraveler]

8. The establishment seems to have taken on the simple definition of....

Entrenched Entity.

Nothing more.

[seabeyond]

13. Not really because Sanders is certainly an "Entrenched Entity", defines all others as establishment,

excluding himself.

This "establishment" argument is one of the last year that has pissed me off the most. How convenient.

[NCTraveler]

15. Neither you or I go to Sanders for our definitions.

He is as establishment as they come. That doesn't just come from his tenure alone. It comes from his adamant support of the MIC, support of failed private ventures, and the fact he is a career politician.

I do get what you are saying. I will always hold it against him that he said PP was a part of the establishment. Don't get me wrong, I think they have become entrenched in the establishment. It is how they accomplish things. When Sanders said it, he was viewing everything establishment as negative. He ran an anti-establishment campaign, his supporters are anti-establishment, and he called PP a part of the establishment. Truly disgusting on his part. Fact is, he and his supporters all have their own ideas of what the establishment is, and they desperately want to be a part of the establishment.

Still, no need to go to him for our definitions.

[seabeyond]

21. Good post. Thanks. As I said, this one has bothered me over a year.

And ya, dismissal of women's voice with PP was highly offensive.

[Armstead]

97. hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2245339

[HumanityExperiment]

17. easy example of 'establishment'...

SDs 'pledged' before a SINGLE primary vote was cast this cycle... SDs are considered establishment

SDs are folks like this:

Rajiv K. Fernando

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624

"Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff."

Do you require further examples and clarification?

[auntpurl]

19. Why are SDs considered establishment?

Bernie Sanders is an SD.

[HumanityExperiment]

22. LMAO

wow, that I'm even asked to reply is stunning when I've laid it out very nicely in my prior post

I find your reply hilarious but, should we continue to play this game?

If so, then I need to clarify one thing before we continue, how do you define 'establishment'?

I need your def as a ref so I can continue...

[auntpurl]

24. My OP is a question about the definition of establishment as used on DU.

You are so very unpleasant though, that I'll refrain from having further conversation with you. No need to reply (although you can if you want).

[HumanityExperiment]

30. facts cut though and they tend to leave scars...

if you find that 'unpleasant' then that's on you....

[treestar]

35. Yet Bernie remains a SD

And you refuse to deal with that by trading insults.

Rajiv was qualified for that job. Just giving to the Clinton Foundation does not create automatic conflict of interest that disqualifies you for everything. Nothing has been proven. People know each other and there are connection. Annoying, but a fact of life and not automatic corruption.

[HumanityExperiment]

41. Do you consider Bernie to be 'establishment'?

How do you define establishment?

on Rajiv' specifically:
"Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.

The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later. A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress"

OPTICS... pretty powerful thing optics... that's why he quickly left the post once this came to MSM shining a light for public to see

the public says you're wrong about that guy...

[Lord Magus]

89. He's been a career politician for the last 35 years.

If that's not establishment, the term has no meaning.

[treestar]

91. IF you want to see things, those optics are what you want to see

Technological know how - there is not enough information there but it was determined here he was very qualified. And donating to the Foundation should not disqualify anyone forever.

Bernie is a Senator thus he is Establishment. The constitution provides for the Senate and anyone in it cannot claim they are fighting against the current Constitution wanting to provide a new one. Most people would not fight a revolution without knowing what the outcome would be. Bernie has not proposed a new Constitution. And he's going back to the Senate.

[HumanityExperiment]

96. Polling general public shows otherwise...

your reply has the 'spin' aspect so there is that PR to the optics I referred to going for ya

your bit about Bernie... ya lost me... not sure what 'road' you're travelling down with that bit, so I"ll let you try rephrasing or reattempt a reply on that again

[Bluenorthwest]

26. I consider the police to be establishment, part of systemic and institutional enforcement of status

and social paradigms, it is their station in the established order that allows them to abuse and kill with a great deal of impunity.
I assume that DUers endorsing the established status quo are not considering all aspects of that which is established. Many many currently accepted practices need to change. There have been many protests about that need for change, for that which is established to be altered and made better. I favor such change.

[treestar]

34. I don't think anyone truly wants a revolution

against the "Establishment." Most people are for the government by Constitution we have. It may have some flaws, but none was can't deal with by getting a grip on ourselves.

[auntpurl]

38. Some people definitely do.

But I agree they are in the minority.

People talk about "leadership" in the sense of going out there with their own personally-held opinions and enacting policy. But I think it should work more like:

1. People have a position
2. Politician represents that position
3. People's opinion's change about position
4. Politician changes opinion to reflect constituency.

And so on. To make that work, politicians have to listen to the voters and be responsive to changes in public opinion. If their opinions are deeply opposed to voters' opinions about a political issue, then they need to make a strong case to voters and try to convince them of it. If that doesn't work, then not enough people support your position.

I don't know, I'm a big fan of representative politicians, not mavericks. The people were ahead of the politicians about same-sex marriage, and the politicians realised the position was now politically expedient and held by the majority of the electorate and voila, they changed their positions. Same with gun control - we WILL get some common-sense gun laws in the next few years, because people are going to start voting out pols who refuse to represent their positions. Same with marijuana legalisation. There needs to be grassroots support for these ideas before politicians are going to change. And that's how it SHOULD be.

[Orsino]

37. Signing on to the moral and economic ruin of PNAC's wars and the Patriot Act...

...giving command performances to Goldman-Sachs, sitting on Wal-Mart's board of directors, lawyering for corporate clients, opposing marriage equality until supporting it became safe(r), negotiating the TPP, etc.

We can't tout her long experience and supreme competence without acknowledging that these developed rather deep inside the Establishment. That may sound like a diss, but it works both ways: she should, if given the keys to the White House, be able to pass more progressive legislation. That would mean striking out on her own, though, and I suspect the call of the Establishment will be a hard one for her to ignore. We know what's in her toolbox.

I will hope, though, and I will lobby her for the progressive change America and the world desperately need--just as I would have had to do with any other president. Let's see what she will help to get us.

[auntpurl]

40. Sorry to c&p a reply I made in this thread

but here is my reply:

People talk about "leadership" in the sense of going out there with their own personally-held opinions and enacting policy. But I think it should work more like:

1. People have a position
2. Politician represents that position
3. People's opinion's change about position
4. Politician changes opinion to reflect constituency.

And so on. To make that work, politicians have to listen to the voters and be responsive to changes in public opinion. If their opinions are deeply opposed to voters' opinions about a political issue, then they need to make a strong case to voters and try to convince them of it. If that doesn't work, then not enough people support your position.

I don't know, I'm a big fan of representative politicians, not mavericks. The people were ahead of the politicians about same-sex marriage, and the politicians realised the position was now politically expedient and held by the majority of the electorate and voila, they changed their positions. Same with gun control - we WILL get some common-sense gun laws in the next few years, because people are going to start voting out pols who refuse to represent their positions. Same with marijuana legalisation. There needs to be grassroots support for these ideas before politicians are going to change. And that's how it SHOULD be.

[Orsino]

47. I think you've correctly identified Clinton's brand of leadership...

...as looking a lot like followership.

I will not fault her completely, though. We closed the doors to elected office to women for so long that about the only way we got to the point of electing a female president is precisely because of her. Her path to power has been circuitous, depending on coattails at every step, rather than on her considerable talent and charisma. That tragic, but her victory in November will serve to open the way for more equality in the future.

Clinton has led on LGBT rights, at least a little, and that's more than almost any other major political figure has done. 2008 was her big chance to push for full equality, and like every other major candidate, she whiffed, citing a fictitious principle as her reason for opposing marriage equality. It was bullshit when she took that stance, just as it was when everyone else--including our current president--did. She played it safe because she thought she had to, and for all I know, her terrible calculus was correct. She got here, didn't she?

Her leadership in this arena looks a lot more like stewardship, befitting an Establishment candidate. In 2017 (or sooner, for anyone who wants progressive change from her), we will need to follow our current president's advice/plea/admonishment, and make her do it.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. The basics:

es·tab·lish·ment
iˈstabliSHmənt/
noun
noun: establishment; noun: Establishment; noun: the Establishment

1.
the action of establishing something or being established.
"the establishment of a scholarship renews that personal interest of donors in students"
synonyms: foundation, institution, formation, inception, creation, installation; More
inauguration, start, initiation
"the establishment of a democracy"
archaic
a marriage.
plural noun: establishments
2.
a business organization, public institution, or household.
"hotels or catering establishments"
synonyms: business, firm, company, concern, enterprise, venture, organization, operation; More
factory, plant, store, shop, office, practice;
informaloutfit, setup
"a dressmaking establishment"
institution, place, premises, foundation, institute
"educational establishments"
3.
a group in a society exercising power and influence over matters of policy or taste, and seen as resisting change.
synonyms: the authorities, the powers that be, the system, the ruling class; the hierarchy, the oligarchy.

[Vattel]

45. My definition:

To the extent that a politician tends to support, or fails to challenge, even the bad entrenched features of the status quo (our current political, legal, economic and social systems), he or she is part of the establishment. The problem with being part of the establishment is that many of the entrenched features of our political, legal, economic and social systems are really messed up.

Some mainstream ideas are good, of course, as are some entrenched features of the status quo are good, and accepting a good mainstream idea, or failing to challenge good features of the status quo, does not make one part of the establishment in any negative sense.

Whether one is "establishment" is a matter of degree, of course. And people disagree about the extent to which Clinton, Obama, and Sanders are establishment figures. I would regard Bernie as less establishment than Obama, and Obama as less establishment than Clinton, but others will no doubt disagree.

[betsuni]

49. As far as I'm concerned it's a mutation of Reagan's ...

government-is-bad-and-government-means-Democrats-so-vote-for-Republicans quote: "The most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

[frazzled]

50. Anyone in a position of responsibility with whom you disagree

The right-wingers are "anti-establishment" too: they vehemently repudiate any Republican who takes even the least possible moderate position on a detail of issues such as abortion or gun control.

The Brexit vote was a huge "anti-establishment" movement, aimed not only at Brussels but at members of both major parties and mainstream economists who opposed leaving the EU.

On the left here, anyone who makes ANY concession in order to move two steps forward while conceding one step back is labeled "the establishment." Because, you know, it's better to concede nothing and in the process gain nothing. Now THAT is status quo.

Indeed, I've just come to the conclusion that obdurately demanding a position on issues (no matter how desirable or correct) that are politically non-viable, is the most flagrant example of status-quoism. Because nothing ever happens, and the undesirable aspects of the status quo are certain to be maintained.

[auntpurl]

52. Great post!

[RandySF]

51. A way for some candidates to explain away those who disagree with them.

[NorthCarolina]

53. Umm...even the corporate media refers to Clinton as "the establishment candidate".

Plenty of links on "the Google", or better yet "the Yahoo (results not filtered like Google)" defining "the establishment". It even has it's own Wikipedia page.

[auntpurl]

54. The MSM has never been a friend to any Clinton.

So I'm not sure why you made that point.

I was asking about its definition as it is used here on DU, not in general. I'm familiar with Google.

Just for information, "its" is the possessive. "It's" is only ever used as a contraction for "it is".

[Freelancer]

55. "Establishment" candidates are defended by the "establishment" at large

Conversely, the "establishment" is that which reflexively enforces and punishes anything critical of the "establishment" candidates and/or their actions.

Here it is, used in a sentence:

"By making it an infraction to criticize any sitting Democrat or Democratic Candidate, DU is acting as a tool of the establishment."

See also: Shill, Hawker, Abettor, Ringer, Insider

[NCTraveler]

56. Clearly an excellent op considering the replies.

Seems the definition is dependent on the person making the argument. That is my take-away.

[auntpurl]

57. Yes, it seems very subjective.

There are wildly differing definitions here. That supports my observation during this election cycle that the word has become virtually meaningless.

[NCTraveler]

58. Politics is one of the few areas where words are bastardized to the point of irrelevance.

Establishment, oligarchy, moderate, etc.... Each have been redefined to the point of being meaningless in everyday conversation.

[AgingAmerican]

59. A dominant group of elites that hold power or authority in a nation or organization.

In this case it's a combination of politicians and corporations, mainly banks.

[auntpurl]

60. Who decides who this group is?

It seems very changeable. President Obama was considered by the left to be anti-establishment until the minute he took office, then he was derided as an Establishment figure.

Just recently, Senator Warren was considered anti-establishment until she endorsed Hillary. Then she was establishment.

I have already seen Senator Sanders called establishment for considering endorsing Hillary, just in the past 24 hours.

Everyone I've just mentioned is a powerful person, an elite. They hold power and authority.

So who's who?

[AgingAmerican]

61. Nobody 'decides' who they are

They are the ruling elite. They run the party, country, etc. Warren and Sanders are outsiders. Sanders much more so.

[auntpurl]

62. In what way are Warren and Sanders outsiders?

They are both US senators. They certainly have a seat at a far bigger table than I ever will.

And if you're asserting they're both outsiders, why are so many Senator Sanders supporters saying they're establishment?

[AgingAmerican]

63. They are outside the status quo

Thus they are outsiders.

[auntpurl]

64. How so?

Both Warren and Sanders are going to endorse Hillary for president, a candidate I'm assuming you consider "establishment" (if I have that wrong, my apologies). So in what sense are they outside the status quo?

[AgingAmerican]

65. Sanders is an independent

And Warren has been going after and exposing the establishment bankers.

[auntpurl]

66. So it's your personal definition of outsider and establishment.

Seems rather arbitrary. That's not particularly helpful in trying to define the term as it's used on DU. But thank you for your replies.

[AgingAmerican]

67. I have no 'personal definition'

The term is not subjective, it is concrete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Establishment

[auntpurl]

68. And yet who is defined as "establishment" changes by the day.

So...it's not so concrete.

[AgingAmerican]

69. No, it doesn't

The definition is concrete.

You are obviously attempting to obfuscate. Have a nice day

[auntpurl]

70. I'm not. I'm really not.

There are hundreds (thousands?) of Senator Sanders supporters online calling Elizabeth Warren "establishment". You yourself have said she's not.

I am not attempting to obfuscate.

If you have 50 people who are more or less in charge of making the laws for 318 million, how are they not ALL establishment? That is the very definition of establishment as described by your last link.

In fact, any relatively small class or group of people having control can be referred to as The Establishment

[treestar]

93. Keeping it vague

so as not to define it. Two Senators who are not in the Establishment? Why are the others?

You're simply finding those who agree with you to be "outsiders." And then feeling sorry for yourselves. How is Warren as "outsider?" She campaigned with Hillary and thus might even have the President's ear someday.

[treestar]

92. It's the voters in our system

We need to quit playing victim. We could through them out at the ballot box.

[Squinch]

73. For some, it is everyone who doesn't completely agree with them politically.

Not to be confused with those who disagree with them politically AND who are in any way more economically comfortable than they are. Those people are "oligarchs."

[auntpurl]

80. Right. Good.

That helps.

[Blue_Tires]

75. Hey, I've been asking that question for almost a year

on DU and Twitter, and I still haven't gotten a consistent answer...

[auntpurl]

79. Even on this thread, the definitions differ wildly.

It's almost as if people use it in whatever way it's most expedient to make some point.

[GulfCoast66]

83. Anyone who disagrees with me?

I find the term somewhat meaningless. I mean the people who use the term often seem to love FDR. Name me a more 'establishment' politician than he was.

[Night Watchman]

84. The Freemasons, The International Zionist Conspiracy, The Illuminati,

The Trilateral Commission, Opus Dei, The Bilderberg Group, Bohemian Grove, Skull & Bones, plus Nicholas Coppola. (Why do you think he changed his name, huh?

[jamese777]

86. "GOPe"

The right wing has adopted the term GOPe (Grand Old Party Elite) for the Republican establishment as typified by the Bush family, McCain, Romney, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan.

It seems to me that anyone we disagree with and who is in power, becomes a member of the amorphous "establishment."

[Armstead]

95. Depends on the context -- When it is out of balance it is WRONG.....We become lemmings.

In the context of the current primary it is a systemic set of institutions and individuals who have an excessive (to say the least) amount of power and money. A new Gilded Age.

There has always been an establishment, but the problem is the degree to which Wealth and Power become concentrated. Through a combination of circumstances, including Bad Public Policy and Laws, Darwinian economics, mergers and acquisitions, intellectual inbreeding, GOP conservatism and Democratic conservatism on related issues....and simple corruption.

Then it becomes out of balance, and forms an Establishment that must be challenged. If we simply accept the status quo we are enabling it, and thus further feeding the forces that are working against the common interests of the majority of the population.

There is a basic dynamic of society. Power and Wealth feed on themselves. The more a corporation/institution/individual acquire, the more they are able to use that to gain more of an advantage. It's a geometric spiral. (See Wal Mart in retailing.) Thus killing competition, including economically, intellectually, socially and politically.

It happens on many levels and takes different forms. But that's what happens overall.

Best illustrated by the little chart below that shows how corporations are swallowed up into ever-larger ones. t's about banking. But the same trend has occurred in every industry, and related sectors.



It would be naive to think that that degree of consolidation has no impact on political power, distribution of income, power to determine the shape of the economy, push through laws and policies, win elections though propaganda and stifling of true debate over issues, etc.

Alas, it is not only the Wealthy and Power among the corporate sector and political elites that enable this. It's we the public, if we do not recognize and challenge it. At some point, we have to collectively say "Enough is enough." and through laws and moral demands make this form of the "Establishment" accountable, and RESTORE A DEGREE OF BALANCE AND EQUITY AND DEMOCRACY.

The GOP has been worse in enabling this, especially with the "trickle down" and supply side nonsense. But too often the Democrats have been in bed with the same abusers -- and have enabled them through policy and messaging over the years.

We the People become enablers when we buy into that shit and say "Problem? What problem? I don't see any problem." We buy into it when we think politicians who are in the same Golden Club are not corrupted by this systemic Establishment.

Denying that, and dismissing and insulting those who are challenging it, makes us like the proverbial lemmings going off the cliff.

Damn straight there IS an Establishment that does NOT have your best interests at heart. Denying it only strengthens it.

[aikoaiko]

98. I took it to mean a network of individuals who maintain power positions within a group.

That network is resistance to change -- especially challenges to their authority and power.