Why Democrats Don't Get Sanders' Endgame (and Why It Will Hurt Them in the End)

[eridani]

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/07/01/why-democrats-dont-get-sanders-endgame-and-why-it-will-hurt-them-end

Let’s examine Krugman’s quote, above. In his view, Sanders loses credibility and goodwill by not quitting. Quite a revealing take. Credibility, in Krugman’s world, isn’t about sticking to the values and ethics you’ve been espousing; it’s not about being true to the people who supported you because of those values. Rather, it is about playing by the Party rules. Once again, Party trumps people.

Rendell, looking through the Party lens, can think of nothing more important than having a prominent speaking role at the Convention, and he is perplexed that Sanders isn’t doing all he can to get one. Values? People first? Not even in the equation.

Then there’s the world according to Conrad. If you don’t “fall into line”, then you are not “a team player.” And of course, if you’re not a team player, then you must be “just focused on yourself.” Here, Conrad is looking through the doubly distorting lenses of the horserace and the Party simultaneously. No wonder he doesn’t get it.

What Sanders wants, of course is obvious: He’s less interested in joining the Democratic Party than he is in transforming it. And with good reason.

[corkhead]

1. Krugman sure has shown his stripes this campaign season. It is a different world Mr. Krugman.

Just like the relationship between employer and employee has changed over the last generation, people are also only going to be as loyal to a political party as that party has been to them.

[Scuba]

2. Principles over party? How quaint.

[surrealAmerican]

3. All three of those pundits can only see this campaign ...

... through the metaphor they are accustomed to. It's just a metaphor though, meant to explain reality. It should not replace reality.

Sanders has rejected that metaphor. That makes his actions inexplicable to them.

[merrily]

14. Because they CAN see is exactly why they try to create self-fulfilling prophesies and discredit. nt

[4dsc]

4. I posted a couple article like this only to get them removed

so I have to wonder how much longer they will tolerate this one.

[KPN]

5. Seems like anything posted that was published by CommonDreams

gets removed the last 12 days or so.

[arikara]

9. Commondreams is also having trouble with their fund drive

I had to donate twice. I hope they made out ok.

[KPN]

10. I donated too. Good for you for doing so twice.

And thanks for pointing that out. It's pretty important.

[eridani]

12. Cdommon Dreams now seems to be classified as right wing n/t

[senz]

6. They can't comprehend that Bernie is not motivated by power and position.

I don't they can comprehend any worldview that does not place "self" first and foremost.

[KPN]

11. Well, unfortunately, they are in the majority whether ...

they put "self" first or not. How is the movement that Bernie reignited going to change that?

[merrily]

15. The majority of what? Of primary voters? Of elected officials? Of Americans?

As far as your question, the movement will be as successful as the effort and donations put into it. Bernie has always said it is about us, not him and he cannot do it alone.

[KPN]

17. Primary voters. My point wasn't meant to be discouraging.

Just that I don't believe Hillary Democrats all put "self" first. There are some legitimate reasons for supporting Hillary. Frankly, I think the African-American support for Hillary, for example, comes from a life experience that is dramatically different from that of Euro-Americans and results in different political priorities; that's not really about putting self first.

So in that light, my question was meant to spotlight that the movement will need to recognize, deal with and overcome these realities going forward. The movement indeed will only be as successful as the effort and donations put into it, but also only as successful as the concrete strategies employed to build more buy-in from Democrats and Independents who supported Hillary for legitimate reasons this time around, this primary. A movement without a strategy risks going the way of OWS. That's all.

I guess bottom line, that's what I'm most concerned about. That somehow we have to ensure we don't go the way of Occupy -- and I'm kind of ambivalent about whether an organic movement can be successful. Bernie has provided structure and cohesion in the form of a leader during a primary. Will that cohesion carry forward absent structure? As I said, I am ambivalent and, therefore, somewhat worried about that.

[merrily]

19. ? My question and comments had nothing to do with your post's being discouraging.

IMO, Occupy was enormously successful.

We seem to see things differently. I don't think I can say more about the issues you raised without risking post removal.

[andym]

7. Bernie sees the forest, while some are lost in the trees

Moving the needle leftwards is Bernie's goal. That's why he ran in the first place and hopefully he will help create a base from which groundswell of progressive politics arises.

[RussBLib]

8. Krugman should stick to economics

which is more his strong suit, instead of politics.

Of course we have intersections of economics and politics all the time, but this is just politics, and Krugman doesn't get it.

[merrily]

13. Is it really his strong suit, though? (Yes, I know: Nobel Prize.)

Did he warn against repeal of Glass Steagall or the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 would lead to economic collapse of several nations? I mean,2008 was yuuuge. Did he see it coming?

[merrily]

16. Krugman: The guy who bashed "Obama boys" in 2008 and Bernie Bros in 2016.

[riderinthestorm]

18. Yup. K&R nt