Is chaos in the Democratic Party the new normal? Maybe
I see valued commenters Dave falling into a kind of cognitive trap. He seems to think that that Nevada was all about people (Bernie and Hillary), and their supporters. It is nothing of the sort. Nevada is part of an ongoing push-back against the out and out bullshit that has dominated capitalism (and by extension our politics) for the last 30 or so years.
In part, I blame myself for Dave’s confusion. When I said unruly Democrats would come home when “Warren is announced as VP” I was using a sort of shorthand for the Clinton campaign recognizing that there is a cancer.
Consider your take on the economy like your take on climate change. The politics of climate change are binary. You believe is it real or you don’t. Similarly, you believe capitalism in trouble or you don’t. The question yet to be settled is – what side of is the Democratic Party on? If the Clinton Campaign can show that they understand that climate change (e.g. rigged economy) is real… I see all Democrats coming home. If the Clinton campaign, and the Democratic Party Apparatchiks, can’t get over that hill, I see chaos ahead.
So much for cotton candy and lollipops. I take this post just wants to make Delaware Dem stroke out.
And what metrics are we using to judge whether she and Democrats understand climate change (e.g. rigged economy)? If it is complete and total adoption of all of Bernie’s policies and language, we might have a problem, because that is not happening. There will be concessions and compromises, sure, but it is unrealistic to expect that Clinton must be Sanders in drag to pass this test of yours.
But if we can actually look at her plans on shadow banking and improving and enforcing Dodd Frank and raising the minimum wage and equal pay for equal work, etc., etc., and ask if they would make a rigged economy less so, then I suggest to you that she does in fact recognize that the economy is rigged and she is trying to fix it.
In other words, we should not use Sanders as the barometer on which to judge this.
You have a very low opinion of me, Nemski. LOL.
In the out years, being a liberal meant critiquing Republicans and attempting to block the conservative agenda. The “critiquing Republicans” part was fun and easy, and no other Democrats disagreed with you.
Now that Republicans have proved to be incapable of getting anything done, being a liberal means critiquing Democrats and attempting to block conservative portions of their agenda. We still are all against the Republican agenda, but it isn’t the threat it used to be and doesn’t serve as the common enemy anymore.
^Bingo, puck.
Oh, the Republican agenda is very much a threat, no less so then ever before. More so actually. You have an actual Nazi as the Republican nominee. The threat has never been greater. To say otherwise is SHOCKINGLY naive. Jason and others will now say that “I thought Trump was easy to beat.” He is, if Democrats are united. If you have Sanders voters upset that they did not win the primary, and refusing to vote for Hillary, or vice versa, all because we are all consumed with our differences in tactics and degrees as liberals/progressives/Democrats, then we allow Trump to win. And then it will all be over. A Trump victory will not usher in a GOLDEN PROGRESSIVE ERA in 2020 as some Sanders voters delude themselves into thinking. It will lead to absolute darkness for decades. It will lead to the breakup of the left, with recriminations that will make 2000 and Nader look downright pleasant.
My problem with this test that Jason puts out is my problem with a lot of Sanders supporters and it is my problem with purist progressives in general: the assumption that only Sanders’ policies and platform are the true North of Democratic politics, and that if you do not 100% agree with him, you are not a liberal, you are not a progressive and you are not a Democrat.
With that position, of course Hillary and everyone not named Sanders will be found wanting.
And I would like to point out, yet again, that Bernie is losing the election fair and square. How does he rectify with the notion that the majority of Democrats disagree with him? If he is the True North, then why has he lost the nomination? If your answer is a RIGGED ELECTION!!!, then slap yourself across the face, please.
What, exactly, is “the threat”? What policies do you consider so threatening that the highly unlikely election of an atavistic narcissist would cement them in place for decades? It’s a dying party, a dying movement, and you think the threat has never been greater?
Fear causes the brain to ignore reason.
By the way, nobody expects a Trump victory to usher in a “new progressive era” in 2020. It would lead to absolute chaos. A new progressive era is one of many possibilities — and one of the most unlikely — that might result from that.
There are very few Bernie dead-enders. Try to calm down. And that’s coming from me.
“What policies do you consider so threatening that the highly unlikely election of an atavistic narcissist would cement them in place for decades?”
Off the top of my head? Supreme Court appointees.
Again, it is very humbling for Anonymous to tell me to calm down. LOL.
@pandora: But that’s not a policy issue, it’s a quirk in the judicial process (lifetime tenure) that Republicans started exploiting nearly 30 years ago by nominating younger judges. If anything, Trump is LESS dangerous in that arena than most others, because he’s less likely to nominate whomever the Federalist Society chooses for him. Cruz was the far greater danger there.
The courts are the one area in which conservatives could do damage for decades — in fact already will, even if they lose the coming election. But beyond that area, what would a President Trump do that would cause lasting damage?
Immigration? This country has gone other xenophobic periods and come out the other side. Hell, we did it right after 9/11, to our great harm, and nobody even makes a point of it today.
Banning Muslims? That has zero chance of making it through any legislature, even a Republican one. If every rich Middle Easterner withdrew his money from American banks, the financial system would collapse, taking the nation with it. Enough people with enough power understand that to keep if from happening.
And if I’m wrong about that, what does that say about the state of the nation? If the only thing standing between this nation and worldwide chaos is the election of Hillary Clinton, you might as well brace for the chaos. I’m not saying she can’t stop it, I’m saying that once the world is that close to chaos nobody can.
Foreign policy? If he really threatens the interests of the deep government, he won’t dodge the bullets fast enough.
“In other words, we should not use Sanders as the barometer on which to judge this.”
Jason, the problem is you present a binary condition. I don’t mean a rigged economy, I mean the aspect of whether Clinton and the other establishmentarians comprehend that it is rigged. The comprehension metric seems to be recognition that Bernie Sanders is the messiah come to redeem us from our torment if only we and everyone else confess their failings and pray for healing and purity. The religious connotations and the messianic messaging for a revolution are really hard to ignore.
I agree with DD that Sanders is the not metric or standard by which we ought to evaluate others. In my world, we evaluate prospective candidates and companies against objective, measurable factors that constitute the evaluation criteria. I generally apply that process to the candidates and what they have done (past performance) and what they intend to do (their plan) to execute their platform.
I believe that the economy is “rigged.” I use quotes because the word itself implies there is some all powerful entity that is responsible for the rigging and I don’t think any one person, group, or entity is responsible. I think it would be more accurate to say that our current economic system does not work for a great many citizens. I also believe, when I examine Clinton’s plans, she will have greater success in unrigging the economy, for two reasons. One is that most of what she proposes is doable and second because she will have greater success in getting things through Congress.
I might be wrong, but in the final analysis I think Clinton can herd cats better than Sanders because Clinton knows things like the party rules and as you correctly pointed out, the rigged system rewards those who understand the rules better than others.
While I make some relatively feeble attempts to influence others from the outside, I also recognize that if I really want to change the party, I would have to join and I would have to play by their rules even if I want to change the rules, because “twas ever thus”.
The second revolution will soon be upon us
So..I say it isn’t about persons and personalities and you double down on it being about Bernie’s messiah complex, and your faith based belief that Clinton can manage us out of our current economic system which does not work for a great many citizens.
Okay.
Here is the thing though. The people pushing back don’t have faith in Clinton’s ability to incrementally manage us out of this our current economic system that does not work for a great many citizens. And why should they?
Well, I don’t have faith in Bernie getting anything done at all given his purist personality. Why is your opinion more valid than mine?
I don’t think Jason330 said that Bernie would get things done better than Hillary.
Thank you Nemski.
The only thing that is binary here is whether or not you think climate change is real — the solutions certainly are NOT binary. Similarly, the rigged economic system is binary only to the extent that you think this is a thing or not. The solutions to a rigged system are also not binary. So this entire metaphor pretty much fails. Because the only thing that we really are arguing about are means and methods — not existence.
Frankly, some chaos in the Democratic Party is a good idea. But that needs to be the kind of chaos that challenges the system to be something better and to represent more regular people. Like every other institution on the planet, it has its rules and regulations. You take over these places by using their rules to get to where you want. And that in a nutshell is why I am tired of Bernie’s campaign. He registers as a Democrat to run for the Democratic nomination and then doesn’t do any of the work to under stand the rules (or hire someone who does) or how the party works. Complaints about an institution you want to represent without understanding how that institution works is a pretty serious executive fail. And allowing your followers to follow their entitlements rather than empower them to roll up their sleeves is another Fail. Dean did alot of the latter. More of the latter needs to happen. Recently Maine and Alaska withdrew their support for the Superdelegate system. More of THAT has to happen. Just showing up at the door upset that things don’t work the way you want isn’t the basis of revolution anywhere.
Yep, I doubled down, because you said it wasn’t about people and I disagree (respectfully). It is always about people. Either the led or the leaders. If “Nevada is part of an ongoing push-back ” then someone is pushing back and like it or not that person is Sanders, who is leading the push back (aka “revolution” a prime time push back).
I did not intend to imply that you said anything about Sanders vs Hillary getting things done. That was just me editorializing with my belief that if it’s about people, and I believe it is, then I’m interested in the best cat herder.
That said, I think people ought to push back against systems, which tend to be dehumanizing because the good of the system often supplants ‘for the good of the people’ (…because the system itself is for the good of the people 🙂 ). But in a world where everyone is pushing, it is often against each other. So, metaphorically I’m inclined to push back by pulling in different direction. If Sanders wanted to do that, to lead a revolution, he would pull in a different direction by running as an independent or a third party candidate. But his strategy seems to be blowing up the current system and remaking it in his own image of what it should be (hence my messiah remark).
And I hope you are not right about chaos – especially with the party, obviously because that helps Trump who is dying to create his own brand of chaos.
“I don’t think Jason330 said that Bernie would get things done better than Hillary.”
Oh no you don’t! 😉 You guys have to stop getting out of addressing questions by pretending Bernie doesn’t exist. It’s really hard to have a conversation. Here’s my bet: In four years we’ll be playing this same scene again because this revolution will basically vanish once Bernie exits the stage. If I’m wrong then I’ll treat Jason and nemski to dinner at La Fia.
And this is spot on: “You take over these places by using their rules to get to where you want. And that in a nutshell is why I am tired of Bernie’s campaign. He registers as a Democrat to run for the Democratic nomination and then doesn’t do any of the work to under stand the rules (or hire someone who does) or how the party works. Complaints about an institution you want to represent without understanding how that institution works is a pretty serious executive fail. And allowing your followers to follow their entitlements rather than empower them to roll up their sleeves is another Fail.”
“because this revolution will basically vanish once Bernie exits the stage.”
Lots of people want politics to return the the familiar left vs. right trench warfare where nothing ever changes except the middle class keeps shrinking. The revolution will come, to whatever degree it comes, because a shrinking middle class invariably produces political instability. And given the demographics, the people going over the top of the trenches will be headed left, not right. Book the reservations now, and don’t mind the pitchforks.
“because this revolution will basically vanish once Bernie exits the stage.”
Another take–on the right the Ron Paul Revolution didn’t disappear, although Rand Paul failed as a candidate to capture its support. There’s still about a 12-14% Paulist/libertarian element (distinct from the tea party) that is haunting the GOP’s efforts to unite. Part of the reason it did not go away is because as Paul left the stage personally he converted his fundraising machine to support similarly minded candidates like Justin Amash and keeps the “movement” alive as a constant fundraiser. And every dollar it raises is going away from the mainstream GOP.
Looked at in that sense it begins to strike me that we are possibly structurally headed back toward the 1960s, when both parties had “liberal” and “conservative” wings, and that Sanders and Trump are symptoms, not causes.
Also I have to note that Trump naming his list of Supreme Court picks is a strong political move for three reasons: (1) it mends his fences with Senate GOPers and gives them cover to continue to be resistant to Obama’s pick; (2) it is pretty much straight out of the Federalist Society, so it is an olive branch to conservatives; and (3) it is going to put pressure on Clinton to do the same, while helping defuse his tax return issue. “I’m talking about who I’m going to nominate to the Supreme Court, while she’s still nattering about my tax returns. Who’s actually looking out for the country here?”
I realize that many on the left believe this will galvanize women, LGBT, hispanic voters further against Trump, but I don’t actually believe this does him any further harm there, and I also wonder if we really have tested just how much Supreme Court nominations do drive General Election voting on both sides?
I recommend that people watch Michael Moore’s Where to Invade Next. See what the citizens in other nations enjoy and take for granted that Americans don’t. Then think of these Clintonites and their so-called realism about how the world works and realize it’s pure poppycock. Economically Democrats don’t have to be Republican lite. What matters more than anything else is that the American people are getting screwed, and the best argument that Clintonites have to offer the American people is that they would get screwed less under Hillary. That’s their entire appeal. Imagine that. The point is that the American people are beginning to get beyond that. Otherwise Hillary’s negatives wouldn’t be so high. (There’s a bit of reality that Clintonites haven’t even begun to understand the implications of.) Democrats are either going to get with the direction of the American people or they are going to be repudiated like the Republicans have been. The best they might manage is to win only by default. That’s hardly a recommendation for the virtue of the party, not that some Democratic establishmentarians give a rip about the virtue of the party.
Watch the movie and realize that what Sanders offered was tame by the standards of most developed nations. Hillary can hardly be said to echo them at all.
I hope that Sanders uses the movement he’s begun to establish a third party in the USA, something like a social democratic one. I hope he sits out this election cycle and supports Hillary, but after that all bets are off. It’s clear that that Clintonite wing of the Democratic Party hasn’t the real interests and needs of the American people at heart. If that is going to be the prevailing wing of the party for years to come, then let it fade away and be replaced. The party doesn’t matter. The exploited American people do.
Good post, Jason.
Isn’t some of Hills’ agenda a republican/conservative agenda? Why is this so effing hard for some of “you people” to understand? It’s not like these Violent Bernie supports and by violent I mean harsh name calling that Sister Martin Joseph wouldn’t approve of are railing against nonsense that the rest of the people in this country don’t like about her. I mean Christ Wall St is the problem. She literally has spoken, in private to Goldman Sachs, recieved more money then I’ll see in my lifetime for that 30 minutes, and people like to effing forget like oh I don’t know the 2nd Great Depression that happened because of these people.
Pardon me if this seems lost on “you people” and angry violent Bernie supporters just won’t let bygones be bygones
Hillary is the ultimate establishment. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton. God you people are so freaking thick and love to ignore the obvious
There is a reason Hillary is crushing it in one demographic: Households with income over $250,000 per year.