There Is a Moderate Republican in this Race, but She’s Running as a Democrat

[ReallyIAmAnOptimist]

Taking a historical perspective on Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton -

Who is the real Democrat — Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton? Why are fringe candidates getting all of the attention this year? Who are the moderates?

These questions can all be answered by understanding something that has been unfolding for forty years: The center of American politics has shifted steadily to the right. Today neither party is even remotely similar to what it was when Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, for example, first entered politics.

In the late 1970s, as large corporations turned into transnational giants, they pumped huge amounts of cash into the political system. This largesse lured, first, the Republican Party, in the 80s, followed by the Democratic Party in the 90s, and precipitated a rightward political shift as both parties rewrote their policies to compete for the same corporate contributions.

Before this, from 1932–1976, the Democratic Party as a whole was far more progressive. The issues and approaches advocated today by Bernie Sanders were considered mainstream Democratic ideas by Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson, and even many moderate Republicans. It was common to support strict financial regulation, liberal immigration, social services for the poor, and progressive tax policies.

Which one is the Democrat?

Hillary Clinton’s stances, while fluid during this election cycle, are historically most in tune with classical Republican ideas, as advocated by Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and others. As a young woman, she volunteered for the conservative Barry Goldwater, and while today she’s become liberal on some social issues, she’s generally at home with moderate conservative ideas, such as a hawkish military, strict immigration laws, reduced welfare, laissez-faire rules for Wall Street, and international business treaties that favor large corporations. One group started a petition this year asking Clinton to run as a Republican, suggesting that while she is “liberal on some issues, on a wide range of important issues she lands squarely as a moderate conservative.”

As for the Republican candidates still running in the primary this year — Donald Trump, John Kasich, and Ted Cruz — they are all to the right of Goldwater, and they would have been considered unelectable extremists and distant outliers on the spectrum before 1996.

The Rise of Bernie Sanders

Without Bernie Sanders, we would have the political spectrum above. Hillary Clinton and the conservative wing of the Democratic Party have moved rightward into a corporate centrist (neoliberal) position. This position has a certain amount of flexibility on social issues but adheres strictly to unregulated capitalism and favors international trade deals that benefit large corporations rather than domestic jobs, the environment, or fair wage or labor standards. The Republican Party has shifted to the right too, towards policies that benefit no one but the ultra-wealthy and the largest transnational corporations; they cloak their goals in racist or evangelical language to appeal to voters, but their regressive policies generally aim to restrict or even cancel laws and rights won by the working classes in earlier eras.

This rightward drift has pushed the “center” to a spot between Hillary Clinton and John Kasich. This “center” is to the right of even Social Security, abortion rights, labor unions, and quality public high schools. With that “center,” Republicans who wish to be considered “strong conservatives” compete for ground far out to the right, where little civic sanity is left. With that “center,” true progressive issues are never even discussed.

The arrival of Bernie Sanders heralds a potential rebalancing of the spectrum: more at link

https://medium.com/~tonybrasunas/there-s-only-one-moderate-republican-in-this-race-2f0e2fa6becd#.7luhu2fys

[realmirage]

1. Then why did Jane say

She and Bernie will vote for Hillary if she wins? Even your own candidate is telling you you're not seeing this whole thing with a clear head

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

9. Have you seen the other options...

[pangaia]

2. Seems basically pretty accurate to me.

The link also works for me.

[nilram]

13. ditto

[highprincipleswork]

3. Because then we'd be back to the "what other choice do you have" scenario. And if you think

that's the best place from which to promote or negotiate Progressive values, you ought to think again.

Bernie is the Progressive choice. There is no doubt about it.

[realmirage]

14. You are arguing against your own candidate

[highprincipleswork]

25. How do you figure?

[Impedimentus]

4. I will not vote for a Republican in 2016

FEEL THE BERN - 2016

[Zira]

26. +1

[rhett o rick]

5. Clinton is beholden to the Oligarchy. nm

[BillZBubb]

10. I'd say at this point she is an oligarch.

$150 million probably gets her into the club.

[rhett o rick]

15. I think $150 million gets them into the top 1% of the top 1% club. nm

[Hydra]

16. She's still a lackey

Well paid, but she has to work night and day for them. Chelsea and grandkids will be set for life though, which I'm sure is the entire point.

[BillZBubb]

6. Yes. Hillary is a Rockefeller republican. No doubt about it as the article describes.

She, along with other New Democrats, pushed the Democratic party to take over the political spectrum once occupied by the Rockefeller republicans. The Democratic party has moved far to the right to achieve that transformation. There is no effective left wing anymore in American politics.

Hopefully, Bernie is the beginning of a transformation back to a truly liberal Democratic party.

[MattP]

7. JFK is not a good role model for Bernie he makes Bernie

Physically ill at the thought of him

[Viva_La_Revolution]

32. what babble is this? you claim bernie hates jfk?? wtf!?

[Starry Messenger]

8. *Yawn*

[BillZBubb]

11. Go to sleep sweetheart, the adults are talking.

[Starry Messenger]

12. Let me know when you find some.

Ones that can do math, bro.

[Hydra]

17. 61% n/t

[Starry Messenger]

18. 108%

[Hydra]

19. Wow, you think her unfavorables will go that high?

I was trying to be conservative.

[Starry Messenger]

20. That is her delegate target percentage.

That she has won so far.

[Hydra]

21. Well, darn

I guess life will be full of disappointments for some people then. All things being equal, she should have had a 3 to 1 advantage in pledged delegates by now, if not more.

[Starry Messenger]

23. Yeah, for the people backing the person below 100%.

[litlbilly]

27. theres way more of us than you, just watch and see. dont bother answering, youll be on ignore

where you should be with the other 4 year olds. see, I can do math.

[Starry Messenger]

28. We are several million ahead on the HRC side.

Whatevs though.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

33. 8%

Her delegate lead

[Starry Messenger]

42. Um, he's at 92% of target.

[amborin]

22. right now, she's of and for the elite; and her religion, preaches that, too; only the elites matter

[mythology]

24. What utter unmitigated horseshit

It's really annoying that Sanders supporters like the author are willing to just make things up like this.

Clinton was the 11th most liberal senator during her time in the Senate. She voted the same as Sanders 93% of the time in the Senate. The author offers up some biased unsourced opinions and Sanders supporters lap it up. He puts up those cute little graphs that have nothing behind them other than his assertion that they are real.

Here is something that is real. The parties are more polarized than at any time since Reconstruction. So no, the Democratic party isn't moving to the right.

These are factual things and yet the author just ignores them because dealing with reality would destroy his world view.

It's pathetic that he describes himself as where rationalism and idealism meet as he clearly has no concept of what rationalism means given the fantasy of this article.

[AgerolanAmerican]

31. how do I put this?

let's say you knew someone who was really really nice 89% of the time

the other 11% of the time he was murdering orphans

and now someone comes along and tells you not to mind the 11% stuff, the 89% stuff is what really defines him and thus he's a super nice guy

[Onlooker]

29. This is a made up history

Let's consider that Democrats:
- are generally anti-isolationist since FDR. Truman's use of the A bomb, the Korean war, the Vietnam War, Kosovo, and others are all events that can be identified to some degree with Democrats. Traditionally, it's the Republicans who have been more isolationist, and Bernie is something of an isolationist, with views that are quite similar to Rand Paul's.
- Democrat have always been quite pro-corporate, and big government contracts tend to favor large corporations. Surely, any of Bernie's investments will benefit large corporations more than smaller ones. Increasing Social Security, for instance, will mean more disposable income that favors corporations. Bernie's plans are good, but are not particularly anti-corporate (they're anti-corporate corruption and abuse).
- The wealthy have done extremely well under Democrats, with tax loopholes and incentives that favor particular investments that play to rich Americans. FDR got 25% of his campaign donations from Wall Street, and if you believe the Kennedy's harmed the wealthy, you're wrong. That doesn't mean they were bad, but they were corporate, not socialist.

Progressive politics came out of social movements putting pressure on Democrats. Without MLK, JFK and LBJ would have never passed civil rights and voting rights. Without the labor movement, FDR would have never passed much of his New Deal.

One could argue that if Sanders is elected, he will take the fire out of his movement, which will expect the system to implement progressive social reform. But, if Hillary is elected, there will be a powerful social movement that will force her to implement change. With a Sanders victory more than likely the social movement dies, as we saw with Obama.

[Fumesucker]

34. Exactly, we should have elected McCain in 2008 and we would all be far better off now

Or would you like to think that over and perhaps reconsider?

[Onlooker]

35. I'll try to explain it more simply for you.

I wrote:

"Progressive politics came out of social movements putting pressure on Democrats. Without MLK, JFK and LBJ would have never passed civil rights and voting rights. Without the labor movement, FDR would have never passed much of his New Deal."

McCain and Palin were Republicans. (Look it up if you don't believe me.) If they were elected, then the social movements that would put pressure on them would be conservative ones, not progressive ones.

[Fumesucker]

36. You're arguing Obama was the wrong choice

That really only leaves McCain unless you're talking Libertarian or Green or some other minor party.

[Onlooker]

37. No, if he was the wrong choice, it would have been in the primary obviously

Like most of us, I supported Obama enthusiastically, but the reality is that the movement that got him elected fell apart and saddled him with a very right wing Congress, stifling further progress after two very good years. If Hillary had been the nominee, would the Obama movement have stayed strong enough to force her to the left? I certainly think there's a possibility of that this time around. If Sanders loses the nomination, I very much doubt he's going to retire to the farm. I think and hope he'll lead a national movement that forces Hillary and Congress to take strong action.

[Fumesucker]

38. Obama retired OFA on his election, his movement didn't fall apart it was smashed up for scrap

Somehow I don't think Sanders would do that on his election..

This little poster was popular a few years ago here on DU, haven't seen it in a while.

[delrem]

41. Obama's #1 mistake, inviting HRC in as SoS.

I don't know why he did that.
It ran counter to everything he said.

I agree with Carter. Obama's 2nd term, free from Clinton, was qualitatively better.
To elect Clinton would be a massive regression.

[AgerolanAmerican]

30. Moderate?

There is nothing moderate about starting war after war and selling the country out via TPP and banking an unprecedented amount of cash under very dubious pretenses and a variety of other things.

[delrem]

40. Isn't it cute how they self-define themselves as "moderate" and "centrist",

defining themselves as being so totally safe and, y'know, agreeable. How the paid pundits go along, and how so many of even the best intentioned of us follow, afraid to question our received vocabulary.

[delrem]

39. How is Hillary Clinton "moderate"?

Does anyone but the author consider the total destruction of Iraq, Libya and Syria to be "moderate"?
That's neocon through and through, not "moderate" at all. Regardless of whether it flies under a 'D' or 'R' flag.

Fuck this PC speak! Let reality speak, and reality says that Hillary Clinton is no "moderate", no "centrist", but that she's 100% committed to the neocon program.

[John Poet]

43. Hillary: A moderate Republican with NeoConservative Foreign Policies

I just watched this movie from 2001-2009, I don't want to see it again.