Why the Establishment v Progressive (i.e Clinton v Sanders) Fight Keeps Going On.
I was looking for something, an article or op-ed, on a subject and ended up stumbling onto something written in Salon a couple years ago.
It was about the Clinton/Sanders divide. Also seen as a fight between the Baby Boomer Clinton faction v the Bernie Sanders Millennials faction.
The article was not critical of either side but, written to shed light on some of the bitter fighting, what could be danger for Clinton in the general election.
It opened my mind up to answer some of my questions as to why people may still be fighting with each other when we should be on the same side.
To begin with, not all of Sanders supporters are Millennials. I am a baby boomer who supported Sanders. Vice Versa. There were alot of Millennials who supported Clinton.
That being said here are some high points in the article and I would encourage people to link to it and read the whole thing.
First the article goes back to the late 70s when the boomers were young and felt very different from their Greatest Generation parents in the role of civic engagement, government and business.
'In 1978, Stanford Research Institute was charting the effect that the baby boomers were having on American society. Businesses were struggling to market to a generation that cared less about status and more about personal expression. This was the Me Decade, obsessed with human potential and self-actualization, and in California, Ronald Reagan was watching this change firsthand. Arnold Mitchell and his colleagues at SRI hit on a new market research method to get a handle on what was going on, which they called VALS, for Values and LifeStyle. Instead of using traditional demographics, they targeted people psychographically, based in significant part on Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which put self-actualization at the pinnacle of human experience. The research found something stunning: There was a large and growing group that hadn’t been understood before, which they called the Inner Directeds. These people cut across traditional demographic lines, and what they had in common was their desire to live life on their own terms.'
This was the start of the Government is bad and business is good in republican politics. The beginning of scapegoating government institutions, looking at privatizing and wiping out the New Deal. It was also the beginning of the anti tax movement where people became resentful of paying for 'undeserving others' and wanting to keep their money. All of this spoke to Boomers who were suspicious of Government since the 60s with Vietnam, Watergate and CIA abuses.
The article moves onto Bill Clinton and his moving the Democratic Party from its traditional stance of supporting unions, working people, civil rights, ect. and using government to promote and support good works to help the common good.
I personally feel Baby Boomers came into adulthood at a time when the arc of the New Deal was wanning, usually policies, moods and tug of war of left/right is around 35 years. The era of pro Democrat and New Deal ideas had hit a roadblock at the same time the boomers came of age and had major problems with government involvement. The anti big business mood changed overnight to pro business and the rise of the yuppies.
Boomers got the benefit of businesses being freed up and the big spending of the 80s. Business had not yet got to the point where they were getting the bulk of taxpayer money in their pockets, were allowed gross malpractice and watchdogs turning a blind eye. Businesses still felt responsible towards their workers and the public and benefits were still plenty. And Free Trade had not yet hit the job market.
Boomers rode the wave of pro Wall Street/Big Business mood and this is what Clinton came to in 1992. A Republican, capitalism is great, pro business mood.
'Clinton crafted his message to fit exactly what the focus groups said suburban swing voters wanted, and promised tax cuts. “Government is in the way,” he told the Democratic National Convention. “It’s taking more of your money and giving you less in return.” '
But, when Clinton tried to address the debt in the traditional manner this is what happeded:
'But once in office, Clinton found the deficit was much larger than expected and he’d have to make deep cuts to social programs, so he dropped the tax cut proposal. This angered the inner-directed, anti-government suburban boomers Clinton had used to build a coalition in the campaign. When he proposed what became Hillarycare in 1993—which was about shared interests—they revolted. Disunited Democrats threw up several competing proposals, effectively killing it, and in 1994 voters turned Congress red, throwing Clinton’s presidency into jeopardy.'
Millennials were either kids or not yet born. They need to know the atmosphere of the late 70s into Bush II era. The Clintons became neo-liberal and pro Wall Street by need. If they did not change the party and move it right, the party would be in danger of being dried up. Having no voice. It was a huge time for Conservative, even with democrats, policies.
Boomers who remained democrats favor the Clintons because Bill Clinton got the benefit of the renewed energy of business, combining traditional democratic interests of civil rights and women's right with being a business friendly democrat and moving the party to a center right, moderate position. The economy thrived in the 90s. And it fit Boomers ideals as well as their pocketbooks at the time. Boomer Democrats have carried a fondness for both Clintons since then and probably see an attack on them as both unfair and reminiscent of the extreme attacks by the republican party.
But, the fallout from the 90s and Bill Clinton having to straddle the new mood and address the mindset of his own generation was:
...'It was also based on an unexamined assumption: that self-interest is indeed the paramount political frame, instead of simply being one of many possible frames. The resulting focus on self-fulfillment at the expense of shared interests radically transformed government and American political and economic thought in the decades since.'
The studies since the 90s, especially lately now see the fallout from these years. From focusing solely on Boomers need for individualism and self fullfillment, rejection of the policies of the common good:
'We now know from science that self-fulfillment is not the only frame; in fact it is something of a mirage. Once basic needs are met, at a financial level of around $76,000, more money doesn’t make people happier. Like a carrot on a stick, one can chase self-fulfillment forever and still find it’s not quite within reach. Building a politics on this mirage drives the country ever rightward.
When combined with international trade agreements designed to give individuals cheaper goods (which polls well on a granular level) and the attendant rise of globalization ushered in by Clinton, the pursuit of this mirage led to unprecedented corporate power, destruction of the middle class, and environmental disasters that are providing the fuel for Bernie Sanders’ campaign and his call for a political revolution. This is a philosophical struggle for the hearts and minds of the Democratic Party.'
Now, with Boomers in their last hurrah, beginning to exit the stage and the millennial generation coming of age and dipping their toes into politics. Millennials see the world and policies in a totally different light:
'Mounting evidence shows that because of millennials’ ties through social media, younger voters do not think of themselves in the same radically self-obsessed, anti-government and entitled consumer ways their boomer parents did. Instead, they tend to see themselves as empowered but also a part of a collective, a social fabric, individual but cooperative, and because of this they value tolerance and equality. Most boomers were anxious to establish their independence; the data show millennials are not. Already the 20-44 population demographic is 8 percent larger than the 45-69 demo, it is significantly less self-focused, it sees the problems differently, indeed the problems are different, and reactive, self-focused politics are no longer necessarily the best way forward...'
It seems to me that Millennials are wanting in policy the same thing I have wanted for years. A renewal of the New Deal and its spirit.
Yes, not all millennials think like this, just like not all boomers think like the majority. But, this sheds light on the bitter divide. Its like the same divide of the Greatest Generation and their kids in the 60s, today's Boomers. Only now the Boomers are the parents.
The parting thought of this article is the most important one and one both sides need to ponder and take seriously if the democrats are to have a fighting chance of coming back and stronger then we've been in a while:
'Americans are undergoing a seismic shift in the political landscape, one that would seem to favor Democrats, but they may hand it away by refusing to unify and boldly grasp it. The numbers show that the time for the sort of bold, visionary appeal to the shared interests of society is finally arriving. If Democrats can capture it, they could elect an epochal president, one that has the power to redefine the argument as Reagan did, for the next 35 years.'
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/07/the_democrats_are_about_to_blow_it_this_election_is_about_new_millennials_not_aging_baby_boomers/
= new reply since forum marked as read
