2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Meldread
(4,213 posts)I agree with the video 100%. However, let us be clear: it was not merely the fact that millions of people fought for those things. It was that they fought for those things over decades. We set out plans, goals, and agendas. Then we fought. I've spent my entire adult life fighting, and I am still fighting--even today. Not just to secure more rights for my community, but to preserve the rights we have already won.
In the interim, I had to look politician after politician in the eye, and vote for people who publicly said that they did not believe that I deserved equal rights. They would come to me, ask me to campaign for them, ask for me to donate to their campaigns, and ask for my vote. Then they would literally tell me that because I was gay, I didn't deserve the same rights and privileges as straight people.
I had to make strategic choices. I had to support candidates that could not only win, but would advance the cause. It was political trench warfare. Inch by inch, incrementally, we began to turn the tide of the culture war, and even now today we are still not victorious.
The mistake that Sanders makes is that he believes that if he becomes President that things will change. They won't. The groundwork for a real liberal revolution is being laid down right now, and if he were to become President, he could set back the cause. He has made so many promises, given people so much hope, that if he became President and when he inevitably failed to deliver, millions of liberals could check out of the political process. We are already at risk of losing them.
People want quick and easy fixes to our problems. However, those of us who have been involved in real battles understand that you measure progress not by election cycles but by decades. Our goal should be, as liberals, to prepare to try and get a real liberal in the White House by 2024 and the 2030's at the latest. In the meantime, we have to lay the groundwork so that said future liberal has a Congress and a Supreme Court that will be friendly to his or her agenda. This is the fundamental problem that Bernie Sanders faces: he has no real allies in Washington D.C. If he were to become President, he would face opposition not only from Republicans, but also from the Third Way Democrats. If Sanders is unable to push through his agenda, then millions of liberals could check out of the political process entirely, feeling that it is broken and useless to participate--rather than understanding that individual elections cannot be used as a measurement for success.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... progressive congress FDR had at one time in his terms or the 70% he had average throughout his 4 terms as prez.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)/bye.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)Because it's true.
P.S. Welcome to ignore.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I'm reminded of something I wrote earlier today, which I'll revise a bit for the purposes of this thread:
Assuming Clinton becomes POTUS, differences in governance (between her administration and Obama's) could (and likely will) result from unforeseen events and cultural shifts, and there are always going to be personality (as well as personnel) differences. But for the most part, I fully expect a Clinton Administration to govern the same as the Obama Administration has. *Note: To some, that's a good thing and to others not so much. I'm not making a value judgement one way or the other.
And the truth is a Sanders Administration, as much as some will refuse to acknowledge this, would also function in a similar fashion. Or it wouldn't function at all.
It's important to keep in mind that the POTUS doesn't create systems. The POTUS operates within systems. Systems aren't static, of course, but mass movements are required to alter them. For example, the institution of marriage has experienced shifts, not because of Supreme Court decisions but because of mass movements (most notably a gay rights movement that started decades ago).
The US is extremely individualistic and oriented toward the Cult of Personality, which results in people vastly overestimating the power and influence (for better or for worse) of individual actors.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Meldread
(4,213 posts)Keep on fighting, I guess? I don't know. It seems you may be implying that I am somehow against organized labor or the New Deal, which I am not, but neither of which had anything to do with what I wrote.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Meldread
(4,213 posts)...every single one of your candidates policies? This has never been true for me, and it is not true for me now. It also would not be true for me if I were voting for Bernie Sanders instead. We always cast our votes strategically.
I outlined one of the reasons I was supporting Clinton over Sanders in the post to which you responded. It's fine to say, 'Hey, I am supporting Sanders over Clinton because I believe he is more pro-Union.' That's fine. It does not, however, negate or argue against anything I wrote.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)FDR's new deal- in other words, the exact opposite of The Third Way, who decimated organized labor with NAFTA, and everything that came AFTA.
senz
(11,945 posts)He said when millions of people organize and work for change, then change happens.
The advantage of having him as president would be that we'd have an ally in the WH who would give his all to help us. Bernie would serve the people, not the corporations, not the elite, not the establishment.
Bernie got a lot done in congress because he works well with those on both sides of the aisle and knows how to get things done. He's not a power player, he's not a prima dona, he just gets busy and gets things done. And people respect him because he's honest, straightforward, and a decent person.
He doesn't have party endorsements because he's not a power player and doesn't intimidate his colleagues by wielding influence and intimidating with hit lists. He doesn't work that way.
BTW, he's long been a supporter of LGBTQ rights. Unlike his opponent, he spoke out against and voted against DOMA. He doesn't have an ounce of bigotry in him. Just the way he is.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)Bernie got a lot done in congress because he works well with those on both sides of the aisle and knows how to get things done. He's not a power player, he's not a prima dona, he just gets busy and gets things done. And people respect him because he's honest, straightforward, and a decent person.
He doesn't have party endorsements because he's not a power player and doesn't intimidate his colleagues by wielding influence and intimidating with hit lists. He doesn't work that way.
I agree with this entirely. However, it contradicts the previous statement you made:
The advantage of having him as president would be that we'd have an ally in the WH who would give his all to help us. Bernie would serve the people, not the corporations, not the elite, not the establishment.
Let me explain why I see this as a contradiction. Everything you said about Bernie Sanders is true. It's one of the reasons Third Way Democrats are stupid to light their hair on fire about him. Despite all of his populist talk, he is ultimately a pragmatic person and a team player. He knows what is achievable and what isn't. So, he works with Democrats and Republicans on issues where there is common ground, and he bends his own values to support legislation that he regards as intensely imperfect--but still an improvement over the status quo. A great example of this is how he worked on the ACA. They needed his vote. He could have threatened to blow it up, held the entire process hostage, and attempted to negotiate for something more to his liking--at least getting the public option in there. However, he didn't do that out of fear that it would harm the process.
The problem is that Bernie Sanders has made a lot of big promises, and a huge swath of his supporters will expect him to deliver on them. If he were elected his biggest campaign promises like breaking up the big banks, single payer healthcare, and free college for all--these things are not going to happen. In order for something like this to even be remotely possible, the Democrats would have to control a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and at the very least take over the house. All of this is ignoring the Third Way Democrats who blocked and stood in the way of single payer in the past.
So, what ultimately happens? Bernie Sanders compromises on his promises. The best case scenario that he makes marginal gains. His most enthusiastic supporters, the people we need to be part of the movement, will feel burned and slighted by him. He'll be viewed and treated as a sellout--because they don't understand the difference between campaigning and governing--and we run the risk of them checking out of the political process. After all, if honest and trustworthy Bernie is working with the Third Way Democrats, then what hope is there for someone else?
The fundamental problem the liberal movement faces at the moment is that we need more of our people at all levels of power--from the local and state level, to the halls of Congress. It's really only at this point that taking the Presidency would be beneficial to the movement. Someone like Sanders would then have congressional allies. The odds of successfully seeing some of his proposals put into effect--either in whole or in part--become much more likely as a result.
The problem that he would face, taking the Presidency at this moment in time, would be that he would not have the power to push through his agenda. He has too few allies in the Congress, and as a result he will be forced to compromise on his core principles. This will anger his most ardent supporters, and we would run the risk of them checking out of politics all together. As a liberal--as someone on the far left, who wants to drag this country leftward kicking and screaming--I don't want anything to damage the movement.
Right now, everything is lining up for us demographically. If millennials remain as liberal as they are today, then in the next few Presidential election cycles we will become the dominant force in American politics. On top of this Republicans have utterly alienated other key voting blocks like Hispanics, especially with this Donald Trump nomination. If we play our cards right, and lay the proper foundations now--the future belongs to us.
===================
BTW, he's long been a supporter of LGBTQ rights. Unlike his opponent, he spoke out against and voted against DOMA. He doesn't have an ounce of bigotry in him. Just the way he is.
I'm obviously aware of both of their records. I don't think he has an ounce of bigotry in him, either. However, tactically speaking it is foolish to hold Clinton's previous positions against her. Think of it this way, our goal is to get people to side with us. We are saying, 'Side with us, side with us', then when they finally do we turn around and say, 'Sorry, you did not side with us quickly enough and are not as pure as we would like.' If we do this, then what incentive is there for people to side with us? There has to be an upside to changing ones positions to favor our community.
There is also an upside for us politically as well. Because she was slow to move in the past, she now has to prove her loyalty to the cause. This means that we're in a better position to extract things out of her--because she has something to prove. Bernie Sanders has nothing to prove to the community. He's walked the walk since day one, and has enjoyed our support whenever he's run as a result. The key to locking down our votes--or at least my vote--was not what he did in the past, but what he planned to do in the future. I wanted him to go way beyond where Clinton is currently positioned. in the end, they are more-or-less promising the same things moving forward. The main difference is that Clinton has something to prove to the community, and Bernie's primary focus is on his economic agenda--not his social agenda. So, getting Bernie Sanders to expend political capital to do things for us would be more difficult than it would be to do the same to Clinton.
Where someone was on marriage equality is less relevant today than it was in the past because that is now a settled issue. What I want, in addition to everything that is already being asked for by the community, is for the United States government to become an asylum state for LGBTQ people. Basically, it would work similar to how things worked for Cubans fleeing Castro's Cuba. If you are fleeing a country that does not have protections for LGBTQ people, especially countries where being gay is literally punishable by death or imprisonment, then all you have to do is get to the United States. Once your feet touch the ground, you are automatically safe and welcomed. Getting citizenship is a fairly easy process after that. It would be even better if the government would help fund their travel to the United States, but that may be asking too much. This would be beneficial to the Democratic Party in the same way Cubans finding asylum in the United States has been beneficial to the Republican Party.
If Bernie Sanders was to make a promise like that, I would have found it rather difficult in justifying my vote to the community. After all, even if Sanders loses, he could demand concessions from Clinton, and that would be one of the concessions I would want her to make. He could even get it put into the Democratic Party platform. Then the current strategy I am now using would come into play--she would have to prove herself to the community, and we could push her hard after making such a large promise, forcing her to spend political capital.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)
I see all the Hillary supporters with all their passion, but I have no idea what it's for? She doesn't fundamentally stand for anything progressive. And yet they fight on. For WHAT? Which of these positions do you agree with? Any of them? All of them? WHAT!
.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)If Bernie Sanders were elected President, of all the major promises that he has made (like Single Payer Healthcare, Breaking Up the Big Banks, Free College For All, etc.), what would you actually expect to see happen?
Now, to answer your question, you mistakenly believe that I am *FOR* Hillary Clinton, or that I support each and every one of her policy positions. I am a liberal. Even if I voted for Bernie Sanders I would be compromising. I have outlined above the reasons that I cast my vote for Hillary. It was a strategic vote. Hillary Clinton is there to secure the gains made under the Obama Presidency, and to bridge the gap until my generation, the Millennials, become the major voting block in American Politics.
Let's talk about the future, and what it looks like under my generation. You can read the Republican Frank Luntz freaking out about it here, which is where the data comes from.
My Generation:
* 67% of my generation believes that either Socialism or Communism is the most compassionate economic system, compared with just 33% who support Capitalism.
* We're the largest generation in American History, even bigger than the Baby Boomers. Once we get in power, we will hold it for a very long time.
* 31% of Millennials most closely identify with Bernie Sanders, 18% for Obama, and 11% for Hillary. Bernie Sanders scored higher than ALL of the Republicans combined. The highest scoring Republican was Donald Trump, at a mere 9%.
* 44% of Millennials self-identify as Democrats, higher than any other generation in America. By comparison, only 15% identify themselves as Republican. 42% self-identify as Independents, but on issue after issue, they support the liberal agenda. Millennials as a whole categorically reject the Republican party, its ideas, and its values.
* By 2020, according to this forecast, Millennials will make up 30.5% of the vote. That will be equal to Baby Boomers. By 2024, Millennials will make up 34% of the vote. With each passing election cycle, Millennials will come to dominate the electoral process more and more, making it harder and harder for Republicans to win elections--especially for President.
* The Republican Party has thoroughly alienated virtually every non-minority group, including women and Hispanics. The nomination of Donald Trump could make Hispanics in the United States a loyal voting block of the Democratic Party in much the same way as African American voters are now. This is what happens when they pander to white racists, especially as whites overall are quickly becoming a minority themselves in America. By 2043, the United States will no longer be a majority white nation.
So, moving forward with a coalition of Millennials, College Educated Whites, Hispanics, African Americans, LGBTQ Americans, and an assortment of other groups like Labor Unions and Economic Populists, the Democratic Party will come to dominate American politics. At its core will be the liberal policies--both social and economic--supported and embraced by Millennials. This is the future.
Now, explain to me why I would risk this future by potentially alienating these groups with false promises of what is realistically achievable at the moment? Explain to me why I shouldn't be instead telling all of these people to vote for the Democrat for President, no matter what, and place our ideological attention on local, state, and Congressional elections? Explain to me why I am wrong in arguing that, in order to get policies like those Bernie advocates, we FIRST need members of Congress willing to vote for them?
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)answer, just like EVERY other Hillary supporter. Because when it comes right down to the issues, you are not with her. I just like to know why people support her when they know where she stands on the issues and no real Democrat or progressive could prefer that.
I mean THOSE are the issues, which of them do you support????? Still waiting.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)Look at this entire sub-thread where I've responded to others. I've answered that question over and over. Feel free to respond to any of those and challenge my reasoning.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)As I am straight, I won't venture a comment on that aspect, as it seems to me progress has been made. But it is outside my realm of experoence.
Overall, however, especially on issues of power and wealth and the way government and politics intersect with corporate power, the lack of a hopeful alternative since Ronald Reagan is a huge part of our problem. The Democrats retrenched, and largely because part of the problem, rather than offering solutions. That has caused widespread cynicism and apathy, as people have seen the Democrats abandoning principles and engaging in the same sellouts and participating in the same gridlock as the GOP.
Clinton's current message ("all we can do is small incremental change"
is merely a continuation of that pattern. And it wilol perpetuate it. We need to break that pattern and actually offer real goals and solutions that people can actually get behind and pro-actively support.
IF Sanders (or someone like him) actually gets in the WH, -- and is straightforward about the need for public engagement, and fights hard enough to convince people that he means it -- I believe people would be realistic about the challenges involved, and give him room to maneuver. And more importantly, it would revitalize the Democratic side as a focal point for the whole spectrum of Liberal/Progressives.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)I think that is really the question that needs to be asked here. I would argue that it was the staggering losses in 1984 and 1988.
These two landslide losses damaged Democrats so badly, that it opened up the door for Third Way Democrats like Bill Clinton to come to power in 1992. They've held power since then. The demographics, particularly among Millennials, are against them. The pendulum is about to swing the other way, but right now they are holding onto power--and they aren't going to give it up peacefully.
I don't disagree with you about needing a strong liberal as a public voice to publicly articulate a clear liberal agenda. However, the danger comes with putting that voice in the White House. People will expect the President to deliver on his promises. He will not be able to do it, because he will face opposition from both Third Way Democrats and Republicans.
My concern is that an unsuccessful Bernie Sanders Presidency, meaning a Presidency in which he doesn't get at least a sizable chunk of what he promised done, will cause liberals to check out of the political process. They will feel that they did everything right, that they voted, fought, gave money, campaigned for someone... and yet, here they are with nothing to really show for it. This allows the Third Way Democrats to come in and talk about how impractical liberal policies are, and create a narrative as to why Bernie Sanders failed as President. A narrative that we both know that the Beltway and Mainstream Media will pick up without hesitation, and that will become common and collective wisdom. This will, in turn, hurt liberals down the road.
Hillary Clinton, therefore, becomes a bridge candidate. She exists to secure the meager liberal gains we made under Obama, and to hopefully capture a few more. She is a compromise. By 2020 Millennials will equal Baby Boomers in terms of voting numbers, and by 2024 Millennials will overtake them in the numbers. By focusing our attention on local, state, and Congressional elections, we are creating the groundwork for a liberal to have the power they need once they step into the oval office--the power that does not exist right now.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I don't expect that Sanders could change the landscape overnight. But I do believe he, his supporters and equivalent clearly liberal/progressive political leaders could start pushing the pendulum in a better direction.
Obama (and way back when Bill Clinton) won largely because they presented attractive populist progressive packages that inspired liberals and the liberal instincts of moderates.
Unfortunately, while Obama has been a really good president in many ways, his failures were not because he tried to be too liberal in governing -- but because he too often reverted to Third Way conservative stances, and took the usual Democratic "start at giving the GOP to percent" tactic, rather then pushing for it all, and then compromising.
I think Sanders would push for the things he lays out. He would also work to sell them to a majority of the people to garner support. If along the way, it has to be compromised or done incrementally (such as a public option expansion of Medicare rather than single payer) people would not consider that a failure, but as a step in the right direction.
Sanders also has shown in the past as mayor, that he can lead a "revolution" in terms of rallying people to support legislative changes to support such things. He'd effectively generate more support for all Democrats and show up the GOP for what they are.
Or not...But personally I prefer to gamble in that direction than to go through another round of centrist stagnation.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)Unfortunately, while Obama has been a really good president in many ways, his failures were not because he tried to be too liberal in governing -- but because he too often reverted to Third Way conservative stances, and took the usual Democratic "start at giving the GOP to percent" tactic, rather then pushing for it all, and then compromising.
I agree with this completely. I also agree with you, that Clinton will very much be following in the footsteps of Obama. This IS a disappointment for those of us who are on the far left, and want to see massive changes. However, I also expect the pendulum to swing in our favor, both because of demographics and because of the hard work we are engaging in--hard work that doesn't receive enough attention or support.
This isn't a knock against anything you said, but a general observation about the liberal movement in general. My feeling is that people on the left like inspirational leaders. However, far too many on the left are unwilling to do the necessary hard work required to actually ensure those leaders have the power to do what they want once those leaders are elected. As a result, we see Third Way nonsense, because that is largely the only thing that can get accomplished. Too many liberals seem to check out on races that matter, in many cases, races that matter even more than the Presidency. Just look at how horribly we do during mid-terms, and how things have gone for us at the state and local level across the country. We control the Presidency, but that's about it. We may make gains in Congress this cycle, but it won't be because of hard work by liberal forces, it will be because of the stupidity and overreach of Republicans.
I don't expect that Sanders could change the landscape overnight. But I do believe he, his supporters and equivalent clearly liberal/progressive political leaders could start pushing the pendulum in a better direction.
The problem I have seen is that many people DO believe that. They believe that if Bernie Sanders is elected, that the will of the people will be known, and that suddenly presto-chango-revolution! They don't realize the hurtles that Sanders would face as President, and because if he failed to get accomplished what he promised as well as the hard work that needs to be done to ensure that he would be successful... I feel that a lot of liberals will just check out. They will decide that they did their best, they failed, and will revert to a 'well fuck the country' attitude.
I think Sanders would push for the things he lays out. He would also work to sell them to a majority of the people to garner support. If along the way, it has to be compromised or done incrementally (such as a public option expansion of Medicare rather than single payer) people would not consider that a failure, but as a step in the right direction.
I think Sanders' legislative record shows him to be a lot more pragmatic than most people give him credit for or assume him to be. I don't doubt that Sanders would argue for what he wants done, but he won't have any political leverage to achieve it. I mean, just look at Obama as an example. Look at how he has used the bully pulpit to argue in favor of gun regulation after the Sandy Hook and Charleston Massacres. The reforms he was asking for enjoyed HUGE popular support across the political spectrum and they were meager. He did manage to move some Democrats, but literally nothing happened. There is no reason to believe that Bernie Sanders would not face an identical problem.
Even getting to the point where he COULD compromise or do something incrementally would be a challenge. ...and even then, he'd be compromising with Republicans, mostly. So the question becomes what he gives them in exchange for even getting the meager compromise he can realistically expect.
Or not...But personally I prefer to gamble in that direction than to go through another round of centrist stagnation.
You know Republicans have the Buckley rule, which states that they should always elect the most conservative candidate possible that can win in an election. As a general guideline, I believe this is a good observance for liberals as well, especially for legislative elections. However, I also don't want to overlook the "Hamilton Rule". Hamilton argued that it would be better for the Federalist cause to have his hated rival Thomas Jefferson in Power than John Adams. He wrote the following, "If we must have an enemy at the head of Government let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures."
This is the way I view Hillary Clinton. She is not one of us. No one on our side expects her to do things that we favor, and we expect meager scraps if anything at all. We know we will have to fight her every step of the way to push for the most liberal agenda possible. However, it also means that we are not responsible for her failures, her actions, or the--sometimes necessary--compromises she will have to make in order to govern. The same necessary compromises Bernie Sanders would have had to make were he President--the same type of compromises he made as a member of the Senate. Every concession, compromise, and stumble that Hillary Clinton makes as President will enrage the liberal movement, and that rage can be harnessed productively--to used against her and also to motivate support for liberal candidates who will push for an actual liberal agenda.
Whomever comes next in line for President after Clinton will be to her left. The demographic trends will make this an almost certainty. What we need right now is someone to bridge the gap between Obama, to secure his meager liberal gains, until the demographics are more in our favor and we can make a real power play. We can use this time between Presidential elections productively, laying the groundwork for the future Democratic President. The sad truth is that, right now, at this moment, we are not in a position to seize power the way that we would want.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Just a couple of random points.
I think one problem about the "left" is that people do work hard to advance their beliefs. But they do it outside of the partisan structure. They work on specific issues, or local issues or form organizations to do things that reflect their values in otehr ways.
I think Democrats like Clinton are dangerous because they lull too many into complacency. "Well if a Democrat is President (or Democratic Congress) we're okay." ...Meanwhile destructive stuff still is getting done behind the scenes -- or in defiance of what most Democrats actually want....I succumbed to that when Bill Clinton was President initially, until I started learning and paying attention....There's somewhat less of that with Obama, but it still is going on.
A related point. The GOP is a perpetual villain. Alas defeating that villain often seems to be enough. And it's always used as a club to browbeat us into the lesser evil argument.
Personally, I think the pendulum is constantly swinging from left to right throughout history. Right now we're at a point where it can be swung to the left more, because the chickens have come home to roost because of GOP supply side bullshit, and bipartisan corporate bullshit...But we're in danger of blowing it, if there is not a clear indication that democrats are willing to proactively make that push....(I'm talking in symbolic terms, but there are many specific examples.)
I honestly don't know how effective Bernie would be in the WH on all this. But his experience as mayor shows he does have the skillset....He did a lot of coalition building, and does know how toi get pragmatic things accomplished, while also selling the big picture items.
Dunno....The die is probably cast for Clinton, but I'm not happy about it. She'll get my vote if that's the choice...but that's all she'll get.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)I was hoping that Bernie Sanders would have been more aggressive. I didn't want to support Clinton, and I literally gave Bernie Sanders a chance all the way up until a few days before I had to cast my vote.
When Bernie Sanders initially came out talking about a revolution, I got excited. I'm a leftist. When Bernie Sanders campaign really started to take off, I expected him to start endorsing people in the primaries and working to get them elected. I expected him to target DLC/Third Way Democrats in safe Democratic districts, so we could purge them from the party. I expected him to throw down the gauntlet, and basically start making Democrats unite behind him--demanding that they sign a pledge for a more liberal agenda. Think something along the lines of Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America" and the Grover Norquist pledge that all Republicans more-or-less have to sign. I expected him to use his fundraising ability to help down ticket Democrats that he was supporting.
When none of this really happened, I began to think back on Bernie's time in the Senate. He's always been one of the most outspoken voices for liberal causes, but he's never really aggressively pushed it. He's never really done anything to flex his political muscles, to make the Third Way Democrats compromise with him. Instead, they spent all their time compromising with Republicans. Why would a Bernie Sanders Presidency be any different? So, he could talk about all the things he'd like to do, but never actually be able to achieve?
As someone who is on the left, someone on the hard left, I want someone who is willing to hold the political knife to the Third Way Democrats throat. I want someone who isn't afraid to purge them from the party if they don't fall into line. I don't believe that they are on our side. We may share some similar values on social issues, but they don't go as far as I would want. On economic issues they go against what I want. On foreign policy issues they go against what I want. Even Bernie Sanders doesn't go far enough for me.
I realize getting what I want isn't going to happen, so I have to think strategically. The system forces us to do that. I realize that I cannot think in terms of election cycles, but instead in terms of decades. So, inevitably, I approach the entire situation of a primary from a different perspective.
In my perfect future world, liberals move to dominate the Democratic Party, and there is a political re-alignment. The Third Way Democrats leave the party, and they join up with their true allies--socially progressive Republicans. They then work to marginalize the far right and the social conservatives, shutting them out of the political process entirely. The country then shifts away from the right and more toward the left. Social issues largely get taken off the table as wedge issues between the parties, as they largely agree on them broadly speaking. The differences between the parties becomes one of foreign policy and economics. That is my ideal future world. I don't think it'll happen, because I am not that idealistic. I believe that we will unfortunately remain tethered to the Third Way Democrats. However, that does not mean we have to tolerate them in safe liberal districts and states.
I am also leaning more and more toward pushing for a Constitutional Change for how the Federal Government works. Moving toward a mixed-member proportional voting system, a unicameral Congress, and Parliamentary style system. This may be the best way to move forward, and it could gain support from those on the right as well. They feel their voice is being shut out by those in Washington, we feel the same, and thus reforming how the government works could give both of us an opportunity to support those we favor instead of having to constantly support the lesser of two evils bullshit.
Joob
(1,065 posts)Change happens when people rise up by the millions, you are wrong. You think we expect Bernie to get things done by himself and that's where your logic fails miserably. When Bernie becomes president we know that's just half the battle. Bernie won't be alone he will have the millions and millions of Americans that got him there, and He won't be a president who ignores the people, who won't communicate with them.
He won't take them on alone, people will stay political engaged when they have a president that wants them to.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)...that he needed a ground swell of support. He needed to bring in people who didn't normally participate in the process in huge numbers. Bernie Sanders has motivated fewer voters than Obama did, though they are intensely zealous.
Understand, that in order for your argument to be realistic, he would have had to soundly beat Hillary Clinton in the primaries by a huge margin. The party would have had to rally behind him in an almost unshakable and undeniable way. This would have given him the power and leverage that you are talking about--at least with Democrats.
Instead, the reality is that he failed to unite the Democratic Coalition, and as a result, Hillary Clinton is beating him in the primaries.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)Sanders has been consistent on this issue for decades. (He opposed DOMA, for instance.)
71 year old woman here, long time Democrat (50+ years), staunch fighter for civil rights, women's rights, gay rights and all human rights all my life. Also a staunch fighter against "free trade for the rich."
Nobody--but nobody--that I know in the Sanders campaign believes in "easy fixes" or instant success. Good God, look at what this campaign has done against all the odds to focus this political season on poor, forgotten, working class Americans, and beleaguered students and the beleaguered elderly--the majority of people in this country. This new politics has been a long time coming.
Sanders didn't come out of nowhere. The American political rebellion has been boiling beneath the surface for a very long time--since the Reagan junta, really--and Sanders' campaign is its first, highly visible eruption within the political system. And everybody who is responsible for this campaign knows what a long, long struggle it has been to get here, and what a long, long struggle is to come.
It is quite unfair to accuse Sanders supporters of naivete, when his opponent, Clinton, has done nothing but harm to the poor and the middle class, and that has taken a long time, too. We are well aware of how entrenched corporatism and militarism have become with the active aid of the Clintons, and how long it is likely to take to undo all this harm.
The aspect of peoples' lives that is the color of their skin or their sexuality is intertwined with the aspect of their lives that is economic. It is no accident that women are making 75 cents on the dollar, and no accident that people of color--including the black, the brown and the red--were the worst victims of Reaganism and of the global economic meltdown of 2008 (for which the Clintons bear direct responsibility--they are the ones who ended New Deal banking regulation). The black, the brown and the red are also the worst victims of mass imprisonment, which has pervasive economic implications in their lives and the lives of their families, and in their communities (one of which is massive disenfranchisement). That took time to develop--using the insane U.S. "war on drugs" and privatization of the prisons. Both Clintons were active players in that horror.
You are just giving us a more sophisticated version of the "unicorns and ponies" slander that was tried earlier. That is nonsense! Every one of Sanders' proposals is right down the middle of the political spectrum, if the polled views of Americans are a guide. His proposals are almost rightwing if you compare them to England, Canada, Sweden, Norway, France and other civilized countries. And nobody who supports Sanders is going to get behind Clinton "triangulation" on these issues. She doesn't inspire public participation. She won't inspire or fund congressional and senate candidates who support Sanders policies. She won't jawbone the nation for free public college tuition or a $15 minimum wage, or renewing Glass-Steagall, or anything else that needs doing. She will get LESS done than Sanders, who will have awesome public support, and WILL, by 2018, have himself a New Deal Congress.
And on the threat to Mother Earth, I am just dumbfounded that you think slow change is an option. It is NOT. Clinton is in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry. Sanders is committed to stopping global warming as a MORAL imperative (his word), and he is beholden to us, not to the death-of-Mother-Earth profiteers. He will ALSO do his best to mitigate impacts on the poor majority, of climate change itself (floods, draught, displacement) and of conversion to green energy. Clinton will not. If she does anything about the matter at all--the biggest crisis ever faced by the human race--the poor majority will pay and will suffer, and her donors in the Investor Class will profit from our impoverishment and misery.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)I was not trying to paint all Sanders supporters with a broad brush. However, I encourage you to look around here at your fellow Sanders supporters. I've engaged with a lot of them, both online in places like this and in person. Not everyone is walking around with blinders on, but some are--some genuinely believe that all Sanders has to do is get elected. I've engaged with them, and I've asked them how they think it will happen. I've been told a number of different things, but mostly it ranges from, 'The main focus has to be on winning, I'm confident that Bernie will figure it out once he is there' to 'Once Bernie is there, the people will rise up!'
I'm not trying to give a sophisticated version of unicorns and ponies. Mostly because I hate that slander, because it has constantly been used against me and my community. For election cycle after election cycle, we literally had to deal with Democrats who refused to recognize our equal rights. We would fight, fight, and then fight some more. We were constantly accused of wanting ponies, and told that we should just fall in line because Republicans were worse. ...and we did fall in line behind the Democrats, because the Republicans WERE worse.
I am just looking at the situation in which we find ourselves and I am trying to be realistic. In the most ideal world possible, if Sanders gets in the Oval Office--then what? You are banking on something that is highly unlikely, that Sanders, by 2018, will have such widespread public support that he will have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate AND a firm and solid control of the House. To even think that this is possible, is to literally ignore EVERYTHING that we know to be true about American politics. Not only that, it's to ignore what is going on RIGHT NOW. I know you're smart enough to see that, but it's not going to happen--at least not yet. Not until millennials become the overwhelming voting majority.
If Sanders gets into office, he will face the same problems that Obama has faced. Ultimately, Sanders favors a functioning government, so he WILL compromise. He will have few allies among Democrats, most of whom are Third Way, and he will face a united front from Republicans. Republicans who, as we know, will be doing everything in their power to destroy him. He will ultimately be forced to compromise with them, just to keep the government functioning and running. We know from experience now that they are willing to run us off the cliff by not raising the debt ceiling, as well as refusing to fund the government--shutting it down. So, ultimately, Sanders will sit down with them and compromise. The moment he compromises he becomes a sellout. This is how movements like ours work. We like and demand purity. However, governing--especially in the United States--demands compromise.
So, we'll have someone left-of-center (because you're right in pointing out that Bernie Sanders' proposals run right down the middle--he isn't part of the far left) in power at long last. What gets accomplished? What will he have to show for it? Nothing. Nothing except compromises with Republicans to keep the government open and to avoid financial ruin by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. We then run the long term risk of causing people on the left to check out, to believe that everything that was fought for was for nothing. They'll write off everyone in politics. They'll check out of the process.
If we want to win, truly win, and push the agenda that we both support, then we need to first lay the foundations for victory. That means getting that New Deal Congress, FIRST. After all, if the people are there, and the people want it, then there is no reason why they should not support candidates who want it as well. Put the New Deal Congress in place, and all of the concerns about Hillary become irrelevant, because they can easily check her power. If you want to fight for that by 2018, then I am more than happy to fight along side you. However, I am not going to throw our long term chances of victory away, to put someone in power who will have zero ability to enact the agenda that we both support.
oasis
(49,376 posts)
senz
(11,945 posts)FDR made an abrupt change in the nation's direction with the New Deal. The nation lived will under the New Deal for decades.
Reagan made an abrupt change from the New Deal to massive deregulation. The middle class went into a downward slide as corporations formed monopolies and gained control of the government.
Bill Clinton put Reaganomics on steroids when he deregulated the MSM and opened up the world economy to corporate globalization with NAFTA and WTO/GATT.
Change for good or ill can and does happen NON-incrementally.
So you can put that argument to rest.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)
