On The State Of The Democratic Convention and Party: We're Gonna Need A Bigger Tent

[ancianita]

Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party don’t find themselves facing a huge, unconscious sexist conspiracy. They don't face double standards. At this point in Americans' struggles, Hillary Clinton
-- the political figure whom systems of law and power have made her -- is confronted with the demands of a movement of citizens who have been driven to influence policy and law of this country in order to rid their lives and government of undemocratic corporate control. This movement of citizens is no unicorn brigade.

They are people who believe -- as Obama said by kidding on the square at his last White House Correspondents Dinner -- that we are at the “end of the Republic.” People of this movement find they have no choice but to resist, fight, break away from those who betray the interests of theirs futures.

Media-abetted campaign opponents exist who belittle and malign them.
Opponents with personal causes – more status and equality as women;
financial causes – debt reduction through pension and personal asset raids;
political causes – dominance of the global establishment;
military causes – dividing humans into patriots and terrorist associates;
capitalist causes -- unending free market procuring of the earth's resources, animal, vegetable, mineral and human.

If there were not so many capitalist profit-driven problems they live with -- unemployment, tight money, debt terrorism, civil asset forfeiture, media control, tax evasion, wealth hoarding, privatization of health and welfare, impoverished education systems, land base/oceanic/atmospheric destruction that is enmeshed with the unintended consequence of these causes -- this movement would not exist.

If the first woman president were to present a national, organized, long-term committed plan to mitigate these conditions that bode misery for future generations and the globe, this movement would not exist.

However imperfect this movement's members, they persistently act through their own media, through coalitions of out groups – First Nations, environmentalists, political newbs, legal advisers, the alienated, the poor, women young and old, musicians and celebrities, the permanently unemployed and underemployed, the veterans, the unions.

Bill Clinton -- head of the Clinton Foundation and husband of the most promising first woman president, Hillary Clinton – pronounces that Hillary Clinton’s opponent’s supporters will be “toast.”

But it is not the names they are called. It's only the name they answer to that gives their lives meaning. The various names they answer to -- that make them set visions for their lives and lives’ work -- are symbolized by Senator Bernie Sanders.

By the millions they are Americans. Many will go to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia to get things done. Their children will watch and hear stories. Sanders supporters will be heard inside and outside the convention center.

Know now that attention will be paid, if not respect.

Some may plan to shut the convention down. But they’ll actually be trying to shut down the machinery of capitalist politics and demand inclusion and influence in it.

If the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton want to win with long term support, they will have to call off their dogs who diss and dismiss fellow Americans of this movement.

The movement and Hillary Clinton will have to have a sit down. As the nominee, Hillary Clinton will have to listen. Then she’ll have to seriously respond with serious proposals -- in writing -- of her term’s timeline to accomplish those proposals -- in writing.

This movement may have a majority who vote for her, but if she fails to listen and, as president, act on behalf of theirs and The People’s interests, they will leave her and corporate politics behind.

This movement really isn't even about Hillary Clinton. Yes, they've used the campaign to raise national issues. Yes, Bernie Sanders hears them. Yes, Clinton's sit down can forge a better national direction, mitigate future unrest, increase trust, patience, enfranchisement. Failing that, unrest and resistance to this nation's voracious capitalists will continue. We can get things done the easy way, hard way or best way.


Here is Chris Hedges, who rejects the politics of both Clinton and Sanders:

"We will recapture our democracy in the streets of cities such as Philadelphia, not in convention halls such as the aptly named Wells Fargo Center, where the Democratic Party elites intend to celebrate the results of the rigged primary elections and the continuity of corporate power.

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, other activists and I will march with Honkala. It is not as if we have a choice. No one invited us into the center or to the lavish corporate-sponsored receptions. No one anointed us to be Clinton superdelegates—a privilege that went to corporate lobbyists, rich people and party hacks. No one in the Democratic establishment gives a damn what we think.

The convention is not our party. It is their party. It costs a lot of money to attend. Donate $ 100,000 and you become an “empire” donor, with perks such as “VIP credentials for all convention proceedings,” along with tickets to lavish corporate and Party receptions, photo ops with politicians at the convention podium, four rooms at the Loews Philadelphia Hotel and a suite at a Yankees game, where a “special guest” will be present. Short of $100,000? You can become a “gold” donor for $50,000, a “silver” donor for $25,000 or a “bronze” donor for $10,000."

To the win-at-all-costs Democrats: this big tent party will shrink to pup tent size if the party's representatives don't get things done on behalf of this very American movement.

Capitalism will eat everything, tent and all.

?w=529&h=745

[Hortensis]

1. Ancianita, after a period when a majority of people

rejected liberalism and embraced a conservatism that ultimately became very destructive, the pendulum of American political will is swinging back to liberalism again. Although it's a drawn-out, uneven process, history books will likely date that from Obama's election, just as the conservative era is dated from Reagan's.

One of the reasons the change is slow is that liberals tend to be attracted to the cultural benefits of urban areas, winning those by large margins of wasted votes, while Republicans are more dispersed in smaller towns, with less waste. So for that reason alone, just getting a majority vote isn't enough, the majority has to build.

Another, of course, is the corruption of money in politics--buying conservatives into power. Republicans made that happen--including propaganda warring to convince people the Democratic Party is as bad as them. Literally not even close. We are the guys who created our democracy and, as usual through our history, we will fix it when we once again get enough power--after this election hopefully.

Step by step. We have entered a new liberal era and it is happening.

[Scootaloo]

2. I think you're being a bit naive

It seems you believe that the Republicans are the only ones in on the problem, that the Democratic party is pure and untarnished, just a hapless, unarmed victim in all of this.

The Democratic Party's fetishization of centrism and bipartisanship is killing it and everyone else as well. It's a lingering death, but it's still death. The further right the Republican party goes, the further the Democrats have to reach to achieve center. And since republicans define themselves largely by reactionary opposition to Democrats, that just creates a vicious cycle.

[grasswire]

28. interesting post, thanks. nt

[Meteor Man]

3. A majority of people rejected liberalism?

Well there are reasonable people who would not entirely agree with exactly what it was that "the majority of people rejected." Did they reject liberalism or the caricature of liberalism that the right wing noise machine projected?

A very big concern many Bernie supporters have is that there won't be time to write any more history books if we don't demand immediate change.

[Hortensis]

4. You're right that right-wing efforts to move the nation

right through outright lies, stoking fears, etc., were already at work. But nations do experience ideological swings, and the New Deal era was seen as the old ways that created the current problems. Enough people with undefined beliefs had had "enough" and embraced "change."

These days, sadly, 95% of what Bernie's (and economically most of Trump's) angry supporters want is what they or their parents already had and what America, including I'm sure many of them, threw away by voting conservatives into government. Or by not voting.

[Meteor Man]

5. I can't speak for 95% of Bernie supporters

Many of us voted, did GOTV and fought tooth and nail against the so called Reagan Revolution. Our anger, if you insist, is that the Third Way Dems joined the Reagan Revolution instead of fighting it.

[Hortensis]

6. Oh, yada, yada. The people you call "us"

were US. Tossing mud at those all around you six ways from Sunday doesn't change that. You're part of a humongous left who believe as you do but many of whom don't always bother to vote. THAT is our problem.

Btw, I am 100% sure many Bernie followers were among those latter slugs, and no doubt will be again--as some actually promise resentfully. In contrast, I always vote and for decades always used to do a day or two of volunteer work at major elections.

But sling insults at me. It's soooo helpful in creating the "immediate" change you say you want. And illusory superiority and high principles will of course increase the effectiveness of this behavior...oh, surely exponentially?

The difference you want to make is going to have to start with yourself, Meteor Man, the same as anyone else. We're in a war, and there is literally nothing more stupid than shooting at your own side and imagining that's helpful.

[libdem4life]

29. The sheer vitriol to a post that speaks someone's truth. I saw no mud, BTW.

Self control is a good thing. Hyperventilating never won anything.

[Aerows]

36. That particular person's bucket

isn't carrying any water with such statements.

[libdem4life]

39. Well OK then, carry on.

[ancianita]

7. Hortensis, I agree about the liberal swing. A Clinton presidency will freeze it out, however.

This movement I see is one that will, nevertheless, go on without engaging, but instead, resisting party politics that get things done in back rooms without public input.

I stand by what I said.

[Hortensis]

8. It would not be possible for Hillary to

"freeze it out." Presidents have great power to push and pull within government but even greater limitations. If she were to try to buck a major wave desired by the people who elected her, she would run a big risk of being replaced in four years.

But, good news. She is one of us.

"Hillary Clinton Was Liberal. Hillary Clinton Is Liberal."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

[ancianita]

9. Do you see any inclusion attempt from her and the party establishment now? I hear her hubz

pointing and admonishing and namecalling. I don't like what I see from someone who'll have her ear every damned day.

[Hortensis]

11. She has already advocated at least 2 specific

policies meant to please Sanders supporters, that I know of. There may well be others. She's not far enough left for me, but one thing I like about her is that she is not promising what cannot be achieved if things go the right way.

The one I remember at the moment is lowering the Medicare age for some people as a way of extending a single-pay plan to more of the populace.

Please note that over the last century all Democratic presidents have been progressives. They've all had a lot of things they wanted to do because they believed in using government to direct the nation of, by and for the people and to tackle problems too large to be handled any other way. However, NO president of either party ever achieves all his goals, or even most of them, and it depends on who controls Congress.

Getting control of the House is probably a pipe dream, but moving strongly that direction by taking more seats is not, and neither is getting control of the Senate. Of course, the Kochs alone are investing something like $42 million to prevent that, but we'll just have to make sure that turns out to be another terrible political investment for them.

[ancianita]

23. I love the reality of the Kochs losing on their political investments.Thanks for all your thoughtful

responses here. MUCH appreciated.

[Hortensis]

26. Me too! Here's to building on their

2008 and 2012 disasters.

[ancianita]

32. Thanks for the reminder. If Democrats vote straight downticket, the the 88% of Congress

might change enough to give her liberal support, even if it's not progressives that the party allowed on ballots.

I'd love to see Wasserman-Schultz replaced by Canova.

[Hortensis]

34. Are any of those you call progressives (Bernie's

fairly new group he's trying to move into Congress?) looking like they have a good chance so far? I haven't been following them specifically. Electing even a couple might make some people feel more hopeful that we were moving the right direction, tho.

Btw, have you seen these? They have a lot to say about our problems with Congress in this era, given the disastrous gerrymandering in 2010 after people like the Kochs managed a massive coup of House seats just in time.

[ancianita]

35. DWS hasn't allowed new progressives to get DNC monetary support, so there are very few.

Yes, I've seen the graphs, and you're right.

If those who do get elected downticket follow the lead of an "evolved" Clinton, this disappointing graph will look better, partly because of them and partly because of court decisions overturning and re-mapping a few states' gerrymanders.

[Hortensis]

38. Let's hope for the court decisions.

Honestly, as for making the House more liberal, the northern Democrats are already as liberal as they've ever been since the early 1800s or in the past 50+ years. Most of the Southern Democrats who were once hard-core conservatives moved to the GOP to cause trouble over there, and after that the Democratic Congress overall essentially became unified as strongly liberal.

Our Senate caucus is almost as good. Our Southern strong-conservative senators, such as Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd, also long, long ago took their bloodhound and brimstone mentalities to the GOP (thank you, President Johnson!). Some of our senators are more conservative/less strongly liberal than the rest, but that's only in comparison to other Democrats.

They're all worlds away from those off-the-charts upward curves of Republican senators and reps. Those people are where no conservative Congress has ever gone before and a huge reason why the GOP is self destructing.

But, anyway, nice talking. I'm off to do the chores I've been avoiding.

[Aerows]

37. The last time somebody stated that something was impossible

was a person that ignored them and made it possible.

[ancianita]

10. One more thing. I don't believe this 'liberal era' would have deepened without the visibility of

the democratic socialist press of the Sanders campaign.

[Demsrule86]

13. I keep hearing this.

And I have listened to Sander's speeches, I heard nothing that was not brought up before...not an original thought in his head.

[ancianita]

15. It's not the originality that's important. It's implementing tried and true ideas that's important.

Obviously, SO obviously, these ideas have been around for longer than Bernie himself.

What should concern you is how long you've been hearing this and not seeing it tried when it's clearly proven to work elsewhere.

Who does it benefit when these old ideas are not tried in the U.S.?

Just because you and I haven't suffered under current systems is no recommendation that they stay in place, since they directly hurt so many others of our fellows.

[Hortensis]

42. I agree that Bernie has had a profound influence.

When he first appeared, no one, including political scientists, foresaw how strongly people would respond to his "enough, no more!" message. Politicians have to develop their plans based on what they think we will want and support, but no one was asking the right questions on all those questionnaires, Democrats were mostly quiet, didn't bother to come out and vote in 2014, and everyone was surprised at the strong demand for strongly liberal solutions.

Until Bernie said we should fix things big and we should do it now, nobody was talking that way, and suddenly many were. And I'm not talking about the far left passion for revolution and the anti-Democrat hostility he brought out, although that is real, but rather the millions of normal mainstream liberals who'd vote for Hillary but preferred Bernie's impatient, angry fix-it-now! message.

The demand for Bernie's strong solutions is a demand for action from all Democratic politicians that empowers them to take stronger action. Bernie showed not just the party that it was there, but he showed us, and both are huge contributions.

Of course, now we also have to come through. All political power ultimately comes from the people. Even the Kochs and their ilk spend their billions convincing US to vote for THEIR choices.

[BobbyDrake]

17. Sanders loves taking credit for other people's work.

Along with running away from any negative consequences. The fact that he's the only candidate in this primary that voted for the 1994 Crime Bill is still not lost on me.

[azurnoir]

24. so one signed it and one campaigned for it while her husband signed it into law

nothing is lost on anyone

[Demsrule86]

25. That is true...I want to be nice but God help me that is true. nt

[libdem4life]

40. Of course. Solomon said it best...Nothing New Under the Sun.

And I'd rather have Same-old, Same-old than the Flavor of the Day when it comes to my politics.

But what about it do you not like...memes aside? That's what never gets said with these Broad Brush Bull Pucky dismissals.

Please skip over the Unicorns and Ponies, if for only a bit of intelligent discourse.

[Demsrule86]

12. My suggestion is don't make fools of yourselves at the convention

You want change, get involved...do something...positive...any ass can tear down-no brains need and it is for lazy people...it takes work and commitment to build something good.

[ancianita]

14. I suggest you not call open dissenters of your party "fools." I suggest you stay democratic.

You need not worry about how people make themselves "look" -- which is pure bourgeois respectability politics -- you need to just show that "big tent" acceptance of differences.

Those differences are supposed to be the "democratic" part of the Democratic Party.

As this movement tries to prevent a TPP overthrow of your enfranchisement, try not to privilege optics and "respectability politics" over the very serious work of Sanders' supporters.

Don't sweat what I've done for the party for forty years.

Unity is never uniformity.

Just stay democratic.

[Demsrule86]

27. Sorry I sincerely hope any one who plans riots leaves the party....they are not worthy

I don't give a damn about your movement...all the big ideas and bullshit...I want Trump defeated...and you won't have movement unless that is accomplished....and attacking the Democratic convention will make you look bad and hurt the GE. And don't sweat what many of the rest of us have done for the party years in and year out.

[ancianita]

30. Tough talk, all this "riot" projection and win-at-all-cost rhetoric. Enjoy a shrinking tent.

Make sure you win if you don't give a damn about the "toast" vote.

I don't represent this movement.

I do acknowledge that it's important and give a damn about it.

[libdem4life]

41. Don't forget the Finger Pointing Rule...One outward, three inward.

It's amazing how many times this fits the situation.

[BobbyDrake]

16. All this victimhood, just because Bill Clinton said, "Toast?"

You have got to be kidding me.

[ancianita]

18. All this dismissal over an example of broad-brush labelling of a movement? Don't be silly.

Get the context of the sentence.

Get the spirit of the message.

[BobbyDrake]

19. The context is that once again, Sanders supporters were unable to listen to anyone

other than themselves. What kind of "dialogue" involves shouting down voices you don't like? The fringe left kind of dialogue, apparently. Just look at DU's jury system being used to hide every opinion that Bernie supporters can't handle seeing without some kind of emotional breakdown.

[ancianita]

21. Sanders supporters, as you WELL know, have listened to all of Clinton's ideas.

The emotional breakdown you contemptuously attribute to them is clearly the refuting of what they've heard. You ignore that most Democrats have been listening to the Clintons for decades.

The "shouting down" only happens when one party refuses to listen to reason, or even listen back.

To switch the goal posts to make this message about the jury system (which I'm 100% likely to be called to), or to limit the OP to DU's population, itself, benefits no one here.

I personally can trust that she'll be the best president she can be, as do millions of other Berners.

The party, however, has got to evolve with her, allow the voices of democratic socialists, and channel their interests into those of party governance.

That's what a big tent party does.

Don't talk yourself out of being the democratic part of a Democratic Party.

[forjusticethunders]

20. The reason why people are dismissive

is because of how childish so many people on the "left" are acting. They are literally saying "fuck the economy, fuck the working class, fuck the Planet, we want our cookie for being ~progressive~". You're literally saying "we're going to do zero work to fight for what we believe in because we placed all our eggs in one basket and it didnt' work out and now we're going to throw a temper tantrum".

Nobody wants to listen to that shit, and you're doing our ideals a disservice by being so dismissive and demeaning of the people you need to work with to win. Right now, you're all privileged people virtue-signaling and beating your chest about how morally superior you are, which might make you feel good but does nothing - NOTHING - to help a single marginalized person or remove a single PPM of carbon from the atmosphere.

[ancianita]

22. Yes. Dismissive use of "childish," "fools," "shit," and "morally superior" misses the point of

having a democratic, big tent party. If you respected the "you," you're addressing, you would acknowledge that you're as much privileged as those who deserve inclusion in governance.

That was the message of the OP.

Dismissing these people with all the shade casting ad hominem rhetoric doesn't make the OP any less true.

[forjusticethunders]

31. Nobody is asking you to leave the tent

It's your faction that is threatening to leave if you're not sufficiently coddled. Believe it or not, your ideological opponents are human too (especially since, as much as you think there are some huge fundamental difference between the sides, there for the most part isn't, it's just a different political perspective on HOW to achieve ideological ends), and after months of smears, villifying, insults and berating, you have to expect people are going to at least your faction out on its poisonous attitude. You can't demand unity on your terms if you lose an election, but you can *negotiate* the terms with the side you lost to and find an acceptable compromise and have your perspective heard and even incorporated - but you can't do this if you refuse to view any compromise as acceptable.

[ancianita]

33. No one of this faction dismisses compromise. Just any refusal of a sit down. You know this.

There's no poison, either, in the democratic socialist attitude. You know this, too.

There IS a poisonous attitude in characterizing this faction as inflexible, "smearing, villifying, insults and berating" when I've seen none of that from Berners.

If I had I'd have called it out and left the Berners before now. Quote it, but don't make shit up.

There are no all-or-nothing term demands from the Berner faction. And no one's in it is leaving if they're their terms are considered. Hortensis offered concrete evidence that their terms are being considered. Being on the party platform committee is more evidence.

Losing doesn't mean, however, that this faction publicly gets some old school "toast" label, as if they'll get nothing.

Bill gets no political points for alienating rhetoric.