2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRolling Stone: After Bernie, Does the Left Need a Rethink?
What to make of the fact that Sanders ran the campaign progressives have been dreaming of for years, and lost
By Joshua Holland June 10, 2016
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/after-bernie-does-the-left-need-a-rethink-20160610
For as long as I can remember, there's been a deeply held belief on the American left that if a Democrat would only stop pandering to the mushy middle and run an unapologetically liberal, unabashedly populist campaign, he or she would win in a laugher. For too long, the Dems have offered nothing more than Republican-lite candidates, according to this view and why vote for the "lite" version when you can have the real thing?
Call it the "What's the matter with Kansas?" theory of politics. In his 2004 bestseller of that name, liberal writer and political analyst Thomas Frank argued Democrats' embrace of neoliberalism and disastrous trade deals and their coziness with Wall Street left a huge opening for the right. Conservatives had swooped in with a bait-and-switch: They promised to clean up our "depraved" culture and lead the fight on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, but as soon as they were in office, they turned around and gave those Americans cheap public services and a bunch of tax cuts they were too poor to use.
The answer seemed simple: Give low- and middle-income folks i.e., the majority of the country an opportunity to vote in a way that would better serve their economic interests. This would bring "Reagan Democrats" and socially conservative blue-collar types back into the fold, giving them reason to stop bitterly clinging to their God and their guns.
This was also seen as an answer to the midterm drop-off effect the tendency of key Democratic constituencies to only vote in presidential years that's long bedeviled the party and, in recent years, delivered unified Republican control of 30 statehouses and both chambers of Congress. After the 2014 midterms that Barack Obama called a "shellacking" for the left, Frank told Salon we were seeing Democrats demonstrate "a logic that's very familiar here in Washington, D.C. You move to the center, you always move to the center. But it's a logic that's just going to lead to more and more disasters down the road." He warned that "if they do enough of this triangulation, they'll become a party that has become so similar to Republicans, then why bother with them?"
djean111
(14,255 posts)So - maybe I should "rethink" my participation in politics!
I am, actually.
brooklynite
(94,502 posts)Not to worry, I take my political role seriously. I'll be starting with the Vice President on Tuesday.
SDJay
(1,089 posts)but those that can actually make that shift are bought off to the gills. This was a good read, but I don't think it's that complicated - get the money out of politics and you'll change the game radically and immediately. Instead, the poison that is money is seeping into every single opening like water running to the bottom of a hill. Now even our elections are basically for-profit industries, and that's pretty twisted to me.
Unfortunately, as simple as that is, it's never, ever going to happen. Why? The people who can make that happen are never going to vote to forego huge sums of cash, and those that put those candidates out there in the first place are never going to turn on their corporate masters. That's how you get the leader of the DNC actually and openly supporting payday loan scum, at least until the heat got so bad she had to flip flop.
Those who do the 'thinking' on the left are not stupid - they know what the score is. The trouble is that their interests conflict with what would be best for the majority of us.
Many of us have pilloried HRC for being bought off, owned, beholden to her masters, etc. To me, that is more of a general disdain for what's necessary to win elections than it is a personal indictment. If HRC doesn't raise that type of money and have those types of connections, she doesn't win - period. Same goes for a whole shit-ton of other candidates in modern history, or basically all of them.
No need for a re-think - the need is for a miracle - for someone or a group of people to come along and actually sweep the money out of our democracy. Capitalism and democracy are not natural allies.
Raster
(20,998 posts)Here you go Joshua, right in your own magazine.... dipshit:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/democrats-will-learn-all-the-wrong-lessons-from-brush-with-bernie-20160609
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Weak conserva-dems pretending to be progressives and whining that they can't do anything because America is a center-right country that needs to evolve have shown there true colors. They want to be pretend "incremental pragmatist" and not do a damn thing until activists embarrass them into it(if that's ok with their corporate paymasters of course).
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)Is to cage the true left within the rhetoric of the party and siphon off the energy for as long as possible. That's the beauty of the lesser of two evils argument. It requires that you forsake your values for softer chains.
Demsrule86
(68,552 posts)Bernie lost and would lose a general badly.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)rather than faux-movements either bound up in political campaigns or confined to universities and obscure publications.
For another, that movement needs to have organic roots in communities of color, rather than being white leftists trying to figure out how to get those communities on board with what white leftists are thinking.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Communities of color are never going to embrace progressivism because there is risk in progressivism that does not exist in incrementalism and they are unwilling to risk, because risk means the potential of loss of ground.
We're going to have to take back this party and kill neo-liberalism without them.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)OnDoutside
(19,953 posts)far leftist Democratic Party. Many supporting Bernie aren't just socialist, they're to the left of that.
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)No other centrist Caucasian candidate would have had the minority vote so stitched up. Because of this and this alone Hillary had everything from South Carolina through super Tuesday locked from day one.
For Caucasian centrists, Hillary is a one-off. O'Malley, the other Caucasian centrist sort, was done early. Line them up and there is not another Hillary on offer. Bernie would have mopped the floor with any of them. Biden could have made a pretty good contest with Bernie, but he is understood as far more pro-labor left than Hillary, and having served alongside of BHO, might have had access to a significant minority vote.
The fact that we on the left had a very near miss with Bernie makes the case for another candidate like Bernie more solid.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)It was Bernie'S message that was rejected in California. The electorateis moderate. We don't want more taxes here and I think the progressive movement needs to take a hard look at how popular it's policy is.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)... is just one example of how "progressives" have created this mythology to give themselves credibility then passed it around until it became accepted in their bubble as fact.
On a broader scope, it isn't the policies but the methods employed to achieve them that makes them perennial losers.
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)tending toward - vote for us, because the system is corrupt to the core, the media has brainwashed you, corporations are robbing you blind, our democracy is a farce, etc, etc...
During a recession that might play well enough, but most people I know are doing ok now. I'm doing ok now, having worked very hard to get to this point. What would resonate with me is a message such as - we've been going in a decent direction and things aren't so bad now (thank you, Obama and the Democratic Party), but here's how we can do better, here's what we can improve upon. And then don't tell me what you want to destroy, tell me what you want to build.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Because the country is. She's changed her ideas some thru the campaign to be more left.
You have to have the prophets to shout the truth and then gradually things change.
I think the reason Sanders lost is #1 he was hands off early. #2 a lot of Dems trust Hillary more and she started promising similar things.
Win/win far as I can see.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Maybe rethink staying a US citizen.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)at all.