General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The stretch of time between 1980 and 1996, the Democratic party was constantly on the ropes. Three presidential campaigns down the drain, one barely won, with the 1992 winning candidate having to resort to "Southern strategy"-style dog whistles... and then losing congress two years alter in a massive sweep. It didn't last, but it was damaging. Starting in the mid-80's, some Democrats started going "if you can't beat them, join them." They started taking up the flags of "small government" and "welfare reform" and "tough foreign policy," basically starting the republican-lite, semicrat movement. This was reinforced in 1988 and 1994.
And as ever with conservative policy, these ideas found great support from moneyed interests. Flush with cash and influence, this movement began sweeping the party and there started a move to only support candidates who toed the line - a movement that with the concentration of money and muscle on its side, made maintaining any remnant of the FDR-to-Carter era liberalism next to impossible. The clintons - both - were absolutely a part of this endeavor. Their position was cemented by Bill's two terms running on this platform. They're not the only ones, nor are they the points of origin, but they're currently the most influential peddlers of the ideology.
Since the late 80's, our party has been doing this thing where it treats liberals as captive while only considering the desires of conservatives. This is managed by following the republican party eternally rightward, but lagging a few steps so they can still say "we're better than the Republicans!" Sure. only just though. sometimes they don't even bother, especially in off-years. Alison Grimes ran as a moderate republican against a right-of-(their)-center Republican. Unsurprisingly, she lost. And as unsurprisingly, the left was blamed for her loss. How dare we not march out and vote for a Republican running on the Democratic ticket?! Didn't we know she was (just barely) better than her republican-for-Republicans opponent. THE NERVE! Joe Lieberman lost a primary, ran as an independent against democratic (and more liberal) victor Ned Lamont... guess who got the party's support? it wasn't Lamont.
This is one of a few core reasons I'm for Sanders. I think we're at a crossroads for the soul of the democratic party. A sort of "last chance" to start reeling it back towards the left, away from its current trajectory of tagging along with the republicans. A Clinton nomination will be a death knell for liberalism in the democratic party - and it doesn't matter if she wins or loses. If she wins, the party decides it doesn't need the left or liberals. If she loses, it's decided we're the ones who are to blame, and hte party structures lurch away from us anyway. Unfortunately we're almost as fragile with a sanders nomination - he has to win. If he loses, again the party decides liberalism is a failed movement and continues its snuggling with conservativism.
This is why a lot of sanders supporters are angry. it's not that we're bad people, or that we hate people, or what-have-you. It's because we've seen two generations of our party playing copycat with people who very literally want to watch the world burn., and then turning around to treat us like we owe the party for its hostility towards us. And yes, sometimes that anger does get pointed in the wrong direction, as anger often does. For that, I apologize, as much as I can for other people.
We've got a tightrope walk ahead of us. And the people claiming to be on our team are focused only on cutting the wire from under us.