Editorials & Other Articles
In reply to the discussion: The Bernie Bros and sisters are coming to Republicans' rescue [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The alternative I mentioned is "conservative" but even though it's accurate (they're more conservative than the other faction) it would presumably prompt objections.
The media sometimes go with "moderate" but I object to that. To me, "moderate" means someone who talks reasonably, writes op-eds, etc., instead of driving a car into a crowd. Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Manchin are all moderate.
One possibility would be "centrist" but the accuracy of that isn't clear, plus which it also might be seen as "maligning" by the people being described.
I explained why I consider "establishment" to be accurate and neutrally descriptive. I don't mean it as maligning. I'd love to be a member of a Democratic Party in which the establishment (DNC, Congressional leadership, etc.) consisted of progressives who pushed single-payer health care, sharply progressive income tax reform, halving the military budget, etc. Maybe someday we will be the establishment but right now we're not.
Until we get that majority, "progressive" is the best term for our faction. The term used in your OP -- "Bernie Bros" -- is clearly maligning, is clearly a term that's useful to Republicans, and isn't even accurate in its insinuations.
Throughout these threads there's an undercurrent of denial. The people who delight in bashing the "Bernie Bros" never expressly admit that there are factional divisions within the Democratic Party, as is of course inevitable in any party that's a big tent. In some of the posts I find an implicit suggestion that there is one Democratic Party position and that anyone articulating a different position is sowing division and helping the Republicans. I think that's false. For those of us who think it's false, there needs to be a quick and easy way to discuss the factions. "Clinton faction" and "Sanders/Warren" faction is excessively personalizing the disagreement. So, if your answer is that there shouldn't be any term for the readily identifiable factions within the party, then we'll just have to disagree.