Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: I came over here to see if anyone posted that infuriating Barney Frank piece... [View all]rbnyc
(17,045 posts)60. First, I really appreciate your tone.
We probably will never agree. And I think it's great to speak passionately about issues. We will probably continue to write things that rub each other wrong. But I really appreciate being challenged in a way that is respectful to me as a person. Even if we fervently disagree on what we believe to be major points, in the grand scheme of things, we probably have a lot of values in common and are essentially on the same side.
That said, let me dig a little deeper into what irks me about Frank's opinion.
they believe boosting Sanders candidacy is their only way to prevent Clinton emerging as the nominee with broad support early in the process, strengthening her position in November.
They are correct.
I know that there is a counter-argument made by some on the Democratic left that a closely contested nomination process will help our ultimate nominee that Clinton will somehow benefit from having to spend most of her time and campaign funds between now and next summer proving her ideological purity
So this is the first infuriating thing. The Sanders Campaign is portrayed as being only relevant in one of two ways, either as being bad for Hillary, or being good for Hillary. The Campaign is not evaluated on its own merits. The second infuriating thing is in this same section, where the dynamic of the primary is characterized as Hillary being forced to prove her ideological purity. This language is so reductive and dismissive. For example, Sanders supporters want pro-environmental policies, not pro-environmental rhetoric, and are concerned about Hillarys relationship to the fossil fuel industry. We are uncomfortable with her deferment of a clear answer on Keystone. We are uncomfortable with her apparent championing of fracking oversees during her service as Secretary of State. We want to support a candidate whose position and record are clear. To reduce that to an ideological purity test is disingenuous; its an obtuse strategy to disarm progressives who mean to make a difference in the direction of our party.
I believe strongly that the most effective thing liberals and progressives can do to advance our public policy goals on health care, immigration, financial regulation, reducing income inequality, completing the fight against anti-LGBT discrimination, protecting womens autonomy in choices about reproduction and other critical matters on which the Democratic and Republican candidates for president will be sharply divided is to help Clinton win our nomination early in the year.
So here, the suggestion is that Democrats cant afford a primary process. The primaries are the (forgive me) primary mechanism for constituents to communicate to party leadership about their values and hopes for the direction of the party. But Frank says a robust primary season is an ineffective way for Democrats to be competitive for the general election. This reinforces the incorrect perception that the center is further to the right than it actually is, and is essentially a scare tactic to silence those who would challenge Democratic Party leadership who benefit from the oligarchy in much the same way as Republicans do. Certainly Hillary Clinton is closer to our values on many issues than any GOP candidate. Frank is saying, dont try for better than that, or you could lose everything. Thats extortion.
Without any substance, some argue that she has been insufficiently committed to economic and social reform for example, that she is too close to Wall Street, and consequently soft on financial regulation, and unwilling to support higher taxation on the super-rich. This is wholly without basis. Well before the Sanders candidacy began to draw attention, she spoke out promptly in criticism of the appropriations rider that responded to the big banks wish list on derivative trading. She has spoken thoughtfully about further steps against abuses and in favor of taxing hedge funds at a fairer, i.e., higher, rate.
Frank categorically denounces all criticism of Clinton as being without basis, and to prove his point, he says that she has spoken thoughtfully. That is no basis for dismissing a host of concerns about politics as usual and the insidious nature of corporate campaign contributions and alliances.
True, not on Iraq. Having myself voted against that terrible mistake, I agree that her position on the war is a legitimate concern for those of us on the left. The question then becomes whether this was a manifestation of a general tendency to support unwise military intervention, or the case of her joining every other Democratic senator who had serious presidential ambitions in voting for a war that the Bush-Cheney administration had successfully hyped as a necessary defense against terrorism.
So, if anyone had serious presidential ambitions, they voted for war as a political maneuver, and thats just the way things are? Enough said.
Of course it is not only possible to accept the legitimacy of Clintons liberal-progressive credentials and still prefer that Sanders be president, it makes sense for the most ideologically committed to hold that view. But wishful thinking is no way to win the presidency. There is not only no chance perhaps regrettably for Sanders to win a national election. A long primary campaign will only erode the benefit Democrats are now poised to reap from the Republicans free-for-all.
Maybe he will believe that there is a chance after Sanders is inaugurated. Frank goes on to say that Bernies status as an outsider constitutes unwillingness to be confined by existing voter attitudes and is an obvious bar to winning support from the majority. So the thrust here is to establish that Bernie is unelectable so that supporters will realize their efforts are futile anyway and just get on board. It can be a very effective but again, infuriating strategy to take someones strength and re-frame it as a weakness. As it has been said many times, Bernie provides a place to park the anti-establishment vote, and given that most people dont even bother to vote because they have entirely given up on the two-party system, that is an appeal to the majority, as is being borne out in massive turnouts to his events, and the historic virtual organizing meeting that will take place tonight.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
66 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I came over here to see if anyone posted that infuriating Barney Frank piece... [View all]
rbnyc
Jul 2015
OP
I agree with you wrt Frank's motivation/agenda. Don't agree with his "progressive" creds
2banon
Jul 2015
#51
I see nothing infuriating about his statement. Opinions aren't allowed ? WTF?
misterhighwasted
Jul 2015
#28
Lol. omg..I guess we agree that everyones opinion but our own just Sucks
misterhighwasted
Jul 2015
#49
Oh please. As if any breath of criticism about Hillary is not immediately labeled HATE and BASHING.
djean111
Jul 2015
#29
And it's a Primary. People have the right to support who they wish and to advocate accordingly
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2015
#48