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

rbnyc

(17,045 posts)
60. First, I really appreciate your tone.
Wed Jul 29, 2015, 06:01 PM
Jul 2015

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 Hillary’s 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; it’s 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 women’s 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 can’t 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, don’t try for better than that, or you could lose everything. That’s 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 that’s just the way things are? Enough said.

Of course it is not only possible to accept the legitimacy of Clinton’s 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 Bernie’s 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 someone’s 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 don’t 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.
That is disappointing. Kali Jul 2015 #1
oh yeah ibegurpard Jul 2015 #2
missed it... rbnyc Jul 2015 #6
is this the same interview restorefreedom Jul 2015 #3
I have a work event... rbnyc Jul 2015 #8
the wheels are coming off and the threats and veal pens don't work any more MisterP Jul 2015 #12
Wonder who or what got to him? Juicy_Bellows Jul 2015 #4
My sneaking suspicion is that... tex-wyo-dem Jul 2015 #25
I agree with you wrt Frank's motivation/agenda. Don't agree with his "progressive" creds 2banon Jul 2015 #51
'Barney is bucking for a Hil cabinet position. '--> BINGO nt HFRN Jul 2015 #53
What a nonsensical thing to say. Frank is free to state his opinion tritsofme Jul 2015 #55
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jul 2015 #5
+1 rbnyc Jul 2015 #7
ROFL - I love your "corporations" sig line! n/t Beartracks Jul 2015 #19
That is good, ain't it? Fuddnik Jul 2015 #23
I love your sig line too. (nt) rbnyc Jul 2015 #37
I was really disappointed in Frank for this. n/t bvf Jul 2015 #9
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis and eloquent post swilton Jul 2015 #10
Just don't invite any of the boys from Harvard School of Business tech3149 Jul 2015 #31
On June 25, Barney Frank joined the board of Signature Bank Scootaloo Jul 2015 #11
Very interesting. Ed Suspicious Jul 2015 #13
So, that's what I smell. Thanks for the heads-up on that. AtomicKitten Jul 2015 #16
Sold out for money. SoapBox Jul 2015 #20
where he joins, among others: 63splitwindow Jul 2015 #24
+1! Enthusiast Jul 2015 #39
He works for a bank now. He has thrown his reputation away for money. fbc Jul 2015 #14
Oh? That explains a LOT. n/t Betty Karlson Jul 2015 #26
'The most effective thing... is to replay the 90s' cprise Jul 2015 #15
Damn him for having an opinion Sheepshank Jul 2015 #17
I see nothing infuriating about his statement. Opinions aren't allowed ? WTF? misterhighwasted Jul 2015 #28
Of course opinions are allowed. rbnyc Jul 2015 #40
Lol. omg..I guess we agree that everyones opinion but our own just Sucks misterhighwasted Jul 2015 #49
I said I think this opinion sucks... rbnyc Jul 2015 #54
And ya know, that is precisely how I see Sanders fans. misterhighwasted Jul 2015 #61
it's very hard to mediate when one is aligned with a position. rbnyc Jul 2015 #63
Barney Franks is a good judge of national politics Gothmog Jul 2015 #56
Oh please. As if any breath of criticism about Hillary is not immediately labeled HATE and BASHING. djean111 Jul 2015 #29
FFS Clinton was asked yes or no if she was for keystone onecaliberal Jul 2015 #18
This piece highlights SheilaT Jul 2015 #21
No surprise. He endorsed her the last time too. Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2015 #22
Bless your heart underthematrix Jul 2015 #27
There is a non-violent civil war happening within the Democratic Party. rbnyc Jul 2015 #35
More bullshit... quickesst Jul 2015 #30
I am talking about the primary... rbnyc Jul 2015 #33
+1 an entire shit load. Enthusiast Jul 2015 #41
I could see your point... quickesst Jul 2015 #47
First, I really appreciate your tone. rbnyc Jul 2015 #60
excellent rebuttal! I live in MA druidity33 Jul 2015 #62
Thanks for responding... quickesst Jul 2015 #64
I'm so happy we can have discussions like this during the primaries. rbnyc Jul 2015 #65
Right back at you quickesst Jul 2015 #66
When Barney says "our" goals, he means 3rd-Way goals Cosmic Kitten Jul 2015 #32
...and "conservative" economics... rbnyc Jul 2015 #34
Stockholm Syndrome??? Cosmic Kitten Jul 2015 #36
I think it is something like that. rbnyc Jul 2015 #38
It is Stockholm Syndrome or some similar, unnamed phenomenon. Enthusiast Jul 2015 #44
"Corporate society was an inevitable destiny" Babel_17 Jul 2015 #59
Precisely. Enthusiast Jul 2015 #42
He has a right to his opinion Evergreen Emerald Jul 2015 #43
It's a hit piece. Pure and simple. Enthusiast Jul 2015 #45
I am addressing his opinion. rbnyc Jul 2015 #46
And it's a Primary. People have the right to support who they wish and to advocate accordingly Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #48
Likewise as creepy to me that anyone supports bernie. misterhighwasted Jul 2015 #50
This is just Classic Barney Frank. 2banon Jul 2015 #52
He's also a politician Babel_17 Jul 2015 #57
Lol, it does remind me of when we vote at my union Babel_17 Jul 2015 #58
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»I came over here to see i...»Reply #60