Democratic Primaries
Showing Original Post only (View all)So I hear that Bernie Sanders isn't really a Democrat [View all]
I can't really counter that argument. Bernie, I am told, has agreed to run as a Democrat for President if he wins the Democratic Party nomination for President. That is a meaningful technicality but still seems a technicality none the less. Throughout his long career Senator Sanders has primarily been identified as an Independent, and therefor at least one step removed from the heart of our two party system in America.
Sanders has shown a good grasp on the pragmatic political implications of our two party system, as evidenced by his membership in good standing in the U.S. Senate Democratic caucus. And also by his refusal to run as a candidate himself for President in a general election without the endorsement of the Democratic Party, differentiating himself from the likes of Ralph Nader and Jill Stein. Still, as so many point out, "Bernie Sanders isn't really a Democrat".
That observation reminds me of another made back in 2016, that time by long time members in good standing of the then traditional Republican Party. They observed, with compelling reasons, that Donald J. Trump wasn't really a Republican. Unlike with Bernie Sanders we don't know for sure if Trump would have run for President as an Independent if he had lost the Republican primaries because, well, he won the Republican primaries. And then, against all odds as determined by the traditional pundits, he went on to win the presidency with, like George W. Bush once before him, the help of the electoral college dispute losing the popular vote. In retrospect pundits noted that Trump assembled what was then thought of as an atypical voter coalition for a Republican presidential candidate, one that tapped into economic distress in "rust belt" states, winning votes that had until recently gone Democratic.
I sense strongly that we are no longer living in traditional mid to late 20th century times. The bases that we had traditionally associated with Democratic and Republican coalitions are shifting at the margins. The core of the major party bases remain as they had been of course. Republicans still can count on anti-abortion and pro-gun voters, and those aligned with the interests of the super wealthy in America. Democrats can count on strong support from People of Color, and from those ideologically liberal. Republicans however are losing some appeal with college educated suburban voters who stood for fiscal conservatism but who are socially moderate or liberal. And Democrats are losing some appeal with the type of working American who may not always be socially liberal but who previously supported Democrats on economic grounds. The type of voters who might have been in unions a few decades ago when unions were still strong in America but now are free agents more up for grabs.
Loyalty to both of our major parties is more fluid now than it was a couple of decades ago. The percentage of Americans who refuse to register with either party continues to rise. The thing is, we are being myopic if we insist on looking at this trend taking place in America in isolation from what has happening in the rest of the world.The grip of established political parties throughout the world on electorates has been loosening. Mexico was a one party state for decades, now there are three or more parties capable of electing a president. The UK once had Labor and the Conservatives, with a smattering of Liberal Party MP's, but now representation in parliament is significantly more scattered with new political parties popping up. France's current president cobbled together a brand new political party to victoriously lead into elections, upsetting the previous long standing political order. New viable political parties have emerged in Israel. The Green Party is now a partner of various current or recent governing coalitions in Europe, something that rarely if ever happened in the late 20th Century. In newer democracies, where mainstream political parties have shallow roots, they are often swept away by grassroots movements that emerge seemingly from nowhere, as was the case with Zelinsky in Ukraine.
Even when traditional political parties remain viable inside their countries, the leadership of those parties is starting to emerge from more maverick elements operating within them. Trump is an obvious example here, but Boris Johnson in the UK is no John Majors Conservative, nor is Jeremy Corbyn in line with Tony Blair type Labor leadership. Political norms in the 21st century have become more unstable, as election results swing wildly from right to left to right again with no indication of settling anytime soon. There is a general unease with what was seen as the previously established political order, both here and abroad. Our own two party political system remains intact for now, but there are new currents gaining force below the surface that occasionally burst into view. There is an anti-establishment mood growing in much of the world. Some call it populism, whether from the left or right. And unlike how people like me used the term "establishment" back in the late 60's, today that term is less ideologically laden. Now it more represents the status quo, whatever that may be.
So I hear that Bernie Sanders isn't really a Democrat. OK, got it. But I'm not sure that would overall be a liability today for a candidate running with Democratic Party support in the general election. If that is true, those who are well established within the current political order are likely to be among the last to recognize the shifting the sands.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden