I dimly remember, some eight or ten or so years ago, some progressive activists wanted LGTB activists to back off and wait for the “right time” to push their issues. We had the Iraq War and George W. Bush to focus on, after all. We don’t want to hand the Right more wedge issues. And the LGTB community said, bleep that, there’s no time but this one, and went on pushing.
And they were right.
We seem to be having a similar discussion today about how far to push the progressive agenda. The cautious side can be found in this Politico article about how Bernie Sanders is giving the Dem establishment the vapors:
“I applaud the people of Greece for saying ‘no’ to more austerity for the poor, the children, the sick and the elderly,†Sanders said in welcoming Sunday’s vote, even as it rattled world markets and provoked predictions of economic doom. The statement didn’t just align Sanders with left-wing Europeans; it aligned him with lefter-wing Greek socialists who are too radical for some of those left-wing Europeans.
Democratic primaries have always featured liberal insurgent candidates, but perhaps none quite so liberal or insurgent as the socialist senator from Vermont. Sanders’ comments are a reminder of just how far the second-place Democratic presidential candidate stands from the American mainstream on some issues, and the looming reckoning Democrats face with their party’s leftward drift. …
… It’s usually Democrats who play this game — as they did with Republican challengers to Mitt Romney in 2012, or with fringe characters like Todd Aiken. Now, it’s Republicans seeking to use the Sanders surge to portray Democrats as radical and out of touch.
And that’s making many Democrats nervous, said Joe Trippi, who ran Vermonter Howard Dean’s campaign in 2004.
“We can’t lose the presidency. We can’t take a risk by nominating somebody outside the comfort zone. That’s what’s driving the inevitable-ness†of Clinton, said Trippi, speaking about the party establishment’s thinking.
It’s not for nothing that Charles Pierce calls Politico “Tiger Beat on the Potomac.” (For those who don’t remember, Tiger Beat is a teen “fan” magazine about entertainment and fashion marketed to adolescent girls.)
Anyhoo, that’s the establishment thinking: We can’t take risks now. We have to stay in the comfort zone, or risk losing the election. Hillary Clinton is a known product; she is marketable.
So along comes Bernie Sanders, and no question Bernie has some obstacles. His age, his Jewishness, and his embrace of the word “socialist” are all huge factors against him in the general election. If he wins the nomination, could he win the White House? And I honestly don’t know. In some ways it does seem unlikely. But it’s not as if HRC doesn’t have negatives of her own, some self-inflicted.
And doesn’t this amount to letting the Right choose our candidates for us? We’re choosing the candidate we think we can slip past the Noise Machine, not the one we really want?
And going back to Tiger Beat — First, a whole lot of people, including some world-renowned economists (Krugman, Piketty, Stiglitz) agree that punishing the Greeks further with austerity measures serves no purpose whatsoever. Second, by many measures Sanders is the mainstream candidate; his stands on many issues align with the American majority. See Juan Cole, “How Mainstream Is Bernie Sanders?”
Sanders’s positions are quite mainstream from the point of view of the stances of the American public in general. Of course, the 1%, for whom and by whom most mainstream media report, are appalled and would like to depict him as an outlier.
Sanders is scathing on the increasing wealth gap, whereby the rich have scooped up most of the increase in our national wealth in the past twenty years. The average wage of the average worker in real terms is only a little better than in 1970; the poor are actually poorer; but the wealth of the top earners has increased several times over.
Some 63% of Americans agree that the current distribution of wealth is unfair. And in a Gallup poll done earlier this month, a majority, 52%, think that government taxation on the rich should be used to reduce the wealth gap. This percentage is historically high, having been only 45% in 1998. But there seems to be a shift going on, because Gallup got the 52% proportion in answer to the question on taxing the rich both in April and again in May of this year.
Bernie Sanders’ position is that of a majority of Americans in the most recent polling!
My question to Joe Trippi et al. is, when do we get to stop finessing the right by settling for the most “marketable” candidate, who may or may not fight for what we want? When do we get to articulate what we actually want?
Elizabeth Warren caught fire with progressives not because she had “new ideas,” but because she spoke out loud what we already were thinking. She beautifully articulated the progressive position, in a way that signaled she really got it. It wasn’t just words and talking points. And Bernie Sanders is doing the same thing now. But we’re being told we have to kick him to the curb because the Right is really, really scary.
And I say, bleep that. Let’s trust the process. Let’s let the candidates step forward and make a case for themselves. Let there be debates. Let’s allow the American people to get a good look at all the candidates, including Martin O’Malley, who might still move up if he could get some media attention. Let’s let the American people hear what they have to say.
And then, let’s see what happens. Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work? What happens if America hears the progressive message directly from progressives? They might like it. Imagine!
I say we push for the policies we want and support candidates who pledge to work for those policies, and stop settling for the “safe” candidate. It’s likely Clinton will get the nomination anyway, but maybe the Sanders challenge will give her a clue that she has to actually deliver for progressives and not just make speeches at them.
I voted for Nader in 2000, and still don’t feel bad about it. Maybe I would feel different if I lived in Florida.
Kucinich dropped out before coming to Virginia in 2008, so I didn’t get to cast a ballot for him, then.
I’d say Bernie has my vote!
And doesn’t this amount to letting the Right choose our candidates for us?
Just thinking out loud here! But,I’ve often wondered whether Hillary is the product of the left’s real choice or whether she has attained the lead status as a result of the right’s determined attacks upon her as the heir apparent. Sometimes I think the right has done more to elevate Hillary than she has done for herself.
I remember when the establishment thought that John Kerry was the safe and “electable” choice back in 2004. Please, let’s not make that mistake again!
I LOOOOOOOOOVES me some Bernie!
And, I’ll vote for him in the NY primary.
But, if all he does is serve to pull that Ol’ “Goldwater Girl” Hillary further to the left, then he’s done a great thing.
Bernie, like Warren, has tapped into not only the left, but most of America’s zeitgeist.
And many people who are Independents, Moderates, and even Republicans, would agree with a lot of his positions.
Look at the polls!
But, the Reich-Wing propaganda will start – and, it’s hardly subtle!
The problem for Bernie is, he’s a Brooklyn-born, NY, Jew, and now a Senator from a pretty liberal state.
And, he calls himself a “Socialist!”
Now, most of us maha readers know the definition of that. But, the Reich-Wing has made that word sound like Pol Pot’s version of Communism.
Americans are ignorant.
Usually well meaning, but ignorant.
Labels matter.
And, while our MSM will use Bernie to poke holes in Hillary, if she becomes the nominee, they’ll go into full-on anti-Clinton propaganda.
They’ll “Gore” her.
MoDo will make her masculine.
And the rest of the MSM will make fun of her pant-suits.
Is it “The Right Time?”
I’d rather it be “The Left Time!!!”
We’ll see…
If it’s Hillary, I will support her.
Yes, the lesser of two evils is still evil.
But not as evil as any GOP President will be, with a GOP Congress.
Image the court-stuffing a Republican President will do?
And goodbye PPACA!
“Bomb, bomb, bomb… Bomb Iran!”
OY!!!!!!!!
The Right often runs candidates with fringe positions and WINS? Why shouldn’t we? You gonna tell me Bernie’s strong support for Labor and the middle class won’t appeal to “independents”? PROVE it to me. I will vote for Bernie in the primary—and the Democratic candidate when the time comes.
……and meanwhile the GOP clown car is still taking on passengers.
If the left doesn’t push the Overton Window further to the left, the conservatives will continue to push it further to the right, as they have been doing for over three decades. The Overton Window is why Obama isn’t really that ‘liberal’ (and yes, I voted for him twice, but I also was well aware what I was getting). It’s about bloody time the left set their OWN terms for debate rather than letting the right dictate what is and is not ‘acceptable discourse’ in the United States for a change.
I swear, there is only a tiny handful of worthwhile politicians in Washington– Sanders and Warren being at the top of that list. The list of Clintons’ doners is telling, and I’m sick and tired of lukewarm placeholders that simply prevent more conservative nuts from having the job. That’s simply not good enough for this country and the people who have to suffer — all because the Dems won’t grow a pair.
I’m glad the Dem establishment is nervous– I want them to sweat.
Sometimes I read some articles that are obviously aimed at a younger crowd. Occasionally, they discuss some of the forbidden subjects, like socialism and communism.
Some young people have grown up in a period filled to the brim with hyperbole and vitriol. Everything that fell to the left of Julius Caesar was denounced as socialism or communism. Socially liberal movements augured the end of our country or society. Sometimes even, an invitation to the apocalypse, if our bronze age god took offense. He does savor the smell of burning flesh, after all.
At a certain point, hyperbole becomes annoyingly ridiculous. On the other hand, if you look at Bernie Sanders’ agenda, a lot of the items are directly beneficial to young people struggling to get ahead. Affordable education and healthcare, a rise in the minimum wage and a safety net are all things that give young people a chance to make a decent life. They are specific and pragmatic. If you want to describe these same things as “socialism” or “communism,” then the response from young people will be, “Hey, you know this socialism thing sounds pretty good.” Sometimes, I think I see that happening. I have seen poll results that indicate that young people see socialism in a more positive light than older people.
Then there is the problem with the pitchmen. It is difficult to imagine a dimmer bulb than Rick Santorum, a more self satisfied gasbag than Donald Trump or a more vacuous, arrogant supporter of patriarchy than Mike Huckabee. It may be wishful thinking, but, I can almost see a sense of confusion over the clown car riders, as if they have started to doubt the effectiveness of their talking points, the strength of the “old magic.” These are the simulacra that have presented themselves as moral superiors, who interpret both the will of god and the marketplace, and who pass judgment during the thirty minutes of hate. They have gained their status clearly and solely by “fawning at the feet of Mammon,” and not by any real talent or virtue. They are a display of deficiency and hollowness and young people have plenty of reasons to despise them.
Reaganomics set us on a race downward, and to strain at the metaphor, it’s going to be a photo finish, a skin of our teeth moment. We’ll either see through the grift collectively, and take the lead by a nose or we’ll fall for the con again and lose. I’ve got white knuckles just thinking about it.
“I remember when the establishment thought that John Kerry was the safe and “electable†choice back in 2004. Please, let’s not make that mistake again!”
Right, because the guy who got shellacked in Iowa because his “organization” was all hat no cattle would obviously have done a better job than the candidate who suffered the closest defeat to an incumbent in generations.
God campaign narratives are funny. Memo to Trippi: What’s driving the sense of Clinton’s inevitability is her MASSIVE APPROVAL RATINGS across all sections of the Democratic primary electorate, and the fact that none of the other candidates are likely to recreate Obama’s margins with black voters that propelled his 2008 victory (the Times just had a good article on this today, if it took a little while to get around to the point).
Brien Jackson — You have to be really careful about polls, especially before the campaigns are officially started. HRC has a huge advantage in name recognition. I suspect a lot of people being polled haven’t yet figured out who Bernie Sanders is, never mind Martin O’Malley. Once the public sees these guys in a debate, those numbers could move dramatically. Clinton also has really high disapproval ratings and a lot of vulnerabilities. One false step on her part that hands the GOP something to use against her, and that approval rating could melt like snow. So, while I agree that she’s probably going to be the nominee and probably can win the general election, it’s way too early to talk about odds.
“At a certain point, hyperbole becomes annoyingly ridiculous. On the other hand, if you look at Bernie Sanders’ agenda, a lot of the items are directly beneficial to young people struggling to get ahead. Affordable education and healthcare, a rise in the minimum wage and a safety net are all things that give young people a chance to make a decent life. They are specific and pragmatic. If you want to describe these same things as “socialism†or “communism,†then the response from young people will be, “Hey, you know this socialism thing sounds pretty good.†Sometimes, I think I see that happening. I have seen poll results that indicate that young people see socialism in a more positive light than older people.”
The electability stuff is a bunch of noise columnists use to fill space during election seasons that no one really cares about. To wit, if Sanders’ self-branding as a socialist is a problem (and, to be fair, I think it probably is), it’s a problem that’s going to hamper him in the Democratic primary before it hampers him in the general election and keep him from winning that in the first place. But if it gets him over that hump, it’s going to matter to essentially no one who was going to vote for the Democratic nominee anyway, and literally zero Democratic primary voters are actually going to not vote for him because of “electability.” That’s a rationalization people use for votes they’re going to cast anyway. Take Trippi for example; I have little doubt he buys this because it rationalizes away the fact that he ran a shitty campaign for Dean in 2004 by explaining away the ass kicking they took in Iowa.
“give her a clue that she has to actually deliver for progressives and not just make speeches at them:
Doubtful, I’ll hold my nose and vote for Hillary but I doubt she’ll be much different than Bill was, a centrist with an eye towards wall street and big business. On the other hand Hill and Bill are getting old maybe they just want to do the right thing this time?
I would say at this point, odds are Hillary will be the democratic nominee and the next President. If she is, I’ll support her. But then, we said that at this point leading up to the 2008 presidential race. Obama had more of a celebrity sheen to him, and that helped. Few thought at the time that it was even possible that America could accept a black man as President, and yet it did. If voters could look past Obama’s race in a nation where race has more than mattered, its not a stretch for them to look past Sanders being Jewish.
History tells us then, we can’t count Sanders out. To the extent he is speaking to the issues a lot of voters, and not just those that animate self described progressives, care about is reflected in the crowds he’s drawn. His frank and direct approach to the issues is refreshing, compared to Hillary’s cautiousness, which appears to be with an eye towards not upsetting the wealthy supporters who’ll she likely take care of once elected.
But I think in the end, as Pelosi found out on TPP, its not enough to talk the talk on labor, economics and other progressive issues, and purposely not walk it. Not just self described progressive, but more likely democratic voters have become wise to that game. More voters don’t care about labels like “socialism” or “progressive;” but they do know that, for example, its not right that they are saddled with these huge student loan debts while the government bails out every mistake Wall Street gamblers make; that it makes no sense that its “legal” for a person to work all their lives for a home only to have some shark suited slickster sign it away from you on a humble. To name a few.
The longer Hillary plays coy and safe, waiting until public opinion has settled an issue before speaking out on it, voters will feel that there is nothing special about her; that she is no more deserving of trust than any run of the mill politician deserves, from the perspective of the voters. That on the issues that matter, she’ll talk a good game, but that’s it. Maybe that’s being naive to expect more than that (a tiger doesn’t change its stripes?) but then again, this is why Warren and Sanders have seen popularity beyond what “Tiger Beat” has predicted.
At this point I’d be happy if the Dems could have a nice, clean nomination process in which the contenders can express themselves on the issues without the standard political “horse race” reporting getting in the way. And let the best contender win.
“Brien Jackson — You have to be really careful about polls, especially before the campaigns are officially started. HRC has a huge advantage in name recognition. I suspect a lot of people being polled haven’t yet figured out who Bernie Sanders is, never mind Martin O’Malley. Once the public sees these guys in a debate, those numbers could move dramatically.”
1. This is immaterial to Clinton’s own favorability ratings. As you say, she’s as known a quantity as there is, and has been for two decades. Democratic voters who profess a favorable opinion of her at this point aren’t likely to change their mind about that between now and the Iowa caucuses, even if they also hold a favorable view of the other candidates (and there’s pretty much zero chance of any major movement to O’Malley, I’d say, because he’s an uninspiring white guy who’s progressive bona fides are paper thin at best and won’t hold up well to any kind of examination, but that’s another story). 2. It also has nothing to do with exit polls from the 2008 elections, when Clinton ran strongly against Obama with every cross section of the party electorate except for African Americans, including self-professed liberal and “very liberal” voters. To be very blunt about it: There’s very little to non-existent chance Clinton would have lost the 2008 nomination if her main competitor had been a white guy, and the current crop of challengers have to face a landscape in which a) Clinton is more popular with Democratic voters than she was 8 years ago and, b) none of them are likely to dominate a constituency of voters against her the way Obama dominated with African American voters.
//Democratic voters who profess a favorable opinion of her at this point aren’t likely to change their mind about that between now and the Iowa caucuses, even if they also hold a favorable view of the other candidates// That’s fine, but it’s possible that once they get a look at other candidates they will decide they like another candidate BETTER. There’s no law that says you can’t be “favorable” to more than one candidate. Further, what Democratic voters might prefer and what happens in a general election are, alas, two different things. All I’m saying is that a lot can happen between now and the conventions; let’s let the process take its course.
HRC has adopted a ‘safe’ strategy. She’s riding on name recognition – limiting public exposure in all but scripted meetings. IN essence, she’s waiting out the clock, the strategy of a team who’s way ahead in the game who plays a defense based on waiting out a certain victory. The problem is – we’re barely in the first quarter of the game. HRC didn’t learn from Obama that she has to engage to voters rather than the pollsters. She could easily win the nomination and the election if she came out of her shell of professional handlers and engaged the voters. Such is the nature of politics today, campaigning a product of Madison Avenue, the advertising center of NYC, instead of Main Street. Wouldn’t I love to see the astroturf candidates like JEB & HRC kicked to the curb and a real contest between Bernie and Ted Cruz with the raw issues before the public in a real choice.
//She could easily win the nomination and the election if she came out of her shell of professional handlers and engaged the voters. // I believe you are right. She can do it when she tries; we’ve seen that in the past. She was never a better campaigner than when Obama was winning and she had to work for it. Couldn’t catch up, though. Just read this, btw — http://www.salon.com/2015/07/08/hillarys_worthless_interview_why_clinton_is_determined_to_not_make_any_news/
Pingback: Keeping The Powder Dry | Mike the Mad Biologist