 |
| She keeps saying no. Listen to her. |
Some voters on the left are lost to the Democrats.
Move on. There are plenty of fish.
Democrats are in turmoil. The Bernie/Hillary wounds have not healed. Russian hacking revealed that the DCC preferred Hillary. The Democratic Party is suspect as an institution.
Progressive groups in Facebook provide source material. Some writers say we need to hold our noses and support Democrats for the sake of unity. Others are angry and inconsolable. Progressive Facebook groups regularly post angry denunciations of Democrats.
Yesterday's post was a first person observation by a "regular" long-time Democrat--someone who voted for Bernie in the primary but supported Hillary in the general election--who was pushed out of his local volunteer assignment by being made uncomfortable by a consortium of people restless and discontented with his "old guard" thinking.
 |
| Never, ever let him kick the ball. |
Part of the dynamic taking place within the Bernie/Hillary split is that Democrats keep courting the Bernie-left, and keep being urged by the Bernie-left to court them. The votes lost to Ralph Nader in 2000 and to Jill Stein in 2016 were the difference between election and defeat. Democrats consider these to be low hanging fruit, people who should have voted for the better of the two candidates. Surely, Hillary would have been better than Trump. If they could just become enough like them, then they would pick up that vital one or two percent. So close, but so far.
Democrats humiliate themselves by failing to take the hint. No means no.
Democrats are misunderstanding this. The power of the Nader/Stein/forever-Bernie left comes from resistance, not consent. By resisting they have leverage, the 1% moving the 49%. Once they agree to compromise, their influence disappears. They want to be courted, but must stay forever out of reach.
 |
| Never, ever Democrat |
The low hanging voter fruit for Democrats is not that final 1-5% on the Bernie left. The low hanging fruit is among the "regular" Democratic voters, the ones who do not respond to talk of "socialism" and "abolish ICE." These people are unmotivated voters because they have no interest or patience for policy nuance. They look at politics the way I personally look at professional football: no interest until the Super Bowl, then I pick a team based on the color of the uniform. There are a lot of Americans who are apathetic. The key is to motivate them with something clear, simple, and interesting.
That is what Trump did. The Trump schtick is interesting theater, with a simple message and a simple villain.
The Nader/Stein/forever-Bernie people urge Democrats to go full throttle left. The progressive left has an argument to make--that their policies have appeal and would motivate the unmotivated, but this proposition has been tested. More Democrats voted for Hillary than for Bernie in the 2016 primary. In the general election voters had Jill Stein to vote for, and she got 1% of the vote. In 2000 Ralph Nader got 3% of the vote. In 1972 George McGovern got 38% of the vote.
Or: Nominate someone exciting and transformative. Hillary was a stale idea. She was familiar and shopworn. I supported her and watched a half dozen of her speeches from a distance of less than ten feet. She was boring. She was Sisyphus, pushing a rock hopelessly up a hill. Popular excitement comes from the personality and charisma of the candidate. JFK had it. Ronald Reagan had it. Trump is appalling to many people but he has charisma. He excites crowds. He stirs emotions.
 |
| Facebook Group |
The ongoing theme of this blog is that politics is understood by blunt body language tone and action. Trump understands this. If he shuts down the government to demand his border wall he will have communicated that he really, really wants a border wall. People will understand that. It will get through to the uninterested voter.
The Democrat who will create low hanging fruit is someone who understands that presidential politics is theater, not a seminar on policy. If they nominate a policy wonk, then Trump will be re-elected, because the low hanging Democratic fruit will not be motivated to vote.
Is there someone exciting out there?
14 comments:
A childish and superficial analysis. We are facing extreme crises:
Wealth inequality is now more extreme than any other point in history.
Our politics are controlled by an irresponsible sociopathic aristocracy.
America is entangled in perpetual unconstitutional wars.
The government violates our rights by spying on us and our representatives.
The "intelligence community" has terrifying unconstitutional powers
The press is over 90% controlled by 6 corporations.
Big data (Facebook, Google, Twitter) are censoring news and dissenters.
The median wage is $34K a year, minimum wage does not cover rent anywhere in the country, and the vast majority can't cover a $500 emergency.
Pollution is destroying the ocean and atmosphere.
It's not the "left" that has become extreme, but the "center" which relies on normalizing all these crises as just acceptable conditions of life which we are supposedly powerless to address - unless we want to be called "extremists."
If I had my choice of someone who could beat Trump at his own game, it would be Mark Cuban. He's certainly richer that Trump and is not intimidated by him. I think he could go toe to toe with Trump and make him back down. Trump doesn't do well with tough guys. He's the typical bully type who runs away when confronted. Cuban is nationally known and seems to be a nice guy. He's also very smart. I think he could challenge The Donald and get backed by a lot of people who are sick Trump's act. I think Cuban could be the only one viable and certainly would have a chance to win.
You rightly observe a fundamental question Progressives are facing. Martin Luther King comes to mind...Gandhi... Roosevelt.
By strictly following a clear and easily communicated set of values - justice, non-violent resistance, respect and tolerance - over time these leaders and their movements made progress against seemingly intractable opposition.
Their struggle continues, it's ours now.
For instance, (and I have this argument often) it is difficult to convince someone that money spent on social programs, including research on the connection between mental illness and criminality, that reach disadvantaged populations is better spent than prisons. It suggests a completely different approach to societal priorities and requires a long term commitment to creating new institutions. It's counter intuitive to the Regressive mindset, and I've found that they reject facts and evidence in favor of a mistaken view of human nature that has largely been abandoned. This is one issue, among others, where Democrats waver in a fruitless attempt to reach "common ground" where there is none. MLK didn't convert any racists, society pushed them to the margins.
The social justice movement has suffered a setback to be sure, but we shouldn't forget that Barack Obama was elected for what he represented, not because of contrived theatrics. Those values are under siege, but not defeated, and charisma isn't needed to promote them, witness Bernie, only steadfastness.
One other thought: The Clintons are a fascinating study in intelligence applied to opportunism. In the end it disproves the prevailing political theory of "lesser evil" that Democrats adopted after Regan. I hope we have learned the lesson. I also believe that Obama would have supported Sanders if he had stayed true to his principles, and I would wager he regrets not doing so now (can you imagine him admitting it...there's a soundbite!).
Dear Anonymous,
Thanks for commenting. I am totally ok with having my thoughts be called "childish and superficial." but I wish you would sign your comment, and make your case in a guest post where you can explain your thoughts. You cite a number of problems--media controlled by 6 corporations, "sociopathic aristocracy, Facebook, the intelligence community. Help explain to readers exactly what plans Bernie or Jill Stein or whoever have for changing these things. I don't know that Facebook and ocean pollution, etc. are caused by the "regular left" as opposed to the left-left, but if you do think that, please explain your thoughts.
Conclusions like "you are childish" are less useful than a serious argument, but none of the six big corporations own this blog so yu are free to comment at whatever level you decide.
Faulty premise for a few reasons. Hillary was a such a terrible candidate that despite being "boring", having left-leaning voters in purple states vote for nimrod Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, writing-in Bernie Sanders, or not voting at all, and having the director of the FBI putting his figure on the scale, she received 3 million more votes than Trump.
That still makes her the loser, but it took such ridiculous mixture of events for her to fall short by the collective total in three swing states, by roughly the population of Medford.
The great majority of people that voted for Bernie in the 2016 Primary Elections moved on and voted for Hillary in the General. There is a vocal minority of people that still care about Bernie-Hillary and the host of erroneous information that comes with it. There are also people that believe vaccines cause autism, chemtrails, Obama is a Muslim and born in Kenya, climate change isn't real, dead people are voting in elections, so on, so forth.
For 2018 I see a Blue Wave happening across our country. Trump's numbers are absolutely terrible among non-Republicans, and for 100+ years, voters (with few exceptions) vote against the party in charge. If Democrats obtain the House of Representatives and there is a gavel a Democrat's hands in the Judiciary Committee, we'll see real investigations for all the crazy, illegal activity occurring by Trump and crew. At that point, a potted plant with a (D) next to their name, would win the Presidency in 2020.
Is there turmoil? No, I see a united front against the Trump administration and his Congressional enablers. The Bernie/Hillary wounds are now scars, as there's something to remember the fight, but with few exceptions most people are looking forward. The issue is how to harness the energy and make it so the different groups work towards the same goals. We can do it.
Kevin: take off your rose colored glasses. Peter, you always believe that it is simply a matter of marketing. Nominate a charismatic HRC with the same middle of the road platitudes and you will get the same result: the progressive left will stay at home, sitting on their hands. What the Bernie left wants is concrete material benefits for the working class: $15/hour min. wage, medicare for all, free college, etc. Bernie was the least charismatic candidate since Bob Dole, but he energized those who would otherwise stay at home ...
Wow, this piece of whatever it is that you have written is wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin. While I would not call it childish, it does appear superficial as anon states. I will certainly carve out some time to respond, though I have no idea why I should waste my time doing so. Typically someone with such misguided views is beyond reasonable comprehension of the status quo.
"To put it in marketing terms: the Democratic Party is failing, on a systemic level, to inspire, bring out, and get a sufficient majority of the votes of the working class."
https://democraticautopsy.org/democratic-party-in-crisis/
The present crisis of American politics does not simply hinge on finding a suitably exciting or charismatic candidate. Some combination of tho se qualities must be tied to convincing description of a world oeople actually want to live in. There remains an arrogant refusal on the part of centrist politicians to advocate for any policoes that would require altering the present regime of prioritizing markets and money above society itself. It is certain that individual political and professional careers would be diminished in the process and thus very few electeds risk their position.
Whether or not one subscribes to the policy goals being described the democeatic socialist movement, it is undeniable that Senator Sanders is currently the most popular politician in America. His brand actively offers something tangible for voters to actually fight for. As horrific as Steve Bannon's views are, he accurately assessed that economic nationalism would defeat any nuanced centrist agenda that cannot be defined in terms of a simole narrative. Thus far, the Sanders movement is the only alternative that has accumulated sufficient momentum and attention to compete with Trumpism. And since the Democratic party elites continue to offer loyalty to a wealthy donor class, the prospects of a believable populist from the party establishment remains out of reach.
I am dismayed by the negative attacks on Peters post.
All the points, being made about the state of things in our country, in thesre posts, are are of course valid and must be considered,( not refering to the moron who posted about climate hoax and Obamas religion, and contrails.) We know the Demorcratic Party has huge faullts and has failed Progressives in many ways Im sure Peter agrees with much of that and so do I. Youre preaching to the choir.
But please just stop a few minutes and concider this;
To make the changes most of us yearn for, WE HAVE TO WIN. We must win elections. That means making compromises. We can be staunch Progressives Without being ideologues.
This, of all times is not the time for a revolution We ned to be smart, crafty relentless, GET OUT THE VOTE and THEN when the people we elect are beholden to our electorate we demand they get themselves free of the big money.
Then, I for one dont care what we call ourselves Dem Socialist Progressive Party or The Yahoos.
We jus must focus on winning not fighting among our selves, that comes after we regain sustainable power.
BTW I'm reading"Fascism: A Warning" by Madeleine Albright. A must read so informative and chilling concidering the times we are living in.
I won't call this analysis childish, but I will agree with superficial.
1) Russians didn't hack the DNC's or John Podesta's emails. No proof has been offered, b/c it didn't happen. Whistleblowers. I don't care how many MSM articles and cable infotainers say it. In 2002, the same "institutions" elevated 'WMD' to be the American Dialect Society's phrase of the year. A fiction elevated to phrase of the year. I've seen a war propaganda effort before and I recognize it again. Also, Hamilton 68, the "project" identifying all the "Russian trolls" is run by the Atlantic Council. William fucking Kristol. Get better information. These people are fascists.
2) Clinton wasn't a better candidate than Trump and all of her policy differences were likely to break worse, not better, for working class Americans. Examples: TPP, War in Syria, War with Russia, War, War, War, Frack, Frack, Frack, Payday, Payday, Payday. Sure, Hillary gives some lip service to a progressive cause or two, but she's essentially a Republican, and not a particularly kind one at that. See: Libya. Ask yourself what those 40,000 people died for. So that a moderately socialist secular state could be turned into a warlord-led slave state? Also, the world's largest aquaculture project got partly destroyed depriving about 2 million people of water security. Google: Great man made river. Really classy work. There was no threat to the US whatsoever. It was a "fuck them over because we can". And, it was Hillary's baby. Imagine a whole presidency full of those.
Trump is certainly an awful President, and participating in a genocide in Yemen as we speak, but the Democrats are supporting that too.. so.. ?? Where's the difference?
If the "opposition" party is just a gentler face on the brutal empire, what's the value in that? I'd rather have the empire show its real face and have people in the streets fighting it.
What did Obama bring us? A public option? Transparency? No.. public option was shelved in a back-room deal with insurance companies out of the public eye. And now we have the ACA.. Romneycare.. mandatory participation in a private racket with no cost controls. Insane. Not to mention, no prosecutions of the war criminals who invaded Iraq or the banksters who crashed the world economy. Obama's victory lap? $400,000 speeches at Cantor Fitzgerald or Goldman Sachs.
The Democrats have become the Republicans of my youth. Even now as they scream that Trump is literally Hitler, they have voted to expand his powers to use the military without congressional approval, and increased the military budget beyond what he asked for by something like $48 billion.
With so little difference between the parties, it's amazing that people get so upset that many of us voted third party. To many of us, we were really just voting for a second party.
Yo ho! It’s always more interesting when the comments hijack the blog! Ds have moved so far right, starting with Big Dog Bill, they have become moderate Rs. What’s the difference?
I like Ike! (Better than HRC) ...
Wow! That was good...
Post a Comment