"It is my belief and that of many others that, ultimately, the Clinton/Obama legacy must consciously rejected to save the Democratic Party."
Andy Seles, Southern Oregon political activist
 |
| Andy Seles (photo by Allen Hallmark) |
Push comes to shove.
The Southern Oregon Democratic Party has moved left. Activists on the left are organized and resolute. They reject past orthodoxy.
It mirrors the fight to move the GOP from moderate to Trump-conservative in the State GOP--a fight this blog has described in earlier posts describing Sam Carpenter.
Polarization.
Andy Seles is a member of Our Revolution Southern Oregon's Planning and Advisory Committee, commenting here solely as an individual. He wrote me regarding Allen Hallmark's campaign to hold an office in the local Democratic Party. Hallmark describes himself as "very progressive" and a Bernie Sanders supporter. I posted on him yesterday.
Seles said, "I do NOT assume that Allen Hallmark is necessarily 'at the approximate center of the Jackson County Democrats' for a couple of reasons. For one, the make up of the JC Dems is changing, largely the result of local backlash to the 2016 Republican sweep, especially Trump's victory. Younger people who largely reject the neoliberal policies of the past are involved and I believe (just a gut feeling) that many of the older folks are shifting left, especially on issues such as healthcare (Medicare for All) and climate change. Folks increasingly see these issues as a matter of urgency. While I am sure Allen supports these issues, I do not believe he would "go to the mat" when push comes to shove."
In coming months readers will encounter a number of models to understand a complex and crowded Democratic Party Primary election for president. There are a variety of scales for measuring candidates:
1. A left-right scale: Socialist to Moderate to Centrist.
2. A racial-ethnic scale: White vanilla; white ethnic; Latino; Asian; Black.
3. A gender scale: Female MeToo-confrontational; Female feminist non-confrontational; Male supportive.
4. A business orientation scale: Anti-capitalist; populist reformer; regulator; corporate.
5. An age/generation scale: late 70s Bernie-Biden-Pelosi; late 60's Warren-Schumer; 50's Harris-Booker; 30s-40s O'Rourke-Swalwell; 20's Ocasio-Cortez-Cortez.
I could list more scales, and will in future posts.
Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com proposed a five-part scale, looking at what he considers the five primary voting constituencies within the Democratic electorate: Loyal Democrats, the Left, Millennials and their Friends, Blacks, and Latino-Asians. Each group has its own interests and voting characteristics, and each are approximately 20% of the whole. He doesn't consider "women" a special group because women infuse all the groups.
The fight in Jackson County, Oregon for control of the local Party is a fight between the Left vs. the Loyal Democrats--two of the five groups in the Nate Silver model. Allen Hallmark represents a longstanding old guard of Loyal Democrats, going back to anti-war activity during Vietnam, peace vigils and progressive politics through the decades, to a Bernie-Hillary "can't we all get along" Big Tent goal at the present.
Hallmark reveals the shift in the political center: A Loyal Democrat supported Bernie--not Hillary--in the primary. I believe he reflected the local Democratic activist center, essentially Bernie. (Note that all seven of the Oregon 2nd Congressional District candidates in the Democratic primary adopted Bernie-compliant views on every controversial issue.)
 |
| Obama wasn't good enough. |
The center has shifted again, and more left.
Hallmark, and his "Big Tent" point of view, is now rejected by the energized Left because, as Seles puts it, Loyal Democrats are blind to the weakness of their present and prior leaders. A Bernie-supporting Loyal Democrat who supported the Clintons and Obama isn't good enough, not anymore.
Similar views are expressed vigorously within Progressive Facebook groups. I quote Seles here because he is articulate and available, not because he is unique or extreme. He reflects a widespread point of view within his cohort.
Hallmark, and his "Big Tent" point of view, is now rejected by the energized Left because, as Seles puts it, Loyal Democrats are blind to the weakness of their present and prior leaders. A Bernie-supporting Loyal Democrat who supported the Clintons and Obama isn't good enough, not anymore.
Similar views are expressed vigorously within Progressive Facebook groups. I quote Seles here because he is articulate and available, not because he is unique or extreme. He reflects a widespread point of view within his cohort.
Loyal Democrats want the Left to be allies, but the Left now rejects this entreaty. The Left understands that Loyal Democrats need their votes, but don't think they share enough of their values to deserve them. They are weak and they compromise.
Each side points the finger of blame for Trump at the other. Loyal Democrats note that nose-holding by Sanders and votes given to Nader in 2000 and Jill Stein in 2016 threw the election to Bush and Trump.
The Left points the finger the other way. Seles wrote me, saying the so-called "'moderates' adherence to a neoliberal economic policy that has produced an obscene wealth disparity as well as, inadvertently, the populist backlash that has given us a Trump presidency" is the real problem. Nader and Jill Stein kept the faith; Democrats did not. Bernie Sanders has a quote on the cover of Bill Press' book: "Bill Press makes the case. . . read the book."
The fight is playing out in Southern Oregon: the Bernie loyalist Left vs. Loyal Democrats. The Left is winning. Hallmark struggles to reassure the Left, but he carries the taint of the past. He supported Hillary Clinton, and before her, Obama and Bill Clinton. He didn't go to the mat for progressive politics.
But he says he agrees with the Left. He's "very progressive." Probably not good enough. He talks a good game, but can he be trusted when push comes to shove? Seles says no.
Southern Oregon is a tiny piece of what is happening in the world, but it is an instructive microcosm.
The Left is in opposition, not alliance, to Loyal Democrats. That is the lesson to learn. We will watch Democratic candidates attempt to bridge the gap with the tools of rhetoric and personal appeal. I predict Sanders and Biden cannot do it. Sanders burned bridges with Loyal Democrats, and Biden with the Left.
Elizabeth Warren will try to do it, but she may face the same situation as Hallmark, sharing a progressive viewpoint but perhaps not being trustworthy to the Left. After all, in the end she supported Hillary. She drank a beer but she is still elite, with elite friends.
The Left is in opposition, not alliance, to Loyal Democrats. That is the lesson to learn. We will watch Democratic candidates attempt to bridge the gap with the tools of rhetoric and personal appeal. I predict Sanders and Biden cannot do it. Sanders burned bridges with Loyal Democrats, and Biden with the Left.
Elizabeth Warren will try to do it, but she may face the same situation as Hallmark, sharing a progressive viewpoint but perhaps not being trustworthy to the Left. After all, in the end she supported Hillary. She drank a beer but she is still elite, with elite friends.
It may well take a new face and maybe a new generation to re-link Left and Loyal Democrat. And maybe the divide cannot be breached and Trump will win re-election. His base is united.
9 comments:
I would agree with many of Sen. Sander's views, but I would caution his die hard supporters to take a hard look at his tactics and their own unquestioning adoration. His brand of populism is a mirror of Trump's, albeit more benign, and caters to a minority that already have deeply held beliefs about income inequality, money in politics, etc. In short, something that looks a little like a cult.
While I balk at compromising with bigots and corruption, Sen. Sander's resistance to fold his views into the larger Progressive movement and lead his supporters into it should be seen as an indication of a personal agenda. His supporters recalcitrance in 2016, while understandable, contributed to the state of affairs we enjoy today.
Peter,
I take exception to what I consider a false dichotomy of "Left vs. Loyal Democrats." A precinct committee person, I consider myself a loyal democrat, just as I am sure Allen does. My loyalty, however, goes to a Democratic Party that elected FDR and supported unions and working families; so perhaps "Old-school Democrats vs. Neoliberal Democrats" would have been a better title. Also, (full disclosure) after campaigning for Bernie Sanders in the last election, I too voted for Hillary Clinton, in keeping with my sadly pragmatic, decades-long tradition (except for Nader in 2000) of voting for the lesser of two evils. (I don't think many of us democratic loyalists will be willing to "settle" this next go-round.)
Language can be a powerful political tool. Referring to the Clinton/Obama/Wall Street legacy Democratic Party as "loyal" Democrats impugns, belittles and dismisses those of us true Democratic Loyalists who believe that "we the people," and not the "Democratic Royalists" should determine our elections. Having said that, I would add that we are a big tent, willing to engage with those democrats who have, perhaps unconsciously, strayed from New Deal standards.
Andy Seles
Thanks for the clarification, Andy.
The term "Loyal Democrat" is the term used by Nate Silver in his list of the five big subgroups of Democrats. I get it that you would prefer to refer to supporters of Biden-the Clintons-and Obama as "old school" rather than "loyal", but I think your own post quotations and your comment above make case pretty well that loyalty to the brand is a defining characteristic. You yourself said you voted for Nader, as did many others of good conscience.
I honestly think the post describes, not "impugns, belittles, and dismisses" you. I describe your position, Andy, by quoting you. I consider that a sign of respect. The headline of the post was written my you, that you consciously reject the Clinton/Obama legacy. I am not belittling you by saying this. I fully expect you to embrace and celebrate what you are saying, that you are loyal to a point of view and a history, not to the current brand of Democrats, including the still very popular Obama.
Bottom line, my sense is that you are very loyal indeed to what you believe, but that this is no longer the recent brand of Democratic Party, and that his contrasts with people who are pretty content with Biden, Clinton, Obama, Warren, Harris, O'Rourke or whoever else the Democrats nominate. That second group of people I would call "Loyal Democrats." But that isn't you, as you describe yourself.
I am not belittling you. I am letting you have your say by quoting you. I consider this a sign of respect to you, letting you put your words out there.
Peter Sage
Peter,
You said: "I get it that you would prefer to refer to supporters of Biden-the Clintons-and Obama as "old school" rather than "loyal." No, you don't get it and many third-wave (neo-liberal) democrats don't get it either. This reminds me of a cognitive dissonance I continually ran into when campaigning for Sanders. Frankly, I had better luck communicating with conservatives on this paradox as there are a number of issues where we find common ground (NAFTA, Patriot act, Bank bail-outs).
To clarify: The Clinton/Obama cohorts are neo-liberals (economic globalists, FDR would say "Royalists") who use divisive identity politics to foist economic policies upon us that hurt all but the top social class. They constitute "the recent brand of Democratic Party" (your words) indicating that there has, indeed, been a change since the New Deal and The Great Society. At this point, not unlike the age of the robber barons, the current crop of self-serving economic Royalists in both parties have a vise-grip on the economy, refusing, for example, to enforce anti-trust laws. Bottom line: I see myself as an "old-school" (think FDR) democrat and the Clinton/Obama cohort, despite their rhetoric, as abetting the dismantling of New Deal values.
Looking at the personal wealth of the presidents can be illuminating. Roosevelt was a multi-millionaire when he entered office and so cannot be considered here. Truman entered office with less than a million dollars and retired the same. Both Clinton and Obama entered office with net worth less than a million dollars; the former now worth 75 million and the latter at 40 million, much of these gains from speaking engagements, book publications and investments. They knew where their bread was buttered, as do the current crop of insider presidential contenders that corporate media will promote while ignoring populist candidates. I suggest to your readers:
https://www.salon.com/2014/07/27/my_party_has_lost_its_soul_bill_clinton_barack_obama_and_the_victory_of_wall_street_democrats/
No disrespect felt here and I hope none is taken.
Andy Seles
"Loyal Democrats want the Left to be allies, but the Left now rejects this entreaty. The Left understands that Loyal Democrats need their votes, but don't think they share enough of their values to deserve them. They are weak and they compromise."
I question whose votes are needed to win over trump. I am personally a progressive, voted for Sanders in the primary, voted for Hillary in the general, and am mortified at what happens every single day with trump! It was the electoral college that elected him, and many of the people in those key state we lost were the old "labor democrats" and undecided voters who just did not like Clinton. Their views are moderate to progressive on issues, or would be progressive if shown that those policies would advance the working class. Millenials will matter more, but probably only in states where the electoral college is already democratic. In some states, getting black people to the polls made the difference last year.
Many of you, including Andy Seles, are making big assumptions about who the democrats need to vote and carry elections.
Progressives in places like New York city could elect AOC, but dems in Texas could not quite elect Beto. These are the facts of life.
Much of the country is moving a bit left in key issues like universal health care, diversity, and in reigning in foreign interventions.
However, these ideas must be advanced by candidates who appear to unify factions not separate them. Candidates who look like they can compromise where it means incrementally getting something done are favored in recent polls. That trait, plus the charisma to convince the labor dems just might give us the victory.
I agree with Diane, as I have written in posts repeatedly, most recently in the post headlined with the map of the upper midwest.
Short of a blowout one way or the other, the election will come down to the Upper Midwest and Florida. When the Upper Midwest tipped to Trump, he won. Without it, he lost. Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were all Trump needed.
College town canvassers in Berkeley and Brooklyn are not going to change the national election. The people who move local Democrats from Bernie-supporters to adamant-go to the mat-Bernie-supporters won't change the electoral vote UNLESS their votes result in Democrats nominating someone who performs well in Ashland, Oregon but very poorly in Pennsylvania. Then it matters a lot.
Catholic or protestant, Shiite or Sunni, the Peter-Andy debate sounds of a distinctly religious clash over linguistic passages in the same scripture. Political and religious doctrine can sustain bloody battles by zealots over what appears as trifling to the mere congregation. And therein lies Trump's strength-- it's non-denominational, it's culture not politics. Indeed, it sneers at the political correctness that sustains such dogmatic debates. So yes indeed guys, the S. Oregon microcosm of our party may well say it all about 2020 and Trump's prospects for a second term.
By Thad Guyer, posted on his behalf by Peter Sage
It’s the economy, silly. And it hasn’t been good for the working class for the past 40 years.
FDR is spinning in his grave.
Yes, FDR is spinning in his grave at the abandonment of the Party by cynical pragmatists and their self-fulfilling prophecies that serve the economic Royalists. As Roosevelt famously said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Work locally as thousands are doing across the country to change the party from the inside out. Consider reading "Listen, Liberal" by Thomas Frank. Thanks.
Andy Seles
Post a Comment