Old Man Looking
“Old man, look at my life
I’m a lot like you were.”
-- Neil Young
I attempt -- at least once a day -- to look objectively at the Democratic primary process, and evaluate how it will impact the Democratic National Convention …..which will then impact the presidential election in November. This morning, on Face Book, I saw a picture from the 1968 DNC in Chicago, with the saying: “This is what happens when you refuse to listen to the People.” Moments later, I started reading DU:GDP. Yikes!
It’s often said that DU does not represent the Democratic Party. That’s not entirely true. Certainly, it does not represent the sum-total of our party. Nor is it the only thing that represents it. But it does represent a couple significant groups within the larger party. For example, the forum DU:GDP represents the thinking and values of both Bernie and Hillary supporters.
Last night, I was able to listen to an interesting conversation while driving home after picking up my older daughter from her school. Her high grades, along with my financial status, allow her to attend a private university for a fraction of what she’d be charged by the state university system. Also in the vehicle was my oldest son, a graduate from the state university system, who is under-employed in a local factory; he owes a lot on his college loans.
All four of my children support Bernie Sanders. (Three are currently in college full-time; two of these work part-time, to get by.) Both daughters are truly afraid that Donald Trump might be elected president. Of the “Sanders for President” club at the younger one’s school, she estimates that over 50% will vote in the general election, even if Hillary is the nominee.
At the older sister’s school, she said very few of the Bernie-supporting students will vote if Hillary is the party’s nominee. She finds this frustrating, and unacceptable. In part, she believes this is because some of the students are mere fad-participants; while others simply believe Hillary Clinton to be part of the corrupt system they reject. My daughter believes that a Trump presidency poses so many dangers, that it has to be prevented, even if it involves voting for the lesser of two evils.
Her brother pointed out that the biggest stumbling block that will prevent everyone joining in a “big tent” effort to stop Trump would be Hillary, if she were to win the nomination. I said that there were potential difficulties with Bernie as candidate, too -- the truth is that most of the establishment will oppose his being elected. For, regardless of if they are socially-liberal Democrats, or conservative republicans, the establishment allows places money as their number one voting priority.
The two of them discussed the strengths and weaknesses of Bernie and Hillary, without a single insult or attack upon either candidate, or each other. Neither attempted to score cheap debaters’ points. They stuck to facts, opinions, and values. It can be done!
But it doesn’t seem to be a common feature on DU:GDP. Rather, this forum is a microcosm of the larger society’s divisions, which are rapidly becoming more entrenched. Our “differences” with each other are surely at least as important a factor in discussions here, as our beliefs about each candidate. More, neither Bernie nor Hillary can fully repair the damage being done today. Every politician would like to be a popular, unifying figure, of course. But it is evident that there are many here who will not support the nominee, if it isn’t the candidate they currently support. That holds equally true on both sides.
Just as DU:GDP is representative of parts of the Democratic Party, the three people in my vehicle last night are, too. It does not appear that DU:GDP can serve as a vehicle for uniting people behind a common goal -- or set of goals -- at this time. But maybe both sides could reduce the tensions, by at least acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of both of the candidates.
Peace,
H2O Man
= new reply since forum marked as read
Why is it so hard to get people to understand that? I wonder... 
What a fine family you have. Always like to hear what they are up to. 
Re: the GDP atmosphere. Sadly, Skinner's latest post where he announced he was removing the restrictions of "Time Outs" for 5 Hidden Posts, may have unleashed forces that will keep things boiling until the Convention. Using "Ignore Function" or clicking the "Trash Post/Thread" box may be the only option to have any civil political discussion going forward, around here. I hope he will rethink this.
I try to reply to all your posts because I enjoy the virtual conversation, but you are so consistent in your posting I keep falling behind.
I've noted a couple of objections cropping up to Mr Sanders recently which I had not fully credited before. One is his recent "conversion" to the Democratic party, and the other is an assertion that he is really a demagogue selling a con. The two are easily linked of course. As to why he has decided to con us now, instead of any time in the past generation, charges of opportunism are laid (although why running against a previously-ordained and largely acceptable candidate would be considered an "opportunity" is something I haven't quite worked out, yet).
We can, perhaps, see some of this in the fact that Mr Sanders performs much better in open primaries than in closed ones; Independents are likely to vote for him, but Democrats appear to have something against him. This objection is perhaps of more consequence for the primary than the General, but if it keeps him from the nomination, that makes no difference. Of how much consequence might this be, and what can be done about it?
The accusation of demagoguery startles me, but looked at dispassionately, it is not so unreasonable. That it makes him indistinguishable from Mr Trump is, I believe, a false equivalency: Mr Trump has no discernible principles and no track record against which he can be measured, whereas Mr Sanders has both, and has been quite consistent with them. That he draws crowds and has inspirational rhetoric is unquestionable, but the same could be said about JFK or RFK. (Who were also accused of demagoguery, now that I think of it) But even if we stipulate that he is a demagogue, it does not follow that he is therefore perpetuating a con: he may truly believe what he says, and that message may be successful because it resonates with substantial members of the voting public. Then again, I suppose one might say the same for Mr Trump, so one would have to ask another question: is the message being articulated by the demagogue favorable or unfavorable, good or evil? Mr Sanders advocates revolution, 'tis true, but a revolution neither violent nor unconstitutional. He wants to change quite a few things, but is he really advocating burning down the house in the style of 60's radicals? I think not, but I suppose those with a closer connection to the way things are currently done might consider that no change is good change.
-- Mal