2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIncremental Change vs. Structural Change
It's not that Bernie supporters are against incremental change, it's more about structural change, slow and quick, big and small. Why limit ourselves? It's about changing the system's infrastructure itself rather than making a few adjustments from within it.
The only people that are invested in, or benefit from, the incremental approach are people who have "made it," regardless of race - most of these people are older. But the democratic party is supposed to be for everyone, especially the struggling, is it not?
To aim for minor adjustments around the edges (as if they'd get done at all) is to delay justice. There's nothing wrong with a policy centered approach, but it's not enough. Not even close, it's a band aid to a gaping wound.
apnu
(8,756 posts)We should shoot for bigger, and all of it.
Bernie, alone cannot do that. For structural change to occur, it must first start in the party. Bernie, or anybody else, cannot do this alone, there must be a political force behind that person.
So down ticket races are important. Local elections are even more important. Change the small seats and we'll change the world.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The time is coming to change the driver of the bus.
Trump supporters want to put the pedal to the metal and kick in the turbo thrusters.
Hillary supporters want to maintain a steady speed.
Sanders supporters want to steer away from the chasm.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Thanks very much, Rebkeh.
In my mind, Bernie represents today's FDR, offering bold plans to at least put into motion concepts that will fundamentally improve life in our country and in our world. I realize that much of what he proposes will not pass the Republican-controlled Congress (for that matter, the incremental changes of Hillary won't pass, either), but Bernie establishes the desirability of such things as college education for all, health care for all, etc., and by so doing, makes it easier for these things to come to be at a later point in time when liberals have greater control over the legislature.
Hillary, on the other hand, well, she's just a Clinton.
An FDR or a Clinton? To me, that's no contest.
BootinUp
(47,141 posts)In political campaigns and other human endeavors there is often a consideration given to playing it safe or employing a more risky strategy. In the case of political campaigns the risk is in losing elected offices mainly which of course has consequences. The consequences are mostly going to be felt by those who do not have rainy day money or assets or safety nets to fall back on as the conservative side will even further trample them down and transfer additional program funding into tax breaks for the wealthy.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)...than does Hillary!! So, in this particular case, risk is not an issue.
BootinUp
(47,141 posts)So what is the best way to determine this? There are actually people who devise market based prediction models to address these kinds of questions. One that you could look at is called predictwise http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner
But I am sure you are using recent polls comparisons of Bernie and Hillary vs. Trump to make your determination. I would just point out that people who have looked at the history of these types of polls are not giving much weight to them. Here is I think a good article on the subject:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html
Determining Risk is Always an issue BTW.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)Aside from the fact that I plain don't believe she's on the side of the people, so it's a non starter there, and I don't believe a word she says anyway...
Aside from those, she has too much ego in the game. Also, I don't like the way she fights, I don't like her strategies, being a shrewd killer (metaphorically) is not how things change. This isn't a football game, win/lose zero/sum situation. Besides, with opponents like the republicans, and someone like Trump, it's always best to have the moral high ground. Even when she wins these battles, WE lose. There's just too much at stake and I am not convinced she can beat the republicans. Not really. She may win the policy battles but I am not convinced she could win the ideological war. In fact, I don't think she wants to, she is just fine with the co-opting of the left.
No, the risk is with Hillary, not Bernie. She's also more likely to destroy the party in my opinion. I don't want a shrewd lawyer who says she is on my side, I want a leader that has already demonstrated that he is.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)Sanders revolution was a bust and was never going to happen and the attacks of the Sanders followers on incrementialism were really sad and silly http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/heres-why-i-never-warmed-bernie-sanders
Bernie's explanation for everything he wants to dohis theory of change, or theory of governing, take your pickis that we need a revolution in this country. The rich own everything. Income inequality is skyrocketing. The middle class is stagnating. The finance industry is out of control. Washington, DC, is paralyzed.....
Like it or not, you don't build a revolution on top of an economy like this. Period. If you want to get anything done, you're going to have to do it the old-fashioned way: through the slow boring of hard wood.
Why do I care about this? Because if you want to make a difference in this country, you need to be prepared for a very long, very frustrating slog. You have to buy off interest groups, compromise your ideals, and settle for half loavesall the things that Bernie disdains as part of the corrupt mainstream establishment. In place of this he promises his followers we can get everything we want via a revolution that's never going to happen. And when that revolution inevitably fails, where do all his impressionable young followers go? Do they join up with the corrupt establishment and commit themselves to the slow boring of hard wood? Or do they give up?
I don't know, but my fear is that some of them will do the latter. And that's a damn shame. They've been conned by a guy who should know better, the same way dieters get conned by late-night miracle diets. When it doesn't work, they throw in the towel.
Most likely Bernie will have no lasting effect, and his followers will scatter in the usual way, with some doubling down on practical politics and others leaving for different callings. But there's a decent chance that Bernie's failure will result in a net increase of cynicism about politics, and that's the last thing we need. I hate the idea that we might lose even a few talented future leaders because they fell for Bernie's spiel and then got discouraged when it didn't pan out.
I'll grant that my pitchand Hillary's and Barack Obama'sisn't very inspiring. Work your fingers to the bone for 30 years and you might get one or two significant pieces of legislation passed. Obviously you need inspiration too. But if you don't want your followers to give up in disgust, your inspiration needs to be in the service of goals that are at least attainable. By offering a chimera instead, Bernie has done the progressive movement no favors.
Sanders revolution was the cheap and sad way to get things done. In the real world one has to work hard to implement change but Sanders was not up to that task. Instead of actually getting things done, Sanders promised a magical revolution where major changes could be accomplished by magic and not by hard work.
Politics is hard work and relying on a magical revolution to change things does not work. I like living in the real world and I know that change involves hard work
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)Then don't vote for him
And it was not a bust because it's still going.