2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumGrapes
It is said that when the ancient philosopher Confucius was asked what he would do, if he was granted political authority, he responded, Insist that people use words correctly. While he may not have been speaking of the 2016 Democratic primary specifically, I am convinced he would have included the word progressive as one with a real meaning. That word continues to be misused today, when applied to the two Democratic candidates.
My father was a first-generation product of an Irish immigrant family. Most of the extended family worked on the railroads in the northeast. They were all union activists. Dads favorite aunt, Mary, was a charter member of the national Order of Telegraphers Union. Hence, my father passed down her definitions to me, as a family heirloom. These definitions apply accurately to the membership of the Democratic Party.
There are four basic sub-groups of Democrats. While the party has definitely shifted to the right since 1980, those definitions still hold. Going from right to left, there are: conservatives, moderates, liberals, and progressives. Obviously, not everyone fits neatly into the various groups. There can be differences, for example, in an individuals beliefs on domestic and international affairs. Yet, the sum total of their beliefs tend to fit into one of the four groups.
The growth in the numbers of conservative Democrats accounts for the partys shift to the right. The most obvious example of this was President Bill Clinton. His political beliefs were known as Third Way, as they combined both republican and Democratic values. Thus, the correct identification for this type of Democrat is conservative, or centrist. Still, some people misidentify President Clinton as a liberal, despite his record on important issues ranging from international trade deals to public assistance.
Perhaps the two most important groups in the context of the current primary are liberal and progressive. By definition, liberals seek to fine-tune the system by way of gradual change. Progressives, on the other hand, seek fundamental changes to the system. Senator Bernie Sanders is a perfect example of a progressive. We see this in his approach to the international trade deals, and in his health care proposals.
Hillary Clinton has stated during the campaign that she is a progressive. She was challenged on this during one of the debates, when a moderator played a recent film clip of her speaking to a conservative audience, where she took pride in identifying herself as a moderate. This attempt to be all things to all people is not something Clinton invented -- it is not a new political tactic. But it is much harder to pull off these days, with the internet.
The Clinton campaign likes to portray Sanders as a radical. Perhaps the concept of social justice is radical today. They like to call his supporters dangerous extremists. Certainly, the environmental crisis we face presents very real dangers, and it will require extreme dedication in order to deal successfully with it.
We live in an extreme period of time. It is not possible to confront and resolve the extreme problems we face with a moderate approach. There may have been many times when a moderate politician, or a conservative Democrat, would be the best choice for president. Or, at least the safest choice. But that is not true today. We need a true progressive in the White House, who has the moral authority to call forth progressives at the grass roots, in order to deal with the extreme damage that has been done to our country by the 1% since 1980.
Add to this that as we approach the Democratic National Convention, neither Hillary or Bernie has the number of delegates required to put them over the top. Thus, the super delegates will be selecting the candidate that gets the nomination. It is safe to say that 100% of these super delegates are establishmentarians. A few might be liberal, but the vast majority are moderate and conservative Democrats. None are progressives.
It is anticipated that, barring unforeseen circumstances, they will be loyal to the Clinton dynasty. This will not transform Hillary into a more attractive candidate with the progressive community; rather, it will serve to confirm the negative impression they have of her. And despite her campaigns attempts to portray her as so gosh darned popular that her presidency is inevitable, a growing awareness among her top advisers points to the great difficulty she would encounter in the general election. Theres no where else for them to go isnt a strategy -- it is an attempt to justify the vicious attacks that her people have unleashed at the Sanders revolution.
Some progressive Democrats would definitely vote for Hillary if she is given the nomination by the super delegates. And Clinton has the ability to convince others, between the convention and November, that she represents the lesser of two evils. It is certainly possible that she could win the general election. However, it is a shame that the Clinton campaign has no chance, at this time, of gaining enthusiastic progressive support, and has totally alienated the Democratic Left.
If Bernie gets the nomination, it is unlikely that the moderate and conservative Democrats would support Trump. Of course, they wont be invested in campaigning for Sanders. But as long as they vote for him, Bernie will crush Donald Trump like a grape.
Peace,
H2O Man
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)H2O Man
(73,505 posts)I kind of hurried to type it up, because I am writing another one (in my head) that I think is pretty important. But it comes as something as a follow-up to this topic.
procon
(15,805 posts)If you could just make an itemized list of all the derogatory phrases you use to describe this terrible Hillary person, it would really speed up slogging through your next rant.
H2O Man
(73,505 posts)you might opt to not waste your time.
procon
(15,805 posts)I was expecting to find something to do with the plight of impoverished migrant field workers, or possibly the use of cancer causing pesticides. Imagine my chagrin at being suckered into another Hillary Hater's vanity post. Bad show, guy, bad show.
H2O Man
(73,505 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)H2O Man
(73,505 posts)should have written about my favorite grape jelly?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Welch's.
Finally... a subject I can sink my teeth into.
H2O Man
(73,505 posts)Well done.
Thank you.
It's a shame that some folks just want to add a few insults, rather than engage in a meaningful discussion. I'm always happy to converse with people that hold different opinions. But this person just wants to make their bias know, not to engage in a discussion.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)They deflect, then deflect the deflection. I've often wished I had that talent at certain times in my life.
H2O Man
(73,505 posts)I've always been willing to discuss (or debate) ideas and opinions here on DU. And I think that it is high-time that this community's Hillary and Bernie supporters talk shop. But a number of one group seem intent upon shutting down serious discussions .....and just attacking people for no good reason.
You hit a nerve you know that you're on the right track. Kudos to you my dearest H2O man.
JumpinJehosaphat
(22 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Maybe you would like to create a list of the words the OP used to describe Clinton that are derogatory?
Third Way?
Centrist?
Conservative Democrat?
Those are the closest things I could find, but no serious observer of politics would say that those are inaccurate descriptions of Hillary or Bill Clinton. If you find those descriptions derogatory, you may want to examine why.
procon
(15,805 posts)What is the payoff in posting and defending divisive posts like this OP? High fives and giggles back in the clubhouse? Bernie has policies that no one discusses here, so what do you lot hope to achieve by launching all these sequential flame wars against Hillary?
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)What is inaccurate?
H2O Man
(73,505 posts)on my part, but our friend might be offended by my pointing out that neither candidate has a "victory" without the establishment's "super delegates" picking who they want as our party's candidate. That's rather like the old all animals are equal, with some being more equal to others.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)H2O Man
(73,505 posts)sour grapes?
procon
(15,805 posts)If those are the best examples you take away, it's not surprising that you're so discombobulated. This rigid and blinkered mindset does not portend well for a faction that is limited by their own idealistic purity. Bernie's fans seem to be unable to see themselves selves as others do, not that it matters now, I suppose, but it has a hugely negative impact on your candidate. Since these repetitious flame bait posts appear far more regularly than any positive posts on Bernie's platform, I would like to see someone discuss why that is.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)what is so offensive to you about the OP?
H2O Man
(73,505 posts)This person did not identify what was so upsetting about the OP; rather, he resorted to insulting me and my opinion. When you asked why, he attempted to again deflect, and insult me and my humble opinion. When he continue to ask, you get the latest response, pretending you are the problem.
Let's think -- I gave my opinion that Hillary is not a progressive, and documented the reasons why, by definition, she is not. I noted that neither candidate has pulled off the victory before our convention; again, hard to argue that one. I noted that the "super delegates" will select their favorite candidate; again, hard to argue. I noted that we are in extreme times; again, hard to argue -- unless one is comfortable, as the "super delegates" etc are. I said that the times demand a unique leader -- and only Bernie could possibly be considered unique in the 2016 contest.
The person is unhappy that I am posting a series of essays from the left side of the Democratic Party; besides being posted on DU, these are being shared among a variety of sites read by progressive Democrats and members of the Democratic Left. We are attending the national convention. We aren't coming hat-in-hand, begging for crumbs off their table. We aren't coming with clenched fists, trying to start a fight. We are coming with our hand extended, hoping to shake hands with the Clinton people. It is just as much our convention as it is their's.
Hence, when I say the things I do, it is not to be mistaken as an attempt to look acceptable to that person, or anyone like him. My recent OPs are directed primarily at the Sanders revolution. They are my opinions. I have as much right -- and responsibility -- to speak my mind as anyone. Attempts to silence me, or the other progressive activists, are silly.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)I just like to see if I can get these other posters to provide real argument. This guy says I have binders on, so I was wondering what he thought I was missing. Another said your OP was deragatory, so I asked how. Niether provided a response to the questions asked, so it's reasonable to conclude they have no serious argument but are just angry that some are not buying what Clinton is selling.
H2O Man
(73,505 posts)how, per my last three OPs, one or more of the Clinton supporters will resort to simply making personal insults, while avoiding any serious discussion/ debate of issues. Reminds me of the old saying: shallow waters run shallow.
Like you, I'm always happy to engage in civil discussions. In fact, as the convention draws nearer, it would seem an ideal time to stop with the cheap stuff, and to talk shop. Luckily, there are plenty of Hillary Clinton's supporters who are ready and willing to do so .....they just don't seem to be found on DU .....which is not to suggest that there are plenty of intelligent, rational Clinton supporters on DU ....but rather, that there is an "us versus them" mentality here, which discourages the Clinton supporters from talking in a civil manner with the Sanders revolution.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)H2O Man
(73,505 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)The problem as I see it is the progressives have been very active in the political process, loyal, and active gotv specialists. However, their treatment in the party in recent years has not matched the contributions. Therein lies the angst.
In general, progressives are the ones who are doing the "on the street" work for campaigns, from the grass roots level to presidential elections. I'm not saying that this is more important than the many other chores that successful campaigns require ....but I can say that it is no less important than the others.
No one likes to be taken for granted. But, even that would be an upgrade in how the progressives have been treated in this primary.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)I can hear the Hillary supporters already: "But, but, but you don't get to define 'progressive'." Basically, thay apply good-sounding words to their candidate/deity whether those words make sense to apply or not. As a result, words lose all meaning. Their defense (above) is pure, uncut bullshit.
The core of your message is that we don't live in normal times - we live in extreme times. That has a lot of truth to it. Envirnomental problems need radical solutions, not just requiring slightlly higher fuel efficiency - and we can't even get that in these extreme times. Income inequality is also an extreme problem that threatens to push the country into pitchfork terriroty. It also has a significant effect on whether we can deal with climate change given that the super-rich are married to the systems that cause climate change.
One political party is deep into extreme, ideological terrirory. That makes it impossible to discuss many issues or even approach them. Dealing with the country's issues is pretty much impossible because of it. "Tweaking" won't solve this one in a million years.
In the end, Hillary is insufficient to improve any of this.
H2O Man
(73,505 posts)I certainly did not say that Hillary hates nature, enjoys polluting, and likes to kill small, cute living things. But, what I did say -- and will say again -- is that she does not have the capacity to bring about meaningful change per environmental issues. While she understands the horror of children drinking water contaminated by lead in Flint, she hasn't made the connection with the children in communities where the water has been contaminated by fracking. But many of us can.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)The system is the one where money makes all the important decisions. She is wedded to it to a large degree and won't go against the interests of that money. Hence, it is unreasonable to expect her to tackle the problem brought about by money in the political system or even problems where money influences decisions.
As for fracking, money in politics is a key part of why we have it. She will either ignore the contribution of fracking to problems like Flint or claim there is just nothing that can be done about it. She has a progressive tax plan, but the rich will rise up against it and she will bend to their will. The war on drugs makes too much money for too many people. She isn't going to change it.
In contrast, Bernie's revolution is about denying the influence of big money. He probably won't be able to overcome it, but he will at least change the conversation about why things are the way they are and why they need to change.
Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #9)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Of success. Our economic system has entered its' terminal cannibalistic phase.
Our political system also has entered its' death knell as the moneyed interests work to make even the idea of democratic rule a joke.
The environment is in such terrible shape human life will not be possible on this planet in short order.
The only fixes to any (or all) these issues is RADICAL and extreme. The Powers that be have to be overruled and their policies reversed.
That is why we have all the food fights over trivialities. They are distractions designed to disguise the real horrible realities we are facing.
HRC is the last nail on the democratic coffin. As democracy is killed so too will die the economy and the planet.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Is that the sensible is now considered radical
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Why do they keep trying to buy them?
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)H2O Man
(73,505 posts)Thank you.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)jpmonk91
(290 posts)I'm also doing a series of posts here is part 1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280194197
Keep fighting the good fight!
H2O Man
(73,505 posts)Mighty proud of you, Brother.
jpmonk91
(290 posts)Btw this is one of my favorite posts. The word does get misused a lot these days. I'm glad Bernie decided to run because he is helping to hold politicians accountable to thier words.
H2O Man
(73,505 posts)rough outline almost completed in my mind. It is time for the progressive community to not only speak up, but to exercise our full power .....within the Democratic Party, and the nation.
If we act we can get a lot done. In Europe the people march on all issues large and small and because of it those governments do listen to thier people
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)I was listening to something this week regarding evolution, and I was hearing my thoughts on this election, as i read it.
Today i listened to a great history of how we went from the socialists and communists having political clout in America, from the 1800's right up until the death of FDR around 1945, at which time the dismantling of the New Deal began.
So what I've learned is that Bernie's campaign is simply trying to bring us back to what once was normal American politics.
It keeps coming back to me over and over that this election is like trying to sober a drunk who doesn't see his situation as problematic.
The bottom line is climate change. But the trouble is, if we don't take action immediately, and wait until we see more serious symptoms, it will be too late. It's already too late, but we don't care about millions who live in poverty. Like Bangladesh. Originally we were to keep temperatures from rising 1.5C, in order to save the suffering of millions. But it was too inconvenient, and they bumped it to 2C. Already, we're backing away from the inconvenient truth.
We have literally devolved as a nation, since the last days of FDR. But like many diseases, we didn't feel it happening, and can't see it as it is now.
I'm somewhat frustrated, as I thought if one presented logical arguments, results would follow. That isn't happening, from what I see.
All I can think of is the last words in Bridge On The River Kwai. "Madness".
H2O Man
(73,505 posts)Exactly as you note, we do not have the luxury of waiting patiently to see just how dramatic nature's consequences will be. It's not like with "man's law," where one can hope, for example, that a police or FBI investigation will determine there's not enough to prosecute; or where one can hire a fancy lawyer, and beat the rap; or even plead guilty, and hope the court shows mercy. For Natural Law can be extremely cold and harsh, and everyone is at risk of paying for the few's mistakes.
We need to immediately begin instituting change. Not just talking about it. Or demanding new studies. The scientists in our universities already are convinced that human-kind is going to pay a huge price in coming years -- indeed, plenty of people around the globe already are.
Yet we have people -- who tend to appear otherwise intelligent and rational -- who are convinced that we can continue on this path for a little longer ....while they collect a bit more wealth, and enjoy a few more vacations and what not. They are, just as you say, intoxicated to an extent that they put others at risk, as surely as any drunk driver.
As always, thank you for your contributions to this community.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)That's what I was immediately reminded of when I read your thread title and then, my thoughts wandered on to precious past DUers such as Sapphire Blue, while reading your paragraph about social justice and "radicals" and "extremists" and the extreme sincere dedication it is gonna take to effect any change.
I so much appreciate seeing your essays posted here and I thank you for your own dedication. And I still have hope that we are everywhere.
H2O Man
(73,505 posts)I'm glad that you reminded us of some of the "extremists" who have graced this forum with their goodness over the years.
All of my "heroes" were extremists: Buddha was an extremist for peace of mind; Jesus for love; Gandhi for forgiveness; and Malcolm for justice. These are role models that far less significant individuals, such as myself, should try to learn from, in order to meet the needs of this time in history. I recognize that I am a tiny acorn, compared to those extraordinary oak trees. But to even be insulted in the same manner they were is indeed an honor.
Liberal Jesus Freak
(1,451 posts)Your posts are thought-provoking, intelligent, and inclusive. Thank you
H2O Man
(73,505 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,268 posts)Thanks for the thread, H2O Man.
H2O Man
(73,505 posts)MFM008
(19,803 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I know who I'll look to for depth and clarity of thinking!
H2O Man
(73,505 posts)PATRICK
(12,228 posts)How on earth will the magical coming together happen this year at the convention, since the split is much more than about the candidates and is in fact an irreconcilable power conflict. At least at first blush it is. Traditionally the winner is both too happy entitled and- fearful- to concede real party power advantages. Even with the establishment raging and sending out the riot police in 1968 with HHH doing the jig as he finally hit the magic number(delayed with resentful purpose by a long roll call), concessions were made to the primary process. The impression on the viewership and the party faithful embodied the whole divide of the times and the GOP skated over this with Nixon.
Our times are very different of course and so are the progressives, united behind a single candidate with singularly powerful and undeniable numbers. If again, the party establishment tosses its weight against those delegate numbers I really have to wonder how this will play out right there and then and then what kind of potentially crippling result it will shadow over the the following months.
It isn't about appeasing a wing but doing the right thing, inspiring and leading. And the right thing is not about kowtowing to 1% of the electorate- most of whom are not by any stretch of the imagination Dems in any form at all.
Oh yes, I've heard that superdelegates will vote for Clinton should she even be in a jail cell by June. Obviously on the side they are still bugging Biden. Conservative Dems, now corrupted by big money, have been chafing since FDR as much as the GOP to steer this party toward their part of the coalition. Now they seem exactly like the old GOP with some incremental sops for the peasants. This may be something worthy of the grand myopia of an already fading Empire, but not what the citizens of this planet desperately need.
H2O Man
(73,505 posts)I think that the republican party faced a potential Chicago '68 experience, if the establishment had tried to deny Trump the nomination. I do not think that similar dynamics hold for Philadelphia. But your post provides food for thought.
In '68, the young people were protesting against the Democratic Party, as it was without question the "war party." If RFK had not been killed, the "leaders" at Chicago would not have called for the demonstrations. McCarthy, by this time, had shown some personality quirks that suggested he was not entirely serious about his campaign -- including a lack of respect for the anti-war leaders ....of course, he had seen both MLK and RFK killed, and Eugene was not stupid.
The Philadelphia demonstrations are not "anti-Democratic Party." We are the Democratic Party. We aren't coming there to throw bricks from rooftops, or start fires in the streets. We are not coming to disrupt. Rather, we are coming to make an organized statement, in the spirit of Martin Luther King.
I'm still in the middle of my first cup of coffee this morning. I wanted to start a response to your important post now .....and hope others will, as well. I will add more later today. Until then, thank you for raising these very important points.
JEB
(4,748 posts)and is stuck in the quicksand of money. The Progressive and Liberal wing is done compromised out. There will be no magical coming together. It will be up to the nominee to patch together a coalition.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Authoritarian Zealots.
H2O Man
(73,505 posts)The authoritarians all fall under the conservative Democrats; there are zealots among all four of the groups. That word -- "zealot" -- can have either a positive or negative connotation (unlike authoritarian). When connected with "authoritarian," it describes a rigid type of conservative.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)mix of those words.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)classification?
LexVegas
(6,023 posts)H2O Man
(73,505 posts)I think that when he ran in 2008, Senator Obama was a liberal, who was willing to take moderate steps to move the country forward. As president, I think he has achieved many important goals. There are some areas where I disagree with him, of course, but I think that in the context of where our country was when he took over -- which really was in the month before the '08 election -- he ranks as one of the most substantial presidents ever.
If I were to assign "blame" for his failures today, I'd simply point out what I posted on DU early in his presidency. His campaign had created a great force in America. His campaign harnessed that force for the election. However, in part because his staff did not keep the force harnessed, and largely because people stepped back -- incorrectly believing the election was it, and Obama could then take care of business on his own -- and it created a vacuum. The tea party quickly filled that vacuum, while Democrats watched on TV, shaking their heads.
I have a high opinion of President Obama. I hope that Bernie can move the ball forward from where Obama has advanced it. I do not believe Clinton wants to move it in that same direction.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)If Bernie stole the election which is the only way he could get it, I would not vote for him period. He would lose anyway once the swiftboating began. I want nothing to do with Bernie Sanders if he does such a thing...that is dictator like behavior...
G_j
(40,366 posts)in communication and language. I am onboard with your OP.
At this point in my life, for lack of another description, my world view might essentially be seen as Buddhist in nature. In this, I will choose in the GE that choice which I believe will result in the least suffering. I am still hopeful that Sanders can pull through and give me a choice that isn't the best of "two evils". Whatever is in the future, I will keep in mind the suffering of the least among us.