The Democratic Party's Civil War Is Just Getting StartedThe liberal wing of the Democratic Party is gaining strength, and asserting its power.
When Hillary Clinton formally claims the Democratic Partys presidential nomination this summer in Philadelphia, she will inherit a party in the throes of a revolution one in which her side seems likely to lose in the long term.
The upheaval has been decades in the making, as the party has evolved from choosing relative centrist nominees such as Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry over more liberal contenders, to Barack Obama, who positioned himself to the left of Hillary Clinton in 2008. Now, even while Clinton appears set to win the Democratic nomination this year, she has faced an unexpectedly difficult challenge from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the farthest-left Democratic candidate to seriously vie for the nomination in decades.
Around the country, signs are mounting that the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party is gaining strength, and asserting its power. Through April, Sanders, before this race a back-bench senator with little real political power, had raised more money for his presidential contest than the vaunted Clinton machine. Clinton herself has moved to the left, in an effort to head off Sanders.
However, the best way to move the nation's policies to the right is to elect right wing politicians to national office. And the best way to elect right wing politicians to national office is make proposals that are ahead of their time and as yet frightening to too many voters. If I am more progressive than most of my neighbors, it is important to consider that fact when devising a strategy as to the timing of proposing progressive programs to that public. Persuasion can require some patience.
It's lovely to plan out a nice, orderly and slow transition.
But we do not have time for that. Miami will be destroyed by the ocean in my lifetime. Our actions now decide if New Orleans will exist or not. And a nice, orderly and slow transition guarantees it will not. Heck, that might cost us Los Angeles.
We had time for a nice, orderly and slow transition, and we used it to cut regulations, push fracking around the world, and snuggle up to Wall Street in a quixotic attempt to convince Republicans to like us.
You can bash incrementalism all you want. But really really really really wanting something doesn't actually make that something happen. Sometimes, you don't get what you want, and you have to settle for less than you want -- not because you want to, and not because it isn't an "emergency", but simply because you don't have a choice.
I (and most here) would love it if the country's government immediately implemented progressive policies. That doesn't mean I am going to confuse my desires for what is actually feasible, and it certainly doesn't make me implement an objectively irrational strategy that would make all the policies you hate more likely.
So that's something.
appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg one of the most Liberal SCOTUS judges.
She will likely retire or pass away in the next few yrs.
So is that just your screen name or are you a Green Party person?
since most of my goals are to the end of economic reform that she opposes like the good little corporate sell-out she is.
The civil war is coming for a simple, direct reason that Clinton supporters don't seem to grasp. In the words of the crappy 1990s alt-rock band, Deep Blue Something:
No common ground to start from
And we're falling apart
You'll say, the world has come between us
Our lives have come between us
Still I know you just don't care.
I see you, the only one who knew me
But now your eyes see through me
I guess I was wrong
So what now?
It's plain to see we're over
And I hate when things are over
When so much is left undone.♫
It is what it is...we're done. It's not you, it's us. We just don't value or want the same things anymore. (It really is you, Clintonite corporate quislings...We're just being nice and saying we're to blame.) The Democratic "grand coalition" is over because you've forsaken progress in favor of comfortable centrism.
Nader's support dropped by a factor of 10 in 2004, despite a less progressive candidate. That's because it is much harder to act against your own interests when the reality of a previous decision to do so is hurting you on a daily basis. Reality matters, and your description of a supposed "civil war" isn't reality.
I just know that I don't know a whole hell of a lot of people who are willing to accept Hillary's centrist "incrementalism" that progresses our society about half as fast as the GOP can move it to the more-extreme right.
I think there's going to be a wake-up call for you and yours. If not this year, then in 2020 when we lose the WH because you fight like mad to keep a politically-dead Hillary from being primaried.
Not. Burning. Down. My. House. Doesn't. Work.
born the year he died and thanks to a courageous man we were no longer starving and living in hopelessness.
Apparently you do not understand that.
1. How many Democratic congressmen were in office (House and Senate) at the time Social Security was passed?
2. Why did FDR sign a Social Security bill that basically prevented minorities from receiving its benefits?
3. How much economically progressive legislation passed after 1938?
am worried about Hillary and her triangulation is that she will move us further right and we will lose the battle against the corporations forever. They want to sign another treaty. Treaties once signed cannot be easily walked back. I want a person in the WH who will not push us rightward. Even if it means that we do not get anything - we cannot go any further right without going over the cliff.
is justices being appointed who will strike down any progressive legislation for the next 30 years, and then time their retirement so a Republican will choose their replacement (extending the problem for another 30 years).
(And the idea that Trump wouldn't sign treaties that are further right is quite a stretch.)
And that was at the time like three-quarters of African American employment.
That's the point they all seem to miss when they go parading around in their she can get it done fuck-me pumps.
because of the many difficulties that Hillary faces including but not limited to her e-mail problems and because Bernie is the best Democratic candidate to beat Trump.
Should Hillary actually get the nomination, as some of the posters have suggested, I predict that she will have to abandon her incremental approach in the face of natural disasters and other events that she is not preparing to meet and that she will have the support of the American people if she does so.
The movement to the left that the popularity of Bernie demonstrates is not like previous movements to the left. It is not about personal gain. It is not extremely angry; it is the response to extreme threats including environmental threats that Hillary's incrementalism will not be able to deal with adequately.
There is no choice for our country but to move to the left with regard to economics and our environment. Because of climate change and our extreme economic disparity (note the terrible amount of homelessness in cities like Los Angeles), our country will simply have to respond with cooperative policies that would have seemed left-wing 30 years ago.
The libertarian leaning policies that Hillary supporters call incrementalism will become increasingly unpopular as we struggle with heretofore unknown challenges like rising sea levels, animal extinctions, more serious droughts and floods than we have known in recent decades.
The world is changing.
Here in California, our drought has challenged us beyond what we expected as recently as five years ago. We have had to work together and sacrifice to stretch our water resources. Grassy front yards are being replaced one by one with drought-resistant plantings. We are all working together in a quiet way to cope with our increasingly dry weather.
That's just one example of the kind of cooperation that Americans will need to demonstrate in the next few years. Some may call that "left-wing," but in reality, it isn't any kind of wing. It will be a requirement for survival, a tactic that makes working together and recognizing and working for common interests more and more popular.
Sometimes cooperation is the best survival technique. That is the situation now.
Whether she likes it or not, Hillary's incrementalism will prove too little too late, and, if she is elected, she will find herself forced to espouse and implement Bernie's policies because they deal with the reality of the next years and its challenges, not the cozy reality she has known in the past.
Bernie Sanders is supported by people who see and sense this new reality that is coming to us. We will have no choice in the matter if we want to deal with our new reality. We will have to work together in ways we have not wanted to do in the past. We will have no choice. Universal healthcare and drastically reducing student debt are just two tools we will need to use to deal with our increasingly challenging future.
Bernie is so popular because he offers solutions to the problems people are facing. That's why his support base is so young and so determined.
Hillary will soon find herself feeling the Bern. Either Bernie will be the actual nominee or Hillary will have to rely on many of his proposals in order to succeed as president.
You act like there is this big chasm between the policies they support. That is false. The main difference is that Hillary is aware of the limitations of what she can actually accomplish given the opposition, and Bernie pretends not to be.
In the real world, no one takes the idea of a big policy gap between Sanders and Clinton seriously. There is mainly a gap between a realistic assessment of what can be accomplished, and an unrealistic assessment that caters to people who don't believe in the concept of not being able to get what they want.
bully pulpit to advocate for the right policies, not just the achievable policies.
Part of the job of the president is to inspire the country toward greater morality in public policy.
Bernie is up to that part of the job as well as to the organizational part of the job. He proved that when he was mayor of Burlington. He has demonstrated his ability to work with Republicans and conservative Democrats always forwarding the highest ideals while in the House and Senate.
Read his book, and you will learn what his philosophy of government is. It is much better than that of the Clintons. He doesn't just say, "It Takes a Village." He says, "Let's Build a Village that Enables Us All to Achieve Our Best."
Bill Clinton moved into the White House in 1993. The next president will move into the White House in 2017. That will be 24 years from Bill Clinton's moving into the White House. Think of what 24 years has meant in history. 1940 -- WWII to 1964 -- the election of LBJ. In that time, there was the Korean War and Sputnik and the space age began.
Another 24 year period was between 1980 and 2004. The internet was born. That birth changed our world.
What have the last 24 years brought? Climate change and the effect of fossil fuels and global warming have disrupted a natural balance in our environment. We will have to seriously deal with that in the next four years or face many difficulties for which we are not prepared.
I view those who support Hillary's incremental approach to many of our problems as fearful and unrealistic. We are going to have to be much more honest about limitations and our social interdependence in the coming years. Bernie is willing to talk about how we can move into the future. Hillary is still talking about a world that no longer exists, a reality that is the past.
That's why I support Bernie. We need universal healthcare. We must move the world toward the peaceful resolution of border, religious, ethnic, racial and gender disputes and the appreciation of our differences. That will take patience and a more spiritual approach than Hillary demonstrates that she is capable of. She is an incrementalist, but a very impatient one. It's just her nature. Bernie talks of revolution but is by nature a very patient person.
I think Bernie is what we need now. He will probably be our next president somehow.
And Bernie is not part of the corruption. That is what draws many of his voters to him. Hillary on the other hand, is smack dab in the middle of all the corruption. Doesn't mean she is an evil person. I don't think that at all. It's just the fishbowl of corruption that she lives in. Her fundraising dinners that cost what to most Americans are astronomical funds, are proof of that. $2700 at $7.25 an hour is over 370 hours of work -- over 9 forty-hour weeks of work. At $27 per hour, it is 100 hours of work or over 2.5 forty-hour weeks of work. When she holds fundraisers and the donations are $2700 per guest or even table, she is not raising money from ordinary Americans. She is excluding a lot of working people from her table. The unions may back her, but the rank and file union members in most unions couldn't afford the crumbs from the tables at one of her fundraisers.
That's corruption. Because people who can afford to give $2700 to a candidate expect something in return, something that may not benefit the person earning $7.25 or even $27 per hour. And the fact that she continues to receive money from these very generous donors tells us that the people who can afford those kinds of donations feel confident that they are going to get from her what it is that they want in return for that money. That is corruption.
I've met 23 of our House and Senate candidates; most of them won't meet your exacting specifications.
through the TPP, TTIP, TISA, etc. are even closer on the horizon. And, in fact, the second installment of the 2008 financial meltdown is still closer on the horizon (very close on the horizon). Time's running out a lot faster, unfortunately, than enough people realize. History's full of such tragedies.
the tide in the other direction. Look at the damage done in the process. Meantime, Michigan could very well go Trump this fall.
The election of Republicans like Snyder moves states like Michigan to the right. If you want to see progressive policies, you need to elect progressive politicians. If Trump is elected, our nation's policies will shift toward the right. That is why you should support Clinton in the fall. Yes, that seems obvious because it is obvious.
An outcome of, say, 52 percent (Trump) to 46 percent (Hillary) would be required for Donald Trump to win the U.S. Popular Vote in order to feasibly win over Michigan.
has continued without interference for another 4-8 years? After more people fall into poverty?
How long can we wait?
The question for you is what you think you should do because of your opposition to TPP.
that is done. But I can do one more thing - elect Bernie and his veto pen. Of course my guess it that the TPA does not allow a veto but if we can keep Obama from getting it passed Bernie would never push for its approval.
Who supports TPP wherever she goes ...
Except when she runs for President against a Senator from Vermont, then she is against it ...
That kinda wishy washy-ness is quite unappealing ...
But that's where you come in - flush with Brockian cash, and ready to fight the good fight are ya? ... Promoting one specific candidate as 'progressive' when clearly she is not ...
So, you are done as far as I am concerned ... Gone with the rest of them ...
the right. Moving right is not a step toward the left, in any way.
And I am not of the view that life will not be worth living without a President Sanders. With time, I hope that for your own good you can come to share my view on that. I recognize that it's entirely possible that your suffering will never end. But, I am hopeful.
Clinton is plenty progressive. She is just more capable than Sanders at actually achieving progressive goals.
Oh...fuck, you're serious...aren't you? I never can tell with statements as delusional as calling Hillary "progressive."
Hillary couldn't identify a progressive policy if it stole her wallet and keys while wearing a day-glo yellow track suit, sneakers with LEDs in the heels, a rainbow afro wig and "2006!" NYE sunglasses and showed up to the police line-up in the same outfit.
Scary that you don't see that. Hillary was one of the most liberal Senators in Congress. Ask a right winger if they think she is one of them.
onto the only political movement worth a damn in 2016. BTW: Hillary isn't going to be the Democratic candidate in 2016, or ever again. She's going to be fired for violating her security clearance.
when he finally chose Grant to head the Union Army.
The Democratic Party has a choice either stay back on its heels and embrace incremental-ism or stand up for the people and take the fight to the Republicans' and their toxic core ideology.
Until you get an actual leader for this revolution, it's incrementalism all the way. Sanders is not that leader, as proven by the fact that he has fewer endorsements than Ted Cruz. You can't build bridges by burning them down.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
as voters grow older, their political views tend to evolve in the light of experience and changing economic interests. The electorate is certainly leaning left over the longer term but it's a mistake to assume that voter preferences stay fixed over a lifetime; evidence suggests otherwise. I predict America will move to the left but still remain fairly centrist in economic terms.
Generally, if a person's politics is going to evolve...it occurs by the age of 24. After that, they're fairly static economically...and only appear to move towards conservatism because they achieve their own progressive wildest dreams and goals that are built upon by later generations to move social progress further still.
You believe you're fairly progressive, right? You probably actually are...now think what you think of as being extreme. (Perhaps poly-marriage? People who believe they're animal souls trapped in human bodies? Clone rights?) Those are the progressive causes your children will likely champion. Hell, when I was 20...the director of HRC optimistically predicted that marriage equality would occur in my children's lifetimes. I'm 36. At the same time...trans-equality wasn't even hardly a concept.
They took it over by running candidates in and voting in primaries for every race from dog catcher up and volunteering to run local party infrastructure.
We are FDR Democrats, and we will prevail ...
The GOP and the right wing quisling Democrats have set the table by destroying the Middle Class ...
We are trying very hard to make it happen this year, but, the movement has just begun, and there are many in the electorate who have had enough, and are ready for a new phase in the national politic ...
It's time to do what's right, and not just triangulate to win office . ...
we will take it our way. And if the Dems refute us, we will move on.
...I'm going to take great pleasure in the epic fail of this anti-Democratic effort.