The legacy of "The Left"

[auntpurl]

Last edited Thu Jul 28, 2016, 09:05 AM - Edit history (1)

Those of you who want to defend the convention protestors (I certainly won't call them Bernie supporters, because it seems like the vast majority of Bernie supporters want to disavow these people and distance themselves from this mess) for their right to free speech, their right to their convictions, etc, let me tell you what I see, and what I think a lot of the rest of the world sees.

The problem "The Left" (and I'm using that on purpose in quotation marks like that because what I'm talking about is the IMAGE the left carries for most people) has ALWAYS had is pragmatic people edging away from them going, "Ooh, that seems a little extreme, I'd rather not." OR, "You mean those granola hippies? No thanks". And MANY people are pragmatic, middle-of-the-roaders. So much so that they put Michael Bloomberg, a former Republican, on the stage of the DNC last night in prime time for a Trump takedown.

So "The Left" can't organise and they can't win anything, not even dogcatcher, because they can't build a strong base. The Greens can't win anything. They have no power. This is not necessarily because the Greens' positions are unattractive to lots of people. It's more because they attract the sort of fringe elements that have no sense of EFFECTIVE intervention. Not appropriate (as in "Oh, it's not appropriate to scream over a speaker at the DNC who is trying to take Trump DOWN&quot , but EFFECTIVE (as in "when is the most opportune time for us to get our message heard AND not turn off millions of people to our cause?&quot .

I, personally, will NEVER forget the fact the the actions of these protestors throughout the convention have made it easier for Trump to win. No matter how much or how little you take them seriously, the net result was negative. I KNOW I am not alone in feeling that way.

So what happens next? I know that I, personally, will be MORE inclined to CLOSED primaries, superdelegates to save us from idiots, and never again letting a populist who just became a Democrat run on the Democratic ticket.

And that is a SHAME. Because what Bernie did was marry his populist message with a long history of political savvy. What he's got that the young people who followed him DON'T have is a history in politics and a knowledge of history, period. So he was able to promote his message in a way that appealed to middle of the roaders as well as the "The Left".

"The Left" has now left Bernie behind. They don't understand or respect compromise. They don't understand or respect political reality. They genuinely think that if Trump burns the whole thing down, somehow out of the ashes will rise...the Peace-loving Left? When was the last time THAT happened at the end of a fascist rule? I mean, seriously, how on earth do these people think somehow THEY'RE going to end up with the reins of power? That is NOT what happens when you elect a dangerous demagogue to the highest office!

They are hurting Bernie's legacy, and I feel sad for the millions and millions of Bernie supporters who are still WITH HIM, all the way to the voting booth in November to vote for Hillary. Because those TRUE Bernie supporters are reasonable people who've lost a battle but are NOT prepared to lose the war. They want to continue with Bernie's revolution, and elect progressives at ALL levels of political office. But will they get the support they need on the local level after this display at the DNC? Will they be tarred with the same brush? I hope not. But I fear so.

This is not a bash on Bernie, but I DO think he bears some responsibility here. He was caught between a rock and a hard place, but I wish he'd found a more effective way to speak to these young people and try to make them see reality. But the other responsibility Bernie bears is that he spent the whole primary telling them that Hillary was a corporate tool. It's hard for them to make the transition because of those words that Bernie spoke many times.

The difference between "The Left" and the ACTUAL left is huge. But the media is lumping them ALL together. *I* am on the left! But these people are not on my side. I'm not with them. I am embarrassed for my party because they are doing what they're doing. That makes me MUCH less likely to want to support them later. I know I am one of thousands or millions who feel the same way. And that makes us MORE likely to move toward the status quo, not less.

[NurseJackie]

1. Wow. Nicely written, Auntpurl. It covers everything. Perfect!

[auntpurl]

4. Thank you.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. Consider this an almost Rec

I agree with a great deal of what you have written here. I do take exception though to this comment of yours about Bernie Sanders: " he spent the whole primary telling them that Hillary was a liar and a corporate tool". No he did not. I am having a hard time even thinking of an instance of Bernie accusing Hillary of being a liar, or anything close to that. It was a long campaign, there were some heated moments and no doubt you can find something that roughly matches that description, but certainly not an entire campaign of it. Regarding accusations of being a corporate tool, Bernie focused on the corrupting influence of money in politics, claiming (and I think rightly so) that corporate interests don't pump hundreds of millions of dollars into the campaign and personal coffers of political parties and politicians believing that they will gain nothing for it in return. It that were so they would stop. Bernie didn't say Hillary was corrupt, he said the system is.

[auntpurl]

3. I hear you, and I have removed the "liar" part from my OP.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I would also like to add that, as a fervent Hillary supporter, I REALLY WANT to get money out of politics! I just don't want our side to disarm first. I want EVERYONE to be on the same level playing field, and I want that field to be corporate money OUT of politics.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Thank you. OK, close enoiugh for a Rec then :)

I still disagree that Bernie was accusing Hillary of being a corporate tool, it's more the point that corporations have been making our political parties tools for their own interests through the corrupting influence of money in politics. But a case can be made that implicit in the Sanders campaign was a belief that accepting huge amounts of money from ruling financial interests in some way compromises those who are either forced to or choose to do so. I think that is what you are referring to. If nothing else it offers the appearance of a conflict of interest, whether or not actual influence is being peddled. In law, the appearance of a conflict of interest is often grounds to demand that a judge recuse him or herself from a case. In politics however, under the prevailing model of campaign finances, if that standard were to apply most of our elected representatives would be unable to govern on most issues.

I understand and appreciate your position on getting money out of politics. It is something, minimally, that all Democrats should be able to unite around.

[rjsquirrel]

5. Brava auntpurl!

The far left not only can't win and never wins elections. They are our equivalent of the tea party, irrationally willing to break everything good because they can't get their way in an election.

This is why radical Marxists, anarchists, and right wing Fascists are all the same.

[auntpurl]

10. Well, as I did in my OP, I want to make a distinction

between "The Left" and the ACTUAL left, which I think many of us here are a part of. We on the Left want to make a difference in people's lives. "The Left", like the Tea Party, wants to tear everything down. It's really unproductive.

[TDale313]

6. Tired of the hippie punching.

Should have put you on ignore a while ago.

[NurseJackie]

8. Oh, brother.

[auntpurl]

11. That is literally the opposite of the point I was making.

Congrats, I guess.

[forjusticethunders]

25. "Hippie punching"

You guys just love to make up buzzwords to deflect any reasonable criticism. There can't possibly be tactical, organizational and attitudinal problems within leftism, no sir!

And this is why we're losing and this is why we're going to KEEP losing until this mentality goes away.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

7. Well written

I sometimes wish the USA had a parliamentary system in place instead of our "winner take all" plurality system which naturally promotes only two major parties (or less) to achieve victory. Given your avatar flag, you might have some ideas about that.

[auntpurl]

14. The parliamentary system has its own problems

Case in point: the election a few years ago when the Conservatives won with a slight majority but the LibDems (basically the opposite of the Conservatives) won enough seats that they had to form a coalition government. Which meant David Cameron and Nick Clegg had to pretend to work together. It was a disaster. Cameron strong-armed the whole thing and because Clegg couldn't be effective, the LibDems lost almost ALL their seats in the next GE and are basically a non-entity at this point.

The other thing to remember about the British system is that they don't elect a PM in the way the US elects a president. They vote for their local MPs (like Congress members) and the party that gets the most seats chooses the PM. Now, generally people know who the leader of the party is and therefore who will be PM, but it's a bit different from voting for a specific person. It reduces the personality politics nature of it all. Whether or not that is a good thing - I'm not sure. But look at the Conservatives right now. When they voted in the GE last year, they were ostensibly voting for Cameron. Now, a year later, they've got Theresa May. There are no guarantees.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

16. Thanks for your reply

I knew the choice of PM is similar to how "Speaker of the House" is picked here.

I suppose it still boils down to various factions making concessions and agreements with other groups, even if the USA had something more similar to a parliamentary form of government.

[auntpurl]

19. There are more choices here, and more "viable" choices

but you'll notice that either Labour or the Tories has won every election since...well, I can't think of the last one that wasn't won by one of the two parties. I"m not as up on my Brit political history as I should be, but I still think it's a rare occurrence in modern times. So I think people tend to gravitate toward a two-party system even when they're not forced into it.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

21. This is a long article

... about American politics and how it "went insane" that you might like. I'm not sure. I've tended to be a populist, but the article opened my eyes about some of the old ways of running government in this country that maybe weren't all bad.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/

[Starry Messenger]

12. They aren't the real left, fortunately.

They are isolating themselves.

[auntpurl]

17. Whether they are or not (I don't know what's in someone's heart)

they are hurting their cause and could end up hurting EVERYONE in this country and the world.

[Starry Messenger]

29. I don't think they can organize their way out of a paper bag.

Time will tell, but I think this will fizzle out soon.

[Armstead]

13. There is some truth in that, but you are WAY overgeneralizing

Dismissing "the Left" is the road to perdition.

Yes, there are aspects and people in the left who are immature morons, and dreamy goofballs. But two points:

There are also many people in "the left" who have very liberal and progressive views, but are also pragmatic, temperamentally moderate and mainstream in their behavior.

However, people DON'T PAY ATTENTION when "the left" is polite, cerebral and "well behaved." Occupy Wall Street were kind of goofy, but they DID draw attention to a core problem and helped to bring it to mainstream attention.

Also, protest is as American as apple pie. It is annoying when protests are directed against things you (generically) believe in or public figures you support. Just ask Bernie supporters about the protests BLM directed against him at the beginning of the primary.

Dismissing "the left" by becoming more authoritarian and closing off participation is only going to accomplish ONE THING. It will cement conservatism, the status quo, and perpetuate authoritarian government. It stifles democracy.

People are diverse. Life is messy. Overgeneralizing about the behavior of SOME people to dismiss those larger legitimate goals and values is only going to make the problems worse, and make construction solutions more difficult to achieve.

To paraphrase an old saying "Those who make reform impossible make strong protest inevitable."

[auntpurl]

20. The only way I can reply is to say

they are helping Donald Trump win. That is...there is no excuse for that. There just isn't. The world is watching with knots in their stomachs. I know, I live somewhere else, and I know how people are feeling. US elections are front page headlines everywhere in the world because we control so much world policy.

And when I say "they", I am talking SPECIFICALLY about the protestors at the convention. NOT the left in general!

It's not that I believe or don't believe in what they are protesting about. It's that they are helping Trump win. If the media continues to show the Democratic party as a divided, disorganised mess, and our candidate as someone who can't even win the support of her own party members (which is NOT the case, but the media is scouring that convention hall looking for disaffected young people who want to air their grievances in front of a camera), independents and other people who don't pay that much attention to politics are going to look at us and say, "They do not look like they have their shit together. They can't even run a convention; what makes them think they can run the country? I'm voting for the law and order guy."

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. As to your basic point

I suspect if you and I ever had the opportunity and pleasure of sitting down for a long talk, we would agree on many points and still have some differences between us on others. Nothing unusual about that. I praise you for writing this OP because of the subject you introduced for discussion. How does a radical indictment of the status quo galvanize a governing majority of Americans to march beneath that banner? Pulling that off is the difference between victory and essential social change on one hand, and defeat and the continued hollowing out of America on the other.

For too many decades now we have erred, whether by design or fear, on the side of blandness - and the dangerous repercussions of that are all around us. But there have always been too many on the Left who show an enduring difficulty to engage with most Americans where they, for whatever reasons, currently stand - and too often that results in should be allies to our cause being repelled by rather than drawn toward it.

I am proud of Bernie Sanders for showing such leadership and courage in trying to thread that difficult needle, and doing so so astonishingly well, given how far short so many others have fallen in that quest before him. And I unhesitatingly support his endorsement of Hilary Clinton at this stage in this election.

[auntpurl]

22. It's always a tough question but

to your question "How does a radical indictment of the status quo galvanize a governing majority of Americans to march beneath that banner?" I mean, Bernie basically DID THAT. So much of his platform is now the Dem platform! I think most people, even Hillary dislikers, have to admit that there has rarely if ever been such a spirit of compromise between the victor and her vanquished opponent. Bernie himself said the Democratic party has the most progressive platform it has EVER run on. If Hillary wins mainstream America, pragmatic, middle of the road America on THIS platform, then all of those progressive policies are legitimised. And even if you think the worst of her, that she is a scheming opportunist, Bernie's success has given her political cover. Even if you think she's the head counselor at Camp Weathervane, she will see that there is popular support for these ideas and she will seize that opportunity.

The left has the best shot at getting progressive reform that they've had in MANY years, and they are setting themselves on fire.

[Tatiana]

18. The state of California has been taken over and is run by what used to be "The Left."

And they're doing quite fabulously. Things are so fantastic that they have two Democrats running for a Senate seat. Many of those running California were considered fringe at one time, but now they're quite mainstream in that state. Remember "Governor Moonbeam?"

Some of the people disrupting were certainly out of line and not representative of the Democratic party or Bernie Sanders. However, it saddens me to see the denial of many here -- more than a few of those people protesting ARE Democrats. They are actual members of this party who took an active role at the municipal, county, and state level of Democratic politics. And they've been begging for things like the public option, free tuition, fairer trade deals, etc. for years.

No one listened to them really. They kept voting for Democrats, yet their ideas never seemed to make it to The Platform.

Along comes Bernie Sanders. And he says not only should we be relieving your student debt, we should make sure no one who goes to college has debt arising from tuition. He says college should be free. Hmmm... sounds radical except they do it in many European nations quite successfully.

There was certainly a standard of professional courtesy that should have been extended to some of our speakers. But Panetta needed to hear that there is opposition to warmongering. Our DOD and State Department need to understand that if we make the decision to invade another nation, it damn well better be for a good reason (such as the defense of this country).

The President needed to hear that people strongly oppose TPP. It will certainly lead to the loss of US jobs and we probably will find it even harder to find any stitch of clothing made in America. TPP is a race to the bottom for the American labor force and the President needs to be confronted with that fact because he is accountable to the American public.

The protesters took the best opportunity they would likely ever have to deliver their message and have it heard by others who might also hold the same beliefs. Yes, it looked messy, but I can't be mad at the protesters because ultimately dissent is one of the highest forms of patriotism.

In his famous "Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death" speech, American Revolutionary Patrick Henry offered these words:

Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of Heaven which I revere above all earthly kings.

Yes, some of the protesters were simply disruptors. But others have a legitimate beef with their governance and expressed it. Just like BLM, it doesn't look pretty because it's not supposed to. The goal is to generate discomfort that leads to actions that address the issue of concern.

We're big enough as Democrats to handle protest. In fact, it should be part of our political DNA.

[auntpurl]

23. Thank you for your reply, great post.

I understand and I hear you with everything you say, but I can only reply the way I did to Armstead above:

They are helping Donald Trump win. That is...there is no excuse for that. There just isn't. The world is watching with knots in their stomachs. I know, I live somewhere else, and I know how people are feeling. US elections are front page headlines everywhere in the world because we control so much world policy.

And when I say "they", I am talking SPECIFICALLY about the protestors at the convention. NOT the left in general!

It's not that I believe or don't believe in what they are protesting about. It's that they are helping Trump win. If the media continues to show the Democratic party as a divided, disorganised mess, and our candidate as someone who can't even win the support of her own party members (which is NOT the case, but the media is scouring that convention hall looking for disaffected young people who want to air their grievances in front of a camera), independents and other people who don't pay that much attention to politics are going to look at us and say, "They do not look like they have their shit together. They can't even run a convention; what makes them think they can run the country? I'm voting for the law and order guy."

[Tatiana]

30. I understand your concerns and I think we agree.

Trump must be stopped at all costs. Anyone who says they will vote for Trump is not a member of any "left." They are giving aid and comfort to a "home grown demagogue."

Agent provocateurs have been participants in every major movement for social and economic justice. I don't think this is an exception. Because of the poor leadership at the DNC, our local democratic parties often don't have the resources to do the proper vetting of delegates. I have been shocked to learn from members of other states on this board how their states go about sending delegates. There is a much more stringent process in Illinois (which has a stronger and financially rich Democratic party).

That process of vetting has to be improved and the resources have to be allocated to do so. But even then, even with a closed primary, we still have to address the issues brought forth by honest protesters (who will vote for Clinton). Illinois cast 74 votes for Bernie Sanders at the convention. I know several of those delegates for Bernie and they're long-time Democrats.

The party (and its candidates) have got to start being responsive to the people. And the protesters have made a difference. Democrats like Terry McAuliffe are thrilled with TPP and realize it represents a financial boon to investors, retailers, and other members of the monied and business sectors. But Hillary has refused support of TPP, in spite of the fact that I'm sure she's receiving a lot of pressure to support it. I hope she sticks to her guns.

The Clinton stance on TPP shows the actions of the "Left" are making a difference. It also shows that Hillary has the strength, intelligence and fortitude to do what's right even when she disagrees with her own party insiders.

[auntpurl]

35. Yes, we do agree.

And I also agree that we should be responsive to Democrats who have legitimate concerns. So far, Hillary has seemed more willing to compromise than any candidate I can think of, in terms of the compromises she went for with the platform and making sure Bernie had a HUGE stage at the convention. The stories that people who know her well told of her at the convention, suggest that she is someone who listens, takes advice, and is willing to allow other people to have ideas and express them clearly, even when they disagree with her.

I'm glad DWS is out. I want someone effective as hell heading the DNC. I want the Obama Coalition AND a 50 state strategy! (I don't ask for much, do I?) I want people registering voters in Texas and Georgia and even Utah. These are states that conventional wisdom says we can't win, but demographics and the cry for social change suggests we WILL win, and soon.

Thanks for all your thoughts, and a good conversation.

Edited to add: The article posted below, which I thought was wonderful: http://peoplesworld.org/the-left-needs-to-stop-self-marginalizing/

[JaneyVee]

24. The new left are not good at organizing and give up too quickly.

They want instant gratification without putting in the work.

[auntpurl]

27. I suspect all young people always have felt that way

Impatient for change. But I think there have been political movements in the past where those young people, while impatient, had a stronger sense of history and the art of the possible. They marched and yelled and protested about the Vietnam war, but they didn't give up. They kept going even when they were tear-gassed and beaten. They knew it was going to be a long hard slog. I don't think the young people protesting at that convention hall have a clue about the history of this country, of politics, or of our party, as evidenced by the fact that they booed Elijah Cummings. Sorry, but that is not helping your cause, people.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. "Hey hey, LBJ, How many kids did you kill today!"

I turned 18 in those days. "Question Authority" pins hadn't even been dreamed up yet back then, but still we were defiant. Many of us young folk at the time had no more real sense of history than younger generations of American do now, often less so. It took me years, in some ways decades, for me to fully appreciate the history of Organized Labor in this country. Back then, more often than not, Teamsters and Construction worker hard hats for Nixon came to mind when Unions were thought of at all.

Talk about being unrealistic? How about the large percentage of students back then who honestly thought a violent but magically painless Revolution would shortly overtake America and set us firmly on the path to Peace and Love?

The Democratic Convention is not even over yet. It is way too soon to assume that many of the even most extreme protesters there will not find constructive ways to channel their fervent desire for positive change over the long haul.

I think both the Clinton and Sanders campaigns have skillfully managed the effort to unite our efforts against Trump.

[tonyt53]

26. Yeah, pretty much sums it up perfectly.

[auntpurl]

32. Thanks nt

[forjusticethunders]

28. I think you might like this article

http://peoplesworld.org/the-left-needs-to-stop-self-marginalizing/

[auntpurl]

31. Yeah, wow, this is amazing.

Much better said than I could manage! I particularly liked these bits about what the left needs to change to stop self-marginalising:

* A habit of looking for political purity which might exist in theory, but has never found a place in broad coalitions - the only reliable vehicle of social change - where people of varied views and interests gather, contest their views, but in the end struggle against a common foe.

* A penchant to elaborate tactics - that is demands, forms of struggle, attitudes toward compromise and alliances, and so on - apart from a concrete estimate of the balance of class and social forces at any given moment.

and especially

* An underestimation of the importance of the fight for equality in general and racial equality in particular. The search for common ground and a common program of action is not in contradiction with the fight for equality. In fact, the common ground will be wider, deeper and more durable to the degree the broader movement vigorously fights for equality in all of its forms.

[forjusticethunders]

33. We actually have a model for what coalition politics can do: The "Front Populaire" of the 30s/40s.

Not only did a coalition of liberals, socialists, communists and even enlightened conservatives like Winston Churchill build the robust welfare states of the West and greatly advance labor rights, they also managed to defeat global fascism on the side. Sadly it fell apart after the war but there was a real hope that this coalition could actually endure and create a better world.

[auntpurl]

36. You might need a Hitler to fight against to make people come together like that

But who knows? You might not.

[Orsino]

37. I think it's silly to worry about them.

After the shitshow of the RNC and the ongoing failheap that is the Trump campaign, some booing and chanting that have steadily grown weaker in Philly don't concern me. Not a bit. A month from now, they won't be remembered--and some of them will even have tacitly joined us. There are plenty of candidates running at all levels who heed broad support.

Let's worry less about punishing dissent and more about G'ing-O-T-fucking-V.

[auntpurl]

38. I've been phone-banking for Hillary all afternoon between work

It's so easy, and yes you can do it from other countries if you've got free calls to the US!

[Orsino]

43. I guess it's time tor me to put up...

...and NOT shut up. Thanks for your efforts.

[TransitJohn]

39. What do we want? Gradual incremental change!

When do we want it? In due course!

[klook]

46. "Where are we going?!" "PLANET TEN!!"

"When?"

"REAL SOON!!"

?t=1m10s

[Bluenorthwest]

40. Here is a fact. The radical fringe started warning you all about Trump decades ago.

What if the 'moderates' had listened to those warnings instead of making a golf date with 'The Donald' and legitimizing him for all of those years? Was it better to sneer at the 'militant homosexuals' than to listen to them?
Same thing with AIDS, the 'moderates' were presiding over the most deadly public health crisis of our times. Over 30,000 Americans had died before the powerful stopped sneering at the activists who were warning them. So far over 650,000 American deaths, still about 100,000 a month in Africa. Bill Clinton does lots of AIDS work in Africa, Bill got confronted and motivated by activists while running in 1992 and it changed him for the better.
1964 DNC saw protests by the Mississippi Freedom Party seeking to have their delegates seated. The 'moderates' and those in power sneered and pushed back. Today we mock the GOP for blinding whiteness but in 1964 DNC was all white and fighting to remain that way.

Some protests might be wrong headed, some might be poorly timed but also, some protests are the very fabric and thread that weaves our democracy together. So I tend to give activists a grain of salt and look at those sneering at them with a great deal of skepticism because that sneer is the same sneer from '64 and '68 and '88 and '92. I'd rather be wrong in a protest than be sneering at the future.

[JCanete]

41. Cool, so what you're saying is you are fine with the media's characterization of the left

and that you are even going to help pile on, and somehow conveniently forget that that makes you part of the problem. You're the one buying into the messaging, and now you're helping to ridicule and demonize "the left." How can you not see that?

[Avalux]

42. I know you're afraid of how the media and voters are viewing the protesters.

It's understandable, given what's at stake but it's not going to matter much in the long run. Even though you believe the protesters are doing damage and helping Trump they're not.

My advice? Take the lead of those who are moving forward and let it go. Bernie has and so have most of his supporters like me - god knows I did my fair share of Hillary bashing in the primary. The Democratic Party is stronger because of his campaign and Hillary will benefit come election day. Even Obama pointed this out.

It's going to be ok, really. We're going to kick Trump's ass come November - together.

[JoePhilly]

44. K&R

[jalan48]

45. Hillary supporters-it's time to turn the page. Focus on Trump, he's the real problem.