Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
Fri Dec 2, 2016, 11:27 AM Dec 2016

How about we try a "reverse role play".

At risk of oversimplifying, there are currently two factions here: let's call them "Berners" and "Hillers." Even though the primaries are long gone, it still seems to me that these two groups exist, and it goes beyond primary preferences. The "Hillers" by and large think that the party of Obama/Hillary has the right values and policies, and the "Berners" by and large think that we should move in more economically populist direction, and less emphasis in identity politics. Yes, it's an oversimplification ("there are two kinds of people in the world, those who try to divide people into two groups, and those who don't&quot , but you gotta start somewhere.

Anyway, it is my contention that we really have a lot more in common than it seems right now. On policy issues, there are certain notable points of contention (trade comes to mind), but by and large we want the same things. All of us want both social and economic justice.

So here's an idea. I am a Hiller, but I'm going to do my honest non-snarky best to describe what Berners are thinking/feeling. Basically as an exercise in trying to see things from a different point of view. I'm probably going to get some of it wrong, so I welcome any corrections. I also welcome anyone else in either group, or neither group, to try the same thing. Maybe it will help us understand each other and come together.

Here goes.


Around 1990, an influential group of Democratic Party insiders and think tanks came up with the idea of moving the party to the right economically. And it worked electorally, at least for a little while. Problem is, once the DLC got in charge, they went and did all the stuff that Republicans had wanted to do for years. Cut welfare. Embrace race-to-the-bottom globalization. Imprison lots of people. Deregulate banks. And so on. As a result of that, working people suffered, and felt betrayed.

It didn't help that, while selling out the working class to corporations, coastal liberals turned their emphasis to identity politics, patting themselves on the back about how socially enlightened they were, telling white people to recognize their privilege. To an average white worker who's factory moved to Mexico, this is a double slap in the face.

2000 should have been a wakeup call. Yeah, it was stolen, but come on, how do you lose to W? The guy is obviously an idiot. Well, I'll tell you how you lose. Eight years of pushing policies that hurt working people. Did the Dems wake up after that? No. They stuck with centrist, pro-business Dems.

2008 was supposed to be "Hope and Change", as Obama's soaring rhetoric led Dems to control the White House and both chambers. But then... Banks were bailed out, underwater homeowners not. No talk of single payer, instead a plan created by the Heritage Foundation. Big new trade deals. Continuous pointless wars.

So then comes the 2016 primary. Bernie Sanders, the candidate of a lifetime. One of the few who never, ever bought any of the DLC-Third Way stuff. Never budged from a principled progressive stance on anything -- he was a gay rights advocate in the 80s and before, long before any politician would even touch the issue.

And it was totally obvious that the electorate wanted Bernie. A 70-year-old socialist with a Brooklyn accent was filling stadiums! He started out with zero name recognition, and pretty soon he was out-raising Hillary effing Clinton!

What happened next was infuriating. Before the campaign even started, something like 90% of elected Democrats had already endorsed Hillary. Why? How about letting the voters get to know the candidates before the party machine puts its foot on the scale. The DNC makes the absurd decision to limit debates, favoring the already known candidate over the others. Did I mention that the DNC was run by an incompetent centrist who was a big surrogate for Hillary in 2008?

Then there was the corporate media. Pretty soon everyone and their sister on MSNBC/NYT/whatever is talking about how Bernie's plans are "unrealistic" and oh yeah he just might be racist because he said that people shouldn't vote only based on their ethnicity. I'm being called a "Bernie Bro". The DNC is leaking debate questions to Hillary and speculating on how to use Bernie's Jewishness against him.

And it worked, Hillary got the nomination. And then she lost to Trump. The DNC and the party insiders forced on us the single person who could to lose to Donald Trump. At the end of the primaries, Bernie was leading Trump by like 15, Hillary was barely ahead. Hillary didn't inspire anyone, Bernie was filling stadiums. Hillary had way too much baggage -- sure, some of it wasn't her fault, but guess what, life isn't fair. You don't nominate such an obviously weak candidate simply because it's only partially her fault that she's so disliked by so many people.

Is the Democratic Party finally going to wake up? Are we done with this third-way stuff? Because if not, it's going to be a very long time in the wilderness. We've gone from a party that said "I welcome their hatred" to robber barons to a party that says "thank you for the millions in speaking fees". As Bernie said, "enough is enough."

But instead I keep reading about how it's Bernie's fault. Really?! Bernie forced her to use a private server? Bernie was behind the decades-long attacks on Hillary from the GOP? Bernie made her vote for the Iraq War? Bernie made her change her mind 279 times on NAFTA, and TPP, and everything else?


10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Ninga

(8,275 posts)
1. Most of us are still in mourning. Your OP has some good points and some unnessary sniping
Fri Dec 2, 2016, 11:32 AM
Dec 2016

that at this point, is counterproductive. I would hope you would edit out those sections. Thank you in advance.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
2. Your "oversimplification" is simply wrong. The problems are deeper, far more complex, and ...
Fri Dec 2, 2016, 11:44 AM
Dec 2016

.... encompass a lot more than you identify.

I stopped reading when the errors in your OP were too numerous to ignore.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
4. This is where I bailed:
Fri Dec 2, 2016, 11:58 AM
Dec 2016
The "Hillers" by and large think that the party of Obama/Hillary has the right values and policies, and the "Berners" by and large think that we should move in more economically populist direction, and less emphasis in identity politics.

I know I speak for a huge segement of the "Hillers" when I say that a) HRC was not a perfect candidate -- divisive, polarizing,etc -- but we trusted the trajectory she established over the years and b) a large segment of the Sanders crowd spent all their time telling the rest of us the we weren't true progressives (I was called a neo-con at least one hundred times during the primaries).

Those attitudes carry on today at DU with big-mouthed "bros" draped in horrible attitudes who continue to attack HRC and her supporters.

Do we have a lot in common with these insufferable losers*? Who really cares? I really don't want to associate with them or their counterparts on the right.

=============
*Keep in mind that most Bernie supporters are fine and have moved on. But the number of whiney, pouting, abusive jackasses is too large to ignore.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
5. Just to be clear, I'm a Hiller.
Fri Dec 2, 2016, 12:01 PM
Dec 2016

Yeah I agree she was not a perfect candidate. But I also think that Obama has been a great president and Hillary would have been a great president, which is what I meant when I said "the party of Obama/Hillary has the right values and policies."

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
7. I was not putting you in any categories, and your OP was objective.
Fri Dec 2, 2016, 12:27 PM
Dec 2016

I just felt if didn't adequately capture the ongoing divisions.

Time heals most wounds, and the presence of Trump at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave will be a unifying factor.

R B Garr

(16,950 posts)
6. Here's my summation or how I read the political cues for right or wrong:
Fri Dec 2, 2016, 12:15 PM
Dec 2016

Third Way = LET'S GET ELECTED. Nothing else matters. Duh.

Clinton economics - It's the Economy Stupid. To beat the Republicans at the smear that Democrats are only tax and spend, Bill C. went right at them with his fiscal plans, but in the meantime alienated some of the base to accomplish this. I took it as a long game, which it was. Like paying off a credit card, you eliminate some programs until such time until the debt is paid. That resulting surplus would have been handed off to Al Gore who actually had a brilliant mind for global politics!

Then came Nader. Oh, and Al Gore was kinda nerdy. And his voice... And he wore khakis.

Obama did all he could to clean up Bush's wars and the pillaging of the economy.

Then came Sanders. Oh, and Clinton coronation. And her voice... And she gave speeches.

THE END

SpareribSP

(325 posts)
9. You definitely touched on a number of the pain points.
Fri Dec 2, 2016, 11:26 PM
Dec 2016

There are some other ones that personally bug me that I found Bernie pushing in a direction that I found more palatable.

Obama using the espionage act on whistleblowers while at the same time strengthening the NSA for example. That one still mystifies me. Obama has also deported more people than any other president. The list goes on, I'm sure you've heard it all, but Bernie's positions on all of these felt like a breath of fresh air to me. Hillary moved on some of these issues, and didn't on others. Sanders and his message really affected me and I think he made a lot of great points in many areas.

On the side of Hillary supporters, I can kind of imagine Sanders as coming out of nowhere, busting down the door saying something vaguely sounding like "Screw this, we're doing it my way now! Buckle up guys, it's time for a revolution!" then promptly losing, and then leaving a number of bitter people in his wake. I can see how it's not exactly a pleasant experience for those on team Hillary, especially if Bernie's message didn't particularly resonate with you.

However I agree with what Bernie himself did at the end of the day personally. He didn't try to run as an independent or anything crazy, he tried to energize people to support the Democratic party and run for local office, and he's stood up against Trump. Because of his message he wasn't a particularly good surrogate for Hillary, but he tried. However, the goal hasn't been to be scorched earth, but rather try to evolve in a fashion that supports both sides and wins elections. That's my personal hope at least.

NRQ891

(217 posts)
10. the simplest one for the Hill camp, is that Bernie never found fit to join the party
Fri Dec 2, 2016, 11:52 PM
Dec 2016

even while running for the top ticket, against someone who's been a party member for at least 40 years in 4 official capacities. I don't think it would have been out of line to say 'sorry, gotta be a party member to run on our ticket (and for more than just one day before running for president)'

If I had been in the Hill camp, that would be a burr under my saddle, big time.

Now, my concerns about Hillary are from the populist point of view, rather than Bernie in particular, and I did not see Bernie as a 'perfect candidate'. For instance, I had a problem with 'free education'. More affordable? sure - definitely. But the fact that I had 'skin in the game' made me more cost/benefit conscious about my education. And I think such proposals (as are Trump's) willfully blind to the budget deficit.

But I was with Bernie on the issue of disenfranchisement from ability to earn a living for many people via trade and outsourcing etc

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»How about we try a "rever...