LWolf
LWolf's JournalA tiny microcosm from the real world:
My small family.
We're not a political family. We rarely talk politics or even elections. Our family time is precious, since we're not all in the same state, and we don't usually allow more than a general, passing political remark to take up our time together.
So, since I spent time with all of our tiny family group in two states this last week, I was shocked that they all wanted to talk politics. Here's what it boiled down to in my tiny microcosm of the real world:
My mother: a moderate Democrat who, in the past, thought Bill Clinton walked on water and loved HRC. Now? She's over them, voting Bernie, and wanted to know what I'd be doing if he didn't win the nomination.
My first son: A solid liberal Democrat. I didn't know which Dem he'd support; I hadn't asked. I trust his intelligence and instincts, but thought he might, like too many, lean Hillary because she's a woman and has the power of the establishment behind her. Wrong. Sanders all the way. He AND his wife.
My second son: A man who has, since his teen years, viewed our political system as totally corrupt, not worth engaging in, who has always thought nothing less than revolutionary change could save us, who has predicted and expected the U.S. to decline and die, who doesn't participate in any way? He's registering to vote for the first time in his fucking life, as a Democrat, to vote for Sanders in our primary and for whatever Democrat wins the nomination in November. Why? He wants to make sure Trump doesn't win. His wife? The same. AND...for the very first time ever, there is a political split causing tension in our little extended family. She has a close family member, a libertarian, who is at this time supporting Trump. It's causing more than disagreement. I'm a little worried about them.
My grandson: frustrated that he's not old enough to vote in the primaries or in November...he's 16. He supports Bernie all the way.
So that's it. Not, of course, meaningful in any statistical sense. But a group of people who don't talk politics together, are suddenly not only talking politics, but, outside of the libertarian, they are ALL backing Sanders.
I was surprised.
And pleased, to say the least!
That's a
particularly calm, reasoned, partisan status-quo post.
What it doesn't acknowledge is this:
The long brewing war for party identity has come out of the closet and is now being fought publicly.
Will the Democratic Party continue to evolve into neo-liberal irrelevance for the 99%, or will the Democratic Party reclaim the 99%? What does the 99% represent for the Democratic Party? The people it represents and fights for, or voters it manipulates with fear-driven propaganda, then ignores while it serves the 1%?
For many of us, no matter how you and others try to spin it, it's not about Trump or Republicans, but about Democratic Party identity, and whether or not we can continue to be part of a party machine that doesn't really represent us. Trying to use fear of Republicans to rally us around neo-liberalism is a failing strategy.
There are many Democrats who will simply NOT continue to ride at the back of the neo-liberal Democratic bus. Many who can no longer be counted on to shut up, get in line, and vote with a clothespin just because the front of the bus tells us to.
And I say BULLSHIT.
If the Democratic Party chooses a nominee that can't win in November, it is the fault of those who nominated her. It is the Democratic Party's pattern to nominate establishment/neo-liberal candidates that so many have to use clothes pins to vote for, if they do so at all, and then start the bullying into line process and the blame game. The blame game starts before the primaries are even over. "If you don't vote for this person that you don't want to vote for, it will be ALL YOUR FAULT WHEN SATAN WINS!!!"
Again: BULLSHIT. If the party is determined to present Hillary Clinton in November, despite knowing that Sanders is more electable in November according to all polls, that she is disliked and distrusted outside of her own party enough that she won't get cross over votes, that she is disliked and trusted within her own party that she'll lose some of the Democratic vote, that the opposition will be putting up a candidate who is rising on the tide of discontent in the nation, while Clinton's Democratic Party is working to hold back that tide...if that is what the Democratic Party is determined to do, then a loss in November is the fault of those who bulldozed down this path of destruction, not those who didn't march along behind the bulldozer.
Disclaimer for juries and mods: I am not now, and will not be, stating whom I will not vote for in November, nor suggesting what others should do.
Let me explain
the roots of the anger and the hostility.
For many of us, we've watched the neo-liberal takeover of the party for decades now. Watched as the priniciples that brought us to the party have been eroded, dismantled, and, finally, destroyed. When we've spoken up, election after election after election, we've been treated disdainfully, disrespectfully, and have been taken for granted. When we wanted to nominate and elect Democrats who were not neo-liberals, who would actually represent us, we've been bludgeoned with the "unelectable," the "unicorn/pony," the "spoiled child who takes their ball and goes home because they didn't get their way," the "what you want isn't possible so shut up, get in line, and vote the way those of us who are smarter/more pragmatic tell you to."
Finally we've got a candidate who can transcend that; who has had a chance to defeat the corporate/established/neo-liberal crowned choice, and we've watched people who have claimed for years to be one one side of issues turn on those issues to defend that corporate/established/neo-liberal crowned choice; watched and listened as they determinedly set things in motion to make sure we'll be stuck, yet again, with that corporate/established/neo-liberal crowned choice.
Angry? Hostile? Those are mild words to describe what some are thinking and feeling. And your invoking the usual attack on those who don't support the corporate/established/neo-liberal crowned choice does more to inflame the situation than not. "Voting is not just about you and remaining pure on your ideological high horse."
Frankly, I, and there may be others, disagree with your opinion about HRC. She is not a good candidate, and she is not "1000x times better than any republican currently running." Let me explain:
First of all, this primary fight is not only about November. It's also about the future of the Democratic Party. The revolution, as such, is about the direction of the nation, and about whether or not the Democratic Party is going to be an ally in that revolution. The nomination of a neo-liberal makes the party irrelevant, and ensures ineffectiveness in the years ahead.
Secondly, understand this: while I have never voted for nor supported a Republican, and don't see that ever happening in my lifetime, the real enemy comes from within; from those within the Democratic Party who betray us in the reach for political power. The betrayers are the neo-liberals. If we cannot defeat the enemy within, we aren't going to prevail against the Republican enemy. Electing another neo-liberal is a huge win for Republicans. They can achieve a whole bunch of their agenda while trumpeting propaganda about how terrible the neo-liberal POTUS is, moving the conversation in whatever direction they like, while the Democrats in Congress stay quiet and allow it as a show of support for that neo-liberal. At least, with a bat-shit crazy R in the WH, there would BE an opposition party.
Finally: If Clinton supporters really cared about winning in November, they would have backed Sanders, who has consistently been more electable against Republicans than Clinton. Clinton, who currently has the primary advantage for the nomination, is going to lose in November. And her apologists will have no one but themselves to blame. Not that we can't see the blame game coming. It's right there, embedded in your post. You know; the disdainful "you're acting like a spoiled child who takes their ball and goes home because they didn't get their way." In other words, if Clinton supporters don't want to listen, or to acknowledge that they are setting us up for a loss in November, it's not because they were wrong, or because they backed the wrong candidate, it's because of "spoiled children" who don't march in the line their betters told them to. If that doesn't feed anger and hostility, I don't know what does.
You want people to vote for the Democrat in November? I've got two suggestions:
1. Nominate someone who brings people together to do just that.
2. Earn the votes, rather than taking them for granted and marginalizing voters.
Take off your own fucking "ideological blinders." All you've done here, with your faux "concern" about anger and hostility, is expose your own and inflame the rest.
Profile Information
Member since: 2003 before July 6thNumber of posts: 46,179
