Sorry, Bernie but the Democrats know whose side they are on and whose side they have always been on

[karynnj]

157. Your description is stuck in the 1970s!

Just as there are new divides in the Republican party, there are divides in the Democratic party and they are in some ways rooted in the split that happened decades ago.

There was a very public split of the late 1980s and 1990s, between the pro business, pro trade agreements Democratic Leadership Conference against what they thought was the outdated party that they faulted as controlled by the unions and too big government. The leaders of the DLC included their first Presidential nominee, Al Gore, and their first successful President, Bill Clinton. The argument was that the "old" Democratic party could not win a majority.

Now, just as now, there were many politicians that really fit into neither group, some that strongly leaned to one, and some completely in that group. The same is true now. On many of the issues you name, BOTH segments of the party supported them - such as SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Workman's compensation, OSHA. The biggest difference in recent times is trade policies and protectionism.

Note that like Bernie, I describe this on economic issues only. The reason was that this break did not occur when you look at social issues - both sides supported all civil rights issues. It also did not split cleanly on foreign policy or military policy issues. (Consider that most Democrats voted for new sanctions on Iran - in spite of Rouhani just being elected and Trump clearly trying to lead us into a Sunni/Shia fight on the Sunni side - with Trump calling that fighting terrorism - when most terrorism has come from the Sunnis! Bernie was one of the strongest voices on not doing this, especially on the day Iran was attacked by the SUNNI ISIS terrorists. )

On environmental causes, some of the strongest advocates were among those I would say leaned to the new Democratic side -- and most of the worst Democrats were reluctant to support most environmental issues if they had any opposition from any union. Many of the 14 coal state Democratic Senators who signed a letter were opponents to a climate change bill in 2010, when had they supported it -- the cap and trade bill would have passed and been signed in to law by President Obama. All Democrats, who could be described as new democrats were on board.

I hope that someone emerges with credentials on both sides of this divide. This is NOT a gap that cannot be bridged and - in fact - Obama and his administration was trying to do this. We are whether we like it or not in a global economy. Even Bernie's economic advisor, speaking on VPR spoke of global trade deals making the pie bigger. He then argued that while that was true, it was NOT true that everyone gains. His argument was that some of the gains of the big winners need to be taxed to help the losers. I would imagine that someone could make the case for a trade bill that is linked to a domestic bill that helps those who lose.

I think people who would on a knee jerk basis reject any trade bill need to consider that alternative is NOT that jobs won't move overseas. They will as long as the labor costs are so much lower that the difference is enough that it more than makes up for the shipping costs and management difficulties. Consider that almost all US apparel manufacturing left the US before the trade deals and even after NAFTA continued to go to places like Vietnam and Sri Lanka - which we did not have trade deals with.

For 2020, I hope we have someone who can really speak to and excite both halfs of the party. Bernie is speaking from his heart and his point of view - and I hated every minute of his speaking against TPP and was aghast when Clinton opted to abandon what really was her strongest accomplishment as SoS rather than find a way to defend it in the primaries. The crown jewel of her "pivot to Asia" was TPP. The irony was that her shifting position likely hurt her more than defending it would have.