The Democratic Party is
engaged in an epic battle about how change happens. On one side is the
establishment who are backing Hillary’s cautious, pragmatic, and incremental
approach. On the other are the Sanders supporters who are calling for a
revolution.
There’s an irony in this
debate. The establishment is interested in retaining power, while the Sanders
and his supporters are seeking change. Here’s the irony – the only way
the Democratic Party can get and keep power is by embracing revolutionary
change.
The Consequences of Politics
Without Passion or Conviction
Democrats have been trying the
“pragmatist” approach for decades now. Since Reagan, they’ve been loath
to confront the conservative mantra of small (read ineffective) government, low
taxes, deregulation, trickle down economics, and obscene support for “job
creators.” In reality, however, all that just is code for corporate welfare and
giant giveaways to the uber rich.
The reason, of course, is that
Democrats are as dependent upon the campaign contributions from these groups as
the Republicans are.
As a result, what the press,
the pundits, and those in the Party establishment think of as the “sensible
center” has drifted further and further to the right and the terms of the
national political debate occur exclusively on the conservative’s side of the
fence. If that’s where you start the negotiations, then any compromise
only accelerates the rightward drift. There’s nothing sensible about
that.
That’s what passes for
“sensible” and “centrist” – a guaranteed loss of ground.
The problem with all this –
and the part the Party establishment, the pundits and the main stream media
(MSM) just don’t get – is that the vast majority of Americans haven’t moved to
the right with the Party. As a result, many are staying home on election
day, and Democrats are losing power.
You can’t compromise your way
to your goal, especially if you can’t get elected
As income disparity and the
influence of money in politics has expanded, voter turnout has only gotten
worse. The 2014 midterm election represented the lowest voter turnout in modern
US history.
And while the party in power
normally loses ground in the midterms, 2014 was a rout of epic proportions for
Democrats. Basically Democratic candidates took the “sensible centrist”
position and avoided taking stands that the MSM and the punditocracy defined as
controversial. And no one showed up at the polls except the radical
right.
If you stand for nothing, you
will get beat by anything
Democrats are getting
slaughtered at all level of government because citizens are tired of voting for
people who don’t represent them.
For example, at the state
level, Republicans have
total control—that is, a Republican governor and Republican majorities in
the legislature—of 24 states. Democrats, by comparison, control only 7
state governments. The rest are split.
It’s not that Bernie doesn’t
know how the political process works, it’s that he knows it’s NOT working
When Hillary tells you Bernie
Sanders doesn’t know how American Politics works, and people like Paul Krugman,
Tom Friedman, and Jonathon
Chait repeat it, they’re missing one important fact: The American
political process doesn’t work, and it won’t, until and unless we get a real
political revolution.
It’s certainly not working for
the 99% of Americans who
are getting left behind economically. It’s certainly not working when the
interests of the elite few trump the desires of the rest of us.
And it’s certainly not working when the progressive issues the
majority of Americans favor are completely ignored by the government they
elect.
If we have a different
Congress, things will change
This, of course, is the crux
of what the Party establishment, the mainstream media, and the punditocracy
don’t get. If Bernie Sanders gets elected, it’s because he got the
disaffected majority off the couch and into the voting booth. And if that
happens, Congress will have a completely different make-up. Yes, the
influence of gerrymandering might dilute the gains that would otherwise be
made, but it will not prevent more progressives from getting into office.
More progressive voters, means more progressives get elected. And if that
happens, Sanders will have more success than any of these so-called experts
predict.
If we don’t, they won’t …
If we don’t get the
disaffected back into the political process, then Democrats will be lucky to
get Hillary elected. She’s a uniquely vulnerable candidate, with high
distrust levels, and net negative favorability ratings – both of which make it
easy for the opposition to peal away votes. But demographics favor Democrats in
presidential races so she might just squeak by.
But even if Hillary does
survive the campaign and get elected, she will be facing a substantially
similar Congress. Under the best of circumstances, the Democrats could
win back the Senate – but as long as 60 votes are needed for legislation, that
won’t change the balance of power, nor will it prevent gridlock.
So no amount of experience; no
amount of steely-eyed realism; and no canny pragmatism will enable Hillary and
the DNC to get things done. The problem with government has never been that
Democrats lack negotiating skills – it’s that the opposition has no desire to negotiate.
Republicans in this day and age are not interested in governing – they’re
interested in making government unworkable. That’s how their true base—the uber
rich and the corporate PAC funders—gets served.
The problem with the Democrats
is that they haven’t been that much different.
Bernie Sanders offers an
alternative – one that just might excite the people and create a new power
base, one in which the power emanates from the people and one in which the
government works for the people.
Let’s hope he succeeds. The
only alternative is the same old game with different players. That’s what
the self-appointed cognoscenti of the establishment just doesn’t get.
No comments:
Post a Comment