What Happened to the Democratic Party In this Election? In the Context of Clinton’s Loss

In the aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s loss we see daily essays on the reason for that loss and where we on the Left should go from here.  I’m not a great political prognosticator, as illustrated by the fact that I predicted Jeb Bush would be the 2012 Republican nominee.  What talent I might have is the result of the perceptions I’ve gotten by living a long life in a state of alienation from the mythology and the reality of America.  Like many, I believed the polls and that Hillary Clinton would become President.  However, I had some trepidation about both Clinton and about the direction of the Democratic Party.  Back on June 15th, when I first posted the following piece, I took others concerns and counterpointed them with my own to come up with a post that I think is quite relevant today as we’ve entered the insane Age of Trump.

June 15, 2009

This election year has been the second most bizarre election year in my living memory. The first of course was 1968, a year when the fabric of this country was being ripped apart by the murders of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy. Each of those deaths for their supporters, like myself, was a tragedy of immense proportions. Just as with JFK’s murder a scant few years before, I have a memory of where I was when I first heard the news and felt the tears of grief forming. These murders also served as stark metaphors for the undemocratic reality lurking below the faux American democratic system, as the killings connoted that trying to change the “system” will put you in mortal peril. MLK and RFK were of course paladins of the two overwhelmingly urgent issues of the 1960’s, Civil Rights and Vietnam. Adding to the turmoil, was the rioting of the Chicago Police Department as they turned Democratic Convention protests into bloody confrontations that doomed the Party’s Presidential campaign.

In this election year there has been a plethora of bizarre happenings, the most bizarre of course being the putative nomination of Donald Trump. Less weird, but perhaps of more significance, was the battle for the Democratic Party’s nomination. That Hillary Clinton will be the first woman to serve as standard bearer for a major party is an historic event. However, Hillary represents the establishment wing of the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders, a lifelong Independent, Democratic Socialist, in both Houses of Congress, fought a good fight and accumulated an impressive amount of primary wins and delegates. His campaign revealed a rift between the “centrist” and the “leftist” wings of the Democratic Party. The convention has not been held, the platform has yet to be written and the general election campaign has not yet been fully fought. Yet some see ominous omens for the Democratic Party’s future. These omens, to some, seem to suggest that it is the Democratic Party that has been split apart, rather than the Republican Party. Are these discussions merely the fodder for pundits seeking things to discuss that will attract attention, or do they represent a fundamental problem for the future of the Democratic Party?

“The New Republic (TNR) was founded in 1914 as a journal of opinion which seeks to meet the challenge of a new time. For over 100 years, we have championed progressive ideas and challenged popular opinion. Our vision for today revitalizes our founding mission for our new time. The New Republic promotes novel solutions for today’s most critical issues. We don’t lament intractable problems; our journalism debates complex issues, and takes a stance. Our biggest stories are commitments for change. Today, the New Republic is the voice of creative thinkers, united by a collective desire to challenge the status quo.”   About The New Republic

Some see TNR as the sine qua non of American liberal publications and in truth it has been quite influential in Left Wing politics in America. They published a comprehensive piece of journalism in “The Split”, subtitled: 19 Reasons the Democratic Party Will Remain Divided – and What It Means for the Party’s Future. In dissecting the 19 reasons provided, TNR uses the answers of 23 well known left wing intellectuals, some like Rick Perlstein and Naomi Klein are people I admire and turn to for analysis. You can follow the link above and read the entire piece which I think presents a valuable discussion, much of which mirrors many of the issues I’ve been concerned with and write about. What follows here is my attempt to also respond to these 19 points from my own perspective.

TNR’s article begins:

“Throughout most of the 2016 presidential primaries, the media focused on the noisy and reactionary rift among Republicans. Until the battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders turned acrimonious in the home stretch, far less attention was paid to the equally momentous divisions within the Democratic Party. The Clinton-Sanders race wasn’t just about two candidates; instead, it underscored a series of deep and growing fissures among Democrats, along a wide range of complex fault lines—from age and race to gender and ideology. And these disagreements won’t fade with a gracious bow-out from Sanders, or a victory in November over Donald Trump. For all the talk of the Democrats’ need for “unity,” it would be a serious mistake to paper over the differences that came to the fore in this year’s primaries. More than ten million Democrats turned out in force this year to reject the party establishment’s cautious centrism and cozy relationship with Wall Street. Unless Democrats heed that message, they will miss a historic opportunity to forge a broad-based and lasting liberal majority.

To help make sense of what’s causing the split, and where it’s headed, we turned to 23 leading historians, political scientists, pollsters, artists, and activists. Taken together, their insights reinforce the need for a truly inclusive and vigorous debate over the party’s future. “There can be no settlement of a great cause without discussion,” observed William Jennings Bryan, the original Democratic populist insurgent. “And people will not discuss a cause until their attention is drawn to it.”

You can click on the links for each of the 19 topics below to get to the particular arguments of this TNR article.

1. It Goes Way, Way Back

In this section historian Rick Perlstein traces the “split” back to the 1924 Democratic Party Convention which took 16 days and 103 ballots to resolve itself. He points out that the party was split over both the issue of Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan and the issue of economic justice between the party’s liberal urban (northern) wing and its conservative (rural) wing. While I agree with Perlstein I think he puts to fine a point upon it. What constitutes “the South” in this country has always represented a philosophy that caters to wealth and power. Initially of course it was slavery, but that ongoing horror was merely a front for what was an aristocratic outlook bent on maintaining supremacy. The selling point for the Southern masses was basically you may be poor, but thank God you’re not black and let us protect you from sinking to their oppressed level. The Southern outlook has always been to maintain the status quo, be it religiously, economically or socially.

After the Civil War the “radicals” who had driven the Republican Party to emancipation and thus war, lost out to the Northern business class who after all had the money. The disaffected classes found themselves drawn to the Democratic Party which offered them solutions more catered to their needs. An uneasy coalition was formed with the conservative, Southern portion of the Democratic Party and that held somewhat until 1968. For me 1968 and Nixon winning the Presidency with his “southern strategy” was what finally destroyed the Democratic party’s uneasy accommodation between Southern conservative racism and liberal, socially conscious activism.

The advent of the “Centrist” control of the Democratic Party arose in the 1980’s as many mis-perceived the “Reagan Revolution” as the people turning rightward, when in fact this wasn’t the case at all except among Beltway pundits who proclaimed it so. To me the real reason for the ascendancy of the Democratic Leadership Conference’s minions to prominence was that by aligning themselves with the interests of wealth, campaign funding became an open spigot. Bernie Sander’s campaign successes are not the blind faith of people herded by a charismatic leader, rather they are the reaction to the fact that centrist politics simply doesn’t meet the needs of masses of Democratic voters. The Sander’s campaign has forced Hillary Clinton’s campaign leftward. The long term question for Democratic Party unity is simply how sincere Hillary will be in championing those issues?

2. It’s Obama’s fault for raising our hopes

This idea is rather simplistic in my opinion. Yes many of us, myself included, voted for Barack Obama because he campaigned on a platform for change and governed in the same way that Bill Clinton governed. Hell yes I was disappointed by Barack Obama’s performance as a typical corporatist Democrat, but is that his fault or ours? One of the biggest reasons that the democratic process seems to fail in general is that we the electorate project upon our political leaders qualities that logically they never have. We invest political leaders with the ability to reform the “system”, ignoring that for them to assume “leadership” they must be part of the system, or be irrelevant to its change. Bernie, as a long time Senator and Congressman, is a part of the system, every bit as much as Hillary. What they represent is different approaches to governance and different emphasis on what is to be done. Barack Obama’s life must be confirmation for him that the “American Dream” works and therefore his approach to policy is conditioned by that belief. What he sees as needed change and what people like me see as needed change are very different.

3. It’s Hillary’s fault for lowering our hopes

“John Judis, former senior editor at The New Republic and co-author of The Emerging Democratic Majority: In 1984, you had Walter Mondale, a candidate of the Democratic establishment, pitted against a young upstart, Gary Hart. The split wasn’t left-right—it was young-old, energetic-tired, vision-pragmatism. Bernie, for all his 74 years, represents something still of the rebellious Sixties that appeals to young voters, while Hillary represents a tired incrementalism—utterly uninspiring and rooted largely in identity politics and special interest groups, rather than in any vision for the future.”

We all view reality from the basis of our own experience. Like Obama, Clinton’s life experience is an example of the “American Dream”. That we expect her to somehow abandon that vision is a forlorn hope. The bottom line of all politics is power. Yet we expect them to lead us, when in fact the reality is that we must lead them. The Sander’s insurgency is an example of the people giving Hillary and the Democratic Party establishment their message of discontent, we must hope that they got the point. However, it is up to us to ensure the Clinton cohort keep hewing to that message.

4. The party hasn’t kept up with its base

The question for Democratic Party unity, or splitting, is implied in that statement. The American electorate is fed up with our corporately homogenized political system because of one simple fact. The system doesn’t work for most of us, just as it hasn’t worked for Right Wing voters, who have pinned their hopes on Trump. The question is not whether the Democratic Party captures the White House and Congress, but how they would govern if that came about. If it remains corporate business as usual, there will be even further disintegration of the country’s political processes.

5. Bernie’s supporters aren’t living in reality

“ELAINE KAMARCK: This is part of a bigger problem with American presidential politics selling snake oil to the voters. Everybody from Trump with his stupid fucking wall, to Sanders with, “Oh, free college for everybody.” Of all the dumb things—let’s go ahead and give all the rich kids in America a nice break. That’s not progressive, I’m sorry. But people want to believe in Peter Pan. And he’s just not there.”

Kamarck is typical of the responses in this section of the article and what she shows is the tendency to treat what seems the “reality” of today, as if it always existed. Go back before 1980 and Reaganism and you will see that throughout America there was a vibrant system of virtually free higher education and for the most part it was quality education. What changed is that the ascendant conservative forces began a regimen of starving successful government using the meme of preventing tax increases and eliminating deficit spending. History has proven time and again that the conservative economic outlook was the stuff of disaster for most people and even for the elite class it presumes to protect. Too many of those who expressed the view in this section of the article have allowed themselves to be blinded by a false understanding of political possibilities. The proposals made by Sanders are easily attainable, if only there is the vision to see that they are merely the reiteration of FDR’s New Deal.

6. There’s a double standard against Hillary

The “double standard” against Hillary because of her sex has not been in play in Democratic politics. The issues with Hillary center almost entirely on her close relationship with Wall Street and her Neo-Con Foreign policy positions. The claiming that Democratic Party opposition to her is based in sexism is a mis-guided attempt to distract from the really problematic aspects of her career. I state that even as I will vote for her in November.

7. Poverty is fueling the divide

Yes, just as in Bill Clinton’s campaigns “it is the economy stupid”. The “economic recovery” from the crisis of 2008 has not trickled down at all and the money spent on that “recovery” was mostly spent to benefit the moneyed classes. This was the essence of the Sander’s campaign and it is the crucial issue in this coming election. If the Democratic Party establishment doesn’t get this fact and wean itself from the corporate tit, it will doom its future.

8. It’s the Economy, Stupid!

Exactly, as above.

9. Democrats are too fixated on white workers

While I get where the writers in this piece are coming from, I think their perspective is a bit off. The question is that the Democratic Party in this election seems to them to be reaching out to the “White Working Class” and ignoring people of color and I think the premise is incorrect. We need to stop defining the American electorate in terms used by insider Beltway pundits. White working class voters are much smarter and perceptive than the Beltway gives them credit for being. Viewed by the Beltway and political classes this is where the Trump support comes from. That is frankly a bullshit misrepresentation. Trumps support comes from the substantial percentage of bigots that exist in this country and from those who vote based upon who promises lower taxes. That some are White working class is irrelevant to the issue. Where the Democratic Party establishment makes its mistake is believing too much in the political pollsters, who are about as capable as Roman seers looking into the entrails of animals to predict the future.

10. Democrats have neglected white workers

The other side of the coin and also self-serving bullshit. Democrats for the most part have neglected all members of the working class by catering to the corporate class and to the highly educated. Those of the Democratic Leadership Council stripe look down their Ivy-League diploma’ed noses at workers with less education, while believing too much in the false stereotypes about these members of the working classes.

11. Millennial’s of color are tired of waiting

This is not wrong except for the fact that it misses the point. All people of color are tired of waiting for a time when they are able to exercise their full citizenship. Using the “millennial’s” meme is merely obfuscating the issue.

12. Authenticity is gender biased

This is an example of an attempt to meld to different issues into one in order to reach a desired outcome. The two issues are: 1. Our American culture is still, despite all the gains made, prejudiced against women and enraptured by macho maleness. 2. Politicians in this country have gotten away too long by being inauthentic in their outreach to voters. Mixing these issues together merely muddies each of them. Bad questions yield bad answers.

13. The disruption is digital

This is just silly and smugly self-serving

14. Split? What split?

“Ruy Teixeira: I don’t see differences massive enough to provoke any kind of split that has serious consequences. It’s just part of an ongoing shift in the Democratic Party. The party is going to continue to consolidate behind a more aggressive and liberal program, and the Sanders people are a reflection of that. We shouldn’t lose track of the fact that Clinton will be the most liberal presidential candidate the Democrats have run since George McGovern.”

“Brett Flehinger: In historic terms I don’t think this party is split. I don’t even think the divide is as big as it was in 2000, when a significant portion of Democratic voters either considered Ralph Nader or voted for Nader.”

This gets it right, but then our chattering, intellectual classes would have nothing to talk about. What exists with the Democratic Party, as has existed with political parties and factions from all historical ages is that within it there are different ideological approaches. The question is one of process in that how the differences are ultimately resolved.

15. Don’t worry: Trump will unite us

Yes he can! As distasteful as Richard Nixon was in 1968, he was at least seen by the whole country as a political pro and somewhat sane, even if you detested his politics. Trump is a classic example of someone suffering from a severe and dangerous psychiatric disorder, Narcissistic Personality Syndrome. This obvious fact adds urgency to his defeat.

16. Bernie isn’t the future, but his politics are

This is what I’ve been stating in piece after piece about this election. I like Bernie Sanders. I voted for him in my States’ Primary. Yet Bernie Sanders is not my leader. He is a politician who is espousing that which I espouse and will consider do so after he has left the political spotlight. Bernie’s success is because of the issue he represents and not because of Bernie specifically.

17. It’s a trap!

“Astra Taylor: The young thing, this millennial left turn, is great. But there’s a part of me that’s afraid. In the 1960s, the story was the counterculture and the new left. It was Students for a Democratic Society, the civil rights movement, the war in Vietnam. But there’s been a lot of smart revisionist scholarship that says the story of the ’60s was not the new left, it was actually the new right, which spent the decade laying the groundwork for its resurgence. At this moment, when left-wing millennials are getting a lot of attention, my fear is that there’s a conservative counterpoint that I’m just not seeing, because we’re all in our little social and political bubbles. We should study the split between the new left and the new right in the ’60s, and make sure that history doesn’t repeat itself.”

How to state the obvious in search of the profound. The problem with the 60’s was that those of us, like myself, in the Movement believed the crap written about us in the media and by the intellectuals so fond of spouting inane profundities. This led us to over-estimate our capabilities and ultimately fall into Nixon’s trap. As we eschewed Hubert Humphrey’s moderate stance on Vietnam, we allowed Richard Nixon to take power and with the aid of his henchman, Henry Kissinger, murder more civilians and U.S. troops than in all the years of the war prior to his election. Movement are never about triumphal climaxes, but about constant vigilance and ongoing effort into the future.

18. The worst thing would be to ignore the split

“David Simon: The Democrats are going to win, because they’re up against Trump. But I’m worried they’re going to paper over a fundamental flaw in their coalition, which is: You’ve got to help working people and the middle-middle class. They’re not your guaranteed votes, and you lost them once to Reagan. Maybe you can do without them long-term. But I would get them back because (a) it secures your coalition going forward and (b) it’s the right thing to fucking do.”

I fully agree with this, but I would go one step further. No votes, nor factions are ever guaranteed in politics. There are no acmes, nor end points in politics. It is an ongoing proposition where one can never rest on their laurels. You want a better world, you’ve got to keep struggling for it.

19. The best is yet to come

This end piece to the article is by Naomi Klein and were it from any one but her I might dismiss it as someone searching for a happy conclusion. Klein doesn’t do fluff and so I’m finishing this piece with her words, with the hope that she’s right:

“On the surface, the battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders looks like a deep rift, one that threatens to splinter the Democratic Party. But viewed in the sweep of history, it is evidence of something far more positive for the party’s base and beyond: not a rift but a shift—the first tremors of a profound ideological realignment from which a transformative new politics could emerge.

Many of Bernie’s closest advisers—and perhaps even Bernie himself—never imagined the campaign would do so well. And yet it did. The U.S. left—and not some pale imitation of it—actually tasted electoral victory, in state after state after state. The campaign came so close to winning that many of us allowed ourselves to imagine, if only for a few, furtive moments, what the world would look like with a President Sanders.

Even writing those words seems crazy. After all, the working assumption for decades has been that genuinely redistributive policies are so unpopular in the U.S. that they could only be smuggled past the American public if they were wrapped in some sort of centrist disguise. “Fee and dividend” instead of a carbon tax. “Health care reform” instead of universal public health care.

Only now it turns out that left ideas are popular just as they are, utterly unadorned. Really popular—and in the most pro-capitalist country in the world.

It’s not just that Sanders has won 20-plus contests, all while never disavowing his democratic socialism. It’s also that, to keep Sanders from hijacking the nomination, Clinton has been forced to pivot sharply to the left and disavow her own history as a market-friendly centrist. Even Donald Trump threw out the economic playbook entrenched since Reagan—coming out against corporate-friendly trade deals, vowing to protect what’s left of the social safety net, and railing against the influence of money in politics.

Taken together, the evidence is clear: The left just won. Forget the nomination—I mean the argument. Clinton, and the 40-year ideological campaign she represents, has lost the battle of ideas. The spell of neoliberalism has been broken, crushed under the weight of lived experience and a mountain of data.

What for decades was unsay-able is now being said out loud—free college tuition, double the minimum wage, 100 percent renewable energy. And the crowds are cheering. With so much encouragement, who knows what’s next? Reparations for slavery and colonialism? A guaranteed annual income? Democratic worker co-ops as the centerpiece of a green jobs program? Why not? The intellectual fencing that has constrained the left’s imagination for so long is lying twisted on the ground.

This broad appetite for systemic change did not begin with Sanders. During the Obama years, a wave of radical new social movements emerged, from Occupy Wall Street and the Fight for $15 to #NoKXL and Black Lives Matter. Sanders harnessed much of this energy—but by no means all of it. His weaknesses reaching certain segments of black and Latino voters in the Democratic base are well known. And for some activists, Sanders has always felt too much like the past to get overly excited about.

Looking beyond this election cycle, this is actually good news. If Sanders could come this far, imagine what a left candidate who was unburdened by his weaknesses could do. A political coalition that started from the premise that economic inequality and climate destabilization are inextricable from systems of racial and gender hierarchy could well build a significantly larger tent than the Sanders campaign managed to erect.

And if that movement has a bold plan for humanizing and democratizing new technology networks and global systems of trade, then it will feel less like a blast from the past, and more like a path to an exciting, never-before-attempted future. Whether coming after one term of Hillary Clinton in 2020, or one term of Donald Trump, that combination—deeply diverse and insistently forward-looking—could well prove unbeatable.”

I apologize for the length of this piece. Many people read my posts on their “I” phones,  Facebook,  or both and so 4000+ word essays don’t go over well.  The discussion above though is I think especially important and deserves some time.  What I find quite amazing about it is that a mere 5 1/2 months later how much has not only changed, but how the perspective reached in hindsight now seems so much more clear.

Links to my other posts on this theme.