There's a Huffington Post piece by Jedidiah Purdy that argues liberal critics like Paul Krugman-and myself to be sure-don't understand the Bernie theory of change-of how he will get all these things he's promising, done.
This is something of a debate right now in the party about how change is brought about. Should the party go aspirational or pragmatic in our nominee? My long time reader, Greg, disagrees with me, which is fine. Many do right now. I think Nanute is basically pro Bernie as well.
I notice that a number of friends I've had during the Obama years have gone to Bernie-not all certainly. The saving grace is I'v'e met a lot of great Hillary supporters now on Twitter. But being friends or liberals doesn't mean you have to always agree.
"I care less about which party dominates and more about what ideas are coming out of the party. Todays Dems are still largely in favor of privatizing just about everything, in favor of monetary over fiscal policy, are still militaristic (although less eager to nuke!) and have yet to find a voice to reverse the Reagan/Thatcherneoliberalism ravaging the planet. Im not totally happy with the one party we may end up with, our leaders still insulated, out of touch elitists who would just as soon see people die than to be referred to as a "socialist" or "communist" on the pages of a major newspaper or magazine."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/01/ha-goodmans-southern-strategy-for.html?showComment=1453640082619#c3733569485608787187
But I don't think the question of which party dominates and the ideas coming out are unrelated. That's my whole point. For Bernie's agenda to actually happen, he'd need a real party behind him.
"Krugman compares unrealistic, high-minded idealism with "politically pragmatic" governance, like Franklin Roosevelt's during the New Deal. Roosevelt, he reminds us, cut deals with Southern segregationists and introduced programs like Social Security incrementally. Krugman argues that this dirty-hands commitment to halfway measures, not purity, is what it takes to get things done. Versions of this contrast have become a common refrain: Sanders sounds great, but governing, is messy, complicated, grown-up."
"Krugman's mistake is very basic. He's wrong about the Sanders campaign's theory of change. It isn't that a high-minded leader can draw out our best selves and translate those into more humane and egalitarian lawmaking. It is that a campaign for a more equal and secure economy and a stronger democracy can build power, in networks of activists and alliances across constituencies. The movement that the campaign helps to create can develop and give voice to a program that the same people will keep working for, in and out of election cycles. In other words, this is a campaign about political ideas and programs that happens to have a person named Bernie at its head, not a campaign that mistakes its candidate for a prophet or a wizard (or the second coming of Abraham Lincoln, who gave us the now-cliché phrase about better angels, but had no delusion that words could substitute for power)."
"The campaign whose loyalists made this idealistic mistake was, of course, Obama's 2008 run. The candidate spoke so charismatically, and seemed so much to embody a vision of realigned, common-sense, fresh-feeling progressivism, that some of us did imagine he could recast American political loyalties. Back then, Krugman was accusing Obama's supporters of spewing "bitterness" and "venom" and coming "dangerously close to a cult of personality." Now he's pleased that President Obama, unlike Candidate Obama, has governed rather like a Clinton: pragmatically, with the hand he was dealt. He seems to think that supporting Sanders's "purist" positions means "prefer[ing] happy dreams to hard thinking about means and ends." And so, he wants us to think, if we are going to be political grownups, we had better put away childish things. Like talk of truly universal health care (his only example of Sanders's alleged extremism) or, probably, the term "socialism," whose revival is baffling pundits everywhere."
"Adulthood is charismatic and daunting. It always seems to have the drop on you. But sometimes it just doesn't understand."
"Yes, F.D.R. governed "pragmatically," in the sense that he counted votes and cut deals. Everyone does this, with the occasional exception of Daenyras, Mother of Dragons. But what made it possible for him to pass sweeping changes in economic regulation and social support, changes so radical that his enemies accused of socialism, of being un-American, of destroying the country and becoming an American Mussolini? The answer is in two parts: ideas and power. His administration stood at the confluence of two great movements. The first was the labor unions, which had been building power, often in bloody and terrible struggles, since the late nineteenth century. The second was made up of the Progressives, generations of reformers who worked in state, cities, and universities -- and occasionally in national government - to achieve economic security and update political democracy in an industrial economy that had transformed the country in the decades after the Civil War. Ideas, programs, and power swirled around Roosevelt, gave his agenda shape, and pressed it forward."
"These movements were sources of ideas, and also of power. Why did all those enemies and reluctant allies end up meeting Roosevelt halfway? The answer was not not his pragmatic attitude. The reason that even some who hated him had to compromise with Roosevelt or give way was the political force he could marshal. His theory of change was no more about compromise than it was about high-minded words: It was about power. Compromise was a side-effect, a tactic at most."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jedediah-purdy/sanders-and-the-theory-of_b_9057570.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_1009118322493968_1009666529105814_1009666529105814#f1a1c89f6c
I'm glad he mentioned FDR. As he admits himself, FDR's Social Security was even less comprehensive and by a long way than Obama's ACA. Indeed, FDR was trolled by the Emoprogs of his day-Dr. Frances Townsend, and Huey Long. They spoke of primarying him in 1936, etc.
Sure, FDR had power. You know what his greatest power was? Overwhelming Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate.
And FDR didn't campaign like Bernie on a purely aspirational basis. You know what he ran on? Not the New Deal but on cutting government spending and balancing the budget. Not the New Deal.
This points to something. The big gap between the art of campaigning vs. governing-poetry vs. prose.
It's clear that FDR's campaign was hardly based on poetry. The other President Purdy mentions is Lincoln.
So his proof that Bernie is right about the theory of change is to point to the Presidents that governed in the two most calamitous and fraught periods in American history-the fight over slavery in 1960 and the height of the Great Depression in 1932.
Purdy likes poetry over prose.
The banal response to Krugman would be that most politicians campaign in poetry and govern in prose -- with the exception of some recent Democrats, notably Hillary, who ease his admirably wonkish heart by never leaving prose mode. Don't fear the poetry! one might say: it is not a theory of change, just a normal way of talking in a democracy."
"But the real answer is deeper. Obama ran in poetry and has governed in prose, in quite a literal sense that one could diagram in the sentences of his speeches and press conferences. But in the stronger, older tradition of campaigns based on ideas and programs rather than personalities, candidates run to build power, and use idealistic language to explain why that power matters. Then, if they get to govern, they use it."
But as we saw, FDR didn't run on poetry. As for Lincoln in 1860 he had vowed not to free the slaves but to protect the Union-for that he said he was willing to free not a single slave.
So this theory of change that Purdy cites is present neither with Lincoln or FDR who were both pretty cautious in their campaign rhetoric unlike the Bern.
On the other hand, you have even a guy like Mario Cuomo who was an inspirational speaker admitting that campaigning may be poetry, but governing is prose.
http://prospect.org/article/campaign-poetry-govern-prose-0
This is something of a debate right now in the party about how change is brought about. Should the party go aspirational or pragmatic in our nominee? My long time reader, Greg, disagrees with me, which is fine. Many do right now. I think Nanute is basically pro Bernie as well.
I notice that a number of friends I've had during the Obama years have gone to Bernie-not all certainly. The saving grace is I'v'e met a lot of great Hillary supporters now on Twitter. But being friends or liberals doesn't mean you have to always agree.
"I care less about which party dominates and more about what ideas are coming out of the party. Todays Dems are still largely in favor of privatizing just about everything, in favor of monetary over fiscal policy, are still militaristic (although less eager to nuke!) and have yet to find a voice to reverse the Reagan/Thatcherneoliberalism ravaging the planet. Im not totally happy with the one party we may end up with, our leaders still insulated, out of touch elitists who would just as soon see people die than to be referred to as a "socialist" or "communist" on the pages of a major newspaper or magazine."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/01/ha-goodmans-southern-strategy-for.html?showComment=1453640082619#c3733569485608787187
But I don't think the question of which party dominates and the ideas coming out are unrelated. That's my whole point. For Bernie's agenda to actually happen, he'd need a real party behind him.
Ok, so let's look at Huffington Post's Purdy's argument.
"Krugman's mistake is very basic. He's wrong about the Sanders campaign's theory of change. It isn't that a high-minded leader can draw out our best selves and translate those into more humane and egalitarian lawmaking. It is that a campaign for a more equal and secure economy and a stronger democracy can build power, in networks of activists and alliances across constituencies. The movement that the campaign helps to create can develop and give voice to a program that the same people will keep working for, in and out of election cycles. In other words, this is a campaign about political ideas and programs that happens to have a person named Bernie at its head, not a campaign that mistakes its candidate for a prophet or a wizard (or the second coming of Abraham Lincoln, who gave us the now-cliché phrase about better angels, but had no delusion that words could substitute for power)."
"The campaign whose loyalists made this idealistic mistake was, of course, Obama's 2008 run. The candidate spoke so charismatically, and seemed so much to embody a vision of realigned, common-sense, fresh-feeling progressivism, that some of us did imagine he could recast American political loyalties. Back then, Krugman was accusing Obama's supporters of spewing "bitterness" and "venom" and coming "dangerously close to a cult of personality." Now he's pleased that President Obama, unlike Candidate Obama, has governed rather like a Clinton: pragmatically, with the hand he was dealt. He seems to think that supporting Sanders's "purist" positions means "prefer[ing] happy dreams to hard thinking about means and ends." And so, he wants us to think, if we are going to be political grownups, we had better put away childish things. Like talk of truly universal health care (his only example of Sanders's alleged extremism) or, probably, the term "socialism," whose revival is baffling pundits everywhere."
"Adulthood is charismatic and daunting. It always seems to have the drop on you. But sometimes it just doesn't understand."
"Yes, F.D.R. governed "pragmatically," in the sense that he counted votes and cut deals. Everyone does this, with the occasional exception of Daenyras, Mother of Dragons. But what made it possible for him to pass sweeping changes in economic regulation and social support, changes so radical that his enemies accused of socialism, of being un-American, of destroying the country and becoming an American Mussolini? The answer is in two parts: ideas and power. His administration stood at the confluence of two great movements. The first was the labor unions, which had been building power, often in bloody and terrible struggles, since the late nineteenth century. The second was made up of the Progressives, generations of reformers who worked in state, cities, and universities -- and occasionally in national government - to achieve economic security and update political democracy in an industrial economy that had transformed the country in the decades after the Civil War. Ideas, programs, and power swirled around Roosevelt, gave his agenda shape, and pressed it forward."
"These movements were sources of ideas, and also of power. Why did all those enemies and reluctant allies end up meeting Roosevelt halfway? The answer was not not his pragmatic attitude. The reason that even some who hated him had to compromise with Roosevelt or give way was the political force he could marshal. His theory of change was no more about compromise than it was about high-minded words: It was about power. Compromise was a side-effect, a tactic at most."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jedediah-purdy/sanders-and-the-theory-of_b_9057570.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_1009118322493968_1009666529105814_1009666529105814#f1a1c89f6c
I'm glad he mentioned FDR. As he admits himself, FDR's Social Security was even less comprehensive and by a long way than Obama's ACA. Indeed, FDR was trolled by the Emoprogs of his day-Dr. Frances Townsend, and Huey Long. They spoke of primarying him in 1936, etc.
Sure, FDR had power. You know what his greatest power was? Overwhelming Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate.
And FDR didn't campaign like Bernie on a purely aspirational basis. You know what he ran on? Not the New Deal but on cutting government spending and balancing the budget. Not the New Deal.
This points to something. The big gap between the art of campaigning vs. governing-poetry vs. prose.
It's clear that FDR's campaign was hardly based on poetry. The other President Purdy mentions is Lincoln.
So his proof that Bernie is right about the theory of change is to point to the Presidents that governed in the two most calamitous and fraught periods in American history-the fight over slavery in 1960 and the height of the Great Depression in 1932.
Purdy likes poetry over prose.
The banal response to Krugman would be that most politicians campaign in poetry and govern in prose -- with the exception of some recent Democrats, notably Hillary, who ease his admirably wonkish heart by never leaving prose mode. Don't fear the poetry! one might say: it is not a theory of change, just a normal way of talking in a democracy."
"But the real answer is deeper. Obama ran in poetry and has governed in prose, in quite a literal sense that one could diagram in the sentences of his speeches and press conferences. But in the stronger, older tradition of campaigns based on ideas and programs rather than personalities, candidates run to build power, and use idealistic language to explain why that power matters. Then, if they get to govern, they use it."
But as we saw, FDR didn't run on poetry. As for Lincoln in 1860 he had vowed not to free the slaves but to protect the Union-for that he said he was willing to free not a single slave.
So this theory of change that Purdy cites is present neither with Lincoln or FDR who were both pretty cautious in their campaign rhetoric unlike the Bern.
On the other hand, you have even a guy like Mario Cuomo who was an inspirational speaker admitting that campaigning may be poetry, but governing is prose.
http://prospect.org/article/campaign-poetry-govern-prose-0
P.S. If Bernie has any historical antecedent it could be William Jennings Bryan who led the Dems to a historic defeat in 1896.
No comments:
Post a Comment