I've argued before-pace a piece Ezra Klein wrote-that her pragmatism is the most audacious idea of all.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/02/hillary-clintons-audacious-pragamtism.html
What is radical about Hillary is not so much that she would govern as a pragmatist. That's normally how the game is played assuming you want to survive your time in office at all.
But what's audacious is for her to run as a pragmatist.
That's not how American politics is supposed to work. You run as an outsider, as Jimmy Smith going to Washington and teaching all these smarty pants insiders that the real smart folks are the common folks with their common ways.
Howard Finnerman wrote a great piece at Huffington Post which argued that she alone is running as an insider, as someone who knows the game, has been a part of it for years and therefore, knows how to successfully navigate the system and achieve the goals of liberal Democrats.
Many have worried that this can't work. That's why Klein called it audacious. While she is accused of being duplicitous or not telling you where she really stands, in a sense, she is more honest than anyone.
Whereas Obama ran on poetry and governed in prose, even her campaign is prose. Yet, what's interesting is that this message does sell. It sells with the majority of black voters so far, many Latinos, women, and rank and file Democrats.
It seems that black voters and white voters see things different regarding HRC just as with her husband. White voters tend to think she's not trustworthy. But black voters if anything see her pragmatism as more trustworthy than Bernie's flowery talk of a revolution.
I fully agree with this take by James Poulos:
"Populism can be powerful, but only when it's really popular. And this year, a majority of Democrats just don't want a popularity contest. They want Clinton, no matter how calculated and damage-controlled she is; not because "it's her turn," but because faith is lacking that Sanders could actually govern from the left."
"But a worse irony showed through Wednesday night in the swiftly dismissive reaction that Sanders' call for revolution received. The same Clinton enthusiasts who believe Sanders would be crippled as president believe a Trump administration could do anything and everything. While Sanders couldn't get a budget passed, they seem to suggest, Trump could usher in the Fourth Reich. They fear Trump will wreak transformational change on a scale Bernie couldn't even achieve with a decent head of grassroots steam."
"Do any subtleties of thought lurk within this hypocrisy? Perhaps Trump is a better negotiator than Sanders, more interested in making great deals that deliver Americans a neo-fascistic surprise. But Sanders enjoys far more institutional support among Democrats than Trump does in the GOP. And while many conservatives want to excommunicate the party bigs who do throw in with Trump, liberals would inwardly smile — if not cheer outright — if established Democrats started endorsing Sanders. At a minimum, Sanders would not have a harder time being president than Trump. And if Sanders had a populist progressive uprising at his back, he would be far more effective than Trump with a cadre of reactionary reformers. Our culture is primed to cede ground whenever the left tries to move the goalposts of justice in the public mind. When the right has tried to do so, they've been portrayed as villains — even before Trump came in the picture."
"The conclusion is inescapable: Liberals who think Sanders is copping out as a matter of policy are themselves copping out as a matter of principle. Deep down, they actually prefer a Clinton presidency with no mass enthusiasm behind it. They want the opposite of what Trump voters want: not a risky outsider who can shake up the system, but a canny operator who knows its levers of power like the body of a lover.
http://theweek.com/articles/611814/how-democratic-debate-revealed-some-deep-truths-about-politics-revolution
That is some great imagery: 'A canny operator who knows its levers of power like the body of a lover.'
It about sums it up. Results is what Democrats want now not talk of revolution.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/02/hillary-clintons-audacious-pragamtism.html
What is radical about Hillary is not so much that she would govern as a pragmatist. That's normally how the game is played assuming you want to survive your time in office at all.
But what's audacious is for her to run as a pragmatist.
That's not how American politics is supposed to work. You run as an outsider, as Jimmy Smith going to Washington and teaching all these smarty pants insiders that the real smart folks are the common folks with their common ways.
Howard Finnerman wrote a great piece at Huffington Post which argued that she alone is running as an insider, as someone who knows the game, has been a part of it for years and therefore, knows how to successfully navigate the system and achieve the goals of liberal Democrats.
Many have worried that this can't work. That's why Klein called it audacious. While she is accused of being duplicitous or not telling you where she really stands, in a sense, she is more honest than anyone.
Whereas Obama ran on poetry and governed in prose, even her campaign is prose. Yet, what's interesting is that this message does sell. It sells with the majority of black voters so far, many Latinos, women, and rank and file Democrats.
It seems that black voters and white voters see things different regarding HRC just as with her husband. White voters tend to think she's not trustworthy. But black voters if anything see her pragmatism as more trustworthy than Bernie's flowery talk of a revolution.
I fully agree with this take by James Poulos:
"Populism can be powerful, but only when it's really popular. And this year, a majority of Democrats just don't want a popularity contest. They want Clinton, no matter how calculated and damage-controlled she is; not because "it's her turn," but because faith is lacking that Sanders could actually govern from the left."
"But a worse irony showed through Wednesday night in the swiftly dismissive reaction that Sanders' call for revolution received. The same Clinton enthusiasts who believe Sanders would be crippled as president believe a Trump administration could do anything and everything. While Sanders couldn't get a budget passed, they seem to suggest, Trump could usher in the Fourth Reich. They fear Trump will wreak transformational change on a scale Bernie couldn't even achieve with a decent head of grassroots steam."
"Do any subtleties of thought lurk within this hypocrisy? Perhaps Trump is a better negotiator than Sanders, more interested in making great deals that deliver Americans a neo-fascistic surprise. But Sanders enjoys far more institutional support among Democrats than Trump does in the GOP. And while many conservatives want to excommunicate the party bigs who do throw in with Trump, liberals would inwardly smile — if not cheer outright — if established Democrats started endorsing Sanders. At a minimum, Sanders would not have a harder time being president than Trump. And if Sanders had a populist progressive uprising at his back, he would be far more effective than Trump with a cadre of reactionary reformers. Our culture is primed to cede ground whenever the left tries to move the goalposts of justice in the public mind. When the right has tried to do so, they've been portrayed as villains — even before Trump came in the picture."
"The conclusion is inescapable: Liberals who think Sanders is copping out as a matter of policy are themselves copping out as a matter of principle. Deep down, they actually prefer a Clinton presidency with no mass enthusiasm behind it. They want the opposite of what Trump voters want: not a risky outsider who can shake up the system, but a canny operator who knows its levers of power like the body of a lover.
http://theweek.com/articles/611814/how-democratic-debate-revealed-some-deep-truths-about-politics-revolution
That is some great imagery: 'A canny operator who knows its levers of power like the body of a lover.'
It about sums it up. Results is what Democrats want now not talk of revolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment