He insists on believing Bernie Sanders is the future of the Democratic party.
"Hillary Clinton's campaign — and, frankly, many DC journalists — has been repeatedly taken by surprise by the potency of some of Sanders's attacks, because they apply to such a broad swath of the party. But this is precisely the point. Sanders and his youthful supporters want the Democrats to be a different kind of party: a more ideological, more left-wing one."
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/20/11466376/bernie-sanders-future-democrats
In a way, Bernie is not as new a phenomenon as Yglesias and others assume. In my last post I looked at the 1992 Bill Clinton-Jerry Brown race and noted that in many ways the dynamics of Hillary-Bernie were there in Bill Clinton-Jerry Brown.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/04/bill-clinton-and-jerry-brown-in-1992.html
Jerry Brown too bragged about how he took no donations above $100 dollars from his 1-800 line. He was the pure candidate not bought by the special interests, etc.
"Hillary Clinton's campaign — and, frankly, many DC journalists — has been repeatedly taken by surprise by the potency of some of Sanders's attacks, because they apply to such a broad swath of the party. But this is precisely the point. Sanders and his youthful supporters want the Democrats to be a different kind of party: a more ideological, more left-wing one."
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/20/11466376/bernie-sanders-future-democrats
In a way, Bernie is not as new a phenomenon as Yglesias and others assume. In my last post I looked at the 1992 Bill Clinton-Jerry Brown race and noted that in many ways the dynamics of Hillary-Bernie were there in Bill Clinton-Jerry Brown.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/04/bill-clinton-and-jerry-brown-in-1992.html
Jerry Brown too bragged about how he took no donations above $100 dollars from his 1-800 line. He was the pure candidate not bought by the special interests, etc.
True, Brown wasn't an ideological purist in the Bernie vein but there is a family resemblance between him, Bernie, Howard Dean 2004, and Obama 2008.
It's hardly true that Bernie's leftist purism isn't new. We have the historical antecedents of Jesse Jackson in 1988, McGovern in 1972, and Eugene McCarthy, a la 1968.
Speaking of Bernie and Eugene McCarthy, see here.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-eugene-mccarthy-1968-213828
As to the future, Yglesias may or may not be right. Let's be honest: none of us know the future, or it wouldn't be the future. But, what he fails to appreciate is that even if the young Bernie fans were the future, it will be a long time till we get there.
Look around: most political leaders in both parties are older. What is the median age of politicians? It would be twenty years till these young Bernie supporters might start to make their presence known on a national level. All kinds of things could change by then.
Maybe-hopefully-wages and incomes have risen by then and the appeal of ultra left or ultra right ideologies are less. Then again, the Berners would have more experience by then. I know such young folk think they are the purists, the ones who will never settle, never be jaded, etc.
But so did the baby boomers who voted for Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. As Bill Scher notes:
"Then, after the convention, where do the Sandernistas go? No doubt time is on their side. The Washington Post’s James Downie, noting that much of the Democratic Party leadership is nearing retirement, says that to triumph, Sanders supporters need to be “running for office and joining party organizations.” Slate’s Jamelle Bouie similarly argues, “The people inspired by Sanders need to do more than beat the establishment; they need to become it.”
"But right now Hillary Clinton and all that she and her husband and former boss represent are still the Democratic establishment. And that is unlikely to change anytime soon. If the Sanders campaign proved that ambitious goals can shift the debate, so too did it prove that details win debates and coalitions win elections. Without overcoming those hurdles, youthful idealism may once again cool into middle-aged pragmatism."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-new-york-primary-213829#ixzz46YubXyJe
A few other points. Yglesias seems to approve of this desire of the young Berners for a a more leftist, ideological party-like the GOP has been on the Right. But how does Yglesias know this will be a political winner? He actually admits he doesn't know that it will be.
It's hardly true that Bernie's leftist purism isn't new. We have the historical antecedents of Jesse Jackson in 1988, McGovern in 1972, and Eugene McCarthy, a la 1968.
Speaking of Bernie and Eugene McCarthy, see here.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-eugene-mccarthy-1968-213828
As to the future, Yglesias may or may not be right. Let's be honest: none of us know the future, or it wouldn't be the future. But, what he fails to appreciate is that even if the young Bernie fans were the future, it will be a long time till we get there.
Look around: most political leaders in both parties are older. What is the median age of politicians? It would be twenty years till these young Bernie supporters might start to make their presence known on a national level. All kinds of things could change by then.
Maybe-hopefully-wages and incomes have risen by then and the appeal of ultra left or ultra right ideologies are less. Then again, the Berners would have more experience by then. I know such young folk think they are the purists, the ones who will never settle, never be jaded, etc.
But so did the baby boomers who voted for Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. As Bill Scher notes:
"Then, after the convention, where do the Sandernistas go? No doubt time is on their side. The Washington Post’s James Downie, noting that much of the Democratic Party leadership is nearing retirement, says that to triumph, Sanders supporters need to be “running for office and joining party organizations.” Slate’s Jamelle Bouie similarly argues, “The people inspired by Sanders need to do more than beat the establishment; they need to become it.”
"But right now Hillary Clinton and all that she and her husband and former boss represent are still the Democratic establishment. And that is unlikely to change anytime soon. If the Sanders campaign proved that ambitious goals can shift the debate, so too did it prove that details win debates and coalitions win elections. Without overcoming those hurdles, youthful idealism may once again cool into middle-aged pragmatism."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-new-york-primary-213829#ixzz46YubXyJe
A few other points. Yglesias seems to approve of this desire of the young Berners for a a more leftist, ideological party-like the GOP has been on the Right. But how does Yglesias know this will be a political winner? He actually admits he doesn't know that it will be.
But he says:
"After all, mainstream Democrats have no real plan to win Congressor state offices, so in terms of big schemes for change it's a choice between two different flavors of wishful thinking, not between realism and impracticality."
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/20/11466376/bernie-sanders-future-democrats
This comes to the crux of why Yglesias is so wrong about Hillary Clinton. He's wrong about the Democratic party. He has convinced himself that the party is in big trouble-because of how the GOP has taken over at the Congressional and state level during the Obama years.
What this Cassandra narrative misses is that the party in power-with the Presidency-usually loses at the Congressional and state level. This happened to George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan.
Yglesias is offended by the Democrats' 'demographic determinism.' Others feel differently, and their argument has borne more fruit in this primary.
http://www.brownisthenewwhite.com/
Yglesias thinks the Democrats have no plan? How about this one: let the GOP nominate Donald Trump and continue to implode and knock itself out?
This is why this plea for a more left wing ideological party is so short sighted. I actually read some comments over at reddit yesterday and there are some Berners who admire the Tea Party. Some hope they can take over the Democratic party at the Congressional level as the Tea Party did to the GOP.
Really? You want to replicate what the Tea Party did to the GOP? Basically cannibalized it from within?
The great virtue of the Dems vs. the GOP has been that we have been the less ideologically rigid party. We have been Center Left, but not Hard Left or Ultra Left.
That is the secret of Dem success. Just sit back and continue to let the GOP punch itself out.
"After all, mainstream Democrats have no real plan to win Congressor state offices, so in terms of big schemes for change it's a choice between two different flavors of wishful thinking, not between realism and impracticality."
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/20/11466376/bernie-sanders-future-democrats
This comes to the crux of why Yglesias is so wrong about Hillary Clinton. He's wrong about the Democratic party. He has convinced himself that the party is in big trouble-because of how the GOP has taken over at the Congressional and state level during the Obama years.
What this Cassandra narrative misses is that the party in power-with the Presidency-usually loses at the Congressional and state level. This happened to George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan.
Yglesias is offended by the Democrats' 'demographic determinism.' Others feel differently, and their argument has borne more fruit in this primary.
http://www.brownisthenewwhite.com/
Yglesias thinks the Democrats have no plan? How about this one: let the GOP nominate Donald Trump and continue to implode and knock itself out?
This is why this plea for a more left wing ideological party is so short sighted. I actually read some comments over at reddit yesterday and there are some Berners who admire the Tea Party. Some hope they can take over the Democratic party at the Congressional level as the Tea Party did to the GOP.
Really? You want to replicate what the Tea Party did to the GOP? Basically cannibalized it from within?
The great virtue of the Dems vs. the GOP has been that we have been the less ideologically rigid party. We have been Center Left, but not Hard Left or Ultra Left.
That is the secret of Dem success. Just sit back and continue to let the GOP punch itself out.
No comments:
Post a Comment