Jamelle Bouie argues this is the real distinction between Hillary and Bernie and I think he's hit the nail on the head.
"But, as viewers, we can learn from debates even when they cover familiar ground. And the Flint debate, in particular, illustrates an important difference between Clinton and Sanders that’s often overlooked in coverage of the two candidates but that goes a long way in explaining their campaigns and their positions. In short, Hillary Clinton is running to lead Democrats, and Bernie Sanders is running to lead liberals."
"Primaries obscure this, but parties are far more than their voters. They are the volunteers that give time, the donors that give money, the local and state officials that build organizations, the recruiters that find candidates, etc. They are also loose coalitions of groups and interests that work in tandem for common goals and, equally, work against each other for particular gains. Some are more powerful than others, and that influences the broad direction and shape of the parties."
"But, as viewers, we can learn from debates even when they cover familiar ground. And the Flint debate, in particular, illustrates an important difference between Clinton and Sanders that’s often overlooked in coverage of the two candidates but that goes a long way in explaining their campaigns and their positions. In short, Hillary Clinton is running to lead Democrats, and Bernie Sanders is running to lead liberals."
"Primaries obscure this, but parties are far more than their voters. They are the volunteers that give time, the donors that give money, the local and state officials that build organizations, the recruiters that find candidates, etc. They are also loose coalitions of groups and interests that work in tandem for common goals and, equally, work against each other for particular gains. Some are more powerful than others, and that influences the broad direction and shape of the parties."
"In addition to chief executive and commander in chief, the president of the United States is also the leader of his or her party. And as much as anything else, the president has to navigate these groups and interests, as well as communicate with other party members, from congressional leaders to local and state party officials. It’s why, to that point, the vice president often takes the lead in campaigning and fundraising for down ballot races—it is a show of commitment from the White House to the broader Democratic Party. Ambitious lawmakers do the same, campaigning for candidates and colleagues around the country. It’s why Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, for example, stumped for Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes in 2014. Or why West Virginia’s Joe Manchin did the same for Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu."
"Presidential candidates hold a unique role. As prospective leaders of the national party, they set the tone for everyone on the ballot. What the presidential candidate (or nominee) says affects how House, Senate, and gubernatorial candidates shape their campaigns."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/the_real_difference_between_hillary_clinton_and_bernie.2.html
"Which brings us back to Hillary and Bernie. In the last hour of the Flint debate, a questioner pushed the candidates on fracking. Clinton equivocated. “[B]y the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place,” she said. “And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there [are] places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated.” Sanders, by contrast, was more direct: “My answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking.”
But the irony in my mind is that 'equivocation' isn't always bad. Although it's often panned as dishonest, in a way it's much more honest to what the real issues are and the likelihood of achieving things.
I mean it'd be easy just to say 'No fracking, full stop.' But it's also a state issue.
"You can read this as political cowardice from Clinton and courage from Sanders; or as evidence of their ties to entrenched interests (or lack thereof); or of Clinton’s cautious moderation and Sanders’ ambitious liberalism. But I think you can also read it as a reflection of their different positions in the Democratic primary, and their different goals as candidates."
"Hillary Clinton, a prominent leader from the ideological center of the Democratic Party, is running to lead the Democratic coalition as it exists. She wants to lead the party as much as she wants to be president. Which makes her more attentive to traditional party building—she’s pledged to devote resources to boosting state parties and candidates—and more cautious with her rhetoric. Liberals in the Democratic coalition are opposed to fracking, but many rural and purple state Democrats aren’t. Clinton doesn’t want to alienate either, so she tries to satisfy both."
"Bernie Sanders, by contrast, comes from the left wing of American politics with a nominal attachment to the Democratic Party—until his run for the presidency, he didn’t identify as a Democrat. He’s not as concerned with the usual party building and coalition maintenance. He wants to change the terms of the institution that is the Democratic Party and put ideological liberals at the fulcrum of Democratic politics, in the same way that ideological conservatives sit at the center of Republican politics. And so, his appeals are broad and expansive. He doesn’t worry about details as much as he focuses on energizing like-minded voters. Rather than trying to satisfy Democrats in conservative places, Sanders is trying to reduce their influence by attracting sympathetic voters (his “political revolution”)."
"The problem for Sanders is that ideological liberals are one faction among many, and they compete for influence with party stalwarts like union members and black Americans, who offer support based on transaction—what can you do for the interests of our specific group—as much as belief. To win on his terms, Sanders has to grow the space for ideological politics in those groups and satisfy its more moderate and conservative members. This is hard (I call them “stalwarts” for a reason), and it’s why Sanders has had a hard time in states where they play an important part."
He does point out that the Democratic party is becoming more liberal, which is a good thing, in my view. Where the party goes in the future can be worked out. But we need the true Democrat not the True Progressive to get us there.
"Presidential candidates hold a unique role. As prospective leaders of the national party, they set the tone for everyone on the ballot. What the presidential candidate (or nominee) says affects how House, Senate, and gubernatorial candidates shape their campaigns."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/the_real_difference_between_hillary_clinton_and_bernie.2.html
This is a very good analysis of what it means to be the Democratic Presidential nominee, and why I think Bernie is so ill suited for the role. Again, he's sometimes played a constructive role as part of Team Democrat in the Senate though he has eschewed the party name until now.
But he's clearly not QB material. Bouie uses the example of the issue of fracking.
Some liked Bernie's answer: 'Mine is a lot shorter than the Secretary's: no.'
What he's saying here, he has said many times: I'm the True Progressive which is why everything for me is a simple yes and no. She's compromised, she has to check with her donors first.
But I agree with Greg Sargent: Bernie's answer wasn't so great in itself. Indeed, it's why I haven't liked his campaign from the start. We need a leader for the Democratic party not the Truest Progressive in the Room.
Bouie explains the real locus of the difference:
"Which brings us back to Hillary and Bernie. In the last hour of the Flint debate, a questioner pushed the candidates on fracking. Clinton equivocated. “[B]y the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place,” she said. “And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there [are] places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated.” Sanders, by contrast, was more direct: “My answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking.”
But the irony in my mind is that 'equivocation' isn't always bad. Although it's often panned as dishonest, in a way it's much more honest to what the real issues are and the likelihood of achieving things.
I mean it'd be easy just to say 'No fracking, full stop.' But it's also a state issue.
"You can read this as political cowardice from Clinton and courage from Sanders; or as evidence of their ties to entrenched interests (or lack thereof); or of Clinton’s cautious moderation and Sanders’ ambitious liberalism. But I think you can also read it as a reflection of their different positions in the Democratic primary, and their different goals as candidates."
"Hillary Clinton, a prominent leader from the ideological center of the Democratic Party, is running to lead the Democratic coalition as it exists. She wants to lead the party as much as she wants to be president. Which makes her more attentive to traditional party building—she’s pledged to devote resources to boosting state parties and candidates—and more cautious with her rhetoric. Liberals in the Democratic coalition are opposed to fracking, but many rural and purple state Democrats aren’t. Clinton doesn’t want to alienate either, so she tries to satisfy both."
"Bernie Sanders, by contrast, comes from the left wing of American politics with a nominal attachment to the Democratic Party—until his run for the presidency, he didn’t identify as a Democrat. He’s not as concerned with the usual party building and coalition maintenance. He wants to change the terms of the institution that is the Democratic Party and put ideological liberals at the fulcrum of Democratic politics, in the same way that ideological conservatives sit at the center of Republican politics. And so, his appeals are broad and expansive. He doesn’t worry about details as much as he focuses on energizing like-minded voters. Rather than trying to satisfy Democrats in conservative places, Sanders is trying to reduce their influence by attracting sympathetic voters (his “political revolution”)."
"The problem for Sanders is that ideological liberals are one faction among many, and they compete for influence with party stalwarts like union members and black Americans, who offer support based on transaction—what can you do for the interests of our specific group—as much as belief. To win on his terms, Sanders has to grow the space for ideological politics in those groups and satisfy its more moderate and conservative members. This is hard (I call them “stalwarts” for a reason), and it’s why Sanders has had a hard time in states where they play an important part."
He does point out that the Democratic party is becoming more liberal, which is a good thing, in my view. Where the party goes in the future can be worked out. But we need the true Democrat not the True Progressive to get us there.
No comments:
Post a Comment