The Democratic Stockholm Syndrome
Published on
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
by
Common Dreams
The Democratic Stockholm Syndrome
New Yorkers voted overwhelmingly for those holding their progress captive
by
Peter Bloom
Supporters of Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders cheer
during a Sanders rally at Safeco Field in Seattle, Washington March 25,
2016. (Photo: Reuters)
After weeks of hard and increasingly heated campaigning, Hillary Clinton
scored a decisive victory over Bernie Sanders in last night's New York
Democratic primary. Despite losing a majority of the state's counties, she
won in huge margins in New York City and the popular vote overall. The
triumph was a potential serious blow to Sanders' progressive momentum and a
just as dramatic boom to her now seemingly inevitable march to the
nomination.
"A funny thing happened on the way to the end of history - it started to
change rapidly."
A crucial question in the wake of such a defeat is whether Sanders should
continue to soldier onwards. He has both the resources and a vast amount of
popular support to do so. Nevertheless, his often media cited path to the
nomination just got significantly narrower and less straightforward.
Yet the fate of Sanders' candidacy pales in comparison to the future success
of the political revolution he is trying to create and ferment. What does
losing the Empire state mean to the progressive movement he is helping to
inspire? What does it say about its own long march to changing the country
and the world?
A key takeaway from the Primary is that regardless of where the movement
goes from here - it must recognize the affective hold that establishment
Parties and candidates still have on voters, even those committed to and
desiring of real change.
Kidnapped by the Establishment
A crucial narrative driving the Sanders' candidacy is that he and his
movement are the real standard-bearers for 21st century progressive values.
While this may be substantively true, it misses how and why so many see
Centrist Democrats like Clinton as their advocate even when they are so
willing to betray them when in power. They represent a now established
fantasy of incremental rearguard progress that seeks to inspire not by its
idealistic ambition but its clear eyed "realism".
In the wake of Reagan's Conservative revolution, this narrative arguably
made more sense. The writing appeared to be on the wall - Americans had
chosen social conservatism and economic capitalism. The only answer for the
mainstream left - always bordering on a contradiction in terms during the
best of times - was to moderate the negative effects of this rightwing turn
through a pronounced politics of moderation.
Yet a funny thing happened on the way to the end of history - it started to
change rapidly. Once third rail issues of gay marriage and drug legalization
became not only part of the public conversation but also increasingly the
law of the land. The fight for a 15 dollar minimum wage began to gain
traction and real legislative victories.
The immediate fear is that the Centrists will unfairly hijack these
progressive triumphs to their political advantage. Already, Clinton has been
rightly criticized for suddenly being at the forefront of the campaign for
increasing the minimum wage - using its victory in New York as a photo-op
for her campaign. More broadly, unions and progressive groups like the Human
Rights Campaign and Planned Parenthood have been critiqued for supporting
Clinton despite her inconsistency on the issues that are most important to
their members.
These objections are not, furthermore, overshadowed by the argument that
Sanders has substantively moved Clinton and her ilk to the left policy wise.
Undoubtedly he has changed the public debate. So too have movements like
Black Lives Matter. This should not be underestimated. Yet even after a
heated primary season, Clinton remains as hawkish on foreign policy as ever
and only slightly less compromising on domestic issues.
Her victory would do more than simply put another middle of the road
candidate into the Whitehouse. Indeed it would be worse in that while
Clinton is an absolute opportunist domestically, she is a principled neo-con
internationally. Still her victory would only be the symptom of a much more
serious disease. It would represent the continued kidnapping of progress by
the political establishment.
Loving your Captor
There is perhaps an understandable tendency by those on the growing left to
simply dismiss establishment voters. Yet to do so would be to miss a crucial
part of the staying power of these establishment candidates. It is not only
that they have kidnapped progress for their own political gain. It is also
that they have accomplished this task by getting many of their supporters to
love them even as they occasionally loathe their actions.
While supporters justify an establishment politics of "working within the
system" as rational and pragmatic, its appeal largely resides as a
progressive fantasy. Even after three decades worth of evidence of the
profound limitations of such a strategy - it remains emotionally resonant.
Hollow victories such as the compromised legislation of Dodd-Frank and
Obamacare are celebrated as landmark progressive achievements. Centrist
candidates are hailed for their courage in standing up to an "intractable"
Republican enemy - doing what little they could to make things better in a
political war that has already been lost.
It plays into a belief that all that is needed is to elect more Democrats.
That they have the best interest of the country at heart even if they
regularly feed from the same corrupt cesspool as their Conservative rivals.
That to dream big means to consign the nation to a century of failed
idealism rather than hard won compromise.
In the recent election this affection for the exact politicians who are
holding real progress hostage has grown even stronger. Whereas Clinton was
once seen as the epitome of the "lesser of two evils", in New York according
to exit polls she was viewed as the "more inspiring" candidate than Bernie
Sanders. There are definite reasons that have little to do with her lack of
any progressive accomplishments for this rosy view - not the least that she
would at long last break the executive glass ceiling by becoming the first
female President.
The Democratic Stockholm Syndrome
However, there is something else at play as well. She is heralded for her
promises to continue the "progressive" legacy set by Obama. Suddenly the
President who has pushed for Drone Wars, further Wall Street bailouts and
the TPP is a paragon of modern progressivism. The New York triumph of his
all but publicly endorsed predecessor Hillary Clinton is a paean of love to
the very establishment that many of their voters are demanding to be
changed.
For progressives to achieve mass success they must do all they can to break
up this abusive relationship. To not accept the myth that Clinton represents
"incremental change" or that she is committed to fighting climate change or
that you can trumpet gun control at home and the international arms industry
abroad.
This does not mean abandoning the fight to ensure that a more retrogressive
Republican alternative does not take power. The reign of a Trump or Cruz
would be similar but worse than that of Clinton. Nevertheless, it also means
not minimizing the passion felt for the establishment. It may be misplaced
but it is real and when mobilized can be potent.
Instead, it demands that even in defeat we continue the struggle to
deprogram the victims of the New Democrats. To point out consistently that
change only happens from the bottom up. That one cannot claim to be a
progressive and support anti-democratic oligarchic regimes around the world.
That what Democrats and Republicans alike legitimize as national security is
really just a bloated corporate security force subsidized by the American
taxpayer. That you may "be with her" but when the moment it is politically
expedient she certainly will not "be with you."
The path the nomination for Bernie Sanders undeniably narrowed yesterday.
The path to revolution and genuine progress depends on breaking America free
from its Democratic Stockholm Syndrome.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
Peter Bloom
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. Democracy Awakening
. Political Revolution
. Panama Papers
. Election 2016
. Donald Trump
The Democratic Stockholm Syndrome
Published on
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
by
Common Dreams
The Democratic Stockholm Syndrome
New Yorkers voted overwhelmingly for those holding their progress captive
by
Peter Bloom
. 109 Comments
.
. Supporters of Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders
cheer during a Sanders rally at Safeco Field in Seattle, Washington March
25, 2016. (Photo: Reuters)
. After weeks of hard and increasingly heated campaigning, Hillary
Clinton scored a decisive victory over Bernie Sanders in last night's New
York Democratic primary. Despite losing a majority of the state's counties,
she won in huge margins in New York City and the popular vote overall. The
triumph was a potential serious blow to Sanders' progressive momentum and a
just as dramatic boom to her now seemingly inevitable march to the
nomination.
. "A funny thing happened on the way to the end of history - it
started to change rapidly."
. A crucial question in the wake of such a defeat is whether Sanders
should continue to soldier onwards. He has both the resources and a vast
amount of popular support to do so. Nevertheless, his often media cited path
to the nomination just got significantly narrower and less straightforward.
. Yet the fate of Sanders' candidacy pales in comparison to the future
success of the political revolution he is trying to create and ferment. What
does losing the Empire state mean to the progressive movement he is helping
to inspire? What does it say about its own long march to changing the
country and the world?
A key takeaway from the Primary is that regardless of where the movement
goes from here - it must recognize the affective hold that establishment
Parties and candidates still have on voters, even those committed to and
desiring of real change.
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/cdspring16-articlehttps://secure.
actblue.com/contribute/page/cdspring16-article
Kidnapped by the Establishment
A crucial narrative driving the Sanders' candidacy is that he and his
movement are the real standard-bearers for 21st century progressive values.
While this may be substantively true, it misses how and why so many see
Centrist Democrats like Clinton as their advocate even when they are so
willing to betray them when in power. They represent a now established
fantasy of incremental rearguard progress that seeks to inspire not by its
idealistic ambition but its clear eyed "realism".
In the wake of Reagan's Conservative revolution, this narrative arguably
made more sense. The writing appeared to be on the wall - Americans had
chosen social conservatism and economic capitalism. The only answer for the
mainstream left - always bordering on a contradiction in terms during the
best of times - was to moderate the negative effects of this rightwing turn
through a pronounced politics of moderation.
Yet a funny thing happened on the way to the end of history - it started to
change rapidly. Once third rail issues of gay marriage and drug legalization
became not only part of the public conversation but also increasingly the
law of the land. The fight for a 15 dollar minimum wage began to gain
traction and real legislative victories.
The immediate fear is that the Centrists will unfairly hijack these
progressive triumphs to their political advantage. Already, Clinton has been
rightly criticized for suddenly being at the forefront of the campaign for
increasing the minimum wage - using its victory in New York as a photo-op
for her campaign. More broadly, unions and progressive groups like the Human
Rights Campaign and Planned Parenthood have been critiqued for supporting
Clinton despite her inconsistency on the issues that are most important to
their members.
These objections are not, furthermore, overshadowed by the argument that
Sanders has substantively moved Clinton and her ilk to the left policy wise.
Undoubtedly he has changed the public debate. So too have movements like
Black Lives Matter. This should not be underestimated. Yet even after a
heated primary season, Clinton remains as hawkish on foreign policy as ever
and only slightly less compromising on domestic issues.
Her victory would do more than simply put another middle of the road
candidate into the Whitehouse. Indeed it would be worse in that while
Clinton is an absolute opportunist domestically, she is a principled neo-con
internationally. Still her victory would only be the symptom of a much more
serious disease. It would represent the continued kidnapping of progress by
the political establishment.
Loving your Captor
There is perhaps an understandable tendency by those on the growing left to
simply dismiss establishment voters. Yet to do so would be to miss a crucial
part of the staying power of these establishment candidates. It is not only
that they have kidnapped progress for their own political gain. It is also
that they have accomplished this task by getting many of their supporters to
love them even as they occasionally loathe their actions.
While supporters justify an establishment politics of "working within the
system" as rational and pragmatic, its appeal largely resides as a
progressive fantasy. Even after three decades worth of evidence of the
profound limitations of such a strategy - it remains emotionally resonant.
Hollow victories such as the compromised legislation of Dodd-Frank and
Obamacare are celebrated as landmark progressive achievements. Centrist
candidates are hailed for their courage in standing up to an "intractable"
Republican enemy - doing what little they could to make things better in a
political war that has already been lost.
It plays into a belief that all that is needed is to elect more Democrats.
That they have the best interest of the country at heart even if they
regularly feed from the same corrupt cesspool as their Conservative rivals.
That to dream big means to consign the nation to a century of failed
idealism rather than hard won compromise.
In the recent election this affection for the exact politicians who are
holding real progress hostage has grown even stronger. Whereas Clinton was
once seen as the epitome of the "lesser of two evils", in New York according
to exit polls she was viewed as the "more inspiring" candidate than Bernie
Sanders. There are definite reasons that have little to do with her lack of
any progressive accomplishments for this rosy view - not the least that she
would at long last break the executive glass ceiling by becoming the first
female President.
The Democratic Stockholm Syndrome
However, there is something else at play as well. She is heralded for her
promises to continue the "progressive" legacy set by Obama. Suddenly the
President who has pushed for Drone Wars, further Wall Street bailouts and
the TPP is a paragon of modern progressivism. The New York triumph of his
all but publicly endorsed predecessor Hillary Clinton is a paean of love to
the very establishment that many of their voters are demanding to be
changed.
For progressives to achieve mass success they must do all they can to break
up this abusive relationship. To not accept the myth that Clinton represents
"incremental change" or that she is committed to fighting climate change or
that you can trumpet gun control at home and the international arms industry
abroad.
This does not mean abandoning the fight to ensure that a more retrogressive
Republican alternative does not take power. The reign of a Trump or Cruz
would be similar but worse than that of Clinton. Nevertheless, it also means
not minimizing the passion felt for the establishment. It may be misplaced
but it is real and when mobilized can be potent.
Instead, it demands that even in defeat we continue the struggle to
deprogram the victims of the New Democrats. To point out consistently that
change only happens from the bottom up. That one cannot claim to be a
progressive and support anti-democratic oligarchic regimes around the world.
That what Democrats and Republicans alike legitimize as national security is
really just a bloated corporate security force subsidized by the American
taxpayer. That you may "be with her" but when the moment it is politically
expedient she certainly will not "be with you."
The path the nomination for Bernie Sanders undeniably narrowed yesterday.
The path to revolution and genuine progress depends on breaking America free
from its Democratic Stockholm Syndrome.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
