The Welcome Rebellion in the Democratic Party
Published on
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
by
The Washington Post
The Welcome Rebellion in the Democratic Party
by
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-Vt.) at a debate last month. (Photo: Jim Young/Reuters)
The political fallout from the Panama Papers has been felt throughout the
world. So far, the trove of leaked documents has exposed shady financial
activities involving powerful and wealthy figures such as British Prime
Minister David Cameron, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, Russian
President Vladimir Putin's friends, Chinese actor Jackie Chan and
Argentinian soccer star Lionel Messi. The scandal even forced Iceland's
prime minister, Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, to resign in disgrace.
In the United States, however, the reaction to the Panama Papers has been
somewhat muted. No Americans have been implicated in the massive leak -not
yet, at least - and the revelations, although tantalizing, have simply
provided concrete evidence of something many already knew. Yet, while nobody
should be surprised that the financial and political elite stash their
wealth in offshore tax havens, the Panama Papers explicitly document the
unfairness of a rigged system that deprives countries of the funds needed to
make crucial public investments. That is particularly relevant at the
current moment in U.S. politics.
Indeed, that fundamental unfairness is at the heart of the Democratic
presidential race, which, last week, descended into petty bickering. In
advance of the Wisconsin primary, in which voters handed insurgent candidate
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) his sixth victory in seven contests (before his
win in Wyoming over the weekend), front-runner and former secretary of state
Hillary Clinton not so subtly suggested that Sanders had no business being
in the race. "He's a relatively new Democrat," Clinton told Politico
reporter Glenn Thrush, "and, in fact, I'm not even sure he is one."
Clinton's jab might have been nothing more than a personal attack on
Sanders. But it also served as a political broadside against the progressive
populism that Sanders has injected into the conversation, an attempt to beat
back the challenge to the establishment that his candidacy represents. And
it was a reminder that, although Republican front-runner Donald Trump's
odious bluster still dominates the headlines, there is an important debate
happening in the Democratic primaries about the direction of not just the
country, but also the party.
One issue on which there is a genuine divide between the Democratic
candidates is trade. And although the debate has largely focused on the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Clinton now opposes, the TPP is only the
latest in a line of trade deals rigged in favor of the corporate elite and
supported by the Democratic establishment. In 2011, for example, President
Obama, then-Secretary Clinton and the Republican majority in Congress all
supported the approval of a new trade agreement with Panama. The deal was
enacted despite the opposition of many progressives, including Sanders.
Trade policy, however, is just one of the many issues on which Sanders and
progressive leaders such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are challenging
the party orthodoxy. As John Nichols has written in the Nation, the "Warren
wing" of the Democratic Party, as it is now commonly known, has adopted a
different kind of "values-based politics" - one in which fairness is among
the primary objectives in everything from tax policy, to education, to
health care. And as a result, they are changing how we define what it means
to be a Democrat. Today, the Warren wing has become an ascendant force
within the party, so much so that during her campaign, Clinton has moved to
the left on many issues, including trade.
Take, for example, the role of income inequality in our political debate and
Democratic politics in particular. When Obama embraced the issue as a theme
of his reelection campaign, declaring income inequality "the defining issue
of our time," The Post's Chris Cillizza reported that he had "borrowed
rhetorically from Massachusetts Senate candidate - and liberal heroine -
Elizabeth Warren to make his case." Now five years later, the Warren wing's
influence is apparent in the national momentum for a higher minimum wage, a
cause that Sanders has long championed. It can be seen in the congressional
support for the "The People's Budget" from the Congressional Progressive
Caucus, which Sanders co-founded in 1991. It is evident in the Obama
administration's recent steps to crack down on loopholes that enable
corporate tax "inversions." And it, along with the Sanders campaign,
continues to inspire local candidates and activists across the country.
As progressive activist and pundit Van Jones recently put it, "there is a
rebellion in this party" that has been simmering for years and is gaining
steam. Instead of working to suppress it, however, Clinton and the party
elite should embrace dissenting views among Democrats and encourage
participation in the debate. This will be especially critical to keep
prospective voters engaged and mobilized through the Democratic convention
and the election. If they do, the party will be more vibrant and better
positioned for victory in November and moving forward. But if they keep
fighting to limit what it means to be a Democrat, the party will suffer as a
result, as will the country.
C 2016 The Washington Post
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. Political Revolution
. Panama Papers
. Election 2016
The Welcome Rebellion in the Democratic Party
Published on
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
by The Washington Post
The Welcome Rebellion in the Democratic Party
by
Katrina vanden Heuvel
. 27 Comments
.
. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.) at a debate last month. (Photo: Jim Young/Reuters)
. The political fallout from the Panama Papers has been felt
throughout the world. So far, the trove of leaked documents has exposed
shady financial activities involving powerful and wealthy figures such as
British Prime Minister David Cameron, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko,
Russian President Vladimir Putin's friends, Chinese actor Jackie Chan and
Argentinian soccer star Lionel Messi. The scandal even forced Iceland's
prime minister, Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, to resign in disgrace.
. In the United States, however, the reaction to the Panama Papers has
been somewhat muted. No Americans have been implicated in the massive leak
-not yet, at least - and the revelations, although tantalizing, have simply
provided concrete evidence of something many already knew. Yet, while nobody
should be surprised that the financial and political elite stash their
wealth in offshore tax havens, the Panama Papers explicitly document the
unfairness of a rigged system that deprives countries of the funds needed to
make crucial public investments. That is particularly relevant at the
current moment in U.S. politics.
. Indeed, that fundamental unfairness is at the heart of the
Democratic presidential race, which, last week, descended into petty
bickering. In advance of the Wisconsin primary, in which voters handed
insurgent candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) his sixth victory in seven
contests (before his win in Wyoming over the weekend), front-runner and
former secretary of state Hillary Clinton not so subtly suggested that
Sanders had no business being in the race. "He's a relatively new Democrat,"
Clinton told Politico reporter Glenn Thrush, "and, in fact, I'm not even
sure he is one."
. Clinton's jab might have been nothing more than a personal attack on
Sanders. But it also served as a political broadside against the progressive
populism that Sanders has injected into the conversation, an attempt to beat
back the challenge to the establishment that his candidacy represents. And
it was a reminder that, although Republican front-runner Donald Trump's
odious bluster still dominates the headlines, there is an important debate
happening in the Democratic primaries about the direction of not just the
country, but also the party.
One issue on which there is a genuine divide between the Democratic
candidates is trade. And although the debate has largely focused on the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Clinton now opposes, the TPP is only the
latest in a line of trade deals rigged in favor of the corporate elite and
supported by the Democratic establishment. In 2011, for example, President
Obama, then-Secretary Clinton and the Republican majority in Congress all
supported the approval of a new trade agreement with Panama. The deal was
enacted despite the opposition of many progressives, including Sanders.
Trade policy, however, is just one of the many issues on which Sanders and
progressive leaders such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are challenging
the party orthodoxy. As John Nichols has written in the Nation, the "Warren
wing" of the Democratic Party, as it is now commonly known, has adopted a
different kind of "values-based politics" - one in which fairness is among
the primary objectives in everything from tax policy, to education, to
health care. And as a result, they are changing how we define what it means
to be a Democrat. Today, the Warren wing has become an ascendant force
within the party, so much so that during her campaign, Clinton has moved to
the left on many issues, including trade.
Take, for example, the role of income inequality in our political debate and
Democratic politics in particular. When Obama embraced the issue as a theme
of his reelection campaign, declaring income inequality "the defining issue
of our time," The Post's Chris Cillizza reported that he had "borrowed
rhetorically from Massachusetts Senate candidate - and liberal heroine -
Elizabeth Warren to make his case." Now five years later, the Warren wing's
influence is apparent in the national momentum for a higher minimum wage, a
cause that Sanders has long championed. It can be seen in the congressional
support for the "The People's Budget" from the Congressional Progressive
Caucus, which Sanders co-founded in 1991. It is evident in the Obama
administration's recent steps to crack down on loopholes that enable
corporate tax "inversions." And it, along with the Sanders campaign,
continues to inspire local candidates and activists across the country.
As progressive activist and pundit Van Jones recently put it, "there is a
rebellion in this party" that has been simmering for years and is gaining
steam. Instead of working to suppress it, however, Clinton and the party
elite should embrace dissenting views among Democrats and encourage
participation in the debate. This will be especially critical to keep
prospective voters engaged and mobilized through the Democratic convention
and the election. If they do, the party will be more vibrant and better
positioned for victory in November and moving forward. But if they keep
fighting to limit what it means to be a Democrat, the party will suffer as a
result, as will the country.
C 2016 The Washington Post
