Why Democrats Don't Get Sanders' Endgame (and Why It Will Hurt Them in the
End)
Published on
Friday, July 01, 2016
by
Common Dreams
Why Democrats Don't Get Sanders' Endgame (and Why It Will Hurt Them in the
End)
by
John Atcheson
Bernie Sanders holds a campaign rally at Island Park in Springfield, Oregon
on Thursday. (Photo: Chris Pietsch/The Register-Guard)
The Democratic Party establishment's response to Sanders' staying in the
race ranges from perplexed to downright hostile.
For example, Sam Stein reports that Senator Kent Conrad recently said:
So far [Sanders] has been riding a wave of good feelings in the sense he ran
an incredible campaign . But that has a pretty short shelf life and then
people start looking at you through a different lens, and that lens is: Are
you a team player and do you have the larger picture in mind or are you just
focused on yourself?
Then there's Democratic Convention Chair Ed Rendell's take on it:
I'm confused by it. If he wants to speak in primetime at the convention,
then he has to suspend his campaign.
Many pundits wonder aloud whether Sanders is motivated by ego. Paul Krugman
- a reliable source of anti-Bernie sentiment - had this to say about Sanders
staying in the race:
At this point it's as if Sanders is determined to validate everything
liberal skeptics have been saying all along about his unwillingness to face
reality - and all of it for, maybe, a few weeks of additional fundraising,
at the expense of any future credibility and goodwill. Isn't there anyone
who can tell him to stop before it's too late?
These comments all reflect a viewpoint that is Party-centric, and steeped in
the establishment media's obsession with the "horserace" aspects of the
race, and as a result they miss the real - and patently obvious - reason
Sanders is taking his issues to the Convention.
Let's look at each.
The Horserace
Pundits love to talk about tactics, strategies and standings, but are loathe
to look at politics as an expression of values. To them, it's about the
candidate, not the things he or she stands for. Hillary's slogan, "I'm with
her," exemplifies this perspective. It's not about us; it's not about
principles; it's about her. Sanders slogan is "a future to believe in" - but
he's said from the beginning that his campaign wasn't about him, it was
about us. His slogan might be more accurately characterized as, "I'm with
you."
If you look at the nomination process through this lens, it is perplexing
for Sanders to stay in. It's over, Hillary won; the trifectas, exactas, and
other bets have been paid off, so what the hell is that old horse still
doing on the track? It's time for the next race, damnit.
In this paradigm, Bernie's best bet is to fold the tent, rally his troops,
return to the Democratic fold and get on the gravy train. Here the emphasis
is on the candidates and the Party. The people's interests? Well, they're
not even in the race.
Which brings us to the view through the Party lens.
Through a Lens, Darkly - Party Trumps People
Let's examine Krugman's quote, above. In his view, Sanders loses
credibility and goodwill by not quitting. Quite a revealing take.
Credibility, in Krugman's world, isn't about sticking to the values and
ethics you've been espousing; it's not about being true to the people who
supported you because of those values. Rather, it is about playing by the
Party rules. Once again, Party trumps people.
Rendell, looking through the Party lens, can think of nothing more important
than having a prominent speaking role at the Convention, and he is perplexed
that Sanders isn't doing all he can to get one. Values? People first? Not
even in the equation.
Then there's the world according to Conrad. If you don't "fall into line",
then you are not "a team player." And of course, if you're not a team
player, then you must be "just focused on yourself." Here, Conrad is
looking through the doubly distorting lenses of the horserace and the Party
simultaneously. No wonder he doesn't get it.
What Sanders wants, of course is obvious: He's less interested in joining
the Democratic Party than he is in transforming it. And with good reason.
Why a Values-Based Party is Good Politics, Too.
What most pundits miss is that the Democratic Party has been hemorrhaging
people since 1960, when 50% of voters called themselves Democrats, and only
about 20% identified as Independents. For the most part, Republicans have
bounced around in the mid to high twenties, occasionally hitting the low
30's.
Today, only 29% of potential voters identify as Democrats, 42% call
themselves Independents, and 26% are Republicans.
Where did all those people go? As the Democratic Party abandoned the New
Deal policies that contributed to the longest sustained and most equitably
shared prosperity in our nation's history, the people abandoned the Party,
as their share of the national pie plummeted and the plutocrat's share
skyrocketed.
Hillary Clinton is the second most disliked candidate and the least trusted
candidate to run for the Presidency in the history of polling. That won't
inspire a big turnout, and Democrats desperately need a big turnout. In the
disastrous mid-term election of 2014 in which Republicans trounced
Democrats, the US had the lowest voter turnout in 75 years.
What the average person has figured out, is that neither Party represents
them, and that we live in an Oligarchy. So they've stopped playing. This
has been bad for Democrats, since the passionately ignorant show up to vote
in disproportionate numbers.
Bottom line: Sanders' values-based appeal to voters is in the best
long-term interests of the Party, but the Party is controlled by vested
interests who won't relinquish their chokehold on it. And as for Hillary
Clinton, "the progressive who gets things done?" Well, she and her
surrogates are busy backtracking on her very briefly held progressive
positions on trade, climate, and universal healthcare (among others) as
noted by Bill McKibben.
We are fortunate to have a candidate as crazed as Trump. It is likely that
even a weak candidate like Hillary will defeat him.
But in the long-term, the Democratic Party and the people will suffer by
nominating and electing another candidate who is indebted to - indeed, an
integral part of - the Oligarchy.
And that, my clueless friends in the establishment media and the
punditocracy, is why Sanders won't quit. And why he shouldn't.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
John Atcheson
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Friday, July 1, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
Why Democrats Don't Get Sanders' Endgame (and Why It Will Hurt Them in the
End)
Published on
Friday, July 01, 2016
by
Common Dreams
Why Democrats Don't Get Sanders' Endgame (and Why It Will Hurt Them in the
End)
by
John Atcheson
. 68 Comments
.
. Bernie Sanders holds a campaign rally at Island Park in Springfield,
Oregon on Thursday. (Photo: Chris Pietsch/The Register-Guard)
. The Democratic Party establishment's response to Sanders' staying in
the race ranges from perplexed to downright hostile.
. For example, Sam Stein reports that Senator Kent Conrad recently
said:
. So far [Sanders] has been riding a wave of good feelings in the
sense he ran an incredible campaign . But that has a pretty short shelf life
and then people start looking at you through a different lens, and that lens
is: Are you a team player and do you have the larger picture in mind or are
you just focused on yourself?
. Then there's Democratic Convention Chair Ed Rendell's take on it:
I'm confused by it. If he wants to speak in primetime at the convention,
then he has to suspend his campaign.
Many pundits wonder aloud whether Sanders is motivated by ego. Paul Krugman
- a reliable source of anti-Bernie sentiment - had this to say about Sanders
staying in the race:
At this point it's as if Sanders is determined to validate everything
liberal skeptics have been saying all along about his unwillingness to face
reality - and all of it for, maybe, a few weeks of additional fundraising,
at the expense of any future credibility and goodwill. Isn't there anyone
who can tell him to stop before it's too late?
These comments all reflect a viewpoint that is Party-centric, and steeped in
the establishment media's obsession with the "horserace" aspects of the
race, and as a result they miss the real - and patently obvious - reason
Sanders is taking his issues to the Convention.
Let's look at each.
http://commondreams.org/killing-messengerhttp://commondreams.org/killing-mes
senger
The Horserace
Pundits love to talk about tactics, strategies and standings, but are loathe
to look at politics as an expression of values. To them, it's about the
candidate, not the things he or she stands for. Hillary's slogan, "I'm with
her," exemplifies this perspective. It's not about us; it's not about
principles; it's about her. Sanders slogan is "a future to believe in" - but
he's said from the beginning that his campaign wasn't about him, it was
about us. His slogan might be more accurately characterized as, "I'm with
you."
If you look at the nomination process through this lens, it is perplexing
for Sanders to stay in. It's over, Hillary won; the trifectas, exactas, and
other bets have been paid off, so what the hell is that old horse still
doing on the track? It's time for the next race, damnit.
In this paradigm, Bernie's best bet is to fold the tent, rally his troops,
return to the Democratic fold and get on the gravy train. Here the emphasis
is on the candidates and the Party. The people's interests? Well, they're
not even in the race.
Which brings us to the view through the Party lens.
Through a Lens, Darkly - Party Trumps People
Let's examine Krugman's quote, above. In his view, Sanders loses credibility
and goodwill by not quitting. Quite a revealing take. Credibility, in
Krugman's world, isn't about sticking to the values and ethics you've been
espousing; it's not about being true to the people who supported you because
of those values. Rather, it is about playing by the Party rules. Once again,
Party trumps people.
Rendell, looking through the Party lens, can think of nothing more important
than having a prominent speaking role at the Convention, and he is perplexed
that Sanders isn't doing all he can to get one. Values? People first? Not
even in the equation.
Then there's the world according to Conrad. If you don't "fall into line",
then you are not "a team player." And of course, if you're not a team
player, then you must be "just focused on yourself." Here, Conrad is looking
through the doubly distorting lenses of the horserace and the Party
simultaneously. No wonder he doesn't get it.
What Sanders wants, of course is obvious: He's less interested in joining
the Democratic Party than he is in transforming it. And with good reason.
Why a Values-Based Party is Good Politics, Too.
What most pundits miss is that the Democratic Party has been hemorrhaging
people since 1960, when 50% of voters called themselves Democrats, and only
about 20% identified as Independents. For the most part, Republicans have
bounced around in the mid to high twenties, occasionally hitting the low
30's.
Today, only 29% of potential voters identify as Democrats, 42% call
themselves Independents, and 26% are Republicans.
Where did all those people go? As the Democratic Party abandoned the New
Deal policies that contributed to the longest sustained and most equitably
shared prosperity in our nation's history, the people abandoned the Party,
as their share of the national pie plummeted and the plutocrat's share
skyrocketed.
Hillary Clinton is the second most disliked candidate and the least trusted
candidate to run for the Presidency in the history of polling. That won't
inspire a big turnout, and Democrats desperately need a big turnout. In the
disastrous mid-term election of 2014 in which Republicans trounced
Democrats, the US had the lowest voter turnout in 75 years.
What the average person has figured out, is that neither Party represents
them, and that we live in an Oligarchy. So they've stopped playing. This has
been bad for Democrats, since the passionately ignorant show up to vote in
disproportionate numbers.
Bottom line: Sanders' values-based appeal to voters is in the best long-term
interests of the Party, but the Party is controlled by vested interests who
won't relinquish their chokehold on it. And as for Hillary Clinton, "the
progressive who gets things done?" Well, she and her surrogates are busy
backtracking on her very briefly held progressive positions on trade,
climate, and universal healthcare (among others) as noted by Bill McKibben.
We are fortunate to have a candidate as crazed as Trump. It is likely that
even a weak candidate like Hillary will defeat him.
But in the long-term, the Democratic Party and the people will suffer by
nominating and electing another candidate who is indebted to - indeed, an
integral part of - the Oligarchy.
And that, my clueless friends in the establishment media and the
punditocracy, is why Sanders won't quit. And why he shouldn't.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
