# Clinton "realists" vs. Sanders "idealists" **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 29, 2016, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615 "2016-01-29T21:32:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/21 "2016-01-31T10:35:38Z")
What’s your stance on the public option,\*\* DSeid\*\*? ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/22 "2016-01-31T10:40:47Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > **Clinton “realists” vs. Sanders “idealists”** Being heavily involved in the Democratic Party side of this (organizing 27 Precinct Caucuses next month), I have been dealing with strongly-committed folks from both groups (65 emails about it this morning alone), I don’t think they’re that far apart. Despite what the news media says, there seem to be very, very few so committed that they would refuse to vote for the other one if they are the Democratic candidate. Almost none. I think that is attributable to the clown car on the Republican side. Even the most strident Bernie Sanders supporter, when asked, “So you really think President Cruz is preferable to Hillary?”, seems to pause and think a bit. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/23 "2016-01-31T12:08:32Z")
I think it’s funny that someone who advocates for a general increase in the welfare state is an idealistic kook whose methods are akin to jumping into a river and cracking your skull (and that’s from a liberal poster). Says something about the dismal state of American politics. I wonder what would happen if a Syndicalist got on stage and started talking about worker self management and the tyranny of hierarchical institutions. It’d be worth it to see all the heads at CNN explode. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/24 "2016-01-31T14:19:25Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > What’s your stance on the public option,\*\* DSeid\*\*? That it didn’t pass though even with with a Democratic majority in Congress. Probably at some point worth raising again. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/25 "2016-01-31T14:44:00Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I am not so certain. “Realists” just know that it won’t happen whether we want it or not so why waste the time and energy on it when the same time and energy could be spent on _actually doing some good_? Are your ‘Realists’ still ‘Progressives’? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/26 "2016-01-31T15:06:01Z")
The two are overlapping sets. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/27 "2016-01-31T15:13:58Z")
“Realists” give us things like the ACA, which does some people some good in the short term, and then allows people to put their head in the sand over the issue while the underlying cause of the problem goes unchecked. I reject the idea that the current shell games that government is selling count as “bridges.” The problem with the realists is that they’re willing to drop the issues that matter as long as they get some crumbs in the moment. When I hear “it won’t happen, so why bother” I wonder why a person would support leadership (wealthy, powerful leadership) who uses that as a rallying cry. “We can’t get change now, because of all those meanies over in the GOP . . . so stick with me, while I make real things happen . . . real things that all the powerful and wealthy folks, left and right, will support. Then, eventually, long after I’m dead, maybe you people can get the unicorn you wish for.” ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/28 "2016-01-31T15:51:08Z")
Yeah, as opposed to “I want my unicorn and I want it now!” The “Idealists” prefer to accomplish nothing but feel good about themselves for their bravery in trying to stick it to The Man. Yes, realists give us the ACA, which speaking from within the healthcare industry can only be described as “crumbs” by those who are horribly ignorant of what it is accomplishing. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/29 "2016-01-31T17:26:12Z")
Let’s stick on healthcare as an example of the “idealist” v “realist” spectrum and turn back the clock some … [to Nixon](https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/06/22/stockman/bvg57mguQxOVpZMmB1Mg2N/story.html). In 1969 he was elected on the heels of the passage of Medicare and made achieving universal coverage his goal. The time was right that he could get it through on his side. Ted Kennedy was pushing for single payer. He was however enough of a realist that he negotiated … but, being a realist, compared to idealism? > [@](#): > > Kennedy said later that walking away from that deal was one of the biggest mistakes of his life. Did holding out for the perfect _move the Overton Window_, keep the subject as something that would be done next term? Um, _no_. I take that back, it did move the Overton Window. It moved the subject out of the window and, mixing metaphors, made it a third rail. It took twenty years until an administration was willing to risk political capital on it again. Bill Clinton with Hillary as point person leading another losing attempt. \*Another 20 years later \*until anyone is willing to touch it and we get Obama’s successful attempt. _Shame on him_ for being a realist actually accomplishing something that should have been accomplished _40 freaking years earlier_, that actually gets quality healthcare to many millions who did not have it, and not failing holding out for the unicorn now. Because y’know, holding out for the unicorn worked so well in the early '70s. Oh wait … no … thank you, Barack, for making a very good if imperfect deal that could be made even if you are leaving it to those who follow you to make it more perfect. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/30 "2016-01-31T18:51:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, I’m fairly certain that does not fairly describe the view of the DLC/Establishment wing of the Democratic Party. They simply **don’t want** a reform that would kill off the private health-insurance industry. Not until they figure out what to do about the huge spike in unemployment if an industry that is a huge portion of our labor sector disappears. Health insurance as it is is inefficient and expensive. But it provides a LOT of jobs. About half a million of them. An incremental approach to reform would move those jobs with less negative impact. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/31 "2016-01-31T22:29:01Z")
And now for something completely different: [The conflict between Sanders and radical **leftists.**](http://www.salon.com/2016/01/31/the_radical_left_has_bernie_sanders_all_wrong/) ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/32 "2016-01-31T22:30:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And now for something completely different: [The conflict between Sanders and radical **leftists.**](http://www.salon.com/2016/01/31/the_radical_left_has_bernie_sanders_all_wrong/) More reason why the far-left is completely useless. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/33 "2016-02-01T01:40:32Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > More reason why the far-left is completely useless. _"Feh!_ The radicals hack out the trail, the progressives clear the campsite and build the cabins, liberals show up when the hot showers are installed." – [**elucidator**](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=18572382&highlight=showers#post18572382) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/34 "2016-02-01T14:41:35Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And now for something completely different: [The conflict between Sanders and radical **leftists.**](http://www.salon.com/2016/01/31/the_radical_left_has_bernie_sanders_all_wrong/) Joshua Fattal, author of the piece, writes: > [@](#): > > What the radicals don’t get is that Bernie is opening a crack in an iron wall. This opening—glasnost is the Russian translation—can lead in many different directions. Ultimately, his policy proposals are not half as important as the shift in social power that his election will effect. His reforms will encourage social movements that are, ultimately, beyond his control. Indeed, when you look at all revolutionary change in retrospect, it accelerated in the face of reforms, openings and half-revolutions that preceded any radical break. In the spring of 1789 French elites held the Third Estate months before the storming of the Bastille prison. The Haitian slave insurrection took place when the establishment was in civil strife over reforms. In March 1917, the creation of parliamentary democracy preceded the Bolshevik seizure of power. > > For more recent examples, just think about how anti-segregation protests in the South in the mid-1950s widened into national protests against patriarchal-capitalist-heteronormative-white supremacy only a decade later. There is a direct line between Rosa Parks’ success and the prominence of Malcolm X and Angela Davis. The historical examples are manifold. Remember a generation ago the glasnost in Russia led to mass protests and the fall of the USSR. In South Africa, the apartheid reformer de Klerk negotiated an end to that regime. Gorbachev and de Klerk had only intended to reform “the system.” Perhaps it’s worth recalling that President Lincoln was insistent in his inaugural address that he would not free any slaves in slave states. His election accelerated a struggle that was already in existence. Lincoln’s election tilted the balance of power toward emancipation when half a million slaves ran to the Union army’s lines, and the war became about slavery and not just preserving the Union. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/35 "2016-02-01T14:49:58Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > The two are overlapping sets. I’m having a hard time seeing ‘realism’ as anything but concession. Now that’s fine if you like it, but I’d think a pragmatic progressive would talk about what we need to do to achieve progress rather than simply say “We can’t do it”. It’s political talk, I don’t believe these things really embody the intent of the politicians, but the appeal of ‘straight talk’, i.e. realistic sounding bullshit, is driving this election cycle right now. I’d be more accepting of the realist line if it didn’t sound like an excuse to avoid the hard work down the road. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/36 "2016-02-01T15:12:15Z")
[Toon: Patrick Henry Rodham Clinton.](http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280106380) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/37 "2016-02-01T16:00:59Z")
And on Salon, the debate continues: Amanda Marcotte: [Why I’m supporting Clinton over Sanders: Liberals don’t need a “savior,” but someone who can actually get things done in Washington.](http://www.salon.com/2016/02/01/why_im_supporting_clinton_over_sanders_liberals_dont_need_a_savior_but_someone_who_can_actually_get_things_done_in_washington/) “Liberals need to get over savior figures who promise the impossible, and learn the nitty-gritty of politics.” Andrew O’Hehir: [Why I’m supporting Sanders over Clinton: This could be the moment to reclaim the Democratic Party and reshape history.](http://www.salon.com/2016/02/01/why_im_supporting_sanders_over_clinton_this_could_be_the_moment_to_reclaim_the_democratic_party_and_reshape_history/) “The Bernie moment offers huge promise and huge danger – but it’s not really about electing Bernie Sanders.” Walker Bragman: [The big “Hillary realism” lie: Clinton supporters present a false choice — and misread our political moment](http://www.salon.com/2016/02/01/the_big_hillary_realism_lie_clinton_supporters_present_a_false_choice_and_misread_our_political_moment/) “‘Realist’ vs ‘idealist’ talk misses the point: This is a time when change is not a dream, but what people demand.” Daniel Denvir: [The “electability” argument is bogus: Why Bernie Sanders isn’t the second coming of George McGovern.](http://www.salon.com/2016/02/01/the_electability_argument_is_bogus_why_bernie_sanders_isnt_the_second_coming_of_george_mcgovern/) “Establishment dems have for months warned that a Bernie nomination would be disaster. Here’s why they’re wrong.” ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/38 "2016-02-01T16:22:03Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Thanks for the clarification. I’m also on the realist side of the fence, probably because I grew up and learned to recognize that incrementalism has a better track record than does wholesale revolution of the paradigm. Yes, this. I also cosign \*\*DSeid’s \*\*more voluble thoughts on the topic. In the spirit of the OP, here are excerpts of my three favorite recent media columns on Hillary/Bernie (all emphases mine). [Ezra Klein, Vox:](http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858464/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-political-realism) > [@](#): > > What Clinton is relearning in the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire is that \*\*there’s nothing audacious about hope. Hope is the one commodity every voter wants to buy. It’s pragmatism that you can’t sell. > \*\* > And Clinton is a political pragmatist — maybe even a political pessimist. > > [snip] > > In his influential 2008 essay on Democratic theories of change, Mark Schmitt wrote that “Clinton’s theory in a sense takes the status quo for granted more than the others, but it’s appropriate in certain situations. … Superior knowledge and diligence can be a tool of power.” > > **Clinton’s theory of change is probably analytically correct** , and it’s well-suited to a world in which Republicans will almost certainly continue to control the House, and so a Democratic president will have to grind out victories of compromise in Congress and of bureaucratic mastery through executive action. > > But it is not an inspiring vision — it does not promise grand advances, transformative change, or a kinder, gentler political sphere. **Clinton has the audacity to believe in the limits of her persuasive and political power, and an emphasis on limits doesn’t fill arenas.** [Tamara Keith, NPR’s All Things Considered:](http://www.npr.org/2016/01/30/464762073/clinton-runs-as-wonk-in-chief-trying-to-win-hearts-with-plans) > [@](#): > > **There are different ways to reach voters. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders delivers fiery speeches that fill concert halls and arenas.** But generally speaking, people don’t leave Hillary Clinton events ready to start a political revolution. Big speeches and soaring rhetoric really aren’t her thing. > > Instead, \*\*the former Secretary of State is trying to win voters over by being a wonk \*\*who delivers page after page of policy white papers. As Clinton makes her closing argument in Iowa, “in my plan” has to be the most oft repeated phrase in her stump speech. > > [snip] > > Clinton campaign press secretary Brian Fallon said **when voters have shared their concerns with Clinton, she wants to be able to offer proposals to address those issues.** > > “ **It is Hillary Clinton’s idea of fun to take a thick briefing binder home at night** to her hotel, if she is on the road, and study it and to give feedback to the staff that is providing her with a menu of options for different policy prescriptions on any given issue. She loves to engage on that,” Fallon said. [Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine:](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/what-sanders-doesnt-understand-about-politics.html#) > [@](#): > > The phrase Sanders invokes constantly, and which distinguishes him from Hillary Clinton and other Democrats not merely in degree but also in kind, is “political revolution.” \*\*The political revolution is the secret sauce. \*\*When presented with any concrete obstacles that would stand between him and his desired policy outcomes, Sanders brings up the revolution, which will transform the world he inhabits into the one he desires. > > [snip] > > **Sanders’s story provides a comforting fable for his party.** Not only are Democrats not hemmed in by the Republican hold on Congress, but they don’t even need to do the laborious work of persuading the political center to come to their side. They need only to rise up and break the grip of moneyed interests on the political system. > > There are many reasons to doubt Sanders’s promise that he can transform American politics. Perhaps the most fundamental is that he does not actually understand how it works. And then just for fun, I enjoyed this Onion story tremendously: [Retreating Clinton Campaign Torches Iowa Town To Slow Advance Of Sanders Volunteers](http://www.theonion.com/article/retreating-clinton-campaign-torches-iowa-town-slow-52261?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default) > [@](#): > > “With so little time left before voting day, we simply can’t allow them to establish a foothold in this part of the state. Besides, you can’t convince anyone to caucus for Bernie Sanders if the civilian population is gone and all that’s left is smoldering rubble.” ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/39 "2016-02-01T23:20:31Z")
Voluable? Heck I’ll go for loquacious! 🙂 So the delay of achieving meaningful healthcare reform _for over 40 years_ as the result of idealism winning over realism established let’s move on to the most generous take on Sanders and immigration reform. In 2007 there was a bipartisan immigration reform bill co-sponsored by Kennedy and McCain. It would have provided legal status and a path to citizenship. The hard Right worked to kill it and they had an ally in Bernie. Skeptics believe that it was because unions did not like it and indeed then he spoke of the possible impact on wages as the reason, but let’s take his _current_ [explanation](http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/19/bernie-sanders-cant-escape-questions-about-2007-vote-on-immigration-overhaul/) at face value: he helped kill it when it was close because he objected to a guest worker provision. Nine years later and still no immigration reform; none on the horizon. If anything the Right’s Overton Window has shifted such that compromise on it, then within grasp, has become impossible. There was a chance to get a very good bill across the line, and if his current version is to be believed, he preferred nothing to the less than ideal. This is what hard-line idealism untempered by realism results in. Still no unicorn and that not-beauty-contest-winning but solid workhorse? Sent to the glue factory instead of taking us all to town. Yes **TP** I’ll live within “the art of the possible”; I’ll admire those whose aim is to “accept the things we cannot change; for courage to change the things we can; and the wisdom to know the difference.” And disrespect those who use “idealism” as their excuse for accomplishing zip. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615/40 "2016-02-01T23:50:10Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But we could probably have a meaningful discussion of the matter based on the titles alone, which do flesh out what this is all about – i.e., nobody in this particular debate is screaming “NO SOCIALISM!” Almost everyone writing these articles appears to be more broadly sympathetic to Sanders’ goals and policies than Clinton’s . . . And, I should hope the same is true of everyone posting in this thread, including those siding with Clinton for “pragmatic” reasons. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-realists-vs-sanders-idealists/744615.md?page=3)