That is why they are dangerous. At least at this time in American history, what guards and preserves the status quo, even by inaction or ineffectuality, is dangerous.
And that is why the Congressional Republicans are dangerous.
But you’re not describing Sanders’ faction – for one thing they’re not nearly organized enough yet to bind themselves to a platform. As for whether that faction, organized, and with some share of power, and part of an enlarged Congressional Progressive Caucus, would be as uncompromising and obstructionist as the Tea Party has been – I think it’s possible but not likely. The two are not reflections of each other, they’re different in kind, and progressives are reason-friendly in principle, at least, which the TP are not.
One of the simplest ways to illustrate the problem of intransigence within the left is the minimum wage. Imagine if the $15 an hour minimum wage proponents refused to support any candidate who didn’t support that wage, as Bernie seem to be saying in this case. But then the $12 an hour minimum wage supporters refuse to vote for any candidate that doesn’t support their “more reasonable” $12 wage. Does their stubborn tug o’ war create a $13.50 minimum wage? No. It leaves the minimum wage at $7.85 or whatever it is.
There is nothing inherently dangerous about reasonable people who demonstrate a capacity to show flexibility in their thinking. Let’s take a common criticism of the Sanders campaign: the Crime Bill of 1994. A lot of people supported it then because inner city streets were violent. A lot of people now can look at the unintended consequences of having so many people locked up for relatively non-violent offenses, becoming victims to the machinery of the law (it’s worth noting that the Crime Bill is not at all the the only or even the main reason for mass incarceration, though it certainly added to the problem). I would rather have reasonable people who can, from both sides, acknowledge that there’s a problem and that it’s in our mutual interest to address it. For conservatives, the problem is a fiscal one; for progressives the problem is a social and ethical one. We can meet in the center. There’s nothing dangerous here.
I’m certainly not describing all Sanders’ faction, and as I’ve said before, Sanders is a much needed voice in this campaign. But there are Sanders voters who are unrealistic in their expectations and who frankly don’t understand the system. And they contribute to the dangers (and empower the people they claim to be fighting against) by misdirecting their anger and then rebelling in counter-productive ways, either through not voting at all (in mid-terms) or voting for protest candidates and allowing people like George W Bush to win over people like Al Gore. So I agree that the Sanders contingent isn’t dangerous, but they’re not helpful and their activism ultimately backfires.
I guess my post was low grade ore, as we are speaking at cross-purposes.
My point is that the US Democratic Party would be considered right of center in Europe. Your point is that the US center right is dangerous. Also movement conservatism.
No worries, but these are really different discussions. I happen to agree that there’s nothing especially wonderful about the US center-right, assuming that it exists and I have an idea of what it is.
I can tell you this right now: I may be in agreement that the minimum wage can be raised, but raising it to $15 an hour is not going to be helpful in the long run. All that will do is force entrepreneurs to double-down on automation.
We’re heading toward a real wages and employment crisis, perhaps even a crisis of modern capitalism. I’m in agreement with Sanders’ supporters that something radical probably needs to be done. But raising the min wage forces businesses - including the small ones who employ 75 percent of all people in this country - to take up that burden of raising wages. In reality the wage gaps are created at the top, not by the sole proprietor or small partnerships.
The solution is to focus on forcing bigger wealth holders to reinvest their money in the economy and maybe to have a minimum salary or livable wage regardless of employment status. The government should pay it, not small businesses. Switzerland had the right idea, just the wrong price tag.
They will anyway. No matter how meager a wage a person is willing to work for, Bender will work cheaper. And no matter when it happens, they will say the recent surge in labor costs forced it upon them. Some men have no country, no people, only spreadsheets.