I hope he does not shut up at the convention or afterwards. He should be an active participant there and as noted by others above helping work for progressively inclined candidates in even remotely winnable districts as well as for Clinton, just as Clinton worked for Obama’s success.
I just hope he returns to his message and the issues rather than the divisiveness and more personal and character based attacks that he has been engaged in this last portion. Softening up the ground for Trump with Clinton character attacks in PA and WI in particular, states that could be in question come November, would not be appreciated.
Come the convention he (highly probably) serves all of us best by being able to authentically pivot to a full-throated endorsement of Clinton. Hard to do from full speed negative attacking posture.
You realize that if you take back the Democratic Party for the progressives, you may lose the moderates? I think both parties need to do a better job of getting voices from the spectrum of political belief - it used to be OK to be a Pro-Life Democrat or a Pro-Choice Republican. Moderate Democrats could do a better job sharing the party with Progressives, but they could also do a better job of pulling in true moderates.
Don’t make the mistake the GOP did - as they moved right more and more people became RINOs - and that meant more and more people didn’t belong under their big tent.
I see Sanders supporters online cheerleading for him by saying he still has a chance at the nomination. Their arguments for why this is so seem somewhat incomplete at best, and misleading at worst, given what I’ve read here on the Dope. Still, I can understand why, even if they do know they’re being specious; as long as Sanders has even a 0.1% chance of winning, it’s in their best interests to keep hope alive, lest that 0.1% chance become flat out zero.
And he neglects to mention that his so-called ‘Democratic era’ includes all of FDR’s administration through two grave national crises and oh, by the way, a Republican who destroyed the Democratic competition for President, twice, and an election which the Democrat won by an average of one vote per district.
Problems with this post (Brian’s response is not even worth answering) -
The party center is fairly progressive as it is, and certainly about as “progressive” as it ever has been. You can’t “take back” something that was not yours before and better to destroy the whole thing if it is not done my way extremism has not ever owned the party.
Of course I agree with your point. I’d rather throw the more extreme to the curb and make actual progress than sacrifice actual doing of good to some standard of ideological purity. “Movement Conservatism” and/or Tea Party style tactics are a poor models for those of us Left of Center to emulate.
That struck a jarring note with me too – having seen the Trump v. Clinton polling figures (posted above), I think Hartmann is letting his narrative overrun his perceptions in that particular. But most of the things he says in that article are entirely true and supremely important: Since McGovern, the Democratic Party is indeed far more representative of the 10% professional class than of the 90% – and, I would add, not merely of the viewpoint but of the interests of the 10% to the exclusion of the 90% – and that needs to change so America can change.
But, it ain’t. The viewpoint represented by Sanders and his supporters is not “extreme.” It is not revolutionary Marxism. It is not really even democratic socialism, however Sanders tries to own the name. It is merely social democracy, a perfectly normal and moderate and respectable and mainstream thing worldwide, and more than anything else America needs it mainstreamed here.
The vast majority of the viewpoint represented by Sanders is not extreme … and is scarcely distinguishable from the goals of mainstream American liberalism and of the Democratic party.
It is the portrayal of themselves as the only ones with motives and ideology pure enough, the arrogance heaped upon the rest of us, the apparent willingness of many of his supporters and from the turn of his rhetoric increasingly Sanders himself (and apparently you) to portray those us, the majority of the party thank you very much, who do not 100% agree with you on every item or every tactic, as Wall Street stooges, and who work to kneecap the general in service of promoting their own purer vision, that is extremism.
Right, aside from excoriating Wall Street and denouncing the concept of compromise (i.e. the fundamental principle behind our constitution, and one that whether you like it or not a President is never going to have power to change unilaterally–in fact he has virtually no legal role in changing our constitution), the policy positions of Clinton and Sanders are remarkably close on almost all substantive issues.
Clinton is just much more open to admitting she’s going to work incrementally.
We could also point out that “progressivism” is not, in fact, limited to economics, or raising taxes on the rich, or sticking it to Wall Street.
The Democratic Party, right now, is as progressive as it’s ever been on issues like reproductive rights (which Sanders supports) and gun control (an area where he is actually to the right of many, if not most, Democrats); its setbacks in these areas are due to strong organized opposition in the GOP, not to any backtracking or any willingness to throw in the towel.
We have attained a level of progressivism where LGTBQ rights are concerned that would have been unimaginable a generation ago. (A generation? Try ten years. Neither of our current presidential candidates supported marriage equality even that recently.)
And you all know about health care. Sure, it’s not the system many of us would like to have, but over vehement, vigorous, vicious, choose-your-v-word opposition from the right wing we have been able to ensure health coverage for millions of people who would otherwise be without it. The Democrats didn’t just talk about it; they did it.
In all these ways, and in a bunch of others, the Democratic Party today is actually quite progressive. To define “progressivism” as all about economics, taxation, and Wall Street, as Sanders seems wont to do, is to miss the point.
To whom? The GOP? Or is my fantasy of a third, centrist party that can voice the desires of rational grownups about to come true?
Up until about 20 minutes ago (I’m a slow reader) I was all about President Sanders. But it was mentioned upthread that he isn’t particularly active with endorsing like-minded individuals at state and congress-level positions. Doing such a thing would be the very definition of leadership, and given his marvelous but sweeping ideas for change, he will need a ton of the kind of support those kinds of endorsements would get him. Otherwise–yay, President Sanders. Another decent man in the White House who can’t wrangle the congressional demons.
Should we see another President Clinton (which seems likely unless the GOP tosses Drumpf & Cruz and instead pushed Mittens back onto the stage), I would be even more pleased to see Sanders bail out of federal politics and instead start growing that progressive movement in 50 states.
Fair enough. However, the GOP pulling it together and delivering a not-nuts candidate while also preventing a dozen mini civil wars would be a leadership feat worthy of the White House. An interesting thought experiment anyway.
