Most of my analysis of the 2016 election has been focused on the Republican side of the battle, but now I do want to change my focus to the Democrats.
In the last few days the MSM has begun to pay more attention to the divisions within the Democratic Party. In the public mind Bernie Sanders is a latter-day Don Quixote: an idiosyncratic but dedicated social justice warrior who's refusing to concede defeat, even though his chances of beating Hillary Clinton are only possible mathematically. In the world of probabilities he has a greater chance of being struck by lightning in a coal mine than surpassing Clinton in delegates, and has only slightly better odds at forcing a contested convention in July. But he's persistent, saying he's going to stay in the race until every vote is counted, though his campaign says he will not pursue a third party run. His persistence is generally applauded, but that he feels embolden to continue his impossible dream is a sign that not all Democrats are on the same page.
More than his persistence, it's the persistence of his followers that is drawing concern as opposed to admiration. There's been much made of the violence at Donald Trump rallies, but people are now noting that Sanders' supporters can be disruptive themselves. The reported disruptions at the Nevada State Democratic Convention were, in part, directed toward Senator Barbara Boxer, a Clinton supporter who is far from a conservative. Similar to the GOP, the Democrats are facing their own anti-establishment insurgency. Not long ago Boxer would have been called a progressive, but Sanders' open espousal of social democracy has left conventional liberals looking a bit staid. There are now serious questions if the establishment and the insurgents will be able to coalesce to insure a November victory. Worse yet are concerns that things could turn ugly at the convention.
In this vein California's other senator, Diane Feinstein, has raised worries that Philadelphia 2016 might be the new Chicago 1968, where the Democrat's national convention was marred by riots in the streets and turmoil in the hall. Her reference to a possible 1968 redux, and specifically the negative effects it could have on the electorate is a veiled reference to the election results of that year: a fractured Democratic Party didn't unite sufficiently around the establishment candidate, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, allowing former V.P. Richard Nixon to win a narrow victory. In spite of Nixon's disgraced exit from the presidency in 1974, the Democrats would hold the White House for only four of the next 24 years.
The irony here is that many Democratic establishment figures today were the radicals of 1968, or their heirs. That year Hillary Clinton, a college senior, worked on the failed campaign of Eugene McCarthy, the anti-war outsider who in a loose way is analogous to Sanders this time around. She, and others of that generation would be familiar with the thought of Saul Alinsky, the groundbreaking community organizer who's confrontational style shaped generations of left wing activists that followed. Though his supporters down play the influence, it's hard to imagine that President Obama was a community organizer in Chicago and wasn't acquainted with Alinsky's tactics, as well as experienced in their implementation. The irony now is that those who fought the power way back when, and carried the mantle later on, are now the power, and are getting a dose of their own medicine.
The Democrats, as I see it, are caught in a dilemma. They have positioned themselves as the progressive party, though some of them are more progressive than others. But the progressive movement needs to be constantly moving forward, and can't tolerate any drag on the forward momentum. Even if progress really isn't as complete as we would like, there's a time to say we won, and move on to the next issue lest the faithful lose interest. In spite of the progress that still needs to be made in terms of race relations for instance, the general feeling is that sufficient strides were made that we can turn our attention to the area of sexual politics, embodied in the gay rights movement, framing the issue in the same way the precious struggle was. Now that gay marriage is the law of the land, we have to move to transgender rights. Once there is a perceived victory on that front, whatever that will represent, we will have to move on to the next issue, and the next and the next. We are never at the point where we can be satisfied, because human and social progress, by it's very nature, never stop. The only good status quo is the one we just upended in the name of equality and social justice. We believe that Utopia is just around the corner, just on the other side of the mountain, across the sea, but when we arrive we'll realize that there are still more obstacles to overcome, and overcome them we will. In the end we are Sisyphus rolling the rock up the hill only to watch it roll back down, which means the there really is no end - in part because none of the problems are ever really solved. So new issues are brought to the fore are old ones, left half completed, are kept in reserve for the time when there seems to be a lull in the storm and another cause is needed quickly to rally the troops. In that case any cause will do, as long as it keeps the engine of progress fueled. There is no rest, only grinding, sleepless progress.
Mrs. Clinton may be liberal, but she's no progressive, at least not in the mold of Mr. Sanders. She's happy with the social changes wrought in the last few years, but she didn't spearhead them, and was initially against some of them. She wants to control the system, not burn it down. The thing is, right now, even though their party has controlled the executive branch for seven and a half years, many in her party don't simply want more of the same. No, they want to dismantle the entire social, political and economic system and start over from scratch, because that's what progressivism is all about: keep people discontented, keep them focused on an enemy, keep them caught up in the process even though there are never any lasting results. A garden variety liberal like Clinton, who may be for equality and redistributing wealth, but's still in bed with Wall Street and the big banks, looks awfully passé right now. It's true the there are many Republicans who can't get themselves support Trump, but don't be surprised if many Democrats who've felt the Bern can't get themselves to pull the lever for Hillary.
What will happen in November? We need to be careful in making predictions off of the past alone. History doesn't repeat itself, but it does often rhyme, as Mark Twain may have, but probably never, said. It's true that the establishment in the Republican Party could fail to support Trump, with many GOP voters either staying home, leaving the top of the ballot blank or crossing over to Hillary (if she gets the nod). But the twist here could be that the reverse happens with the Democrats, if the establishment candidate fails to win over the progressives, who then stay home rather than vote for someone they don't believe in (somehow I doubt that any sizable number of progressives would vote Trump, but who knows?). Then what happens? It may come down to who's supporters are most enthusiastic, in which case Trump could squeak it out, in the style of Nixon. Maybe there will be enough of the electorate that's still in the mainstream to go with the known quantity, making Hillary, at last, the first woman to be president, while paradoxically maintaining the status quo.
But I'm standing by my claim that we are in new waters, and anyone's guess will be as good as anyone else's. But this analysis has stayed on the political level. Next time I want to try to observe the scene through the lens of faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment