Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"The Pragmatic Case for Bernie Sanders" (The Atlantic)
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-pragmatic-case-for-bernie-sanders/462720/On the pragmatics of electability, nearly every major national poll consistently shows Sanders equaling or bettering Clinton against all Republicans.
...
Clintons most persistent attackparroted by mainstream mediaclaims that Sanderss agenda is perhaps laudable but unrealistic. Moderation is more effective, she claims. However, this is a misreading of American politics
...
It is not pragmatic to hope that Clinton, by dint of her centrist leanings, can work with Congress on anything other than a centrist agendaat best. To the extent that she gets things done with a Republican legislature, based on an electoral mandate of centrism, there is zero prospect of progressive reform on Wall Street, corporate accountability, wealth inequality, or campaign finance. In politics, if you demand a mile, you get a foot; demand a moderate inch, and at best, you get a centimeter.
On the other side of the ledger, history shows that political and social change emanate from persistent pressureorganizing and arguing for a more just world, not settling for what is deemed realistic before getting to the negotiating table. Remember when gay rights and gay marriage were unrealistic? Remember when voting rights, desegregation, and other basic justice were far from pragmatic? They became real through years of dedicated, principled, idealismby insisting the unrealistic become real.
...
Clintons other central campaign theme is her record of experience. As first lady, Clinton failed at health-care reform. She never pushed for single-payer health care...She also supported three of Bill Clintons signature measures, which all proved disastrous: welfare rollback, which unraveled safety-net supports for poor families, low-income women, and millions of working-class Americans; the omnibus crime bill with its three strikes and mandatory minimum sentencing, which contributed to a generation of long-term, largely African American inmates and felons; and NAFTA... In one undistinguished term as U.S. senator, Clinton opposed gay marriage, voted for the Iraq war, and supported the Patriot Act, among other positions. As secretary of state, while logging impressive global mileage, Clinton pushed for aggressive regime change in Libya, and she worked hard to expand corporate military contracts and fracking abroad. Whether the American public finds her record favorable or not, it is not one of progressive, forward-looking leadership.
Sanders has consistently demonstrated leadership, speaking out, introducing legislation, and laying the political groundwork on a wide array of issues, including: gay rights (long before they gained mainstream support), workers rights and union rights, universal single-payer health care, family and medical leave protections, and expansions of Social Security. On nearly every major issuelabor and economic justice, to the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, welfare reform, NAFTA, the Keystone XL pipeline, and the Transpacific PartnershipSanders has taken clear consistent stands, while Clinton has waffled, backtracked, and leaned to the center.
...
Clintons fatalistic pragmatism...insists that pushing for more is unrealistic and therefore capitulates before the fight even starts. On the other hand, it is entirely pragmatic to expect a President Bernie Sanders to fight hard for the justice and equality issues he has championed his entire political lifegiving these ideas a chance, rather than no chance at all.
...
Clintons most persistent attackparroted by mainstream mediaclaims that Sanderss agenda is perhaps laudable but unrealistic. Moderation is more effective, she claims. However, this is a misreading of American politics
...
It is not pragmatic to hope that Clinton, by dint of her centrist leanings, can work with Congress on anything other than a centrist agendaat best. To the extent that she gets things done with a Republican legislature, based on an electoral mandate of centrism, there is zero prospect of progressive reform on Wall Street, corporate accountability, wealth inequality, or campaign finance. In politics, if you demand a mile, you get a foot; demand a moderate inch, and at best, you get a centimeter.
On the other side of the ledger, history shows that political and social change emanate from persistent pressureorganizing and arguing for a more just world, not settling for what is deemed realistic before getting to the negotiating table. Remember when gay rights and gay marriage were unrealistic? Remember when voting rights, desegregation, and other basic justice were far from pragmatic? They became real through years of dedicated, principled, idealismby insisting the unrealistic become real.
...
Clintons other central campaign theme is her record of experience. As first lady, Clinton failed at health-care reform. She never pushed for single-payer health care...She also supported three of Bill Clintons signature measures, which all proved disastrous: welfare rollback, which unraveled safety-net supports for poor families, low-income women, and millions of working-class Americans; the omnibus crime bill with its three strikes and mandatory minimum sentencing, which contributed to a generation of long-term, largely African American inmates and felons; and NAFTA... In one undistinguished term as U.S. senator, Clinton opposed gay marriage, voted for the Iraq war, and supported the Patriot Act, among other positions. As secretary of state, while logging impressive global mileage, Clinton pushed for aggressive regime change in Libya, and she worked hard to expand corporate military contracts and fracking abroad. Whether the American public finds her record favorable or not, it is not one of progressive, forward-looking leadership.
Sanders has consistently demonstrated leadership, speaking out, introducing legislation, and laying the political groundwork on a wide array of issues, including: gay rights (long before they gained mainstream support), workers rights and union rights, universal single-payer health care, family and medical leave protections, and expansions of Social Security. On nearly every major issuelabor and economic justice, to the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, welfare reform, NAFTA, the Keystone XL pipeline, and the Transpacific PartnershipSanders has taken clear consistent stands, while Clinton has waffled, backtracked, and leaned to the center.
...
Clintons fatalistic pragmatism...insists that pushing for more is unrealistic and therefore capitulates before the fight even starts. On the other hand, it is entirely pragmatic to expect a President Bernie Sanders to fight hard for the justice and equality issues he has championed his entire political lifegiving these ideas a chance, rather than no chance at all.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
8 replies, 1212 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (56)
ReplyReply to this post
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"The Pragmatic Case for Bernie Sanders" (The Atlantic) (Original Post)
thesquanderer
Feb 2016
OP
I agree the points are "certainly reasonable". And it helps Sanders, which I like.
LiberalLovinLug
Feb 2016
#8
daleanime
(17,796 posts)1. Massive K&R.....
femmedem
(8,207 posts)2. Yet another reason I love The Atlantic. K&R! n/t
GeoWilliam750
(2,522 posts)3. I have real hope for the first time in more than 30 years
thesquanderer
(11,991 posts)4. Also posted at http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511238903
Sorry for the dupe.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)5. Kicked and recommended!
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)6. Did they run this by the senior editor, David (W speech writer) Frum?
Or does Frum, who is part of the old guard Republicans who is critical of the hard right /crazy tea bagger direction of his party and wants to go back to the more pragmatic, moderate (looking) GOP. ie...the more electable GOP, think that Hillary is exactly that candidate and does not want her to take away HIS party. And that with Sanders, at least he could differentiate his positions from. And thus, in his mind, could convince more to vote Republican.
thesquanderer
(11,991 posts)7. Second guessing motives is an endless game on all sides.
Either way, I think the article's points are certainly reasonable.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)8. I agree the points are "certainly reasonable". And it helps Sanders, which I like.
I'm a glutton for motive guessing though. Could be that I just heard an interview of him on CBC radio, how great Reagan was etc... It was brought up that he was the senior editor of The Atlantic.