Day two of the DNC: the challenge going forward

by | Jul 26, 2016 | Democrats, DNC 2016, Features, Politics | 8 comments

Today I heard the story of a Bernie Sanders delegate from North Carolina, who when asked, did not know the name of North Carolina’s Democratic nominee for governor, and who when pressed, admitted she didn’t plan to vote for him or any Democrats in November.

She’s a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. And though she may be an exception in an NC delegation uniting behind Hillary, she is symbolic of a deeper challenge going forward.

Bernie Sanders is supporting Hillary, but acknowledged today that he will remain an independent in the senate.

So contrary to the headlines, the disruption at the DNC is not from a revolt of committed Democrats now in love with Bernie. It’s an insurgency of outsiders.

Some of them supported President Obama, and are longtime democratic activists, but many others are new to party politics.

The Democratic Party is a party of people and they were right to bring Bernie into the tent for a primary, and to welcome his most committed fans with open arms. They need the energy after two Obama terms.

And most will come home in November, if not for Hillary, then for the Supreme Court.

But what happens for generations to come?

When previous generations of young progressives got involved, they did so for Democrats. For Gene McCarthy and George McGovern, for Gary Hart, Jerry Brown, Bill Bradley and Howard Dean; democrats all.

They reformed the party and gave it new life.

So has Bernie’s movement.

But after its over will they keep coming back? To precinct meetings, district conventions, fundraisers, and canvasses? Will they knock on doors for Roy Cooper and Deborah Ross? Or will they find new causes outside the world of party politics, when party politics needs their energy the most?

The stakes are high in November. And the sense I have today, is that Bernie’s folks will do their part, at least in the voting booth, because it’s what Bernie wants.

But a Hillary victory will also postpone (for at least four years) a coming struggle for the heart and soul of the party of Obama and FDR. (Booker vs. Warren, liberalism vs. populism).

Across the world, center-left parties are struggling to find a uniting message in the age of terrorism and globalization.

The Labour Party in Great Britain is at war with themselves, with members of parliament determined to oust their own Bernie Sanders from the party’s top. And like us, in Labour, old and young are at odds.

The Democratic Party is the oldest organized political party in the modern world, and it’s changed a great deal: from Andrew Jackson to George McCllelan, William Jennings Bryan to John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter to Michelle Obama. The Democrats have at some point been the party of conservatism and small government, populism and racism, the New Deal, and triangulation.

Their conventions have seen walkouts over civil rights by the Dixiecrats, and the emotional tour de force by the first black First Lady Monday night.

Though the Democratic Party has long been the party of liberalism, equality and social justice, it’s always been a party of small “d” democracy, a party of the people. And people change.

Today in the hall, I saw the most diverse and socially progressive convention in the history of American politics.

Their platform is the most liberal in a generation. And though I disagree with them on this, they are overwhelmingly against TPP.

The great irony is that Bernie’s political revolution won the fight over the domestic agenda.

Hillary Clinton survived the primary by mostly adopting his (but with more details).

And Democrats are one election away from breaking the back of conservative government, with a majority on the Supreme Court.

The Republican nominee for president is not a conservative. He’s honestly not even a Republican.

But American politics are changing and so is the Democratic Party.

If Bernie’s movement stays in the party, if they learn Roy Cooper’s name, and they knock on doors in the fall, Democrats will win the White House, the senate, and the Supreme Court; enough for hard fought, incremental, and lasting change.

If they don’t, the party’s over.

Democrats lost the Deep South, the Plains States, Appalachia, and now parts of the Rust Belt. To get anything done, for a few years, until they win the Heartland back, they need supermajorities in the cities and on college campuses. They need the political revolution.

And on the cusp of a great victory (in policy if not in personnel) it’s up to the revolutionaries whether they want the Democratic Party for themselves; and whether they’re willing to help all the candidates on the ballot, even when Bernie’s gone.

8 Comments

  1. William Kastern

    How did someone like that get to be a delegate. I’ve been a Dem for years and have worked for the Party on several levels in two states, and I still haven’t been able to be a delegate. Something sounds fishy to me here.

  2. Karen from Durham

    Bernie supporters need to vote for Clinton and vote Democratic in NC to ensure that Republicans do no further damage to voting rights in this country. This election will determine the composition of both the US and the NC Supreme Court for many years. Those courts will decide crucial issues regarding voting rights and redistricting and gerrymandering as well other issues. The only hope we have in this country of stopping the right wing from increasing its control at all levels of government and further limiting the voting rights of minorities and students is through the courts. It won’t come through the legislature given the paralysis at the federal level and Republican control of most state houses. The Fourth Circuit decision today striking down the NC’s Republican voter suppression law is a case in point. The Fourth Circuit used to be much more conservative than it is now. President Obama’s appointments to that court have made a real difference. Perhaps Bernie supporters believe that electing Trump will show the nation just how awful things can get and help galvanize voters to elect politicians who are truly change agents. But if we’ve lost the right to vote how do we ever boot the ultra right wing out once they’ve gained control at all levels? governments?

  3. Kellis

    Steve, it was not just the young and passionate who backed Bernie. I first voted in 1968, and I am neither naive or uninvolved or politically inexperienced, I understand the political process, too well, evidently, because I am one of those who is angry over the treatment Bernie has gotten. The only way I know you can throw away your vote is by not using it; it is yours to give to the candidate of your choice, and my choice, with the fiasco happening in the democratic party and the emails against Bernie and the Russians and the gop is to vote GREEN. Dr. Jill Stein is every bit as up to date on the issues effecting us as is Bernie, and she is head and shoulders more liberal than the darling of wall street, HRC. So, you may consider that I am throwing away my vote, but I don’t see it that way at all. It was given to me (I am also a Nam Era vet so I also believe it was earned) and it came with no strings attached, and I don’t understand how anyone can try to bully another into voting this way or that. I remember how Nader was accused of helping Gore lose, but from my point of view, and I did vote for Gore, the Vice President and his campaign manager, Donna Brazille, did a very good job of throwing that election The DNC gets sloppy at times with the candidate they want us to vote for, and I am moving away from that. If what they are offering isn’t on my menu, I will go somewhere else. And do it without remorse.

    • Norma Munn

      Gore won the popular vote (50,999,897) to Bush (50,456,002). He lost Fl by 537 votes after the US Supreme Court returned the case to the Florida Supreme Court, which stopped the re-count. Gore won 266 electoral votes and Bush 271. Florida’s 25 electoral votes went to Bush, thus giving him the winning votes in the electoral college. I would respectfully suggest that the Gore campaign did not throw the election. And yes, Nader votes were enough to prevent Gore from winning Fl, which is mathematically a logical and rational analysis.

    • Steve

      Kellis: Obviously, you have the freedom to be as short-sighted and defensive as you wish, but you can’t avoid the irresponsibility of your intentions. No matter how you cut it, your vote for the Green Party candidate instead of Sec. Clinton is one more vote for Donald Trump. For all I know, this could be your secret purpose. It’s as if you Bernie folks think that you can show off your power to affect the outcome. Unfortunately, however, in this close election the outcome could be a Trump presidentcy. So, if you want a fascist racist for your leader you should stick to your guns, eventhough your leader has urged you to do otherwise. When we’re in the midst of worldwide disintegration you can say you at least stuck to your principles, unless you can’t remember exactly what they were.

  4. Steve Bernholz

    The young and passionate, (extremely loyal) adherents of “Bernie” in this campaign, whose uninformed loud but tone deaf voice (not to mention their vote) could indeed determine the outcome of this Presidential election. Who would have ever thought that a small group of naieve and uninvolved, politically inexperienced, with no understanding of our political process, insisting on having their way by threatening to throw away their precious vote, even though previously detached and disinterested and ignorant of that process? They seem to be prepared to sabotage the very structure of party politics, much as a child will sometimes threaten to cut off there own nose to spite their face. They admit that the stakes are high and they say they understand that their stance might put all of us in jeapordy of a Trump presidency, but they continue to act as if this would be our punishment for not agreeing to do things their way. For me, they have been misbehaving like children or even worse, like spoiled brats. Instead of doing the work to improve our political system, they seem willing to destroy it by turning it over to Donald Trump. It not only makes me angry, it makes me sad.

  5. bob

    If it was not evident before, it is evident in 2016 that the era of parties is over. The future will consist of coalitions around issues and the constituents of those coalitions will change with the issue. Young people today have substituted party loyalty for dedication to specific issues. Democrats nearly nominated someone who is not a Democrat and the GOP nominated someone who is barely a Republican. Parties are passe. Political power within the next decade will come to rest with deal makers and deal breakers. That’s my crystal ball analysis, for what it’s worth.

    • Norma Munn

      You may be right. I think the larger question is how a democracy based on a Constitution setting fixed terms of service in both the legislative and executive branch can survive under constantly changing coalitions. A parliamentary system can call an election when a ruling coalition falls apart. We can’t. And multiple “parties” are usually coalitions which represent smaller segments of the population. Not sure breaking down into smaller and smaller groups solves our problems. Having seen the difficulties in Europe resulting from that situation, I wonder where this leads us. It is pretty clear already that gridlock and the blocking of legislation by very tiny coalitions in the House have made it hard to get anything done in the last few years — even in emergencies. It does appear that the parties are undergoing seismic changes. Would we be seeing Trump as a GOP nominee if the Congress had actually been effective in doing much beside either blocking legislation or voting to repeal the ACA these past few years? The recession coupled with ignoring too many problems in this country has frustrated everyone. My sense is that frustration has boiled over in this campaign. However, political power for many decades in this country was primarily in the hands of “deal makers and deal breakers” — remember the Roosevelt era, LBJ & cohorts in the Senate and House years, etc. Were we better off? Not sure also how social media will further change what we are already seeing.

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!