This presidential primary season is one of the most interesting in my lifetime. On the Republican side we’ve got a showman leading a pack of mostly qualified, if underwhelming, contenders. On the Democratic side the coronation of a former First Lady has been derailed by a frumpy Jewish guy with a New York accent who wears his socialism on his sleeve.
The Republican contest seems to be headed to a three-way race between Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and either Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or John Kasich. If Bush emerges as the anti-Trump, he proves that money still rules in campaigns. If Rubio wins, he’s the Republican version of Barack Obama, an unproven leader but one who can inspire and offer a vision for the future of the Republican Party. If somehow Kasich survives, he shows that pragmatism is still alive in the Republican Party and the Tea Party has lost.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton shows the vulnerability of being in the national spotlight for 25 years. She’s been vilified by right since she tried to implement health care reform in the early 1990s. As a US Senator and Secretary of State, she made the compromises necessary to be effective. Throughout her career, both before and since she arrived on the DC scene, she’s built the relationships she believed were necessary to further her and her husband’s careers.
Politics is a messy business and Clinton has been in the middle of it for most her adult life. Now she’s paying the price. Bernie Sanders’ supporters are attacking her and questioning her honesty and credibility. She’s being held to an impossible standard for someone who has been in government as long as she has, but she’s done a lousy job of responding to the criticism. Octogenarians questioning the intelligence and commitment of young women is not smart politics.
Sanders, for his part, is riding a wave. He’s tapped into the angst and disillusionment of a generation of young people who see a bleak future. And while he’s attracting people who are usually disengaged in politics, he’s also rallying the activist wing of the Democratic Party. It’s potent combination, but he’s still not tapped into the diversity that he’ll need to win the nomination.
Still, Sanders is proving that message discipline works. He’s beat the same drum and not been distracted even when national and international events steal the public’s attention. While he may lose the spotlight for a bit, when the public returns its attention to the presidential race, Sanders is right where they left him.
In both races, once we sort through the hyperbole, the underlying theme is incrementalism versus revolutionary reform. Sanders and Trump (and Cruz) represent the revolutionaries. They believe we need instant and major reforms. While their proposed outcomes enthuse their respective constituencies, their solutions would almost certainly lead to prolonged periods of social and economic upheaval. Clinton and the GOP establishment candidates represent the incrementalism that have dominated political thinking since Reagan on right and LBJ on left.
I would argue that we are currently in the midst of a social and economic transformation already. Marriage equality dramatically shifts the way we treat and perceive LGBT people. The Black Lives Matters movement is really a continuation of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and will, at the very least, lead to criminal justice reform. We don’t know the full impact of the Affordable Care Act and climate change policies on the economy and people’s lives.
We still face big challenges. We need to address income inequality. We need political reform to reduce the influence of big money and we need to end the extreme gerrymandering that’s left our government dominated by extremes. We’ve got to address Social Security and Medicare since we’re now living into our eighties and nineties while the system was set up for people to die in their seventies.
The question we’ve got to answer is can a Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump bend the will of the political system to their vision to achieve these goals? Or do we need a seasoned establishment candidate who cut the deals necessary to address our looming needs? But let’s face it. Either way is messy and nobody will look as good while they’re in the middle of the change as when they’re just talking about it.
Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >
I knew the day would come when the far left became the norm. Conservative Democrats like myself are nearly extinct and the party cheers. Folks like me were where the majority in Congress and state house and senate came from as well as a lot of the money raised. Until the party wakes up and starts welcoming straight, white, working males back I hope everyone enjoys their back bench.
I believe the Democratic Party wells all. But, by your words, it sounds like you’d decline the invitation..
Meant to say “welcomes all.”
How fitting that the far right always wants only slow incremental societal and political change. After seven years of obstructionism and the most unproductive congressional sessions in modern times (as pledged by GOP legislative leaders after the 2008 elections), they will only stand for change if it’s at a snail’s pace.
This epitomizes classic conservative political behavior. Any progress, unless its in profit-taking and positively affecting their bank accounts, is too much. In their minds, there can never be too much foot-dragging and control over our institutions and over the have-nots.
Oh sure, I understand. It’s only those evil conservatives that engage in malevolent political behavior. “Progressives” are the true paragons of virtue.
What a crock! Just more pedantic, idealogical dogma.
You like to dish it out, but you can’t take it, can you?
Pray tell – name one Progressive accomplishment that came from Obama. The Affordable Care Act is the Heritage Foundation creation put forward by Gingrich and Dole as the alternative to Hillary-care, and was first implemented by a Republican Governor in Massachusetts.
So the ACA is a conservative Republican policy designed to preserve the power of profit-making corporations in the health-care sector by derailing the call for single-payer healthcare like they have in the civilized world.
So – give me some evidence that Obama is a Progressive. Or even a moderate.
I say that he is to the Right of Nixon and Eisenhower.
So you think Obama’s not “progressive” enough for you? Well that’s your problem, not mine.
But BTW, every Congressional Republican, conservative and moderate, voted against passage of the ACA. So don’t give me that bunk about it being a GOP plan. If it even ever was, it was throughly rejected by all Republicans Senators and representatives in 2010.
Oh, and it seems that I take quite a bit of vitriolic flack on this site. But I am still here, so it seems I can “take it.”
You see, dG, he has an answer or explanation for every single topic, issue, argument, and question, and, in his mind, he is infallible. Must be tough seeing oneself as a supreme being and not getting the respect one thinks one deserves.
Hey D.g., I enjoy exposing the hypocrisy, distortions and misinformation liberals post here that go unchallenged when there is nobody to call them out. So keep ’em coming.
How ironic that the far left now wants a revolution. After eight years of the most progressive U.S administration in modern times, they now clamor for a “revolt” to further their political agenda.
This sort of alienation epitomizes classic political behavior. More is never enough. There can never be too much power and influence for authoritarian zealots, whether they be on the left or the right.
In case it has eluded you, Obama’s slide into the WH was so smooth no one noticed George Bush missing. Obama continued and expanded on every Bush initiative, particularly where aggressive military actions are concerned, but also in every other policy instance. Obama never even reappointed the Executive department heads, excluding the attorney general, choosing instead to keep Cheney’s neo- con appointments. Obama is also embracing the republican oriented TPP trade agreement, just as Clinton did with NAFTA. My point being that we are seeing establishment policy prevail regardless of political affiliation. This is why Scott sees revolution as our only alternative at this point in history; and I wholeheartedly agree with his assessment. The establishment (western central banks and transnational financial corporations) have usurped all the power and hold it firmly in their greedy hand, only revolution can jar it loose.
I sure hope you and Scott are wrong. But if you’re right and there is a “revolution” to overthrow our political and economic system, I’ll meet you at the proverbial palace gates—on the opposite side.
Mr. Ebrun, Can we assume then that you are satisfied with the status quo in this state and country and are quite willing to sit back and allow the neoconservatives to continue their demolition?
As it almost always does, incrementalism will prevail over revolution, even in these turbulent political times. Hillary will defeat Bernie and most likely go on to win the General Election. Trump may well get the Republican nod and could have an outside chance to defeat Hillary.
But even if Trump were to win the Presidency, he would soon be forced to accept incremental change to have any success. The Nation is rather evenly divided between partisans on the left and the right and any President will need the support of the moderate middle to accomplish anything. And the moderate middle personifies incrementalism. So in the final analysis, IMO incremental change is the only way a representative democracy can and will survive.
While I reiterate that incrementalism is the preferred approach in governance, in this paralytically polarized political environment, it will not get us to where we need to go in the time we have to get there. Take Global Warming as a shining example. When knee-jerk opposition replaces co-operation on every issue facing us, we will be debating such issues as the seawater creeps into the Capitol Building. Instead, IMO, progress has got to come in much larger increments (read REVOLUTION).
Some “political reform” food for thought regarding Bernie vs. Hillary:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431162/no-party-superdelegates-gets-lecture-me-about-disenfranchisement
I think it is great that Sanders is in the US Senate. The Senate needs a Bernie Sanders. The White House does not. The argument for Sanders reminds me of a situation in which I am going in for a heart bypass. There is a cardiologist with years of experience at fixing up people’s hearts. This person has been through all the experiences of such a practice; has made mistakes and learned from them; has even failed during her practice because she was learning to do it right. Almost everybody in the practice says this is the doctor to do it. Then comes along this intern who says “I’ve got some really good ideas about how to shake up your ticker and some revolutionary ways of doing a new surgery that may kill you but might also extend your life for ever”. All those in his hospital who have seen him work say they just can not work with him, they say he is a loner who can’t get along with the nurses in the hospital or the guy who administers anesthesia or the assisting physicians. He does make them think about improving cardiology but he will probably lose a few patients trying out his schemes. When asked why all these colleagues have such reservations about him and recommend the experienced doc, the neat revolutionary guy says “Oh they are all cardiology establishment.” So I choose the exciting, shake them up cardiologist. Not a good way to save my life; not a good way to save the country.
Hillary Clinton is all about pro-war, from Iraq to Libya and including Syria. (a mess the US. had a hand in creating). Is that what you think is best for this country, more war? cause that’s what you’ll get from Hillary, war, a lot of hot air and lies – in other words, business as usual.
Well written and thoughtful blog. Just two reactions:
Rubio…….”who can inspire and offer a vision for the future of the Republican Party.” Inspirational? Visionary? Rubio? Please. He doesn’t have the intellect, experience, leadership record, vision, presence, nor gravitas to inspire. Unless, of course, you meant to backhandedly say that it takes so very little “inspire” Republicans nowadays. If so, then I couldn’t agree more.
And can you explain what you meant by this: “Bernie Sanders’ supporters are attacking her and questioning her honesty and credibility. She’s being held to an impossible standard for someone who has been in government as long as she has, but she’s done a lousy job of responding to the criticism. Octogenarians questioning the intelligence and commitment of young women is not smart politics.”? Neither Bernie nor HRC are octogenarians, so “huh?”
I suspect Mr. Mills was referring to comments made last weekend by Madeleine Albright in NH when she said; “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other”, an obvious reference to young women who don’t support Hillary’s campaign for President.
The Republican party has been dragged so far to the right, that center-right Republicans of the past seem “very liberal.” Its time that we moved back to a more just, more rational (less ideological) America. Furthermore, I believe we must (!) condemn racism and sexism in any form, and we must condemn the notion (even the barest hint) that, because we have nuclear weapons, we should use them.
Republicans got us into an unjust and unjustifiable war (Iraq), their belligerence will get us into many more unnecessary and unjust wars, and their economic policies brought (and will again bring) our economy to its knees.
Republicans are currently promoting economic policies that in the past failed to create jobs, but only succeeded in increasing income and wealth inequality to a degree that approaches that of an era in which many Americans lived in extreme poverty, most ate contaminated food, we worked in dangerous factories, labor demands were responded to with violence, and workers were forced to buy from company stores with company scrip… Is that the “golden age” we long for?
Strangely, Republicans have managed to convince many Americans that they are the ones on the “right track.” How can their supporters truly believe that economic policies that were so harmful in the past can magically do what Republicans claim now (eg. create jobs, promote economic growth and prosperity, etc.).
On the Democratic side, I think you make too many excuses for Hillary’s poor decisions in the past. She was wrong in supporting the Iraq war. While data and critical analysis is telling us that we need to significantly reform our corrupt economic system, why should we trust someone with strong ties to “Wall Street” (eg, Hillary) to fix our broken system? Further, her waffling on issues of the Trans Pacific Partnership, and the Keystone Pipeline are disturbing.
We are at a “cross-road” that will demand courage – the courage to examine our values, the courage to make difficult decisions, the courage to look for new solutions, the courage to stand up to racism and sexism, the courage to reject brands and labels (but rather consider ideas and our collective historical experience), and the courage to stand up to demagogues like Trump and Cruz.
I believe Bernie can get America back on track, gain the votes of “independents,” and defeat any Republican candidate in the General Election. While far, far better than any Republican candidate, Hillary, on the other hand, carries too much “baggage.”
“I believe Bernie can get America back on track, gain the votes of “independents,” and defeat any Republican candidate in the General Election.”
I wish I shared your optimism but I have serious doubts that Sen. Sanders is prepared in any way for the right wing attack machine that will hit him unmercifully. He has run in very, very few competitive elections mostly coasting to reelection in a small state.
Sec. Clinton, on the other hand, has been a huge target of the right wing attack machine for nearly 30 years.
Personally speaking I like both Sen. Sanders and Sec. Clinton and will happily vote for either of them as the nominee. It’s just that right now at least I like our chances better with her.
“the system was set up for people to die in their seventies.” Life expectancy for a 65-year old today is not that much longer today than life expectancy for a 65 -year-old was in 1940. Life expectancy overall is longer now because fewer people die young. Raising retirement age beyond 68 is not the answer and will really hurt people who engage in physical labor for a living. Raise the cap.
This! Before we have ANY discussion whatsoever about raising the retirement age by even a single day the cap MUST be raised or, better yet eliminated altogether.
^^Great article and great comment David^^
This is an excellent appraisal of the political zeitgeist. With the current angst in this country at this point in history, while I generally think incrementalism is the prudent approach to almost any problem, revolution is now called for. We have swept our national problems under the table for so long through procrastination, wishful thinking, willful ignorance, and governmental dysfunction that the pot is about to boil over. Fundamental change is now necessary to prevent social anarchy and to prevent our citizens from completely giving up on our democracy (or what’s left of it).