Sandernistas are like Deaniacs from 2005

by | Feb 10, 2017 | Editor's Blog | 25 comments

Democrats are beginning the infighting inevitable after a defeat like they suffered in 2016. There are disputes about strategies and tactics as well as ones about ideology and issues. Some of the arguments may play out during the race for DNC but the divides in the party will probably last longer.

The debate seems similar to the one that happened after the 2004 election. That year, Howard Dean’s presidential campaign brought a host of young people to the political table and many took roles in local Democratic Party organizations across the country. They were more activist and ideological than the centrist Democrats who had been in power since Bill Clinton’s victory in 1992 and they upended old guard party loyalists, particularly in urban progressive hubs like Asheville, NC.

This year, it’s the activists inspired by Bernie Sanders campaign and the Black Lives Matter movement who are more engaged. They want a more progressive party and they’re actively combatting those they consider establishment Democrats. They support an economic populist message and they want to fight like Republicans did against Obama, opposing them at every turn.

In 2005, Dean’s followers considered themselves the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,” borrowing a phrase coined by the late Senator Paul Wellstone. In North Carolina, they captured the Chair of the State Democratic Party when Jerry Meek won over the establishment’s choice. They took control of county parties across the state and, in 2006, won primaries against more centrist candidates.

Today, many of those Deaniacs are part of the Democratic Party establishment, holding elected offices and positions of influence. Dean himself served as Chair of the DNC. His finance director is now head of EMILY’s List, the powerful organization that helps elect pro-choice women to Congress.

Other Dean alumni have held onto their more progressive values and continue challenging the establishment. Zephyr Teachout, who served as Dean’s Director of Internet Organizing, ran against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in the 2014 Democratic Primary and became the 2016 Democratic nominee for Congress, defeating a more establishment candidate in the primary.

As in 2005, Democrats need the energy the Sanders activists can give the party. They also need to embrace the economic populism embodied by Sanders’ campaign. However, they should be more accepting of less progressive views within the party. To win majorities in Congress and state legislatures across the country, Democrats need to embrace more moderate candidates who can win in more conservative districts. Winning primaries and losing general elections won’t get Democrats very far. Progressives might not like Sen. Joe Manchin from West Virginia, but they’ll like the alternative even less.

In the next few weeks, Democrats in North Carolina will convene precinct meetings to elect new officers. Expect the Sanders activists to show their strength. Their input and energy should be embraced. The newcomers, though, should also respect the experience of people who are already involved. More than a few of them came into the fold as anti-establishment Dean supporters a dozen years ago.

25 Comments

  1. Russ Becker

    The Ghost of Elections Past

    Someday, I hope to change my online moniker for this comments on this blog. However, when one gets past the specific issues that the “radicals, liberals, progressives,” or whoever they may currently call themselves, it comes down to the fact that many such people lack sufficient pragmatism and are so enthralled with their righteous crusade, that they end up destroying the actual chances of enacting their policies. I saw this happen with Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and now with Hillary Clinton. Jay Ligon and Troy are spot on with their comments. Anyone finding fault with their comments cannot see the forest for the trees.

    Throughout the general election, I had fears of an election result which is what happened. About a week before the election when Comey dropped his bombshell, I started hearing people saying that “this is just too much,” and I suspected Hillary would lose. What bothers me more is the righteous crusaders that swallowed all the evil propaganda that the Republicans have put out for years against HIllary, for they knew that she was going to run. Never underestimate the ability of Democrats to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Sadly, I think with the divisions within this country, we will see even more elections turn out this way. The “Pocahontas” propaganda against Elizabeth Warren is intensifying–she is a real threat to Republicans.

    I wish I didn’t have to see history repeat itself.

    • Norma Munn

      Your distinction between crusading politics and electoral reality is essential to understanding the value of one’s vote. If it makes no difference how one votes, as it does occasionally,then voting for a third party, write in Micky Mouse, or even staying home is not relevant to the outcome. (Except for the fact that low turn out and low vote totals for a winner are a often a sign of problems with the candidate or the system.)
      But in our two party system voting for anyone other than one of the two major parties, or staying home, is highly problematic. Saying that it does not matter because there is no difference between the candidates is a cop-out. And accepting the constant barrage of inept and inaccurate accusations against Hilary is at best, a demonstration of poor analytical thinking. The Trump campaign was clearly a deeply different set of choices than what Hillary was offering. Voting for others may have felt good, but it helped put Trump in the WH. The math of elections is not susceptible to an “alternative facts” interpretation.
      I did not see Hillary Clinton as a crusader, nor even Bernie, although the latter campaigned in that mode, and Senator Warren is often in that mode. I enjoy and applaud both, but they are not likely to be elected president in my life time. I also am delighted that Sen. Warren is a thorn in the side of the GOP, but even Mass is not a safe seat for a crusader.
      The unanswered question for me after the past 23 days is where the energy from the hundreds of small protests and the worldwide Women’s March will go. I doubt that all of it will align with any party, but if the Democrats want to capture those folks as voters, they have to start listening differently. Focusing on the white male, or the well educated woman who voted for Trump is the playbook from the past. It is not about the party, it is about the choices and positions that a candidate makes. And it is not rocket science. The range of issues brought up on the podium at the various Women’s Marches is pretty large, but the common thread is decent, tolerant fair treatment to all, good jobs and wages to allow one to live above the poverty level, seriously better public schools, adequate and good medical care for all (note: few are saying health insurance), an end to voter suppression efforts, safe streets and neighborhoods that are not achieved by unfair policing or imprisonments, serious work to halt climate change and attention to other environmental issues. The list is not complete, but there is a common thread here, and it is not one that is afraid of “others.” Walls, bans, dividing the electorate, starting wars instead of using diplomacy — those do not fit this list.

    • Christopher Lizak

      So being a Republican lite sell-out is pragmatic, and supporting the platform of the Democratic Party makes one a “righteous crusader”? How does this philosophy advance the policies of the Democratic Party? You have created a tautology that guarantees we can never get what we want under any circumstances whatsoever.

      Those (very popular) Progressive policies do not get enacted because powerful rich men with personal agendas do not want them enacted – and the donors call the shots, not the voters. Jimmy Carter was destroyed by men who negotiated with the Iranians to keep the hostages jailed until the day Reagan took office. Al Gore was destroyed by an actual coup d’état in which the national Republican Party organized a riot across state lines for the purposes of shutting down the recount – which the GOP already knew they had lost. Hillary Clinton physically collapsed on the campaign trail while seeking the job of commander-in-chief to be the Great Protector.

      It was clear that Trump was going to win as soon as Clinton had that physical break-down and used her body double for the speech in Greensboro. No amount of campaigning or push-polling was ever going to see her recover from that. Period.

      And this is going to keep on happening again and again and again until we find some way to keep the media, the primary process, and the billionaire donors from suffocating extremely popular policies in the cradle.

  2. donna

    Jobs for skilled labor (electricians, plumbers, machinists, etc), affordable healthcare, consumer (including student loans) and environmental protection, increase in minimum wage (that can vary with local demographics). That’s how democrats can unite and win.
    Republicans talk about these but won’t or can’t take action on them because these are not the values of their true constituency.
    Elizabeth Warren may be a firebrand that some in the south can’t tolerate but she speaks about and raises issues in a way that is understandable and relatable to a broad audience. I credit her impassioned questioning of Wells Fargo CEO, John Stumpf, with his resignation. More democrats need to speak to democratic values, without apologizing, in order to remain viable.

  3. Tamara Brogan

    Thomas, great article and very accurate. Democrats need to get over their disagreements, pull it together, and get on with focusing on winning through smart, new, bold strategies and ideas. Now is the time for all Democrats to unite no matter where they fall on the progressive- establishment spectrum. We can see what will happen if we don’t work together in the future; continued craziness in Washington and Raleigh that will end up destroying our country and state. The future of our country, state, local governments and communities are at stake. It is too great a cause to be side tracked by internal strife.
    The extreme fraction of the Republicans will end up destroying their party’s influence in the next couple of years. The Democrats need to be strong, united, posed and ready to take over when that implosion happens on the other side. We need to be ready to work in those positions for the future of our communities with strength, confidence, wisdom and determination to fix the damage that has happened and get our country and state back to good governance and doing what is best for the common good and all people.

  4. Darren

    This article has a lot of good points. There is no doubt Democrats won’t be able to compete in certain parts of the country with anything close to being self-described as “socialist.” But I’m fascinated by the combination of an economic populist message while still maintaining moderate views on other issues that can play in red states. It seems like this could be a win/win for all sides.

    A Democratic party that can prove they’ve got the back of the middle class could fire up both the young progressive base and Democratic centrists. The problem it seems is not just saying it but also walking the walk.

    I think reminding people of the big picture (wealth inequality and the decline of the middle-class) can unite all different sides of the party, while leaving issues like gun control as something to be handled at the local level.

  5. Jay Ligon

    In 2000, my neighbor in California was a supporter of Ralph Nader, a man I have admired most of my life. When I applied to law school, I mentioned Nader as one of the lawyers who inspired me. As much as I admired him as a rabble-rouser and an activist, I could not imagine him winning the presidency. He did not appear to have skills in that area. I believed in his integrity and intelligence, but did not believe he would win. My neighbor told me that she was voting for him because she could not see a dime’s worth of difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. They both represented to her the big parties, big business, and big money politics. Al Gore lost Florida, the pivotal race, by 537 vote, while Ralph Nader won 97,421 votes in Florida.

    Was there a dime’s worth of difference? The Bush Administration became an environmental wrecking crew while Gore trudged from venue to venue showing his “An Inconvenient Truth” film, which won an Oscar and a Nobel Prize. Gore was better on the environment and not by a little.

    Gore worked with Bill Clinton on the monumental job of balancing the federal budget and knew how extremely difficult it is to do. In the 50 years, from 1960-2010, the federal government ran a surplus only five times — in 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. Clinton produced 4 surpluses. Between 1969 and 1998, there were only deficits. Clinton managed to create surpluses until George Bush slashed taxes for the rich again and again. Al Gore was never going to push for massive tax cuts for the purpose of blowing holes in the budget.

    The Bush Administration doubled the national debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion for the purpose of transferring wealth to the already-rich. Even though the rich became so much richer in that period, they did not create jobs. The Bush years ended in fiscal catastrophe for the American and world economies. Furthermore, the depletion of wealth and jobs from the American economy required continued deficits-spending to shore up a weak economy under Obama. Deficits were necessary to keep the country from crashing and burning. Gore would have been better on the economy. We were on track to have no national debt during his presidency.

    Gore was not in the oil business as was the Bush White House, and the Clinton White House was on alert for terrorist threats. In the Clinton White House, Richard Clark held regular anti-terrorism meetings at which the Director of the CIA and the Director of the FBI were present. They were required to be present because Clinton, Gore and Clark knew that the FBI and the CIA don’t like each other. They don’t share. Bush stopped those meetings immediately.

    Top Secrets were disclosed at those meetings with the Commander in Chief and the national security team present. Those meetings were part of what kept the U.S. safe. There is a reasonable chance that the 9/11 bomber’s activities at flight schools would have been discussed by the CIA and tasked to the FBI. There may never have been a 911.

    In contrast, Dick Cheney alone was in charge of counter-terrorism, and the principals in the White House ignored the frantic pleas by Richard Clark to pay attention to the increasing threats from bin Laden. The Clinton White House foiled a number of terrorist plots and kept the nation safe. That cannot be said of the Bush White House. Even if there had been a 911, Gore was not in the oil business and would not have sent our troops into Iraq for the oil. Gore would have kept us safe and we might still be in the pre-911 era now, not the post-911 era. We would not have the legacy of Guantanamo, torture, war crimes, rendition and an unstable Middle East. Gore would have been better on national defense.

    There are other areas where Gore would proven to be the better choice, but you get the idea. There is more than a dime’s worth of difference between Bush and Gore.

    I would have been delighted to see Bernie Sanders win. I voted for him in the primary. He would have been a great president. He is a man of unquestioned integrity and intelligence. He has a enormous experience in governing He is what he pretends to be, but he didn’t win.

    What the Democrats got was Hillary Clinton with all her flaws, her pants suits, her voice, her baggage from the Monica thing and all that. But for god’s sake, she was a Yale-educated lawyer, an effective Secretary of State and United States Senator, a First Lady, and an intelligent woman. She isn’t bat-crap crazy, a surprisingly huge plus these days. As far as we know, she has never grabbed a pussy. She never bragged out it at any rate. There was a lot she did and said I wish she hadn’t, but was there really a choice after the primaries?

    I don’t know anything about Jill Stein except that she had no chance, and her vote totals were larger than the gaps between Hillary and Trump in those critical states in the rust belt. The Bernie or Bust people may have felt awful, but for the love of Pete, look what we got instead?! The United States is careening out of control with a drunk driver at the wheel. It is incredible.

    So a vote for Nader may have felt good in the moment, but it was a bad, bad decision for the country. A protest vote against Hillary may have felt righteous, but we have to deal with this idiot for four embarrassing and perilous years It’s, you know, sad.

    Trump’s tantrums are unbecoming, but voting for Jill Stein or Ralph Nader is, let’s be honest, a tantrum. And it’s a damn shame.

    • Randell Hersom

      Glad you voted for Bernie in the primaries, but your last two sentences are quite offensive. You have no right to insist that other voters reject candidates based on popularity or vote for inferior candidates. The strength of the party is the quality of candidates it offers. Voter suppression engineered by Karl Rove had far more effect on 2000 than Nader.

      • Jay Ligon

        Elections, in the end, are math. A vote for Nader was not a vote for Nader, because Nader could not win. It was a vote for Bush. A vote for Stein was a vote for Trump, because Stein could not win. In the end, those votes made a difference in the totals.

        Your vote is your absolute right. You do it in secret. No one can require that you disclose what you did in the privacy of the voting booth.

        Democrats who could not forgive Hillary for whatever offenses, real or imagined, that she may have committed now have Trump, as do we all. I’m not going to thank you for it. It is a really ugly problem.

        The country is poorer and in extreme jeopardy as a result. The Senate was lost to the Republicans because Democrats failed to comprehend the basic mathematics of elections and the need to maintain the majority.

        The despicable games that Republicans play with elections – the hacking of machines, the suppression of the black and Latino votes, creating shortage of voting machines in Democratic precincts, all of it – means that those votes are more precious, and we, as a country, are more vulnerable to being governed by the minority party, which we are. The GOP play those games every election. They do it every time, more or less. Yes, those games amounts to hundreds of thousands of votes, but isn’t that more reason not to throw away a vote on a protest?

        You have the right to do what you did. Now accept the responsibility for it. He’s all yours.

        • Randell Hersom

          First off, in November, I did vote for the candidate receiving the most popular votes. I am still offended by any statement that “a vote for A is a vote for B”. First it is a lie. A vote for A is a vote for A. A vote for B is a vote for B. There is no great amount of intellegence required to distinguish between the two. The statement is used to belittle people who do not do exactly what you want them to do. It is used most commonly by entrenched party insiders in a desperate attempt to hang on to their power in the face of dissent. I am disappointed in any true Bernie Sanders supporter who would use such a statement. This includes you and Sarah Silverman. Insiders will be using this phrase early and often in support of the insiders choice.
          Democrats can bully, or democrats can listen. Democrats who bully are more Republican than Democrats who listen. Listen.

          • Troy

            Yes, and a vote for C is a vote for C and a vote for D is a vote for D. Except that in our two-party system a vote for a candidate other than the two primes siphons off their chance to win. Case in point, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The margin of loss between Hillary and the Donald was 107,330 votes total between the three states. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein received 551,838 votes in those three states. In this instance those people that voted Johnson or Stein effectively enabled Trump’s victory. Not via direct support by voting for him but the end result is the same; Donald Trump is President.

            I’m not sure why you’re offended by that either. No one is telling you how to cast your vote. The aftermath however is something that can’t be ignored or rationed away. The future probably holds more political parties entering our process. What’s going to happen when you see a simple majority of 26% of the voters? That’s what you’ll have if we ever have four mainstream parties or how about 21% with five. People are clamoring now with elected officials garnering less than 50% of the popular vote. What’s going to happen when a plurality of voters fall to those levels?

            Yes, Democratic candidates need to listen to the people as much or more than pollsters, pundits, opportunists, fund raisers, and wealthy benefactors. It is the candidate however who, in the end, bears the burden of bonding with the people; or not.

          • Randell Hersom

            But that’s not a fundamentally different statement than if 100% of voters voted for B, B would have won. You are proposing some sort of moral statement that voter must vote for the candidate that carries your preferred label. No. If the candidate that bears your label can’t earn the votes all sorts of bad things can happen. And apologists can make up all sorts of blame games. If you don’t address root cause, the same old result comes back to bite you again.

            America had a level of trust in government in the teens and falling. Status Quo Republicans were less prepared to crush dissent than Status Quo Democrats. They got a rogue candidate that was a skilled liar. By being better at crushing dissent, Democrats got a Status Quo candidate nominated against the wishes of the American people. It did not go well. If it is tried again it will go even worse next time. The people have made their intentions clear..

            Don’t bully. Listen.

          • Troy

            Yeah….no. It’s not even close.

            Atypical thought processes, Disagree and you’re bullying.

            My point here is this; If you did, as many did, vote for the alternate candidate because of…whatever reason, and the election yields a demagogue, don’t bitch. Now you can hang any label on that your theory class taught you, but like I said, it doesn’t change the end result.

    • Christopher Lizak

      Gore won Florida in 2000.

      That was the finding of the consortium of seven media outlets that did the post-“election” analysis.

      But Gore could not be seated as President because the courts ruled that finishing the recount and announcing an official result would irreparably damage W.

  6. Hayes McNeill

    Dean delivered as Chair of the DNC. In North Carolina, he worked with Jerry Meek to return power to the grassroots. As for Sanders, his staying power remains to be seen. After all, he himself was only a temporary Democrat. If his supporters in NC can return the Party to its grassroots without dictation from the DNC, but rather channeling support for local candidates and programs as Dr. Dean did, then those supporters will be welcome. Or should be.

  7. MyTurnNC

    I don’t blame Hillary for the loss. I put the blame squarely on James Comey and Vladimir Putin.
    Hillary was way ahead until the Comey letter. He acted as prosecutor, judge and jury. He played by the rules on the investigation into Russian interference and didn’t disclose it.
    All that said, Democrats should run on a clear, simple and immediate platform of Jobs for All, Medicare for All and Justice for All.
    Yes, accept that some Democrats may disagree on one issue or another. But the uniting idea is that government can and should work effectively to benefit and protect the American people. Amazing that Republicans don’t believe the benefit part of this.

  8. Norma Munn

    Yes, the Democrats are again fighting among themselves. Losing groups tend to at least temporarily blame each other.
    Perhaps all the men on this site commenting above who are so sure that Hillary ran a terrible campaign should keep in mind that she won the popular vote by at least 2.8 million votes.

    As for the Sanders folks and their energy, great and welcome. But, the message of economic need and equality was not significantly different between Hillary and Bernie. Expressed quite differently, but if you looked beyond the style, they were very much on the same page — a page that both had been on for a long time. Isn’t it time for everyone to grow up and focus on substance more and style less? Every concerned voter with whom I have talked had far less interest in the energy or style of either Democrat. They did care about what it meant to be effective in government and they were and are deeply concerned about economic issues and fair treatment for people. (Just for clarity, I have only been having political discussions about this campaign with women,so it is a single sex poll, so to speak. So, however, are the comments above.)

    Unfortunately, the press coverage on the substantive issues of this campaign failed all of us.

    Special note to Mike. I reluctantly and sadly understand, but I detest that reality. Why can’t the DNC have Co-Chairs? Probably challenging, but so is all of this. I just can’t stomach rejecting a qualified candidate for any position based on religion, anymore than color or sexuality, etc.

  9. MIke

    The very last thing the DNC needs to do, is elect a Muslim to be head of the party. Now you can call
    me anything you like but you should know I have always been and voted Democratic.

    • Stephen Lewis, Sr.

      I disagree with you Muslim comment having said that the one you are speaking of is not what the party needs not because of his religion but his views.

  10. Christopher Lizak

    I agree with this 100%. We’re going to need to concentrate on issues that resonate widely if we’re going to challenge Trump’s populism. Although there is certainly overlap, I think that economic issues should take precedence over social issues for a while.

  11. Stephen Lewis, Sr.

    To answer your questions about Hillary she ran an awful campaign. She could have, and i think should have run a campaign similar to the heir to her husband, that of a New Democrat. I say she should have because it is the what most voters identified her as being part of that brand of politic. She could have run as a born again populist and link herself to Bernie campaign. She did neither and instead tried to run as trying to split the difference it is a very difficult thing to do and i am not surprised she failed. Trump has never really ever been identified with any movement and it he got away with a lot. Hillary’s campaign reminded me a lot of Mitt Romney’s campaign of 2012 of trying to be something you are not some consultant probably told her to do that way and if was a flop. . .

    • Stephen Lewis, Sr.

      I do not believe Bernie would have been a better candidate. There are many reason but to biol it down he is not and never has been a Democrat. I just do see how the party could have turned itself over to him.

  12. willard cottrell

    Your comments ae well received in my mind. For years I’ve been returning those fake polls designed NOT to get our ideas, but to get our money. I would always request that somebody – anybody – answer my queries about the direction of the party. WELL – finally the answer was given to us by Trump.

    Like it or not we”re going to be wandering the wilderness for quite some time. Democrats forgot who brought them to the dance. Kay Hagen ran as far as she could from Obamacare – and we got Tillis.
    We allowed the republicans to slander unions and working people, specious ideas about ‘right to work’ and tinkle down economics. We fought a losing battle on other topics such as banking reform women, climate change etc all by trying to cooperate with lunatics. Reason doesn’t work with these people.

    What was especially galling to me this go around was the damn pandering rather than focusing on what our programs do to help “OUR” constituents. A great example was Wassermann-Schultz’ support for payday loan sharks. Our how about the absence of DNC folk at the Women’s March. Even Keith Elison was schmoozing for dollars. If these donors are really interested they’ll donate, otherwise, it is simply payolla. I refuse to give any money to the democratic alphabet soup organizations. Money isn’t the problem, Chutzpah is.

    Since I’m going on 73, I don’t think I’ll live long enough to see even a slight turn around unless there’s something catastrophic. I’ll keep fighting, but the younger generation needs to develop some ideals and push them thru. The rights of women and civil liberty are a good foundation from which to begin. There are so many god damned battles to be fought. Start with the really important ones.

    • Alex jones

      Hagan was never my favorite politician, but she ran a close-to-perfect campaign. Hence why she came within 1.5% when Democrats in far bluer states were losing by 5-6-7.

    • Neal F. Rattican

      I’m 76 and right there with you, Willard! I lost count of the emails I received from the DNC soliciting more money in order to “hit our $xxxxx goal by midnight such-and-such a date.” Got so they insulted even my meager intelligence. I kept saying to myself, “I sent you money before. What the hell are you doing with it?” As you said, Willard I got my answer: Trump! Seems to me we Democrats, more often than not, wind up being our own worst enemy. We need wonder no longer about the worst thing that could happen if we don’t get it together, and it has taken up residence in the White House. Now what?
      .

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

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

You have Successfully Subscribed!