By definition, "progressives" focus like a laser on advancing the *public interest* by holding business and government (and the cozy relationships between business leaders and politicians) accountable. Progressives don't push for regime change and wars of choice in foreign countries, and they're not paid millions for holding closed-door meetings with the leaders of the most wealthy and powerful corporations. That kind of behavior makes you an anti-progressive. The "Northern" piece a la Wisconsin and Vermont is not "Rockefeller Republican," comfortable with Wall Street dealing and the Neocon as long as the "Democrats" wave the "social issues" flag now and then. We really need to see a Progressive Party in which that *public interest* thingie is definitive.
29
What a smug......hypothesis.....
Wrong...wrong....and.....laughable....and if the New York Times Editors agree
and
expects some of our regular commenters to go along with this convoluted
idiocy...well....I guess the commenters will let you know....hopefully
very sharply that you ....are in a phrase ....out of your cotton pickin' minds
if you are trying to sell us this nonsense.
Wrong...wrong....and.....laughable....and if the New York Times Editors agree
and
expects some of our regular commenters to go along with this convoluted
idiocy...well....I guess the commenters will let you know....hopefully
very sharply that you ....are in a phrase ....out of your cotton pickin' minds
if you are trying to sell us this nonsense.
33
"[T]he appeal of Senator Bernie Sanders to the young represents a repudiation of the center-left synthesis shared by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."
Is that what Hillary represents--the "center-left"? I gotta get myself a new map because center-left not where I find Hillary Clinton.
Is that what Hillary represents--the "center-left"? I gotta get myself a new map because center-left not where I find Hillary Clinton.
31
Please stop repeating the cliche 'Bernie's young followers'. Are you trying to suggest we are all primarily immature? We are all ages and we want REAL change, not incrementalism.
And we do not believe Hillary can get her agenda through Congress more easily than any other candidate given the total antagonism of right-wing Republicans toward the Clinton's.
And we do not believe Hillary can get her agenda through Congress more easily than any other candidate given the total antagonism of right-wing Republicans toward the Clinton's.
41
Hillary Clinton is .....overdue....for an in depth disclosure...obviously
and
Donald J. Trump.....is like no other Republican past present or future.
and why...
well Donald J. Trump is not really a Republican.....he is only posing as
a Republican....and he has sold his product...that is himself ..
WHICH IS ALL ALONG HIS OWN THIRD PARTY...CALLED THE PARTY OF
TRUMP.....and this 3rd party ....has its own rules...rather like an anarchy
of one just being accountable to one..don't think this will be the future ..NOPE
and
Donald J. Trump.....is like no other Republican past present or future.
and why...
well Donald J. Trump is not really a Republican.....he is only posing as
a Republican....and he has sold his product...that is himself ..
WHICH IS ALL ALONG HIS OWN THIRD PARTY...CALLED THE PARTY OF
TRUMP.....and this 3rd party ....has its own rules...rather like an anarchy
of one just being accountable to one..don't think this will be the future ..NOPE
7
Love how this author, in predictable New York Times fashion, writes as if Trump and CLinton have already been nominated.
24
Roosevelt Democrats are gone? What on earth does this guy mean? I would say that with Sanders, Roosevelt Democrats are back!
32
Sadly, this and the rest of this weekend's opinion pieces make it sure: there is nothing new to say - nothing but banal patter to fill space - about this election. It is a disgrace upon a people who deserve to be disgraced. Sorry Michael Lind - you tried but this is just a bunch of nonsense written because there is nothing new worth saying about a fundamentally flawed and uninspiring Democrat anointed as the party's candidate four years ago by the establishment and the media - including most of all your own paper - and a Republican who is the predictable ultimate manifestation of a party and a political mindset on our right that wallows happily in ignorance and its own worst instincts. Save the bits and bypes - I know they're free but anyway - save the bits, bytes and the time it takes to write about this [you know what]
16
Don't be so sure of a Clinton win. If Trump wins it will be a disaster but it will rid us of the Clintons....permanently. That would open the field for new political thinking in the Dem Party. If Hillary wins and takes the country into another war it will be her demise. I will vote Trump over another war hawk. These foreign wars are destroying America. Better Trump than war Hawk Hillary.
15
The rise of anti-immigrant feeling shows that Americans are unhappy. Why are so many unhappy? The lack of enough decent jobs is a big part of it. Especially when not having a job is punished by extreme poverty: homelessness, ostracism, hunger, and very poor healthcare for your family.
There will never again be enough jobs to go around. We need to figure out what this means for our future. What do we want for ourselves? What do we expect other people to do?
There will never again be enough jobs to go around. We need to figure out what this means for our future. What do we want for ourselves? What do we expect other people to do?
14
"the appeal of Senator Bernie Sanders to the young represents a repudiation of the center-left synthesis shared by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."
CENTER-LEFT? Is that what Hillary represents--the "center-left"? I gotta get myself a new map because that is not where I find Hillary Clinton.
CENTER-LEFT? Is that what Hillary represents--the "center-left"? I gotta get myself a new map because that is not where I find Hillary Clinton.
8
A year ago you wrote an article for Salon entitled "How to Demolish the Oligarchy in 3 Easy Steps” where you basically outlined Bernie's program, including free public college, single payer and expanded social security. You concluded your article as follows:
"Fantasy? In the short term, sure. The well-paid parasites who profit from complexity will see to that. But there are two kinds of politics: Moving the ball and moving the goal-posts. This is about moving the goal-posts. This is about the next generation, not the next election."
"Rome was not built in a day, and the antiquated, crumbling, rat-infested fire hazard that is American public policy will not be condemned, demolished and replaced by a clean, modern, solid structure overnight. But the sooner we start the demolition, the better. In the meantime, “Equal rights for all, special privileges for none” would make a good campaign slogan in 2016."
It is hard to fathom this change of heart being the result of logic and analysis alone and I hoping you could explain this radical change of heart and dispel some dark thoughts which come to mind:
* You genuinely believed what you said in April of 2015 until it became possible via the Bernie campaign and then it was just too threatening or dangerous.
* Some sort of Dem memo that went out to stop all this kind of talk and line up behind Hillary.
* You were struck by lightning on the road to Damascus.
"Fantasy? In the short term, sure. The well-paid parasites who profit from complexity will see to that. But there are two kinds of politics: Moving the ball and moving the goal-posts. This is about moving the goal-posts. This is about the next generation, not the next election."
"Rome was not built in a day, and the antiquated, crumbling, rat-infested fire hazard that is American public policy will not be condemned, demolished and replaced by a clean, modern, solid structure overnight. But the sooner we start the demolition, the better. In the meantime, “Equal rights for all, special privileges for none” would make a good campaign slogan in 2016."
It is hard to fathom this change of heart being the result of logic and analysis alone and I hoping you could explain this radical change of heart and dispel some dark thoughts which come to mind:
* You genuinely believed what you said in April of 2015 until it became possible via the Bernie campaign and then it was just too threatening or dangerous.
* Some sort of Dem memo that went out to stop all this kind of talk and line up behind Hillary.
* You were struck by lightning on the road to Damascus.
35
"Trumpism and Clintonism Are the Future"
Trumpism is fear and hatred **
Clintonism is for caring and well being****
Trumpism is fear and hatred **
Clintonism is for caring and well being****
2
With his usual intellectual acumen, Michael Lind, my favorite contrarian, has destabilized the comfortable assumptions of both parties regarding America's political future. Lind has a way of being way out front, and correct, on the issues that interest him. Dismiss him at your peril.
6
"the appeal of Senator Bernie Sanders to the young represents a repudiation of the center-left synthesis shared by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."
CENTER-LEFT? Is that what Hillary represents--the "center-left"? I gotta get myself a new map because that is not where I find Hillary Clinton.
CENTER-LEFT? Is that what Hillary represents--the "center-left"? I gotta get myself a new map because that is not where I find Hillary Clinton.
13
Clinton Democrats are dis-proportionally older black Americans and older white Democrats and, therefore, not the future of the party. Sander Democrats, on the other hand, are mostly young, liberal white and college educated and a coalition of Hispanics, Asian, and young African Americans. Clintonism has already been defeated at the ballot box. The only reason Clinton is ahead in the pledged delegates is because of her big wins in the South powered by the black votes. Having observed the primary season, Lind is curiously wrong.
8
If if even slightly true. America is over. But with luck the writer is as wrong as Greenspan was.
12
If Lind is correct in his analysis, I hope for the sake of the country that both RNC and DNC have think tanks going on how to adapt our institutions to work in the context of a 4+ party system. Because both parties as we know them today will inevitably fragment within our lifetimes.
9
You are an elitist author Michael Lind, and, therefore, somewhat clueless about Sander's supporters.
We've been waiting for decades.
We've been waiting for decades.
20
The country will be better off with a President of the sanity and experience that Hillary has. The article spells out fairly well what is the score.
6
Maybe so. But only for a while. The last days of Rome were probably like this. Sad to see the system I grew up to respect (ask not...) has fallen to this depressing state.
10
"...center-left synthesis shared by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."
Sorry, but the Clintons have nothing in common with Barack Obama. The Clintons are the past of the Democratic party. We are moving forward.
Sorry, but the Clintons have nothing in common with Barack Obama. The Clintons are the past of the Democratic party. We are moving forward.
18
good article. I agree with most things here except your portrayal of Ted Cruz who will never move toward any form of liberalism as his support is in the extreme evangelical wing of his party. As such he is an anachronism. It will take other less extreme Republicans to embrace some form of Republicanism.
The young as you imply will gravitate towards the farthest wing of their party in their idealism. Sanders has bounced around Congress like an aged hippie who like Ted Cruz can not accept compromise or working with others. His attack on Wall Street in the way he does it is unrealistic. We as HRC says need to strengthen Dodd Frank and bend Wall Street to the needs of the people rather than destroy it. Capitalism in its moderate well behaved form can be a tool for a better society combined with strong government enforcement of people oriented rules.
The young as you imply will gravitate towards the farthest wing of their party in their idealism. Sanders has bounced around Congress like an aged hippie who like Ted Cruz can not accept compromise or working with others. His attack on Wall Street in the way he does it is unrealistic. We as HRC says need to strengthen Dodd Frank and bend Wall Street to the needs of the people rather than destroy it. Capitalism in its moderate well behaved form can be a tool for a better society combined with strong government enforcement of people oriented rules.
6
one thing is already clear: Trumpism represents the future of the Republicans and Clintonism the future of the Democrats.
Well, that was enough of this column. If I want to hear superficial non-sense I will talk to my dog.ill
Well, that was enough of this column. If I want to hear superficial non-sense I will talk to my dog.ill
19
Oh, dear, I think you are calling me a Republican! I think of myself as a yellow dog Democrat!
3
That Mr. Sanders is popular among the young does not suggest that he is only popular among the young. Just as Ms. Clinton has support among a much larger group than aging feminists. The amazing number of small contributions supporting Sanders suggests the opposite: he is widely popular among many Americans.
Dismissing his followers, their pragmatism (which argues that there is nothing pragmatic about voting for the same ol' ideas if what you want is different) their sanity, and their likely continuing contribution to the electorate has been an ongoing media theme this year. As was dismissing Obama in 2008. Urging him to withdraw from the race as it moves westward has also been a theme. Who needs the West to vote when the East has the (same tired) answer?
I'm very eager to see how this all plays out; just not as certain as the "experts" who thought this was gonna be a slam dunk for Clinton.
Dismissing his followers, their pragmatism (which argues that there is nothing pragmatic about voting for the same ol' ideas if what you want is different) their sanity, and their likely continuing contribution to the electorate has been an ongoing media theme this year. As was dismissing Obama in 2008. Urging him to withdraw from the race as it moves westward has also been a theme. Who needs the West to vote when the East has the (same tired) answer?
I'm very eager to see how this all plays out; just not as certain as the "experts" who thought this was gonna be a slam dunk for Clinton.
8
You see Clintonism as the way forward ?
I must say, you have your gear stuck in reverse.
I must say, you have your gear stuck in reverse.
12
Michael Lind's New America foundation is a "Third Way," neoliberal group that would love for the world to be colored "HIllary."
From Wiki's page on New America (organization):
"Formerly, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget was a part of New America until it separated to become the Fix the Debt campaign."
Hillary's close advisor in all things financial is Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock. BlackRock is the world's largest pension fund, managing $4.6 trillion of other people's money. Larry Fink is a big advocate of privatizing Social Security, and was part of Campaign to Fix the Debt.
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/02/larry-fink-and-his-blackrock-team-po...
Thomas Frank, in his new book, Listen Liberal, describes in detail how Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich in the late 90's were secretly working together to privatize Social Security. They would have succeeded, but were forced to quit due to the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Interview w/Thomas Frank where he describes this treachery:
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/audio_robert_scheer_talks_with_thom...
From Wiki's page on New America (organization):
"Formerly, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget was a part of New America until it separated to become the Fix the Debt campaign."
Hillary's close advisor in all things financial is Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock. BlackRock is the world's largest pension fund, managing $4.6 trillion of other people's money. Larry Fink is a big advocate of privatizing Social Security, and was part of Campaign to Fix the Debt.
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/02/larry-fink-and-his-blackrock-team-po...
Thomas Frank, in his new book, Listen Liberal, describes in detail how Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich in the late 90's were secretly working together to privatize Social Security. They would have succeeded, but were forced to quit due to the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Interview w/Thomas Frank where he describes this treachery:
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/audio_robert_scheer_talks_with_thom...
7
Well, no. Both Clintonism and Trumpism are the past - just look at their dominant demographics. The only question is, how many electoral cycles can they eke out, before (a) their supporters die out; and (b) they drag their parties down with them?
12
Clintonism doesn't exist, never did, never will.
5
The nytimes keeps pushing this narrative about Hillary like she is some principled direction for the party going forward. Gimme a break.
She is old and only inspires the old democratic guard. That might make her a good candidate for today but I doubt that he will shape the party for decades. she's it's conservate/moderate center/past.
That's why she got so pushed by Bernie
Come on... Grandma Hillary doesn't stir any democratic passions at all. She is just pandering to minorities she by hat she doesn't get outflanked. She will move towards the center when she doesn't need them
Her core will be middle class whites. If she can somehow get minority women to vote like middle class women then she could be a powerhouse but I'm not sure that would be in a non white woman's interest.
If voters strip all the baggage that her name/bill carries then we would see that she is a pragmatist aka centrist overall but a neocon on foreign policy and has some left of center social views....feminism. All of her other positions are for sale when politically expedient. I sense that she is dismissive of class issues and tone deaf to populists
Not sure how she would represent the party ideals with that shifty/establishment nature.
I suspect the nytimes wants her to be the party platform because she is basically an Israeli hawk and she is clearly establishment ....Aka big money has her ears.
She is old and only inspires the old democratic guard. That might make her a good candidate for today but I doubt that he will shape the party for decades. she's it's conservate/moderate center/past.
That's why she got so pushed by Bernie
Come on... Grandma Hillary doesn't stir any democratic passions at all. She is just pandering to minorities she by hat she doesn't get outflanked. She will move towards the center when she doesn't need them
Her core will be middle class whites. If she can somehow get minority women to vote like middle class women then she could be a powerhouse but I'm not sure that would be in a non white woman's interest.
If voters strip all the baggage that her name/bill carries then we would see that she is a pragmatist aka centrist overall but a neocon on foreign policy and has some left of center social views....feminism. All of her other positions are for sale when politically expedient. I sense that she is dismissive of class issues and tone deaf to populists
Not sure how she would represent the party ideals with that shifty/establishment nature.
I suspect the nytimes wants her to be the party platform because she is basically an Israeli hawk and she is clearly establishment ....Aka big money has her ears.
13
Interesting opinion. Is it on the opinion pages? Hard to tell these days, with most of NYT writers in the Clinton camp.
17
How shocking of the Times to find someone to call corporate inspired cenytrism the future. When have you ever, ever said anything else? But, funny thing is, sometimes things actiually chnage. When they do, you'll say you said it would happen.
10
Wishful thinking, born out of frustration over the facts on the ground not matching the author's preconceptions. Not only does Clinton NOT represent Democratic principles, she is more like a traditional Republican than Democrat.
Perhaps she has the support of older Democrats and blacks, but the future always belongs to the young, and Sanders' ideas have clearly excited this group, across all demographics.
Perhaps she has the support of older Democrats and blacks, but the future always belongs to the young, and Sanders' ideas have clearly excited this group, across all demographics.
10
A windy diatribe blowing in the wrong direction. Clinton doesn't appear to have ideas except those lifted from Bernie. Sanderism is what we'll be following regardless of who wins the election.
12
If Mr. Lind is right, then the more likely future will see both the Democratic and Republican parties splintered and made smaller, and eventually supplanted by new parties that represent more populist voters that lean left and right. In the words of Bob Dylan, the voice of a now old generation, said:
"Get out of the new way if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changin'"
"Get out of the new way if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changin'"
2
I don't believe you. If the future is a choice between these two and what they represent then we are in BIG trouble. Somehow I think you are missing large groups of people on the left, middle, and right that don't want either of these maladjusted excuses for a leader.
11
It has to go somewhere. Right now it is a meaningless game, a phony act, a con job.
It is gaining control of the levers of power to enrich oneself and feed one's ego.
It has nothing to do with helping the country or it's people.
I'mnot sure that Trumpism or Clintonism are anything more than a streamlined con job.
It is gaining control of the levers of power to enrich oneself and feed one's ego.
It has nothing to do with helping the country or it's people.
I'mnot sure that Trumpism or Clintonism are anything more than a streamlined con job.
8
Mr. Lind has apparently been talking to god... a particularly illustrative sample of the sort of "expertise" which is bestowed upon us ignorant folk with the "evidence" that, it is hoped, will "inform" our political choices at election time.
Ho Hum
Ho Hum
4
Everybody can relax: this amounts to nothing more than a conservative writer attempting to frame things and hopefully claim fame by insinuating the entire working class is heading to the right.
13
Just think about this for a moment. Picture Trump or Cruz as president. Do you want to live in a country where one of them is in the White House? Trump: A man who, looking at his infant daughter, can only comment on how big her breasts will be when she's grown, and then commenting that he would date her if he weren't her daughter. Or Cruz: A man who has nothing but contempt for vast swaths of the American population and is thrilled to have an extremist exorcist on his team. Really?
Then there's Clinton. She's fine if you are firmly entrenched in the politics of the late 20th century, were happy with the wars and regime change of the past 15 years, and think that the ultra-rich in this country need a break.
Then there's Clinton. She's fine if you are firmly entrenched in the politics of the late 20th century, were happy with the wars and regime change of the past 15 years, and think that the ultra-rich in this country need a break.
6
"Clintonism is the future of the Democrats?" Give me a break. The demographics are changing, and a plurality on both sides od the aisle reject neoliberal economics. This may in fact be the last hurrah of the third way center right democrats.
10
Michael Lind is a fellow at the New America Foundation. In this video (https://www.newamerica.org/about/) Hillary Clinton endorses the work of the foundation. Bernie Sanders is nowhere to be seen. This, combined with Lind's history of writing hyperbolic articles about the future of politics, suggests that Lind's analysis is nowhere near a predictive methodology. Instead, Michael Lind is a 53 year old white-male from Texas who writes popular pieces designed to make people react; that, rather than holistic analysis, is his job. Bias in favor of Clinton is hardly surprising.
Reagan opposed all civil rights legislation, exploited farm laborers, destroyed the trucking industry, sold weapons to Iran, and ruined the lives of hardworking people before the HUAC (http://mic.com/articles/85379/10-real-facts-about-ronald-reagan-that-rep.... Despite all this, Lind calls Reagan a "classical liberal." Just as Reagan expressed anti-progressive, destructive, and racist ideologies, so does Michael Lind through numerous devices (from using the phrase "illegal immigrant" to not knowing that inequality and political corruption are related to racial disparity and policing).
In sum, Lind should read Michelle Alexander's, The New Jim Crow. If we created a concept map with all the ills of society, most of them would be related. It is surprising that one who seeks to predict the "future" of Republican and Democratic ideologies does not see some of those connections.
Reagan opposed all civil rights legislation, exploited farm laborers, destroyed the trucking industry, sold weapons to Iran, and ruined the lives of hardworking people before the HUAC (http://mic.com/articles/85379/10-real-facts-about-ronald-reagan-that-rep.... Despite all this, Lind calls Reagan a "classical liberal." Just as Reagan expressed anti-progressive, destructive, and racist ideologies, so does Michael Lind through numerous devices (from using the phrase "illegal immigrant" to not knowing that inequality and political corruption are related to racial disparity and policing).
In sum, Lind should read Michelle Alexander's, The New Jim Crow. If we created a concept map with all the ills of society, most of them would be related. It is surprising that one who seeks to predict the "future" of Republican and Democratic ideologies does not see some of those connections.
12
Don't you mean Trumpism and Bernieism...? Clinton is antiquated and tied to the old establishment, which both parties are desperate to cling to- The under current of today is change- throw the baby and the bathwater out because what we have isn't working. If Trump does or says something stupid he's given a pass because the majority of his followers still see him as someone who will turn DC upside down. He is the only one who will have leverage going into office to make Washington dance to a new tune as he will persecute anyone [both REP and DEM] who dare stand in his way. This is what the establishment fears- Oh well you had your chance 40 years plus for some of you and you failed! Time for something radically different.
6
A thousand numbing words, ostensibly to 'explain' Trump, but actually to discourage Sanders supporters. Somehow, in the imagining of this carefully crafted essay, the Republican elite is forced to change to accomodate its base, but the Democratic elite is not. Wishful thinking. Sanders' supporters are not 'the young'; rather, Clinton's supporters are the old--in spirit, as well as sometimes, in age. All over the country, the electorate is ready to break with Clinton's brand of neoliberal pandering to the wealthy. It is not just 'the young'. I myself am fifty six and have many friends my own age who, like me, are totally fed up with Clinton's corporate pandering and want a real, actual, change: Bernie Sanders. This piece is just yet another of the NYT's shameless bias toward Clinton and their seemingly never-ending attempts to discredit Sanders. Shame on you, NYT.
15
This is truly excellent work. Justified by the outraged far left commentators above and below.
5
It's not that often that a pundit's hindsight works this badly, or they work this hard to get a word lke "populist," paper over the sheer craziness of today's GOP.
Santorum, Huckabee, Cruz aren't populists. They're far-right theocrats, and their followers are far-right Doomsday-seeking Christians.
Santorum, Huckabee, Cruz aren't populists. They're far-right theocrats, and their followers are far-right Doomsday-seeking Christians.
5
Meanwhile, as Hillary Clinton's motorcade made its way to George Clooney's house, it was greeted with a crowd pelting handfuls of dollar bills as it passed. Naturally, the music playing on the sound system was "We're in the Money". Classic!
http://www.businessinsider.com/george-clooneys-neighbor-threw-a-counter-...
http://www.businessinsider.com/george-clooneys-neighbor-threw-a-counter-...
9
I believe Sec'y Clinton is more of a center-right synthesis. Consider the similarities between their policies and President Nixon's. Wasn't Nixon a center-right politician? Now, Robert Kennedy was a center-left politician, and Ms. Clinton is no Bobbie Kennedy.
6
Why is the promise to build on Pres Obama's accomplishments Clintonism when it should be Obamaism especially since he is more popular than anyone running and if he could win would win in a landslide. The truth is that the choice is between plutocracy and Americanism of we must have and "ism".
1
Mr. Lind's argument isn't half as smart as it sounds. Identity politics wear very thin with overuse, and Sanders' strength is a sign of that thinness.
Among America's youth, the population MOST exposed to and receptive to solipsistic identity politics, an elderly white male who is barely audible on gun control and abortion has caught fire. If this is not a sign that these issues are a frayed and tattered political foundation, then what is?
Gay people and women care about the economy too. Being told that you matter and that the country cares about you only appeals to people who are insecure on those fronts. Once you start to see yourself as a normal citizen, you will care about the things a normal citizen cares about.
At some point, strange as it may seem, substance is necessary.
Among America's youth, the population MOST exposed to and receptive to solipsistic identity politics, an elderly white male who is barely audible on gun control and abortion has caught fire. If this is not a sign that these issues are a frayed and tattered political foundation, then what is?
Gay people and women care about the economy too. Being told that you matter and that the country cares about you only appeals to people who are insecure on those fronts. Once you start to see yourself as a normal citizen, you will care about the things a normal citizen cares about.
At some point, strange as it may seem, substance is necessary.
4
Way, way over-analyzed.
Hubris is the reason a thief comes in the night. And humility is the reason that blessed is the one that stays awake.
Per Mr. Lind, there will be no room for the Left in the new center-right (I disagree with his characterization of the New Democrats as "center-left") Democratic Party of the future. Too bad, I think they'll miss us.
3
Clintonism if she gets the nod, and its a big "IF", will be more in the line of Bush/Cheneyism- more wars, more meeting behind closed doors with wealthy donors, and corporate interests. She sounds and acts like a Republican. Say, didn't Former Fed Chairman Alan Greespan say the same thing back in the late 1990's about her dear faithful husband Bill? Her push to the left by Sanders is only window dressing for the uncommitted left wing Democrats. Nice speeches, but show her the money first.
6
The rich pay less taxes and rest of us pay more. That is the only constant in all of the realignments since WWII.
6
"It doesn’t matter who the nominees are, these candidates’ ideas will dominate the two major parties for decades."
Sadly I believe Mr. Lind is right...except that neither Clinton nor Trump really have an ideas...or ideals...other than self-interest. Trump's self-interest may be narrower than Clintons, but to most of us it really won't matter who win. And their ideas will dominate for decades because their "ideas" are empty of any real content.
Sadly I believe Mr. Lind is right...except that neither Clinton nor Trump really have an ideas...or ideals...other than self-interest. Trump's self-interest may be narrower than Clintons, but to most of us it really won't matter who win. And their ideas will dominate for decades because their "ideas" are empty of any real content.
1
Bernie Sanders is a fad, plain and simple. The flavor of the month. His supporters, whether young or old, simply want to be part of the cool new thing & have no understanding of, or interest in, the hard work of real political change. Bernie himself, of course, only cares about enjoying his moment in the sun & has no regard for the damage he's doing to the cause he supposedly embraces.
2
This opinion is another fine example of the NYT promoting HRC. We are facing serious problems that need addressing and HRC's slow but sure policies can only continue the domination of the .01% over the rest of us. Turning a deaf ear to the voices of dissent and frustration will only end in disaster for both the rich and poor.
9
Kind of hard to read this whole thing but I don't think climate change was mentioned. And if Clintonism or Trumpism is what we're operating under for the next decade the planet is pretty well screwed.
5
Dismissing Bernie Sanders supporters.....well dear Editors ....I..think
by your obvious dismissal of college age smart adults ......and perhaps
insulting them...as rather worthless.....perhaps....they might...think
the ...same of your surrogate...Michael Lind....and you too editors.
Dismissing educated adults.......what a view.....for the Editorial page.
and ........this is to prove Hillary is without parallel.....you are absurd
really absurd..!!!
by your obvious dismissal of college age smart adults ......and perhaps
insulting them...as rather worthless.....perhaps....they might...think
the ...same of your surrogate...Michael Lind....and you too editors.
Dismissing educated adults.......what a view.....for the Editorial page.
and ........this is to prove Hillary is without parallel.....you are absurd
really absurd..!!!
11
So now we can predict the future for 20 years? What is this "article" based on other than rank speculation?
4
Sorry Mr. Lind, but you have it all wrong. CHANGE is in the air, wafting around the globe...listen to the mandate of the people! More shameless promotion of the politics of Hillary/Republicans.
6
Left on entitlements and right on immigration sounds good to me.
6
I've pondered this essay for a while, trying to figure out the logic behind it.
The author argues that both The Donald and Hillary are middle-of-the-road, compromise candidates, and that their policies will define the future of the two American parties. That's how history works, he says. The (Ted Cruz) theocrats won't win. The idealistic socialists (BernieBros) won't win.
It's all a messy sport. Pragmatism will determine the outcome.
Well, yeah. Obviously.
Here's the key problem with the argument.
HILLARY IS NOT LIKE THE DONALD.
As the secretary of state, and the Senator for New York, Mrs. Clinton courageously defended women not only in the US, but internationally. She works. She fights. Her voting record proves her to be at least as progressive as Bernie Sanders (and more effective), though recently these two Democratic candidates have been tangled in nasty spats.
But they're still a whole better than the mean, misogynistic crew offered up by the Republican party.
Donald Trump is a gilded big baby. Ted Cruz is a rattlesnake. Kasich is Uriah Heep.
Hillary Clinton is a practiced and weathered, progressive candidate, and I'm glad that Bernie has pressed her farther to the Left.
Trump and Clinton do not equate.
Clearly, this is the new journalistic sport ... Hillary equals Trump, Bernie is like Trump, A equals Z.
But at last, both the Democratic candidates are superior to the Republicans in generosity and smarts.
Let's not forget that.
The author argues that both The Donald and Hillary are middle-of-the-road, compromise candidates, and that their policies will define the future of the two American parties. That's how history works, he says. The (Ted Cruz) theocrats won't win. The idealistic socialists (BernieBros) won't win.
It's all a messy sport. Pragmatism will determine the outcome.
Well, yeah. Obviously.
Here's the key problem with the argument.
HILLARY IS NOT LIKE THE DONALD.
As the secretary of state, and the Senator for New York, Mrs. Clinton courageously defended women not only in the US, but internationally. She works. She fights. Her voting record proves her to be at least as progressive as Bernie Sanders (and more effective), though recently these two Democratic candidates have been tangled in nasty spats.
But they're still a whole better than the mean, misogynistic crew offered up by the Republican party.
Donald Trump is a gilded big baby. Ted Cruz is a rattlesnake. Kasich is Uriah Heep.
Hillary Clinton is a practiced and weathered, progressive candidate, and I'm glad that Bernie has pressed her farther to the Left.
Trump and Clinton do not equate.
Clearly, this is the new journalistic sport ... Hillary equals Trump, Bernie is like Trump, A equals Z.
But at last, both the Democratic candidates are superior to the Republicans in generosity and smarts.
Let's not forget that.
20
Just plain wrong. GOP elites believe in tax cuts like religion.
For Dems, HRC is not and has never been a progressive. She is now an outright neocon on foreign affairs, to the right of Obama and even Trump--how can you omit this after our last 14 years of wars?
HRC also still, after the Fed came out with report on banks failing their living wills, contended she'd "work with them" when they're already meeting criteria for breaking up.
HRC is not the one to stand up to big banks when they've been her backers. Same for many in Congress.
DC's become corrupt. Doing the will of donors has made the people sharpen pitchforks. Money must not be able to buy/run our gov't.
We need a return to ethics and a backbone. We need Bernie Sanders. or succumb to oligarchy.
For Dems, HRC is not and has never been a progressive. She is now an outright neocon on foreign affairs, to the right of Obama and even Trump--how can you omit this after our last 14 years of wars?
HRC also still, after the Fed came out with report on banks failing their living wills, contended she'd "work with them" when they're already meeting criteria for breaking up.
HRC is not the one to stand up to big banks when they've been her backers. Same for many in Congress.
DC's become corrupt. Doing the will of donors has made the people sharpen pitchforks. Money must not be able to buy/run our gov't.
We need a return to ethics and a backbone. We need Bernie Sanders. or succumb to oligarchy.
6
Surely tou mean Trumpism and Sanderism instead of Clintonism ?
4
I always wonder for whose benefit pieces like this are written? It's not the pro-Sanders millennials, who are unlikely to be foraging the Times Op-Ed pages. It's not the legions of Trump supporters for similar reasons. Everyone actually reading this has already made up their minds or has just awakened from a prolonged coma. My only conclusion is that screeds like this are written so the author can cash a paycheck from his masters, to whom he has assured in their penthouses and plantations that everything down here is under control, just like the manager of the BP drill rig.
5
Yet another not-so-subtle attempt by the NYT to elevate Hilary Clinton's candidacy. Speaking from his rostrum at The New America Foundation--the ultimate insider Beltway think tank--Lind is an insider elite. This article proves how shamelessly insulated he is from on-the-ground voters. Who else writes a sentence like this?:
"...It is likely that the future of the Democrats will be Clintonism — Hillary Clintonism, that is, a slightly more progressive version of neoliberalism...”
Excuse me? Anybody who describes or qualifies "neoliberalism" as “progressive”—without expecting us to notice—condescends. Such bumbling punditry is the hallmark of insularity. Regan popularized the term “neoliberalism”; rightward-shifting New Democrats, like the Clintons, ran with it. It defunds and deregulates the public sector. Lind strategically deploys rhetorical “shifters”—words (like “progressive”) whose definitions rely explicitly on the person & context of the utterance – not unlike the way oil & gas CEOs describe coal mining as "sustainable” (because, to them, extraction is economically "sustainable"). The original meaning of the term has been hijacked in the name of green-washing. Lind’s description of Clintonism as “progressive” empties the term of its actual meaning. This makes sense, given his slovenly attempts at making Bernie appear anachronistic and Hilary as prescient. He manipulates the terms of this discussion. Don't mistake this piece for anything other than a PR stunt.
"...It is likely that the future of the Democrats will be Clintonism — Hillary Clintonism, that is, a slightly more progressive version of neoliberalism...”
Excuse me? Anybody who describes or qualifies "neoliberalism" as “progressive”—without expecting us to notice—condescends. Such bumbling punditry is the hallmark of insularity. Regan popularized the term “neoliberalism”; rightward-shifting New Democrats, like the Clintons, ran with it. It defunds and deregulates the public sector. Lind strategically deploys rhetorical “shifters”—words (like “progressive”) whose definitions rely explicitly on the person & context of the utterance – not unlike the way oil & gas CEOs describe coal mining as "sustainable” (because, to them, extraction is economically "sustainable"). The original meaning of the term has been hijacked in the name of green-washing. Lind’s description of Clintonism as “progressive” empties the term of its actual meaning. This makes sense, given his slovenly attempts at making Bernie appear anachronistic and Hilary as prescient. He manipulates the terms of this discussion. Don't mistake this piece for anything other than a PR stunt.
8
"Trumpism and Clintonism Are the Future"...
God, I hope not. If Hillary is elected, by the time she gets through with us everyone will be a populist, kicking themselves in the rear and wishing like heck they hadn't voted for this aider and abetter to the 1 percent.
Speaking of percent: Sanders has pulled to within 6, that's SIX percentage points of Hillary in today's pre-NY-primary opinion polls, as just reported in the UK's Guardian. Check out the Guardian for all the U.S. campaign coverage you won't be seeing in the NYT. Hillary's once-huge margin is evaporating fast, so no wonder the U.S. mainstream media is in full smear mode.
I eagerly await Monday's and Tuesday's editions of the NYT to see the penultimate Sanders smears that will surely be printed for one final mud-slinging en route to the ballot box.
God, I hope not. If Hillary is elected, by the time she gets through with us everyone will be a populist, kicking themselves in the rear and wishing like heck they hadn't voted for this aider and abetter to the 1 percent.
Speaking of percent: Sanders has pulled to within 6, that's SIX percentage points of Hillary in today's pre-NY-primary opinion polls, as just reported in the UK's Guardian. Check out the Guardian for all the U.S. campaign coverage you won't be seeing in the NYT. Hillary's once-huge margin is evaporating fast, so no wonder the U.S. mainstream media is in full smear mode.
I eagerly await Monday's and Tuesday's editions of the NYT to see the penultimate Sanders smears that will surely be printed for one final mud-slinging en route to the ballot box.
6
Clinton keeps pressing Bernie on how he will break up the big banks Its common sense just as they broke up Ma Bell the phone company and Standard oil with monopoly laws or maybe like Enron,she is a lawyer maybe that those all in the election has a short memory or pulling the wool over alls eyes. a wolf in sheep clothing some may be with all their experience.
1
If Clintonism isn the future of the Democrats, my guess is a lot of them inclined to vote for Bernie will defect to Trump if he runs in the general.
I’m still an idealistic youngster who believed in the WW II I fought in.
Clinton might wrap a few palatables - but the bankers are still the amoral gainers.
Bernie - ignored so long by the corporate media - MUST sufficiently prevail now so our beliefs in America might survive whoever wins - for - not against. American workers, union members must be protected-our infrastructure
rebuilt; flood waters in the east filtered and piped to the southwest. How many missles might that cost ?
Clinton might wrap a few palatables - but the bankers are still the amoral gainers.
Bernie - ignored so long by the corporate media - MUST sufficiently prevail now so our beliefs in America might survive whoever wins - for - not against. American workers, union members must be protected-our infrastructure
rebuilt; flood waters in the east filtered and piped to the southwest. How many missles might that cost ?
7
Hillary needs to quit running from Bill's legacy and embrace it. From DOMA, to repealing Glass Steagall, to welfare reform, to the crime bill: Bill Clinton was at the forefront of popular legislation and left office with a fairly high approval rating. He'd win again, running on the very same platform. Take that Hillary and Bernie!
1
Why the Contest Between Hillary and Bernie Is Such a Big Deal for the Future of Our Economy
True democracy with Bernie or neo-liberalism with Hillary?
"Do we make a perpetual accommodation with neo-liberalism or do we take it on? That's the defining choice in this election. It also explains some of the gap between Hillary and Bernie supporters.
"Neo-liberalism refers to the set of theories and practices that swept through our political system (and many others) in the late 1970s. It argues that prosperity for all will occur only if we 1) cut taxes (especially on the higher income brackets); 2) cut government regulations on the private sector; and 3) cut/privatize government social programs. This combination of policies, it is argued, maximizes economic efficiency and increases economic incentives which together continually improve and expand our economy."
Why the Contest Between Hillary and Bernie Is Such a Big Deal for the Future of Our Economy | Alternet
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/why-contest-between-hillary-and-be...
True democracy with Bernie or neo-liberalism with Hillary?
"Do we make a perpetual accommodation with neo-liberalism or do we take it on? That's the defining choice in this election. It also explains some of the gap between Hillary and Bernie supporters.
"Neo-liberalism refers to the set of theories and practices that swept through our political system (and many others) in the late 1970s. It argues that prosperity for all will occur only if we 1) cut taxes (especially on the higher income brackets); 2) cut government regulations on the private sector; and 3) cut/privatize government social programs. This combination of policies, it is argued, maximizes economic efficiency and increases economic incentives which together continually improve and expand our economy."
Why the Contest Between Hillary and Bernie Is Such a Big Deal for the Future of Our Economy | Alternet
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/why-contest-between-hillary-and-be...
3
I feel like I'm living in a bad dream or some absurdist play. The craziness of the US political system and this presidential race is off the wall. On the GOP side, total frightening nut-jobs and on the Dem side an honest man truly wanting to to put the good of people, the nation and Constitution of primary importance, while Ms. HRC is flip-flopping and not laying all her cards on the table for us to truly see the real woman. She's smart and educated and experienced but I do not trust her as far as the day is long and as much as I try, I cannot get myself to like her. She an Bill have had a plan and personal agenda since the day they left the White House....POWER & MONEY. I'm totally sick of Trump and Cruz. I hope after the election I never hear their names again.
3
Bill Clinton moved the Democratic Party so far right that it became a branch of the Republican Party. "Mrs." (so you call her) Hillary Clinton, in defending the status quo, follows that tradition.
Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a Socialist, is the only remaining real Democrat, in the tradition of FDR, and to a lesser extent, LBJ, who was a hawk like Ms. C.
Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a Socialist, is the only remaining real Democrat, in the tradition of FDR, and to a lesser extent, LBJ, who was a hawk like Ms. C.
9
Mr. Lind,
The establishment tide is on the ebb, and nothing you and your establishment associates do, will stop it.
This morning there are several articles in The Guardian Newspaper, the kind of reporting that never sees the light of day here in American mainstream media.
One, in particular, is George Clooney, saying several important things, after his fundraiser for Clinton and the DNC; apparently he is having a change of heart.
He said, "if a Democratic president appoints the right supreme court justice, the US might ‘get this obscene, ridiculous amount of money out so I never have to do a fundraiser again",
And,
“Yes,” he said. “I think it’s an obscene amount of money. I think – you know that we had some protesters last night when we pulled up in San Francisco and they’re right to protest, they’re absolutely right, it is an obscene amount of money.
“The Sanders campaign when they talk about it is absolutely right. It’s ridiculous that we should have this kind of money in politics. I agree, completely.”
Sanders also appeared on Sunday morning shows, telling CNN’s State of the Union he had “a lot of respect for George Clooney’s honesty and integrity on this issue”. “One of the great tragedies is that big money is buying elections,” he said, adding that party leaders should not be “responsive to the needs of Wall Street and wealthy campaign contributors”.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/17/george-clooney-hillary-cl...
The establishment tide is on the ebb, and nothing you and your establishment associates do, will stop it.
This morning there are several articles in The Guardian Newspaper, the kind of reporting that never sees the light of day here in American mainstream media.
One, in particular, is George Clooney, saying several important things, after his fundraiser for Clinton and the DNC; apparently he is having a change of heart.
He said, "if a Democratic president appoints the right supreme court justice, the US might ‘get this obscene, ridiculous amount of money out so I never have to do a fundraiser again",
And,
“Yes,” he said. “I think it’s an obscene amount of money. I think – you know that we had some protesters last night when we pulled up in San Francisco and they’re right to protest, they’re absolutely right, it is an obscene amount of money.
“The Sanders campaign when they talk about it is absolutely right. It’s ridiculous that we should have this kind of money in politics. I agree, completely.”
Sanders also appeared on Sunday morning shows, telling CNN’s State of the Union he had “a lot of respect for George Clooney’s honesty and integrity on this issue”. “One of the great tragedies is that big money is buying elections,” he said, adding that party leaders should not be “responsive to the needs of Wall Street and wealthy campaign contributors”.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/17/george-clooney-hillary-cl...
8
"Clinton Democrats and Trump republicans are here to stay." Ugh! (Oh... and it's not only 'the young' who are taken with Mr. Sanders.)
3
If this is Clintonism, I want no part of it.
Below is a must read for primary voters.
http://www.thenation.com/article/a-voters-guide-to-hillary-clintons-poli...
Below is a must read for primary voters.
http://www.thenation.com/article/a-voters-guide-to-hillary-clintons-poli...
3
The New America Foundation is fundamentally conservative, despite claiming non-partisanship. It is only such a group that could characterize Clintonism as the future of "progressivism." This is felonious theft. After "liberal" was re-categorized as a pejorative by conservatives, everyone to the left of John Birch adopted "progressive" as a substitute. Nonsense. "Progressive" was and should remain the identification of those who deeply seek social justice and recognize that today's Democrats are yesterday's Republican moderates.
Hillary Clinton is not "progressive." Bernie Sanders is.
Hillary Clinton is not "progressive." Bernie Sanders is.
4
HRC has pledged to continue and expand upon the work of Barack Obama, especially the ambitious initiatives the Obama-hating Republican legislators wouldn't even bring up for a vote. Trump has pushed ideas that help no one other than the wealthy, with the GOP's standard troika of personal greed, violent xenophobia and marginalization of women, gays and non-Caucasians.
Unlike Bernie Sanders, though, HRC is working hard, and raising millions, to help fund downticket Democrats in the hopes of changing the balance in the House and Senate. A few Democratic seats added in one, a few more in the other, and congressional gridlock ends and our nation can finally move forward by addressing the critical issues that the GOP has refused to address. That's why I'll be voting a straight Democratic ticket in November.
Unlike Bernie Sanders, though, HRC is working hard, and raising millions, to help fund downticket Democrats in the hopes of changing the balance in the House and Senate. A few Democratic seats added in one, a few more in the other, and congressional gridlock ends and our nation can finally move forward by addressing the critical issues that the GOP has refused to address. That's why I'll be voting a straight Democratic ticket in November.
27
One more Great Recession-- which the connected dominoes of the big banks and Wall Street's addiction to Ponzi scheme methodology for the masses cannot help but cause-- and all the carefully laid out predictions of this article will be out the window.
When The Depression comes, we will have all the antagonistic forces at play in the streets-- left and right, socialist and fascist, internationalist and nationalist-- that were in play in the US and the world in the 1930s but we won't have FDR. And we won't have almost all the unused factory space in the world to fire up for war production, and hopefully we won't have WWIII.
But the widespread support I see for Trump as he sets his jaw a bit too much like Mussolini and appeals to calls for ethnic cleansing a bit too much like Hitler, calling out from his BULLY pulpit for physical action against press and protester alike by his street thugs sure smells a lot like history repeating itself to me.
A history professor of mine used to say (maybe he still does) that when fascism came to the United States it wouldn't be wearing a military uniform but a three piece suit instead. Dr. Linder, hats off to you. I never pictured someone like Trump when you said that, but now I see you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Unlike this article, I'll wager. Are those jack boots I hear?
When The Depression comes, we will have all the antagonistic forces at play in the streets-- left and right, socialist and fascist, internationalist and nationalist-- that were in play in the US and the world in the 1930s but we won't have FDR. And we won't have almost all the unused factory space in the world to fire up for war production, and hopefully we won't have WWIII.
But the widespread support I see for Trump as he sets his jaw a bit too much like Mussolini and appeals to calls for ethnic cleansing a bit too much like Hitler, calling out from his BULLY pulpit for physical action against press and protester alike by his street thugs sure smells a lot like history repeating itself to me.
A history professor of mine used to say (maybe he still does) that when fascism came to the United States it wouldn't be wearing a military uniform but a three piece suit instead. Dr. Linder, hats off to you. I never pictured someone like Trump when you said that, but now I see you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Unlike this article, I'll wager. Are those jack boots I hear?
3
this is an excellent analysis, surpassing by far the intellectual shallowness of the editorial board and most of its columnists (maureen dowd in her anti-clintonian rants being an exception).
Wow, what a choice!
A pragmatic businessman from New York and Florida who takes no money from nobody.
An accomplished female politician who takes money from everybody.
A pragmatic businessman from New York and Florida who takes no money from nobody.
An accomplished female politician who takes money from everybody.
13
Lind gives away his bias and agenda by branding "Clintonism" as a "center-left synthesis" shared by the Cllintons and Obama. Huh? Bill Clinton and now Hillary represent the triangulating, Wall Street capitulating, corporatist version of the Democratic Party ushered in by the first (and hopefully ONLY) Clinton regime. While paying lip service to the Democratic Party principles and policies laid down by FDR, the Clintons have led the charge to make the Dems a dimmer version of Rockefeller Republicans. No "left" there. It is this corporatocratic, self-aggrandizing Clintonism that Sanders and his supporters, young and not-so-young, are rebelling against and repudiating.
Mr. Lind's marketing effort represented in this article is of course self-serving for his think tank's future and the current Clinton campaign. It also fits with the NYTimes clear role in promoting Hillary Clinton as something she's not. Should she win the Presidency, her actions will further reinforce that the "us" in her slogan "Fighting for US" ain't the rest of us. Sanders supporters and others not paid to appear in the NYTimes know that's the "future" of the Democratic Party, not Mr. Lind's hallucinatory propaganda.
Despite Lind's "analysis", this article is an attempt to market i
Mr. Lind's marketing effort represented in this article is of course self-serving for his think tank's future and the current Clinton campaign. It also fits with the NYTimes clear role in promoting Hillary Clinton as something she's not. Should she win the Presidency, her actions will further reinforce that the "us" in her slogan "Fighting for US" ain't the rest of us. Sanders supporters and others not paid to appear in the NYTimes know that's the "future" of the Democratic Party, not Mr. Lind's hallucinatory propaganda.
Despite Lind's "analysis", this article is an attempt to market i
5
The NT Times is totally missing the point. To quote a Clintonism: "It's the economy, stupid"
Bernie's message of economic stratification and income inequality are resonating with young and working class people who are both struggling economically. It's stupid to focus on social issues, when you are in hock up to your ears in college debt and still can't find a good paying job or if you lost your decent paying factory job due to offshoring. Soon professional jobs will be lost to machine learning algorithms. Wake up. People are scared of what is happening.
Bernie's message of economic stratification and income inequality are resonating with young and working class people who are both struggling economically. It's stupid to focus on social issues, when you are in hock up to your ears in college debt and still can't find a good paying job or if you lost your decent paying factory job due to offshoring. Soon professional jobs will be lost to machine learning algorithms. Wake up. People are scared of what is happening.
3
No, Clinton represents the establishment and Trump does not so they are not on equal planes.
Are you kidding?!? Reagan not only attacked Social Security, he killed it! He's the first one to tax benefits of retirees, for crying out loud! Shame on you for whitewashing this for Clinton.
2
A thoughtful analysis written clearly with many hard-to-argue-against ideas. Sadly, this election may also be the one noted less for the reorientation of Republicans (to Trumpism) and Democrats (to Clintonism) than as the one where large portions of eligible voters no longer support Presidential candidates who voice thoughtful and nuanced policies during primaries. And why is this shift taking place? Because 1. outrage plays better than reason, 2. outrage is easier to decode than policy, and 3. outrage is a hell of a lot easier to wear than organization. And why outrage now? See Neil Postman's 1985 AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH, whose subtitle is Public Discourse In The Age Of Show Business. Postman pointed to TV as a game-changer, but the power and effects of newer media rev up the political ball game to the point where many voters prefer to see only large pictures and couldn't care less about the details. The political future's so dark that we'll have to wear miner's helmets.
2
I think that those of us who understand that Sanders is the Rooseveltian alternative to a Democratic party that is Republican-Lite will not agree with Lind's conclusions.
What is Hillary Clinton's so-called "a slightly more progressive version of neoliberalism" but the DLC version of Rockefeller Republicanism. Julian Castro has been selling off distressed mortgages to Wall Street. He's run as fast as she could from his parent's LRUP roots. Neither Castro brothers is even remotely close to the late Senator Dennis Chavez who was the last progressive national political figure in the Senate.
Frankly, Clintonism is not even an attempt, like FDR, an attempt to rescue capitalism from itself. Instead, she's about as forward thinking as Everett Dirksen - who is in all likelihood, at a subconscious level, the political figure she's trying to emulate.
Mr. Lind has it all wrong...the difficulty is that climate change is real and the singularity will soon be here. Frankly those two factors are as not even a factor in Mrs. Clinton's political calculus. She can try to triangulate a la Bill Clinton--, but it simply means she's wedded to a neo-liberalism fantasy about how to conduct public policy in the 21st century.
Frankly, Clintonism is not even an attempt, like FDR, an attempt to rescue capitalism from itself. Instead, she's about as forward thinking as Everett Dirksen - who is in all likelihood, at a subconscious level, the political figure she's trying to emulate.
Mr. Lind has it all wrong...the difficulty is that climate change is real and the singularity will soon be here. Frankly those two factors are as not even a factor in Mrs. Clinton's political calculus. She can try to triangulate a la Bill Clinton--, but it simply means she's wedded to a neo-liberalism fantasy about how to conduct public policy in the 21st century.
Hmm. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are the new energetic heart and soul and also the unfortunate future of the Democratic Party. Stating that Clintonionism is a policy realignment shift for Democrats represents poor analysis by Mr. Lind. The policies espoused by Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders are the Democrats future. The same is true of Mr. Lind's analysis regarding Trump. Trump represents the end of Republican ideology of the last forty years. What will emerge from the Republican Party is not the dogma Trump is spewing. On both fronts, each party will have to address the concerns that are fueling Trump and Sanders. So while Mr. Lind may pine for a Clinton versus Trump general election – – indeed what Democrat would not? But neither represent a policy future other than their own blinding a ambition and self aggrandizement.
Something something "it is hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." This definitely explains Krugman and most of the others. Anyway, some might suggest that Reagan's policies, followed by the Democrat's betrayal of FDR (and the GOP's disowning of TR) are wholly responsible for America's greatly reduced persuasive power and overall influence.
1
I don't want Trump in my future. He represents a dying American mind-frame. I would rather have this artlcle frame it for the people, who see it between Sanders and Clinton. I don't want Trump in my future, I can barely tolerate him in my present.
1
Michael Lind is a good scholar, and I have long found his work interesting. As a historian, though, I feel obliged to say that predicting the future is a risky proposition. What shape the GOP will assume is anything but certain, as is the staying power of Clintonism in the face of the Sanders "revolution." Five, ten, fifteen years from now we will look back on Lind's prophecy and see whether he got it right or not.
1
Neither "Trumpism or Clintonism" had to become the Political standard. Democrats became cowards- scampering from the "L-word" like lepers instead of embracing its strengths. Republicans smelled blood and turned everything that wasn't regressive and full of fear into a litmus test of American patriotism.
Both parties are too stupid or obsessed to realize American voters have left them behind or more precisely; America has left behind, its people.
The tables are turning or have turned against the "body politic" and it will be just a matter of time when America will undergo an upheaval similar in force like so many other nations who refuse to change for the good of its citizens. It will not occur in my life time- but occur; it will.
Both parties are too stupid or obsessed to realize American voters have left them behind or more precisely; America has left behind, its people.
The tables are turning or have turned against the "body politic" and it will be just a matter of time when America will undergo an upheaval similar in force like so many other nations who refuse to change for the good of its citizens. It will not occur in my life time- but occur; it will.
1
Hillary Clinton, once and future de facto Republican, is the future of the Democratic Party?
Uh-uh, says this decidedly not young (I qualified for Medicare last year) supporter of the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. It may not be apparent to people inside affluent Washington and New York circles, but the neoliberals have consistently aided and abetted the destruction of the American middle class and are, in many ways, to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon.
If they're the future, I might start showing greater interest in those ads about retiring overseas.
If Ms. Clinton really is the future of the Democrats,
Uh-uh, says this decidedly not young (I qualified for Medicare last year) supporter of the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. It may not be apparent to people inside affluent Washington and New York circles, but the neoliberals have consistently aided and abetted the destruction of the American middle class and are, in many ways, to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon.
If they're the future, I might start showing greater interest in those ads about retiring overseas.
If Ms. Clinton really is the future of the Democrats,
1
Trumpism and Clintonism will define conservatism and progressivism in America.
Not if we can help it. Trump is no politician. He is a businessman who like Hillary made money anyway they could. He may define Conservatism, but Hillary is no true Progressive. Merely a closet Conservative in Sheep's clothing.
Not if we can help it. Trump is no politician. He is a businessman who like Hillary made money anyway they could. He may define Conservatism, but Hillary is no true Progressive. Merely a closet Conservative in Sheep's clothing.
1
This essay is sophistry plain and simple unaccountable to real people out here in the world who, unlike its author, bleed when cut. to describe it as more "out of touch" beltway punditry would be to forgive the impulse to propagandize on the eve of a critical primary. The author arrived at the conclusion before gathering any data and cherry picked what little he bothered to find to suit his ends. And the NY Times editors have it the green light. That last fact is the true story here.
1
"...the center-left synthesis shared by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In one form or another, Trumpism and Clintonism will define conservatism and progressivism in America.
"Center-left"? On what planet does the author reside?
Hillary is Wall St. Republican and, worse, a neocon. It was her voice that tipped the scales for Obama and induced him to agree to the deadliest blunder of his presidency, the destruction in 2011 of what remained of the Libyan state.
The parallels with Iraq were remarkable, yet Hillary Clinton supported the same approach in both cases. Her summary of Libya? The revolting realpolitik, "we came, we saw, he died." Her chortle over that at the end of her CNN interview was sickening, all the more so coming from a Secretary of State whose support for the extrajudicial execution of Muammar Gaddafi ended up killing thousands upon thousands of ordinary Libyan men, women, and children, and turned Libya into the newest terrorist haven.
She is so indifferent to the inhumanity of her foreign policy disasters that she somehow thought it wise to boast of her ongoing connections with Henry Kissinger, who as Nixon's chief foreign policy advisor dragged the rest of Indochina into the war in Vietnam, killing millions of human beings in the process.
What should we call this other than madness?
How can anyone in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton, who promises only more and more and more of this?
This is the progressive future? No. No.
"Center-left"? On what planet does the author reside?
Hillary is Wall St. Republican and, worse, a neocon. It was her voice that tipped the scales for Obama and induced him to agree to the deadliest blunder of his presidency, the destruction in 2011 of what remained of the Libyan state.
The parallels with Iraq were remarkable, yet Hillary Clinton supported the same approach in both cases. Her summary of Libya? The revolting realpolitik, "we came, we saw, he died." Her chortle over that at the end of her CNN interview was sickening, all the more so coming from a Secretary of State whose support for the extrajudicial execution of Muammar Gaddafi ended up killing thousands upon thousands of ordinary Libyan men, women, and children, and turned Libya into the newest terrorist haven.
She is so indifferent to the inhumanity of her foreign policy disasters that she somehow thought it wise to boast of her ongoing connections with Henry Kissinger, who as Nixon's chief foreign policy advisor dragged the rest of Indochina into the war in Vietnam, killing millions of human beings in the process.
What should we call this other than madness?
How can anyone in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton, who promises only more and more and more of this?
This is the progressive future? No. No.
3
An utter misread on the Democratic side. Hiliary will likely win the nomination based on two factors. The Democratic Party was able to effectively choose her and set up a primary schedule that ironically gave her momentum in totally non Democratic states. Second, Hiliary has the almost monolithic vote of two groups: the older female wing of the party who does not want to miss the chance to see a female president of the US no matter all the baggage that she carries and those who fear loosing the Supreme Court for another generation. That is a long term fatal compromise. The Democrats have not been able to grow their party to the next generation. They are at a tremendous loss for good candidates. Bernie is the golden opportunity to renew the parties future with a generation of young voters strongly committed to a new agenda. He provides a cross party appeal to the group formerly known as the Reagan "silent majority". He could shift them back to the Democrats. That group will not vote for Hiliary. The Democratic Party is about to throw that to the wind. Bernie has gone relatively easy on Hillary. Unfortunately, when the Republicans get through with her the Democrats may have neither a president nor the future of the Supreme Court. So far, all the polls have shown that Bernie is a better candidate than Hiliary against all Republican candidates.
3
If Hillary Clinton is the future of the Democratic Party, it will be dead and powerless before we have completed a few more election cycles. This author obviously has no understanding of why so many voters have clearly and decisively rejected Ms. Clinton and all that she stands for (her own self-aggrandizement, eternal war, military profiteers, and corporate cronyism).
4
Reply to DrB,
"Pragmatic", DrB,
I simply love that word, the cop-out word of all time, fits well with "incrementalism", Hillarys way of doing things, which from where I also sit, here in NY for 66 years, has resulted in the .01%ters, seeing and using the words, to beggar the poor and the middle-class.
So, get off that lame horse you are on, and join with your fellow Americans in making our government "truly representative" again.
"Pragmatic", DrB,
I simply love that word, the cop-out word of all time, fits well with "incrementalism", Hillarys way of doing things, which from where I also sit, here in NY for 66 years, has resulted in the .01%ters, seeing and using the words, to beggar the poor and the middle-class.
So, get off that lame horse you are on, and join with your fellow Americans in making our government "truly representative" again.
3
In summary, the Republican party is about welfare for white people and the Democratic party is about opportunity for all people.
2
If Clintonism is the future that means that big-money Republicans won and can sit back and do nothing. It's brilliant and Machiavelli would be proud.
Or better put "big-money" won and isn't that what this is all about?
Or better put "big-money" won and isn't that what this is all about?
I still do not see how Bernie's plans will create more prosperity. Bernie offers security. And in that, I perfectly understand his appeal. But where do we go from there? This is why I am skeptical of his platform.
1
Democrats today are all about social progress but little about economic progress. That's where Bernie Sanders fills the gap and why his emphasis has been first on restoring democracy to return the power of government to ordinary working people, and second, on higher education and healthcare, whose higher and higher costs are robbing the middle class of any small gains they might make in their earnings from working harder and longer hours. Both higher education and healthcare are economic necessities, like gasoline for the car. Without them, you can't earn a living wage or work at all, in the case of sickness. Our economy could create millions of good jobs but without the skills, certifications and degrees to qualify for them, what good are they for un- and underemployed Americans? To say, as the Clintons do, that Wall Street, big corporations and the uberwealthy few can continue to dominate both the economy and the government and keep most of their wealth to themselves, not reinvesting to create good jobs, raising wages and paying a little more in tax to lift up the bottom-most is a deceit. More and more American workers are tired of being deceived and quite a few are downright angry. That anger will grow with more "Clintonism" and four years from now, Bernie Sanders' heir will win in a landslide, if we're so lucky the anger doesn't pour into the streets before then.
2
The author misstates the reason for Clinton's weak position. Like Nixon, she is secretive, paranoid and willing to play fast and loose with the law for personal ambition. Americans sense this. She has no respect for the press, which, despite its faults, is the source of information to the people. Sanders is a dreamer but also a visionary who doesn't always stick his finger in the wind before he speaks. He inspires real Americans, not billionaires. I'll take that.
A fascinating analysis, but I think the author underestimates or ignores the groundswell of disgust over the corporate domination of our politics, government and our everyday lives, and the subsequent erosion of personal freedoms.
1
Like many here I find this essay to be very well done. But I am not certain that the elite libertarians in the Republican are going to surrender to the economic populists. They have spent 50 years knowing that to retain their ideology they had to keep the genie ( ie the white working voters who love entitlements even if they would not call it entitlements ) in the bottle. They prided themselves on well they were doing it. Despite warnings by Charles Murray and others, they maintained and maintain their arrogance ( just listen to Paul Ryan ). This is going to get ugly and I fear the result is that the country as a whole suffers. I am not a member of the white working class. I am one of those old fashioned Rockefeller Republicans. As far as I am concerned Trump Republicans are wrong on immigration but some of their concerns are legitimate and I think the Republican elite will continue to downplay them. This Republican war is going to take years and that is a shame. It does not have to be that way. Trump Republicans may be here to stay but they do not have a 5 star general yet to lead them in that war.
Both Clinton and Trump are authoritarians who mirror the political philosophy of Mussolini only without the uniforms. Where does liberty fit into this vision of the future? I see no place for it in this essay. If there is no place for liberty in America, then there is no roll here for me, other than perhaps rattling around as a ghost of the past, morally compelled to contribute as little as possible to a nation which has moved to become the enemy of the freedom that once made it worth fighting for.
If Mr. Lind is right, we are doomed. A choice between the narcissistic nut job the Republicans offer and the lying unethical woman the Democrats offer really is a choice between tweedle dee and tweedle dum. Either way, the working class loses and the oligarchs win. Inequality grows, and the Clinton Foundation gets fatter and fatter.
Lind might be half right, but he is certainly half wrong. Much has been made of the rise of Trump, and the indictment he represents against the GOP establishment. While quick to identify a Republican political crisis, Lind (along with many others who lean left) seems blind to the same existential threat facing the Democrats. The truth is, a national uprising of significant proportions is rejecting the political establishment (which of course includes Hillary). The future of both political parties is far from certain and our two party system may never recover. Indeed, Jefferson of Monticello would be delighted.
Sander's policies are the norm in most Western countries. For example, Canada, Denmark, and Germany all have universal healthcare and a welfare state. They also share similar foreign policies and are reluctant to get involved in foreign wars. It is the US that is exceptional. It is too early to tell if Sanders is an aberration, it might be that Americans want to become more like Canada.
1
Lind might be half right, but he is certainly half wrong. Much has been made of the rise of Trump, and the indictment he represents against the GOP establishment. While quick to identify a Republican political crisis, Lind (along with many others who lean left) seems blind to the same existential threat facing the Democrats. The truth is, a national uprising of significant proportions is rejecting the political establishment (which of course includes Hillary). The future of both political parties is far from certain and the two party duopoly may be no longer. Jefferson of Monticello would be delighted.
Something neglected in this analysis. President Obama in his pragmatism and his challenge to ideological bigotry has shaped our current discussion Liberalism is no longer a dirty word and pragmatism has become a deep challenge to right wing ideology. Even Trump has benefitted from Obama's out look as change demands that republicans reformulate their long entrenched views. The rabid obstructionism of Republicans is a backlash against Obama's reasoned approach. This has not been enough for Sanders supporters, but without Obama leading the way it would be difficult to imagine the deep changes that are occurring in our politics.
1
?
Clintonism is a continuation of the center-leftism of every Democratic President since Jimmy Carter. She is the future of the party, most likely, but that's hardly news.
On the other hand, to say that Trumpism is the future of the Republican party is a bit premature. The social conservative right and the libertarian right and the business right haven't been swept away, and it's not clear to me anyway that they will be any timte soon.
Clintonism is a continuation of the center-leftism of every Democratic President since Jimmy Carter. She is the future of the party, most likely, but that's hardly news.
On the other hand, to say that Trumpism is the future of the Republican party is a bit premature. The social conservative right and the libertarian right and the business right haven't been swept away, and it's not clear to me anyway that they will be any timte soon.
2
I agree with Mr. Lind’s description of the political realignment in the resent decades. He explains very convincingly why Clinton Democrats and Trump Republicans are here today. But why this alignment is “here to stay”? I see no reason why Democratic Party cannot challenge this assumption by trying to attract more “working-class white voters” even if sources of its funding may have to become more diversified.
2
Clintonism is nothing but poll driven morality. That's not a movement or an identity. It also shows why the "new" Clinton has problems with the legacy Clinton positions. Sanders who was at one time on the outside. Now he is speaking for the white liberal mainstream. Without Hillary's poll driven support for the specific grievances of minorities, and strong support among the minority establishment, she would be losing badly to Bernie.
Lind doesn't get it. The cry is for reform of our political and economic systems. It has nothing to do with Trump per se; he's nothing more than a vehicle through which people's frustration is being expressed. And, Clinton is the antithesis of reform; she's a bought and paid for tool of the status quo. Don't be surprised to see the aftermath of the Sanders and Trump campaign eventually turn into a new Reform Party.
1
If Trump actually became president he would have absolutely no idea what to do with it. Once he realized that bullying nations to get his way did not work, or simply making "deals" wasn't working either, once he realized this was a very complicated, arduous undertaking, he would resign for "health reasons".
2
Elements and events that change the climate of the political world are not so apparent as are the forecasts of pundits. Economic upheaval, catastrophic events, war confound predictions. Bush's re-election in 2004 hinged on 9/11 and the conquest of Iraq.The fear that a President can inflict on our population may be tempting for any unscrupulous politician.
Dreaming of a narrative does not make it happen. Describing a narrative does not make it a fact. Time is cruel to pretense. There are more variables than one can account for in predicting the weather despite the computing power of the world.
Dreaming of a narrative does not make it happen. Describing a narrative does not make it a fact. Time is cruel to pretense. There are more variables than one can account for in predicting the weather despite the computing power of the world.
To a not especially idealistic 62 year old like myself, the future looks like Trump or Sanders. If a majority of the voters are fed up with business as usual, I don't see Clinton doing much more than kicking the can down the road. She can win this one, but she isn't the future.
2
Trumpism and Sanderism are the future; the Clinton is the past: both her ideas and approach, as well as her demographics.
People are now very informed with the prevalence of internet, and crumbs offered by Cruz or Hillary, as incremental small bribes to preserve the status quo are no longer acceptable for whoever traveled to Europe or surfed the net.
People are now very informed with the prevalence of internet, and crumbs offered by Cruz or Hillary, as incremental small bribes to preserve the status quo are no longer acceptable for whoever traveled to Europe or surfed the net.
1
Bernie Sanders in a nutshell:
“It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realise that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.”
― George Orwell, 1984
“It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realise that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.”
― George Orwell, 1984
2
Trump indeed is the logical result of the mid-century Republican Party (Rockefeller Republicans) demise and the rise of the Goldwater Republicans. Reganism was the cherry on the sundae for conservatives. Trump's demise will not change the Republican Party. Time will.
I unhappily suspect that LBJ, warts and all, will be the last progressive Democrat president I will have seen in my lifetime. The Clintons (and Obama) are NOT progressive in any manner.
With good luck, the troglodyte Democrats and Republicans will soon go the way of the dodo bird and a reasonable progressive/conservative conversation can be renewed, to the benefit of both parties and the US.
I unhappily suspect that LBJ, warts and all, will be the last progressive Democrat president I will have seen in my lifetime. The Clintons (and Obama) are NOT progressive in any manner.
With good luck, the troglodyte Democrats and Republicans will soon go the way of the dodo bird and a reasonable progressive/conservative conversation can be renewed, to the benefit of both parties and the US.
1
I saw the headline. Seems to me the very opposite of reality. I googled Mr. Lind. He is a founder of the ASU Center on the Future of War. Well. I suppose that will be with us even as the planet succumbs to climate change. I suppose Trump represents the cult of celebrity, but there is no question Hillary and the party system itself represents the past. As many commenters here have already observed, Mr. Lind seems a creature of the bubble. Like Hillary, he seems not to understand what is resonating with the public. What is not resonating is business as usual. Interesting that Mr. Lind makes little mention of phenomenal income inequality and bank manipulation of markets from the LIBOR on down, the corrupting influence of Citizens United. No mention of the Occupy movement, activism like Black Lives Matter or the current complete media blackout on Democracy Spring. Democracy Awakens.
Mr. Lind has an impressive resume aligning many of the oldest bastions of tradition the country contains, but he ought to get out more often.
Mr. Lind has an impressive resume aligning many of the oldest bastions of tradition the country contains, but he ought to get out more often.
1
I think Lind could be right. But he may underestimate the extent to which Trump followers could come to see they've been victimized by the 1%. Why see angry nativist whites as a permanent bloc of voters as he seems to do? Right now they're supporting Trump because they're not ready to see they made a mistake voting for Republicans these last 35 years. But they may see that eventually.
Our politics are full of cynicism now. It seems like Sanders is the only one who can raise us above that.
Our politics are full of cynicism now. It seems like Sanders is the only one who can raise us above that.
1
Though it's barely worth entertaining, the author is proposing that the populist revolt against the special interest groups undermining democracy in America will be confined to the GOP side. But for Democrats, somehow, this insurgency will fizzle out in favor of a slightly progressified democratic establishment. No way - the genie is out of the bottle.
1
This article gets it right in a lot of ways, but misses some elements: 1) The campaign a candidate runs will not always reflect their presidency. The complexities and realities of governing always emerge when on the job. 2) Hilary Clinton is the first woman to have a shot at the presidency and whether anyone wants to admit it, being a woman makes this an uphill climb. Also, she is not her husband. (I support her because she is about race and gender. I do have student loans and debt, but I am more interested in equality for all than in Sanders's nebulous class "revolution.") 3) Society does evolve. What might have seemed impossible or liberal under Bill Clinton is far more possible and mainstream now. Many of us who are voting today championed Bobby Kennedy and George McGovern and have worked for years, yes years, to see a more liberal America. Or we jumped on to create history with Barack Obama. But we have evolved as a nation. That's why American politics are incredibly complex and exciting... and difficult to pin down.
1
This is pure Clinton history, in which Obama doesn't figure at all. That is hilarious. The largescale changes Lind has been emphasizing are absolutely divorced from the lifestyle economic issues driving Sanders campaign. If Lind thinks the 18-35 demographic is just out for a joyride, he should look at college debt and stagnating wages and the general precarity that is the lot of this cohort, and that they want changed. This transcends race and gender - in fact, more young women are endebted today than ever bore in American history. Those conditions are the future, not Trumpism or Clintonism.
1
The 60's Hippies became Obama and Sanders supporters.
The 60's Rockefeller Republicans became Clinton supporters.
The 60's George Wallace supporters are today's Trump and Cruz supporters.
The GOP is dying. It will become regional Third Party; or take years to eject its racist, anti-women, anti-gay components; and save itself from its current disgrace.
The Dems will become more like Sanders, and less like Clinton.
The Dems will elect the next President. Even if it's Hillary, the Dem voters will continue to become more progressive.
The Dems are best off electing Bernie Sanders, the candidate most representative of the Democratic voters' values.
The 60's Rockefeller Republicans became Clinton supporters.
The 60's George Wallace supporters are today's Trump and Cruz supporters.
The GOP is dying. It will become regional Third Party; or take years to eject its racist, anti-women, anti-gay components; and save itself from its current disgrace.
The Dems will become more like Sanders, and less like Clinton.
The Dems will elect the next President. Even if it's Hillary, the Dem voters will continue to become more progressive.
The Dems are best off electing Bernie Sanders, the candidate most representative of the Democratic voters' values.
5
Finally someone noticing that Hillary Clinton is anything but Bill Clinton. In some ways, she is the opposite of Bill, and much more like Obama - far more progressive as well as pragmatic. The progressiveness was always there - the pragmatism came from experience as Senator and Secretary of State (some would claim that it came from the stinging loss of Hilary-care). For sure, she is the center and future of the Democratic party.
2
What disturbs me most about the Sanders supporters is their refusal to really see, understand and respect the Clinton base. Who is voting for Clinton-minorities (not all but a majority, esp. in the South), single mothers, older women, and the educated/prosperous (not a big group as we all know). Look at that list and see what it troubling about their insistence on moving the Democrats toward Sanders who represents younger white middle class men and women and working class white men (again a generalization but largely true)! Clinton's base is largely the most vulnerable among us- the people who need the safety net more than anyone; yet, they have been summarily dismissed by the Sanders bunch as shrills, blind, inferior- quite viciously at times. Despite their attacks on these voters as "conservative," stupid feminists, and corrupt, Clinton voters know exactly why they are voting for her. Her policies on women's health, immigration, the justice system, gun laws and paid family leave are critical to their very survival. This base is also why she has a smaller individual donor base. They can't feed their kids and afford 27$ a month- hence she must welcome wealthy donors. Yes they want healthcare but they need PP immediately, not a year from now! If the Dems choose to move away from that base, they are in effect abandoning the most helpless people in the party. So let's hope you are correct in your predictions!
Get out of your tycoon-funded cocoon some time.
(tycoon/west, oligarch/east, of course).
I would point out that, it is clear that you want to see eternal Clintonism, because, that is what secures your paycheck.
I am a Bernie supporter who was handing out his first Dem flyers, in 1966, at eleven years of age. My interest in wealth disparity started around 84 or 85.
A congressional study had been released showing that: pre-Reagan, the poorest 90% held 37% of the wealth compared to 1984 where the same held 28%.
That same year the Blue Dog cabal, the DLC (ie, Clintonism's womb) was created to turn the Party away from the New Deal & Great Society. The seed money was supplied by: Koch Industries, Philip Morris, Chevron, Du Pont, Merck, ARCO, and Microsoft (your paycheck writer).
I am steadfastly supporting Bernie in order to reclaim our democracy and send the DLC into exile.
BTW: The DLC is partly responsible for Trump's rise.
(tycoon/west, oligarch/east, of course).
I would point out that, it is clear that you want to see eternal Clintonism, because, that is what secures your paycheck.
I am a Bernie supporter who was handing out his first Dem flyers, in 1966, at eleven years of age. My interest in wealth disparity started around 84 or 85.
A congressional study had been released showing that: pre-Reagan, the poorest 90% held 37% of the wealth compared to 1984 where the same held 28%.
That same year the Blue Dog cabal, the DLC (ie, Clintonism's womb) was created to turn the Party away from the New Deal & Great Society. The seed money was supplied by: Koch Industries, Philip Morris, Chevron, Du Pont, Merck, ARCO, and Microsoft (your paycheck writer).
I am steadfastly supporting Bernie in order to reclaim our democracy and send the DLC into exile.
BTW: The DLC is partly responsible for Trump's rise.
1
The analysis of Mr. Lind assumes that Democratic voters will happily ignore the corruption of Mrs. Clinton as she fashions some new coalition. A candidate who has taken millions of dollars in speaking fees from Wall Street while her husband amassed millions more to take advantage of her position of Secretary of State is in a position to achieve absolutely nothing. If Hilary is "finance-friendly", it is to improve her own personal finances, not the country's.
1
I stopped reading @: "So are those who believe that the appeal of Senator Bernie Sanders to the young represents a repudiation of the center-left synthesis shared by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In one form or another, Trumpism and Clintonism will define conservatism and progressivism in America."
Lind is very likely correct about the direction of the two parties, but there is nothing progressive—let alone liberal—about the Clintons' neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism is simply another form of pro-business conservative ideology.
Both parties stand for business before people.
No party stands for the people.
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people," is a fond memory.
So, naturally, people who aren't perched on the top of the pyramid are not happy.
Lind is very likely correct about the direction of the two parties, but there is nothing progressive—let alone liberal—about the Clintons' neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism is simply another form of pro-business conservative ideology.
Both parties stand for business before people.
No party stands for the people.
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people," is a fond memory.
So, naturally, people who aren't perched on the top of the pyramid are not happy.
1
The shaping of Trumpism and Clintonism in future will determine who will win in Nov. Clintonism seems to be immune to all the scandals and the support for the Clinton dynasty among the African American and Hispanic minorities as well as a lot of women is unwavering and unconditional. The vote banks that the Clintons have created cannot be easily broken and the forgiving nature of these banks cannot be shaken as easily as talk of big banks being broken by Sanders. Like the same 12 reasons Gov Romney lost http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-880100, Trump could lose too by an even greater margin without greater women and minority support unless he runs not as the Reagan Republican, which is fine to secure the GOP nomination but beyond that he needs to run as a Lincoln Republican, magnanimous to the minorities and women. He needs to hammer home a key lesson to the minorities and women that Clintonism has not really enabled them but in reality disabled them with dependency and patronage as well as false hope and why America has not been so great for so many women and minorities who have failed to realize their American dream. More importantly he needs to articulate his vision of how a great America will improve their plight not with dependency on entitlements but with true equal opportunity, financial independence and enabling skills. If Trump wins NY he needs to reach out to the GOP big wigs and get more additional heavy weights besides a handful like Christe and Carson behind him.
1
Mr Lind,
Get out of your tycoon-funded cocoon/ghetto some time.
(tycoon/west, oligarch/east, of course).
I would point out that, it is clear that you want to see eternal Clintonism, because, that is what secures your paycheck.
I am a Bernie supporter who was handing out his first Dem flyers, in 1966, at eleven years of age. My interest in wealth disparity started around '84 or '85.
A congressional study had been released showing that: pre-Reagan, the poorest 90% held 37% of the wealth compared to 1984 where the same held 28%.
That same year the Blue Dog cabal, the DLC (ie, Clintonism's womb) was created to turn the Party away from the New Deal & Great Society. The seed money was supplied by: Koch Industries, Philip Morris, Chevron, Du Pont, Merck, ARCO, and Microsoft (your paycheck writer).
I am steadfastly supporting Bernie in order to reclaim our democracy and send the DLC into exile.
BTW: The DLC is partly responsible for Trump's rise.
Get out of your tycoon-funded cocoon/ghetto some time.
(tycoon/west, oligarch/east, of course).
I would point out that, it is clear that you want to see eternal Clintonism, because, that is what secures your paycheck.
I am a Bernie supporter who was handing out his first Dem flyers, in 1966, at eleven years of age. My interest in wealth disparity started around '84 or '85.
A congressional study had been released showing that: pre-Reagan, the poorest 90% held 37% of the wealth compared to 1984 where the same held 28%.
That same year the Blue Dog cabal, the DLC (ie, Clintonism's womb) was created to turn the Party away from the New Deal & Great Society. The seed money was supplied by: Koch Industries, Philip Morris, Chevron, Du Pont, Merck, ARCO, and Microsoft (your paycheck writer).
I am steadfastly supporting Bernie in order to reclaim our democracy and send the DLC into exile.
BTW: The DLC is partly responsible for Trump's rise.
3
As he has been for some time, Michael Lind is an astute analyst of the American political situation. But it must remembered that to consider FDR in terms of political coalitions and in terms of policies and beliefs are two different things. The problem with Clintonism is that it has divorced itself from the principles of the New Deal and enabled a concentration of vast wealth in the hands of a very few members of American society that we have not seen since the Guilded Age. Democracy cannot thrive when it permits an aristocracy of wealth. Bernie Sanders is perhaps the only politician who recognizes this and who has also been able to make himself heard by a national audience. America needs that voice now and in the future, desperately.
Cognitive dissonance alert: "Clintonism is the future of the Democrats." Doesn't Clintonism have to have defined content, before it can be elevated to the status of a guiding philosophy?
Unless the Times means that in the future, Democrats will exchange their donkey mascot for the weathervane, and will "stand for" and promote only those positions which, in the moment, according to opinion polls and focus groups, further their personal ambitions. For that is the essence of Clintonism, of either the Bill or Hillary flavors.
Trump? He's the anarchist running loose in the Republican ranks, and only because the Tea Party purged the Republicans of anyone who could, or might think for themselves, kind of like Stalin in the 1930's. Trump stands for nothing of consequence, doesn't begin to know what he doesn't know, and is a product of the times, not a harbinger of things to come. Not every wart is a cancer.
Unless the Times means that in the future, Democrats will exchange their donkey mascot for the weathervane, and will "stand for" and promote only those positions which, in the moment, according to opinion polls and focus groups, further their personal ambitions. For that is the essence of Clintonism, of either the Bill or Hillary flavors.
Trump? He's the anarchist running loose in the Republican ranks, and only because the Tea Party purged the Republicans of anyone who could, or might think for themselves, kind of like Stalin in the 1930's. Trump stands for nothing of consequence, doesn't begin to know what he doesn't know, and is a product of the times, not a harbinger of things to come. Not every wart is a cancer.
It is premature to be telling people what the future holds while the great wrecking ball is still in motion removing the old, so the world can build a future more in line with what is new. The good news is that this time around the disruption is happening in the light and will not be dependent on the type of media analisis, that was fed to the early 1930 ties populations,who were still living in the dark.
No ordinary times are these for those who would snap up this prize in November. Standing guard, directly ahead this summer, is the most unstable red eye encountered, placed there to turn it all inside out, and send the robbers packing, creating a future free of trespassers in this important place.
No ordinary times are these for those who would snap up this prize in November. Standing guard, directly ahead this summer, is the most unstable red eye encountered, placed there to turn it all inside out, and send the robbers packing, creating a future free of trespassers in this important place.
1
I disagree with the premise of this article. Trump is one of the worst candidates ever to run in an election. It just so happens that his first campaign is one for President. Sure, there is a virulent side of the GOP that is very disenchanted, rightfully so: the people they have been voting in have betrayed them to the point they are ready to fight back. The choice of Trump as a leader is a poor one, but compared to the leaders they already have- he is posing a challenge to what they have been doing: nothing.
Clinton has an unfavorable rating among Democrats in the US that is close to 60%. Among younger democrats, its higher. She represents the old Democratic party that IS going to change or experience another way of doing business should she become POTUS. She represents most of what is wrong with the status quo. She feels entitled and acts it without reservation. She represents the wealth class of Americans. Since leaving the WH "broke" in 2000, she's found a number of ways to develop her brand and profit from her name. How she is much different from Trump, I don't see.
The future will not be the outcome of these late 60'ish actors who seem more interested in the Presidency for what it can do for them, rather than what the election mean for the people. They have their "own" people they listen to.
The thought of listening to one of these two bad actors for 4 years is discouraging for democracy. The ideas they have espoused to date are so jingoist they threaten democracy.
Clinton has an unfavorable rating among Democrats in the US that is close to 60%. Among younger democrats, its higher. She represents the old Democratic party that IS going to change or experience another way of doing business should she become POTUS. She represents most of what is wrong with the status quo. She feels entitled and acts it without reservation. She represents the wealth class of Americans. Since leaving the WH "broke" in 2000, she's found a number of ways to develop her brand and profit from her name. How she is much different from Trump, I don't see.
The future will not be the outcome of these late 60'ish actors who seem more interested in the Presidency for what it can do for them, rather than what the election mean for the people. They have their "own" people they listen to.
The thought of listening to one of these two bad actors for 4 years is discouraging for democracy. The ideas they have espoused to date are so jingoist they threaten democracy.
20
Anita Hill and Trump
Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment when the Senate was trying to decide whether or not to confirm his nomination to the Supreme Court. Thomas warned the Senators against using Hill's allegations to undermine him - an accomplished Black man. Thomas was successful in keeping them from carefully investigating the allegations.
The NYT has been using the strategy used by Clarence Thomas to help undermine Donald Trump. The Times calls Trump a racist for his stance against illegal immigration. Just like the Senators at the Thomas hearings, we, the public, fear being associated with a racist so we do not ask for information on the impact of illegal immigration on our country. Instead, we run away from Trump and anyone who is against illegal immigration.
Both Clarence Thomas and the NYT have successfully prevented us from carefully looking at what is being alleged - whether it is sexual harassment or the possible negative impacts of illegal immigration - by playing the "race card”.
Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment when the Senate was trying to decide whether or not to confirm his nomination to the Supreme Court. Thomas warned the Senators against using Hill's allegations to undermine him - an accomplished Black man. Thomas was successful in keeping them from carefully investigating the allegations.
The NYT has been using the strategy used by Clarence Thomas to help undermine Donald Trump. The Times calls Trump a racist for his stance against illegal immigration. Just like the Senators at the Thomas hearings, we, the public, fear being associated with a racist so we do not ask for information on the impact of illegal immigration on our country. Instead, we run away from Trump and anyone who is against illegal immigration.
Both Clarence Thomas and the NYT have successfully prevented us from carefully looking at what is being alleged - whether it is sexual harassment or the possible negative impacts of illegal immigration - by playing the "race card”.
What Michael Lind fails to recognize is that the Clintons come as a set. A Hillary administration will be a clone of the Bill administration: Put all the poor folks in jail, be generous to the financial interests, take care of the fossil fuel industries, keep Big Pharma healthy and, oh, LBGT? "Don't ask, don't tell."
He also fails to see we are aren't seeing the real Hillary. Only the one she plays on TV. She is Republican Lite and would not have appeared to have swerved so sharply to the left except for Sanders' challenged. If she's elected, she'll swerve right back to the center again.
Oh, and where are those transcripts?
He also fails to see we are aren't seeing the real Hillary. Only the one she plays on TV. She is Republican Lite and would not have appeared to have swerved so sharply to the left except for Sanders' challenged. If she's elected, she'll swerve right back to the center again.
Oh, and where are those transcripts?
1
Clintonism isn't progressivism!
You're another one of those who are badly educated. A simple definition of what is progressive is well-suited to the Clintons and Obama, you think?
Sloppy pop thinking, methinks.
You're another one of those who are badly educated. A simple definition of what is progressive is well-suited to the Clintons and Obama, you think?
Sloppy pop thinking, methinks.
2
The New America Foundation. Says it all. Yuppy to the core.
2
Do not like the approach of the article,placing names as a former of political labelling.For the US,consistency & evolution are paramount.The problem is we are going through vast changes in the US & large amounts of the electorate are not understanding these changes.Or are they?We are the largest economy,the leader in the world.Our problem in free trade is not that we cannot compete,but we do not at all levels.Business competes,but the work force does not.Business needs to create competition by engaging the workforce through education & incentives to upgrade skills.Whether we like it or not,the US cannot in a competitive world economy compete with a workforce that is protected,but can with a workforce that is engaged,with technology that engages them.The problem is not trade agreements but giving labor the tools to compete.Businesses are seeing waste of consistently going for the cheapest labor.China is being abandoned for Vietnam,India & Mexico.Many years ago Jimmy Carter gave a state of the Union speech to America. He outlined what it would take to socially, economically & environmentally to advance the US.A very technocratic speech,but honest. America wanted more growth & less pain.It took middle approach many years later to bring us back on track. Mr.Sanders is obviously not a technocratic,he does not have way to get us there.That's my take away.It's not about dismantling the banks,it's about making them work for a better America for all Americans,safely.
If Lind is suggesting the future of the parties is billionaires running against multi-millionaires, then I think he may be right until we reform campaign financing and scrap the powerful political duopoly. Money is power to the point that our republic functions as a plutocracy.
I can sum up Mr. Lind's wishful corporate triumphalism in one sentence:
"Heads we win; tails you lose."
"Heads we win; tails you lose."
I'll tell you one thing that's the future for me: I am done with MSM that is has been doing a full court press to push a Hillary nomination on its readers, and runs propaganda pieces disguised as news articles or op-eds.
Already, the dearth of coverage of the Sanders campaign has driven me to a half dozen other sites where I can get more reliable coverage of the facts, and my morning routine now starts with them, instead of the NYT.
If there's one thing this campaign has made clear to the 99%: the MSM is not on our side.
Already, the dearth of coverage of the Sanders campaign has driven me to a half dozen other sites where I can get more reliable coverage of the facts, and my morning routine now starts with them, instead of the NYT.
If there's one thing this campaign has made clear to the 99%: the MSM is not on our side.
3
Saying that Clintonism is the face of social liberalism is like saying George Bush was a pacifist. It just isn't true. We Dems like to blame Reagan for the beginning of the disappearance of the middle class, but it was also helped in no small part by Bill Clinton. His administration ignored and helped sabotage the unions, shipped jobs overseas, and did great harm to the welfare system, pushing millions off of it and onto the streets, without providing any good alternative despite all his empty words. His belief that everyone could or even wanted to become a wealthy computer start-up company pushed this country towards what we are seeing today. The endlessly repeated dogma that manufacturing in this country was extinct was only a means to the end of passing his beloved free trade deal. Where on earth do you think all these millions of Bernie supporters are coming from, for Pete's sake?? The NYTimes really needs to get out of their little NYC technopolis, and talk to the rest of the country. You will definitely learn something if you do.
2
Always thought Mr. Lind a intelligent analysis then I read this.
Sanders is transforming the democratic party away from Clintonism in a very real way that will force her to embrace real liberal policy or face the fact that she will face primary by a younger, stronger, and more embolden version of a Bernie Sanders.
The days of Clintonism are numbered, the rise of the neo-liberalism is upon us. Not even the first Madam President and her right wing friends can stop it.
Sanders is transforming the democratic party away from Clintonism in a very real way that will force her to embrace real liberal policy or face the fact that she will face primary by a younger, stronger, and more embolden version of a Bernie Sanders.
The days of Clintonism are numbered, the rise of the neo-liberalism is upon us. Not even the first Madam President and her right wing friends can stop it.
Just because you can connect the dots looking backwards in time does not mean you have divined the ability to predict the dots and their connections in the future.
This is another silly, pretentious waste of time and bandwidth by another overpaid "expert" to act like they are so much smarter than us.
If my comment seems very uncharitable, please take a few minutes and look back at the writings of the columnists and op-ed writers in the NYT, WaPo, etc etc and ask yourself how many of them got ANYTHING right and how consistently they are wrong but proudly spewing their nonsense.
Nobody saw Terrorism as the biggest issue for America during the 2000 campaign, they sure filled our papers and TV shows with a lot of balonius opinions. Nobody accurately warned us about the quite apparent Financial Crisis that was beginning to unravel by 2007. Nobody saw ISIS emerging as the latest boogie gang, and nobody saw Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump's campaigns as the dominant compasses of their respective parties.
Hindsight is 20/20. Let us stop publishing these insider groupthink rubbish and filling the air with their noise and instead be more selective in who we listen to and hold them to a realistic, but higher standard of accountability and credibility. Thanks.
This is another silly, pretentious waste of time and bandwidth by another overpaid "expert" to act like they are so much smarter than us.
If my comment seems very uncharitable, please take a few minutes and look back at the writings of the columnists and op-ed writers in the NYT, WaPo, etc etc and ask yourself how many of them got ANYTHING right and how consistently they are wrong but proudly spewing their nonsense.
Nobody saw Terrorism as the biggest issue for America during the 2000 campaign, they sure filled our papers and TV shows with a lot of balonius opinions. Nobody accurately warned us about the quite apparent Financial Crisis that was beginning to unravel by 2007. Nobody saw ISIS emerging as the latest boogie gang, and nobody saw Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump's campaigns as the dominant compasses of their respective parties.
Hindsight is 20/20. Let us stop publishing these insider groupthink rubbish and filling the air with their noise and instead be more selective in who we listen to and hold them to a realistic, but higher standard of accountability and credibility. Thanks.
I wish I knew this article was satire. However I feel I must encourage Mr Lind to return to his cave, and to his reading of the shadows on its wall, and his flinging of his faeces at the black cats that swarm around him, he clearly sees, when he puts his fire out.
Okay - that's satire.
If "Trumpism" is the future of the Republican Party the Republican party has no future. If "Clintonism" is the future of the Democratic Party Humanity has no future. Perhaps something like "Clintonism" is the future of the Republican Party. In Mr Lind's "larger perspective of history" where's China? Where's Russia? Where's ever worsening anthropogenic climate change? Where's the recognition that neoliberalism is under intellectual assault on forums such as this, by the likes of many middle-aged and elderly ordinary people such as myself, and "named persons" such Stiglitz, Reich, Chomsky, Piketty in the press and social media?
Instead the simplistic assertion that it is only "today's millennials" who have growing sympathy for social democracy is proffered. And they are demeaned as simply "the hippies" of today. What did I say about those black cats and the dark Mr Lind? I'm laughing at you but I suspect their reaction to your thoughts would be more violent. In today's world what licence do they have to be carefree, "free-lovin'", drug-takin', "flower-children" sir?
Your thesis is absurd. Your contentions are wrong. Your conclusion is ridiculous. I still believe the US is capable of better.
Okay - that's satire.
If "Trumpism" is the future of the Republican Party the Republican party has no future. If "Clintonism" is the future of the Democratic Party Humanity has no future. Perhaps something like "Clintonism" is the future of the Republican Party. In Mr Lind's "larger perspective of history" where's China? Where's Russia? Where's ever worsening anthropogenic climate change? Where's the recognition that neoliberalism is under intellectual assault on forums such as this, by the likes of many middle-aged and elderly ordinary people such as myself, and "named persons" such Stiglitz, Reich, Chomsky, Piketty in the press and social media?
Instead the simplistic assertion that it is only "today's millennials" who have growing sympathy for social democracy is proffered. And they are demeaned as simply "the hippies" of today. What did I say about those black cats and the dark Mr Lind? I'm laughing at you but I suspect their reaction to your thoughts would be more violent. In today's world what licence do they have to be carefree, "free-lovin'", drug-takin', "flower-children" sir?
Your thesis is absurd. Your contentions are wrong. Your conclusion is ridiculous. I still believe the US is capable of better.
1
Other candidates less flawed than Mr. Trump and more acceptable to the Republican establishment, like Ted Cruz ....
Huh? Wow, that's a loaded statement....
Huh? Wow, that's a loaded statement....
1
The idea that the "future" of our respective parties can be gleaned by the stances taken by the two most disliked -- and mistrusted -- candidates in the field is bizarre. Actually, it's more than bizarre. It's sad.
The most "negatively viewed" candidate the Republicans could nominate? Donald Trump. The most "negatively viewed" candidate the Democrats could nominate? Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps think-tank thinkers should think about the "future" in terms of the most "positively viewed" candidates. For the Republicans, that would be Kasich. And for the Democrats, Sanders.
But then again, maybe think-tankers don't think about what most people think.
The most "negatively viewed" candidate the Republicans could nominate? Donald Trump. The most "negatively viewed" candidate the Democrats could nominate? Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps think-tank thinkers should think about the "future" in terms of the most "positively viewed" candidates. For the Republicans, that would be Kasich. And for the Democrats, Sanders.
But then again, maybe think-tankers don't think about what most people think.
What I am waiting to see is the movement of RINOs in congress over to the left side of the aisle.
Wishful thinking on the part of the author. More motivation to go make calls for Bernie Sanders. If the Democratic party sticks to Clintonism, count me out.
Bernie Sanders is not only stirring up a phenomenal amount of enthusiasm, he is on the side of what is right. Clinton cynically uses identity politics to try to keep voters in line. Sanders has a record that is as good, or better, on womens rights, civil rights, and LGBT right and, in addition, he is willing to fight the most important battle of the day: confronting economic injustice, poverty, and healthcare.
I hope the young supporters of Sanders will run for office. We need young people in the Sanders vein to push out the old neoliberal and blue dog Democrats who sold us down the river economically.
Bernie Sanders is not only stirring up a phenomenal amount of enthusiasm, he is on the side of what is right. Clinton cynically uses identity politics to try to keep voters in line. Sanders has a record that is as good, or better, on womens rights, civil rights, and LGBT right and, in addition, he is willing to fight the most important battle of the day: confronting economic injustice, poverty, and healthcare.
I hope the young supporters of Sanders will run for office. We need young people in the Sanders vein to push out the old neoliberal and blue dog Democrats who sold us down the river economically.
3
Ok the last paragraph rules out the Elders of both parties (legacy voters). They now have no place in helping determine the future of the US. Guess that's what it means to be retired, and from life early.
Supposedly the older crowd has not been Bernie friendly and probably not too pleased with Trump. I've heard a few NYers comment for Cruz but no deep reasons given but money appeared main reason. Lot of Independents not making much noise about anyone, waiting it out at best.
The Trump as neo-Nazi seems to have died down. Hillary as shrill remains.
So leaders wearing out any 'welcome' as if they ever had one.
This is rich letting future go to the inexperienced - maybe that's better than what many see as bland results of current life so far.
Time to just enjoy this lovely free Spring Party.
Supposedly the older crowd has not been Bernie friendly and probably not too pleased with Trump. I've heard a few NYers comment for Cruz but no deep reasons given but money appeared main reason. Lot of Independents not making much noise about anyone, waiting it out at best.
The Trump as neo-Nazi seems to have died down. Hillary as shrill remains.
So leaders wearing out any 'welcome' as if they ever had one.
This is rich letting future go to the inexperienced - maybe that's better than what many see as bland results of current life so far.
Time to just enjoy this lovely free Spring Party.
1
Aside from being boring in an academic way, this article analyzes the past to prognosticate the future linearly, which never works due to feedback loops. Politics is not physics.
Lind makes a good attempt at armchair thinking, but all you need to do is look out the window. The Republicans are long gone, Trumpism and Clintonianism are fading, but Sanders and Liz Warrenism have the acceleration - they are makiing the future.
Regardless of who wins, and who knows about that, the future will likely be a Sanders/Warren-type future - much nicer and fairer than it is now because that's what's needed and wanted by both sides.
Both Trump and Sanders have opened our eyes to the fact that the Establishment has no clothes, they've been tricking us for a long time. We now realize that there's not much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans at the Establishment level. And so a new Independent electorate considering much needed different thinking, viable and alternative socialist ideas has risen.
Consciousness has been raised on both sides. We realize we've been taken for a ride by the special interests (including the NYT), so now we are thinking for ourselves.
Future politics will be grass-roots funded and fueled by internet ideas and demographic changes. The politician of the future will be a high-minded populist (so not a demagogue). Many more politicians like Sanders and Warren will appear and a pragmatic socialism will gain the majority.
Lind makes a good attempt at armchair thinking, but all you need to do is look out the window. The Republicans are long gone, Trumpism and Clintonianism are fading, but Sanders and Liz Warrenism have the acceleration - they are makiing the future.
Regardless of who wins, and who knows about that, the future will likely be a Sanders/Warren-type future - much nicer and fairer than it is now because that's what's needed and wanted by both sides.
Both Trump and Sanders have opened our eyes to the fact that the Establishment has no clothes, they've been tricking us for a long time. We now realize that there's not much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans at the Establishment level. And so a new Independent electorate considering much needed different thinking, viable and alternative socialist ideas has risen.
Consciousness has been raised on both sides. We realize we've been taken for a ride by the special interests (including the NYT), so now we are thinking for ourselves.
Future politics will be grass-roots funded and fueled by internet ideas and demographic changes. The politician of the future will be a high-minded populist (so not a demagogue). Many more politicians like Sanders and Warren will appear and a pragmatic socialism will gain the majority.
2
As delighted as I am to watch the Republican Party implode, the notion that any form of Clintonism lingers on is a terrible, depressing thought.
If Mrs Clinton becomes the nominee, and if she is elected, she will help no one down ticket. The intact Republican majority in Congress will make their antics under Obama look like cooperation and compromise personified.
Hopefully our institutions are robust enough to survive 4 years of this, at which time the necessary reset of our politics will be complete and she will be sent off to a very comfortable retirement.
If Mrs Clinton becomes the nominee, and if she is elected, she will help no one down ticket. The intact Republican majority in Congress will make their antics under Obama look like cooperation and compromise personified.
Hopefully our institutions are robust enough to survive 4 years of this, at which time the necessary reset of our politics will be complete and she will be sent off to a very comfortable retirement.
2
The notion of Reagan as a "transitional figure" is a curious one.
He established the culture of tax cutting, aggressive military posture and spending, and miserly safety nets, and race-baiting that still dominates Republican thought today (although Trump breaks a bit with the safety net thing). This is a dominance, still in place, lasting 35 years. Despite adjustments, it looks secure for the next decade and longer.
Everyone and everything is "transitional" given enough time, but a slate of beliefs that lasts for nigh upon a half century is surely status quo, not transition.
He established the culture of tax cutting, aggressive military posture and spending, and miserly safety nets, and race-baiting that still dominates Republican thought today (although Trump breaks a bit with the safety net thing). This is a dominance, still in place, lasting 35 years. Despite adjustments, it looks secure for the next decade and longer.
Everyone and everything is "transitional" given enough time, but a slate of beliefs that lasts for nigh upon a half century is surely status quo, not transition.
2
The whole argument that the same tide which turned idealistic hippies into centrist yuppies is premised on the idea there will be a large group of 'millennials' who actually have mortgages and own stuff. The current state of the US with growing inequality suggests otherwise—future middle-aged generations are likely to be composed of a populace still paying off student debt, renting instead of buying their housing, and likely even foregoing having children due to economic uncertainty.
A simple look at the donor list of the New American foundation strongly reveals your bias. The large group of young liberal voters that reject corporatism will need a place to go and it won't be to a Democratic party that continues to embrace the companies that fund your think tank. Hopefully these voters won't be forced to turn to a demagogue out of desperation, but if they do I can't say it will entirely be their fault.
For a look at the kind of media millenials actualy take serious nowadays:
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10940718/bernie-sanders-future-demographics
A simple look at the donor list of the New American foundation strongly reveals your bias. The large group of young liberal voters that reject corporatism will need a place to go and it won't be to a Democratic party that continues to embrace the companies that fund your think tank. Hopefully these voters won't be forced to turn to a demagogue out of desperation, but if they do I can't say it will entirely be their fault.
For a look at the kind of media millenials actualy take serious nowadays:
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10940718/bernie-sanders-future-demographics
3
Lind states that Roosevelt Democrats are gone for good and that moderate Democrats, like Hillary, are the future of the Democratic Party. That's true only if the future Democratic Party is happy with becoming a withered remnant of its current self.
The current Democratic Party has lost touch with the poor and the working and middle classes. Obama's neglect of those folks is the best proof of that. He, in his Grand Bargain proposal, was willing to shrink Social Security benefits. He dismissed out of hand single payer healthcare, the most efficient way to insure the poor, working and middle classes. His idea of a minimum wage was $10.10. His threshold for higher taxes for families was $450,000, leaving a lot of well-off families with no additional tax increase which could have helped the less fortunate.
Hillary has fully embraced Obama's willingness to negotiate away the well being of the poor and working and middle classes. That's not conducive to those classes joining the Democratic Party, and they won't. They just won't vote.
For my part, a Roosevelt Democrat, I'll look for candidates who believe we need a new New Deal, like Sanders, Jeff Merkley and Elizabeth Warren and also Jill Stein of the Green Party.
The Democratic Party needs to embrace the ideas of Bernie, not Hillary, if it wants to grow.
The current Democratic Party has lost touch with the poor and the working and middle classes. Obama's neglect of those folks is the best proof of that. He, in his Grand Bargain proposal, was willing to shrink Social Security benefits. He dismissed out of hand single payer healthcare, the most efficient way to insure the poor, working and middle classes. His idea of a minimum wage was $10.10. His threshold for higher taxes for families was $450,000, leaving a lot of well-off families with no additional tax increase which could have helped the less fortunate.
Hillary has fully embraced Obama's willingness to negotiate away the well being of the poor and working and middle classes. That's not conducive to those classes joining the Democratic Party, and they won't. They just won't vote.
For my part, a Roosevelt Democrat, I'll look for candidates who believe we need a new New Deal, like Sanders, Jeff Merkley and Elizabeth Warren and also Jill Stein of the Green Party.
The Democratic Party needs to embrace the ideas of Bernie, not Hillary, if it wants to grow.
7
"In one form or another, Trumpism and Clintonism will define future conservatism and progressivism in America".
Forgive my bluntness, but here do you 'writers' come up with this nonsensical drivel?
Bernie Sanders is the only true progressive American politician in recent times. For the record, I'm not a 'die hard Bernie supporter' (In fact, I don't agree with much of what he espouses: more entitlements, free college, government health care for all. When everything is 'free', it's always 'someone else's money'. And let's face it: the real problem is that the U.S. government has yet to show itself apt at managing anything!) Yet I so admire Bernie's bold ideas, integrity & call for a political revolution that I've decided I would gladly vote for him in November if given the opportunity. Bernie is the real deal. How often can we say that about a presidential candidate?
Hillary Clinton is NOT a progressive by any stretch of the imagination. She's only aping Sanders because she's pandering desperately for liberal votes. Hillary is so panic-stricken that her lifelong ambition of becoming the first woman president may be eluding her a second time around that she would proclaim herself a Martian if it would get her elected.
And Donald Trump is no conservative. Come to think of it, that last one may turn out to be a yuuuge plus if he's elected ;-)
Forgive my bluntness, but here do you 'writers' come up with this nonsensical drivel?
Bernie Sanders is the only true progressive American politician in recent times. For the record, I'm not a 'die hard Bernie supporter' (In fact, I don't agree with much of what he espouses: more entitlements, free college, government health care for all. When everything is 'free', it's always 'someone else's money'. And let's face it: the real problem is that the U.S. government has yet to show itself apt at managing anything!) Yet I so admire Bernie's bold ideas, integrity & call for a political revolution that I've decided I would gladly vote for him in November if given the opportunity. Bernie is the real deal. How often can we say that about a presidential candidate?
Hillary Clinton is NOT a progressive by any stretch of the imagination. She's only aping Sanders because she's pandering desperately for liberal votes. Hillary is so panic-stricken that her lifelong ambition of becoming the first woman president may be eluding her a second time around that she would proclaim herself a Martian if it would get her elected.
And Donald Trump is no conservative. Come to think of it, that last one may turn out to be a yuuuge plus if he's elected ;-)
4
Not to put to fine a point on this, much of Mr. Lind's conclusions for the Democratic Party assumes the party's full embrace of big money and Citizens United opinion is here to stay.
Clinton cannot get elected on her own merits. If she becomes President, it will be victory for the lesser of two evils. She is synonymous with Wall Street and special interest. As a change agent, her focus would be on social issues. Her economic policy team would be street retreads.
I have no opinion on the GOP side, other than they are an unlikely lot that will certainly exacerbate partisan divides.
Clinton cannot get elected on her own merits. If she becomes President, it will be victory for the lesser of two evils. She is synonymous with Wall Street and special interest. As a change agent, her focus would be on social issues. Her economic policy team would be street retreads.
I have no opinion on the GOP side, other than they are an unlikely lot that will certainly exacerbate partisan divides.
3
Mr. Lind has been watching the politics of some other country besides the U.S. if he thinks Clintonian Democrats are the future of Left-wing politics. To know that he's wrong, all you have to do is look at how far to the left Millenials poll and the support of super-majorities of all Americans for economically progressive policies like single payer health care, higher taxes on both corporations and the rich, or overturning Citizens United. Or look at how a 75-year old Jewish American Democratic Socialist Senator from Vermont has about half of Democrats willing to vote for him despite lie after lie from his opponent, a media clearly biased in his opponent's favor that avoided covering him for months, and a Democrat party establishment terrified of the possibility of progressive change actively fighting against him (and to be honest, Bernie's only now really hitting his stride, going after Hillary full force). A Clinton or Republican Presidency will only kick the can down the road because their neoliberal economic policies can't generate fair and sustained economic growth for the American masses. The income inequality gap will get bigger, trillions will get wasted on unnecessary wars, the safety net will get shrunk, and after the banksters drive us into the inevitable 2nd Great Recession, Americans will get angry enough to throw all the bums out together. As those Hippies used to say, the Revolution will NOT be televised (or reported in the NY Times it turns out)!
1
Ok, so we are to believe the future of progressive politics is going to be determined by voters older than 50? Think again. Just like the Military leadership learned that the rank and file soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines had already accepted gay members in their ranks, establishment democrats are learning establishment politics is no longer compelling. As President Obama said in his first inaugural address, "it's time to set aside childish things." The old paradigm that free markets solve all problems including healthcare, moneyed interests in politics are as certain as death & taxes, and American leadership means we are incapable of learning anything from our friends & allies, all have been debunked. Young voters are following the lesson of Nietzsche by philosophizing with a hammer, and the hollow sound of incremental change is a bell that can't be un-rung. The future of progressivism is squarely in the hands of minds unencumbered by the pragmatism of politics of the possible; And thankfully so. After all, fundamental political changes never occur incrementally.
3
Towards the end of this article, the author appears to be conflating the Democrats' identity politics with progressivism. Hillary's campaign is almost exclusively centered upon identity politics, while Bernie's is focused on economic and social progressivism.
Democrats should heed the lessons from the late 1970s and 1980s when identity politics lost them the White House. It would be folly to underestimate the power of white working-class and middle-class voters to sway this election cycle. It remains to be seen if Democrats can maintain the high black voter turnout rates seen in 2008 and 2012 without Obama on the ticket, or if they can raise the turnout rate for Hispanics (and, to a lesser extent, Asians) from the current abysmal numbers in the low teens.
Democrats should heed the lessons from the late 1970s and 1980s when identity politics lost them the White House. It would be folly to underestimate the power of white working-class and middle-class voters to sway this election cycle. It remains to be seen if Democrats can maintain the high black voter turnout rates seen in 2008 and 2012 without Obama on the ticket, or if they can raise the turnout rate for Hispanics (and, to a lesser extent, Asians) from the current abysmal numbers in the low teens.
4
There are over 80 million millenials. While this is a fine article, it ignores the impact these young people will have on the direction of government in the USA.
The "entitlement attitude" of the Baby Boomers did very little for the good of this country (and I'm one of them). The idealism of the Greatest Generation gave way to the materialism and selfishness of the Baby Boomers. That void was filled by the Kochtopus and so-called "libertarians". And that resulted in Donald Trump and the end of the Koch's vision of the GOP, much to their consternation no doubt, but good for the country, as long as Cruz is unelectable.
I'm encouraged that many millenials find much to like in the message of Bernie Sanders. And it is my hope that this takes the country farther to the left of the Clintonistas, toward greater income and opportunity equality.
The millenials are coming into their own and haven't really spoken yet. They will, and when they do, this country will move closer to what the free-thinking Founders had in mind when they created the Constitution. That is, liberty and justice for all.
The "entitlement attitude" of the Baby Boomers did very little for the good of this country (and I'm one of them). The idealism of the Greatest Generation gave way to the materialism and selfishness of the Baby Boomers. That void was filled by the Kochtopus and so-called "libertarians". And that resulted in Donald Trump and the end of the Koch's vision of the GOP, much to their consternation no doubt, but good for the country, as long as Cruz is unelectable.
I'm encouraged that many millenials find much to like in the message of Bernie Sanders. And it is my hope that this takes the country farther to the left of the Clintonistas, toward greater income and opportunity equality.
The millenials are coming into their own and haven't really spoken yet. They will, and when they do, this country will move closer to what the free-thinking Founders had in mind when they created the Constitution. That is, liberty and justice for all.
3
Seems to me that this article misses a couple of key points in explaining the D side of this equation. (1) Clinton has had nothing serious to say with regard to the growing inequality of income, which underlies many of our other social and economic issues and drives a great many "new" Democrats; (2) Neither Clinton nor Trump has articulated anything creative or responsive with regard to climate change, which is the other major issue of the next generation. They are both, in their disparate ways, pitching variations of increasingly irrelevant ideologies.
1
This is a disgusting article which seems designed to murder the dreams of Sanders’ Supporters and make them pop enough sleeping pills to expire. This is to be expected from the Times. It has been the epitome of beorgeosis liberalism since the days of Harry Truman.
I am a staunch and stalwart Sanders supporter and, in words of Dylan Thomas, “Rage, rage against the dying of the light, do not go gentle into the night.”
Mr. Lind suggests that just as the hippies of the sixties soon became complacent, conservative yuppies, the millennials of today will soon take a right turn. This statement betrays his enormous ignorance over what has been going on ever since Ronald Reagan ascended to the helm of our rigged and undemocratic nation: It is getting harder and harder to achieve a good and happy life. I know too many brilliant people living in fifth floor walk ups with no redeeming financial prospects on the horizon. And, as Bob Dylan told us years ago, money doesn’t talk; it swears: All of the miserable men of the market, the guys with the credit default swaps, the guys who betted on another industry’s fall, the guys who made finance a form of Schadenfraude -- and the crafty Clintons who didn’t want to regulate the derivatives industry -- may they be visited by plagues of biblical proportions.
We shall storm your citadel of power and privilege.
Feel the Bern.
I am a staunch and stalwart Sanders supporter and, in words of Dylan Thomas, “Rage, rage against the dying of the light, do not go gentle into the night.”
Mr. Lind suggests that just as the hippies of the sixties soon became complacent, conservative yuppies, the millennials of today will soon take a right turn. This statement betrays his enormous ignorance over what has been going on ever since Ronald Reagan ascended to the helm of our rigged and undemocratic nation: It is getting harder and harder to achieve a good and happy life. I know too many brilliant people living in fifth floor walk ups with no redeeming financial prospects on the horizon. And, as Bob Dylan told us years ago, money doesn’t talk; it swears: All of the miserable men of the market, the guys with the credit default swaps, the guys who betted on another industry’s fall, the guys who made finance a form of Schadenfraude -- and the crafty Clintons who didn’t want to regulate the derivatives industry -- may they be visited by plagues of biblical proportions.
We shall storm your citadel of power and privilege.
Feel the Bern.
5
Like all professional politicians, Sanders is a pragmatist who early in his career abandoned principle for power when he decided that he was sick of being poor and having no effect upon the world, and decided to run for political office.
Who really knows Bernie Sanders outside his immediate family and close friends? One man who knew Sanders pretty well during the crucial formative years of Sanders youth, is Peter Diamondstone, 'the longtime standard-bearer of Vermont's leftist Liberty Union Party'.
Diamondstone is my sort of guy, even though I disagree with him on his political views. Diamondstone has hung in there through thick and thin, never wavering from his beliefs, never giving in despite his failing health.
Diamondstone is like many outsiders on the left and the right with whom one can choose to disagree, passionately or indeed vehemently, but whom one still respects for their integrity and their courage, for their implacable willingness to stand alone against the tide.
Sanders? Meh. In 2016, in any civilised Western democracy in the world, Sanders would be just another mainstream pollie, spouting what we have all come to expect from the political centre.
Only in the USA, in the Land of the Free, in a country where injustice rules, could a platitude-spouting politician like Sanders inspire the masses.
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/a-former-ally-says-bernie-sanders-has...
Who really knows Bernie Sanders outside his immediate family and close friends? One man who knew Sanders pretty well during the crucial formative years of Sanders youth, is Peter Diamondstone, 'the longtime standard-bearer of Vermont's leftist Liberty Union Party'.
Diamondstone is my sort of guy, even though I disagree with him on his political views. Diamondstone has hung in there through thick and thin, never wavering from his beliefs, never giving in despite his failing health.
Diamondstone is like many outsiders on the left and the right with whom one can choose to disagree, passionately or indeed vehemently, but whom one still respects for their integrity and their courage, for their implacable willingness to stand alone against the tide.
Sanders? Meh. In 2016, in any civilised Western democracy in the world, Sanders would be just another mainstream pollie, spouting what we have all come to expect from the political centre.
Only in the USA, in the Land of the Free, in a country where injustice rules, could a platitude-spouting politician like Sanders inspire the masses.
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/a-former-ally-says-bernie-sanders-has...
2
This is an excellent analysis of our political landscape that our historically-challenged Sanders supporters need to take to heart.
Because nothing, absolutely nothing, is new in what these naive supporters are saying that haven't been said by other similar groups during the last fifty years.
And what did this divisive hand-wringing from the political left bring our nation?
Eight years of Ronald Reagan, four years of Bush I and eight years of Bush II, along with a GOP Congress and a majority of state houses in GOP hands and a massive defection of working class America from the Democratic Party camp.
And what happened as a result?
Progressive politics was stopped dead in its tracks.
All of this because leftist idealists would not compromise, would not vote, all because they, in their youthful impatience, wanted a revolution, instead of the adult notion of an evolution.
So, now today we have a new group of delusional idealists in the guise of Sanders supporters that are ready to hand the White House back to GOP control and reverse what little progressive gains we have made, all because of an immature worldview.
To say the least, we need the adults in the room that have some historical perspective to take charge and not to allow history to repeat itself by voting for evolution, not revolution.
Because nothing, absolutely nothing, is new in what these naive supporters are saying that haven't been said by other similar groups during the last fifty years.
And what did this divisive hand-wringing from the political left bring our nation?
Eight years of Ronald Reagan, four years of Bush I and eight years of Bush II, along with a GOP Congress and a majority of state houses in GOP hands and a massive defection of working class America from the Democratic Party camp.
And what happened as a result?
Progressive politics was stopped dead in its tracks.
All of this because leftist idealists would not compromise, would not vote, all because they, in their youthful impatience, wanted a revolution, instead of the adult notion of an evolution.
So, now today we have a new group of delusional idealists in the guise of Sanders supporters that are ready to hand the White House back to GOP control and reverse what little progressive gains we have made, all because of an immature worldview.
To say the least, we need the adults in the room that have some historical perspective to take charge and not to allow history to repeat itself by voting for evolution, not revolution.
2
This is spot on. In fact this shows just how inept today's media circus is in getting the story right. The media has been pushing the narrative that it is Bernie who has moved Clinton left but in reality it is Clinton who has moved Sanders to the center on core democratic values of race, immigration and criminal justice. Sanders and his supporters can claim all they want that sanders was already talking about these issues but it's simply not true. It was Hillary who gave the first policy speech on the criminal justice system and she had been staking out race relations to garner the African American vote and immigration to ensure the Latino vote even before Bernie got in the race. People can pontificate all day long that Hillary is inauthentic but the reason that Bernie cannot get above 30 percent of the Black vote is because African Americans sense that he is not being genuine when he talks about racial inequality unless he is tying it economic inequality. Thank you for this. Finally somebody gets it right.
1
Interesting, but I suggest not quite right.
The Republicans have for years been balancing their real agenda (that of the wealthy) against the lower middle-class whites they use to gain office. The wealthy Repubs don't mostly care that much about social issues, would rather that SS and Medicare just disappeared, and would rather have more free immigration (more cheap workers).
But they realized long ago that they'd never get elected on the (mostly) Libertarian platform they espouse, so have taken up immigration and put up with SS and Medicare (only put up with - they're doing nothing to help either long term and won't unless they have to - Reagan was forced into compromise by the Democrats and overall support for SS).
My take is that this is as far as the Republican party bends. Trump will eventually disappear, and as he will leave no legacy behind, the Republican party will just coalesce again to exactly what it was (much as I'd like to see it blown up).
The New Deal majority was created by Roosevelt giving way on social issues (mostly mistreatment of Blacks) in order to merge all the economic liberals into a huge (or if you prefer, yuge) majority. Could the Democrats in the future do the same without having to give much ground on social issues? Possibly, if illegal immigration continues to drop, and as gays continue to get accepted. Right now probably abortion rights are the big blocking point, though.
The Republicans have for years been balancing their real agenda (that of the wealthy) against the lower middle-class whites they use to gain office. The wealthy Repubs don't mostly care that much about social issues, would rather that SS and Medicare just disappeared, and would rather have more free immigration (more cheap workers).
But they realized long ago that they'd never get elected on the (mostly) Libertarian platform they espouse, so have taken up immigration and put up with SS and Medicare (only put up with - they're doing nothing to help either long term and won't unless they have to - Reagan was forced into compromise by the Democrats and overall support for SS).
My take is that this is as far as the Republican party bends. Trump will eventually disappear, and as he will leave no legacy behind, the Republican party will just coalesce again to exactly what it was (much as I'd like to see it blown up).
The New Deal majority was created by Roosevelt giving way on social issues (mostly mistreatment of Blacks) in order to merge all the economic liberals into a huge (or if you prefer, yuge) majority. Could the Democrats in the future do the same without having to give much ground on social issues? Possibly, if illegal immigration continues to drop, and as gays continue to get accepted. Right now probably abortion rights are the big blocking point, though.
Pundits should know that they can't predict the future. How many have been wrong about Trump and Sanders so far? Most. Trends happen. But long range political predictions are about as accurate as long term weather forecasts.
Who thought on 9/10/01 that national security would the next day become almost everything for a long time? Or early in 2008 that later that year the economy would be? Very few. Thirty years ago communism was a major concern and fifteen years ago few thought it likely we'd soon have a bi-racial president or same sex marriage. People my age can remember when some liberals were more culturally conservative than some conservatives are now - disdaining divorced presidents, contraception, interracial/religious marriage and rock music, when the counter-culture came and went, when Reaganism thrived and Clintonism was about triangulation. Older people have seen even more.
Will Trump and Clinton even remain "Trumpists" or "Clintonists" as he defines them? Both adapt. Trump was a liberal and changes positions at the speed of a tweet. Clinton was a "Goldwater Girl," and though more careful, less progressive a few months ago before Sanders surged. I wouldn't even be so sure what their issues will be if they become the nominees.
Mr. Lind's single last paragraph acknowledges that things change, but then predicts long term rigidity. Things that stem from human nature, like partisanship, remain rocks, but otherwise, you can't step into the same political river twice.
Who thought on 9/10/01 that national security would the next day become almost everything for a long time? Or early in 2008 that later that year the economy would be? Very few. Thirty years ago communism was a major concern and fifteen years ago few thought it likely we'd soon have a bi-racial president or same sex marriage. People my age can remember when some liberals were more culturally conservative than some conservatives are now - disdaining divorced presidents, contraception, interracial/religious marriage and rock music, when the counter-culture came and went, when Reaganism thrived and Clintonism was about triangulation. Older people have seen even more.
Will Trump and Clinton even remain "Trumpists" or "Clintonists" as he defines them? Both adapt. Trump was a liberal and changes positions at the speed of a tweet. Clinton was a "Goldwater Girl," and though more careful, less progressive a few months ago before Sanders surged. I wouldn't even be so sure what their issues will be if they become the nominees.
Mr. Lind's single last paragraph acknowledges that things change, but then predicts long term rigidity. Things that stem from human nature, like partisanship, remain rocks, but otherwise, you can't step into the same political river twice.
1
How can a politician that has been in the U.S. Congress for 16 years, and the U.S. Senate for 10 years, be considered an outsider? Is it because Bernie never became a household name? Did we never hear of him before because he had little impact on these institutions? Why have so few of his colleagues endorsed him? Please, don't tell me that the 40 U.S. Senators and 150 U.S. Congressmen that have endorsed Hillary are corrupt. If that were the case, Bernie would never get anything done as President, because those are all Democrats, most of whom will be reelected.
And for those who loved Ronald Reagan, did you know that he received $2 million in speaker fees from Japan, after he left office? Hillary made money, in speaking fees after she left the State Department so what? Look it up. She is, and has been known since 1992, because she has influenced the world since then. She started the effort for universal healthcare, as first lady. She has fought on behalf of women, in her speech in China, and as Secretary of State.The Clinton Foundation has helped millions of people. Don't let the politics of the Republican propaganda, or the insinuations of Bernie, define who she is. Just look at the woman who has been loyal to her principles, New York, her husband, her President, women everywhere, and her country.
And for those who loved Ronald Reagan, did you know that he received $2 million in speaker fees from Japan, after he left office? Hillary made money, in speaking fees after she left the State Department so what? Look it up. She is, and has been known since 1992, because she has influenced the world since then. She started the effort for universal healthcare, as first lady. She has fought on behalf of women, in her speech in China, and as Secretary of State.The Clinton Foundation has helped millions of people. Don't let the politics of the Republican propaganda, or the insinuations of Bernie, define who she is. Just look at the woman who has been loyal to her principles, New York, her husband, her President, women everywhere, and her country.
5
Your article leaves out that 'Clintonism' has received large donations from foreign governments (not individuals, governments!) to their Foundation when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. As a result, in the very same year of the donation, records show that the State Department approved military weapon sales with the government donating.
I still have hopefully 50 or 60 years ahead of me. Having some one tell me that this kind of 'new' Clintonesk behavior is what I and my future kids have to accept as the future.
Noam Chomsky recently said in a speech: 'Gallup polls (US. polling agency) takes regular polls of international opinion. And one of the questions it posed is: Which country do you think is the gravest threat to world peace? The answer is unequivocal: the United States by a huge margin. Way behind in second place is Pakistan—it’s inflated, surely, by the Indian vote—and then a couple of others. Iran is mentioned, but along with Israel and a few others, way down. [...] in fact the results that are found by the leading U.S. polling agency didn’t make it through the portals of what we call the free press.'
With your end analysis that Clinton Democrats and Trump Republicans are here to stay, you basically accept the dubious behavior of the US on the world stage, such as legitimacy to change regimes to illegal weapons deals to Non-Nato states.
Good read: http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hilla...
I still have hopefully 50 or 60 years ahead of me. Having some one tell me that this kind of 'new' Clintonesk behavior is what I and my future kids have to accept as the future.
Noam Chomsky recently said in a speech: 'Gallup polls (US. polling agency) takes regular polls of international opinion. And one of the questions it posed is: Which country do you think is the gravest threat to world peace? The answer is unequivocal: the United States by a huge margin. Way behind in second place is Pakistan—it’s inflated, surely, by the Indian vote—and then a couple of others. Iran is mentioned, but along with Israel and a few others, way down. [...] in fact the results that are found by the leading U.S. polling agency didn’t make it through the portals of what we call the free press.'
With your end analysis that Clinton Democrats and Trump Republicans are here to stay, you basically accept the dubious behavior of the US on the world stage, such as legitimacy to change regimes to illegal weapons deals to Non-Nato states.
Good read: http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hilla...
Hillary Clinton's political strength comes from political chits due to past fund raising in successful political campaigns. It can back fire ala New Hampshire. Her basic strength is long term Democrats, and those over 45 tending toward the higher end(this is less than is needed to win elections). This leaves liberal independents, and younger men and women out of the equation. Mr. Lind is predicting they will morph into more slow going positions just like the older generations. One can guess this could happen, but there is no certainty that it will. I think he is just hoping it will. God knows why! People's wealth is diminishing, and it is evident trickle down economics doesn't work. Workers are getting a sense that their value is unappreciated, not only here, but around the world. Climate change is settling it as a real reality. Too few have too much influence on legislators and executives. I don't think those sentiments will disappear. More and more citizens like the ring of a peaceful world achieved through non violent means. Only a direct attack should be met with force. More and more Americans would rather be a model to be emulated rather than shoving our way of life down others's throats. Maybe Mr Lind is not a prognosticator, but his strength has been in analyzing past history. He will have to wait before he writes his next book unless he correctly predicted civil rights, women's rights, an Afro American President, or any other reversals.
I while I think the essay interesting, most of the responses are bracketed by the political 'positions' of their authors. Clinton and Trump are who they are. Yes, it is clear that Democrats and Republicans will spend considerable capital addressing the needs of working class people over the next four years, and rightly so. And we may even see a level of cooperation we have not seen for decades. But I think this will pale in comparison to the urgent need to address some of the risks associated with climate change. How will the Republican and Democrstic parties respond to the rise in sea level and the inundation of coastal cities, and the forced relocation of tens of millions of people,millions of people who reflect the constituencies of both parties. This will not be ideologically driven as much as driven by national survival...similar to the political expediency we saw during and after WWII. Climate will trump both Trump and Clinton.
I disagree with Mr. Lind that hippies became yuppies. He's right that hippies were a minority; generously, less than one in ten, as I remember it. But clearly hippie issues, such as opposition to the Vietnam war, women and racial equality, and mainstream groceries with organic products on their shelves, were subsumed by the larger culture. It's likely that Mr. Sanders will have the same long-term effect on today's voters coming of age. The march of civilization is inclusive, not exclusive.
I'm amazed that Mr. Lind fails to even mention the elephant of big money in the room controlling the core and periphery of American politics today.
I'm amazed that Mr. Lind fails to even mention the elephant of big money in the room controlling the core and periphery of American politics today.
1
Problem with this analysis: the Hillary Clinton pro corporate, big money dependent, economic policy is unsustainable, even with "incremental" progressive gestures. Why? In a democratic country ordinary citizens need human dignity: work they make a living from, education and enough information to be informed voters that participate in this country. Corporate friendly policy decimated their work life in ways that can't be mended with a safety net. People don't want handouts in place of real jobs. I'm socially liberal but it doesn't substitute economic opportunity.
The Clintons collaborated with the GOP to gut New Deal regulations and sold the middle and working class out. Is Hillary more progressive than Bill was? She's talking the talk but her major donors depend on profit that lifts the GDP but goes into the pockets of the few. I wouldn't count on her to betray them. Expect a few band aids on neoliberalism.
The Clintons collaborated with the GOP to gut New Deal regulations and sold the middle and working class out. Is Hillary more progressive than Bill was? She's talking the talk but her major donors depend on profit that lifts the GDP but goes into the pockets of the few. I wouldn't count on her to betray them. Expect a few band aids on neoliberalism.
2
I agree with the premise that Trumpism and Clintonism will outlast their respective candidates, but I disagree with the author that such philosophies (if we're calling them such) are the future, respectively, of conservatism and liberalism.
I think what we're seeing instead are populism vs technocratism.
The Republicans could very well become a national party that revolves around economic populism - but I see that trajectory only gaining liability if they manage to expunge themselves from the racists, xenophobes and bigots that make up a sizable portion of their populist base. A message of economic populism resonates across all ethnicities in an America where the middle and working classes are increasingly struggling. If the GOP figures this out they will ironically become more like the UK's Labour party than an American conservative party.
Clinton - and Obama - represent a technocratic POV that favors globalism and the educated. Business, media, academia and those who are doing well in a tech/service oriented economy will flock to this party, I imagine.
Interesting to think about, and even more interesting to witness it as it happens. I do think that our current notions of conservatism and liberalism will not fit this new paradigm.
I think what we're seeing instead are populism vs technocratism.
The Republicans could very well become a national party that revolves around economic populism - but I see that trajectory only gaining liability if they manage to expunge themselves from the racists, xenophobes and bigots that make up a sizable portion of their populist base. A message of economic populism resonates across all ethnicities in an America where the middle and working classes are increasingly struggling. If the GOP figures this out they will ironically become more like the UK's Labour party than an American conservative party.
Clinton - and Obama - represent a technocratic POV that favors globalism and the educated. Business, media, academia and those who are doing well in a tech/service oriented economy will flock to this party, I imagine.
Interesting to think about, and even more interesting to witness it as it happens. I do think that our current notions of conservatism and liberalism will not fit this new paradigm.
If Lind is claiming that the Democratic Party is now more liberal than at any time in the last 40 years and is ready to embrace and follow its New Deal and Great Legacy roots, I totally agree. However, that augurs for Bernie to be the man for the times. Although he for too long was a voice in the wilderness, he is now the voice of the party's future.
Lind makes an assumption that Bernie voters do not accept and many Hillary voters do not want: that she is a liberal. Aside from abortion and pay equity, she is center right. Favors Wall Street over Main Street, corporations over small business, producers over consumers. And she's a neo-con: Iraq and then Libya.
Another faulty premise is that from 1992 to 1994 Bill wasn't a liberal. He was. It's just that his first 18 months were a disaster. Staffing at the Justice Dept, "Don't Ask", and Hillary's Health care task force alienated Democrats in Congress and gave Republicans the opening they needed. The Crime Bill was an attempt to win votes because a crushing mid-term defeat was apparent, though not its magnitude. And let's remember two important facts that Lind fails to mention. The DLC thought it was absolutely necessary to the party to hold the South. Second, it was the beginning of the vast right wing conspiracy (Scaife and Koch's) where Hillary was vilified. But she made it so easy to attack and to dislike and to distrust her, and in 25 years she has done nothing to change. That's why Bernie is getting support.
Lind makes an assumption that Bernie voters do not accept and many Hillary voters do not want: that she is a liberal. Aside from abortion and pay equity, she is center right. Favors Wall Street over Main Street, corporations over small business, producers over consumers. And she's a neo-con: Iraq and then Libya.
Another faulty premise is that from 1992 to 1994 Bill wasn't a liberal. He was. It's just that his first 18 months were a disaster. Staffing at the Justice Dept, "Don't Ask", and Hillary's Health care task force alienated Democrats in Congress and gave Republicans the opening they needed. The Crime Bill was an attempt to win votes because a crushing mid-term defeat was apparent, though not its magnitude. And let's remember two important facts that Lind fails to mention. The DLC thought it was absolutely necessary to the party to hold the South. Second, it was the beginning of the vast right wing conspiracy (Scaife and Koch's) where Hillary was vilified. But she made it so easy to attack and to dislike and to distrust her, and in 25 years she has done nothing to change. That's why Bernie is getting support.
1
Rarely has any "commentator" to the New York Times presented a more twisted description of the current political landscape in order to rationalize the "inevitablity" of particular candidates, especially of Hillary Clinton. There is certainly no need to catalogue each and every distortion. A multitude of letters already succeeds in that respect. One thing in particular in worth adding. There are systemic flaws in contemporary American society and politics -- crushing student debt, disproportionate distribution of wealth caused by skewed tax policies and spending priorities, growing impoverishment and neglect of America's blue collar work force, unregulated checks on hegemonic sectors of the American economy involving Big Finance, Big Pharma, Big Energy and Big Agribusiness. None of these issues are about temporary political realignments in the electorate. They are about major issues that have reshaped our country and are reshaping our world. These issues will reshape the electorate. And the candidate's ability to address these issues or the inability to address them, as in the case of Hillary Clinton, will determine how political lines will be divided in the future.
3
Lets please not forget to look at the bigger picture as well.
Clintonism means accepting large donations to their own foundation from foreign governments, which lead to spikes in weapon sales to those governments during Hillary Clinton time as Secretary of State. Records show that Algeria donated a large sum to the foundation and in return reached a first weapon sales agreement with the US in the same year despite Algeria not being qualified to receive weapons according to NATO standards.
Clintonism means accepting the legitimacy of the US to change regimes, i.e Libya or Honduras, leaving behind a complete mess in the middle east with the biggest migration of refugees since WWII and a disastrous violence in Honduras with young kids trapped and climate activists assassinated in their own homes.
Noam Chomsky has recently in a speech stated that Gallup (US based polling agency) takes regular polls of international opinion. One of the questions posed is: Which country do you think is the gravest threat to world peace? The answer is unequivocal: the United States by a huge margin. Way behind in second place is Pakistan and then a couple of others. [...] in fact the results that are found by the leading U.S. polling agency didn’t make it through the portals of what we call the free press. That's Clintonism too.
I'm in my late 20's with 60 or more years ahead of me, I simply don't agree that Clintonism will help me or my children into a more peaceful future.
Clintonism means accepting large donations to their own foundation from foreign governments, which lead to spikes in weapon sales to those governments during Hillary Clinton time as Secretary of State. Records show that Algeria donated a large sum to the foundation and in return reached a first weapon sales agreement with the US in the same year despite Algeria not being qualified to receive weapons according to NATO standards.
Clintonism means accepting the legitimacy of the US to change regimes, i.e Libya or Honduras, leaving behind a complete mess in the middle east with the biggest migration of refugees since WWII and a disastrous violence in Honduras with young kids trapped and climate activists assassinated in their own homes.
Noam Chomsky has recently in a speech stated that Gallup (US based polling agency) takes regular polls of international opinion. One of the questions posed is: Which country do you think is the gravest threat to world peace? The answer is unequivocal: the United States by a huge margin. Way behind in second place is Pakistan and then a couple of others. [...] in fact the results that are found by the leading U.S. polling agency didn’t make it through the portals of what we call the free press. That's Clintonism too.
I'm in my late 20's with 60 or more years ahead of me, I simply don't agree that Clintonism will help me or my children into a more peaceful future.
2
This often is a strange and twisted analysis.
The future will find the US adapting to domestic concerns while maintaining its global stature.
This bodes well for the Democrats and, especially, for Hillary’s ability to think Globally while acting effectively, locally.
Trump’s inward-looking, hate-mongering will impoverish our future and is unsustainable. His vision will include some very unsavory consequences, including trade and armed conflicts, many of them unanticipated or unacknowledged, all of them catastrophic.
Bernie’s domestic vision is important but too extreme, and too parochial. But elements of it need to be incorporated into the democratic vision.
Cruz’ brand of social interference and economic liberty should be a non-starter. No one wants the government telling them what to do, or allowing the wholesale theft of our national riches by the few.
We are in the midst of a vibrant national debate about our future. The people are speaking and they will be heard.
The future will find the US adapting to domestic concerns while maintaining its global stature.
This bodes well for the Democrats and, especially, for Hillary’s ability to think Globally while acting effectively, locally.
Trump’s inward-looking, hate-mongering will impoverish our future and is unsustainable. His vision will include some very unsavory consequences, including trade and armed conflicts, many of them unanticipated or unacknowledged, all of them catastrophic.
Bernie’s domestic vision is important but too extreme, and too parochial. But elements of it need to be incorporated into the democratic vision.
Cruz’ brand of social interference and economic liberty should be a non-starter. No one wants the government telling them what to do, or allowing the wholesale theft of our national riches by the few.
We are in the midst of a vibrant national debate about our future. The people are speaking and they will be heard.
1
Outside of the South, Sanders has done extraordinarily well with a large chunk of white blue collar votes, particularly in economically depressed or marginal cities and towns where outsourcing and job losses have been large. The problem here is that the Clinton coalition turns out in Presidential elections, but is sadly missing in the off presidential year contests. So whatever ground the Republican conservatives lose in 2016, they will probably win back decisively in 2018. We need a good bit of the white blue collar vote to prevent this from happening.
1
Michael Lind writes that "many of the hippies of the ’60s became, in effect, the yuppies of the ’80s — still socially liberal, but with new concerns about government spending, now that they were paying taxes and mortgages."
The yuppies I knew in the 80's were not Baby Boomers, but a bit younger - too young to be swept up in the convulsive sex-and-drugs youth culture, anti-war activism and social violence of the pivotal years of 1967 and 1968.
I do grant his claim that young people can veer rightward politically as they age. Quite a few hippie-haired (but not true hippy) friends of mine from my just-out-of-Jesuit- college years of '67 and '68 are now reflex-action Fox TV Catholic right-wingers.
However, I can't agree that "the Clinton Democrats are here to stay" - but I don't mean the "Demographic Clinton Democrats" he seems to portray. I'm speaking of what I'll refer to as the "Establishment Insider Democrats" who fill $350,000 a plate George Clooney fundraisers and who lionize Mrs. Clinton.
And unfortunately for Clintonism - and the Clintons - there aren't enough of them to fill stadiums, as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have done.
I cannot see how Bernie Sanders can win in November. But Mrs. Clinton may win if Trump keeps undermining himself and enough women vote for her.
If so, President Hillary Clinton will be a one term president facing class warfare - and the absolute collapse of the ascendancy of her variety of self-serving "Insider Liberalism."
The yuppies I knew in the 80's were not Baby Boomers, but a bit younger - too young to be swept up in the convulsive sex-and-drugs youth culture, anti-war activism and social violence of the pivotal years of 1967 and 1968.
I do grant his claim that young people can veer rightward politically as they age. Quite a few hippie-haired (but not true hippy) friends of mine from my just-out-of-Jesuit- college years of '67 and '68 are now reflex-action Fox TV Catholic right-wingers.
However, I can't agree that "the Clinton Democrats are here to stay" - but I don't mean the "Demographic Clinton Democrats" he seems to portray. I'm speaking of what I'll refer to as the "Establishment Insider Democrats" who fill $350,000 a plate George Clooney fundraisers and who lionize Mrs. Clinton.
And unfortunately for Clintonism - and the Clintons - there aren't enough of them to fill stadiums, as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have done.
I cannot see how Bernie Sanders can win in November. But Mrs. Clinton may win if Trump keeps undermining himself and enough women vote for her.
If so, President Hillary Clinton will be a one term president facing class warfare - and the absolute collapse of the ascendancy of her variety of self-serving "Insider Liberalism."
1
Lets please not forget to look at the bigger picture as well.
Clintonism means accepting large donations to their own foundation from foreign governments, which lead to spikes in weapon sales to those governments during Hillary Clinton time as Secretary of State. Records show that Algeria donated a large sum to the foundation and in return reached a first weapon sales agreement with the US in the same year despite Algeria not being qualified to receive weapons according to NATO standards.
Clintonism means accepting the legitimacy of the US to change regimes, i.e Libya or Honduras, leaving behind a complete mess in the middle east with the biggest migration of refugees since WWII and a disastrous violence in Honduras with young kids trapped and climate activists assassinated in their own homes.
Noam Chomsky has recently in a speech stated that Gallup (US based polling agency) takes regular polls of international opinion. One of the questions posed is: Which country do you think is the gravest threat to world peace? The answer is unequivocal: the United States by a huge margin. Way behind in second place is Pakistan and then a couple of others. [...] in fact the results that are found by the leading U.S. polling agency didn’t make it through the portals of what we call the free press. That's Clintonism too.
I'm in my late 20's with 60 or more years ahead of me, I simply don't agree that Clintonism will help me or my children into a more peaceful future.
Clintonism means accepting large donations to their own foundation from foreign governments, which lead to spikes in weapon sales to those governments during Hillary Clinton time as Secretary of State. Records show that Algeria donated a large sum to the foundation and in return reached a first weapon sales agreement with the US in the same year despite Algeria not being qualified to receive weapons according to NATO standards.
Clintonism means accepting the legitimacy of the US to change regimes, i.e Libya or Honduras, leaving behind a complete mess in the middle east with the biggest migration of refugees since WWII and a disastrous violence in Honduras with young kids trapped and climate activists assassinated in their own homes.
Noam Chomsky has recently in a speech stated that Gallup (US based polling agency) takes regular polls of international opinion. One of the questions posed is: Which country do you think is the gravest threat to world peace? The answer is unequivocal: the United States by a huge margin. Way behind in second place is Pakistan and then a couple of others. [...] in fact the results that are found by the leading U.S. polling agency didn’t make it through the portals of what we call the free press. That's Clintonism too.
I'm in my late 20's with 60 or more years ahead of me, I simply don't agree that Clintonism will help me or my children into a more peaceful future.
5
For decades, both parties have voted for the positions of their donors rather than their voters. This year the voters have had enough. Thus, the success of demagog Trump and socialist Sanders.
The majority of voters have seen their standard of living eroded. Trump voters blame illegal immigrants and Sanders voters blame Wall Street. Both sides blame trade agreements that send jobs out of the country.
The numbers say that Sanders cannot win the Democrat nomination, but it is a shot across the bow of the party. Democrats can depend on minority (African-American and Hispanic) votes no matter what, but swing voters want jobs and economic security.
The Republicans are terrified of Trump. Suddenly it has become apparent that the mass of party voters do not care a wit about conservative economic policies that benefit only the donor class. Worse, swing voters outside the party core can now hear the party's racist dog whistle loud and clear.
Young people (under 40) have been hit worst by the Great Recession and most have not recovered yet. They are coming out in droves to vote for not the status quo. Watch out Democrats! Watch out Republicans! The times they are a'changing.
The majority of voters have seen their standard of living eroded. Trump voters blame illegal immigrants and Sanders voters blame Wall Street. Both sides blame trade agreements that send jobs out of the country.
The numbers say that Sanders cannot win the Democrat nomination, but it is a shot across the bow of the party. Democrats can depend on minority (African-American and Hispanic) votes no matter what, but swing voters want jobs and economic security.
The Republicans are terrified of Trump. Suddenly it has become apparent that the mass of party voters do not care a wit about conservative economic policies that benefit only the donor class. Worse, swing voters outside the party core can now hear the party's racist dog whistle loud and clear.
Young people (under 40) have been hit worst by the Great Recession and most have not recovered yet. They are coming out in droves to vote for not the status quo. Watch out Democrats! Watch out Republicans! The times they are a'changing.
2
This election cycle has highlighted the visceral sense of entitlement that is choking the population. Both the left and the right wants freebies, now, and on the backs of whomever. Details are unimportant.
Trump will hurt Hispanics, women, blacks, labor and (who are overpaid, according to him). And Europe, China, Japan, Mexico. His constituency thinks that manufacturing jobs will materialize for them. If Trump were telling the truth, he would say: "no one can help you given the choices you have made; new factories will have automation and robots - and you have no skills to work in them."
Bernie will break up banks, tax Wall Street, and rich people. His core constituency (old world liberals and students) think that these steps will pay for the freebies they want. Old world liberals want Sweden-level social services. Students want free education, free healthcare. If Bernie were telling the truth, he would explain that all the taxes in the world cannot pay for Swedish services, nor compensate for students with degrees but no skills.
It is sickening to watch a nation abandon its core values. I am living among a people who ask of their politicians: "Whom have you screwed lately? What have you done for me lately? In the same breath.
Of course, the candidate who gets the complexities and nuances - is being shunned by the true believers in her own party. She is simply not pure enough; what with her unapologetic connection to the messy reality.
Kalidan
Trump will hurt Hispanics, women, blacks, labor and (who are overpaid, according to him). And Europe, China, Japan, Mexico. His constituency thinks that manufacturing jobs will materialize for them. If Trump were telling the truth, he would say: "no one can help you given the choices you have made; new factories will have automation and robots - and you have no skills to work in them."
Bernie will break up banks, tax Wall Street, and rich people. His core constituency (old world liberals and students) think that these steps will pay for the freebies they want. Old world liberals want Sweden-level social services. Students want free education, free healthcare. If Bernie were telling the truth, he would explain that all the taxes in the world cannot pay for Swedish services, nor compensate for students with degrees but no skills.
It is sickening to watch a nation abandon its core values. I am living among a people who ask of their politicians: "Whom have you screwed lately? What have you done for me lately? In the same breath.
Of course, the candidate who gets the complexities and nuances - is being shunned by the true believers in her own party. She is simply not pure enough; what with her unapologetic connection to the messy reality.
Kalidan
Most of the discussion here is little more than an assemblage of oft-repeated banalities masquerading as a sweeping interpretation of the last forty years of political change. But anytime you have to "fudge" the facts to fit your preferred narrative, you'd be better off questioning the narrative. Just one example; that Democrats 'won' the 'popular vote' for the presidency every election since 92' except 04' is a semantic technicality only. Clinton took a plurality in 92' and 96', not a majority. The fact is most Americans actually voted against him twice! The single-minded focus of Presidential campaigns on swing-states distorts results everywhere else. It's clear Obama got a 'majority' with 54% in 08'; but Gore's meager .5% over Bush in 00' is not so clear. That's a shaky foundation for a long-term prognostication.
"Transitional presidency" has no real meaning, Reagan's surprise victory in 80' was a watershed and marked the definitive termination of the New Deal. Every President since then has been some form of Reagan-lite. HIllary is another incarnation of the same same while Trump is distilled Reagan without his Eisenhower-era gentility.
Trump and Clinton are actually the end of the Reagan era; not the beginning of a new realignment. This is the last election where global climate change and its proximate effects will not be the central issue. Our economy and society will be transformed by it. It is not at all clear what the politics will look like.
"Transitional presidency" has no real meaning, Reagan's surprise victory in 80' was a watershed and marked the definitive termination of the New Deal. Every President since then has been some form of Reagan-lite. HIllary is another incarnation of the same same while Trump is distilled Reagan without his Eisenhower-era gentility.
Trump and Clinton are actually the end of the Reagan era; not the beginning of a new realignment. This is the last election where global climate change and its proximate effects will not be the central issue. Our economy and society will be transformed by it. It is not at all clear what the politics will look like.
2
This essay is so much wishful thinking.
There is a gigantic turning point in our body politic but is is neither Trumpism not Clintonism it is Sanderism.
Ronnie's counterrevolution has run its course as the bottom is falling out of the dirty fossil fuel economy with massive bankruptcies of coal companies and oil being pumped out as fast as possible before it becomes totally valueless.
Massive concentration of wealth is NO longer needed as fossil fuels are rapidly becoming irrelevant. Clean renewables are ushering a new vastly decentralised economy. Decentralised economy translates into decentralised political power and local autonomy. This is precisely the conditions that make Sanders vision inevitable.
Whether Bernie wins the presidency or not he already has irreversibly set the agenda for the post fossil fuel America.
There is a gigantic turning point in our body politic but is is neither Trumpism not Clintonism it is Sanderism.
Ronnie's counterrevolution has run its course as the bottom is falling out of the dirty fossil fuel economy with massive bankruptcies of coal companies and oil being pumped out as fast as possible before it becomes totally valueless.
Massive concentration of wealth is NO longer needed as fossil fuels are rapidly becoming irrelevant. Clean renewables are ushering a new vastly decentralised economy. Decentralised economy translates into decentralised political power and local autonomy. This is precisely the conditions that make Sanders vision inevitable.
Whether Bernie wins the presidency or not he already has irreversibly set the agenda for the post fossil fuel America.
2
One of the driving forces in both American and European politics is the anger and fear of a profound transitional period where ideas and institutions are unraveling and new ones are only in the process of being born. Both Sanders and Trump are responding to this liminal condition of being on a major threshold which is not included in this analysis of the future US polity.
As the New America Foundation of which Michael Lind is a founding members aims to "invest in new thinkers and new ideas to address the next generation of challenges facing the United States" it may consider the impacts of the unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system on the US and the rest of the world. It could consider the feasibility of moving away from the U.S. dollar as the world’s interactional currency in favor of transformed SDRs and finally a single world currency with in a carbon-based international monetary system as presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net.
As the New America Foundation of which Michael Lind is a founding members aims to "invest in new thinkers and new ideas to address the next generation of challenges facing the United States" it may consider the impacts of the unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system on the US and the rest of the world. It could consider the feasibility of moving away from the U.S. dollar as the world’s interactional currency in favor of transformed SDRs and finally a single world currency with in a carbon-based international monetary system as presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net.
1
Lets see; this article first appeared two days ago, and the commenting ability was closed, due doubtlessly to the almost total rejection of the thinking, which is now being touted again this morning, in a last effort to sway voters in the NY primary, to the entirely corrupt Clinton camp.
Its April 19, 2016, a few months since the Times endorsed Hillary, an endorsement that was premature, and which the Times now knows was ill-advised. Whomever was the key vote in pushing the endorsement made a colossal strategic mistake, and likely unwittingly caused the massive outpouring of support we see for Bernie Sanders.
Rather than take Mr. Lind's establishment views apart, easily doable, since its all about managing perception that has worked so very well for decades, suffice to say that the days of the .01%ters ruling with an iron fist, are fast approaching their end, and that end itself is being hurried along by the .01%ters, as they myopically fail to see how their narrow focused policies would eventually destroy their plan to create economic slaves of the people.
All ruling class plans die eventually, and so too will the plans of the Plutocratic Oligarchy currently in power, fully owning and operating our entire government.
The people are awake as never before, horrified at the level of inequality, and absolute rejection of the needs of the poor and middle-class; the people know time is running out to make change occur.
History is being made, right in front of our eyes.
Its April 19, 2016, a few months since the Times endorsed Hillary, an endorsement that was premature, and which the Times now knows was ill-advised. Whomever was the key vote in pushing the endorsement made a colossal strategic mistake, and likely unwittingly caused the massive outpouring of support we see for Bernie Sanders.
Rather than take Mr. Lind's establishment views apart, easily doable, since its all about managing perception that has worked so very well for decades, suffice to say that the days of the .01%ters ruling with an iron fist, are fast approaching their end, and that end itself is being hurried along by the .01%ters, as they myopically fail to see how their narrow focused policies would eventually destroy their plan to create economic slaves of the people.
All ruling class plans die eventually, and so too will the plans of the Plutocratic Oligarchy currently in power, fully owning and operating our entire government.
The people are awake as never before, horrified at the level of inequality, and absolute rejection of the needs of the poor and middle-class; the people know time is running out to make change occur.
History is being made, right in front of our eyes.
5
No, it is a very stale, wishful thinking essay that totally ignores the vastly changed economics: " still socially liberal, but with new concerns about government spending, now that they were paying taxes and mortgages." Except that today's young won't be paying any mortgages for houses they won't be able to afford, since they are also shelling out up to 50% of their wages for rent. This ain't the late 70's early 80's any more.
It also repeats all the cliches about the so-called "white working class" as if this forms a solid bloc, ignoring the evidence presented by recent primaries. Take Mahoning County, Ohio, home of the quintessential deindustrialized "white working class" city of Youngstown. The primary vote there basically split three ways between Trump, Clinton and Sanders. And "white working class" won't explain how Trump will rack up his biggest victories precisely in NY and California, the latter state home of a very non-white working class. Trump in fact is getting a lot of racist MIDDLE CLASS support. So let's can the cliches.
Bottom line is that Lind has a teleological theory of U.S. politics that can't take into account the rigidity of this archaic 18th century system in the face of profound socio-economic changes. These are especially affecting the U.S.
working class, and in the face of offshoring and "deindustrialization" this class is undergoing a transformation unprecedented in its own history. Ignore that at your peril.
It also repeats all the cliches about the so-called "white working class" as if this forms a solid bloc, ignoring the evidence presented by recent primaries. Take Mahoning County, Ohio, home of the quintessential deindustrialized "white working class" city of Youngstown. The primary vote there basically split three ways between Trump, Clinton and Sanders. And "white working class" won't explain how Trump will rack up his biggest victories precisely in NY and California, the latter state home of a very non-white working class. Trump in fact is getting a lot of racist MIDDLE CLASS support. So let's can the cliches.
Bottom line is that Lind has a teleological theory of U.S. politics that can't take into account the rigidity of this archaic 18th century system in the face of profound socio-economic changes. These are especially affecting the U.S.
working class, and in the face of offshoring and "deindustrialization" this class is undergoing a transformation unprecedented in its own history. Ignore that at your peril.
3
More evidence that my beloved New York Times has become grossly out-of-touch with their readership and much of the electorate.
Around a decade ago, I lived in Vermont, fairly close to Burlington, where Bernie is an icon. I continued to follow his career, off and on, in the time since I left. Bernie has been impressing me for 10 years for being on the right side of almost every issue, not because it was popular, but *before* it was the popular. Not a single other politician comes close to warranting such a statement.
When Bernie announced his candidacy, I immediately knew that he would do very well. It was totally clear to me that, when people actually heard Bernie's message, it would resonate. Too bad the pundit class didn't share such foresight. They scoffed & rolled their eyes at the idea of a true populist message slowing the victory march of HC. Now that it has happened, they respond with shock and patronization.
For me, one of the most eye-opening aspects of this election cycle has been to realize how out-of-touch the 4th estate has become with their own audience. It is more than a small tragedy, it is a missed opportunity. The information age is increasing global consciousness. Fascinating cultural and political shifts are happening. While I would never dare to expect as much from outlets such as Fox or CNN, the NYT has often been at the forefront of journalism, keeping their proverbial finger on the proverbial pulse of the nation. When did things get so off track?
Around a decade ago, I lived in Vermont, fairly close to Burlington, where Bernie is an icon. I continued to follow his career, off and on, in the time since I left. Bernie has been impressing me for 10 years for being on the right side of almost every issue, not because it was popular, but *before* it was the popular. Not a single other politician comes close to warranting such a statement.
When Bernie announced his candidacy, I immediately knew that he would do very well. It was totally clear to me that, when people actually heard Bernie's message, it would resonate. Too bad the pundit class didn't share such foresight. They scoffed & rolled their eyes at the idea of a true populist message slowing the victory march of HC. Now that it has happened, they respond with shock and patronization.
For me, one of the most eye-opening aspects of this election cycle has been to realize how out-of-touch the 4th estate has become with their own audience. It is more than a small tragedy, it is a missed opportunity. The information age is increasing global consciousness. Fascinating cultural and political shifts are happening. While I would never dare to expect as much from outlets such as Fox or CNN, the NYT has often been at the forefront of journalism, keeping their proverbial finger on the proverbial pulse of the nation. When did things get so off track?
9
Lets please not forget to look at the bigger picture as well.
Clintonism means accepting large donations to their own foundation from foreign governments, which lead to spikes in weapon sales to those governments during Hillary Clinton time as Secretary of State. Records show that Algeria donated a large sum to the foundation and in return reached a first weapon sales agreement with the US in the same year despite Algeria not being qualified to receive weapons according to NATO standards.
Clintonism means accepting the legitimacy of the US to change regimes, i.e Libya or Honduras, leaving behind a complete mess in the middle east with the biggest migration of refugees since WWII and a disastrous violence in Honduras with young kids trapped and climate activists assassinated in their own homes.
Noam Chomsky has recently in a speech stated that Gallup (US based polling agency) takes regular polls of international opinion. One of the questions posed is: Which country do you think is the gravest threat to world peace? The answer is unequivocal: the United States by a huge margin. Way behind in second place is Pakistan and then a couple of others. [...] in fact the results that are found by the leading U.S. polling agency didn’t make it through the portals of what we call the free press. That's Clintonism too.
I'm in my late 20's with 60 or more years ahead of me, I simply don't agree that Clintonism will help me or my children into a more peaceful future.
Clintonism means accepting large donations to their own foundation from foreign governments, which lead to spikes in weapon sales to those governments during Hillary Clinton time as Secretary of State. Records show that Algeria donated a large sum to the foundation and in return reached a first weapon sales agreement with the US in the same year despite Algeria not being qualified to receive weapons according to NATO standards.
Clintonism means accepting the legitimacy of the US to change regimes, i.e Libya or Honduras, leaving behind a complete mess in the middle east with the biggest migration of refugees since WWII and a disastrous violence in Honduras with young kids trapped and climate activists assassinated in their own homes.
Noam Chomsky has recently in a speech stated that Gallup (US based polling agency) takes regular polls of international opinion. One of the questions posed is: Which country do you think is the gravest threat to world peace? The answer is unequivocal: the United States by a huge margin. Way behind in second place is Pakistan and then a couple of others. [...] in fact the results that are found by the leading U.S. polling agency didn’t make it through the portals of what we call the free press. That's Clintonism too.
I'm in my late 20's with 60 or more years ahead of me, I simply don't agree that Clintonism will help me or my children into a more peaceful future.
5
Clinton2 and Obama are part of a "center-left synthesis"?
Someone forgot to invite the left.
The premise of Lind is that there are only two choices and both are clearly defined. Just not so.
Trump finds traction because he is just taking advantage of the Republican Party's crazy train that always turns right and keeps running in circles trying to find some internal enemy to blame for its adherents' failure to find a decent job, because they keep voting to export jobs that pay anything more than a survival wage.
Clinton finds traction because 1) yeah, we should have had a female president a long time ago and 2) she wants her jobless acolytes to believe it was all the Republicans' fault those jobs were exported, even though her husband and the rest of his sycophants were just as responsible - if not more so - than the Reps for cozying up to the wealthy.
Why is Sanders doing well? Because many Americans have woken up and discovered there really are alternatives to what the 1% wants. We just need the guts to ignore pundits like Lind who insist we should all call corporate before we cast our vote. The left in the US had not had a credible candidate for president since Eugene Debs -- and much as I admire Debs, Sanders is an even stronger and cagier candidate than he was.
Clinton ignores Sander's voters at her peril. In fact, the ONLY way she can secure victory, if nominated, is by actually moving left. Fat chance, so let's feel the Bern or prepare to wait another century.
Someone forgot to invite the left.
The premise of Lind is that there are only two choices and both are clearly defined. Just not so.
Trump finds traction because he is just taking advantage of the Republican Party's crazy train that always turns right and keeps running in circles trying to find some internal enemy to blame for its adherents' failure to find a decent job, because they keep voting to export jobs that pay anything more than a survival wage.
Clinton finds traction because 1) yeah, we should have had a female president a long time ago and 2) she wants her jobless acolytes to believe it was all the Republicans' fault those jobs were exported, even though her husband and the rest of his sycophants were just as responsible - if not more so - than the Reps for cozying up to the wealthy.
Why is Sanders doing well? Because many Americans have woken up and discovered there really are alternatives to what the 1% wants. We just need the guts to ignore pundits like Lind who insist we should all call corporate before we cast our vote. The left in the US had not had a credible candidate for president since Eugene Debs -- and much as I admire Debs, Sanders is an even stronger and cagier candidate than he was.
Clinton ignores Sander's voters at her peril. In fact, the ONLY way she can secure victory, if nominated, is by actually moving left. Fat chance, so let's feel the Bern or prepare to wait another century.
41
The most depressing thought about this incorrect political prognostication is that it is so retro compared to the rest of the developed world.
The reason I wanted to leave America at retirement was to gain a completely different perspective on the world and on my life.
France is by no means the center of enlightenment for Christendom, but it is in the geographic center of the west's other developed countries.
Farther north from France is extreme social democracy, possibly Bernie's dream world, where government attempts to insulate citizens from all harm, including being bad parents by removing children in Norway from families where parents are deemed incapable.
French parents are following their governments policy by having more children than any other European country, despite high unemployment.
What Europe has achieved far beyond America's relatively conservative attitude, is greater protection for most citizens against poverty, homelessness, unmet medical needs, and very affordable higher education. Equality among citizens without America's distorted wealth distribution has been achieved to a remarkable degree in Europe.
To live here as a retired American means I have had to adjust my attitude and behavior to catch up with my neighbor's values on an egalitarian mindset. I also had to get used to what Europeans take for granted, my neighbors watching my back in case I needed some help. What a difference from America!
The reason I wanted to leave America at retirement was to gain a completely different perspective on the world and on my life.
France is by no means the center of enlightenment for Christendom, but it is in the geographic center of the west's other developed countries.
Farther north from France is extreme social democracy, possibly Bernie's dream world, where government attempts to insulate citizens from all harm, including being bad parents by removing children in Norway from families where parents are deemed incapable.
French parents are following their governments policy by having more children than any other European country, despite high unemployment.
What Europe has achieved far beyond America's relatively conservative attitude, is greater protection for most citizens against poverty, homelessness, unmet medical needs, and very affordable higher education. Equality among citizens without America's distorted wealth distribution has been achieved to a remarkable degree in Europe.
To live here as a retired American means I have had to adjust my attitude and behavior to catch up with my neighbor's values on an egalitarian mindset. I also had to get used to what Europeans take for granted, my neighbors watching my back in case I needed some help. What a difference from America!
5
The reality of our political situation is much simpler than the convoluted portrait that Lind paints. Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same party- or at most two factions of entrenched neoliberalism. The populism of the right and the progressivism of the left are simply ideological style choices. They are used to deflect attention away from the unchanging economic realities of this country that are becoming ever more fiercely defend at the expense of our economic freedom and overall standard of living. The powers that be will trot out issues of identity politics and/or populist initiatives to maintain the illusion of choice and prop up a sense of progress. And many will lap it up in a meaningless torrent of hashtags and retweets before posting a pic of their bibimbap on Instagram. But let's have no illusions: This election-whether it favors Trump or Clinton-will represent the death of populism and of true progressivism. And while it is unclear what percentage of Sanders supporters will carry their amazing momentum forward to found a new political movement, I suspect that if they feel the sting of defeat this summer, they will be subjected to the sting of pepper spray should they continue to fight for economic equality after Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump are sworn in.
So nothing will change! Neocons will continue to make war for Democracy, but really for resources. As automation based upon remarkable AI advances increasingly dominates both the service and the manufacturing economies, wealth will continue its trend to hyper consolidate, but this time not in the hands of the lions, but of the nerds.
Derivatives momentum will continue to financialize the economy, and work the rich mans alchemy, whereby the rehypothecation of paper has become modern America's version of the Midas Touch. Then again; why not? Our system of healthcare is predatory at its core, but many of us love it...so why not?
We will have become the people of the bottom line, who in the noble tradition of past Empires, will use overwhelming military might to seize control of the resources of other people for the enrichment of our unbearably disloyal Multinationals. America will continue to absurdly cite human rights issues, and war for democracy, in a chain of causes for war as justification to intervene violently in the affairs of targeted populations for the simple reason that conquest has become illegal since the Nuremberg Protocols made it so, and our military is a force for good!
Liberalism will die in the Nation, which had deliberately uttered a written Constitution to preserve the most liberal of all ideas: the power of the people. HRC is nothing but a nauseous opportunist, and Trump is more often than not, just confused. Lovely outcome eh!
Derivatives momentum will continue to financialize the economy, and work the rich mans alchemy, whereby the rehypothecation of paper has become modern America's version of the Midas Touch. Then again; why not? Our system of healthcare is predatory at its core, but many of us love it...so why not?
We will have become the people of the bottom line, who in the noble tradition of past Empires, will use overwhelming military might to seize control of the resources of other people for the enrichment of our unbearably disloyal Multinationals. America will continue to absurdly cite human rights issues, and war for democracy, in a chain of causes for war as justification to intervene violently in the affairs of targeted populations for the simple reason that conquest has become illegal since the Nuremberg Protocols made it so, and our military is a force for good!
Liberalism will die in the Nation, which had deliberately uttered a written Constitution to preserve the most liberal of all ideas: the power of the people. HRC is nothing but a nauseous opportunist, and Trump is more often than not, just confused. Lovely outcome eh!
1
2nd try 8:16am
Article falls short in a couple of areas though it presents a plausible delineation of many aspects of what is going on.
Sanders economic positions are actually realistic. As an economist I can state the reality is that computers, modern industrialization and global markets make it possible to have significantly higher wages, shorter working hours and full medical coverage. That is, however, if the exploding underclass population is kept in check.
The left focuses on the entitlements of the rich, but that can be reversed with a pen. The growing numbers of dependent children and their families can not so easily have the spigot of gvt. cradling removed. Currently 1 in 2 children under the age of 5 are on some form of government assistance. Staggering in its future implications.
The seemingly forgotten child in these tug of wars is the environment and all the other living things on the planet. To hear Dems talk about global warming it is all about beach erosion, but the reality is massive human population growth is the root of global warming and the Dem’s won’t touch it because that’s a ‘taboo’ subject.
As a holdout active Dem I applaud the direction of the Rep party that Trump is leading. If they can manage to speak up about protecting the environment and show the same reverence for all living things that they do for ‘unborn’ children I am all aboard their party.
Within the Dem. party reverence and faith seems to be out of fashion.
Article falls short in a couple of areas though it presents a plausible delineation of many aspects of what is going on.
Sanders economic positions are actually realistic. As an economist I can state the reality is that computers, modern industrialization and global markets make it possible to have significantly higher wages, shorter working hours and full medical coverage. That is, however, if the exploding underclass population is kept in check.
The left focuses on the entitlements of the rich, but that can be reversed with a pen. The growing numbers of dependent children and their families can not so easily have the spigot of gvt. cradling removed. Currently 1 in 2 children under the age of 5 are on some form of government assistance. Staggering in its future implications.
The seemingly forgotten child in these tug of wars is the environment and all the other living things on the planet. To hear Dems talk about global warming it is all about beach erosion, but the reality is massive human population growth is the root of global warming and the Dem’s won’t touch it because that’s a ‘taboo’ subject.
As a holdout active Dem I applaud the direction of the Rep party that Trump is leading. If they can manage to speak up about protecting the environment and show the same reverence for all living things that they do for ‘unborn’ children I am all aboard their party.
Within the Dem. party reverence and faith seems to be out of fashion.
1
Sanders is not an ephemeral movement. It's frustrating to me that I haven't heard much from pundits mentioning the "Occupy" Movement. If Trump/Cruz emergence feeds on the grass-root energy of disaffected working class on the right, Sanders clearly represents the economically disaffected working and middle class on the left. While the racially motivated party-realignment is over, I sense economically motivated party-realignment may have just begun, with establishment orthodoxy (from both party) on one side and Trump+Sanders economy/social/trade consensus on the other side.
1
The out-of-touch think-tanker the NYT has chosen for its latest volley defending the ramparts in the days before the NY primary concludes, in a piece of profoundly wishful thinking based on no evidence except a totally invalid comparison with a 50-year old movement, that the broad support for actual change that has manifested itself amongst not just the young but a majority of those under 45 (and many others) will evaporate quickly. But the forces driving the movements rending both parties today are far more structural and permanent than those that drove the 60's movement. With the repeal of the draft in 1973, the strongest motivator towards political change was removed. But the motives of the members of today's political movements - trade policies that denude much of the country of work, financial policies that incentivize widespread frauds that will periodically crash the economy and destroy jobs, the greed of college administrators that gives young people the equivalent of a large mortgage before they even get their first job, environmental polices that place corporate profits above the health of the land and water, and others, will only get stronger as the corporatists use their surrogates to continue their highly successful across-the-board power grab. FDR saved the capitalist system from itself in the 30's. Those perched comfortably in Manhattan skyscrapers and think tanks would do well to acknowledge that this needs to be done again.
5
This article is somewhat too party-istic to reflect the reality of the year 2016 election. The traditions of the past several decades are gone, newer ideas and political trends emerge like mushrooms after rain with no end at sight. Let’s review the political landscape and rethink what actually are ahead of us.
The two old-fashioned partisanships as well as their self-serving monopoly of political power have been broken by Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders and their supporters. In the future, people’s powers more than anything we have seen or known for longtime will carry weight to the extent that multi-party politics will gradually supersede the two-party monopoly. Out of necessity, political monopoly propels a new democratic revolution that the ancien Régime finds itself suddenly dispensable.
Hillary Clintonism is as unviable as defunct orthodoxy. The hugely important question about Hillary Clinton’s nomination is her acting recklessly and caring for nobody. Those who want to vote for her should rethink whether they don’t care what such a hawkish president would do so long as she would be the first female president.
Most people who knew of her administrative experiences would fail to mention one that she would consider to be a regrettable imperfection. Her command-in-chief hectoring melody might have blustered and bragged well, it will not frighten knowledgeable people into belief in her.
What would such a first female presidency actually mean anything to people?
The two old-fashioned partisanships as well as their self-serving monopoly of political power have been broken by Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders and their supporters. In the future, people’s powers more than anything we have seen or known for longtime will carry weight to the extent that multi-party politics will gradually supersede the two-party monopoly. Out of necessity, political monopoly propels a new democratic revolution that the ancien Régime finds itself suddenly dispensable.
Hillary Clintonism is as unviable as defunct orthodoxy. The hugely important question about Hillary Clinton’s nomination is her acting recklessly and caring for nobody. Those who want to vote for her should rethink whether they don’t care what such a hawkish president would do so long as she would be the first female president.
Most people who knew of her administrative experiences would fail to mention one that she would consider to be a regrettable imperfection. Her command-in-chief hectoring melody might have blustered and bragged well, it will not frighten knowledgeable people into belief in her.
What would such a first female presidency actually mean anything to people?
Great analysis; However, it seems to me to be missing something. Namely, what happens in the aftermath of the Republican shift towards Trumpism and the abandonment of conservative economic orthodoxy? It's clear enough on the Democratic side, where the transition did not represent so much of a sacrifice of traditional voters, but a trade of socially conservative whites for business friendly whites and a stronger grip on the remaining minority constituencies.
However, if the Republican party ultimately sides with and adopts the positions of their populist white voters... they will profoundly shrink their existing constituency as well as the funding base for the whole conservative movement. It seems likely that the elites that currently fund the Republican party are eventually going to stop funding that party.... as their core interests are no longer remotely represented. These corporate Republicans will either have to split between Democrats and Republican as the former's social positions become more toxic (see North Carolina), or they will ultimately have to go someplace else entirely. Either way, Republicans are going to lose votes and treasure in the transition when they can afford to lose neither.
If Trumpism reigns, the party will have too few voters to swamp the polls with populists and it will be too poor, without elites, to buy elections. Trumpism has a short future. No one likes to be on the losing side for long. The question is, what replaces it?
However, if the Republican party ultimately sides with and adopts the positions of their populist white voters... they will profoundly shrink their existing constituency as well as the funding base for the whole conservative movement. It seems likely that the elites that currently fund the Republican party are eventually going to stop funding that party.... as their core interests are no longer remotely represented. These corporate Republicans will either have to split between Democrats and Republican as the former's social positions become more toxic (see North Carolina), or they will ultimately have to go someplace else entirely. Either way, Republicans are going to lose votes and treasure in the transition when they can afford to lose neither.
If Trumpism reigns, the party will have too few voters to swamp the polls with populists and it will be too poor, without elites, to buy elections. Trumpism has a short future. No one likes to be on the losing side for long. The question is, what replaces it?
The article is quite dismissive of Sanders. Clinton's 'lack of charisma' is necessarily the result of A) following a Democratic presidency, and B) wanting to continue the status quo. It's hard to be charismatic when your platform is "let's just keep doing what we're doing." Doubly so when Sanders has the benefit of being able to point out all of the problems our society faces.
Sanders has credibility when he attacks the money-in-politics question because he is not a beneficiary of the status quo. He has credibility when he attacks dirty energy because energy interests do not donate money. He has credibility when he fights for labor rights because he is not a member of America's political elite, deeply intertwined with big business.
Why does the media continue to call Sanders a single-issue candidate even though he's the most vocal supporter of universal healthcare, campaign finance reform, climate change action, social justice, and naturalization for immigrants? It's not true that he has "only recently" spoken about these issues: they have been central to his ideas for years.
Whether Sanders gets the nomination or not, his voice has been heard - and his receptive audience must not be dismissed, because it is a significant part of the party. Uncompromising environmentalism, campaign finance reform, and single payer will have to be the centerpieces of the Democratic party platform in the future, because the frustrations of the young are entirely valid.
Sanders has credibility when he attacks the money-in-politics question because he is not a beneficiary of the status quo. He has credibility when he attacks dirty energy because energy interests do not donate money. He has credibility when he fights for labor rights because he is not a member of America's political elite, deeply intertwined with big business.
Why does the media continue to call Sanders a single-issue candidate even though he's the most vocal supporter of universal healthcare, campaign finance reform, climate change action, social justice, and naturalization for immigrants? It's not true that he has "only recently" spoken about these issues: they have been central to his ideas for years.
Whether Sanders gets the nomination or not, his voice has been heard - and his receptive audience must not be dismissed, because it is a significant part of the party. Uncompromising environmentalism, campaign finance reform, and single payer will have to be the centerpieces of the Democratic party platform in the future, because the frustrations of the young are entirely valid.
A really interesting series of perceptions. I am not clear that they line up in a way that allows us to get above these very real political issues and ask
If Americans are in fact one family? If so, what In this age of intense change are those values?
The area not addressed is war when there is no existential threat and its cost. From the perspective of the right spending on education, transportation and social security deepening are all constrained by cost. On the other hand, the moment the drum rolled for war in the middle-east the national checkbook was opened and we spent without constraint---blame to one side the questions of who and how that debt will be paid down remains a raw, open nerve.
I am hoping the next president/administration will balance the cost of further military ventures against the help government can provide to the more vulnerable in the American family.
If Americans are in fact one family? If so, what In this age of intense change are those values?
The area not addressed is war when there is no existential threat and its cost. From the perspective of the right spending on education, transportation and social security deepening are all constrained by cost. On the other hand, the moment the drum rolled for war in the middle-east the national checkbook was opened and we spent without constraint---blame to one side the questions of who and how that debt will be paid down remains a raw, open nerve.
I am hoping the next president/administration will balance the cost of further military ventures against the help government can provide to the more vulnerable in the American family.
The out-of-touch think-tanker the NYT has chosen for its latest volley defending the ramparts in the days before the NY primary concludes, in a piece of profoundly wishful thinking based on no evidence except a totally invalid comparison with a 50-year old movement, that the broad support for actual change that has manifested itself amongst not just the young but a majority of those under 45 (and many others) will evaporate quickly.
But the forces driving the movements rending both parties today are far more structural and permanent than those that drove the 60's movement. With the repeal of the draft in 1973, the strongest motivator towards political change was removed. But the motives of the members of today's political movements - trade policies that denude much of the country of work, financial policies that incentivize widespread frauds that will periodically crash the economy and destroy jobs, the greed of college administrators that gives young people the equivalent of a large mortgage before they even get their first job, environmental polices that place corporate profits above the health of the land and water, and others, will only get stronger as the corporatists use their surrogates to continue their highly successful across-the-board power grab.
FDR saved the capitalist system from itself in the 30's. Those perched comfortably in Manhattan skyscrapers and think tanks would do well to acknowledge that this needs to be done again.
But the forces driving the movements rending both parties today are far more structural and permanent than those that drove the 60's movement. With the repeal of the draft in 1973, the strongest motivator towards political change was removed. But the motives of the members of today's political movements - trade policies that denude much of the country of work, financial policies that incentivize widespread frauds that will periodically crash the economy and destroy jobs, the greed of college administrators that gives young people the equivalent of a large mortgage before they even get their first job, environmental polices that place corporate profits above the health of the land and water, and others, will only get stronger as the corporatists use their surrogates to continue their highly successful across-the-board power grab.
FDR saved the capitalist system from itself in the 30's. Those perched comfortably in Manhattan skyscrapers and think tanks would do well to acknowledge that this needs to be done again.
Lind is surely correct in describing the (very obvious) fact that the 2010 election completed a half-century long political realignment producing for the first time, in the last 150 years at least, a genuine right - left political party division ("RINO"s and Blue Dogs purged from the ranks of each).
But his assessment of what that means for the future is something in which I have much less confidence. The Republican Party is clearly riven by factions sharply at odds with each other - the plutocratic establishment minority, the Evangelical theocratic minority, the angry non-Evangelical lower class white majority (the latter subdivides into other factions, all minorities).
It is virtually impossible for any candidate to be reasonably popular with all major Republican factions. This is a very striking situation - a solid right wing party that is deeply split on fundamental philosophy and policies. Only prophesy, not analysis (and certainly not this analysis), seems equipped to tell how this will play out.
The situation on the Democratic side is remarkably different. The two contending candidates are BOTH popular with a large majority of Democrats, and there has been limited disagreement in policy, and even fewer differences in goals and objectives. Although the Democrats are a coalition, it is one in broad agreement in most everything - but calling it "Clintonism" is passing strange.
But his assessment of what that means for the future is something in which I have much less confidence. The Republican Party is clearly riven by factions sharply at odds with each other - the plutocratic establishment minority, the Evangelical theocratic minority, the angry non-Evangelical lower class white majority (the latter subdivides into other factions, all minorities).
It is virtually impossible for any candidate to be reasonably popular with all major Republican factions. This is a very striking situation - a solid right wing party that is deeply split on fundamental philosophy and policies. Only prophesy, not analysis (and certainly not this analysis), seems equipped to tell how this will play out.
The situation on the Democratic side is remarkably different. The two contending candidates are BOTH popular with a large majority of Democrats, and there has been limited disagreement in policy, and even fewer differences in goals and objectives. Although the Democrats are a coalition, it is one in broad agreement in most everything - but calling it "Clintonism" is passing strange.
2
Mr. Lind's analysis appears to be more of a meditation on wishful thinking than a window into the future. While Clinton will likely become the Democratic nominee, her contribution to the future will largely be limited to breaking the gender barrier - which is no small feat. Her worldview, however, represents a definition of progressivism that is about to disappear - along with the Baby Boomer generation and the second wave feminist understanding of justice from which it emerged.
The Baby Boomers' commitment to truly left of center politics began its long turn to the center the day the military draft ended. The Millennials' diminishing economic prospects and student debt burden will likely accompany them for much of the rest of their lives. These realities are incompatible with the Clinton vision. Sanders may well not become the nominee, but he has shown that large amounts of campaign money can be acquired outside the established system, and it is only a matter of time before someone else walks through the door he has so artfully fashioned.
The Baby Boomers' commitment to truly left of center politics began its long turn to the center the day the military draft ended. The Millennials' diminishing economic prospects and student debt burden will likely accompany them for much of the rest of their lives. These realities are incompatible with the Clinton vision. Sanders may well not become the nominee, but he has shown that large amounts of campaign money can be acquired outside the established system, and it is only a matter of time before someone else walks through the door he has so artfully fashioned.
1
It's difficult to describe the degree to which the author of this article misreads the meaning of recent US electoral history.
What we are witnessing this year are the death throes of the Reagan counter-revolution of the 1980s. Bill Clinton was a part of that counter-revolution, and what we're seeing this year from Sanders and Clinton is more or less a complete repudiation of this neoliberal Reagan/Clinton political program. What is making Clinton's election so hard this year is in part the fact that she is a Clinton and therefore doesn't represent the change people are looking for. The author suggests that Hillary is a purer (because more socially liberal) version of her husband. While that might be true, it is categorically not what she is running as.
The most significant opposition to Clinton in the Democratic party is focussed on the "Clintonian synthesis of pro-business, finance-friendly economics", not on social issues, on which there is a pretty broad consensus. The future of the Democratic party is all about climate-change, campaign finance, income inequality, and repairing the damage done by 30 years of neoliberalism. It is most certainly not a continuation of Reaganite/Clintonite policies, which have been repudiated by pretty much everyone now, from Trump to Hillary Clinton herself. This is not just a US evolution: around the world the Left is rising up against inequality and climate change. Government is no longer the boogie man — plutocrats are.
What we are witnessing this year are the death throes of the Reagan counter-revolution of the 1980s. Bill Clinton was a part of that counter-revolution, and what we're seeing this year from Sanders and Clinton is more or less a complete repudiation of this neoliberal Reagan/Clinton political program. What is making Clinton's election so hard this year is in part the fact that she is a Clinton and therefore doesn't represent the change people are looking for. The author suggests that Hillary is a purer (because more socially liberal) version of her husband. While that might be true, it is categorically not what she is running as.
The most significant opposition to Clinton in the Democratic party is focussed on the "Clintonian synthesis of pro-business, finance-friendly economics", not on social issues, on which there is a pretty broad consensus. The future of the Democratic party is all about climate-change, campaign finance, income inequality, and repairing the damage done by 30 years of neoliberalism. It is most certainly not a continuation of Reaganite/Clintonite policies, which have been repudiated by pretty much everyone now, from Trump to Hillary Clinton herself. This is not just a US evolution: around the world the Left is rising up against inequality and climate change. Government is no longer the boogie man — plutocrats are.
1
Interesting and thought provoking essay. I remained a hippy over these many years though I have done well, much better than I expected. I am a hardcore Bernie supporter, and let me admit that I expect that I will be voting for Secretary Clinton in the general election. I want Bernie to pull my party to the left. Millenials (my children) will need to experience a little more before taking the reins. Have I done them a disservice by raising them in an upper middle class environment? I think I have. My son has very little knowledge of what it is to be non-white in this country and my daughter affects all of the mannerisms as if she is from the "hood" and not from the community she was raised in. But it is so much safer for them. Progressivism is how we arrived here: ERA, social safety net, civil rights, educational progress, rainbow coalition, religious tolerance, immigration, public health, multinational trade agreements, peace and stability. Conservatism has nothing to offer. I just did my taxes and to my surprise my political and charitable contributions last year were the lowest that they have ever been. I don't know why that is. I will need to take a harder look at that. What economic situation caused that? Is it the political turbulence? Shutting down the government? The need is still there and my criteria are still the same. Do I need to program my contributions?
However the elections turn out, we need stable governance.
However the elections turn out, we need stable governance.
1
Neither Trumpism nor Clintonism has much of a future. Nature bats last and she’s sending strong signals that the age of consumer capitalism, of planned obsolescence, of come-fly-with-me travel and of abundant, cheap energy is drawing to a close. This election is obscenely irrelevant. Only Sanders makes even a token acknowledgement of the serious measures needed to address climate change and other unfolding ecological disasters such as the sixth great extinction event, the destruction of arable land by agribusiness, global deforestation, and on and on.
We can no longer assume that the spread of consumer capitalism and it’s toss-away habits is compatible with a life-sustaining environment. February and now March broke all prior global temperature records. New studies suggest that the oceans will rise much more quickly than had been predicted and that we need to cut global CO2 emissions twice as fast as the previous targets (none of which has been met on a global scale) had indicated.
In a matter of decades or possibly even sooner as any one of a number of critical tipping points is reached, the full scope of the global environmental crisis will be clear even to science denying Republicans. By then it may well be too late to do anything to preserve a hopeful future for our children and grandchildren.
It’s the ECOLOGY, stupid. Wake up to the new reality and get ready to change your consuming ways. Peace.
We can no longer assume that the spread of consumer capitalism and it’s toss-away habits is compatible with a life-sustaining environment. February and now March broke all prior global temperature records. New studies suggest that the oceans will rise much more quickly than had been predicted and that we need to cut global CO2 emissions twice as fast as the previous targets (none of which has been met on a global scale) had indicated.
In a matter of decades or possibly even sooner as any one of a number of critical tipping points is reached, the full scope of the global environmental crisis will be clear even to science denying Republicans. By then it may well be too late to do anything to preserve a hopeful future for our children and grandchildren.
It’s the ECOLOGY, stupid. Wake up to the new reality and get ready to change your consuming ways. Peace.
1
This illuminating article succeeds in delineating many aspects of what is going on.
It falls short in a couple of areas. First, Sanders economic positions as first posited are actually realistic. The reality is that computers, modern industrialization and global markets mean that it is possible to have significantly higher wages, shorter working hours and full medical coverage. That is,however, if the exploding population of the underclass is kept in check.
The left focuses on the entitlements of the rich, but that can be reversed with a pen. The growing numbers of dependent children and their families can not so easily have the spigot of gvt. cradling removed. Currently 1 in 2 children under the age of 5 are on some form of government assistance. Staggering in its future implications.
The seemingly forgotten child in these tug of wars is the environment and all the other living things on the planet. To hear Democrats talk about global warming it is all about beach erosion, but the reality is massive human population growth is behind global warming and the democrats won’t touch it because that’s a ‘taboo’ subject.
As a holdout active Democrat I applaud the direction of the Republican party that Trump is leading. If they can manage to speak up about protecting the environment and show the same reverence for all living things that they do for ‘unborn’ children I am all aboard their party.
Within the Dem. party reverence and faith seems to be out of fashion.
It falls short in a couple of areas. First, Sanders economic positions as first posited are actually realistic. The reality is that computers, modern industrialization and global markets mean that it is possible to have significantly higher wages, shorter working hours and full medical coverage. That is,however, if the exploding population of the underclass is kept in check.
The left focuses on the entitlements of the rich, but that can be reversed with a pen. The growing numbers of dependent children and their families can not so easily have the spigot of gvt. cradling removed. Currently 1 in 2 children under the age of 5 are on some form of government assistance. Staggering in its future implications.
The seemingly forgotten child in these tug of wars is the environment and all the other living things on the planet. To hear Democrats talk about global warming it is all about beach erosion, but the reality is massive human population growth is behind global warming and the democrats won’t touch it because that’s a ‘taboo’ subject.
As a holdout active Democrat I applaud the direction of the Republican party that Trump is leading. If they can manage to speak up about protecting the environment and show the same reverence for all living things that they do for ‘unborn’ children I am all aboard their party.
Within the Dem. party reverence and faith seems to be out of fashion.
1
Not too many people can go back in memory to October 19, 1929 the day known in history of the United States as "Black Tuesday", that plunge our economy to the bottom of the abyss. The roaring stock market, the exuberance, the "joie de vivre", turned into nightmare that was felt for decades ahead. The miles long lines of unemployed workers, failed banks, bankrupt businesses, incompetent Herbert Hoover, who was trying to dismiss the condition of the country as a passing episode. The year 1932 forever ingrained as the bleakest year in a history of our country...
Yes the times are different now the global economy, technology but let's not forget that our grandparent had even harder journey through industrial revolution, mass migration and ultimate readjustment to the new era. Never the less after all the hardships and paralyzing fear we got really lucky with true visionary that comes once in many generations. " The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" proclaim a great leader and the country got a new deal.
After FDR proclaim a New Deal the people were united by the common hope, by the grand idea, by desire to built the country they would be proud of. Was it just a fad or we completely forgot that ideas are built on constant struggle, we need a movement, a revolution the uprising to nurture the dream for the society we want to create.
Clintonism, Trumpism are just the passing fads if we gather the courage, passion and determination to fight for our future.
Yes the times are different now the global economy, technology but let's not forget that our grandparent had even harder journey through industrial revolution, mass migration and ultimate readjustment to the new era. Never the less after all the hardships and paralyzing fear we got really lucky with true visionary that comes once in many generations. " The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" proclaim a great leader and the country got a new deal.
After FDR proclaim a New Deal the people were united by the common hope, by the grand idea, by desire to built the country they would be proud of. Was it just a fad or we completely forgot that ideas are built on constant struggle, we need a movement, a revolution the uprising to nurture the dream for the society we want to create.
Clintonism, Trumpism are just the passing fads if we gather the courage, passion and determination to fight for our future.
1
The problem in our current political configuration is that a new class structure has evolved in which professional and educated Democrats have more in common with professional and educated Republicans than they do with working class members of their own parties. This is the problem that Lind is trying to address. Both Clinton and Trump, each in different ways, are trying to straddle the divide within their own parties. And it just doesn't work.
We would all be better off with the creation of new political parties that better represent class interests. The educated professionals would form a business party. The working class should form a labor party. Democrats and Republicans could form liberal and conservative factions within each party. Thus we might have: Liberal (Democratic) and conservative (Republican) members of the business party and liberal (Democratic) and conservative (Republican) members of the labor party.
Although it wouldn’t eliminate fundamental conflicts among various interest groups, it is possible that such a set up might do much to eliminate the craziness of the current election cycle.
We would all be better off with the creation of new political parties that better represent class interests. The educated professionals would form a business party. The working class should form a labor party. Democrats and Republicans could form liberal and conservative factions within each party. Thus we might have: Liberal (Democratic) and conservative (Republican) members of the business party and liberal (Democratic) and conservative (Republican) members of the labor party.
Although it wouldn’t eliminate fundamental conflicts among various interest groups, it is possible that such a set up might do much to eliminate the craziness of the current election cycle.
This is a fabulous road map.
I think most political junkies will agree with, and appreciate it.
Buy what is missing is the basic view of how America rode out the 1915 to 2000 development period where R&D fallout from the first and second world wars and then the Marshall Plan, The Cold War and the Space and Nuclear races produced what seems now like insurmountable and unrepeatable wealth across the USA.
The bottom line is that we do not need less government we need more government -- both state and federal to fund the next moon shots in health care, energy conservation, renewable energy, and the rebuilding of a new class of infrastructure. Same for food production and recycling.
The Chinese government will do this so we have jump ahead.
China knows that is what they have to do to pull ahead. By so doing the USA can invent new uses of technology and rebuild value-add which is the only way to create job and wealth growth. This time around we need skilled politicians and technicians who build in sustainability.
I think most political junkies will agree with, and appreciate it.
Buy what is missing is the basic view of how America rode out the 1915 to 2000 development period where R&D fallout from the first and second world wars and then the Marshall Plan, The Cold War and the Space and Nuclear races produced what seems now like insurmountable and unrepeatable wealth across the USA.
The bottom line is that we do not need less government we need more government -- both state and federal to fund the next moon shots in health care, energy conservation, renewable energy, and the rebuilding of a new class of infrastructure. Same for food production and recycling.
The Chinese government will do this so we have jump ahead.
China knows that is what they have to do to pull ahead. By so doing the USA can invent new uses of technology and rebuild value-add which is the only way to create job and wealth growth. This time around we need skilled politicians and technicians who build in sustainability.
Most elections bring in new ideas for the next election. We've had micro-targeting, and email list fundraising, and a steady stream of other examples.
The new ideas from this election are on display by Bernie and Trump, and they will have an impact even without either one running in the general election.
However, these new ideas are not Trumpism, and the very opposite of Clintonism even if she hangs on by her fingernails. They are best encapsulated not by Trump but by Bernie.
The new idea is to find again the politics of a mass movement, an idea lost a few generations ago, and now done with new technology in an entirely new way. It can be done without big money donors, done even better because there are no big money donors.
Trump's odd message, somewhat incoherent, is unique to him. His use of mass organization and media is a lesson that will be followed. Since few will have their own planes and helicopters and media connections like his, it will be done more like Bernie than like Trump. Bernieism, not Trumpism. The antithesis of Clintonism.
The new ideas from this election are on display by Bernie and Trump, and they will have an impact even without either one running in the general election.
However, these new ideas are not Trumpism, and the very opposite of Clintonism even if she hangs on by her fingernails. They are best encapsulated not by Trump but by Bernie.
The new idea is to find again the politics of a mass movement, an idea lost a few generations ago, and now done with new technology in an entirely new way. It can be done without big money donors, done even better because there are no big money donors.
Trump's odd message, somewhat incoherent, is unique to him. His use of mass organization and media is a lesson that will be followed. Since few will have their own planes and helicopters and media connections like his, it will be done more like Bernie than like Trump. Bernieism, not Trumpism. The antithesis of Clintonism.
9
I couldn't disagree more with this analysis.
The Trump / McConnell train is going over the blow out bridge in November.
Hillary is the last of her kind.
Post election, the country is going to move on in new directions.
The Trump / McConnell train is going over the blow out bridge in November.
Hillary is the last of her kind.
Post election, the country is going to move on in new directions.
4
If the economic libertarians are the donor base of the Republican Party, it seems unlikely Trumpism will survive past the candidacy of a single rich demagogue. That donor base cynically uses social conservatives' votes to get trade and tax deals that benefit the investor class. Sanders, meanwhile has cultivated a donor base of small contributors whose antipathy to the Republican donor base is what is driving their campaign and their ideology. So, frankly, if you follow the money, the Democrats may be - as usual - the party of internal ferment into the future, while Trumpism cannot outlive its one man donor base.
1
If Clintonism is the future of the Democrats than I will be voting third party for sure. Everyone says we have to vote for Hillary or else Trump is going to take over. We all know Cruz will win now, and we don't HAVE to vote for anyone. If Bernie isn't the nominee, I'm voting Third party and I will continue to vote Third party until a Third party wins. Hillary is a neocon, and I quite frankly I'm ready for Democratic socialism.
3
I disagree with this essay in many respects.
However, it is indicative of how bankrupt the ideas and beliefs most politicians have. I had thought the foreign policies of the neo-conservatives were entirely discredited after our Middle East disasters. Even W finally realized he was mired in his own traps.
So will have another 4-8 years of gridlock, hysterical opinions, and wasted investments.
When Hillary is elected she will pick up where we left off 8 years ago. She will be a failed president and only get re-elected because the Republican Party will still be in shambles and pursuing nutty and divisive policies.
People are not voting FOR Trump. They are voting for WHO CARES ANYMORE.
However, it is indicative of how bankrupt the ideas and beliefs most politicians have. I had thought the foreign policies of the neo-conservatives were entirely discredited after our Middle East disasters. Even W finally realized he was mired in his own traps.
So will have another 4-8 years of gridlock, hysterical opinions, and wasted investments.
When Hillary is elected she will pick up where we left off 8 years ago. She will be a failed president and only get re-elected because the Republican Party will still be in shambles and pursuing nutty and divisive policies.
People are not voting FOR Trump. They are voting for WHO CARES ANYMORE.
2
Hate is an interesting point in all this.
I don't remember candidates being disliked quite ad much as Cruz and Clinton. It may be a more important test than all this policy stuff!
This likability, that has to be informed by a tacit acceptance of core issues, may also have deeper significance.
Perhaps there is a general acceptance of Trumps populism and a general sympathy to Sanders ethical approach to politics, even if different groups reject style, policies, or party when looking at the two. I think so.
And the issues that those two focus on are probably signaling the future.
And, of course, everyone is tired of establishment incementalism that gets us nowhere... slow.
I don't remember candidates being disliked quite ad much as Cruz and Clinton. It may be a more important test than all this policy stuff!
This likability, that has to be informed by a tacit acceptance of core issues, may also have deeper significance.
Perhaps there is a general acceptance of Trumps populism and a general sympathy to Sanders ethical approach to politics, even if different groups reject style, policies, or party when looking at the two. I think so.
And the issues that those two focus on are probably signaling the future.
And, of course, everyone is tired of establishment incementalism that gets us nowhere... slow.
3
It is astounding that working class whites vote for a party, the GOP, that misses no opportunity to stick it to working class people. If this block drops their obsession with gays and abortion and starts voting their economic interest, there could be an extended period of Democratic Party dominance ahead. I agree about the rise of economic populism--conservative, anti-government economic policies that cede control of most everything to big business have been very damaging to America--but it is certainly more aligned with the political left than the right. Trump is really not much of a conservative except on illegal immigration--an issue that resonates deeply with many people and an issue on which the Democrats are on the wrong side. You cannot pretend, for political reasons, that widespread illegal immigration in a country with serious poverty and income problems, is simply OK. As for Sanders, he may not win--but his message, a sort of outgrowth of Occupy Wall Street, is the most coherent and valid of any candidate. He, in fact, is the economic populist, not Trump--and I can see a serious shift to the political left, including working class whites, if moderates and even center-right politicians do not start taking environmentalism, consumer issues and TR's old adage about a "square deal" for workers far more seriously.
1
Anyone who actually writes about political ideologies and comes to the conclusion that Clinton is centre left is clearly needing to go back to school.
3
The test of any prognostication is time. Let's slip this one into the time capsule and see how it looks in twenty of thirty years. My guess is that the continuing growth in economic disparity, increasing economic globalization, environmental degradation world-wide and unforeseen military threats will render meaningless any predictions based on neat continuity of any theme. The various factions of the Republican party are not compatible, and neither the investor class nor the evangelicals will fall in line behind Trumpy populism. The Democratic party (or, as I prefer, the left wing of the Republican party) cannot contain the leftist sensibilities of much of its base or serve the priorities of the young who are attracted to the Sanders message.
But look at me! There I go with prognostications. Open up the time capsule.
But look at me! There I go with prognostications. Open up the time capsule.
1
This essay is another illustration of the irrelevance of professional punditry (and its affiliated academic disciplines). To the extent that anyone cares about or remembers this piece tthirty years from now, it will be an occasion for amusement or scorn. The future is not an American one, not one in which any thoughtful person, here or abroad will particularly concern him- or herself with the alignment of today's dominant American political parties.
This is clickbait. Yes it is on the opinion page, but it is all opinion, there is no sign of an objective fact to indicate that being slightly less neoliberal is the future of the Democratic party. So here is another opinion. After four years of a Clinton presidency, with another war underway in the Middle East, the Warren wing of the Democratic party, in total disgust, will primary HRC, nearly win and John Kasich will be the next President of the US. But then every one has an opinion.
Heh. Michael's political vision is limited indeed. No room for anyone at the center, much less left of center. It is true that Clinton's politics (fluid as they are) are more common, but the essay denies the existence of higher aspirations. There are MANY of us who demand better of our representatives, and frankly the party system is getting in the way.
I suspect that, win or lose the nomination, the majority of Sanders supporters will continue to work within and without the system to effect change. Some may be co-opted by the Clintons seeking power, but ultimately the change we make will reduce them in power. To do otherwise is to lose everything in America.
I suspect that, win or lose the nomination, the majority of Sanders supporters will continue to work within and without the system to effect change. Some may be co-opted by the Clintons seeking power, but ultimately the change we make will reduce them in power. To do otherwise is to lose everything in America.
2
I have read Mr. Lind's column several times to see if there is something in what he says. My attempt to restate his thesis:
The country-club wing of the Republican Party has been overpowered by the working-class wing. The working class wing likes entitlements and opposes immigration and free trade. He thinks their focus on social/religious issues will wane over time.
The Democrats will concentrate on being socially liberal, welcoming to minorities, pro-business, pro-finance, and not worry about making concessions to populist, working class concerns. He thinks the anti-1% anger is a flash in the pan, and will dissipate.
So, where does this put the unions? To the Republican Party? Where do the traditional left-wing Democrats go? Will the 1% have to become Democrats?
Perhaps I have misstated Mr. Lind's views. I'm having trouble assimilating all his ideas, but the ground is definitely shifting under our feet, and it is interesting to think about what's next.
The country-club wing of the Republican Party has been overpowered by the working-class wing. The working class wing likes entitlements and opposes immigration and free trade. He thinks their focus on social/religious issues will wane over time.
The Democrats will concentrate on being socially liberal, welcoming to minorities, pro-business, pro-finance, and not worry about making concessions to populist, working class concerns. He thinks the anti-1% anger is a flash in the pan, and will dissipate.
So, where does this put the unions? To the Republican Party? Where do the traditional left-wing Democrats go? Will the 1% have to become Democrats?
Perhaps I have misstated Mr. Lind's views. I'm having trouble assimilating all his ideas, but the ground is definitely shifting under our feet, and it is interesting to think about what's next.
2
Incrementalism and ceding ideological territory to the right will not solve climate change, which requires urgent action. Most young people, whose future will be shaped by climate change, know this.
On that basis alone, the predictions of this article are exposed as fallacious.
Most young people also recognize that triangulation, bowing to the lords of finance, and surrendering to Republican ideals has brought the country to the terrible place it is in now.
And that is another count against the "predictions" fielded here.
We'll see what the future holds, but I doubt it will look anything like Mr. Lind imagines.
On that basis alone, the predictions of this article are exposed as fallacious.
Most young people also recognize that triangulation, bowing to the lords of finance, and surrendering to Republican ideals has brought the country to the terrible place it is in now.
And that is another count against the "predictions" fielded here.
We'll see what the future holds, but I doubt it will look anything like Mr. Lind imagines.
5
This is a useful and thought-provoking piece, but at the same time its focus on which policies on discrete issues each party will likely adhere to in the future seems to me almost totally beside the most vital matter in today's American politics (Europe, too, not to mention lots of South America and Africa).
The vital focus now must be to ask which party will more often base its platforms, policies, and actions on fact-based, ethical (if not compassionate), and thoroughly thought-through positions intended to benefit our nation as a whole on a long-term basis, not simply to massage the "base," and not just until the next election cycle.
Or stated in the negative, the vital thing to ask is which party will more often base its actions on simplistic, shoot-from-the-hip, screw 'em if they're different from me, reactionary, and short-sighted positions.
And given the wealth and power that allows our nation to create havoc across the planet, one party or another will be more likely to make more and bigger mistakes internationally, in addition to what happens here at home.
It looks to me like we've devolved from the luxurious time where we could quibble or focus on discrete policy differences. Now, we need only focus on the more fundamental criteria above to make our choices as voters and citizens.
And unfortunately, it's all too easy.
The vital focus now must be to ask which party will more often base its platforms, policies, and actions on fact-based, ethical (if not compassionate), and thoroughly thought-through positions intended to benefit our nation as a whole on a long-term basis, not simply to massage the "base," and not just until the next election cycle.
Or stated in the negative, the vital thing to ask is which party will more often base its actions on simplistic, shoot-from-the-hip, screw 'em if they're different from me, reactionary, and short-sighted positions.
And given the wealth and power that allows our nation to create havoc across the planet, one party or another will be more likely to make more and bigger mistakes internationally, in addition to what happens here at home.
It looks to me like we've devolved from the luxurious time where we could quibble or focus on discrete policy differences. Now, we need only focus on the more fundamental criteria above to make our choices as voters and citizens.
And unfortunately, it's all too easy.
It would seem to be that Lund is failing to attribute changing in political filiation and voting patterns is missing the point. The Dixiecrat's and many in the south left the Democratic Party because of the civil rights act. This is still true almost all the states that Obama lost in the last election were previously slave states. Carter was an ineffective leader he did not stand up to the Saudis. he did not stand up to the Iranians. I would think one of his failures as a leader was that he wasn't willing to engage militarily this made the US weak and constantly those who realized this tried us over and over again. Hey president must be willing to kill.
Bill Clinton lost the midterm election because of his stance on guns. he also brought the democratic party to the right.this caused The Republican Party to move further to the right.
The amazing thing about W's initial presidency was that it was not decided by election but by selection the Country not give into revolution excepted this on its face. Bush went on to win the next election mostly because of the catastrophe of 9/11 which he failed to prevent, it is A bitter irony but true.
It is another Irony that Mitch McConnell's success in stymieing almost all of Barack Obama's policies has created another realignment of the democratic party bring it further to the left with the help of Bernie Sanders
Bill Clinton lost the midterm election because of his stance on guns. he also brought the democratic party to the right.this caused The Republican Party to move further to the right.
The amazing thing about W's initial presidency was that it was not decided by election but by selection the Country not give into revolution excepted this on its face. Bush went on to win the next election mostly because of the catastrophe of 9/11 which he failed to prevent, it is A bitter irony but true.
It is another Irony that Mitch McConnell's success in stymieing almost all of Barack Obama's policies has created another realignment of the democratic party bring it further to the left with the help of Bernie Sanders
Regardless of what they want to do, both parties need to deal with the fact that there is a large number of people ill equipped to move to jobs in the new economy which is not industrial and probably won't be in the near future. This is an angry group for good reason, but there is no easy fix for their situation. The sooner their economic situation is faced, and realistic plans made to help people either "retread" by developing some more relevant skills, or live more comfortably in reduced circumstances, the better for the political and economic health of the country.
2
Who opposed every jobs bill Obama proposed? They did. "Guvment shouldn't be creating jobs, free enterprise should." Well, it does. American capital built those factories in China, bub. That's where the tax cuts went. To make jobs where the the profits would be the highest.
20
I think the author discounts the demographic shifts coming and the generational shift that the Sanders campaign represents. This generation of young people, the millennials, are the most committed to diversity and economic justice than any since the sixties. If they can be different from us boomers and stay committed to both, as they grow older, they may create change in this country unlike anything we have ever seen. They may usher in a new world where racism and prejudice are a thing of the past and where the problems of inequality and injustice inherent in capitalism are finally solved. They will need to learn to be less strident, more rational, and more forgiving, but that may come with maturity. It is only a matter of time before the White working class realizes the Republican Party will never help them, accepts the diversity that is coming and returns to the Democratic fold. Although I don’t think this year is their year or Sanders the leader to fulfill their hopes and dreams, the future will belong to them.
6
Most corporate funded think tanks get outsize representation in the NYTimes, yet corrode public discussion. Other than the Brookings Institute, most think tanks seem, foremost, to be focused on, and adept at, finding some political conclusion to push. Second, and very much in service of the first, they look for reasons that persuasively support that conclusion.
In other words, they flip the order of reasoning. Reasoned inquiry doesn't start with conclusions, but with the question "is this true?" first, and then sorts out answers based on what the evidence and clearly acceptable premises support.
This article seems to be more of the conclusions-first sort. Had Lind been inquiring into whether the Democratic party was coalescing toward a Clintonian worldview, compared to a more New Deal-like worldview, he would have researched the popularity of Clintonian, vs. Return-to-New-Deal proposals among Democratic party members, and those who've left it. Last I checked, such programs have gained more ground with the Democratic rank and file, and the public, than Clinton proposals.
But I'm not arguing that the opposite conclusion is correct, only that Lind cites little more than his opinion that New-Deal Dems are immature, which isn't a sound reason or evidence, while not assessing evidence that exists.
I hope most readers are curious, as I am, about where each party is headed. What I wanted was an article based on sound inquiry. What I got was another push piece.
In other words, they flip the order of reasoning. Reasoned inquiry doesn't start with conclusions, but with the question "is this true?" first, and then sorts out answers based on what the evidence and clearly acceptable premises support.
This article seems to be more of the conclusions-first sort. Had Lind been inquiring into whether the Democratic party was coalescing toward a Clintonian worldview, compared to a more New Deal-like worldview, he would have researched the popularity of Clintonian, vs. Return-to-New-Deal proposals among Democratic party members, and those who've left it. Last I checked, such programs have gained more ground with the Democratic rank and file, and the public, than Clinton proposals.
But I'm not arguing that the opposite conclusion is correct, only that Lind cites little more than his opinion that New-Deal Dems are immature, which isn't a sound reason or evidence, while not assessing evidence that exists.
I hope most readers are curious, as I am, about where each party is headed. What I wanted was an article based on sound inquiry. What I got was another push piece.
8
This article would have been much more believable if it had identified the incrementalist-progressive-neoliberal Democratic coalition as Obama Democrats rather than Clinton Democrats. Obama was the first one to turn these voters into an Electoral College powerhouse, and remains much better at appealing to the Sanders wing of the party (who are not simply going away) than Hillary Clinton. Hillary will likely be elected by those same voters, but she's a more problematic choice to define that coalition and its politics, given her connections to the very different coalitions and politics of Bill Clinton's era.
2
I for one disagree that "the center-left synthesis shared by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton" ever was center-left. It's center. And Mrs. Clinton has certainly moved to the left on countless issues as a result of Senator Sander's campaign.
9
I do wish the Times would climb out of their time portal and look at the future: the real future. Trump and Sanders may represent the future just as Cruz and the Clintons represent the past.
8
Interesting ideas -- wrong in my estimation, but interesting. To begin at the beginning,
I think the first error was to attribute the future of the Democratic Party to Hillary Clinton. If you'd said Bernie Sanders, I'd have gone along with you, but the incrementalism of Hillary Clinton will not, I believe, cut it with younger folks. They've watched what happened to their parents during and after Bill Clinton's presidency and want nothing to do with it. Some drastic changes need to come and they won't come from Hillary Clinton.
Whether the young can turn their attention from Sanders to actually accomplish the political revolution Sanders espouses is, to me, central to the politics of the next ten years.
I'm 72, so I don't expect to be around myself to witness all off how this will play out, but I hope young folks can bring the same enthusiasm to their future that my generation did in the late 1960s. It's time.
I think the first error was to attribute the future of the Democratic Party to Hillary Clinton. If you'd said Bernie Sanders, I'd have gone along with you, but the incrementalism of Hillary Clinton will not, I believe, cut it with younger folks. They've watched what happened to their parents during and after Bill Clinton's presidency and want nothing to do with it. Some drastic changes need to come and they won't come from Hillary Clinton.
Whether the young can turn their attention from Sanders to actually accomplish the political revolution Sanders espouses is, to me, central to the politics of the next ten years.
I'm 72, so I don't expect to be around myself to witness all off how this will play out, but I hope young folks can bring the same enthusiasm to their future that my generation did in the late 1960s. It's time.
73
I'm 66 and I believe both you, and I, will be around to see the movement Bernie Sanders has brought to the fore, bear fruit.
The establishment is scared as never before.
The establishment is scared as never before.
1
This writer's foundation obviously has political overtones, as does his writing. It's patently absurd to refer to a "Clintonism" - I don't think it's ever been done before, and it's just plain wrong. You think Bernie would brook people referring to a 'Sandersism'? Michael Lind is pandering to a shallow and juvenile view of politics.
4
The cynicism of this piece amazes me. A discussion of a process through time of political figures and how they determine which side the bread is buttered on for themselves. By this reasoning voting at all is an excersize in futility because the chameleons we vote for can be any color they want at any given time. We can change our thinking over time on many issues but these decisions are based on our own experiences and new information. Why dont we hear about that in campaign speeches. i know. It would not sound nice to say, "I am only doing this to get your vote."
6
Polarization is probably our new way of life. Neither the Clintons or Trump in reality, could make any important inroads, with what either would inherit. Obama ended up having major influences on our place in the world and our priorities. No longer the worlds policemen, and the beginning of Universal healthcare are two major new directions.
4
Michael Lind is someone with whom I often agree, but not so much here. My major criticism is that using left/right ideological terms to understand our present situation is silly. White southerners had largely abandoned the Democratic Party by 1964. It took blue collar whites further north a little longer, but most were flipped by 1968. Race drove the bus. These groups of voters have been the Republican base since, and today they make up the majority of Trump supporters. Reagan was hardly a transitional figure; the supply side snake oil he sold is still the dominant economic theory of the Republican Party, and Trump voters are the Republicans who have figured out it benefits only the wealthy, and they're not wealthy. Things are more complicated on the Democratic side. Many of the Bernie voters are aggrieved leftists, but more I fear are the pure of heart who think elections are exercises in self expression rather than an attempt to select a government that works. Both Clintons were/are committed to American institutions, but want them to work for everyone. Hillary is the only real conservative in this race, and her position on most issues it where the majority of Americans want to be. If the Bernie wing of the Party could get on board, we could see some real change in the country.
5
You seem confused about your terminology. How does a "real conservative" become the person to bring "real change?" The reason the "Bernie Wing," as you call them, is reluctant to "get on board" with Hillary is precisely because they don't trust her to bring about real change.
Many commenters think Hillary represents the worst of her party. This is not good news for Hillary if she wins the nomination. Hillary supporters would vote for Bernie but it appears that Bernie supporters will not vote for Hillary giving the election to Cruz, who is widely considered to be the most conservative candidate in recent memory. BTW the GOP will not allow Trump to be the nominee. We saw what Nadar did to the Bush Gore outcome. We got Alito on the Supreme Court. This election is about the future of the country for years after the 2016 presidential term is over. At the very least Bernie supporters ought to consider the sort of justice Cruz would nominate. I guarantee you, this decision alone requires liberals to stick together.
5
N B_ Bernie supporters will consider Cruz appointees and a lot more. They will almost universally vote for Hillary if they have to. And Bernie will tell them to if that's the way it falls. KA
This has to be one of the worst political articles yet published by the NYT, holding up two god-awful and totally corrupted political ideologies as Americas bleak political future. Just how corrupted the mainstream media has been by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party is on full display here, and it's not a pretty sight.
It's amazing that Bernie Sanders has done as well as he has when the full weight of the biased MSM as well represented by Michael Lind types and self-serving Debbie Wasserman Schultz types has been behind the Clintonistas 100%. America has become a 3rd world nation run by the white wings in both parties. Make America white again because well connected white lives matter!
It's amazing that Bernie Sanders has done as well as he has when the full weight of the biased MSM as well represented by Michael Lind types and self-serving Debbie Wasserman Schultz types has been behind the Clintonistas 100%. America has become a 3rd world nation run by the white wings in both parties. Make America white again because well connected white lives matter!
27
Activists on both sides have basically the same agenda : sticking it to people they don't like. This is populism's core and the reason it is such a toxic force in a democracy.
2
Mr. Lind's analysis is, I hope, wrong, Wrong, WRONG, in arguing that the candidate who represents the worst of what each party offers is the future of that party, "here to stay" in his words. If Mr. Lind is correct, I suppose we mere voters should swallow our pride and simply accept the return to medieval times in the 21st Century. We can petition government to redress our grievances? Or perhaps ask President Trump or President Clinton to have Mr. Lind explain the US political system to ISIS?
8
Historians who predict the future have an very bad record, yet that does not temper the presumptuous "this is the way it's going to be" tone of many of them. Modesty characterizes those who are most able in the professions. The most able historians apply the brakes when they believe they have identified the principal dynamics which will be at play in the future. For example, Dr. Toynbee did not attempt to predict how long the west will last, but he did suggest what are some of our weaknesses and strengths. Mr. Lind should take a lesson from them.
We do not know how the disaffection, alienation and anger of two generations of young Americans --- much of it based in the use alleged educators and exploitative lenders have made of their efforts to educate themselves --- will play out. We do now know that repugnance for Hillary Clinton and her habitual adjustment of words and positions so as to harmonize with moneyed interests, is a moving force for many of them.
It is a little early to pronounce that Clinton's "triangle-'em" brand of gaining personal power will dominate democratic-side politics in the U.S. for coming decades.
We do not know how the disaffection, alienation and anger of two generations of young Americans --- much of it based in the use alleged educators and exploitative lenders have made of their efforts to educate themselves --- will play out. We do now know that repugnance for Hillary Clinton and her habitual adjustment of words and positions so as to harmonize with moneyed interests, is a moving force for many of them.
It is a little early to pronounce that Clinton's "triangle-'em" brand of gaining personal power will dominate democratic-side politics in the U.S. for coming decades.
6
It will be Sanders's idea that will dominate from now on. It has already taken root.
13
I am somewhat buying the Hillary Clinton Democrat thesis, because the minority block is growing in this country. I am not buying Trump Republicans; Nixon appealed to the same racists in 68 and 72 with the silent majority, only today they are not silent. We see evangelicals having a hard time supporting Trump, thus perhaps religion will be leaving the cold embrace of Reagan's party and go back to the hole that was Nixon's party.
1
This article highlights a very important point that needs addressing, namely, what is Hillary Clinton about? Is she independent of Bill Clinton, or is she a re-run? Is this a candidate, or is it a merger? Several times in the debates, she has taken credit for his accomplishments, as if they were hers: "WE lowered unemployment," is one example--as if she was part of the administration and influenced policy. But in reality she had only a social role as First Lady. Recently, when asked about Bill Clinton's gaffe of "the awful legacy of the last 8 years," she said it wasn't about Obama. "WE don't think that," were her words. Are the Clintons asking the American people to vote for a two-headed president? Would this be a Putin-Medvedev kind of administration, with Hillary delivering talking points, while the un-elected (and un-electable) former president we almost impeached manages the country as he is managing her campaign? We have a right to know.
8
Tell the truth. The Clinton impeachment was completely concocted by Republicans Newt Gingrich (while cheating on his first wife with his second wife-to-be), Bob Livingston (cheating on his wife with his angry mistress) and Dennis Hastert (committing adultery with his male consort). And it failed.
A real talking-head article, Mr. Lind. If, as you project, Clintonism defines Progressivism in the future, God help us all. The war-hawk's incrementalism and seeming disregard for climate change and global warming would be to the severe detriment of our nation and the world. It's time to embrace a serious change to better, smarter, and more empathetic governance. Look left, think left, live left, support Bernie and the political revolution, for the betterment of all.
9
The rage that this article will generate could probably power all of the homes in Los Angeles if someone could figure out how to turn it from outrage into actual energy.
6
This chap's living in a dream world. The Bernsters won't vote for Clinton- more than that, the new crop of Democrats, like Zephyr Teachout, look to Sanders' movement, and not to Clinton, for political inspiration.
11
I realize that Bernie supporters may not vote for Clinton, but in doing so a Cruz or Trump or Ryan will nominate Scalia's replacement. Nader gave us Alito.
4
Brilliant analysis, but it completely overlooks how global events--implosions in the Middle East, China, EU, Brazil--would greatly affect the domestic dynamics of American politics.
1
Michael Lind does not understand the fundamental shift occurring in politics - his focus is tunnel visioned. Trump has yet to convince at least 50% of the right to join his ranks. No matter who wins the democratic slot, Trump will be soundly trounced in November...if he actually wins the nomination. Clinton is ahead of Sanders only because the DNC and Debbie Wasserman have unevened the playing field.
We are undoubtedly headed to a multi-party future, not dissimilar to western Europe. Too many are disenfranchised by the existing undemocratic two-party system. This entities have proven they can't work together to confront reality. Only multi-party systems force creation of coalitions, forward movement and reinstatement of working democracies.
We are undoubtedly headed to a multi-party future, not dissimilar to western Europe. Too many are disenfranchised by the existing undemocratic two-party system. This entities have proven they can't work together to confront reality. Only multi-party systems force creation of coalitions, forward movement and reinstatement of working democracies.
9
Lind appears not to be aware of clear signs of the populace's awareness and push back against corporate control of banking, our energy sources, and our governments and elections. I believe this list covers just about every major aspect of our public lives. (Did I miss anything?) In other words, we the people are becoming aware of our oligarchy and we don't like it.
Bernie is doing well with his message of lo these many decades because the populace is now with him. If the Dem machine succeeds in imposing Hillary upon us, what's to keep Bernie wanna be's from picking up and running with his message? Now we know there are millions of us common folk who will respond to the Pied Piper who plays our tune.
Bernie is doing well with his message of lo these many decades because the populace is now with him. If the Dem machine succeeds in imposing Hillary upon us, what's to keep Bernie wanna be's from picking up and running with his message? Now we know there are millions of us common folk who will respond to the Pied Piper who plays our tune.
8
Both Clinton and Sanders have attacked the big banks and called for their breakup.
There's a big disconnect here!
The appeal of Senator Grumpy over Hillary Clinton is explained by saying: "Part of the explanation, no doubt, is that, as she herself acknowledges, Mrs. Clinton is less charismatic a candidate than..." - but then compares her to Barack Obama and Bill Clinton instead of her opponent, Mr. Cranky. Compared to him, Hillary IS charismatic!
So when we read the question asking "What, then, explains the appeal of Bernie Sanders?", we're left asking "What then, explains this answer about charisma?" After all, the NYT spent months writing articles about how grumpy, cranky, and absolutely charmless Senator Sanders is, as well as his bad hair, lack of smile, and rumpled suits.
How about asking why Senator Grumpy is giving Secretary Clinton the race of her life even though she has decades of treasure - political, financial, and personal - behind her, including the support of two charismatic Presidents. Those dozens of Presidential debates from her last campaign also give her a big edge on stage that Bernie doesn't have and it shows.
"...no doubt," Bernie's prairie fire of a campaign has nothing to do with Hillary lacking charisma or Bill and Barack having it.
"...as She Herself acknowledges..." So that's where this irrelevant, inaccurate, inane explanation comes from.
Just so you know, the reality is that Grumpy Old Man Sanders has more honesty, integrity, and good judgment in his little finger than the Clintons have together.
The appeal of Senator Grumpy over Hillary Clinton is explained by saying: "Part of the explanation, no doubt, is that, as she herself acknowledges, Mrs. Clinton is less charismatic a candidate than..." - but then compares her to Barack Obama and Bill Clinton instead of her opponent, Mr. Cranky. Compared to him, Hillary IS charismatic!
So when we read the question asking "What, then, explains the appeal of Bernie Sanders?", we're left asking "What then, explains this answer about charisma?" After all, the NYT spent months writing articles about how grumpy, cranky, and absolutely charmless Senator Sanders is, as well as his bad hair, lack of smile, and rumpled suits.
How about asking why Senator Grumpy is giving Secretary Clinton the race of her life even though she has decades of treasure - political, financial, and personal - behind her, including the support of two charismatic Presidents. Those dozens of Presidential debates from her last campaign also give her a big edge on stage that Bernie doesn't have and it shows.
"...no doubt," Bernie's prairie fire of a campaign has nothing to do with Hillary lacking charisma or Bill and Barack having it.
"...as She Herself acknowledges..." So that's where this irrelevant, inaccurate, inane explanation comes from.
Just so you know, the reality is that Grumpy Old Man Sanders has more honesty, integrity, and good judgment in his little finger than the Clintons have together.
14
I submit its fear for the future by young people. Free education and free health care looks good if you have lots of college debt and are working part time for minimum wage. A big safety net looks good if you're still sleeping in your childhood bedroom at 25. At 25 I'd support Bernie over Hillary. At 65 it looks very different.
.
.
3
Also we all feel it in our gut that something is seriously wrong with Hillary, no matter what our head says about why she is the "smart" choice.
What impressed me most about this essay is that it is literally superficial. It looks only at the surface phenomena--opinions and votes--with not a word for the fundamentals, that is, (I'll be blunt) the theft of increased productivity by the billionaire class, resulting in gradually declining income and rapidly declining job security for most of us, while the very rich become ever more wealthy with wealth most of them have no use for.
And no, this is not an inevitable consequence of globalization; it is due mainly to the capture of our politics by the billionaire class, which has led to laws being written to assist their profiting from moving jobs offshore.
And no, this is not an inevitable consequence of globalization; it is due mainly to the capture of our politics by the billionaire class, which has led to laws being written to assist their profiting from moving jobs offshore.
39
Bernie was off to a Papal ( if not accidental) visit, while Hillary was at a $350 thousand dollar a couple fund raiser. What is new about fund raising? Maybe it is the astronomically eye-popping amounts of money raised. This spells the end of the Democratic party. Where is there room for working people? Must be under the bus, because the donors will have taken all the seats on the bus. This is not a populous movement by any stretch. What side of the table will this Democratic party be during a work stoppage? Inside Hillary's victory will be the seeds of the Democratic party destruction.
45
Hard to believe that Hillary is raising money for other Democrats so she can have some help from Congress by getting someone else elected.
1
The cost of a national campaign for President, Senator or Congress person has become too big for ordinary fund raising. It is media driven, and media costs way too much. FYI, donors have always had a seat at the big table. FDR's populous movement was driven by a Depression and then a world war. People came together, and viewed FDR as the leader to see them through. Clinton might not have the charisma FDR had, but she can defeat Trump or Cruz. The Democratic Party will survive, as will the GOP. The major Parties provide the vehicles people can use to express their preferences. Party membership will change the leadership and goals. Watch.
Clinton raised that money for downticket Democratic campaigns. Unlike Trump or Sanders, she's aware that Congress has to turn blue before a Dem president can be effective. She's playing exactly by the rules.
Either way, this article paints a dim future for those who are much younger than my 60 years. An America that is not longer "can do"; becoming an America of "this is your place". Not part of the Oligarchy? You serve at its pleasure. The "American Dream"? is only for those who are part of the oligarchy. The New America is not what you build with your hands, but what is acquired by greed. An America that immigrants, the middle and working class is considered lesser citizens, if citizens at all (think Ancient Roman Empire here).
I am glad my life span is nearing an end, in the not to distant future. Clintonism and Trumpism, to me sound a capitalist, Ayn Rand, George Orwell, Suzanne Collins nightmare for 99.9% of Americans, and elation for the .1% few.
This is not the vision of America my parents sacrificed for during WWII, or built out of the ashes of the Great Depression. Nor, is it the American my ancestors dreamed to come to. But, a kind of place my ancestors escaped from, to start a new life; corrupt autocracies of eastern and southern Europe.
If Trumpism and/or Clintonism is the future of America, then it is time to find a new beacon of hope. It brings to mind: "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here"; Dante meant Hell, but for millions of Americans, it might become one. While not perfect Scandinavia and Canada have replaced America as that beacon of hope.
I am glad my life span is nearing an end, in the not to distant future. Clintonism and Trumpism, to me sound a capitalist, Ayn Rand, George Orwell, Suzanne Collins nightmare for 99.9% of Americans, and elation for the .1% few.
This is not the vision of America my parents sacrificed for during WWII, or built out of the ashes of the Great Depression. Nor, is it the American my ancestors dreamed to come to. But, a kind of place my ancestors escaped from, to start a new life; corrupt autocracies of eastern and southern Europe.
If Trumpism and/or Clintonism is the future of America, then it is time to find a new beacon of hope. It brings to mind: "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here"; Dante meant Hell, but for millions of Americans, it might become one. While not perfect Scandinavia and Canada have replaced America as that beacon of hope.
52
We all have to come to grips with history as change over time. Demographics in the US are changing much as they are in Western Europe. All is flux. If Americans lose sight of those verities articulated by The Founders , there will be
a void that will not be filled. To keep the truths of our Founding Fathers is the challenge to which we must rise. As to capitalism , never forget that the US was founded on Natural Rights and private property. The tension between them is the fundament that the US has grappled with since the founding of the Republic. To put it another way, as Tocqueville observed, Liberty is challenged by increasingly strident demands for egalitarianism. If that challenge cannot be answered, if possibilities for social and economic mobility diminish, we are in trouble. It is already happening. Here's your exam question: envision the USA in fifty years.
a void that will not be filled. To keep the truths of our Founding Fathers is the challenge to which we must rise. As to capitalism , never forget that the US was founded on Natural Rights and private property. The tension between them is the fundament that the US has grappled with since the founding of the Republic. To put it another way, as Tocqueville observed, Liberty is challenged by increasingly strident demands for egalitarianism. If that challenge cannot be answered, if possibilities for social and economic mobility diminish, we are in trouble. It is already happening. Here's your exam question: envision the USA in fifty years.
The idea that Hillary Clinton has positions and principles is funny.
57
She has issued so many detailed positions and proposals its mind boggling. She is an uber wonk and workaholic.
1
Untrue.
Her position is she should be president.
Her principle is she should be president.
Why?
Because. That's why.
Her position is she should be president.
Her principle is she should be president.
Why?
Because. That's why.
Having voted for Jill Stein of the Green Party in 2012 and intending to vote for her again in 2016, I must say that if you like the way things have been before, you're going to love having Hillary for president. She never saw a war she didn't love and she is fastened at the hip with Wall Street. Watch inequality grow. Under Hillary, the corporate perks are headed for the stratosphere.
You can thank the oligarchs, the New York Times and the Super Delegates for President Hillary Clinton. After all, she's the first female president. Aren't we proud!
You can thank the oligarchs, the New York Times and the Super Delegates for President Hillary Clinton. After all, she's the first female president. Aren't we proud!
64
The writer of this comment seems to share a very specific and deliberate Republican distortion of Clinton's positions, statements and plans, all of which HRC has been hammering across. I see a lot of comments here, especially those comparing Clinton unfavorably with Sanders, that might have come straight from Karl Rove's or the Koch's SuperPAC-funded trolls. Nothing would make the GOP happier than driving a wedge between Clinton and Sanders supporters, and that's exactly what's taking place. And that's why I'll be voting straight Democratic, no matter if the top of the ticket is Sanders or Clinton.
Right on, your analysis!
We should be proud! Likewise we should be proud if we elect a Jewish president. I have no words for us if Trampolini or his evil sibling Cruz becomes the president.
I scarcely know a single hippie friend from the late 60s who became any kind of yuppie. Maybe I define both terms differently. More to the point, I hope Lind is wrong about the future of both parties.
41
Clinton and the media in general claim that Bill Clinton's presidency is a valuable part of the Hillary resume. That Clinton earned valuable experience as co president with Bill. At the same time, these media groups are feverishly trying to claim that she had no part in Bill's administration. Recently Hillary even went as far as to say that even though she was part of the two for one presidency, Bill was to blame for everything. A typical Clintonism that is not new but rather several decades old. Trumpism is a recently new reaction to the Clintonism that has run the Democrat party for several decades. Both isms are equally void of value.
41
Trumpism is simply the channeling of the anger of the middle class whose standard of living was stolen by Reaganism, The Clinton years were an economic resurgence for the middle class, which quickly evaporated in the Bush disaster. Obama could not reverse that, but not for lack of trying.
You know that the Clintons live in a different universe from the truth. It all depends on what "is" is.
I think Mr. Lind has to eat. To do that, he must earn money to buy food. Writing this article is as good a way as any, I guess.
Having read the whole thing from top to bottom I had just one question:
"And if not?"
And, to my delight, found that is didn't matter!!
Having read the whole thing from top to bottom I had just one question:
"And if not?"
And, to my delight, found that is didn't matter!!
15
Left out of the equation, is the very real Anti-government sentiment started first among the tea-party Republicans, and now exacerbated by the Trumplodites. There is a very strong block among American voters, just now really getting their legs, who look at the US Government as the cause of all that they deem wrong in the US. They actually despise the government, and see its near elimination as the best course of action. Added to that is they barely hold out much respect for State government either, preferring instead some unstructured local governing that would put individual freedoms back in the hands of the individuals.
As long as those individuals are gun loving, national park land grabbing, environmental laws be damned, anti-immigrants period, white middle-class-ish males. Mostly males who want to return to the pre-PC days of yesteryear where the real truth was being cruel, racist and sexist and no offense could be taken because...well because these white males ran the whole show.
Forgetting, ignoring this growing block of home-grown anti-American government haters is a big mistake for all of us. They are not going away, and they will - should the Democrats win the WH this fall,especially against a non-Trump GOP candidate, they will make some serious noise.
As long as those individuals are gun loving, national park land grabbing, environmental laws be damned, anti-immigrants period, white middle-class-ish males. Mostly males who want to return to the pre-PC days of yesteryear where the real truth was being cruel, racist and sexist and no offense could be taken because...well because these white males ran the whole show.
Forgetting, ignoring this growing block of home-grown anti-American government haters is a big mistake for all of us. They are not going away, and they will - should the Democrats win the WH this fall,especially against a non-Trump GOP candidate, they will make some serious noise.
12
Why should anyone not hate government? Even the government worshiping NYTs has said many times that "government is always inefficient and often corrupt:. In the final analysis, government is composed of 10% usually corrupt politicians and 90% useless, parasitic, self-serving bureaucrats who will do anything to gain more power or funding for themselves.
1
File under: Things to Come Back to For a Good Laugh One Day.
First of all, the idea that Clinton stands as a historical figure, much less someone deserving an "-ism", as if she stood for anything. It is notable that the highest praise in this piece seems to be for her malleability in changing position on issues she did nothing to advance.
But second, the real laughs here are the historical deafness. There appears to be not the faintest awareness of something going on in the populace continuing in a straight line between Lehman Bros, Zucotti Park, and the Sanders candidacy.
One is put in mind of Louis XIV, whose diary entry on 14 July 1789 comprised: "Rien."
First of all, the idea that Clinton stands as a historical figure, much less someone deserving an "-ism", as if she stood for anything. It is notable that the highest praise in this piece seems to be for her malleability in changing position on issues she did nothing to advance.
But second, the real laughs here are the historical deafness. There appears to be not the faintest awareness of something going on in the populace continuing in a straight line between Lehman Bros, Zucotti Park, and the Sanders candidacy.
One is put in mind of Louis XIV, whose diary entry on 14 July 1789 comprised: "Rien."
40
HRC, as the first female president, would indeed make history, as would Sanders as the first Jewish president. If elected, Trump would also make history as the first billionaire to buy himself the presidency.
Louis XVI...
Haven't you heard? We aren't being "adult" if we don't recognize that Hillary is an accomplished amazing woman who will be the most amazing President and there's nothing wrong with her accepting millions from Wall Street. I'm 42. I'm a woman, not a Bernie Bro whatever the hell that slur against young men is and Im a woman of color. Whatever they talk about at NY cocktail parties to come up with articles like this is nothing close to what us "children" see out here in the lesser parts.
All this focus on Trumpism vs Clintonism and the future of political America is mouthwash for pundits, who blithely ignore that Congress makes and/or overrides the laws, and decrees what and how much money gets spent for what. When Congress sits on its can -- witness the last eight years -- nothing gets done unless the President and Congress are in agreement. Otherwise, whoever's in the White House can holler till windows crack and will have labor for his/her pains.
8
This is why HRC is busy raising big money for downticket Democratic candidates. This election puts both the House and Senate up for grabs, and she seems to be the only candidate aware of this. Trump, of course, isn't trying to help anyone other than himself--a typically shortsighted Trump position.
Remind me not to but his book. If he thinks that "muddle of the road" is the future way of the Democratic Party, and that Hillary is not to the right of Bull, er, Bill, on military intervention and finance capitalism, then it is time for the really socially progressive citizens to form a new party.
Let the Rockefeller Democrats tread the white dividing line. Trump and Sanders speak to the same disenfranchised economic classes, although in different ways and emphasizing different cultural and social views. Once united, the Trumpen Proletariat and the Social Democrats will be the future.
Let the Rockefeller Democrats tread the white dividing line. Trump and Sanders speak to the same disenfranchised economic classes, although in different ways and emphasizing different cultural and social views. Once united, the Trumpen Proletariat and the Social Democrats will be the future.
10
This is a future? This is just a choice of two kinds of plutocracy - one claiming to be populist, the other not even bothering with that charade. Trump has yet to say anything about how he'd bring manufacturing jobs back to this country, and Clinton doesn't even seem to care. My late mum had the best description for this sort of 'choice': 'Verfuelte Fisch und verstinkene Herring.' 'Verfuelte' means 'rotten', and the rest really needs no translation.
All I can say is, thank God neither of these characters was in charge on December 7, 1941. Had that happened, we wouldn't even HAVE an independent country today.
All I can say is, thank God neither of these characters was in charge on December 7, 1941. Had that happened, we wouldn't even HAVE an independent country today.
16
Speculation on the future makeup of the two parties is both interesting and fun, but it seems to under emphasize the more immediate step in any prospective evolution. That step is the November election. The fuss here over Bernie vs Hillary is secondary to either of their prospects with respect to the presently front-running Republican options, Trump or Cruz. I suggest no one knows what Trump would do as president, including Lind and, for that matter, Trump himself. Cruz is essentially Tea Party/evangelical/ultra right, characterized by "Texas values".
Who becomes their party's nominee will set the immediate path for that party. Who wins the presidency will especially set the short-term path for his/her party, whereas the losing party is more likely to be subject to change. If this assessment is correct, November results probably will encourage longer-term party changes (as measured over decades; I date back to FDR), but more so for losers than winners.
Note: The differences between Trump and Cruz, and either/both in comparison to either Hillary or Bernie is yuuuuuuge!
Who becomes their party's nominee will set the immediate path for that party. Who wins the presidency will especially set the short-term path for his/her party, whereas the losing party is more likely to be subject to change. If this assessment is correct, November results probably will encourage longer-term party changes (as measured over decades; I date back to FDR), but more so for losers than winners.
Note: The differences between Trump and Cruz, and either/both in comparison to either Hillary or Bernie is yuuuuuuge!
1
"It is Mr. Sanders, not Mrs. Clinton, who has had to modify his message." of course Mr. Sanders is running as a Democrat not as a socialist. Also Bill Clinton needs to step aside and let Mrs. Clinton to address what she stands for which she is doing rather well.
Jim Webb will make a great VP candidate to Mrs. Clinton and after New York primary where Clinton is expected to win Mr. Sanders needs to step aside and support the Party to which he is running for.
Jim Webb will make a great VP candidate to Mrs. Clinton and after New York primary where Clinton is expected to win Mr. Sanders needs to step aside and support the Party to which he is running for.
6
Sushova,
Even if your statistics were spot on (they're not), It makes no sense to declare any sort of fealty to her majesty until all the states get their rightful say and that the party platform is established at the convention.
She badly needs to sharpen her campaign teeth; that's for certain.
Don't worry about money. Her backers share cavernous pockets.
Even if your statistics were spot on (they're not), It makes no sense to declare any sort of fealty to her majesty until all the states get their rightful say and that the party platform is established at the convention.
She badly needs to sharpen her campaign teeth; that's for certain.
Don't worry about money. Her backers share cavernous pockets.
1
Bernie's not going anywhere. See you at the convention, Sushova.
Hard to take seriously the prognostications of anyone who calls Hilary Clinton "progressive." Thirty years ago someone with her views and record would have been considered a moderate Republican. It's only because the GOP has drifted so radically to the right that Clinton may be considered "progressive." As president, she will continue the same pro-big-bank, pro-Wall Street, pro-state-surveillance, pro-drone-war, pro-corporate-health-insurance agenda as Barack Obama (also a phony "progressive").
82
I think that's the point: Hillary is social progressive, but economically not. Kind of the Republicans in the 1890s with what passed as social progressive then.
This article is a theorist's hallucination about why the voters support a candidate. Does anyone actually believe that the majority of Republicans that support Cruz do so because they agree with his values. Do they think that Clinton supporters desire her election because they agree with all her stated positions.
Elections for the majority of adults involves the choice of the best compromise based on character, positions, political leverage, historical relevance, and comparison with the other candidates. Yes, some youth vote blindly for espoused ideals, and in troubled times desperation swells this component - like Eugene MCarthy during the Vietnam war. Yes, some idealogues vote for single issue symbols - George Wallace during the integration confrontations. And yes, some voters give so little thought to governance, that they believe that taxes should be abolished, so that we can have the world's strongest military, and society can right its inequities through American exceptionalism and the free market.
However, most voters think hard about the consequences of their votes and compromise their actual positions to elect a viable candidate. To believe that there is a Clintonism or Trumpism is idiocy. One is the lesser of many evils, the other a evil of many lessers.
Elections for the majority of adults involves the choice of the best compromise based on character, positions, political leverage, historical relevance, and comparison with the other candidates. Yes, some youth vote blindly for espoused ideals, and in troubled times desperation swells this component - like Eugene MCarthy during the Vietnam war. Yes, some idealogues vote for single issue symbols - George Wallace during the integration confrontations. And yes, some voters give so little thought to governance, that they believe that taxes should be abolished, so that we can have the world's strongest military, and society can right its inequities through American exceptionalism and the free market.
However, most voters think hard about the consequences of their votes and compromise their actual positions to elect a viable candidate. To believe that there is a Clintonism or Trumpism is idiocy. One is the lesser of many evils, the other a evil of many lessers.
13
One gathers from this column that the New America foundation is an orbital space base that limits the observer to noticing movements and changes on the planet below and then guessing what they mean, the way Lowell saw canals on Mars and assumed there was a colossal civilization there. Stripped of the excrescent "isms" and academic crapola, this is a feeble prognostication about what might happen if the "reasons" behind "for all these reasons" are sound at all.
There can't be more qualified, maybe-kind-sorta way to forecast the future of the Right than to abstractify every tangible person, decision, and fact of the situation, and then to wrap it in this filo dough of jargon. This is why political think tanks are so worthless right now. They don't get down on the ground with the real decisions, technologies and behaviors that underlie political evolution.
$100 says that Michael Lind can't pass this quiz:
1. Define a kilowatt hour and a kilowatt and highlight the distinction between them.
2. What is a feed-in tariff and who cares?
3. What difference will QR codes make for American healthcare policy?
4. Will the Martians who made the canals Lowell saw attack the Earth someday?
There can't be more qualified, maybe-kind-sorta way to forecast the future of the Right than to abstractify every tangible person, decision, and fact of the situation, and then to wrap it in this filo dough of jargon. This is why political think tanks are so worthless right now. They don't get down on the ground with the real decisions, technologies and behaviors that underlie political evolution.
$100 says that Michael Lind can't pass this quiz:
1. Define a kilowatt hour and a kilowatt and highlight the distinction between them.
2. What is a feed-in tariff and who cares?
3. What difference will QR codes make for American healthcare policy?
4. Will the Martians who made the canals Lowell saw attack the Earth someday?
10
I don't know where these brilliant "political analysts" like Lind get their crystal balls, but they're almost always cracked one way or another. Prediction is very hard, especially about the future, as someone once said, and social and political futures are nearly impossible to predict.
I clearly remember the end of the Eisenhower administration, and neither I nor anyone else predicted what would actually happen in the next couple of decades. Let's leave this future-gazing to the astrologers and palm-readers.
I clearly remember the end of the Eisenhower administration, and neither I nor anyone else predicted what would actually happen in the next couple of decades. Let's leave this future-gazing to the astrologers and palm-readers.
18
For all these surface changes and realignments the only constant since WWII has been the rich pay fewer taxes and the rest pay more. All of your so called changes have been and will remain slight of hand misdirections.
29
Indeed, let's reverse Reaganism and go back to the pre-Reagan tax code. That would we an interesting experiment, a test of the no tax orthodoxy which has ruled our country for 35 years.
'Half a century ago, as the Age of Aquarius gave way to the Age of Reagan, many of the hippies of the ’60s became, in effect, the yuppies of the ’80s — still socially liberal, but with new concerns about government spending, now that they were paying taxes and mortgages.' First of all, there ain't gonna be no Silicon Valley tech revolution, or economic boom in new jobs, or new technology to rescue the millenials from seriously facing the gradual crisis of an economy succumbing to automatization and globalization. We may well be on the verge of what writers like Jeremy Rifkin have called 'the end of work.' I do not see this gen of millenials even closely being faced with the sort of boom and bust world the kids of the 80s and 90s faced. The real issue IS the redistribution of the unequal gains of three-hundred years of capitalistic profits based on slavery. Clinton and Trump , yes, are moving ever nearer the center, but as WBY said 'the center cannot hold.' At least it cannot hold without a good deal of repression and alienation of the poor. Sanders is the only candidate who is prepared to take on the dystopia ahead of us if we do not face capitalism's growing crisis of inequality.
34
Wishing it so doesn't make it so. Hillary is pretty much the opposite of transformative. Win or lose, her only legacy will be smashing the glass ceiling.
9
Works for me.
1
Hmmm. Not one mention of Elizabeth Warren. I guess she does not exist.
27
Michael Lind is a stunning synthesist and writer. Wow and wow. There is so much analysis and insight in this one article it would take reading it 5 x to get it all. While I enjoy the musings of Brooks, Bruni, Freidman et al, this guy puts the information in the news.
How about more analysis and less impression-opinion in the NYT?! By this, I mean, for example, Mr. Bruni's or Ms. Dowd's pieces are more feelings-impressions, which while entertaining, are not terribly insightful as much as they should be. For every useful insight Dowd has in her column today, Lind has 20.
How about more analysis and less impression-opinion in the NYT?! By this, I mean, for example, Mr. Bruni's or Ms. Dowd's pieces are more feelings-impressions, which while entertaining, are not terribly insightful as much as they should be. For every useful insight Dowd has in her column today, Lind has 20.
1
Clinton cannot be the future of the democratic party because:
1. She is a militarist who will start dangerous wars.
2. Clinton is the conduit through which big money influences politics.
3. She has no core values and remains the national liar
4. She will not be able to reform the criminal justice, immigration or bring economic strength back to the middle class because she has no commitment to these policies.
5. Her globalization policies are unacceptable to growing concern for loss of jobs to low wage economies.
This article contradicts itself because both Bernie and Trump are addressing the same issues and receiving support from those who have been left behind. Why would democrats choose someone who does not address their issues. Centrist politics is a thing of the past.
1. She is a militarist who will start dangerous wars.
2. Clinton is the conduit through which big money influences politics.
3. She has no core values and remains the national liar
4. She will not be able to reform the criminal justice, immigration or bring economic strength back to the middle class because she has no commitment to these policies.
5. Her globalization policies are unacceptable to growing concern for loss of jobs to low wage economies.
This article contradicts itself because both Bernie and Trump are addressing the same issues and receiving support from those who have been left behind. Why would democrats choose someone who does not address their issues. Centrist politics is a thing of the past.
17
Of the howlers you list, I'll just address one: that Hillary Clinton is the "national liar." Politifact reviewed statements by all the candidates for truthfulness. Most truthful candidates: Clinton, Sanders, Kasich. Least truthful candidate: Donald Trump by a wide margin, followed by Ted Cruz.
1
This is self-serving rubbish. The New America Foundation is part of the Clinton Political Machine and shills for Hillary. CEO Anne-Marie Slaughter worked for Hillary at the State Department and is among her most ardent supporters. Lind fails to recognize that we are in an interregnum-- that fraught moment between a dying establishment and the emergence of a new order that is not yet formed. The Clinton's are the past. Despite his years, Bernie's movement represents the future. A movement to re-imagine the American Dream after the long neo-liberal nightmare.
33
It is true that the migration of working class whites to the Republican party was in process by the 1990's, but I disagree that President Clinton was not significant in that shift. Clinton was monumentally important. He was the first Democratic with national reach to significantly change the terms and the policies of the Democratic party. Through words, symbols, and actions, he said Democrats are pro business, and pro business elites. He also said, in so many words, to the working class:
I know this appears like a betrayal, but we are doing this for you. The best thing for you in the long run are policies that are pro-business. Free-trade will be good for you. Goods will be cheaper, and, after some disruption, they'll be more jobs. Weaker unions will be good for. Unions impede growth and make both individuals and industries uncompetitive. Financial deregulation will be good for you. Banks are the engines of growth. Creating a world-wide, high integrity, frictionless system for international capital flows will be good for you. The capitalists only move their money around for good reason.
A large portion of the Democratic coalition in Clinton's time were the working class. As a country we have run the experiment. One by one, most people in the working class have seen that the a "trickle down" effect of the pro-business policies have turned out to work against them, not for them. Democrats just can't snow people when there is 20 yrs of evidence.
I know this appears like a betrayal, but we are doing this for you. The best thing for you in the long run are policies that are pro-business. Free-trade will be good for you. Goods will be cheaper, and, after some disruption, they'll be more jobs. Weaker unions will be good for. Unions impede growth and make both individuals and industries uncompetitive. Financial deregulation will be good for you. Banks are the engines of growth. Creating a world-wide, high integrity, frictionless system for international capital flows will be good for you. The capitalists only move their money around for good reason.
A large portion of the Democratic coalition in Clinton's time were the working class. As a country we have run the experiment. One by one, most people in the working class have seen that the a "trickle down" effect of the pro-business policies have turned out to work against them, not for them. Democrats just can't snow people when there is 20 yrs of evidence.
12
Most of the working class have been republican since St. Reagan.
1
I am baffled how the words "young, youthful, idealistic" have turned into dismissive coded epithets for Bernie Sanders supporters by the Clinton Camp. Newsflash: A whopping number of Bernie Sanders supporters have as much grey around [our] temples as Sanders. We aren't relieving some utopia-lost longings for the Sex, Drug, Rock & Roll of the 1960s.
No. We are as afraid of the demise of our hoped for "golden years" in as much as those full-of-youth Sanders Supporters are, for their futures; strapped with five and six figure "education" debt and the prospects of entry-level wages that will follow *them* into their retirement years. No; neither demographic of Sanders supporters want the status-quo of a Hillary Clinton Presidency.
It strikes me that her supporters are as similar to the ones who support Candidates like Romney; those that are sitting pretty good [still] at the economic-table, believing they have nothing to worry about; and have little concern for anyone else- including their own children's and grandchildren's futures [sic].
Sadly, the Clinton-Camp name calling will make it all the harder to win us over should she become the Democratic Candidate- for we already realize that if this should occur- we've already lost and would see no difference between her and a Republican President.
No. We are as afraid of the demise of our hoped for "golden years" in as much as those full-of-youth Sanders Supporters are, for their futures; strapped with five and six figure "education" debt and the prospects of entry-level wages that will follow *them* into their retirement years. No; neither demographic of Sanders supporters want the status-quo of a Hillary Clinton Presidency.
It strikes me that her supporters are as similar to the ones who support Candidates like Romney; those that are sitting pretty good [still] at the economic-table, believing they have nothing to worry about; and have little concern for anyone else- including their own children's and grandchildren's futures [sic].
Sadly, the Clinton-Camp name calling will make it all the harder to win us over should she become the Democratic Candidate- for we already realize that if this should occur- we've already lost and would see no difference between her and a Republican President.
32
Actually it didn't take the Clinton camp to come up with this . I myself was amazed when I read post by people who described themselves as "young, youthful and idealistic" followed by some of the rudest, most abrasive rhetoric I've ever heard in politics outside the republican party. I was young and idealistic once, but I wasn't rude.
1
While the younger voters might be the most enthusiastic about Sanders, there are plenty of voters like me who are totally fed up with the (anti)Democratic Party and the corruption and war mongering of their "presumptive" candidate. I'm a Medicare recipient, so you know I am no "naive" youngster (they get slurred by the Albrights and machine Dems just as Sanders does). Like them, I have no hope for my financial future, which was destroyed by the Wall St criminals who now own Clinton. I take classes with them and have a son, so my sympathies are totally with them. As is my vote.
I talk to my neighbors and associates, and very few in this progressive area are saying they will vote for Clinton. Even fewer Trump, but the overwhelming consensus is for Sanders. So called "journalists" writing for the NY Times are living in a bubble, protected by well paying jobs that didn't disappear in the recent depression-recession that Bush started and which Obama continued, and if elected, Hillary, will also continue.
I doubt many will be "uniting" behind Clinton once the Dems fix the primary. I definitely will not, having started out a little flexible about her, but the more I have researched her record and seen the Clinton media (NY Times) and Dem machine try to disrupt the democratic process, the more committed I am to voting for an alternative. It won't be a Republican, but it will be a woman. Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party. And Sanders will not sway me; it's MY vote.
I talk to my neighbors and associates, and very few in this progressive area are saying they will vote for Clinton. Even fewer Trump, but the overwhelming consensus is for Sanders. So called "journalists" writing for the NY Times are living in a bubble, protected by well paying jobs that didn't disappear in the recent depression-recession that Bush started and which Obama continued, and if elected, Hillary, will also continue.
I doubt many will be "uniting" behind Clinton once the Dems fix the primary. I definitely will not, having started out a little flexible about her, but the more I have researched her record and seen the Clinton media (NY Times) and Dem machine try to disrupt the democratic process, the more committed I am to voting for an alternative. It won't be a Republican, but it will be a woman. Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party. And Sanders will not sway me; it's MY vote.
27
Of course if it weren't for the democratic party working like hell since Ronald Regan you wouldn't have your medicare either.
1
Vote for Dr. Stein and have fun living under a Trump or Cruz presidency.
2
Is this another pre-primary spoof of the New York Times? Such a blatantly propagandistic essay on the eve of this monumental primary, from some obscure fellow of an obscure think tank - it's hard to believe the paper has fallen to this level. Clintonism as the future of the Democratic party?! It's beyond thinly disguised propaganda; it's just ridiculous. I have to wonder if it's designed to inflame Bernie supporters to a point where they can be discredited. It's designed for something, that's certain.
39
1992 was also a major realignment. Just look at the electoral college map before and since.
3
I agree that the ideology of Trump and Palin and Fox News = the Republican Party of 2024. But I do not think the Clinton Republicanism is going to be the future of the Democratic Party. Right now, Clintonism is being propped up by older voters who don't face the new economic forces at work in America. They have wealth left over from America's prosperous era, and they are awash in government subsidies targeting their age group. For them, the status quo is perfect. But those people are going to die, and although they will transfer wealth to younger people, I don't think it will be enough. Over time, there will be more and more people for whom the status quo doesn't work. Our government simply fails to deliver the services and policies that post-Boomer generations of "the 99%" need. And younger people are also better educated, and more aware that other countries long ago solved the problems that fester in America. Eventually, those voters will vote for functional government out of necessity. The author is completely out of touch with the under 50 crowd's economic reality. For example, he says they will come around when they have mortgages and taxes to pay. That's just it, though. When the education you must obtain in order to be employable costs more than a house because tax dollars that should fund universities are diverted to subsidize the Kochs, and you are paying 8% on your student loans when huge cos pay no tax, the cost of themortgage you wish you had is less worrisome.
17
No matter who wins the New York primaries on Tuesday....
Not a great start.
Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic primary and Donald Trump will win the Republican primary.
Not a great start.
Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic primary and Donald Trump will win the Republican primary.
1
And then Trump will be overwhelmingly defeated in a Clinton landslide that will break the GOP stranglehold on both houses of Congress.
The republicans have played a three card monte game on their working class constituents since Nixon. They increased their overall tax burden, deregulated away their unions and pensions and convinced them that the like the tax and spend government was their enemy. The hidden card: They slathered tax benefits onto the wealthy while dismantling the "tax and spend" government. And they enabled the creation of a huge predatory banking system that has became larger than the government itself.
18
Thanks for this penetrating analysis. I hope you're wrong, though, about the democrats' having to cater to what you're calling progressivism -- the manufactured search for racial and/or gender identity victimization of the sort that the NYTimes and the college-aged delight in -- instead of and indeed at the expense of addressing income-inequality and poverty, i.e. REAL problems that have won both Sanders and Trump the majority of their supporters.
You point out that "the social and racial issues that are important to today’s Democratic base, it is Mr. Sanders, not Mrs. Clinton, who has had to modify his message." But you're assuming that Sanders's acknowledging the substance of the BLM protests was the recognition of an issue very important to democratic voters, rather than just a tactical move to avoid further disruption his rallies. And your implicit reliance on Bernie's "charisma" for his success is unconvincing.
Let's hope that the future belongs to those who fight for economic equality rather than on the basis of identity politics.
You point out that "the social and racial issues that are important to today’s Democratic base, it is Mr. Sanders, not Mrs. Clinton, who has had to modify his message." But you're assuming that Sanders's acknowledging the substance of the BLM protests was the recognition of an issue very important to democratic voters, rather than just a tactical move to avoid further disruption his rallies. And your implicit reliance on Bernie's "charisma" for his success is unconvincing.
Let's hope that the future belongs to those who fight for economic equality rather than on the basis of identity politics.
7
Most Americans believe in free enterprise...not socialism. Bernie represents a small loud minority that will never achieve power. Watch how fast Hillary moves to the center once she secures the nomination.
7
Yes, free enterprise in our US of A is crony capitalism, free enterprise for the wealthy only.
Argh! Bernie believes in free enterprise - just not unregulated and unethical free enterprise. A socialist does not believe in free enterprise at all. Oh and the "center" you write of is pretty right-of-centre in the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand - in practically every comparable long established wealthy and developed democracy to the United States in the world. So in your comment you have actually unknowingly endorsed voting for Bernie while people still can.
Reality check for Sanders fans.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-is-winning-the-states-that-l...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-is-winning-the-states-that-l...
5
reality check, 538 shills for hillary
I read that piece and it is total garbage. Sanders' claim, whether one likes him or not, is that Mrs. Clinton is winning in states which consistently have voted for the Republican candidate in the general election by large margins. This includes Bush Sr, Dole, Bush jr, McCain and Romney. So there is no reason to think they will suddenly vote Democratic. Furthermore, with their voter ID laws aimed at disenfranchising Blacks and Latinos, they will skew the vote more in favor of the Republicans. The data already backs this since the Republican "turnout" has been higher than average while the Democratic turnout has been lesser than 2008. (I use the quotes since turnout is now also dependent on whether you are allowed to vote, not just showing up at the polling station.)
Then the insinuation that Sanders was slighting Blacks or Hispanics is also false. Sanders has argued in many instances how the Southern voters are voting Conservative and hurting their own self-interest, and how he foresees a time when they will vote Democratic, but it is not yet here. As for Blacks and Latinos he is not as well known as Hillary and that is life.
Finally, Sanders or not, the fact that Hillary is barely winning or even losing in strongly Democratic states reflects a rejection of her candidacy by a large portion of that state. This is a harsh truth folks - Mrs. C has strong mistrust issues and people have chosen to show it. This will reduce the turnout in November and hurt Dems across the board.
Then the insinuation that Sanders was slighting Blacks or Hispanics is also false. Sanders has argued in many instances how the Southern voters are voting Conservative and hurting their own self-interest, and how he foresees a time when they will vote Democratic, but it is not yet here. As for Blacks and Latinos he is not as well known as Hillary and that is life.
Finally, Sanders or not, the fact that Hillary is barely winning or even losing in strongly Democratic states reflects a rejection of her candidacy by a large portion of that state. This is a harsh truth folks - Mrs. C has strong mistrust issues and people have chosen to show it. This will reduce the turnout in November and hurt Dems across the board.
The working class Republican battle cry: "Get the Federal government the heck out of my life, but leave my Social Security and Medicare alone."
7
This makes some logical sense in that Social Security and Medicare are funds a person pays into (this become especially clear if you spend a few years self employed. You send a huge chunk of money, 16% of your earnings, to the social security fund.)
The fund is personalized, so you get a statement every year detailing what you paid in and what you have.
So If people start to think of it as an asset they have, that the government is managing, that's reasonable and somewhat inherent in how it's set up.
I see it that way to some extent. The years I was self employed, I didn't hide income and made alll my payments. Those years, my social security fund grew due to my payments.
I (like most people) also to some extent don't trust it (social security) , because I to some extent don't trust the entity managing it. So I have other private funds (like many people (and I can see the "hands off my social security)
The fund is personalized, so you get a statement every year detailing what you paid in and what you have.
So If people start to think of it as an asset they have, that the government is managing, that's reasonable and somewhat inherent in how it's set up.
I see it that way to some extent. The years I was self employed, I didn't hide income and made alll my payments. Those years, my social security fund grew due to my payments.
I (like most people) also to some extent don't trust it (social security) , because I to some extent don't trust the entity managing it. So I have other private funds (like many people (and I can see the "hands off my social security)
Having been in a class at the Grad Center of CUNY I saw at close hand a older professor who is a Marxist call for a return to Marxism on campus and the push back he received from one of my Gay classmates who saw the world through the prism of the "politics of personal identity" and wanted nothing to do with Marxism.
7
More nonsense from The Times. The future of the Democratic party is not Clintonism. Clintonism has destroyed the Democratic party. The corruption and dishonesty of Clintonism is greatly responsible for alienation and a lack of participation. That is irrefutable. The future of the party is a return to tradition and principle. That's what the Sanders revolution is all about. He is a mainstream Democrat from my father's generation.
40
yes...nonsense
Sorry, Mr. Lind, but "Clintonism", as you call it, will have very little to do with the Democratic Party. Senator Sanders has reminded voters, especially young ones, of the party's modern, Depression-era roots, and that genie will not go quietly back into the lamp.
The longer the campaign goes on, the worse it is for Mrs. Clinton. She may be the eventual nominee, and she may win the White House, but the idea of a domestic neoliberal policy coupled with neoconservatism on the foreign policy front is over.
And the "Trump Republicans" only matter during the primaries. It remains to be seen if, as an organized entity, they can even survive after November.
The longer the campaign goes on, the worse it is for Mrs. Clinton. She may be the eventual nominee, and she may win the White House, but the idea of a domestic neoliberal policy coupled with neoconservatism on the foreign policy front is over.
And the "Trump Republicans" only matter during the primaries. It remains to be seen if, as an organized entity, they can even survive after November.
6
Mr Lind's profound and provocative essay makes a lot of sense. But I wonder if he doesn't first underestimate the continued power of the moneyed libertarians and the religious conservatives on the Right (as evidenced by Cruz's successes in winning Republican delegates) and the continued role of working class voters on the Left (shared by both Clinton and Sanders). This may mean a destructive division between the donor class and the organized social conservatives against the working class populists on the Republican side this fall and into the future. I suspect that the Sanders and Clinton camps will find it rather easier to reconcile, and, if they can find ways of extending the multi-ethnic-gender-environmental coalition with concerns of working people (like raising the minimum wage and pro-working family legislation), the Democrats should win. We should not be deluded into thinking white working people are mostly racist xenophobes or that most white working class men are sexists.
5
I think you are stuck in a large tree and somehow missing the forest. Whether Hillary wins or not, it is Bernie's ideas that will gain ground in the future. The damning inequality that has been allowed to flourish under a GOP do nothing Congress and the constant triangulation of Clintonian "pragmatism" have been revealed as the ugly policies they are. I believe they will not go forward unchecked no matter who wins this round. KA
29
Lind doesn't understand the progressive movement underway in this country. The struggles of the 99% will not go away, and so the movement can only grow. The Sanders' coalition has subsumed existing movements, such as Occupy Wall Street and, to some extent, Black Lives Matter, as well as environmental groups who are near fever-pitch about Climate Change. This movement is growing, not quietly drifting away, and with new voters turning voting age every day, it will either overpower the establishment wing of the Democratic Party or break off to form (or join) another party. The Establishment will wail and rail and cheat and steal to try to hang on by its nails, but it will ultimately fail to retain control because it fails to adequately represent the majority of those it purports to serve. The sleeping dog--dragon?--has been awakened, and we refuse to go back to what the Democratic Party has to offer: tax exploitation and the crumbs of a prosperous society.
21
A political advertisement brought to you by Anne-Marie Slaughter former Director of Policy Planning for the State Department under Sec. Hillary Clinton and now the president of New America. Let's see, if this is your usual pro- Hillary, anti-Bernie opening shot before a primary then what you have planned for Monday must be a doozy.
30
The most depressing article ever. The USA is a problem someone may try to fix. It will not be pretty
6
This analysis completely ignores the fate of the socially-conservative, anti-federal right. This has been a bad year for them, but the Ted Cruz right may be waiting for a more charismatic leader to emerge (and his name may well be Paul Ryan).
This major social group does not fit in this analysis. A presidential bid by Ryan in 2020 or 2024 could alter the scenario envisioned here.
This major social group does not fit in this analysis. A presidential bid by Ryan in 2020 or 2024 could alter the scenario envisioned here.
3
Michael Lind is wrong on the core and critically important component of the Republican orthodoxy and so-called Reaganomics- tax cuts for the wealthy. In terms of huge tax cuts for the 1 percent, cutting the top rate for the .001 percent in particular, Cruz and Trump are far more Reaganites than any Republican running for the President's office, including Reagan himself. Therefore, there is little change at the heart of the Republican core policy orthodoxy. The only difference is that white working class has been conned yet again, this time by Trumpism
Assuming Lind is correct than: which party in American will speaks for market capitalism? Reagan, fused huge dose of military Keynesianism with a modified national-debt laden semi libertarian 'supply side' tax cuts. Together with Volker's Fed ringing the Carter years inflation, Reaganism set the stage for both economic growth and sustained inequality.
Likewise, Clintonomics broad-based middle class tax cuts, tax credits for the working class, in conjunction with higher tax rates on the wealthy, welfare reform and competent delivery of public goods, delivered the best economic performance in 50 years. If neither Trumpism nor new Clintonism speak for a core strategy of economic growth, what of the fate of modern capitalism as the foundation of American economic way of life? Lind misses the elephant in the room.
Assuming Lind is correct than: which party in American will speaks for market capitalism? Reagan, fused huge dose of military Keynesianism with a modified national-debt laden semi libertarian 'supply side' tax cuts. Together with Volker's Fed ringing the Carter years inflation, Reaganism set the stage for both economic growth and sustained inequality.
Likewise, Clintonomics broad-based middle class tax cuts, tax credits for the working class, in conjunction with higher tax rates on the wealthy, welfare reform and competent delivery of public goods, delivered the best economic performance in 50 years. If neither Trumpism nor new Clintonism speak for a core strategy of economic growth, what of the fate of modern capitalism as the foundation of American economic way of life? Lind misses the elephant in the room.
Jim Bob,
"what is the fate of modern capitalism"
Good question. It depends on what you mean by modern capitalism.
Nothing about "Clintonism" as described is antithetical to a free market system as defined by Adam Smith. If properly implemented, it would drive a stake through the heart of the laissez-faire, monopolistic, Fascist-lite model that is being promoted by the Republicans.
You should check out the moves by the Obama administration to increase competition; I think the headline refers to tv set-top-boxes but that is just one example. This kind of incremental regulatory approach is what's going to work; my favorite area for it would be in electrical utilities, to allow greater penetration of renewables.
"what is the fate of modern capitalism"
Good question. It depends on what you mean by modern capitalism.
Nothing about "Clintonism" as described is antithetical to a free market system as defined by Adam Smith. If properly implemented, it would drive a stake through the heart of the laissez-faire, monopolistic, Fascist-lite model that is being promoted by the Republicans.
You should check out the moves by the Obama administration to increase competition; I think the headline refers to tv set-top-boxes but that is just one example. This kind of incremental regulatory approach is what's going to work; my favorite area for it would be in electrical utilities, to allow greater penetration of renewables.
2
Mmmmm - Not a word about climate change. Nothing abt foreign wars. About China. The Middle East.
Mr Lind has his eyes firmly fixed on the past, and on a self-contained, and dare I say it, smug and complacent America.
I would suggest that he lift his eyes and look around a bit. Things are changing in ways that are far more profound and potentially devastating than this narrowly focused article suggests.
Mr Lind has his eyes firmly fixed on the past, and on a self-contained, and dare I say it, smug and complacent America.
I would suggest that he lift his eyes and look around a bit. Things are changing in ways that are far more profound and potentially devastating than this narrowly focused article suggests.
23
If the electorate could be cryogenically frozen for the next 50 years, this author's analysis MIGHT be accurate. However, the 40 and under demographic now appears to be overwhelmingly liberal. And, their opinions don't seem to be changing as they age. They went to work in an America with falling wages, low rates of homeownership, high unemployment (especially for those under 40 without a college degree) and political dysfunction. Clintonism offers little hope for changing this reality, and Trumpism will never attract a heterogeneous coalition of Hispanic, Asian, or black supporters needed to be competitive. After Trump's last hurrah ends in a landslide defeat, the future lines of conflict in the US will be drawn around a more conservative Clintonism and a reactionary, populist left. The aging boomers will keep Clintonism viable until their 401Ks are destroyed in the next financial crisis, and then we'll see some real fireworks. Who knows what American politics will look like when climate change begins to cut deeply into economic growth, and millions living on the East Coast watch their property being swallowed up by the sea?
7
Is the Times aware that neither Trump nor Clinton has been nominated yet?
28
Yes, things will remain the same!
Hillary Clinton and her Goldman Sachs $200K+ speeches:
“[The speech] was pretty glowing about [Goldman Sachs]. It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a ‘rah-rah’ speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/release-of-clintons-wall-str...
Hillary Clinton and her Goldman Sachs $200K+ speeches:
“[The speech] was pretty glowing about [Goldman Sachs]. It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a ‘rah-rah’ speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/release-of-clintons-wall-str...
13
While I always find Mr Lind's commentary provocative, I think he is missing the central point.The changes we are seeing in the electorate are almost entirely generational.They reflect the growing influence of the millennials who are 80 million strong....are racial diverse, and want government to give back to the 'community'.They are not obsessed with the idea of big government,deficit spending,national debt and slashing taxes.It is their influence that is rippling through society....their voting behavior will soon catch up.Bernie Sanders has .perhaps inadvertently,brought them out of the ideological closet.
The baby boomers,although much maligned in later years,had a similar influence on government.During their time we got Medicare,the concept of equal rights for women,the Civil Rights Act,the end of the draft,the withdrawal from Vietnam and the internet. These were huge changes that have greatly changed our lives and set the stage for the current debate.It is embarrassingly simple.....it is the young who ultimately bring about societal change
As for the Republicans.....twelves states in the middle of the country with a combined population less than greater Los Angeles cannot continue to control the country and ...the deep south is changing.
One more thing regarding Sanders and his plans.The VSP thought that Medicare would never work...it was an impossible dream.As an elderly cancer survivor.I'm glad they were so....so wrong..
The baby boomers,although much maligned in later years,had a similar influence on government.During their time we got Medicare,the concept of equal rights for women,the Civil Rights Act,the end of the draft,the withdrawal from Vietnam and the internet. These were huge changes that have greatly changed our lives and set the stage for the current debate.It is embarrassingly simple.....it is the young who ultimately bring about societal change
As for the Republicans.....twelves states in the middle of the country with a combined population less than greater Los Angeles cannot continue to control the country and ...the deep south is changing.
One more thing regarding Sanders and his plans.The VSP thought that Medicare would never work...it was an impossible dream.As an elderly cancer survivor.I'm glad they were so....so wrong..
25
@iamcynic1
You're making stuff up. No one credible thought that Medicare wouldn't work. There was a lot Republican resistance to Medicaid and it took about 15 years before all the states adopted it but that's another issue. Sanders plans are largely hand waving of one sort and another. Magic spells will bring single payer healthcare and free higher education while shooting every third person working in the financial industry will solve the problems there.
You're making stuff up. No one credible thought that Medicare wouldn't work. There was a lot Republican resistance to Medicaid and it took about 15 years before all the states adopted it but that's another issue. Sanders plans are largely hand waving of one sort and another. Magic spells will bring single payer healthcare and free higher education while shooting every third person working in the financial industry will solve the problems there.
4
I think this authors should have also gone out and spoken to some actual voters.
17
The Clintons are not center left they are on the right. The problem is that the electorate has moved so far to the right that columnists comport themselves that people like Obama or the Clintons are somehow for the people when in fact they have gravitated to the right. Bill Clinton's presidency and his strategy of triangulation was a way for him to move far enough to the right so that he could be on the left of the Republicans and win elections. The Crime Bill, Welfare Reform and his efforts to promote multinationals certainly were to the right of center. Hillary Clinton is a corporatist of the Democratic establishment.
18
The comment above, that the Clintons are on the right, is nonsense. I'm really tired of hearing Hillary Clinton painted as a neo-Republican. She is strongly in support of women's health and reproductive rights, and always has been. That in itself places her firmly on the left. If you live in Texas, this is not a theoretical issue. This is real life -- clinics are closing and the options for women who seek healthcare are severely limited, thanks to the Republican policies. We need a strong woman leader to take the country back to a rational, science-based (not faith-based) approach to women's healthcare and reproduction.
This analysis has some interesting points but is too complex and it overlooks the economic anxiety that driving voters throughout the political spectrum. In an essay called "Tarnished Ideas: Free-Trade and Shareholder Wealth Maximization" (http://bit.ly/1NgHlvA), I argue that the overarching cause is rising return on capital and the falling return on labor. The parties are struggling with how to address the fallout. For a long time, home ownership provided a way for average voters to participate in the return on capital, but that is harder now. All are exposed to the anxiety of a diminishing return on labor.
13
"For their part, the Republicans of 2016 rely for their votes on the Southern white and Northern white working-class constituencies that were once the mainstays of the other party. " I don't agree at all. I know my 91 year old totally Democratic and still donating her dollars to the party mother would not agree. I grew up in a family of construction workers -- people who build World Trade and Shoreham. My grandfather and my great uncle were union delegates beginning in the 1920s. The union is central to us. And nobody in my family is Republican. Nobody would dream of ever voting for a Republican. Maybe, sir, you just don't hang with true union people. Power to the people!
11
This article ignores a glaring development that will loom large in our future. Early on the Koch brothers and other savvy, wealthy conservative forces recognized the tide of the voting population was running against them and decided to concentrate on their strength - the government of the states that were right leaning. This visionary program has been very successful, allowing them to set state agendas on taxes, abortion, immigration, and other hot button social issues. They also, beginning in 2010, came to dominate congress through gerrymandering and oppressive voter laws, bypassing the will of the majority of Americans. Until the issue of unfair voting laws is addressed we can expect the GOP's grip on the House to block any truly progressive legislation irregardless of who sits in the oval office.
18
The Kochs are also spearheading a multi-million dollar anti-Hillary social media campaign that's been going on for two years now. Other GOP SuperPACs are doing the same. Their goal is to divide the Democratic Party by driving a wedge between Clinton and Sanders supporters, because the GOP believes Sanders can be beaten. Look closely at these comments--when you see one that champions Sanders and denigrates Hillary, read it with a grain of salt--it could easily be a plant.
From my point of view, Obama was a step leftward from WJC, and Hillary is a half step (thanks Bernie) left from Obama. The transition is far from complete in both parties, but the direction the Democrats are taking is clear when you look at the policies that support the rhetoric of the candidates.
For all the bluster coming from the right, the leading candidates are appealing to fear and nothing else. I cannot see concrete policies stemming from fear, other than building a wall. I don't see what grand purpose is served by repealing the ACA, especially when the candidates do not propose alternatives.
For all the bluster coming from the right, the leading candidates are appealing to fear and nothing else. I cannot see concrete policies stemming from fear, other than building a wall. I don't see what grand purpose is served by repealing the ACA, especially when the candidates do not propose alternatives.
5
There is no Clintonism?
Reagan is viewed positively by many because he won -- those that came of age in the late 70's remember what a mess the country was in ... the 80's and 90's were better for most.
The country is in a similar malaise today ... if Sanders were to win and his policies make a positive difference ... his voters will remember and remain folders of his doctrine.
HRC will say what is necessary .. it's all about the prize.
Reagan is viewed positively by many because he won -- those that came of age in the late 70's remember what a mess the country was in ... the 80's and 90's were better for most.
The country is in a similar malaise today ... if Sanders were to win and his policies make a positive difference ... his voters will remember and remain folders of his doctrine.
HRC will say what is necessary .. it's all about the prize.
5
People...even ...young people...THINK....but I do believe that this writer
does not know this fact...because Michael Lind....is perhaps musing....yes..
just conjecturing...so folks do not believe everything you see or read or hear.
because ....it might not be true...and
this piece of poor journalism...is what I say it is..very poor journalism..
Go on to the next page...readers...
does not know this fact...because Michael Lind....is perhaps musing....yes..
just conjecturing...so folks do not believe everything you see or read or hear.
because ....it might not be true...and
this piece of poor journalism...is what I say it is..very poor journalism..
Go on to the next page...readers...
6
Till 2006 things were going very good, economy was doing great and people had jobs that really paid well and good jobs were easier to get than anywhere else in the world, people had banks giving loans at very low rates but some 'alarmist' folks saw defeat in this prosperity. They started telling how debt is rising, deficit is rising and china is buying too much of treasury notes, real estate is rigged; it was all full of politics without giving thought to real problems. They wanted the system to fail, to fail it horribly and it did fail and is still not back to way it was. They got their politics right but the people had to pay the price and are still paying. Had their criticism been less politically motivated they would have pressed for solutions (and there were those available at that time, like systemically reducing concentration of exposure to MBS) but they wanted the system to fail. Even now they are pressing for punishing the good guys who were conservative in risk taking.
2
There are some interesting ideas here; but I think we should wait and see what happens in Cleveland before jumping to conclusions. It may be that the populist tide will carry Trump to the nomination leaving establishment Republican flotsam and jetsam in his wake. (Love those mixed metaphors!) But the tide of history and technology will be difficult to sweep away. The jobs in China, Mexico, Viet Nam and elsewhere are never coming back; the illegal immigrants are here to stay; and there will be no wall on the Mexican border. What happens to populist sentiment when, like the social conservative priorities of the religious right, they founder on the shoals of changing demographics and culture? What happens when the populists realize that better negotiation will not cure all ills?
1
They move into fully incorporated gated communities.
Clintonism is not about politics. It is about morality.
"Hillary" means never having to say I'm sorry, which makes the headline in a companion opinion piece today, "Hillary Is Not Sorry," seem like a non-working title, if not a non sequitur.
It is neither, though. As Maureen Dowd's surgical dissection exposes, the problem isn't what the moribund Mrs. Clinton failed to say. It's what she did. Ultimately, it's who she is.
Even if Mrs Clinton were capable of remorse, that is hardly enough.
When evaluating Hillary Clinton, one must be careful not to confuse words or policy with character, cold-blooded with dispassionate, calculating with wise, wonky with competent or smart, corruption with success, and failure with experience.
"Hillary" means never having to say I'm sorry, which makes the headline in a companion opinion piece today, "Hillary Is Not Sorry," seem like a non-working title, if not a non sequitur.
It is neither, though. As Maureen Dowd's surgical dissection exposes, the problem isn't what the moribund Mrs. Clinton failed to say. It's what she did. Ultimately, it's who she is.
Even if Mrs Clinton were capable of remorse, that is hardly enough.
When evaluating Hillary Clinton, one must be careful not to confuse words or policy with character, cold-blooded with dispassionate, calculating with wise, wonky with competent or smart, corruption with success, and failure with experience.
9
Clintonism is like being supported by lobbies and defending the interests of big financial interest by using leftish retorics.
7
You may be right about Trump being the new face of the Republicans, but you are mistaken that "...the enthusiasm of the young for Bernie Sanders..." is not going to last. The Obama/Clinton doctrine of 'incremental change' will not stand before the global warming holocaust. Reality will force them to reject today's political orthodoxy of American exceptionalism.
5
I'm more concerned about the hysteria in some of these comments than I am about the hubris of the author. The sky is falling. Elect Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders is unelectable. Mrs. Clinton has not attacked Mr. Sanders for being a socialist. However, if he were to be nominated, a Cruz or a Trump would destroy him for that very reason. So many people don't get it: a socialist cannot be elected to anything in the United States outside of Vermont. Bernie Sanders is the dream candidate of the Republicans. They literally couldn't lose.
If anyone does not appreciate the intelligent proposals of Mrs. Clinton, that person really needs to think about what a Cruz or Trump would do to the people in this country and the world.
Bernie Sanders is unelectable. Mrs. Clinton has not attacked Mr. Sanders for being a socialist. However, if he were to be nominated, a Cruz or a Trump would destroy him for that very reason. So many people don't get it: a socialist cannot be elected to anything in the United States outside of Vermont. Bernie Sanders is the dream candidate of the Republicans. They literally couldn't lose.
If anyone does not appreciate the intelligent proposals of Mrs. Clinton, that person really needs to think about what a Cruz or Trump would do to the people in this country and the world.
8
To those who say that Trump would "eat Bernie alive" during the general, think again. Bernie will eat him alive. Do not underestimate Bernie Sanders.
The world is getting more and more complex but our citizens are becoming more and more ignorant. Instant gratification has created a populace that wants to grasp positions immediately without a minute of thought. How else can you explain a crude bottom feeder like Trump. This election year is the most discouraging in the 40 years I've been voting. And the biggest problem isn't even the candidates. It's a Republican Congress that no longer believes in consensus.
4
Text Animation: No one asked me but i tell what FEEL THE BERN/BURN means? All that oppression, exploitation, lower wages, denial of higher education that one had to undergo while the rich got richer. FEEL THAT BURN IN YOU! Let this slogan be YES WE CAN of 2016.
3
Persons who value education, a strong work ethic, technology solutions and business innovation , and personal success also identify with mainstream Republicans. Tom Hirons (below) casts his net in the shallows when he should be going for the deep water. His description of political constituencies doesn't nearly go far enough for either conservatives or liberals and demonstrates a profound lack of perspective on the sate of the electorate.
Well, it seems this article is saying that the Republican Party has moved to the trailer park....I hope they signed a hundred year lease!
4
There is no need to elevate The Donald to a position of lasting political significance. Once he he is eliminated, whether it be prior to or after the general election, there will be no such thing as "Trumpism". He is indeed an aberration and his major "contribution" to the future of the Republican party may be a breakup where hopefully introspection and the emergence of leaders with a modicum of intellectual heft can create one or more viable political parties.
51
You are assuming that "intellectual heft" is a Republican
value?
value?
Not at all. But neither do I think that they are totally bereft of such heft.
Martin L. is right about a likely breakup of the Republican party. As the Whigs collapsed 150 years ago, the Republicans may morph into something new today. However, it will likely not be a party of "intellectual heft." That too is wishful thinking. It's more likely to be a a harshly nativist and authoritarian version of Trumpism. And yet the simple fact is that we really don't know what will emerge. Most of our predictions (including those about both Trump and Sanders) have been wrong, and--here's my prediction--they will continue to be wrong..
9
> ... former Senator Jim Webb, the candidate who most fully represented the white Southern working-class base of the F.D.R.-to-L.B.J. Democrats, abandoned his campaign after receiving little support in a party that bears ever less resemblance to the New Deal Democrats.
Allow me to point out that the junior Senator from Vermont is running the Democratic primary. He is pretty much a New Deal Democrat. Granted, he's not getting much love from the party establishment but he's getting a lot support from individuals who believe that New-Deal-type policies seem like a good thing.
Allow me to point out that the junior Senator from Vermont is running the Democratic primary. He is pretty much a New Deal Democrat. Granted, he's not getting much love from the party establishment but he's getting a lot support from individuals who believe that New-Deal-type policies seem like a good thing.
10
Chris G
Boston area
Actually Sanders has never been a Democrat and he certainly bears little or no resemblance to FDR who was the supreme realist (and a considerable dissembler into the bargain). Perhaps when you grow up you'll learn that FDR passed most of his liberal new deal legislation with the votes of racist Southern Democrats.
Boston area
Actually Sanders has never been a Democrat and he certainly bears little or no resemblance to FDR who was the supreme realist (and a considerable dissembler into the bargain). Perhaps when you grow up you'll learn that FDR passed most of his liberal new deal legislation with the votes of racist Southern Democrats.
4
I'd prefer to see the rise of politics that takes into account the lives of average Americans no matter what generation they belong to. In many ways it's a mistake to slot people into particular generations. The baby boomers are really two generations lumped together as one. The outcomes for the earlier generation have been far better than the later one. And Generation -X and so on have the same concerns the rest of us have: making a decent living, having decent lives, being able to support themselves and their families, paying for the necessities while paying off college debts. How does that differ from what most of us have faced? We've faced shrinking job markets, horrible salaries and working conditions, a do nothing Congress, etc. This constant categorization seems to take the place of doing in politics and in local life or at work.
Guess what, all most of us want is the chance to have the lives our parents had or to do better. Many of us have not been able to. We've been born in the late 50s on up and we've seen pensions disappear, affordable housing vanish, medical costs and tuition costs skyrocket out of reach, and our politicians cater to corporations and their rich donors over us. A plague on both parties since both are fairly unresponsive to the average American no matter what generation she belongs to.
Guess what, all most of us want is the chance to have the lives our parents had or to do better. Many of us have not been able to. We've been born in the late 50s on up and we've seen pensions disappear, affordable housing vanish, medical costs and tuition costs skyrocket out of reach, and our politicians cater to corporations and their rich donors over us. A plague on both parties since both are fairly unresponsive to the average American no matter what generation she belongs to.
22
Yes, Hen3ry. Once again, a wise comment. I agree.
1
Perhaps there were pundits running up to 1776 that predicted the Colonist wouldn't sever ties with the Crown or prognosticators who didn't see 1789 in France, 1848 in Germany or 1917 in Russia. The political elites have created a volatile mixture in America of those who feel dispossessed. The original membership of the NSDAP was 7, the first communist cell in China was a few people in Shanghai and neither group had the means of a functionally free means of mass communication. Donald Trump would be a disaster for this Nation but Hillary Clinton is, perhaps, the most hated and distrusted person in America. In putting up these candidates the parties do no service to the Nation or to themselves and believing that boiling water of dissatisfaction will cool is like Canute ordering the waves to stop.
12
This column is ridiculous. Trump and Hillary are by far the two most hated candidates in America, and it's not just because of their personalities.
Cruz and Sanders are the future: a right wing zealot who works for the oil companies versus the first candidate since Carter who actually works for the people.
Cruz and Sanders are the future: a right wing zealot who works for the oil companies versus the first candidate since Carter who actually works for the people.
210
"Sanders...the first candidate since Carter who actually works for the people."
Not true!
While Carter did spend most of his life collecting a government check, he also functioned as a farmer, a sort of businessman, even if bolstered by agricultural subsidies.
Sanders never has a real job in his life nor created jobs for anyone else, except maybe his aids....
Not true!
While Carter did spend most of his life collecting a government check, he also functioned as a farmer, a sort of businessman, even if bolstered by agricultural subsidies.
Sanders never has a real job in his life nor created jobs for anyone else, except maybe his aids....
7
Lind is talking about political ideologies. You have just described two political figures. Those are completely different things.
The very fact that Clinton and Trump are so widely disliked and yet enjoy effectively unsurpassable leads in both the popular vote as well as pledged delegates is a testament to the durability of the political alignment Lind is describing.
The very fact that Clinton and Trump are so widely disliked and yet enjoy effectively unsurpassable leads in both the popular vote as well as pledged delegates is a testament to the durability of the political alignment Lind is describing.
1
This column is wrong on most accounts... Hillary, Trump and Cruz are outdated... Obama's hope and change largely failed despite his considerable and noteworthy efforts... Social democracy will be our system within 20 years.
This is very well written and reasonable, but essentially an analysis from the rear-view mirror, which reflects the politics of this election but, hopefully, not the future.
Eventually American workers and those in other countries have to come to the realization that populist demagoguery does not contain actual solutions to the main issues of the day.
Today, most American's actually believe that the economic malaise is either the result of the very wealthy selfishly taking more than there share by having companies ship jobs overseas and avoiding paying their share of taxes (and they need to pay much more), or much more irrationally, of it being the result of illegal workers taking their jobs.
What economists who have studied the issue often conclude is that technological innovation is the primary cause for a declining GLOBAL labor market and much of the political noise is a distraction from the crux of the matter. When the supply of labor exceeds demand, wages decline. When labor is reduced and productivity is increased profits increase for the investment class.
Raising the minimum wage will help for a while, but it will likely actually accelerate the shrinkage of human jobs as it becomes increasingly profitable to move to more automation, eliminating more low paying jobs.
Eventually all this will become clear and the nonsense will have to be replaced with real solutions. These solutions will be the real revolution Bernie's followers and waiting for.
Eventually American workers and those in other countries have to come to the realization that populist demagoguery does not contain actual solutions to the main issues of the day.
Today, most American's actually believe that the economic malaise is either the result of the very wealthy selfishly taking more than there share by having companies ship jobs overseas and avoiding paying their share of taxes (and they need to pay much more), or much more irrationally, of it being the result of illegal workers taking their jobs.
What economists who have studied the issue often conclude is that technological innovation is the primary cause for a declining GLOBAL labor market and much of the political noise is a distraction from the crux of the matter. When the supply of labor exceeds demand, wages decline. When labor is reduced and productivity is increased profits increase for the investment class.
Raising the minimum wage will help for a while, but it will likely actually accelerate the shrinkage of human jobs as it becomes increasingly profitable to move to more automation, eliminating more low paying jobs.
Eventually all this will become clear and the nonsense will have to be replaced with real solutions. These solutions will be the real revolution Bernie's followers and waiting for.
5
"Raising the minimum wage will help for a while, but it will likely actually accelerate the shrinkage of human jobs as it becomes increasingly profitable to move to more automation, eliminating more low paying jobs. "
The higher the minimum wage, the greater the incentive to replace no-skill, low-skill workers with increasingly less expensive and more capable automation.
The higher the minimum wage, the greater the incentive to replace no-skill, low-skill workers with increasingly less expensive and more capable automation.
1
The whole premise of this article is off base and rank with pessimism and entitlement. I would expect better from someone from such an institution. it doesn't make sense. This guy is no better than your average journalist who thinks they have specialized information when in fact they are relying on complete conjecture. I can only ask "what is your motivation?" Are you anti-Clinton? Pro-Trump? You make some accurate assessments of the past but your conclusions just seem non-academic and superfluous to me, and I am not burdened by thinking I know what is going to happen, or which democrat is going to win (obviously I think its going to be a democrat). If you are simply suggesting that the business orientation of Mr. Trump will reclaim its former place as the motivator of the republican party, I can only say thank the lord. But if you don't think something is being unearthed in this whole mess, you are very wrong. Hard line calcification of old party line rules (regardless of what name is given to the party) is not what is going on here.
7
This report, as many in the New York Times tend to do, almost blatantly ignores, and seeks to create the impression that this wave of disgust for "politics as usual", is no more than a fad, and that Clintonism will reestablish itself in short order.
Michael Lind, perhaps unwittingly, exposes his self-serving, and myopic beliefs, possibly having lived insulated from the everyday all-consuming hopelessness of the common people, those same people who are now wide awake, realizing that Trumpism and Clintonism are code words for the death of the American dream of Liberty and Justice for all.
The reality of Bernie Sanders is surfacing, like a nightmare, into the consciousness of the wholly avaricious power elites, shaking them to their core, flailing about in an attempt, any attempt to choke the life out of it, before it wreaks havoc in their ranks.
History is replete with instances such as we are now see in American politics, made so by policies that so favored the ruling elites, the poor and the middle-class had no choice but to fight back. lest they forever become the economic slaves these elites believe they are.
I predict this movement is here to stay, that the status quo is about to implode, and the people will do what they should have done a long time ago, which is honor the vision of the Founding Fathers by making this nation of ours "One Nation Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty, and Justice For All"
Bernie Sanders is the first, since FDR, willing to start over.
Michael Lind, perhaps unwittingly, exposes his self-serving, and myopic beliefs, possibly having lived insulated from the everyday all-consuming hopelessness of the common people, those same people who are now wide awake, realizing that Trumpism and Clintonism are code words for the death of the American dream of Liberty and Justice for all.
The reality of Bernie Sanders is surfacing, like a nightmare, into the consciousness of the wholly avaricious power elites, shaking them to their core, flailing about in an attempt, any attempt to choke the life out of it, before it wreaks havoc in their ranks.
History is replete with instances such as we are now see in American politics, made so by policies that so favored the ruling elites, the poor and the middle-class had no choice but to fight back. lest they forever become the economic slaves these elites believe they are.
I predict this movement is here to stay, that the status quo is about to implode, and the people will do what they should have done a long time ago, which is honor the vision of the Founding Fathers by making this nation of ours "One Nation Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty, and Justice For All"
Bernie Sanders is the first, since FDR, willing to start over.
41
Curiously, I well remember all the events catalogues here, yet with nothing like the same observations. Notwithstanding all the arguments against the thesis presented here, it is enough to say if diametric opposites are the future of the country, America will cease to lead and prosper in a troubled world.
1
The major issue that this article seems oblivious to, as was Secretary Clinton, is the major impact on "we the people" of the now financially rigged "globalized" economy.
The 99% mass of the people on the left and the right are hurting. And they are angry. And they don't want bought and paid for gerrymandered districts preventing them from being heard.
There is an "American Spring" boiling below the surface, and to try and hold it down with good ol' boys politics is gonna backfire eventually.
The 99% mass of the people on the left and the right are hurting. And they are angry. And they don't want bought and paid for gerrymandered districts preventing them from being heard.
There is an "American Spring" boiling below the surface, and to try and hold it down with good ol' boys politics is gonna backfire eventually.
17
Nothing stays the same, but patterns can be seen over time.
What does the author think will happen if Citizens United is allowed to stand? And the effect of TPP and TTIP if allowed by Congress? And our immigration system continues to be inadequate and ineffective at controlling abuse?
I think the effects of the candidates themselves are less the effects of these policies.
What does the author think will happen if Citizens United is allowed to stand? And the effect of TPP and TTIP if allowed by Congress? And our immigration system continues to be inadequate and ineffective at controlling abuse?
I think the effects of the candidates themselves are less the effects of these policies.
2
This analysis of our politics only works if we are inescapably headed to a future of dystopia not unlike the world presented in The Hunger Games.
It is possible that the oligarchy has already won and a future of perpetual wars that are really rooted in profit to the military industrial complex and a world in which health care becomes a privilege of wealth and not a human right is our future. If so, stop the world and let me off.
I am a caring, loving, politically progressive human being so of course I do not want a world built around Clintonism or Repugnant populism rooted in fear and hate of white working class people.
Just because we do not yet see the next Bernie Sanders does not mean she or he is out out there.
I have faith in millenials to stop the madness.
I am a strong Bernie supporter and not young. Tis essay does not enrage me but it does disturb me. It is disturbing when someone presenting as an educated, reasonable, analytical thinker casts such a dark shadow on the human future.
I will pray for Michael Lind. And I remind anyone reading this that think tanks are not reality. The New America foundation, where Lind works, is a think tank, not reality.
It is possible that the oligarchy has already won and a future of perpetual wars that are really rooted in profit to the military industrial complex and a world in which health care becomes a privilege of wealth and not a human right is our future. If so, stop the world and let me off.
I am a caring, loving, politically progressive human being so of course I do not want a world built around Clintonism or Repugnant populism rooted in fear and hate of white working class people.
Just because we do not yet see the next Bernie Sanders does not mean she or he is out out there.
I have faith in millenials to stop the madness.
I am a strong Bernie supporter and not young. Tis essay does not enrage me but it does disturb me. It is disturbing when someone presenting as an educated, reasonable, analytical thinker casts such a dark shadow on the human future.
I will pray for Michael Lind. And I remind anyone reading this that think tanks are not reality. The New America foundation, where Lind works, is a think tank, not reality.
22
The problem with Donald Trump isn't Trump himself...it's the people who support him. He'll be gone in Nov but his supporters will remain, causing trouble for America until they age out and are gone for good.
Mark Leibovich, the chief national correspondent for the Times, said in a podcast conversation with David Axelrod "It bothers me that so many lazy reporters keep repeating the same tired and inaccurate two words about Trump supporters, that they're 'angry and frustrated' - if they did real reporting and were more accurate they'd say they were 'racist and gullible.'"
Mark Leibovich, the chief national correspondent for the Times, said in a podcast conversation with David Axelrod "It bothers me that so many lazy reporters keep repeating the same tired and inaccurate two words about Trump supporters, that they're 'angry and frustrated' - if they did real reporting and were more accurate they'd say they were 'racist and gullible.'"
7
Do you have data to support your view, beyond the lazy anecdotal reporting in the New York Times?
I think republicans in general tire of the identity politics so clearly connected to the Democratic platform. It's pretty easy to simply label your opponents as racist, rather than openly discussing your policy positions.
What exactly has Trump said about African Americans that you find objectionable (besides the one graphic he retweeted, which he says was a mistake, which he admits he didn't read and thought was a pro law enforcement statement. It honestly is less objectionable than Clinton's PC skit. )
I think republicans in general tire of the identity politics so clearly connected to the Democratic platform. It's pretty easy to simply label your opponents as racist, rather than openly discussing your policy positions.
What exactly has Trump said about African Americans that you find objectionable (besides the one graphic he retweeted, which he says was a mistake, which he admits he didn't read and thought was a pro law enforcement statement. It honestly is less objectionable than Clinton's PC skit. )
Synopsis of this article: If one looks at the round weight at the bottom of the pendulum of a clock and labels the right side 'Republican' and the left side 'Democratic'; then sees this pendulum swings an arc described as only slightly left of center to far right, one quickly understands the political parties in the USA. Never has the Democratic party been "far left" and always the GOP has pulled far right. Only during special times has the pendulum come to rest at the center. We now experience the Democratic Party replacing the so-called centrist GOP of Eisenhower and TR.
9
Donald Trump has simultaneously shown us - quite vividly - that we need both better candidates and better voters.
8
With Trumpism and Clintonism upon us I hope Congress rises up and starts doing their job.
I am not high on either Trump or Clinton and hope someone will slow them down.
I am not high on either Trump or Clinton and hope someone will slow them down.
2
I don't know where the author sees a wish for more government benefits among Trump's supporters. Rather, there is an overwhelming passion for work in jobs that provide the opportunity for a middle class life. If they wanted handouts they would become Democrats.
On identity politics, about which the author is absolutely right: it's sad, and ultimately dooming. The Bush era Republicans tried to atomize the electorate and build a '50%+" coalition by demonizing gays, immigrants. It was a spectacular failure that launched President Obama. Similarly, deciding that you can ignore, or rather build hatred for and take political advantage of the hatred, for those evil white-blue collar male workers, will only strengthen the Right.
On identity politics, about which the author is absolutely right: it's sad, and ultimately dooming. The Bush era Republicans tried to atomize the electorate and build a '50%+" coalition by demonizing gays, immigrants. It was a spectacular failure that launched President Obama. Similarly, deciding that you can ignore, or rather build hatred for and take political advantage of the hatred, for those evil white-blue collar male workers, will only strengthen the Right.
2
I agree with you that Trump supporters want jobs, not handouts. They do however, want social security protected, and Medicare, which they have paid into.
Despite this, it is interesting that Trump has no policy positions on cutting welfare, food stamps and other assistance programs and thus defacto supports them. He attacked (misleadingly) the rise in Food Stamp payments under Obama as a way to emphasize (misleadingly) the rise in poverty, and not the use of food stamps to ameliorate it. (Clear in the context of the speech.)
Interestingly, Trump uses none of the typical racist code phrases of the Southern Strategy, and instead talks about bringing back jobs to all communities. In attacking him, liberals are defacto supporting the Southern Strategy; however, they do it in ignorance, having never bothered to listen to Trump.
Despite this, it is interesting that Trump has no policy positions on cutting welfare, food stamps and other assistance programs and thus defacto supports them. He attacked (misleadingly) the rise in Food Stamp payments under Obama as a way to emphasize (misleadingly) the rise in poverty, and not the use of food stamps to ameliorate it. (Clear in the context of the speech.)
Interestingly, Trump uses none of the typical racist code phrases of the Southern Strategy, and instead talks about bringing back jobs to all communities. In attacking him, liberals are defacto supporting the Southern Strategy; however, they do it in ignorance, having never bothered to listen to Trump.
1
The author is "whistling past the graveyard" when he touts Clintonism as the future of the Democratic Party. While Bernie Sanders is the candidate of more liberal wing of the Party, Elizabeth Warren is the true wellspring and would likely have swept to the nomination had she chosen to run.
Donald Trump is the political vanguard of a GOP that has been purging RINOs as it becomes more reactionary, it is no accident that Ted Cruz is the only other Republican candidate generating any meaningful support. Thankfully Trumpism looks to be leading the GOP to "Rumpism".
On the other side, Sanders is the leading edge of a liberal resurgence, not the ideal one, but someone who has been able to make it manifest. His appeal is not so much personal as it is philosophical. While it is highly probably that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic messenger in 2016, the message will largely belong to Sanders and even more so to Warrren.
Donald Trump is the political vanguard of a GOP that has been purging RINOs as it becomes more reactionary, it is no accident that Ted Cruz is the only other Republican candidate generating any meaningful support. Thankfully Trumpism looks to be leading the GOP to "Rumpism".
On the other side, Sanders is the leading edge of a liberal resurgence, not the ideal one, but someone who has been able to make it manifest. His appeal is not so much personal as it is philosophical. While it is highly probably that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic messenger in 2016, the message will largely belong to Sanders and even more so to Warrren.
39
Political parties are dead or dying. There is no future for these private political clubs owned by Wall Street.
33
Clintonism does not adequately grasp the real erosion in the middle-class--maybe because this is not a direct concern for many boomers. If your stance on Steagal, TPP, and Citizens United, your alignment with big banks, and your view of the environment are important, it's hard to see how Clintonism should continue.
43
OK, I don't know who or what Steagal is but if you think Hillary Clinton is pro Citizens United you are completely clueless. And what are you claiming about her environmental views?
I think the problem here is that a lot of young leftists have gotten hung up on certain markers. Like we have to have single-payer, nothing else could possibly be good enough. Why? The Netherlands doesn't have a single-payer system. They have private insurers that are subject to very strong regulation by the government. As I recall Hillarycare was modelled on the German system which also was not a classic single-payer system.
Yes it's easier to just pick certain symbols and ignore all the pesky details. That is to say easier to think about & argue for but then when you come to implement uh-oh, maybe we should have thought it through.
Vermont decided to implement their own single-payer system. What could go wrong? We all know that the high cost of healthcare in this country is solely caused by the greed of the insurance & pharmaceutical industries. Except that it's not. Doctors & other medical personnel make much more money here than in Europe so an affordable single-payer system has to cut their compensation. So what you ask? Well, if you make enemies of most doctors who then all tell their patients that your proposal will ruin our healthcare system things will not turn out well. In Vermont they realized they would have to double the state income tax rates, currently from 3.6% to 9.5%.
I think the problem here is that a lot of young leftists have gotten hung up on certain markers. Like we have to have single-payer, nothing else could possibly be good enough. Why? The Netherlands doesn't have a single-payer system. They have private insurers that are subject to very strong regulation by the government. As I recall Hillarycare was modelled on the German system which also was not a classic single-payer system.
Yes it's easier to just pick certain symbols and ignore all the pesky details. That is to say easier to think about & argue for but then when you come to implement uh-oh, maybe we should have thought it through.
Vermont decided to implement their own single-payer system. What could go wrong? We all know that the high cost of healthcare in this country is solely caused by the greed of the insurance & pharmaceutical industries. Except that it's not. Doctors & other medical personnel make much more money here than in Europe so an affordable single-payer system has to cut their compensation. So what you ask? Well, if you make enemies of most doctors who then all tell their patients that your proposal will ruin our healthcare system things will not turn out well. In Vermont they realized they would have to double the state income tax rates, currently from 3.6% to 9.5%.
1
The young define the future, and they are overwhelmingly for Sanders, who is essentially a New Deal Democrat. Yet somehow, Mr. Lind believes that Clintonism -- a dying neoliberal consensus -- is our future.
Mr. Lind is a facile writer, but not a very good reader of tea leaves. He's watching the death throes of the neoliberal movement are, instead, a sign of vitality.
As for Trump, a minority of humans have always been dominated by their limbic lizard brain, and some always will be. But mindless fear, hate, greed and jingoism has rarely dominated, and when it has, it is usually consigned to a footnote in history.
Visions of he past often obscure knowledge of the future, and this article is a classic example of that.
Mr. Lind is a facile writer, but not a very good reader of tea leaves. He's watching the death throes of the neoliberal movement are, instead, a sign of vitality.
As for Trump, a minority of humans have always been dominated by their limbic lizard brain, and some always will be. But mindless fear, hate, greed and jingoism has rarely dominated, and when it has, it is usually consigned to a footnote in history.
Visions of he past often obscure knowledge of the future, and this article is a classic example of that.
102
Back in 2015, Michael Lind couldn't wait to point out how Hillary Clinton represented a clear break with the past:
"... her speech marked a distinct intellectual and rhetorical departure from where the Democrats have been the past couple of decades.
"Call it the New Clintonism. It is a break with the late 20th century school of “neoliberalism,” or Democratic centrism, that has influenced the Obama administration as well as the administration of the first Clinton in the White House ever since President Bill Clinton, in a reluctant bow to Ronald Reagan, dedicated himself to keeping the bond market happy and declared that “the era of big government is over.”
Now we hear the future is just a continuation of the past and Sanders is like yesterday's lunch.
For all his declarative sentences, this guy doesn't know what he thinks.
"... her speech marked a distinct intellectual and rhetorical departure from where the Democrats have been the past couple of decades.
"Call it the New Clintonism. It is a break with the late 20th century school of “neoliberalism,” or Democratic centrism, that has influenced the Obama administration as well as the administration of the first Clinton in the White House ever since President Bill Clinton, in a reluctant bow to Ronald Reagan, dedicated himself to keeping the bond market happy and declared that “the era of big government is over.”
Now we hear the future is just a continuation of the past and Sanders is like yesterday's lunch.
For all his declarative sentences, this guy doesn't know what he thinks.
37
So the Democrats are becoming the party of the biggest of big business. I will believe that when the US Chamber of Commerce stops sponsoring hateful ads in my local Senate race. In the mean time it is easier to believe that Mr. Lind is simply trying to sabotage Hillary Clinton's campaign by validating all of the most worrying allegations about her.
3
Prophecy is mostly a projection of beliefs of the prophet. And Mr. Lind seems to have scary beliefs. What we know about the future comes from the extent of our understanding of the past -- not modules to be repeated, but relations and patterns to be reworked. Ideas as well as economic and social trends intersect and interact. Americans' ideas are products of their upbringing, education, and the "media" (social as well as commercial) in the context of their daily lives. Trump, Clinton, Sanders, and Cruz are each examples of some of the possibilities of where our thoughts are heading, and they are as varied and open for so many possibilities (good and bad) that it is clear there is a lot of room for variety even within this range of thinking. And then there are our economic and social conditions, some wide-open in their potential, some limited by the limits provided by our past.
That is, we will be a product of our wide-ranging ideas and our varied social and economic developments, within a context of the natural world of course. We are not empowered to make it what we want, but we certainly have some input. I hope Lind's hopes (disguised as prophecy) are a minority view. Others are offering us better ideas about what we might become and how to get there. Unfortunately only a few of these get involved in politics. Those who are should be encouraged. But politics is not the only way to guide our future.
That is, we will be a product of our wide-ranging ideas and our varied social and economic developments, within a context of the natural world of course. We are not empowered to make it what we want, but we certainly have some input. I hope Lind's hopes (disguised as prophecy) are a minority view. Others are offering us better ideas about what we might become and how to get there. Unfortunately only a few of these get involved in politics. Those who are should be encouraged. But politics is not the only way to guide our future.
3
Where does the most dominant force in contemporary American politics, the plutocracy, fit into this silly analysis? Hidden of course, behind the clever fig leaf of pretense that the country club Republicans of 50 years ago are the same thing as today's billionaire elite.
Of course Lind outlines as world where identity politics continue to dominate everything and neither party offers a meaningful attack on plutocrat power. It's the formula that's been working so well my whole life; neither Trump nor Clinton suggest a need for the think tank founders to give up on it yet.
Of course Lind outlines as world where identity politics continue to dominate everything and neither party offers a meaningful attack on plutocrat power. It's the formula that's been working so well my whole life; neither Trump nor Clinton suggest a need for the think tank founders to give up on it yet.
4
I believe it's the "Ignored" who want to be recognized vs. the $Establishment$ who want to ring all they can out of the disenfranchised majority struggling to be heard. Clintonism or Trumpism doesn't sound right to me, I prefer the more elemental Desperationism. It's an evolutionary, Darwinian political movement that will not be readily subjugated by the Republican and Democratic politics of yesterday. Maybe the majority is simply looking for someone to step up and improve their potential for a decent life. Maybe it's as simple as that.
6
Well said Yinzer!
(Occam's Razor at work here!)
(Occam's Razor at work here!)
There is a tendency in some disciplines, such as biology, to give new names to old, but not well understood, phenomena. Particularly prominent is this trend in taxonomy, where groups of organisms are renamed just because the whimsy of taxonomists takes them there.
Trumpism and Clintonism are new terms in the same category. Perhaps what is lacking the 21st century society is a revival of the principles of Whigism, Federalism, and Libertarianism, all fo which would break the two-party monopoly.
Trumpism and Clintonism are new terms in the same category. Perhaps what is lacking the 21st century society is a revival of the principles of Whigism, Federalism, and Libertarianism, all fo which would break the two-party monopoly.
1
@Tuvw Xyz,
I honestly never heard of either term before today. I won't start using either now.
4-17-16@1:43 pm
I honestly never heard of either term before today. I won't start using either now.
4-17-16@1:43 pm
It is hardly news that major political parties in the United States have evolved fluidly in response to changing circumstance and that they will continue to evolve in the future. The analytic assessment of Mr. Lind regarding today’s Democratic Party – that identity politics are central to the parties, however, may be sound advice for a manager of a political campaign, but I question whether it is a sound political and historical assessment of the future of the Democratic Party. I suggest that voters’ values, how they look at issues, are more fundamental than voters’ identity and the particular qualities of the candidates. Values, in this context, include our understanding of what is important, what we hope for and what we fear. Successful Presidents, for example, have emphasized the nation’s optimism and its courage. Such values are obtained in childhood, in social milieus and through learning opportunities. A thoughtful and successful political party represents a stable set of values that transcend specific issues and candidates. In short, the values of Roosevelt Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans will be important to the Democratic Party for a while longer.
3
This is l mostly hooey with regard to Democrats. Only a self deluding conservative would say there is no tie between FDR and today's Democratic party. And he can so argue only by insisting that any change between now and then is a break, rather than a natural progression. Moss back stand pat ism in action (if that isn't an oxymoron).
1
I think the author makes too much of a transitory aberration in regards to the Democratic party. Secretary Clinton has always shown a strong inclination toward the ethic of self reliance championed by the Conservative movement. You can see this now in her ideas about making higher education more affordable, allowing people to "work" to help pay for their tuition. Right now she is campaigning to win the Democratic nomination against a far left candidate, and so her rhetoric may make her seem to at odds with her husbands legacy, but I think you will see a shift in that if she wins the nomination.
The reason is that most of her opponents supporters would vote for her in a general election, despite all the press about those who would not. Where she can pick up additional support, however, is with moderate Republicans, especially Republican women. Those who have been turned off by the hard right or misogynist turn in the Republican policy. This should be an easy play for her given her past leanings. It was also evident in the speech she gave to AIPAC where she talked about having a more muscular foreign policy than President Obama. At that point she was already making the turn toward appealing center right voters, but Sanders surge about that time forced to her cut short her effort to appeal to that voting bloc.
The reason is that most of her opponents supporters would vote for her in a general election, despite all the press about those who would not. Where she can pick up additional support, however, is with moderate Republicans, especially Republican women. Those who have been turned off by the hard right or misogynist turn in the Republican policy. This should be an easy play for her given her past leanings. It was also evident in the speech she gave to AIPAC where she talked about having a more muscular foreign policy than President Obama. At that point she was already making the turn toward appealing center right voters, but Sanders surge about that time forced to her cut short her effort to appeal to that voting bloc.
3
Why do we even bother to vote? Mr. Lind has dictated a complete script for the story called "The Great American Decline".
6
@LS,
I don't know whether to laugh or cry after reading your oh-so-true comment.
4-17-16@1:30 pm
I don't know whether to laugh or cry after reading your oh-so-true comment.
4-17-16@1:30 pm
"If you had to name one book that made you who you are today, what would it be?", a NYT reporter asked Hillary.
Clinton replied: "At the risk of appearing predictable, the Bible was and remains the biggest influence on my thinking. I was raised reading it, memorizing passages from it and being guided by it. I still find it a source of wisdom, comfort and encouragement."
So Madame Secretary thinks a book written in the 1st quarter of the 4th century by ignorant men who thought the earth was flat and had no idea where the sun went at night is a source of wisdom and comfort.
We can draw only two conclusions here; both bad. Either the woman is delusional or she's a hypocrite. You can only pick one.
Delusion: "A persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a sign of a psychiatric condition."
Unless Hillary releases those speeches, I will write in Bernie's name. She knows quite well if she released them she would lose this election to Bernie in a landslide defeat. That is why I am writing in the name of Bernie. I refuse to sacrifice my integrity to someone who is obsessed over money and power. What a giant step backward that would be.
Clinton replied: "At the risk of appearing predictable, the Bible was and remains the biggest influence on my thinking. I was raised reading it, memorizing passages from it and being guided by it. I still find it a source of wisdom, comfort and encouragement."
So Madame Secretary thinks a book written in the 1st quarter of the 4th century by ignorant men who thought the earth was flat and had no idea where the sun went at night is a source of wisdom and comfort.
We can draw only two conclusions here; both bad. Either the woman is delusional or she's a hypocrite. You can only pick one.
Delusion: "A persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a sign of a psychiatric condition."
Unless Hillary releases those speeches, I will write in Bernie's name. She knows quite well if she released them she would lose this election to Bernie in a landslide defeat. That is why I am writing in the name of Bernie. I refuse to sacrifice my integrity to someone who is obsessed over money and power. What a giant step backward that would be.
45
Trump's favorite book, too, if you believe him.
Great. The future of our electoral process is represented by two widely disliked panderers to piety.
Great. The future of our electoral process is represented by two widely disliked panderers to piety.
The calculus of the clintons that the left has no message for the whole population can't even put away an aging socialist. Imagine when someone with the vibrancy of youth assumes the stage. The Clintons vision is over even if she wins.
9
But, which 'ism' will have a successful political future? It is common to read that the Republicans cannot win depending solely on a base of white working class voters, but can the Democrats prosper by only appealing to identity politics' voters? Such coalitions inevitably splinter as the various interest groups squabble over the spoils, and the goals. The answer, of course, is that political success will go to the party that crosses over the divide, and convinces enough of the other party's supporters to switch sides. There goes the static projection of the political future given here.
Trumpism and Clintonism Are the Future? I agree, the relationship between the people and the establishment, it's all about [asserting] the right of self-governance
Political clarity occurs amid economic security not ideology. The economy is changing at lightning speed towards an Internet, not a manufacting base. Uneducated workers are already obsolete to better jobs except for the service economy. However, someone new, younger and necessarily progressive will emerge in the next ten years that will deliver everyone from conservative, intolerant politics. So, that will be someone imaginative to embrace Obama's best, Billl's glib and Sec. Clinton reliability. Republicanism, not Trumpism, will endure at about 40% of the uneducationed population flipping burgers and renting bad housing.
3
Bernie's not pulling ahead & Hillary falling out of favor because of her lack of 'charisma.' And what she lacks isn't charisma, it's a credible reason for anyone to support her. Her campaign is about herself & she & Bill taking up residence in the White House again, which they believe is their destiny. Like the Divine Right of Kings.
Wrong.
The Clintons see themselves as America's Royal Family. The enormous greed they've evidenced with nearly $100 million raked in giving speeches to corporate interests, has shown normal people normal how completely deranged they are. She's explained this outrageous behavior disingenuously with "it's what they offered me & everybody else does it." Disgusting. This, & the careless private server, may yet knock her out of the race. 25 years of limos, celebrities, private jets, round the clock Secret Service protection, personal assistants & more money than they know what to do with stupefied the Clintons -who now seem more like cartoon villains than real people.
The animosity to her is so great that Trump is likely to win the election. He'll adopt a more palatable & reasonable persona while hammering her as a money-grubbing incompetent liar who got our consulate employees killed in Libya. Watch. I'll never vote for him but I can't vote for Hillary. She doesn't deserve my vote. I'm a Democrat who for the 1st time in my life will sit out an election.
The Democratic Party of the rich elites is over.
They just don't know it yet.
Wrong.
The Clintons see themselves as America's Royal Family. The enormous greed they've evidenced with nearly $100 million raked in giving speeches to corporate interests, has shown normal people normal how completely deranged they are. She's explained this outrageous behavior disingenuously with "it's what they offered me & everybody else does it." Disgusting. This, & the careless private server, may yet knock her out of the race. 25 years of limos, celebrities, private jets, round the clock Secret Service protection, personal assistants & more money than they know what to do with stupefied the Clintons -who now seem more like cartoon villains than real people.
The animosity to her is so great that Trump is likely to win the election. He'll adopt a more palatable & reasonable persona while hammering her as a money-grubbing incompetent liar who got our consulate employees killed in Libya. Watch. I'll never vote for him but I can't vote for Hillary. She doesn't deserve my vote. I'm a Democrat who for the 1st time in my life will sit out an election.
The Democratic Party of the rich elites is over.
They just don't know it yet.
53
I feel exactly like you. Thank you!
1
Maybe, and correctly, the Republican Party (if it even survives in anything remotely related to its past and present configuration) will move to the left on Social Security and Medicare. It may become even more nativist on immigration - to the nation's economic peril. What else, Mr. Lind? If that is all it wil have to offer, it will not recover.
As for the Democratic Party and its direction, even under Clinton (who has been challenged and changed by Senator Sanders and who recognizes that the next generation will not be satisfied with some milk toast nod to what should really be part of the Democratic Party's fabric) it will have to adopt Sanders insistence on economic justice. What really will not work, what will not thrust the Democratic Party into the future and into sustained power will be a continued commitment to blending Republican approaches with Democratic principals. Obamacare is not enough. We need a single payer system like every other modern democracy. Students crippled with debt will not improve our future. Tossing bandaids at our dilapidated and outdated infrastructure will further hinder our economic growth. Military adventurism always ends badly. Clintonism better be imbuded with Sandersism, or the Democratic Party will fail.
As for the Democratic Party and its direction, even under Clinton (who has been challenged and changed by Senator Sanders and who recognizes that the next generation will not be satisfied with some milk toast nod to what should really be part of the Democratic Party's fabric) it will have to adopt Sanders insistence on economic justice. What really will not work, what will not thrust the Democratic Party into the future and into sustained power will be a continued commitment to blending Republican approaches with Democratic principals. Obamacare is not enough. We need a single payer system like every other modern democracy. Students crippled with debt will not improve our future. Tossing bandaids at our dilapidated and outdated infrastructure will further hinder our economic growth. Military adventurism always ends badly. Clintonism better be imbuded with Sandersism, or the Democratic Party will fail.
247
I believe you meant 'principles.'
And so what can we do with our military-industrial complex and our state-corporatism?
What we need is Moderatism.
40
Mr. Pipes, In times of chaos (like this), moderatism is as flawed as any right-wing belief, if not more so. What we need is triage with a competent "medical" staff. The democrats are the most competent available, whatever their stripe.
1
Since a majority of Americans are reaching 67 and will be paupers before 73, we need what?
I think not.
Hillary's incremental right-wing Clintonian brand of establishment politics is the past. Many of her husbands policies - the ontological beginning of HRC the politican - are discredited or remembered unfavorably. They offer no economic or social hope to most poor and middle-class Americans and we are willing to fight to rid ourselves of Clintonism. The rally with 27,000 for Bernie in Washington Square Park and the demonstrations against Hillary outside her Clooney-hosted fundraiser in California this weekend are a portent of what's coming.
People are fed up. With Hillary. With the DNC. About half the Democratic base is beyond exhausted, disillusioned and has no interest in supporting them, feels no loyalty to them. And they brought this on themselves with their fealty to corporate interests.
It seems very likely that the enormous groundswell of support for Bernie Sanders signals an end to the GOP-lite brand of DNC
politics. If the DNC had not worked so hard to rig this nomination for Hillary, it's possible Bernie would have received enough media exposure in the beginning to become the nominee. The Democratic Party will have to change radically to embrace the future and foment any enthusiasm in the future with Bernie's supporters. Otherwise, the Democratic Party as an entity will die.
This election cycle also taught NYT readers something about the NYT that the NYT is not going to like:
We're onto you.
Hillary's incremental right-wing Clintonian brand of establishment politics is the past. Many of her husbands policies - the ontological beginning of HRC the politican - are discredited or remembered unfavorably. They offer no economic or social hope to most poor and middle-class Americans and we are willing to fight to rid ourselves of Clintonism. The rally with 27,000 for Bernie in Washington Square Park and the demonstrations against Hillary outside her Clooney-hosted fundraiser in California this weekend are a portent of what's coming.
People are fed up. With Hillary. With the DNC. About half the Democratic base is beyond exhausted, disillusioned and has no interest in supporting them, feels no loyalty to them. And they brought this on themselves with their fealty to corporate interests.
It seems very likely that the enormous groundswell of support for Bernie Sanders signals an end to the GOP-lite brand of DNC
politics. If the DNC had not worked so hard to rig this nomination for Hillary, it's possible Bernie would have received enough media exposure in the beginning to become the nominee. The Democratic Party will have to change radically to embrace the future and foment any enthusiasm in the future with Bernie's supporters. Otherwise, the Democratic Party as an entity will die.
This election cycle also taught NYT readers something about the NYT that the NYT is not going to like:
We're onto you.
13
"Why the Contest Between Hillary and Bernie Is Such a Big Deal for the Future of Our Economy"
True democracy with Bernie or neo-liberalism with Hillary?
"Do we make a perpetual accommodation with neo-liberalism or do we take it on? That's the defining choice in this election. It also explains some of the gap between Hillary and Bernie supporters.
"Neo-liberalism refers to the set of theories and practices that swept through our political system (and many others) in the late 1970s. It argues that prosperity for all will occur only if we 1) cut taxes (especially on the higher income brackets); 2) cut government regulations on the private sector; and 3) cut/privatize government social programs. This combination of policies, it is argued, maximizes economic efficiency and increases economic incentives which together continually improve and expand our economy."
Why the Contest Between Hillary and Bernie Is Such a Big Deal for the Future of Our Economy | Alternet
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/why-contest-between-hillary-and-be...
True democracy with Bernie or neo-liberalism with Hillary?
"Do we make a perpetual accommodation with neo-liberalism or do we take it on? That's the defining choice in this election. It also explains some of the gap between Hillary and Bernie supporters.
"Neo-liberalism refers to the set of theories and practices that swept through our political system (and many others) in the late 1970s. It argues that prosperity for all will occur only if we 1) cut taxes (especially on the higher income brackets); 2) cut government regulations on the private sector; and 3) cut/privatize government social programs. This combination of policies, it is argued, maximizes economic efficiency and increases economic incentives which together continually improve and expand our economy."
Why the Contest Between Hillary and Bernie Is Such a Big Deal for the Future of Our Economy | Alternet
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/why-contest-between-hillary-and-be...
5
Should HIllary Clintonism be the future of the Democrats, and if I had young children, I would advise them to emigrate. Seems to me that her view of things - hawklike, befriended by Henry Kissinger and Wall Street types - would lead us to face ever more disastrous consequences as a nation.
The future needs to be what Bernie Sanders is talking about as we look at the potentially disastrous consequences of climate change, mega wealth for the few, and joblessness for so many. In his speech at the Vatican, Bernie speaks in no uncertain terms about the threats we face as a planet, and what we all need to do to come through them intact. Perhaps you need to think some more in your think tank and reach the same conclusion.
The future needs to be what Bernie Sanders is talking about as we look at the potentially disastrous consequences of climate change, mega wealth for the few, and joblessness for so many. In his speech at the Vatican, Bernie speaks in no uncertain terms about the threats we face as a planet, and what we all need to do to come through them intact. Perhaps you need to think some more in your think tank and reach the same conclusion.
9
"But it is safe to assume that most progressives, when confronted with conservative candidates, will prefer incremental, finance-friendly Clintonism over the right-wing alternative."
Sadly not true. I can't tell you how many Sander supporters who have told me that if not Bernie, they hope for a Trump victory to fan the flames of his "revolution". Good grief!
For others, the right-wing radio and Fox News narrative about Hillary has so permeated their thinking that their hate for her is so strong that they could never vote for her and would just boycott the election.
Sadly not true. I can't tell you how many Sander supporters who have told me that if not Bernie, they hope for a Trump victory to fan the flames of his "revolution". Good grief!
For others, the right-wing radio and Fox News narrative about Hillary has so permeated their thinking that their hate for her is so strong that they could never vote for her and would just boycott the election.
7
"center-left synthesis shared by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton"
Must be a typo. The policies of these three (except for special interests like gay marriage and abortion) have all been center-right.
Also, if Clinton stands by what she says "now" about getting corporate money out of politics, then how could someone like her get funded?
Must be a typo. The policies of these three (except for special interests like gay marriage and abortion) have all been center-right.
Also, if Clinton stands by what she says "now" about getting corporate money out of politics, then how could someone like her get funded?
5
Clintonism could be more accurately termed boomerism. Meanwhile, millenials are assessing the details:
Wrong side of Steagal and TPP, secret speeches to Goldman, private email server, no stand on Citizens United? Yet Clintonism prevails?
Wrong side of Steagal and TPP, secret speeches to Goldman, private email server, no stand on Citizens United? Yet Clintonism prevails?
6
Trumpism and Clintonism Are the Future? No, probably it will be Kanyeism, as the American public is getting dumber and dumber. Just witness Trumpism and Clintonism!
2
Trump is a clown on an ego trip, and Hillary is a discredited has-been seeking dynastic coronation. Each is a result of the implosion of solid and workable strategies at both of the now long fossilized political "parties." Neither represents any really solid, workable or believable political future for America.
13
The partisan realignment being proposed here is not real.
Here is what happened.
Nixon got elected. He used his position for all sorts of abuse of power all driven by his intrinsic cowardice and insecurity. One of his brothers in arms was Roger Ailes who fantasized about even more hidden control over people’s lives came up with the idea that became Fox News.
After Nixon the Ailes’s of the world worked at getting control of all forms of media and de-regulation helped. At some point after reagan got elected to his first term as POTUS a shift in how common people were portrayed in all media began.
We no longer saw regular working people who went to work daily and whose dreams went only as far as paying off that house and having enough to get their kids a college ed. That was reasonable, becoming a millionaire was and is not in the cards for more than 99% of people, but a good stable life was.
We were presented with “strivers” whose only dream was a Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” life. All the common people we saw were trivial at best and all seemed to be wealthy with no visible means of support and this was never addressed. Each new year brought new shows with lower and lower morality and higher and higher expectations of “living the good life” in the characters. There are no consequences for their actions either. The latest devolution is "reality" tv where depravity is portrayed as a virtue.
Trump = GOP
HRC is a DINO leftist GOPer
Sanders is the only real DEM.
Here is what happened.
Nixon got elected. He used his position for all sorts of abuse of power all driven by his intrinsic cowardice and insecurity. One of his brothers in arms was Roger Ailes who fantasized about even more hidden control over people’s lives came up with the idea that became Fox News.
After Nixon the Ailes’s of the world worked at getting control of all forms of media and de-regulation helped. At some point after reagan got elected to his first term as POTUS a shift in how common people were portrayed in all media began.
We no longer saw regular working people who went to work daily and whose dreams went only as far as paying off that house and having enough to get their kids a college ed. That was reasonable, becoming a millionaire was and is not in the cards for more than 99% of people, but a good stable life was.
We were presented with “strivers” whose only dream was a Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” life. All the common people we saw were trivial at best and all seemed to be wealthy with no visible means of support and this was never addressed. Each new year brought new shows with lower and lower morality and higher and higher expectations of “living the good life” in the characters. There are no consequences for their actions either. The latest devolution is "reality" tv where depravity is portrayed as a virtue.
Trump = GOP
HRC is a DINO leftist GOPer
Sanders is the only real DEM.
7
Quote: "We are accustomed to thinking of the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 as the beginning of a new era. But from the vantage point of 2016, both Reagan and Bill Clinton look more like transitional figures."
Well, yes, it's always entertaining and reassuring to glance back, into previous decades, and map the Political Trends, and conveniently forget how LONG eight years (two presidential terms ... either Reaganesque or Clintonesque) can be, if lived day by day by day by the people who are being governed.
If the United States in November elects an awful, narcissistic or theocratic president, the next four years will be painful, and tragic, day by day, for individuals around the world whose mundane histories we ignore and forget and simply don't know. But they will add up. We just won't see it.
Well, yes, it's always entertaining and reassuring to glance back, into previous decades, and map the Political Trends, and conveniently forget how LONG eight years (two presidential terms ... either Reaganesque or Clintonesque) can be, if lived day by day by day by the people who are being governed.
If the United States in November elects an awful, narcissistic or theocratic president, the next four years will be painful, and tragic, day by day, for individuals around the world whose mundane histories we ignore and forget and simply don't know. But they will add up. We just won't see it.
5
Just You Wait
There is hope yet for the future of the Republican Party, and I can describe it in two words ... "mature Millennials" ... assuming that is not an oxymoron.
There is hope yet for the future of the Republican Party, and I can describe it in two words ... "mature Millennials" ... assuming that is not an oxymoron.
4
The word progressive has been stolen, just as awesome was. When I see a candidate capable of holistic thinking, talking about smart, lean, flexible government, that's when I'll say "There's a progressive for you." Sanders proposing government ballooning ideas out of the 1930s and 40s is not progressive.
9
@Barbara,
I suppose what's progressive is in the eyes of the beholder. You have your opinion, others have theirs.
4-17-16@1:45 pm
I suppose what's progressive is in the eyes of the beholder. You have your opinion, others have theirs.
4-17-16@1:45 pm
A demographic of a different kind. People who value education, science, technology solutions, business innovation, spirituality, and success identify with the Progressive Democratic demographic. People who don't value education, doubt science, can't handle technology solution, dislike business innovation, require conservative religion, and aren't success orientated identify with the Conservative Republican democratic.
8
Thanks Tom; the Democratic intelligentisia has spoken.
To All you dumb working class proles "who aren't success- oriented':
if you were more like us- college educated, with a degree in IT, living in a nice suburban cul de sac, you would merit our concern.
But since you are working 2 jobs in the temp economy, without any safety, can be fired by your massas at any time if you have a job at all, you deserve whatever poverty happens to you and your family.
This narcissistic arrogance is destroying the Democratic Party.
Good riddance to it.
To All you dumb working class proles "who aren't success- oriented':
if you were more like us- college educated, with a degree in IT, living in a nice suburban cul de sac, you would merit our concern.
But since you are working 2 jobs in the temp economy, without any safety, can be fired by your massas at any time if you have a job at all, you deserve whatever poverty happens to you and your family.
This narcissistic arrogance is destroying the Democratic Party.
Good riddance to it.
4
Now bernie-bro commenters are trying to "sell" Senator Sanders as the next FDR. Give me a break. Franklin D Roosevelt was one of the wealthiest people in the world. That is why he could get things done and even he had an uphill battle against predatory capitalists who wanted to constantly tear down America so they could profit. Bernie is the No Plan Man.
10
@njglea
Not to mention FDR was the embodiment of the "elite party insider".
Much closer to Hillary, in fact-- he paid his dues and earned his stripes with humble hard work and service. He also was a master of incrementalism, if you bother to read the history.
Not to mention FDR was the embodiment of the "elite party insider".
Much closer to Hillary, in fact-- he paid his dues and earned his stripes with humble hard work and service. He also was a master of incrementalism, if you bother to read the history.
3
Yes, embarrassing to see their cluelessness about FDR.
3
Bernie has the internet.
2
I used to tell my wife, a Democrat who voted for Reagan and both Bushes, that the difference between Republican conservatives and the Democratic variety was that conservative Democrats felt that the government shouldn't do anything for anybody EXCEPT THEM. That now seems to be the mantra of Trump's followers.
Which leaves me, a communitarian conservative who would rather the government left people free to achieve their own dreams, increasingly without any party at all.
Which leaves me, a communitarian conservative who would rather the government left people free to achieve their own dreams, increasingly without any party at all.
1
Have you ever volunteered for a politician with a long term goal? I understand Methodists; they don't proselytize but follow a plan to raise kids properly.
Or is this all a game to you and all that matters is click-bait? That's the danger I see in modern media, with its unrepresentative social media. I have the means and luxury of posting my opinion; I went to every parade the year Hillary followed RFK's example and argued pleasantly to all doubters. That's what her campaign is really about. Hillary mingles in a crowd and makes me proud.
Or is this all a game to you and all that matters is click-bait? That's the danger I see in modern media, with its unrepresentative social media. I have the means and luxury of posting my opinion; I went to every parade the year Hillary followed RFK's example and argued pleasantly to all doubters. That's what her campaign is really about. Hillary mingles in a crowd and makes me proud.
2
Reagan's war on education succeeded. We see now, in the clueless supporters of Old Bernie, just how successful it was.
3
I would say that Sanders' plan for free state college education that Clinton supporters dismiss as unrealistic is the best recommendation for curing their ignorance.
1
I am aware I am writing to the New York Times, the other end of the country from Sacramento. California was a better place between the end of the Second World War and Ronald Reagan's ascendancy to the governorship. Between Reagan's "Hale fellow well met" manner and the "Small is beautiful/It'sbeyond my control" mentality of Jerry Brown two full generations of California's youth have been deprived of fully funded college and university degrees. Without being snarky we are losing ground in an intensely competitive world---that is the meta picture. More embittering has been the removal of the highly specific rungs to upward mobility that a tuition-free college degree offers. The cost of public education has grown impossibly expensive and makes attendance a cost-benefit driven decision that makes every family think twice before signing
Loan docs with Wells Fargo or Chase.
95 percent of the kids I enrolled in a California State College with in the late sixties came from families with no experience with formal, higher learning. A lot of the men took seven years to complete a degree---they worked and supported families. For us college was a place to learn skills, develop attitudes that would serve us in the work place and at the end of the day, contribute to the communities that had given us so large an opportunity.
Bernie is right---college is the thing that allows this multi-cultural country to compete with Germany and Japan. It may also be the glue that holds us together.
Loan docs with Wells Fargo or Chase.
95 percent of the kids I enrolled in a California State College with in the late sixties came from families with no experience with formal, higher learning. A lot of the men took seven years to complete a degree---they worked and supported families. For us college was a place to learn skills, develop attitudes that would serve us in the work place and at the end of the day, contribute to the communities that had given us so large an opportunity.
Bernie is right---college is the thing that allows this multi-cultural country to compete with Germany and Japan. It may also be the glue that holds us together.
1
The demise of "No middle ground".
Each parties effort will focus on what the other party just accomplished.
And I use the word "accomplish" loosely. Some are nothing to write home about.
Each parties effort will focus on what the other party just accomplished.
And I use the word "accomplish" loosely. Some are nothing to write home about.
2
There obviously is a profound gulf between the carefully researched disciplined precision of Hillary Clinton's speech and the sustained free-association orgasm of Donald Trump's speech.
I think the US should come clean about the most fundamental issue that divides it by renaming its two lollipop political parties the "Faith Party" and the "Reason Party".
I think the US should come clean about the most fundamental issue that divides it by renaming its two lollipop political parties the "Faith Party" and the "Reason Party".
3
Really Clintonism is the wave of the future? That assertion sets aside the strong possibility that many of the conservative democrats will be dead in a few years and the Sanders voting youth will dominate the Democratic Party.
For my part,even though I'm 85,I don't trust Hillary,she likes the rich too much for my liking.The enthusiam young Sanders' are showing marks a different Democratic Party,even if Bernie may not win the nomination,his influence will remain long after everybody has forgotten the Clintons.
For my part,even though I'm 85,I don't trust Hillary,she likes the rich too much for my liking.The enthusiam young Sanders' are showing marks a different Democratic Party,even if Bernie may not win the nomination,his influence will remain long after everybody has forgotten the Clintons.
30
Lind has it wrong. Trump and Sanders are popular because people are struggling economically. It's really, really that simple. Millennials are idealistic as people in their 20s should be and drawn to Sanders' charisma, but they--like their parents-- are worried about their economic future.
Trump blames immigrants, Sanders blames wall street. Sanders version is closer to the truth. Hopefully President Clinton will take this populism very seriously and help manage our economy so the middle class survives.
Trump blames immigrants, Sanders blames wall street. Sanders version is closer to the truth. Hopefully President Clinton will take this populism very seriously and help manage our economy so the middle class survives.
6
"Those who see the nationalist populism of Mr. Trump as an aberration in a party that will soon return to free-market, limited government orthodoxy are mistaken. So are those who believe that the appeal of Senator Bernie Sanders to the young represents a repudiation of the center-left synthesis shared by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In one form or another, Trumpism and Clintonism will define conservatism and progressivism in America."
No amount of explication, however articulate, can disguise the naked arrogance of this claim.
No amount of explication, however articulate, can disguise the naked arrogance of this claim.
3
So you're saying the Dems will become the corporate party? While the Repugs turn populist? What about Sanders? All very unlikely, I'd say.
6
It's premature to write obituaries for traditional Democratic and Republican values. Current economic populism on the right is a temporary aberration. It contradicts the traditional pro-business/pro-free trade stance of Republicans. Also,the appeal of populism is limited to only Trump supporters and not symptomatic of a major shift in Republican thinking. If the Republicans subscribe to economic populism, they will lose their largest constituency - the pro-business community.
Clintonism also marks a temporary deviation from party values. It has a much shorter life span than Trumpism. As unfairness in wealth distribution, unequal economic opportunities and outsourcing of jobs begin to have a significant impact on Americans' lives, Democrats are likely to embrace the Sanderses of the party. Evidence of this can already been seen in polls. Sanders beats Republican rivals by wider margins than Hillary Clinton.
Clintonism also marks a temporary deviation from party values. It has a much shorter life span than Trumpism. As unfairness in wealth distribution, unequal economic opportunities and outsourcing of jobs begin to have a significant impact on Americans' lives, Democrats are likely to embrace the Sanderses of the party. Evidence of this can already been seen in polls. Sanders beats Republican rivals by wider margins than Hillary Clinton.
2
Despite a surfeit of 'isms' here, the notion of party movement is true. But, it might be cast as the Republicans, led by Mr. Trump, are seizing on the Sinking Middle Class - those who since 2008 or even 2000 have not done well. What do they demand? Entitlement help and immigrant 'protection'. Meanwhile the Democrats, led by Secretary Clinton, are fixated on the Rising Middle Class who have done well. They are understandably business friendly and can afford to be liberal in their societal view, after all they've got theirs. (They can even entertain or be entertained by Sen. Sanders.)
So, for the election, are more middle class Americans sinking or rising? Who or what sank the republican middle class and who or what has risen the democrats? If someone can blame the former and claim the latter, that would be a winning strategy. But, despite the campaign's focus on personalities the election will ultimately be decided by the economic buoyancy of the middle class. When democracies work that is how they work.
So, for the election, are more middle class Americans sinking or rising? Who or what sank the republican middle class and who or what has risen the democrats? If someone can blame the former and claim the latter, that would be a winning strategy. But, despite the campaign's focus on personalities the election will ultimately be decided by the economic buoyancy of the middle class. When democracies work that is how they work.
1
Excellent summary and succinctly put.
Thanks, John V.
Thanks, John V.
I have had it with AmeriKa. We are having our fifth intensely-sunny day in Vermont with high temperatures approaching 65 degrees F, so I am going to run the dog at the lake. I cannot do it anymore. I can't.
5
Historically on the wrong side of most issues (Steagall, TPP, etc.), secret speeches to Goldman, white noise during a speech to elites in Colorado, private email server while Secretary of State, no stand on Citizens United? Yet Clinton prevails?
Seems like there's a basic information processing issue among the electorate... Or aren't they getting the info.
Seems like there's a basic information processing issue among the electorate... Or aren't they getting the info.
4
There is some guy named Bernie who just might toss a wrench into the Clintionism ideology. Dismissing him as an outlier may be convenient in creating this theory, but life, and politics in particular, isn't always as neat and organized as this article presumes.
9
To summarize: The nation is moving toward a two-party political environment in which Republicans are uncompromisingly conservative and Democrats are uncompromisingly liberal.
Conservatives want authoritarian government, preferably at the state level. They favor limits to individual liberty, minimal social support, and gun-boat diplomacy. They oppose changes to the status quo. They are suspicious of dark-skin people, religious extremists other than Christian, and foreigners.
Liberals want a national government with broad powers, and limited state governments. They favor individual liberty, extensive social support, and international cooperation. They are accepting of race, ethnicity, religious preference, gender preference, and gender transition. They are suspicious of unbridled wealth and aggressive religious cults.
Conservatives want authoritarian government, preferably at the state level. They favor limits to individual liberty, minimal social support, and gun-boat diplomacy. They oppose changes to the status quo. They are suspicious of dark-skin people, religious extremists other than Christian, and foreigners.
Liberals want a national government with broad powers, and limited state governments. They favor individual liberty, extensive social support, and international cooperation. They are accepting of race, ethnicity, religious preference, gender preference, and gender transition. They are suspicious of unbridled wealth and aggressive religious cults.
2
Mr. Lind your piece does not reflect the realities of political change. As I read history reality rudely confronts human representations in the form of crises that threaten our safety and well-being.
The potential of global warming and ocean acidification from the combustion of fossil fuels to create a near term crises, even before the election, will probably determine the political future of the US and the World. In my view, not too soon, because we could be nearing a tipping point for runaway global warming and the harm that would cause in the available food supply and damage to a major centers of commerce.
The GOP & many of the Democratic donors are reluctant to join in the effort to evolve away from fossil fuels but it must happen. So their creativity & investments must be redirected to technologies to exploit non-fossil energy sources.
The urgency that Mr. Sanders has addressed with his elevation of the priority to the same as FDR's Manhattan Project makes sense because we don't know if we have already reached the tipping point for runaway global warming that would continue even if we stopped using fossil fuels because of the methane released from the thawing permafrost and deposits of hydrates on the ocean floor.
This new reality is unavoidable & a challenge unlike any that we have faced in the history of our country or the whole of humankind.
I think the answer is Maglev launched solar satellites, synthetic hydrocarbons from air and water, and Maglev transport.
The potential of global warming and ocean acidification from the combustion of fossil fuels to create a near term crises, even before the election, will probably determine the political future of the US and the World. In my view, not too soon, because we could be nearing a tipping point for runaway global warming and the harm that would cause in the available food supply and damage to a major centers of commerce.
The GOP & many of the Democratic donors are reluctant to join in the effort to evolve away from fossil fuels but it must happen. So their creativity & investments must be redirected to technologies to exploit non-fossil energy sources.
The urgency that Mr. Sanders has addressed with his elevation of the priority to the same as FDR's Manhattan Project makes sense because we don't know if we have already reached the tipping point for runaway global warming that would continue even if we stopped using fossil fuels because of the methane released from the thawing permafrost and deposits of hydrates on the ocean floor.
This new reality is unavoidable & a challenge unlike any that we have faced in the history of our country or the whole of humankind.
I think the answer is Maglev launched solar satellites, synthetic hydrocarbons from air and water, and Maglev transport.
5
Right or wrong, this is interesting and well argue, and has elicited a few intelligent and insightful on-topic comments.
And then there are the inevitable complaints, which invade any article about anything at this point, that the author is dissing Bernie, (probably on "orders from above".)
Let me pose a simple question that we can use to evaluate this author's argument:
If the *general* election were held today, and the choice was between Hillary and Bernie, who would win?
(Remember, the general election, where we would come as close as possible to "the will of the American people"--*all* the "American people.")
The obvious answer is that Hillary would win overwhelmingly. And this does support the reasoning. The center does hold.
As someone pointed out, on as obvious an issue as health insurance, the US electorate is simply not going to vote for someone proposing radical change.
And as someone else pointed out, as for Republicans, they are stuck with the fact that only more government intervention is going to appeal to their demographic. Hillary would be just fine with promoting infrastructure projects; except for Trump's wall, who on that side would create jobs for the working class?
And then there are the inevitable complaints, which invade any article about anything at this point, that the author is dissing Bernie, (probably on "orders from above".)
Let me pose a simple question that we can use to evaluate this author's argument:
If the *general* election were held today, and the choice was between Hillary and Bernie, who would win?
(Remember, the general election, where we would come as close as possible to "the will of the American people"--*all* the "American people.")
The obvious answer is that Hillary would win overwhelmingly. And this does support the reasoning. The center does hold.
As someone pointed out, on as obvious an issue as health insurance, the US electorate is simply not going to vote for someone proposing radical change.
And as someone else pointed out, as for Republicans, they are stuck with the fact that only more government intervention is going to appeal to their demographic. Hillary would be just fine with promoting infrastructure projects; except for Trump's wall, who on that side would create jobs for the working class?
1
This is a shrewd and thought-provoking analysis, yet I think its conclusion is flawed. Clintonism and Trumpism seemed poised to take over their respective parties, but can they take those parties into the future? I doubt it.
Clintonism has been with us for 25 years, and in power for 16 of those years, and yet the country has clearly declined economically, culturally, and in world standing during that time. While vastly preferable to the "big government conservatism" and neocon foreign policy of the Bush years, it has demonstrated no ability to deal with the fundamental problems troubling America.
Trumpism may be a good starter, but it will prove to be a bad stayer. Aggressive nationalism and ethnic scapegoating won't get America very far. And Trumpism is largely a white working class movement. I can see some middle class voters moving into the Trump camp, but it's a declining demographic. Trumpism's future is limited; the sooner it achieves power the sooner it will be seen for the fraud that it largely is.
I agree that many young people will moderate their views with age and move away from Sanders' unworkable socialist agenda, but I don't see them mellowing into Clintonites or turning into reactionary Trumpites. More likely they will turn inward and surrender to apathy or pure pursuit of self-interest.
The bottom line is that we came very close to complete economic and social collapse in 2008, and no one has a workable program for restoring our socio-economic health.
Clintonism has been with us for 25 years, and in power for 16 of those years, and yet the country has clearly declined economically, culturally, and in world standing during that time. While vastly preferable to the "big government conservatism" and neocon foreign policy of the Bush years, it has demonstrated no ability to deal with the fundamental problems troubling America.
Trumpism may be a good starter, but it will prove to be a bad stayer. Aggressive nationalism and ethnic scapegoating won't get America very far. And Trumpism is largely a white working class movement. I can see some middle class voters moving into the Trump camp, but it's a declining demographic. Trumpism's future is limited; the sooner it achieves power the sooner it will be seen for the fraud that it largely is.
I agree that many young people will moderate their views with age and move away from Sanders' unworkable socialist agenda, but I don't see them mellowing into Clintonites or turning into reactionary Trumpites. More likely they will turn inward and surrender to apathy or pure pursuit of self-interest.
The bottom line is that we came very close to complete economic and social collapse in 2008, and no one has a workable program for restoring our socio-economic health.
70
Turn inward and surrender to apathy? Maybe. And maybe some will go to the streets.
you are not in "power" as president unless if the 2nd (or 3rd0 have control of both houses of congress.
1
Sen, Sanders "unworkable socialist agenda" is basically just the New Deal that the "New" Democrats gave up on in the early 1970's. Democratic Socialism, which goes well beyond the modest reforms proposed by Sen. Sanders, is a viable basis for organizing society and will probably end up being adopted in the United States sometime within the next 50 years.
Mr. Lind's New America Foundation is a Washington think tank run by and supported mostly by rich establishment democratic organizations and people with a dollop of support coming from our old right wing friends at the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. When he says Clintonism is the future, he means he and his rich establishment friends are the future. The rest of the old Democratic Party that represented working people, unions and poor people can go take a walk.
Mr. Lind's New America Foundation is a Washington think tank run by and supported mostly by rich establishment democratic organizations and people with a dollop of support coming from our old right wing friends at the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. When he says Clintonism is the future, he means he and his rich establishment friends are the future. The rest of the old Democratic Party that represented working people, unions and poor people can go take a walk.
1
This is an interesting recap of the change in both parties. One thing not mentioned is that while parties were changing to chase votes people's ideas did not change that much. The unions once had a too-strong hold on the democratic party and got too much power and people left the party. The corporate takeover of the republican party by a few elites, which is finally dying today, alienated many republicans. People showed their disdain by becoming "Independents" and now make up about 40% of American voters. Hopefully this change will move both parties to the more reasonable "center" and we'll actually get decent governance for 99% of us - starting November 8 when Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes the first female President in the 240 year HIS story of America, other socially conscious qualified women and men are elected across America and we begin to officially write OUR story.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-indepen...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-indepen...
5
If starting November 8 when Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes the first female President in the 240 year HIS story of America is elected, it's not "OUR" story--it's her owners. Wall Street. 2008 depression ll Act II, the finale. Led by "socially conscious qualified women" like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a champion of pay day loan scammers.
3
While Mr. Lind's historical political demography lesson is accurate, let's hope the prophecy falls short. It doesn't bode well for the intellect of the American masses regarding this supposed political "evolution" we keep hearing about. Like everything else, humanity's intellect as well as its physical institutions may be in constant flux, but that doesn't mean fluxing forward. The ancient religions of the world, for example, continue to prevail on this unfortunate, pathetic axiom. The delusion of abstract belief fuels conventional "wisdom," lining the pockets and filling the belly's of the puppet masters that exploit it. Hence, "populism," a reflection of shadowy beliefs based largely in racism and bigotry.
What the future holds for our political parties, for America itself, is a lot more about the REgression of the American mind, and a lot less about
the institutions that are willing to kowtow to it.
What the future holds for our political parties, for America itself, is a lot more about the REgression of the American mind, and a lot less about
the institutions that are willing to kowtow to it.
30
The author of this piece believes that the future of politics is not guided by those under 30? I'm 67 and I don't trust anyone over 30. Our reality is not theirs. The young see farther down the road. They see a 1% that is directing our economy and driving us over an environmental cliff, driven by an unsustainable population that the 1% wants to increase; more consumers=more money. It's not a conspiracy, just greed. Our reality is a hybrid of past and present, confused by what is possible and uneasy with change. Our role as older citizens, as it has always been, is to foster and offer our experience to aid, or even curtail their enthusiasm, vision and passion. The future of politics and this country is very much in the hands of Sanders' supporters.
24
I really disagree. Most of these young haven't left their parents' basements. They are clueless about the real world, don't know how to work for a living, and think things should be handed to them--as Bernie suggests. They live is a La-La land that those of us in our 50's and 60's did not have. Shame on you for indulging them in their fantasies!
2
I really, really disagree. They can't afford to leave the basements on minimum wage or go to college. The 50's and 60's also had an economy where one working parent could support a family. But I don't yearn to return to that racist, hypocritical and misogynist time. And Europeans do not live in fantasies--they have it better than we do--the richest nation on the planet. Also the young realize that we bomb more civilians than any other country, we use more resources per capita than any other country and produce more CO2 per capita than any other country. Murder more people and incarcerate more people than any other country. That's what I would call a "La-La land"--where people don't realize that we are the evil-doers.
dull dull article. few original perceptions. lots of revisionism / re-spinning. drop all the names, call demagoguery "populism" etc etc.
& Cory Booker?- a bigger nothing has not come down the line, at least the Dem line, in a long long time.
& Cory Booker?- a bigger nothing has not come down the line, at least the Dem line, in a long long time.
6
Readers, Americans.
Don't you just love how slow MSM is responding to the change underfoot?
Mr. Lind attempts to put a definitive "call" on the future of politics in America.
Hard to do when we are in the 2-3rd inning of revolution.
Clintons and Trump (isms) are the future.
Would be funny, if not for its lack of insight to the current American mindset.
Don't you just love how slow MSM is responding to the change underfoot?
Mr. Lind attempts to put a definitive "call" on the future of politics in America.
Hard to do when we are in the 2-3rd inning of revolution.
Clintons and Trump (isms) are the future.
Would be funny, if not for its lack of insight to the current American mindset.
10
The main trend I see is continued political polarization preventing undiluted unified actions on actual or perceived priorities. To mention a few, these could be an economy that fails to support opportunity for the middle class, essential to a more-or-less functioning democracy, environmental issues, infrastructure imperatives, global competitiveness in trade and hegemony, immigration and judicial reforms, education, health and job training initiatives....
The sad truth is that if Trumpism and Clintonism are the future, what future we have is a spiral towards disaster and probable extinction. Welcome to the Anthropocene. Our system is a house of cards built on corruption and delusion. Unless we face facts, separate wealth from power and put mitigation and adaptation to changing climate reality, we are done. Neither Clinton or Trump will do that and it doesn't matter what happens in another decade given the amount of methane and carbon we are dumping in the atmosphere right now.
10
Wow. As a political scientist I have problems predicting accurately what will happen next week. And this article confidently predicts what political alignments will prevail for the next decades. Plural! Not just ten years, but possibly many more. Amazing. Note to the New York Times: please revisit this article in April of 2018 and see how much of it still stands, 20% into the first decade of its generous time frame.
20
A more correct analysis might focus on the predilections of younger age cohorts.
The old white men are dying. Hillary Clinton is also, excuse me for saying it, old.
Instead, the author dismisses the impact of youth by comparing today's Sander's supporters to the hippies of the 60s, who he says turned into middle age Reagan supporters. But no, I suspect what really happened was that the hippies and their kin were in fact a relatively small but culturally noisy part of the population, and while they did their thing most young Americans were all the time much more concerned with getting jobs even as they protested the draft (their skins on the line).
I don't think we're going to know where things are going until the older cohort dies off and the younger ones come into their own. The old folks have disproportionate influence in the voting booth, as we know. But they don't rule the future.
The old white men are dying. Hillary Clinton is also, excuse me for saying it, old.
Instead, the author dismisses the impact of youth by comparing today's Sander's supporters to the hippies of the 60s, who he says turned into middle age Reagan supporters. But no, I suspect what really happened was that the hippies and their kin were in fact a relatively small but culturally noisy part of the population, and while they did their thing most young Americans were all the time much more concerned with getting jobs even as they protested the draft (their skins on the line).
I don't think we're going to know where things are going until the older cohort dies off and the younger ones come into their own. The old folks have disproportionate influence in the voting booth, as we know. But they don't rule the future.
13
this "old" female babyboomer voting Bernie, 2016!!
This is scary stuff. The idea that a party that once championed the working class is now embracing Oligarchy is downright frightening.
Not to mention the Clintons are just really, REALLY bad people.
Not to mention the Clintons are just really, REALLY bad people.
25
Dan an excellent book about this is Thomas Frank's "Listen Liberal"
2
The thins that scary the most is clintonism: making foundations, receiving 200 000 for a lecture, receiving money from Wall Street and Soros. That is scarry. It is not about demcoracy,
1
The big question which will determine the way the parties go is, I think, whether the American people can grow up, whether they can stop believing in myths and fairy tales and start looking at reality.
Once I had a discussion with Uwe Reinhardt, a professor at Princeton who is an expert on health care systems. I wanted him to push hard for HR676, which would give an improved Medicare to everyone in the US. He didn't argue that what I proposed would not be vastly more efficient than the ACA, but he ended the discussion with the sentence, "As to your last question the answer is that Americans are not mature enough to see virtue in other countries' systems, which makes the idea of copying them DOA on the Hill."
Even more important than health care are the myths concerning the federal debt and deficits. Most people continue to believe that since these are bad for personal finances, they must be bad for the government.
Besides a favorable trade deficit, the main way money gets into the private sector is through federal deficit spending. When we attempt to pay down the debt by balancing the budget and eliminating deficits, we suck money out of the private sector. We then are forced to borrow from banks, and eventually and inevitably, this leads to a fiscal crisis and disaster,
History bears this out. All 6 times we have eliminated deficits for more than 3 years, we have fallen into a real depression.
What was that definition of insanity?
Once I had a discussion with Uwe Reinhardt, a professor at Princeton who is an expert on health care systems. I wanted him to push hard for HR676, which would give an improved Medicare to everyone in the US. He didn't argue that what I proposed would not be vastly more efficient than the ACA, but he ended the discussion with the sentence, "As to your last question the answer is that Americans are not mature enough to see virtue in other countries' systems, which makes the idea of copying them DOA on the Hill."
Even more important than health care are the myths concerning the federal debt and deficits. Most people continue to believe that since these are bad for personal finances, they must be bad for the government.
Besides a favorable trade deficit, the main way money gets into the private sector is through federal deficit spending. When we attempt to pay down the debt by balancing the budget and eliminating deficits, we suck money out of the private sector. We then are forced to borrow from banks, and eventually and inevitably, this leads to a fiscal crisis and disaster,
History bears this out. All 6 times we have eliminated deficits for more than 3 years, we have fallen into a real depression.
What was that definition of insanity?
16
The whole economic discussion in the US lacks a credible consensus regarding what sustains the movement of money.
4
Predictions of what policy realignment would look like under Trump shows a fundamental cluelessness about "Trumpism".
He has no actual policies that anyone can detect. Building a wall is not a policy or even aligned with any existing policy or policy prescriptions I know of.
Over and over what we see are a number of declamations and authentic spontaneous reactions. We see the theatricality of an executive cutting to the chase, issuing decisive commands in quick order, dismissing the bureaucratic fools with no vision.
Looks good in a cartoon caricature of a decisive leader. A Berlesconi, a Putin whose self-regarding narcissism and potent male sexuality announce their alpha-ness. Caligula had more of a grasp of policy than Trump does. His advisors were the voices inside his head. So are Trumps.
He has no actual policies that anyone can detect. Building a wall is not a policy or even aligned with any existing policy or policy prescriptions I know of.
Over and over what we see are a number of declamations and authentic spontaneous reactions. We see the theatricality of an executive cutting to the chase, issuing decisive commands in quick order, dismissing the bureaucratic fools with no vision.
Looks good in a cartoon caricature of a decisive leader. A Berlesconi, a Putin whose self-regarding narcissism and potent male sexuality announce their alpha-ness. Caligula had more of a grasp of policy than Trump does. His advisors were the voices inside his head. So are Trumps.
1
Certainly from a establishment perspective, one would assume that the two major parties will move forward in some fashion with some underlying philosophy that suggest some differences, but both have come to serve the interests of the elites and our government has become a pay to play government on issues that matter the most.
Interestingly, the author minimizes the millennials in the future.
It would seem to this writer that if either party continues along the same path as the past 20-30 years, new parties will emerge, or at least a growing independent voting bloc looking for alternatives to the corrupted national political parties. To assume that our two party system cannot change after this tumultuous year in politics is to deny the growing rage in the country from all corners of the country.
For this near 50 year democrat, time to find a political party more aligned to my values
Interestingly, the author minimizes the millennials in the future.
It would seem to this writer that if either party continues along the same path as the past 20-30 years, new parties will emerge, or at least a growing independent voting bloc looking for alternatives to the corrupted national political parties. To assume that our two party system cannot change after this tumultuous year in politics is to deny the growing rage in the country from all corners of the country.
For this near 50 year democrat, time to find a political party more aligned to my values
6
Clintonism - beyond the propaganda of the MSM can be summed up as: Greed is Good and Murder in the Pursuit of Power is no vice.
$140 Million for content of speeches that are the same as those 20 years ago provided for free. People all over the world are dead. That is the core values of Clintonism. The rest is window dressing.
There are many people who see beyond the media images of Bernie & Trump to the core message. They will not vote for Clinton under any circumstances.
The path of Rigged Election Rules is a new third party. The Independents are now the largest voter block - most of which were former Democrats.
Republicans, Democrats and Independents recognize Bernie & Trump were repeatedly cheated by the establishment and will use the energy to create the momentum for a new way and a new party.
Fixing these legacy corrupt clubs is a waste of time.
$140 Million for content of speeches that are the same as those 20 years ago provided for free. People all over the world are dead. That is the core values of Clintonism. The rest is window dressing.
There are many people who see beyond the media images of Bernie & Trump to the core message. They will not vote for Clinton under any circumstances.
The path of Rigged Election Rules is a new third party. The Independents are now the largest voter block - most of which were former Democrats.
Republicans, Democrats and Independents recognize Bernie & Trump were repeatedly cheated by the establishment and will use the energy to create the momentum for a new way and a new party.
Fixing these legacy corrupt clubs is a waste of time.
80
Good luck with that.
The last successful third party in the United States was the Republican Party -- which won the Presidency in 1860.
Other than Perot, no third party candidate has managed even double digits in a Presidential race in over a century.
So, good luck with adding yet another third party. That perennial cumulative three-to-five per cent of the vote can certainly be subdivided further.
Or, you know, you could work in the world that is, rather than the one you insist MUST BE -- NOW.
The last successful third party in the United States was the Republican Party -- which won the Presidency in 1860.
Other than Perot, no third party candidate has managed even double digits in a Presidential race in over a century.
So, good luck with adding yet another third party. That perennial cumulative three-to-five per cent of the vote can certainly be subdivided further.
Or, you know, you could work in the world that is, rather than the one you insist MUST BE -- NOW.
2
On first read, this seems like a brilliant, correct analysis. But after a little thinking a fatal flaw occurs to me: If the column is correct, then the Republican Party is really doomed by the demographics. And I doubt that that party, however disfunctional it is at the moment, will preside over its own destruction, especially after the latest wake-up it will receive in November. Nobody can be sure but some kind of different scenario seems more likely for the Republicans. What scenario? I dunno. But committing itself to a rapidly diminishing base seems unlikely.
1
This editorial is just plain silly.
Sadly, the NYTimes is again on the wrong side of history.
I haven't left the party. The party has left me.
Sadly, the NYTimes is again on the wrong side of history.
I haven't left the party. The party has left me.
205
Which party?
The one Trump and Cruz are devouring or the one Sanders rather recently decided (sort of) to join?
The one Trump and Cruz are devouring or the one Sanders rather recently decided (sort of) to join?
2
This is not an editorial and it is not by the Times' editors. It is an outside opinion piece. (I'm not defending anyone except from mistaken attribution.)
1
None of what Mr. Lind opines recognizes that our elected representatives have failed to address the most basic and constant concern of the vast majority of Americans, economic security. The dysfunctional machinations found in government are the result of the undue influence of money in politics. The most odious example is the plethora of generous campaign contributions given with a quid pro quo rider attached. The most insidious examples of influence peddling on behalf of the wealthy elite are the corporate lobbyists, deeply partisan think tanks, and organizations like ALEC and USCC.
The ramifications of inequality is THE issue on the minds of most Americans. Given the 90% disapproval rating of Congress, they are being held responsible for not addressing economic security for all. It is hard to discount the fact that most people from left to right think that the political establishment has betrayed them by colluding with the mega-wealthy at their great personal expense.
If elected, neither Trump or Clinton will successfully address income and wealth inequality because they are products of, and sponsors for the mega-wealthy. Their policy prescriptions are drawn from the ineffective status quo.
Mr. Lind states, "Mr. Sanders the democratic socialist focused in the manner of a single issue candidate almost exclusively on themes of class, inequality and political corruption." And Sanders is right! This is and will be the enduring issue in America until it is resolved.
The ramifications of inequality is THE issue on the minds of most Americans. Given the 90% disapproval rating of Congress, they are being held responsible for not addressing economic security for all. It is hard to discount the fact that most people from left to right think that the political establishment has betrayed them by colluding with the mega-wealthy at their great personal expense.
If elected, neither Trump or Clinton will successfully address income and wealth inequality because they are products of, and sponsors for the mega-wealthy. Their policy prescriptions are drawn from the ineffective status quo.
Mr. Lind states, "Mr. Sanders the democratic socialist focused in the manner of a single issue candidate almost exclusively on themes of class, inequality and political corruption." And Sanders is right! This is and will be the enduring issue in America until it is resolved.
164
It really is an exercise in futility to try to sell planned evolution to believers in panaceas.
2
Given the 90% disapproval ratings of Congress, why haven't we been able to vote the bums out. Most members of Congress have been there awhile. If Mitch O'Connell and Paul Ryan, the leaders of this dysfunction are so hated, why are they still in office?
If I saw any where near the passion in the down ticket races I have seen for Bernie, I would have some confidence in his message, which I agree with substantively almost 100%. But still waiting for that revolution even Bernie says is absolutely necessary to insure his presidency would be effective and have not seen any sign of it. Meanwhile Rendell and his establishment cronies are trying their best to insure PA's contested Senate race is given away to Toomey, again, who has been a disaster for our state.
If I saw any where near the passion in the down ticket races I have seen for Bernie, I would have some confidence in his message, which I agree with substantively almost 100%. But still waiting for that revolution even Bernie says is absolutely necessary to insure his presidency would be effective and have not seen any sign of it. Meanwhile Rendell and his establishment cronies are trying their best to insure PA's contested Senate race is given away to Toomey, again, who has been a disaster for our state.
If the story is correct, then I am very glad that I am 86 years old and soon to be departed. It is clear to me that the future of the country abandons "we the people" and will rest on the ranting of individuals who can influence the least educated and those who demand the most government support. The American dream is truly being destroyed by political pandering to the least creative and least productive elements of our society. The so called 1% , of which I am certainly not a member, are justified in trying to protect their creativity and productivity from both the left and the right and to conserve as much of their income to be able to create new areas of production which will generate the jobs of the future.
4
If after 86 years you never figured out that the country has nothing to do with "WE the people' then it is later than you know.
3
" . . . the ranting of individuals who can influence the least educated and those who demand the most government support."
Agree. A perfect summary of Old Bernie's campaign.
Agree. A perfect summary of Old Bernie's campaign.
1
Is this guy serious? The Democratic Party of today bears little resemblance to the New Deal Democrats?
I suggest he go back and read little history. He might read about Senator Robert F. Wagner the manager of much of the New Deal legislation in Congress and might have been president instead of FDR if not for his foreign birth. Oh, and by the way, in the 1930s Wagner proposed universal health care. Sound like either of the current Democratic candidates?
The only major difference between the New Deal Democrats and those of today was that because that they relied on southern votes, there was no great push for civil rights. But it was during the FDR presidency that the shift of blacks being solidly Republican as a legacy of Lincoln to being solidly Democratic today. And apart from opposing civil rights legislation that they needed to to keep their seats, many of the southerners in Congress were socially liberal on other issues. Hugo Black who had been a senator from Alabama and a one time member of the KKK became one of the most liberal justices ever to serve on the Supreme Court.
I suggest he go back and read little history. He might read about Senator Robert F. Wagner the manager of much of the New Deal legislation in Congress and might have been president instead of FDR if not for his foreign birth. Oh, and by the way, in the 1930s Wagner proposed universal health care. Sound like either of the current Democratic candidates?
The only major difference between the New Deal Democrats and those of today was that because that they relied on southern votes, there was no great push for civil rights. But it was during the FDR presidency that the shift of blacks being solidly Republican as a legacy of Lincoln to being solidly Democratic today. And apart from opposing civil rights legislation that they needed to to keep their seats, many of the southerners in Congress were socially liberal on other issues. Hugo Black who had been a senator from Alabama and a one time member of the KKK became one of the most liberal justices ever to serve on the Supreme Court.
8
I think the author was saying that the Democratic party of today has abandoned the working class, that was once the basis of the Party in the 30's, in favor of the class of "liberal" professional elites.
You can witness the professionals' disregard of the working class in the appalling snark of the "liberals" directed at Trump supporters yesterday in the comments section accompanying Dick Cavett's patronizing opinion piece yesterday in the Times.
You can witness the professionals' disregard of the working class in the appalling snark of the "liberals" directed at Trump supporters yesterday in the comments section accompanying Dick Cavett's patronizing opinion piece yesterday in the Times.
8
I don't doubt that many of you are more intelligent and informed than I am (though as an infrequent social media commenter I can see what all the fuss is over trolls), but I had to read this a second time to see what was causing all of these disparaging comments. For the life of me, I can't find an opinion in this piece that would upset anyone (though you needn't agree with his historical or political conclusions). I'm left to assume that it is his sensible point-of-view regarding Bernie Sanders' campaign. So why don't you just say that?
I supported Bernie's candidacy early on because I too dreamed of a political revolution (I own my naive idealism), but when there were no barricades to mount and no tanks to stand before I was happy for his pushing the Dems' agenda to the left and moved on. In the fall I hope you'll put aside your anger and elect the most capable candidate of either party, Secretary Clinton.
I supported Bernie's candidacy early on because I too dreamed of a political revolution (I own my naive idealism), but when there were no barricades to mount and no tanks to stand before I was happy for his pushing the Dems' agenda to the left and moved on. In the fall I hope you'll put aside your anger and elect the most capable candidate of either party, Secretary Clinton.
49
If you had to name one book that had the greatest influence on your life, what would it be?", a NYT reporter asked Hillary. Clinton replied: "At the risk of appearing predictable, the Bible was and remains the biggest influence on my thinking. I was raised reading it, memorizing passages from it and being guided by it. I still find it a source of wisdom, comfort and encouragement."
So Madame Secretary thinks a book written in the 1st quarter of the 4th century by ignorant men who thought the earth was flat and had no idea where the sun went at night is a source of wisdom and comfort. We can draw only two conclusions here; both bad. Either the woman is delusional or she's a hypocrite. You can only pick one. Delusion: "A persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a sign of a psychiatric condition."
Unless Hillary releases those speeches, I will write in Bernie's name. She knows quite well if she released them she would lose this election to Bernie in a landslide defeat. That is why I am writing in the name of Bernie. I refuse to sacrifice my integrity to someone who is obsessed over money and power. What a giant step backward that would be.
So Madame Secretary thinks a book written in the 1st quarter of the 4th century by ignorant men who thought the earth was flat and had no idea where the sun went at night is a source of wisdom and comfort. We can draw only two conclusions here; both bad. Either the woman is delusional or she's a hypocrite. You can only pick one. Delusion: "A persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a sign of a psychiatric condition."
Unless Hillary releases those speeches, I will write in Bernie's name. She knows quite well if she released them she would lose this election to Bernie in a landslide defeat. That is why I am writing in the name of Bernie. I refuse to sacrifice my integrity to someone who is obsessed over money and power. What a giant step backward that would be.
3
Thank you. There are few adults in this room. Mostly, the Millennials are angry because they can't figure out how to earn a living. Their parents coddled them, and the internet and Facebook led them to believe that they shouldn't have to work hard or ever find "a job" boring or have to pay their own rent. I feel for them--we had it rough also in the 80's when I got out of college. I became a teacher, and not just for a year or two until I could run a Charter School or start an internet company. I'm in a classroom with real kids. They might want to put the energies to work in the real world as well, instead of following around a silly man from Vermont who has done little in his life other than pontificate.
1
@John H,
You couldn't find an opinion in this piece that would upset anyone? Upset isn't a word I'd use. I checked two dictionaries, just to be sure I had decent definitions. American Heritage: suppose to be the case without proof; the OED online: take for granted. I'll say I find assumptions a tad off putting anyway and the author assumed in this piece "But it is same to assume..." Is it? I wonder of Mr. Lind is getting ahead of himself.
Last I heard, some people are still waiting to cast their votes for nominees for the two major political parties (I feel for those looking at third party candidates) and the general's not until Nov.
You describe Clinton as most capable. I wonder if some aren't worried about what those capabilities are and the possible results.
4-17-16@12:35 pm
You couldn't find an opinion in this piece that would upset anyone? Upset isn't a word I'd use. I checked two dictionaries, just to be sure I had decent definitions. American Heritage: suppose to be the case without proof; the OED online: take for granted. I'll say I find assumptions a tad off putting anyway and the author assumed in this piece "But it is same to assume..." Is it? I wonder of Mr. Lind is getting ahead of himself.
Last I heard, some people are still waiting to cast their votes for nominees for the two major political parties (I feel for those looking at third party candidates) and the general's not until Nov.
You describe Clinton as most capable. I wonder if some aren't worried about what those capabilities are and the possible results.
4-17-16@12:35 pm
1
One BIG problem with the underlying theory behind this column as it pertains to the Democrats is that it ignores the fact that Senator Sanders is running a campaign that is as close to the FDR playbook than anything that we have seen in a generation and voters under 30 are responding in droves. How the author of this column turns around and uses this election as evidence that Democrats will/should begin to start pushing more "pro-business, finance-friendly economics" is head spinning. As the "millennial" segment of the electorate becomes a more significant portion of the electorate the folly of the view purported in this column will come into sharper focus.
316
Yes, too bad Senator Sanders can't get it done. The No-Plan man.
Many voters under 30 are responding in droves to Sanders because they want handouts since they cannot find jobs they believe are worthy of them...and think the government (if not the world) owes them something.
1
Old Bernie's campaign is nothing like FDR's campaigns.
Why pretend there's an equivalence between those two men? Got any examples to support your notion?
Why pretend there's an equivalence between those two men? Got any examples to support your notion?
Under this scenario, what would the Republicans and libertarians who are sincerely committed to their long-held agenda do? It's too bad that U.S. electoral rules don't leave room for the rise of a third party representing these folks. They are a major stream in U.S. political culture and shouldn't be harnessed to a nativist, populist and protectionist Trumpist party.
35
There is nothing that prevents third parties from rising up and commanding a majority of the electorate -- except that none of them have been able to excite enough voters to do so since 1860.
3
The "libertarian" strain of politics is a vicious and selfish movement that should be stamped out asap. Their philosophy is, at its heart, "might makes right" or, 'I've got mine, screw you". They would tear up the constitution and replace it with dictatorship, or maybe, plutocracy and oligarchy. In time, all three.
1
Electoral rules DON'T prevent the rise of a third party. There have been 3rd parties before -- like the Republican party. There is currently a Progressive party and a Libertarian party and a few more. they have their own candidates, choose their own members of the electoral college and appear on the general election ballot in any state where they have filed to do so. The only thing that stops them from winning the presidency is that they don't get enough votes. If you want to vote libertarian there's nothing stopping you.
The pompous assumptions are breathtaking yet predictable, full of glib declarations and signifying something other than what's happening out here in citizenville. The establishment has become somewhat nervous but not convinced that things will remain out of control. They may be right for the time being but quite possibly not. Bernie Sanders has left a mark that will remain. Trump might have had he been more consistent. When this many people get angry at the political system a real change becomes possible. If it doesn't happen this year an even more determined and focused effort will most certainly be the energy of the next one.
9
What a horrible prognosis for this Democrat: no relief from Big Money, no hope for climate action over special interests, no help for the suffering middle and lower classes. The continued dominance of corporate interests in our politics.
But this prognosis is not a done deal. Because most Americans--in all parties--favor getting Big Money out of politics. Most favor addressing economic inequality, climate change, universal health care, and other progressive issues. The majority of Democrats under 45 (under 65, in the latest CBS national poll) have voted for those issues, and against Big Money. Lots of Independents and Republicans have joined them. These are the future.
Thanks to the courage of Bernie Sanders, for speaking the clear, plain truth about politicians and money, we can see an alternative path. On this path, the Progressive Congressional Caucus, whose members have already chaired many committees, becomes more powerful as more progressives are voted in. There could actually be a cabinet composed not of corporate insiders, but of champions for the environment, for low-cost healthcare, etc.
I have to believe that the voters still count for something, and that we still can determine our future. The response to Sanders' message, tells me that there are a lot of people who will deny the future you describe. For them, the goals are clear. The differences between what you describe, and what they want, are clear. And the fight is only starting.
But this prognosis is not a done deal. Because most Americans--in all parties--favor getting Big Money out of politics. Most favor addressing economic inequality, climate change, universal health care, and other progressive issues. The majority of Democrats under 45 (under 65, in the latest CBS national poll) have voted for those issues, and against Big Money. Lots of Independents and Republicans have joined them. These are the future.
Thanks to the courage of Bernie Sanders, for speaking the clear, plain truth about politicians and money, we can see an alternative path. On this path, the Progressive Congressional Caucus, whose members have already chaired many committees, becomes more powerful as more progressives are voted in. There could actually be a cabinet composed not of corporate insiders, but of champions for the environment, for low-cost healthcare, etc.
I have to believe that the voters still count for something, and that we still can determine our future. The response to Sanders' message, tells me that there are a lot of people who will deny the future you describe. For them, the goals are clear. The differences between what you describe, and what they want, are clear. And the fight is only starting.
16
"because he is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, he has had to put greater emphasis on other issues, including racial disparity in policing and sentencing and the environment and immigration." in other words, he has to play 'identity politics' in which arguments based on reason become irrelevant and group identification is all that matters.This is not a sound basis for a democratic or representative government.
3
Excellent piece!!! It's so nice to read perceptive, deep analysis rather than the media and parties talking heads. Thank you.
Trump and Clinton also represent the debate over America's role in the world. America Firstism or the global citizen/leader/essential nation of the past. Blah, blah, blah.
The corporate class since the united Fruits days and bipartisan overthrows Of democratic leaders are the Rubio, Hillary, McCain, Lindsay Graham crowd; trump , sanders, the family Paul are on the other side of that aisle.
The powers are antiquated as presently structured; time to go.
Trump and Clinton also represent the debate over America's role in the world. America Firstism or the global citizen/leader/essential nation of the past. Blah, blah, blah.
The corporate class since the united Fruits days and bipartisan overthrows Of democratic leaders are the Rubio, Hillary, McCain, Lindsay Graham crowd; trump , sanders, the family Paul are on the other side of that aisle.
The powers are antiquated as presently structured; time to go.
One really has to wonder if think tank pundits ever leave their K Street offices when I read analyses like this one.
Take a look at what is happening around the world in the other developed "democracies". In France, the extreme right is in European, national and local government. The left losses 12 of its regions. The right in disarray. Sarkozy, former president/leader of the right faces judicial proceedings. Joppé, leading in polls for the right's presidential primary, convicted along with former president Chirac for using public funds to hire party apparatchiks as fictitious City of Paris employees. Hollande, 12% approval rating going into his last year. Economy minister, Macron, attempts a, for lack of better term, "right to work" law that results in demonstrations not seen since 1968. Macron creates a DLC like "not right, not left" party in an attempt to expand neoliberalism (known as "Anglo-Saxon" model here). Catalonia and Madrid divorce themselves from national government. Belgium, no effective government. BREXIT. Netherlands' recent referendum. Australia ditching PMs every 2 years. Canada's shift back to the left.. Brazil. Generalized anger in EU about refugees and terrorism recognized as GWB blow back and US policy failures.
No matter where I travel (EU, USA, Australia, NZ) in years since '08, I see a working class done with "status quo" and it's obvious that "realignments" won't be an outcome. Wikileaks, Snowden and Panama Papers only gives them more credence.
Take a look at what is happening around the world in the other developed "democracies". In France, the extreme right is in European, national and local government. The left losses 12 of its regions. The right in disarray. Sarkozy, former president/leader of the right faces judicial proceedings. Joppé, leading in polls for the right's presidential primary, convicted along with former president Chirac for using public funds to hire party apparatchiks as fictitious City of Paris employees. Hollande, 12% approval rating going into his last year. Economy minister, Macron, attempts a, for lack of better term, "right to work" law that results in demonstrations not seen since 1968. Macron creates a DLC like "not right, not left" party in an attempt to expand neoliberalism (known as "Anglo-Saxon" model here). Catalonia and Madrid divorce themselves from national government. Belgium, no effective government. BREXIT. Netherlands' recent referendum. Australia ditching PMs every 2 years. Canada's shift back to the left.. Brazil. Generalized anger in EU about refugees and terrorism recognized as GWB blow back and US policy failures.
No matter where I travel (EU, USA, Australia, NZ) in years since '08, I see a working class done with "status quo" and it's obvious that "realignments" won't be an outcome. Wikileaks, Snowden and Panama Papers only gives them more credence.
3
This was an extremely thorough, detailed and comprehensive, and well written analysis of recent and projected future politics in the U.S. And it is also truly horrifying to see what Lind has demonstrated politics to be in the U.S. His analysis, in its description of a back and forth battle between the two major parties, resembles nothing so much as a sports battle, a totalitarian attempt by each side to control entirely the perception and direction of American life.
Both political parties resemble football or basketball machines, squashing any other view of life not to mention high and individual intellectual viewpoint. Both seem crude attempts at crowd control. Another analogy is a musical battle of the bands, with only two bands on bandstand and every other noise crowded out of American life. Totalitarian crowd control politics in which a person must join one of two teams or have his life seriously compromised by being on the outside...
The horrifying effect of this politics on ourselves and the view cast abroad to the world can be seen by studying the average media impression an American receives from any country in Europe, for Europe too is subject to this type of politics: We Americans do not receive any impression of a vast array of high and individual and gifted voices (writers, scientists, great individuals in this and that field) emanating from Europe, only a crude and general, "political figure" life. A terrorist attack in Belgium? Try naming a single Belgian.
Both political parties resemble football or basketball machines, squashing any other view of life not to mention high and individual intellectual viewpoint. Both seem crude attempts at crowd control. Another analogy is a musical battle of the bands, with only two bands on bandstand and every other noise crowded out of American life. Totalitarian crowd control politics in which a person must join one of two teams or have his life seriously compromised by being on the outside...
The horrifying effect of this politics on ourselves and the view cast abroad to the world can be seen by studying the average media impression an American receives from any country in Europe, for Europe too is subject to this type of politics: We Americans do not receive any impression of a vast array of high and individual and gifted voices (writers, scientists, great individuals in this and that field) emanating from Europe, only a crude and general, "political figure" life. A terrorist attack in Belgium? Try naming a single Belgian.
2
I disagree, although am appreciative of the historical ideological analysis. Bernie is the future of the party, as he has lit a real, lasting fire that has been burning for over a decade. It is based on the unbalanced power in our financial sector, and head in the sand resistance to move off fossil fuels, again, big oil/gas/coal money.
While I agree that a personality like Trump's can't be easily duplicated, if at all, candidates similar to him will emerge in the future. The demographic that has elected GOP establishment types are dying by the thousands every day.
The entire political system is going through a seismic cycle, one that has been in the works since bad trade deals, financial largesse and greed became the order of the day.
While I agree that a personality like Trump's can't be easily duplicated, if at all, candidates similar to him will emerge in the future. The demographic that has elected GOP establishment types are dying by the thousands every day.
The entire political system is going through a seismic cycle, one that has been in the works since bad trade deals, financial largesse and greed became the order of the day.
2
I don't agree with the hypothesis of this author. To be sure, there may be some changes in the way nominees are selected. I think the public is outraged at how cronies and party hacks have more sway than they in choosing nominees. This is the only common issue that may be expected to change and be retained in the future. As for Hillary, people are turned off by lack of candor and hypocrisy, both of which she has been associated with. Trump's brashness, likewise, is a turnoff for many. The changes these two campaigns will have in terms of future campaigns is 1) there will be more transparency and democracy in the selection process; and 2) there will be more honesty and less hate-America-first among the Democrat candidates; and 3) there will be less brashness, fewer insults, and astute analysis of issues by both candidates.
2
The first clause of the first amendment is the wisest phrase in the whole Constitution as amended. We'll all get along much better when everyone's claims to know what God thinks get equal treatment: dismissal.
The forecast outcome here is really bad news for the future.
Both Dems and the GOP are Neo-liberal adherents.
This is a discredited modus, devastating all but the very rich.
For the GOP it is not a betrayal of their values as the Eisenhower days were lost many years ago. But for the Democrats, supposedly in business to support the blue collar and similar cohorts, it is a betrayal most miserable.
The Clintons are so embedded with the super rich that they should not be in the party now. They do not identify with it and neither does Barack Obama, who spoke blue collar to get the presidency, but has only a token relationship with it now. He also looks for a cushy job outside the presidency so is hardly going to drive his so called original agenda.
All neo-liberalism is the enemy!
http://www.monbiot.com/2016/04/15/the-zombie-doctrine/
Both Dems and the GOP are Neo-liberal adherents.
This is a discredited modus, devastating all but the very rich.
For the GOP it is not a betrayal of their values as the Eisenhower days were lost many years ago. But for the Democrats, supposedly in business to support the blue collar and similar cohorts, it is a betrayal most miserable.
The Clintons are so embedded with the super rich that they should not be in the party now. They do not identify with it and neither does Barack Obama, who spoke blue collar to get the presidency, but has only a token relationship with it now. He also looks for a cushy job outside the presidency so is hardly going to drive his so called original agenda.
All neo-liberalism is the enemy!
http://www.monbiot.com/2016/04/15/the-zombie-doctrine/
5
What is Neoliberalism?? Reagan Republicanism.
The quote unquote Socialism -- free college for people who meet the requirements -- is NOTHING new> Aluxury tax which Bernis should call for is nothing new-- nor is a 95% top tax brackets-- both of which we had under REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS.... and the luxury tax Geroge Bush put back and Bill Clinton ( a very regressive president got rid of.... as he unleashed the banks, got rid of welfare and increased prison sentences-- aiding the private prison industry.)
WORDS MATTER. Stupid people comment Socialism is communism... People whose sons died thought that the Iraqis had destroyed the World Trade Center.
GREED -- not worry is behind most of the nonsense.. and frankly maybe it's time the NYTIMES published more news and less opinion... Trumpism is new; Clintonism -- protecting Reaganism gone to the nth degree ain't.
The quote unquote Socialism -- free college for people who meet the requirements -- is NOTHING new> Aluxury tax which Bernis should call for is nothing new-- nor is a 95% top tax brackets-- both of which we had under REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS.... and the luxury tax Geroge Bush put back and Bill Clinton ( a very regressive president got rid of.... as he unleashed the banks, got rid of welfare and increased prison sentences-- aiding the private prison industry.)
WORDS MATTER. Stupid people comment Socialism is communism... People whose sons died thought that the Iraqis had destroyed the World Trade Center.
GREED -- not worry is behind most of the nonsense.. and frankly maybe it's time the NYTIMES published more news and less opinion... Trumpism is new; Clintonism -- protecting Reaganism gone to the nth degree ain't.
87
Trump seems to be returning his party to Gilded Age policies of increasing the economic liberties of upper classes, while disguising the extent to which he advocates contracting both economic and civil liberties for the base. His theory isn't that far from Reagan's: with grit and hard work, individuals can emulate Horatio Alger.
Sanders seems to be the anachronistic figure in his party, as he advocates TR-style limitation on the economic liberties of big trusts and global business, and openly espouses the philosophy that the Constitution in both spirit and practice prohibits anyone from restraining trade through monopolization of power.
This isn't new. In fact, it appears more like Republican takeover of the Democratic Party, with Clinton representing a declining Establishment.
Sanders seems to be the anachronistic figure in his party, as he advocates TR-style limitation on the economic liberties of big trusts and global business, and openly espouses the philosophy that the Constitution in both spirit and practice prohibits anyone from restraining trade through monopolization of power.
This isn't new. In fact, it appears more like Republican takeover of the Democratic Party, with Clinton representing a declining Establishment.
1
I can not believe that the people of America stood by and allowed these political parties and people like this to lead our country. It is time to throw them out, throw them all out.
27
1/2 right. The argument that Hillary is the future of the party, however, mightily fails. She is as conservative as Bill on truly important matters; she has vacillated and this definitely is because of Bernie--- the writer fails to mention the key: Hillary only changed her long held views AFTER Bernie started hammering her in the primaries.
Democrats, while appreciating the Obama years for their healing and resurgence, know that the country now is in vastly better shape than 7 years ago, that it is time to build on success, not retreat into the past.
On foreign policy, as well as national issues, Hillary is the past.
The energy is with Bernie, as it was with Gene McCarthy almost fifty years ago.
Does anyone really want to take a chance with Hubert Horatio Humphrey in skirts or a pants-suit?
Democrats, while appreciating the Obama years for their healing and resurgence, know that the country now is in vastly better shape than 7 years ago, that it is time to build on success, not retreat into the past.
On foreign policy, as well as national issues, Hillary is the past.
The energy is with Bernie, as it was with Gene McCarthy almost fifty years ago.
Does anyone really want to take a chance with Hubert Horatio Humphrey in skirts or a pants-suit?
14
Gee, look how well that worked out! Nixon in '68. W in 2000. Thanks a lot.
This piece assumes a static economic paradigm that some lucky candidate will get to manage. But the paradigm is already shifting dramatically. Environmental concerns will soon demand big spending, Roosevelt era public works programs and the rise of intelligent machines will consolidate the job gains in information technology to the point where IT, the economy's current locomotive, will commoditize further and recede into the background music of economic progress. In that environment, populism will reign again and the big question is how it will be managed. Will it look like a fascist paradise or a socialist one?
3
Michael Lind,
Through your observations, you believe that working-class Whites always desired all of the appeals of a left wing European style economy, with a broad safety net; such as, Social Security, Medicare and economic protectionism. The reason that they fled the Roosevelt New Deal coalition is because they only wanted these government handouts for only themselves, and not anyone different from them.
Therefore, the new Republican and Democratic realignment is simply one party wants to help redistribute wealth to conservative Whites and the other wants to redistribute wealth to all Americans. Even though this puts emphasis on the 1% to horde their wealth from these two factions, the complete lack of unity of the Republicans and Democrats will make it a cinch for the billionaire class to drive a wedge between them. This ultimately make the rich richer, and everyone else poorer, dumber, and less secure.
Through your observations, you believe that working-class Whites always desired all of the appeals of a left wing European style economy, with a broad safety net; such as, Social Security, Medicare and economic protectionism. The reason that they fled the Roosevelt New Deal coalition is because they only wanted these government handouts for only themselves, and not anyone different from them.
Therefore, the new Republican and Democratic realignment is simply one party wants to help redistribute wealth to conservative Whites and the other wants to redistribute wealth to all Americans. Even though this puts emphasis on the 1% to horde their wealth from these two factions, the complete lack of unity of the Republicans and Democrats will make it a cinch for the billionaire class to drive a wedge between them. This ultimately make the rich richer, and everyone else poorer, dumber, and less secure.
3
"A swing and a miss." Mr. Lind's tangled skein would benefit from some application of Occam's Razor, both here and in his book. The root of "American Exceptionalism" has always been a super-abundance of untapped natural resources. American politics has always been a thinly-disguised struggle on the part of ever-shifting interest groups to get a bigger slice of the wealth thus engendered.
The insurgencies that have developed in both the GOP and in the Democratic Party are the first bubbles of a pot that may will boil over; outrage by the economically marginalized. All of the labels and political lineages Lind details are very likely to become of purely historical interest if our two ossified political parties don't address that, and soon.
The insurgencies that have developed in both the GOP and in the Democratic Party are the first bubbles of a pot that may will boil over; outrage by the economically marginalized. All of the labels and political lineages Lind details are very likely to become of purely historical interest if our two ossified political parties don't address that, and soon.
2
I disagree with you when you say, "Even if she had not been challenged by Mr. Sanders, she probably would have done this anyway, " You are dead wrong! Sanders shaped the direction of Clinton's campaign starting six months ago. At first she never even used the word "progressive" leave alone called herself one.
514
Any Clinton shift has been on the margin. Mr. Lind's thesis stands.
2
Why would she deem herself "progressive"? The Clintons, as well as Obama, are what were once, quaintly, called Rockefeller Republicans. No progressives there...
And she will return to being the centrist she previously declared herself to be.
I really hope the author is right. Clintonism and Trumpism are different flavors of liberalism: free market, social libertarianism, pragmatic politics. Obama is yet another version of the same basic model whose demise Roger Cohen movingly - and I hope prematurely - mourned recently in another NYT opinion piece. Sure, liberalism is not perfect. But hasn't the disastrous twentieth century taught us that nothing is, and that pursuit of utopia inevitably leads to a concentration camp? What are the alternatives to liberalism? On the American scene, they are represented by Cruz and Sanders. The first is a theocrat, the second - socialist. In other words, the choice is between the Christian version of the Sharia law and the zombie resurrection of the ideology that killed more people and ruined more countries than Hitler did. Adding "democrat" to "socialist" is putting lipstick on a pig; it does not change the fundamental truth that without free markets (regulated, of course) there is neither political nor individual freedom. Economic inequality? Live with it. In a society in which nobody is a winner, everybody is a loser.
2
This sounds a great deal like what Mr. Lind would like to be true than what may or may not prove to be true. It is remarkable how little he has to say about "Trumpism" and how much he has to say "Clintonism." Likewise, how hard he tries to distinguish between the "Clintonism" of the '90s and the "Clintonism" of the '10s. Indeed, this seems like one more installment of the stream of reports (in the Times and elsewhere), that the popularity of Sanders (and, less overtly Trump, because the argument that Trump's popularity is an illusion is so obviously no longer sustainable) is not really meaningful or significant. This approach is stale. It reeks of sour grapes and a refusal to contend with electoral reality. It tries to make Sanders into Clinton, and Clinton in something less like a fossil from the '90s than she really is.
Clinton is a survivor, and although she may not have her husband's charm, she is far more adept as a survivor. But to pretend that American politics will never, and can never, break free of the center-right, pro-business classical liberalism that has so forcefully dominated U.S. Politics since the Reagan administration is either a cynical, or a condescending, insult to the American electorate.
Clinton is a survivor, and although she may not have her husband's charm, she is far more adept as a survivor. But to pretend that American politics will never, and can never, break free of the center-right, pro-business classical liberalism that has so forcefully dominated U.S. Politics since the Reagan administration is either a cynical, or a condescending, insult to the American electorate.
6
I keep reading this idea that young middle class voters will become more fiscally conservative as they age as happened to the Baby Boomers. This badly misreads history. Baby Boomers graduated college with virtually no debt from tax payer funded Universities and were protected from the employment insecurity that Neoliberalism brought to the working class.
Todays young people have graduated with massive debts from state schools that depend largely on tuition for funding. Their degrees no longer provide an amour of credentialism. They will face the threat of falling out of the middle class until the retire often with no pensions and their Social Security being garnished to pay for student loans they never were able to pay down.
The middle class largely has ceased to exist for the kinds of knowledge workers that made a large part of the Yuppies. They are less likely to have to worry about mortgages or being in high tax bracket. They will support policies that fight the insecurities brought by Neoliberalism because they won't just sympathize working class workers that experience them but will experience those insecurities themselves.
Todays young people have graduated with massive debts from state schools that depend largely on tuition for funding. Their degrees no longer provide an amour of credentialism. They will face the threat of falling out of the middle class until the retire often with no pensions and their Social Security being garnished to pay for student loans they never were able to pay down.
The middle class largely has ceased to exist for the kinds of knowledge workers that made a large part of the Yuppies. They are less likely to have to worry about mortgages or being in high tax bracket. They will support policies that fight the insecurities brought by Neoliberalism because they won't just sympathize working class workers that experience them but will experience those insecurities themselves.
10
There is and has long been class war in America. It was masked during the American Era of 1940 to 1990 by the rising tide that did, for a while, lift all boats. Most people got used to this state of affairs and stopped watching the store.
Meanwhile the thieves sneaked in, smiling and saying they were there to help. But the long slide downward in 99% incomes and the remarkable tripling of 1% incomes was happening behind the scenes. The 1% have been winning the war, while the 99% do not even recognize its existence. The Trump and Sanders supporters are beginning to get a vague idea of it.
The plutocrats have done what pickpockets and magicians have always done, they have distracted us. That is what evangelical religion and the war on drugs, abortion fights and gay marriage, the war in Afghanistan (though not the one in Iraq), immigration controversies and so much more are all about. They distract us from the fact that the 1% are robbing us blind.
Piketty is right. The 1% will continue to take a larger share of wealth despite doing no work, as long as the rules for inheritance do not change. The solution is to not allow inheritance over $1 million. Thomas Jefferson outlawed extreme inheritance as governor of Virginia, and Abe Lincoln agreed.
To see what should be done go to YouTube watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Send a buck to Bernie, invite me to speak. Thanks. [email protected]
Meanwhile the thieves sneaked in, smiling and saying they were there to help. But the long slide downward in 99% incomes and the remarkable tripling of 1% incomes was happening behind the scenes. The 1% have been winning the war, while the 99% do not even recognize its existence. The Trump and Sanders supporters are beginning to get a vague idea of it.
The plutocrats have done what pickpockets and magicians have always done, they have distracted us. That is what evangelical religion and the war on drugs, abortion fights and gay marriage, the war in Afghanistan (though not the one in Iraq), immigration controversies and so much more are all about. They distract us from the fact that the 1% are robbing us blind.
Piketty is right. The 1% will continue to take a larger share of wealth despite doing no work, as long as the rules for inheritance do not change. The solution is to not allow inheritance over $1 million. Thomas Jefferson outlawed extreme inheritance as governor of Virginia, and Abe Lincoln agreed.
To see what should be done go to YouTube watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Send a buck to Bernie, invite me to speak. Thanks. [email protected]
13
As usual, the Times dismisses and diminishes anything left of Hillary Clinton in its pages. Clinton is measurably right of Eisenhower, Nixon and even Reagan, and it is only this far left that the Times and its chosen op-ed contributors will countenance.
As for Lind, it's hard to imagine that he didn't make up most of this out of whole cloth.
As for Lind, it's hard to imagine that he didn't make up most of this out of whole cloth.
8
Bernie Sanders' economic message resonates so well with voters across a broad spectrum--not just the young chasing an ideal as Lind states--because they reflect authentic statements of what the Democratic Party should aspire to become at and after the election. If the Democratic Party fails to institutionalize those messages and solutions into policy, many who have worked and donated to the party over a lifetime will finally desert the Party and may seek a home of their own making.
A Washington insider of Lind's stature who contemplates the world through the myopia of position papers and expert opinion crafted in Washington, D.C. may not fully appreciate the dynamics of the Sanders' movement. Among any desperation or anger, there is also great hope that a message of economic justice resounds. The blueprint for this is not final, but these voters are done being ignored or manipulated for their votes. Republicans have been rejected by workers and the middle class understanding that tax cuts for the rich don't translate into prosperity for them.
Lind must know that the New Deal was not simply social welfare policies imposed upon people by government, but laws which reflect the ideal of what a fair, just, and compassionate democracy should aspire to and be, including those economic ideals that offer opportunity to a reasonably secure life. It was snuffed out by Reagan, and Clinton may have left it for dead, but the ideal lives this year in what Sanders represents.
A Washington insider of Lind's stature who contemplates the world through the myopia of position papers and expert opinion crafted in Washington, D.C. may not fully appreciate the dynamics of the Sanders' movement. Among any desperation or anger, there is also great hope that a message of economic justice resounds. The blueprint for this is not final, but these voters are done being ignored or manipulated for their votes. Republicans have been rejected by workers and the middle class understanding that tax cuts for the rich don't translate into prosperity for them.
Lind must know that the New Deal was not simply social welfare policies imposed upon people by government, but laws which reflect the ideal of what a fair, just, and compassionate democracy should aspire to and be, including those economic ideals that offer opportunity to a reasonably secure life. It was snuffed out by Reagan, and Clinton may have left it for dead, but the ideal lives this year in what Sanders represents.
138
"Bernie Sanders' economic message resonates so well with voters across a broad spectrum--not just the young chasing an ideal as Lind states--because they reflect authentic statements of what the Democratic Party should aspire to become at and after the election. "
Exactly....I'm no starry-eyed kid, although I wish I was. I'm 60 (and not an aging hippie either), and I have seen the Democratic party devolving. What we need at this time is another FDR, not another Clinton. And Obama has disappointed so many of us.
It's like Reagan said.... "I didn't leave the Democratic party, the party left me"
Exactly....I'm no starry-eyed kid, although I wish I was. I'm 60 (and not an aging hippie either), and I have seen the Democratic party devolving. What we need at this time is another FDR, not another Clinton. And Obama has disappointed so many of us.
It's like Reagan said.... "I didn't leave the Democratic party, the party left me"
3
Except that Hillary Clinton is getting more votes than Sanders (despite the fact that many people don't like her personally), suggesting that she better represents the interests of the broad membership of the Democratic Party. Anything you say about people leaving because they didn't get their way applies to the other side too.
Lind is wildly off. Right track, wrong direction. Hillary represents the future of American conservatism. Senator Sanders shows us a part of the emerging left, hammered into the ground every time it peeped up since 1916.
What we are seeing is the collapse of the conservative-fascist-racist coalition built by Lee Atwood to the benefit of Richard Nixon. Goldwater Girl Clinton, like her husband, is the logical extension of Eisenhower, of Taft, or of any Republicanism without racism as its base.
Sanders represents the future of America's left, as yet unnamed. It will be based in the South, on the black vote, on government and industrial workers, and on memories of Southern Progressivism. "There ain't but three things wrong with the South, Northern banks, Northern Railroads, and Northern insurance companies," said Progressive Tom Watson. He missed the fourth, racism,as he fell into its clutches himself to get elected to the Senate from Georgia. That racism is hitting its high tide right now, and will ebb as Trumpism dies.
Trumpism is not a politics. It is an emotional spasm, symptomatic of upheaval, but representative of nothing. He has destroyed his only asset, his loud name, with this campaign, and will spend the rest of his life trying to hold his diminished holdings together. This is the man, remember, who will not release his taxes for the unusual reason that it would show how little he really owns.
-dlj.
What we are seeing is the collapse of the conservative-fascist-racist coalition built by Lee Atwood to the benefit of Richard Nixon. Goldwater Girl Clinton, like her husband, is the logical extension of Eisenhower, of Taft, or of any Republicanism without racism as its base.
Sanders represents the future of America's left, as yet unnamed. It will be based in the South, on the black vote, on government and industrial workers, and on memories of Southern Progressivism. "There ain't but three things wrong with the South, Northern banks, Northern Railroads, and Northern insurance companies," said Progressive Tom Watson. He missed the fourth, racism,as he fell into its clutches himself to get elected to the Senate from Georgia. That racism is hitting its high tide right now, and will ebb as Trumpism dies.
Trumpism is not a politics. It is an emotional spasm, symptomatic of upheaval, but representative of nothing. He has destroyed his only asset, his loud name, with this campaign, and will spend the rest of his life trying to hold his diminished holdings together. This is the man, remember, who will not release his taxes for the unusual reason that it would show how little he really owns.
-dlj.
3
Personally, I think that there is a butterfly wing flapping some place that will create more 'hurricanes' in our body politic. And that nobody really has a clue what the future holds no matter who "wins" the election. The future isn't what it used to be, it isn't what we think it is going to be. The future is unknowable and we are badly prepared to deal with the emergent unknowable.
How does a society get prepared and stay prepared to deal with the emergent future?
First, we have to recognize that the future begins in the womb and do everything feasible to ensure that the new children get a great start as the climb the ladder of age and education. That is where I currently see our greatest failure.
Second, we need to deal with the cohort that is already here, 40% of whom drop out of school. They stand as an indictment of those who continue to do harder and faster what isn't working well enough and refuse to change the education in a systematic re-thinking of the entire enterprise. Phonics, for instance, doesn't work for a significant segment of the population and condemns them to being crippled readers or non-readers. There is a better method.
Until we get a better educated electorate that can actually THINK instead of emoting on all the social media, we will continue down our current path which likely doesn't have a great future. When 5% of the people create 90% of the future as it emerges, that is not a prescription for social and political effectiveness.
How does a society get prepared and stay prepared to deal with the emergent future?
First, we have to recognize that the future begins in the womb and do everything feasible to ensure that the new children get a great start as the climb the ladder of age and education. That is where I currently see our greatest failure.
Second, we need to deal with the cohort that is already here, 40% of whom drop out of school. They stand as an indictment of those who continue to do harder and faster what isn't working well enough and refuse to change the education in a systematic re-thinking of the entire enterprise. Phonics, for instance, doesn't work for a significant segment of the population and condemns them to being crippled readers or non-readers. There is a better method.
Until we get a better educated electorate that can actually THINK instead of emoting on all the social media, we will continue down our current path which likely doesn't have a great future. When 5% of the people create 90% of the future as it emerges, that is not a prescription for social and political effectiveness.
2
Clintonism, despite Hillary and her surrogate's claims, is the very antithesis of the values of the Progressive movement. Clintonism is bait and switch NeoLiberalism masquerading as Something else until the votes are counted.
Having met both Bill and Hillary more than once long before they polluted National politics with their drama, entitlement and scheming, I have a good grip on what they are about. The Clintons are advanced practice grifters America would be far better off without. The only thing more disturbing than the candidacy of either of them is that the Democratic Party has sold it's soul to these con artists.
Attorney, Author and Professor Michelle Alexander (The New Jim Crow) opined that it was essentially a fool's errand to try to save the Democratic Party. As time passes, I am more and more inclined to believe she is right.
Having met both Bill and Hillary more than once long before they polluted National politics with their drama, entitlement and scheming, I have a good grip on what they are about. The Clintons are advanced practice grifters America would be far better off without. The only thing more disturbing than the candidacy of either of them is that the Democratic Party has sold it's soul to these con artists.
Attorney, Author and Professor Michelle Alexander (The New Jim Crow) opined that it was essentially a fool's errand to try to save the Democratic Party. As time passes, I am more and more inclined to believe she is right.
227
First and foremost African Americans, but really everyone should read what Michelle Alexander has written, and listen when she speaks. She understands history as well as the reality today, plus she doesn't spin facts to serve her narrative.
One would have more confidence in predictions like this if they were accompanied by some evidence (say, from sophisticated public opinion polls and/or regional voting analyses. I do not see how one can reasonably call Hilary Clinton the wave of the future. The economy is not likely to get much better, or inequality to be reversed; nor will supporters of trade agreements like TPP and TTIP be able to fool people into believing they are about "free trade" that will bring most Americans prosperity, rather than the last gasp of neoliberalism and bold attempts by large banking, pharmaceutical, and intellectual property interests to sharply increase their power and profits while overturning public environmental, labor, and health and safety laws. I think these treaties won't pass, and not because Americans have become isolationists, but because too many democrats in the U.S. and Europe will be fed up with such income and power grabs masquerading as "free trade." The treaties' fate should be the fate of the candidate who most strongly supported The TPP, the keystone pipeline, unwinnable wars everywhere, and coups against democratic presidents (as in Honduras). The Democratic base isn't buying this repellant policy package. Clinton may squeak in, but the rebellion won't go away, and won't be bought off by identity politics in an era of economic struggle. Lind spins a nightmarish future.
6
I have a modest hope that after the New York primary, which is seriously rigged against him (that October 2015 date for registering your party affiliation), Sanders will be free to really cut loose on what is needed for our political future.
Such as: enough states joining the election combine to do away with the electoral college by pledging their delegates to the winner of the national vote. (Why hasn't this been an election issue?)
Such as: reform of the voting process, the voting machines: the possibility of software fraud in the count, the suppression of votes with limited polling places and voter id requirements, the Gerrymandering of districts, &c.
Such as: continued emphasis on getting big money out of politics.
Such as: reforming the courts and the judicial appointment process with acknowledgement that the courts while naturally conservative, should not be radically conservative.
Such as: clearly showing a path to universal health care through expansion of the existing medicare to progressively younger populations. (Why, indeed has Sanders not responded my emphasizing this obvious answer to complaints that he has no specific plan for achieving his reforms?)
Such as: promoting some of the obvious paths to greater equality such as much higher inheritance taxes and high end marginal tax rates.
Such as: Higher social security taxes on high incomes and lower retirement ages for low wage workers.
Such as: getting the corporations out of the schools. –word limit
Such as: enough states joining the election combine to do away with the electoral college by pledging their delegates to the winner of the national vote. (Why hasn't this been an election issue?)
Such as: reform of the voting process, the voting machines: the possibility of software fraud in the count, the suppression of votes with limited polling places and voter id requirements, the Gerrymandering of districts, &c.
Such as: continued emphasis on getting big money out of politics.
Such as: reforming the courts and the judicial appointment process with acknowledgement that the courts while naturally conservative, should not be radically conservative.
Such as: clearly showing a path to universal health care through expansion of the existing medicare to progressively younger populations. (Why, indeed has Sanders not responded my emphasizing this obvious answer to complaints that he has no specific plan for achieving his reforms?)
Such as: promoting some of the obvious paths to greater equality such as much higher inheritance taxes and high end marginal tax rates.
Such as: Higher social security taxes on high incomes and lower retirement ages for low wage workers.
Such as: getting the corporations out of the schools. –word limit
9
I disagree. The Republican Party voter is much more than anti-immigrant, and left on entitlements; he or she is also consumed by debt and wage stagnation. The mix is combustible; our government is currently designed for all citizens; white, black, poor, rich, and in-between. The Democratic Party is much more prepared and experienced with this truth. Trump Republicanism is not; and current, extraordinarily wealthy, white, conservative Republicans plan to ignore and dismiss their now enlarged non-wealthy, white base forever. How, is the billionaire dollar question.
1
Most of the comments here are tethered way to closely to the person-hoods of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump. Because of the confusion with Lind's insights and analysis represented by the comments made so far, it would have been better not to use the words Trumpism and Clintonism as titles for Lind's suggestion of the realignment to the parties to come soon.
Trumpism is a name given to a perceived phenomenon, the move of the Republicans from domination of country-club Republican ideas (and the Falwell Republican ideas that Lind does not mention) to the domination of the racist, nationalist, protectionist, social conservative ideas voted for by Republicans who have voted for Trump (and partially for Cruz).
What is unstated by Lind in his realignment analysis is the answer to the question: to which party do the white, socially tolerant, capitalists (who have been overwhelmingly outvoted in the Republican primary) now go?
Trumpism is a name given to a perceived phenomenon, the move of the Republicans from domination of country-club Republican ideas (and the Falwell Republican ideas that Lind does not mention) to the domination of the racist, nationalist, protectionist, social conservative ideas voted for by Republicans who have voted for Trump (and partially for Cruz).
What is unstated by Lind in his realignment analysis is the answer to the question: to which party do the white, socially tolerant, capitalists (who have been overwhelmingly outvoted in the Republican primary) now go?
9
"to which party do the white, socially tolerant, capitalists (who have been overwhelmingly outvoted in the Republican primary) now go?"--answer: To the Democrats.
That's an easy question. They go to Hillary Clinton and what she represents.
As we spoke of Reagan Democrats in the 1980s, we will speak of Hillary Republicans over the next two decades.
As we spoke of Reagan Democrats in the 1980s, we will speak of Hillary Republicans over the next two decades.
The main difference between the "Trumpism" of the Republicans and the "Clintonism" of the Democrats is the people who the isms are named after. Clinton is highly is highly qualified to represent and carry out this "Clintonism" or modern Democrat and to be President. Trump may have captured the spirit of the new Republicans, in part because all the other candidates were stuck in the old mold, but he is a buffoon who is completely unqualified to be President or to represent these people.
6
This is one perspective. An interesting one but I think it places too much emphasis on predictability logic and may fail to take into consideration a much larger shift underway. This is one that goes beyond Republican & Democrat politics-as-usual and puts teeth behind the aim to resolve economic imbalances between rich & poor, find a sustainability-focused environmental solution. On a global level. In other words, if Bernie does well in NY (within five points either way, as many expect), making the election a horse race, then the question arises, just how disruptive is the necessary paradigm shift going to be? And will America be putting its best minds behind it? If business as usual reigns, it may be time for a viable third party, focused simply on sustainability, to emerge. It could be the decider on vital issues in ways that trump both Democrat and Republican linearities. #endurancewriter
Mr. Lind captures the political strategies–these are not ideologies–of Trump and Clinton. But he is wrong about the time-frame.
Clinton and Trump represent the PRESENT. Our FUTURE will depend on which of these Giant Panders is adopted by the voters in November, and spends the next four years posturing to avoid the obvious.
Neither of these candidates has honestly acknowledged our existential threats: ecological destruction, perpetual militarism, mindless consumerism. Neither is a leader. Voters are queuing to nominate, then elect, their Celebrity-in-Cheif.
Clinton and Trump represent the PRESENT. Our FUTURE will depend on which of these Giant Panders is adopted by the voters in November, and spends the next four years posturing to avoid the obvious.
Neither of these candidates has honestly acknowledged our existential threats: ecological destruction, perpetual militarism, mindless consumerism. Neither is a leader. Voters are queuing to nominate, then elect, their Celebrity-in-Cheif.
4
Any analysis which ignores the economic imperative of our 40 year deterioration in workers' wages/production, which is driving them away from the PAC-financed establishment towards populism or socialism, is fallacious.
681
So true; I wonder how Mr. Lind is feeling as he reads the comments ??
He should get out more, walk on the poor side of the tracks, for just a bit, and discover the world as it really is.
He should get out more, walk on the poor side of the tracks, for just a bit, and discover the world as it really is.
2
Yup.
There has been a deterioration in wages, but where is the deterioration in production?
Politics (votes) follows culture (feelings) eventually. But there is a lag. If you want to look at the future of the parties, look at favorability. The parties may have Trump and Clinton, for reasons nobody fully understands, but they want Sanders and Kasich. Your analysis ignores the strange disconnect between where people are on individual issues and how they identify. On an issue-by-issu basis, Americans are more likely to be liberal than they are to identify as liberal. But politics eventually catches up with culture, and underlying today's odd snapshot, America will be moving pretty steadily toward Sander's basic position on the L/R scale. But calling it "socialism" will be so 2016.
204
What indication is there that Republicans prefer Kasich? While still standing, he's won exactly one state (his home state) and has received far, far fewer votes than Trump and Cruz. And what's the evidence that Americans generally are more liberal than they are prepared to acknowledge? The wish seems to be the father of the thought in your analysis. The idea that most working Americans are willing to pay a huge percentage of their income to finance free college, single-payer health care, and expanded benefits for seniors is not simply unproven -- it's been demonstrated again and again in our history that Americans prefer to keep more of their earnings, as opposed to creating a European-style Sandersland.
1
Yes, very good analysis. The problem with"politics eventually catches up with culture" is that the reason it catches up is that the elite with their money and power it buys, try to deceive, trick and confuse the "masses."
And "they" are very successful because they have the psychology down pat for this manipulation and people are poor with critical analysis. I cannot understand why critical thinking cannot be taught in K-12. Texas or some districts in Texas have banned the teaching of critical thinking. How can children get a decent job these days if they cannot think and analyze? Humans are so absolutely amassing to watch as they stumble through the centuries.
And "they" are very successful because they have the psychology down pat for this manipulation and people are poor with critical analysis. I cannot understand why critical thinking cannot be taught in K-12. Texas or some districts in Texas have banned the teaching of critical thinking. How can children get a decent job these days if they cannot think and analyze? Humans are so absolutely amassing to watch as they stumble through the centuries.
1
Fascinating analysis but you are missing a much more fundamental transition in American society. I like to call this the “twilight of Ideology”. The current political landscape in America is a wreckage caused by rigid, stereotyped thinking. This is currently most severe on the right of the political spectrum but the left not invulnerable. Obsessive ideology actually interrupts the cognitive reasoning process. This is why the political right currently has a maximum of passion with few ideas. Consider an analogy:
On a warm summer evening, as we watch a bolt of lightning surge across the dark sky it’s not hard to imagine why our ancient ancestors regarded this display with both awe and fear. They also came up with a wide range of explanations and reactions including some that we now regard as pretty irrational. Likewise, the speed and shock of much of modern life produce a desire for familiar havens or anchors, simple answers that can keep us safe but unfortunately we have not completely outgrown some irrational reactions. Some of these reactions can be just as destructive as natural disasters and sadly they often come beguilingly packaged in some form of Ideology- liberalism, conservatism, socialism. American Democracy today is experiencing a major collision between an increasingly complex world and increasingly rigid ideology. The saving grace is that younger voters sense all this and despite the “Bernie” fad are leading toward a completely new political structure.
On a warm summer evening, as we watch a bolt of lightning surge across the dark sky it’s not hard to imagine why our ancient ancestors regarded this display with both awe and fear. They also came up with a wide range of explanations and reactions including some that we now regard as pretty irrational. Likewise, the speed and shock of much of modern life produce a desire for familiar havens or anchors, simple answers that can keep us safe but unfortunately we have not completely outgrown some irrational reactions. Some of these reactions can be just as destructive as natural disasters and sadly they often come beguilingly packaged in some form of Ideology- liberalism, conservatism, socialism. American Democracy today is experiencing a major collision between an increasingly complex world and increasingly rigid ideology. The saving grace is that younger voters sense all this and despite the “Bernie” fad are leading toward a completely new political structure.
115
This seems more rational and simpler tan Mr. Lind's rambling and I mean rambling.
Allan AH looks at the bigger picture. We have too many people on the planet in the sense of sustainability. Climate change is an existential, massive problem upon us. Water shortages and rising temperatures are seen daily as are all the other signs of warming and dangerous weather. The middle east with the non-democratic "kingdoms," young age structure and poor economies will continue to create turmoil.
The large rise in person with no religious affiliation will continue and the incredible value people see in the movement of science (genome project, advances in medicine, technological advances is time saving devices, and even quantum physics which shows people there are other "realities") will push the world toward critical thinking and problem solving and people will have more and more hope for improving the human condition. For example, many persons are now understanding and seeing "free trade agreements" as fraught with pain and suffering, in this country with loss of jobs and in the slaves we create in other countries who produce our cheap goods.
This analysis by Mr. Lind is only a rambling of what is described above in the sense of how people form their cosmic and world view and their identify. And that becomes more progressive and rational with each day.
Mass media including the internet and social media promote the exchange of these ideas and hopefully bad thinking is corrected.
Allan AH looks at the bigger picture. We have too many people on the planet in the sense of sustainability. Climate change is an existential, massive problem upon us. Water shortages and rising temperatures are seen daily as are all the other signs of warming and dangerous weather. The middle east with the non-democratic "kingdoms," young age structure and poor economies will continue to create turmoil.
The large rise in person with no religious affiliation will continue and the incredible value people see in the movement of science (genome project, advances in medicine, technological advances is time saving devices, and even quantum physics which shows people there are other "realities") will push the world toward critical thinking and problem solving and people will have more and more hope for improving the human condition. For example, many persons are now understanding and seeing "free trade agreements" as fraught with pain and suffering, in this country with loss of jobs and in the slaves we create in other countries who produce our cheap goods.
This analysis by Mr. Lind is only a rambling of what is described above in the sense of how people form their cosmic and world view and their identify. And that becomes more progressive and rational with each day.
Mass media including the internet and social media promote the exchange of these ideas and hopefully bad thinking is corrected.
1
Allan AH: Well put; particularly, " Obsessive ideology actually interrupts the cognitive reasoning process".
Allan and Frank,
I hope you're right. But I hope America lasts long enough to experience this blossoming of consciousness you describe. I'm afraid we may be so wedded to some delusions about ourselves as a people that the country could collapse before then. Particularly, the candidacies of Trump and Cruz both seem like they are wedded to a belief in our inherent "greatness" that allows us to impose our will on other peoples and refuse to learn lessons from other countries.
I hope you're right. But I hope America lasts long enough to experience this blossoming of consciousness you describe. I'm afraid we may be so wedded to some delusions about ourselves as a people that the country could collapse before then. Particularly, the candidacies of Trump and Cruz both seem like they are wedded to a belief in our inherent "greatness" that allows us to impose our will on other peoples and refuse to learn lessons from other countries.
So long as the present system that encourages individual initiative and the concomitant rewards according to your efforts and ingenuity, America will remain the magnet of creative creations! From everyone according to his/her capacity, to everyone according to his/her need seems to be an ethos of the past. Today, all over the world, people with initiative and enthusiasm and the capacity to work harder, motivated by hard work and discipline, and to bear the grunt of today for a better and certain future are asking for concomitant rewards. The political atmosphere to garner votes may encourage wild promises of everything for everybody; but ultimately, America or any other developing country which, despite the popular and vote-getting clamor of promising benefits en mass, of only talking of rights and not or never the responsibilities or duties going along with those rights or Me Me or whats in it for Me?, actually ensure greater rewards for greater efforts alone will survive in the long run. We need more truth-speaking leaders who tell the people not what they want to hear, but also about the fundamental precept that you have to work for what you have; Manna from Heaven are never a solution to the problems that we face! Unfortunately, democracies like the US or India is facing the crisis of too many so-called leaders seeking political office and votes promising the sky to people for free --an absurd and a dangerous portend!
1
Well said.
Here in America you can have anything you want, as long as it involves cuts to Social Security and new trade agreements.
4
Time for a new party!
1
There are several national parties in addition to the two main ones.
The others have not managed to attract significant numbers of voters.
The others have not managed to attract significant numbers of voters.
2
For someone who studied the economic history of this country, Mr. Lind demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of today's economy. He compares today's Millennials to the hippies of the 60s, who eventually transformed into the yuppies and became conservatives.
But the hippies had a bright economic future ahead of them. They didn't have massive student loans crippling them. They didn't have to compete with wage slaves in the 3rd world. They didn't have our level of inequality and the resulting economic inefficiency.
My generation is the first American generation to be poorer than their parents.
We hate Clintonism and we will fight it tooth and nail if Hillary wins. The longer American decline goes on, the more extreme the backlash when the under-45 crowd finally outnumbers the over-45 crowd at the polls.
Hillary' penchant for expensive military interventions and corporate give-aways will only worsen hasten the end of neoliberalism and make its replacement more extreme than anything Bernie can dream up.
But the hippies had a bright economic future ahead of them. They didn't have massive student loans crippling them. They didn't have to compete with wage slaves in the 3rd world. They didn't have our level of inequality and the resulting economic inefficiency.
My generation is the first American generation to be poorer than their parents.
We hate Clintonism and we will fight it tooth and nail if Hillary wins. The longer American decline goes on, the more extreme the backlash when the under-45 crowd finally outnumbers the over-45 crowd at the polls.
Hillary' penchant for expensive military interventions and corporate give-aways will only worsen hasten the end of neoliberalism and make its replacement more extreme than anything Bernie can dream up.
15
wonder why an insightful comment such as this does not merit a NYT "yellow medallion"?
3
This is a smart piece from the redoubtable Michael Lind, but there is another possibility that he doesn't raise. It is that the Republican Party will fracture before or after the election into two factions: a conservative populist one led by Mr. Trump; and a business-friendly one led by someone like Michael Bloomberg. As the Democratic Party moves more to the left, as Lind predicts, Mr Bloomberg would find it easy to peel off support from socially liberal but fiscally conservative Democrats from Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the business community generally. They are not about to give up on free trade, low taxes, and an interventionist foreign policy to keep doors open overseas.
1
Working class whites--once the primary base of the Democratic party--are the new minorities, who are being discriminated against by their former champions. As Bernie Sanders said, "Open borders is a Koch brothers policy." I hope he becomes president, and I hope he remembers that when he gets into office.
6
Wow. If this piece had been written one year ago, I might be hailing Lind as our Great New Prognosticator. But there is nothing here we haven't seen for ourselves, except for Lind's dubious claim that this realignment is here to stay. Maybe or maybe not.
To call the populist insurrection in the GOP "Trumpism" is not helpful. First, as Lind admits, it didn't begin with Trump. "Long before Trump" Buchanan, Huckabee, and Santorum (and Gingrich?) have tried to ride this wave to the Presidency, but with no success. Second, Trump isn't an "ism". Trump is a highly personal brand. Ideas or policies are merely stage props -- they can be changed, sometimes 2 or 3 times a day.
I am not saying that this election won't shake things up; just that the configuration today is not the mirror of tomorrow's politics. Voters are certainly saying they are fed up, and we have seen violent lurches in the past few elections (why didn't the Tea Party inherit the blue collar populist revolt?).
Forget the crystal ball. It's hard enough to say what is going to happen next week.
To call the populist insurrection in the GOP "Trumpism" is not helpful. First, as Lind admits, it didn't begin with Trump. "Long before Trump" Buchanan, Huckabee, and Santorum (and Gingrich?) have tried to ride this wave to the Presidency, but with no success. Second, Trump isn't an "ism". Trump is a highly personal brand. Ideas or policies are merely stage props -- they can be changed, sometimes 2 or 3 times a day.
I am not saying that this election won't shake things up; just that the configuration today is not the mirror of tomorrow's politics. Voters are certainly saying they are fed up, and we have seen violent lurches in the past few elections (why didn't the Tea Party inherit the blue collar populist revolt?).
Forget the crystal ball. It's hard enough to say what is going to happen next week.
2
A socially liberal, "pro-finance" Democratic party is my greatest fear. If the Democrats no longer stand up for working people, who will? This would be a party with appeal to many prominent people in New York and DC (full disclosure, I'm a New Yorker and fervent social liberal, of course), but its economic policies would continue to be hugely destructive for most Americans.
I find Mr. Lind's op-ed terrifying and troubling. My only solace is that I do believe he is wrong that most Americans still support neoliberal economic policy. On a separate note, to pretend racial and other kinds of "identity-based" equality are distinct from economic equality - or that we can achieve racial equality with economic policies that entrench the powers of an established ruling class, is ... misguided, to put it nicely.
I find Mr. Lind's op-ed terrifying and troubling. My only solace is that I do believe he is wrong that most Americans still support neoliberal economic policy. On a separate note, to pretend racial and other kinds of "identity-based" equality are distinct from economic equality - or that we can achieve racial equality with economic policies that entrench the powers of an established ruling class, is ... misguided, to put it nicely.
519
Debbie Wasserman Shultz support usurious payday lenders. Do you need more evidence of what the Democratic Party stands for?
9
"Terrifying and troubling", yes, indeed. Also depressing from the get-go.
The Democrats haven't stood up for working people in a long time. When was the last time a Democrat for President opened his campaign on Labor Day in Detroit? For 40 years there used to be a half million or more people there, but that ended in '72 and for good in '80. The minimum wage, adjusted for inflation should be about $11.50 to $12.00 today, but cannot get past $7.25 in the House or Senate, no matter who holds office. That's about 40% lower than it should be. Can you imagine if corporate or high personal income's were taxed 40% higher than inflation, using 1938 Dollars as the starting point? And don't even get started on all the other overtime rules, union organizing roadblocks and "contractor" job that have been allowed and encouraged.
I can't take any more Clintonism. I really can't.
8
The transition won't be complete until the Democrats abandon organized labor and start promising bureaucratic relief from the regulatory state. When they do so, they will gain the business and professional people who still cling to the hope that the Republicans will nominate a Libertarian, which they have not since Goldwater and Reagan. There are plenty of business/professional types who don't clamor for tax cuts (they want a balanced budget more than tax cuts), but they still can't abide obstructive unions (the teachers, particularly), and they can't stand the money wasted complying with employment, safety and environmental regulations that require a mountain of paperwork to satisfy. A Democrat who criticizes public sector unions and the burdens of federal bureaucrats on small businessmen will complete the transition of the college educated professional to the Democratic party.
1
Very interesting! I agree that Hillary has always been more progressive than Bill, and am very pleased the politics today allow her to succeed in that vein.
And I certainly hope Sanders is not the future of progressive politics in this country. An angry old white man and his purity-police followers is not where I want to go.
And I certainly hope Sanders is not the future of progressive politics in this country. An angry old white man and his purity-police followers is not where I want to go.
2
As a quick aside: Bernie has many times clearly stated that one of his principal goals as president would be getting like-minded progressives elected across the country. He has stated this unequivocally on numerous occasions, and it is exactly what he did in Burlington.
Any one who questions Bernie's commitment to helping down-ballot Democrats (the latest manufactured, and baseless attack on him) is either ignorant of Bernie's own statements on the issue, or will fully obfuscating them. Neither is worthy of a writer getting national exposure.
Any one who questions Bernie's commitment to helping down-ballot Democrats (the latest manufactured, and baseless attack on him) is either ignorant of Bernie's own statements on the issue, or will fully obfuscating them. Neither is worthy of a writer getting national exposure.
8
Nice theory, but I disagree. Identity politics is full of contradictions. We are all human beings, and are all restrained and uplifted by human nature. Identity politics is a giant leap backward in the evolution of civilization.
I have no crystal ball, but I doubt if the millions of Sanders supporters will morph into Hillary supporters. Nor will we vote for Trump.
Maybe - if Bernie is not nominated - we will just write in his name in November.
But don't blame us if Trump is elected. Do not blame folks who do not vote for Trump, for his election. Blame those who vote for Trump. (Anyone who disagrees needs to bone up on logic.)
I have no crystal ball, but I doubt if the millions of Sanders supporters will morph into Hillary supporters. Nor will we vote for Trump.
Maybe - if Bernie is not nominated - we will just write in his name in November.
But don't blame us if Trump is elected. Do not blame folks who do not vote for Trump, for his election. Blame those who vote for Trump. (Anyone who disagrees needs to bone up on logic.)
7
Let me put it simply - Democrats pander to the poor, those who want a large transfer to the in the name of "social" justice, and a fraction of the rich elitists who like to profess to others the "correct" way of life. Republicans pander to the other part of the rich elitists who also want to profess some form of the correct way of life, as well as poor whites and Christians of all different types. What is never said is that both parties will extract $$$ from the middle class, as poor cannot pay and rich can avoid taxes. So, if you want strong middle class, you need to vote for someone who would transfer to the middle, not from it.
1
Sanders would have defeated Clinton had he done as well with blacks as he does with whites. It was not the message but the messenger that was at fault. Sanders was too slow to realize that he had to speak to black concerns and be a leader on their issues before he could hope to bring sufficient numbers of them on board his economic platform.
If Clinton is elected, she is unlikely to accomplish any of the Progressive agenda she touts on the campaign trail. She will be opposed by Republicans as strongly as Obama has been on everything except her hawkish foreign policy.
That means more war. It also means that inequality will increase, a new financial crisis is likely, climate change will remained unaddressed, and endless war fiascos will probably result in a younger version of Sanders challenging Clinton in 2020 and Republican gains nationally and in the states in 2018 and 2020. Desire for change will almost certainly see a Republican in the White House in 2021 and control of the states see another decade of gerrymandered Republican dominance of the House.
By then Clintonism will be a bad memory and the Democratic party will likely be ready to return to a form much more like Roosevelt's.
If Clinton is elected, she is unlikely to accomplish any of the Progressive agenda she touts on the campaign trail. She will be opposed by Republicans as strongly as Obama has been on everything except her hawkish foreign policy.
That means more war. It also means that inequality will increase, a new financial crisis is likely, climate change will remained unaddressed, and endless war fiascos will probably result in a younger version of Sanders challenging Clinton in 2020 and Republican gains nationally and in the states in 2018 and 2020. Desire for change will almost certainly see a Republican in the White House in 2021 and control of the states see another decade of gerrymandered Republican dominance of the House.
By then Clintonism will be a bad memory and the Democratic party will likely be ready to return to a form much more like Roosevelt's.
3
Wha? You think that if Clinton, "had not been challenged by Mr. Sanders, she probably would have...distance(d) herself from many of the policies of her husband’s administration and...adopt(ed) policies favored by her party’s core constituencies...on issues from criminal justice to immigration enforcement"? I am gobsmacked. On what planet are you living?
Bill Clinton did not make his decisions in a vacuum. Hillary Clinton was Bill's closest adviser. And he's still going around giving speeches slamming the young, the poor, minorities, and anyone who dares to disagree with the Clinton's world view.
And no, Mr. Lind, Sanders has in no way "changed" his positions. Anyone who has (honestly) looked at his record would admit that. Apparently you haven't bothered to look through his old speeches or even read media reports which show that's been saying the same thing for his whole career. You CAN'T say that about Clinton!
Young voters see her as part of the rot at the center of the Democratic party. My fear is that if she's nominated, all those young voters, who've been so energized by Sanders, will be dejected and see voting as futile and will stay home in November. Which means, the majority of voters will be those crazed, racist, xenophobic Trump voters.
Poll after poll shows that Bernie Sanders has a far better chance of beating a Republican than Clinton, who is despised by many Republicans, independents, and none too few Democrats.
Bill Clinton did not make his decisions in a vacuum. Hillary Clinton was Bill's closest adviser. And he's still going around giving speeches slamming the young, the poor, minorities, and anyone who dares to disagree with the Clinton's world view.
And no, Mr. Lind, Sanders has in no way "changed" his positions. Anyone who has (honestly) looked at his record would admit that. Apparently you haven't bothered to look through his old speeches or even read media reports which show that's been saying the same thing for his whole career. You CAN'T say that about Clinton!
Young voters see her as part of the rot at the center of the Democratic party. My fear is that if she's nominated, all those young voters, who've been so energized by Sanders, will be dejected and see voting as futile and will stay home in November. Which means, the majority of voters will be those crazed, racist, xenophobic Trump voters.
Poll after poll shows that Bernie Sanders has a far better chance of beating a Republican than Clinton, who is despised by many Republicans, independents, and none too few Democrats.
8
Reagan was McCarthyism with a smile, and he enabled the virulent hated embraced by Trump. From visiting Bitburg to his indifference to the AIDS crisis, Reagan was far from the standard booster "Babbitt" you describe.
7
If Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the futures of the Reps and Dems, all I can say is "We are doomed!"
But I'm confident that anything that appears permanent is likely temporary. In 4 years we may have very different political parties, or even more than two competitive political parties.
But I'm confident that anything that appears permanent is likely temporary. In 4 years we may have very different political parties, or even more than two competitive political parties.
10
WRONG, Mr. Lind.
9
One big factor this column misses: Sanders' ability to raise large sums of campaign contributions from small donors via the internet reflects what may be a sharp change in the way political fundraising takes place in the future. In some ways, that new reality may help level the political playing field between billionaire-back pols and others like Sanders. And how will that play out in our political future?
Tie that reality into Sanders' popularity with young voters and that makes a Clinton Democratic Party look a lot more like the past than a dominant force in the years to come.
Tie that reality into Sanders' popularity with young voters and that makes a Clinton Democratic Party look a lot more like the past than a dominant force in the years to come.
4
Trumpism will not be the future of the GOP -- but there's a real question now as to whether there will be a GOP.
3
Some of the lack of enthusiasm for Hillary comes from the suspicion many Americans feel of the power of political families. A vote for Hillary to become the second Clinton president might also be a vote for some future senator or governor Chelsea. Didn't the Bush family already give us a good lesson in how inherited political power isn't good for America?
2
>>>>>>
Absent Folly showing up, I see this election as a positive event, if the Dems win that is, be it Bernie or Hillary. So for the Dems it's all upside, unless they lose. Remember the most important matter riding on this election is NOT inequality, gun control, or climate change........, it is the SCOTUS. Shift and seal that and now you have a good start; lose it and you're going to need to stock-up on Preparation-H for the rest of your life.
As for the GOP, they'll probably self-destruct, which could have its benefits for humanity, but more likely than not a more fascist party of gun loving, dispossessed, uneducated, rich self-centered manics will re-form into something even worse than the current GOP.
Trump is not going to be POTUS, full stop. The GOP could lose it dominance, but remember when you get a badger cornered, who has the bigger problem you or the badger? The GOP plays hardball. They are not going away. I put very few limits on what they are capable of and willing to do.
Bernie possibly has awoken the Dems out of their stupor. Certainly Dem pols have taken note.
But if Bernie's crew does get into the game and vote in every election, its all just been a lot of hot air.
Until we get the House back, and 60-Senate seats, our only hope is the WH and the SCOTUS. It's not complicated.
Absent Folly showing up, I see this election as a positive event, if the Dems win that is, be it Bernie or Hillary. So for the Dems it's all upside, unless they lose. Remember the most important matter riding on this election is NOT inequality, gun control, or climate change........, it is the SCOTUS. Shift and seal that and now you have a good start; lose it and you're going to need to stock-up on Preparation-H for the rest of your life.
As for the GOP, they'll probably self-destruct, which could have its benefits for humanity, but more likely than not a more fascist party of gun loving, dispossessed, uneducated, rich self-centered manics will re-form into something even worse than the current GOP.
Trump is not going to be POTUS, full stop. The GOP could lose it dominance, but remember when you get a badger cornered, who has the bigger problem you or the badger? The GOP plays hardball. They are not going away. I put very few limits on what they are capable of and willing to do.
Bernie possibly has awoken the Dems out of their stupor. Certainly Dem pols have taken note.
But if Bernie's crew does get into the game and vote in every election, its all just been a lot of hot air.
Until we get the House back, and 60-Senate seats, our only hope is the WH and the SCOTUS. It's not complicated.
3
"Clinton Democrats and Trump Republicans are here to stay."
Clinton/Obama Democrats are yesterday's Rockefeller Republicans.
Trump Republicans are yesterday's Dixiecrats.
Sanders is the last FDR Democrat standing...
Clinton/Obama Democrats are yesterday's Rockefeller Republicans.
Trump Republicans are yesterday's Dixiecrats.
Sanders is the last FDR Democrat standing...
10
How far we've fallen from FDR Democrats and JFK Democrats to Clinton Democrats, a triumph of cynicism and elitism over idealism and progressivism; and of The One Percent at the expense of The Ninety-nine.
The examples of Mrs. Clinton's shamelessness, hypocrisy and chutzpah are too numerous to list without overloading a server (personal or industrial), but a recent one has been especially galling: that Democrats should "unite" behind her candidacy as soon as possible (hint, hint, drop out, Bernie, drop out). Yes, the same ungracious Hillary Clinton who refused to concede to then-Sen. Obama in 2008 until long after the Democratic presidential nomination had been clinched, and who, even then, had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do so in the most insincere manner imaginable.
As always, the Clintons' greatest asset is voters' short memories, a collective amnesia. But it's worth remembering their mantra en route to the co-presidency of the 1990s: "Putting People First." And those "People," of course, turned out to be themselves.
It's hard to believe that so many "Democrats" are being suckered into the bait-and-switch of Clintonism again. Who knew that there would be such a renewed thirst for parsing and debating what the meaning of the word "is" is?
The examples of Mrs. Clinton's shamelessness, hypocrisy and chutzpah are too numerous to list without overloading a server (personal or industrial), but a recent one has been especially galling: that Democrats should "unite" behind her candidacy as soon as possible (hint, hint, drop out, Bernie, drop out). Yes, the same ungracious Hillary Clinton who refused to concede to then-Sen. Obama in 2008 until long after the Democratic presidential nomination had been clinched, and who, even then, had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do so in the most insincere manner imaginable.
As always, the Clintons' greatest asset is voters' short memories, a collective amnesia. But it's worth remembering their mantra en route to the co-presidency of the 1990s: "Putting People First." And those "People," of course, turned out to be themselves.
It's hard to believe that so many "Democrats" are being suckered into the bait-and-switch of Clintonism again. Who knew that there would be such a renewed thirst for parsing and debating what the meaning of the word "is" is?
7
Hillary & the Dems are a continuation of the old. But problems have grown more acute for more voters. They’re seeing through the fog set up by our self justifying political culture. A 2016 insurgent candidate has come forth and more will arise in future elections. Sanders and other progressives prove our parties and the media cannot accurately reflect public needs and represent the majority.
Thomas Piketty the famous French economist, author of Capital in the 21st Century said the Sanders insurgency is historic, and represents a break with the small govt legacy of Reaganism that affected even the Dems.
Quote— “the US enters a new political era. The Vermont senator’s success so far demonstrates the end of the politico-ideological cycle opened by the victory of Reagan at the 1980 elections.”
“Sanders ...wants to restore progressive taxation and a higher minimum wage ($15 an hour)....free healthcare and higher education in a country where inequality in access has reached unprecedented heights, highlighting a gulf standing between the lives of most Americans, and the soothing meritocratic speeches pronounced by the winners of the system.”
The under 40 public is responding, realizing they’ve been abused and hoaxed with Trickle Down, and lack of an opposition party, that they must demand response from the politicians they stand in long lines to elect.
Let's start talking reversing Citizens United --the 1st condition for any change. We await the op eds on that.
Thomas Piketty the famous French economist, author of Capital in the 21st Century said the Sanders insurgency is historic, and represents a break with the small govt legacy of Reaganism that affected even the Dems.
Quote— “the US enters a new political era. The Vermont senator’s success so far demonstrates the end of the politico-ideological cycle opened by the victory of Reagan at the 1980 elections.”
“Sanders ...wants to restore progressive taxation and a higher minimum wage ($15 an hour)....free healthcare and higher education in a country where inequality in access has reached unprecedented heights, highlighting a gulf standing between the lives of most Americans, and the soothing meritocratic speeches pronounced by the winners of the system.”
The under 40 public is responding, realizing they’ve been abused and hoaxed with Trickle Down, and lack of an opposition party, that they must demand response from the politicians they stand in long lines to elect.
Let's start talking reversing Citizens United --the 1st condition for any change. We await the op eds on that.
7
The dismissal of Sander's supporters as idealistic kids who will come to their senses once reaching maturity is not only patronizing, it is wishful thinking on Lind's part. What Sanders has unleashed in this country is, perhaps, bigger than even a presidential election. As the top .1% continue to accumulate a sickeningly disproportionate amount of wealth, the movement he has sparked will only continue to grow.
865
Agreed. It's also worth pointing out that Sanders has been incredibly successful in his original goal of pushing the liberal agenda. We owe him a great deal of respect for his ability to force Clinton and the Democratic Party leftward on significant issues and, even more importantly, for his ability to engage previously disenchanted young people in the political process. Whether or not he wins, that will be his legacy.
14
The 19 year old that lives in my middle age body "loves" Bernie. The adult in me knows his version of the world while mostly true won't survive over time. I don't "love" Clinton, but her message of evolution, not revolution, is more realistic. Yet, evolution will not occur without the driving force of revolution. There is a need for both voices within the Democratic Party.
162
And many of us who support Sanders and his values cannot be dismissed as "kids." Instead we apparently will be dismissed as old "Roosevelt Democrats' by observers like Michael Lind. Roosevelt certainly predates us, but we have been waiting and working for real progressive leadership for a long time as the Clinton political calculations moved our party right.
18
Michael Lind clearly does not know enough young people. Climate change genuinely matters to my generation, because it will genuinely effect us. Clintonian 'victories', built far more on how they look than what they do, will not be good enough.
Perhaps Michael also has forgotten that my generation will be the first in 80, if not over 100, years to have a lower standard of living than our parents. Will Clintonian 'incrementalism' (a generous word for merely slowing the decline) reverse this inexcusable trend in what remains the wealthiest nation on Earth?
The hippies did not become yuppies of the 80s. Hippies like my grandparents (who met in the Haight) represented an incredibly small percentage of the population, and most are still hippies today. The yuppies were a different breed all together. Similarly, my generation will most likely retain its broad social, cultural, political and economic beliefs. Some will evolve, fine, but the broad strokes will almost certainly remain. In that future there is simply no room for Clinton Democrats. Let them become the moderate Republicans they already are deep down, and let us progressives take up the mantle of the American left and carry it into the future.
Perhaps Michael also has forgotten that my generation will be the first in 80, if not over 100, years to have a lower standard of living than our parents. Will Clintonian 'incrementalism' (a generous word for merely slowing the decline) reverse this inexcusable trend in what remains the wealthiest nation on Earth?
The hippies did not become yuppies of the 80s. Hippies like my grandparents (who met in the Haight) represented an incredibly small percentage of the population, and most are still hippies today. The yuppies were a different breed all together. Similarly, my generation will most likely retain its broad social, cultural, political and economic beliefs. Some will evolve, fine, but the broad strokes will almost certainly remain. In that future there is simply no room for Clinton Democrats. Let them become the moderate Republicans they already are deep down, and let us progressives take up the mantle of the American left and carry it into the future.
832
@ JK Your analysis of the hippie/yuppie distinction is totally correct.
5
The vast majority of your generation are more akin to Yuppies than Hippies; so because "the broad strokes will almost certainly remain" the future is more Clintonian compromise (evolutionary) than Democratic Socialism (Sanders revolutionary.)
3
@Jonathan Krause
Oxford, UK
Where do you get the strange idea that Clinton, Obama, or the Democratic party as a whole are opposed to action on climate change? The fact that you can so mis-state a situation gives a fair idea of your grasp of reality.
Oxford, UK
Where do you get the strange idea that Clinton, Obama, or the Democratic party as a whole are opposed to action on climate change? The fact that you can so mis-state a situation gives a fair idea of your grasp of reality.
7
Undoubtedly this essay will disturb and perhaps enrage Bernie's young,extensive and revolution-seeking supporters as well as the ultra-conservative Christian Right-wing, but it is a very fine analysis and prophecy.
The idea that Hillary Clinton must rise above the often very compromised policies of Bill Clinton and articulate and implement a newer more progressive but pragmatic Democratic Party is an appealing notion.
The idea that Hillary Clinton must rise above the often very compromised policies of Bill Clinton and articulate and implement a newer more progressive but pragmatic Democratic Party is an appealing notion.
302
It may be appealing but Clinton doesn't have the capacity to pull it off.
3
Abraham Lincoln bemoaned having been bought, sold and promised away by the Republicans of 1859 but he was a man of character with core principles however slick a politician. Lincoln was sold but Hillary has sold herself and she lacks core principles let alone character.
4
It's sad that so many people out there view a return to the basic egalitarian principles of our democracy as "revolution-seeking." We already had our revolution -- it was in 1776. The Sanders camp is trying to remind the rest of the country that it actually happened.
4
"...the future of the Democrats will be...Hillary Clintonism, that is, a slightly more progressive version of neoliberalism". The followers of Sanders, who amount to about half of Democratic voters, hope this will not be true. Many people hope that someone will arise who can really promote economic equality, as opposed to big money interests. A younger candidate than Sanders, operating more within the Democratic party and not from outside as a "socialist", could easily have done this in this cycle, as the primary results are clearly showing.
Trump followers actually share some of the same economic objectives as Democratic progressives, but racism and religious conservatism prevent the populistic elements of both parties - that is the wage-earning parts - from combining. Could some progressive person or party overcome the difficulties imposed by racism? On the other hand will the people who are not getting ahead become so frustrated that they would turn to someone even more fascistic than Trump? Lind shows remarkably little insight as to what might happen, although it is always a good bet that the big-money establishment will arrange something that is to their advantage.
Trump followers actually share some of the same economic objectives as Democratic progressives, but racism and religious conservatism prevent the populistic elements of both parties - that is the wage-earning parts - from combining. Could some progressive person or party overcome the difficulties imposed by racism? On the other hand will the people who are not getting ahead become so frustrated that they would turn to someone even more fascistic than Trump? Lind shows remarkably little insight as to what might happen, although it is always a good bet that the big-money establishment will arrange something that is to their advantage.
2
The NY Times and most of the large media concerns have moved away from reporting news and leading the nation with insightful editorials to being the outlets for spin doctors from party machines, think tanks, and professional lobbyists.
458
A Tragic loss to the fourth estate.
Predicting the future is almost a sure way to be proven wrong, it is so much easier to predict the past. In the 60's no one would have predicted the rise of Reagan and in the 70's no one would have predicted the rise of Gorbachev and the disintegration of the USSR. Just as no one in the 90's could have foreseen ISIS and the never ending number of suicide bombers. Given the inertia of US politics Clintonism is certainly more likely to dominate the Democratic party than Sanderism, enthusiasm for radical reform tends to be fleeting. Trumpism on the other hand looks like a recurrent manifestation of mob mentality in the US which has flared from time to time but has never produced anything permanent. What will actually happen in the next decades will be determined by events out of our control and probably much of what we think critically important today will be replaced by other concerns (with the possible exception of global warming which is on a trajectory to become a dominant one).
19
While one could argue with quite a lot of the detail in here the total is greater than the sum of the parts. He's broadly correct although more correct about the Democratic coalition than the Republican one which is in a state of evolution and its final outlines are therefore less clear. The Democratic party has become the party of social freedom,modernism and technocracy which is very much at odds with the simplistic populism of Sanders.
15
"The Democratic party has become the party of social freedom, modernism and technocracy"
You're right, it has - but this brave new world is a mixed blessing when the party leaves behind people who get the raw end of the deal.
Every society that ever existed has had to cope with changes wrought by technology, no argument about that. But now those changes are aggravated by "free trade" deals that really about freeing capital to abandon whole communities in search of a penny or two more on the dollar. Finally, the Democratic Party has begun some much-needed soul-searching that would have been long-delayed without Bernie's "simplistic" populism. It will continue beyond November, no matter who is elected. And that's the truth.
You're right, it has - but this brave new world is a mixed blessing when the party leaves behind people who get the raw end of the deal.
Every society that ever existed has had to cope with changes wrought by technology, no argument about that. But now those changes are aggravated by "free trade" deals that really about freeing capital to abandon whole communities in search of a penny or two more on the dollar. Finally, the Democratic Party has begun some much-needed soul-searching that would have been long-delayed without Bernie's "simplistic" populism. It will continue beyond November, no matter who is elected. And that's the truth.
6
@mancuroc
Rochester, NY
The whole point of this piece is that in fact the Democratic party is not engaged in a lot of soul searching and is ultimately going to end up where Clinton is. Neither do you appear to understand that technology and technocracy are not synonyms. In this context Technocracy means a well educated and experienced professional class capable of managing the complexities of a modern economy and mass society. Nothing could be more inimical to the grotesque populist mis- diagnoses and over simplifications of Sanders and people like you. Geithner, a technocrat if ever there was one, summed up the difference when he said during meetings to discuss the banking crisis Sanders shouted and waved his arms a lot. Shouting and arm waving is the sum total of Sanders approach.
Rochester, NY
The whole point of this piece is that in fact the Democratic party is not engaged in a lot of soul searching and is ultimately going to end up where Clinton is. Neither do you appear to understand that technology and technocracy are not synonyms. In this context Technocracy means a well educated and experienced professional class capable of managing the complexities of a modern economy and mass society. Nothing could be more inimical to the grotesque populist mis- diagnoses and over simplifications of Sanders and people like you. Geithner, a technocrat if ever there was one, summed up the difference when he said during meetings to discuss the banking crisis Sanders shouted and waved his arms a lot. Shouting and arm waving is the sum total of Sanders approach.
2
Let's not be condescending, shall we? Present day technology has unlike in previous ages, led to a change in the spectrum of available work to favor a minority of highly paid jobs requiring high levels of expertise and skill, a hollowed-out manufacturing part that used to absorb many reasonably paid skilled workers, and its substitution by a service economy that would be more properly described as a servant economy.
In other words, we are more of a master-servant economy than has existed for generations. The GOP represents the übermasters, and the Democrats have embraced their immediate underlings, without much thought about a structural way for people in the servant class to improve themselves.
You might broaden your horizons by reading this article from today's Magazine:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/magazine/bernienomics-might-not-be-fea...®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront
and this critique of neoliberalism by George Monbiot:
http://www.monbiot.com/2016/04/15/the-zombie-doctrine/
When you've finished reading, come back and tell me that people like Lind and Geithner have a monopoly of wisdom. Too often, the technocrats talk just to themselves or to each other. It's very easy to dismiss as "hand-waving" something you have not troubled to understand.
In other words, we are more of a master-servant economy than has existed for generations. The GOP represents the übermasters, and the Democrats have embraced their immediate underlings, without much thought about a structural way for people in the servant class to improve themselves.
You might broaden your horizons by reading this article from today's Magazine:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/magazine/bernienomics-might-not-be-fea...®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront
and this critique of neoliberalism by George Monbiot:
http://www.monbiot.com/2016/04/15/the-zombie-doctrine/
When you've finished reading, come back and tell me that people like Lind and Geithner have a monopoly of wisdom. Too often, the technocrats talk just to themselves or to each other. It's very easy to dismiss as "hand-waving" something you have not troubled to understand.
2
Never personalities, it's about the "freedom of a people" as Bob Marley rightly noted. That freedom's historical issues should not be attached to people-isms or turned into slogans. Long resonating at democracy's core, only those who routinely ignore history and culture believe that their reemergence occurs through candidates and campaigns. This thinking freezes ideas and demands in time, as a snapshot that ends and begins at the last recession, with antecedents back to Roosevelt and Reagan. It misses the real pillars of the past and the new realignment of now.
Elections are about political economy, directing power and money toward particular goals and hands, creating acceptance for these decisions by tying them to cultural and social ideas. Conservatives adopted charter schools, no abortions, no environmental protections, foreign policy isolation, and spotty healthcare to support their program of threat and theft by the rich. One target: social security, the world's 5th largest GDP! (Argentina, a prime example of wealth taking by hedge funds!) Obamacare caps corporate profits and expands care to the poor; hence its relentless opposition!
The left is stuck with a moral approach left over from the anti-slavery and labor movements of the 19th century; the inner conflicts of those movements unresolved/raw. It has failed to adopt the models the left now employs globally to undergrid prosperity and has created no American alternative to the welfare state. Models do exist!
Elections are about political economy, directing power and money toward particular goals and hands, creating acceptance for these decisions by tying them to cultural and social ideas. Conservatives adopted charter schools, no abortions, no environmental protections, foreign policy isolation, and spotty healthcare to support their program of threat and theft by the rich. One target: social security, the world's 5th largest GDP! (Argentina, a prime example of wealth taking by hedge funds!) Obamacare caps corporate profits and expands care to the poor; hence its relentless opposition!
The left is stuck with a moral approach left over from the anti-slavery and labor movements of the 19th century; the inner conflicts of those movements unresolved/raw. It has failed to adopt the models the left now employs globally to undergrid prosperity and has created no American alternative to the welfare state. Models do exist!
21
The unspoken tension at the heart of the right and the left is race. Trump's lead persists because he says he will act to set limits on immigrants, black/brown communities, Muslims, women, demonstrated by threats against their right to protest. He has moved beyond character stereotyping and fear mongering; his followers reflect a comfort with violence. (Per Malcolm X, the war machine turns on to home!)
Ideological conservatism was always a well-funded fraud. The North Carolina legislature's attempts to take over Asheville's water system and Charlotte's airport, its 15 minute debates before passing limits on abortion and voting are the actions of a power hungry government not a small, less restrictive government; a template for any red state: think Georgia, Texas, Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana.
Think tanks having drifted from their flawed conception that expanding opportunity denies somebody's freedom (Roger B. Taney), are left to moral appeals/laws involving the Christian right, liberty and LGBT persons, as cover for bigger threats and theft.
The American left has no experience at creating or running a left economy build on partnerships, cooperation, planning, and comprehensive problem solving, leading wage and corporate growth into new global markets. In ten years another billion people will be added to the middle class; it has no plan for cooperative prosperity. (China does; in a country producing 55 millionaires a week, it's more than just cheap wages.)
Ideological conservatism was always a well-funded fraud. The North Carolina legislature's attempts to take over Asheville's water system and Charlotte's airport, its 15 minute debates before passing limits on abortion and voting are the actions of a power hungry government not a small, less restrictive government; a template for any red state: think Georgia, Texas, Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana.
Think tanks having drifted from their flawed conception that expanding opportunity denies somebody's freedom (Roger B. Taney), are left to moral appeals/laws involving the Christian right, liberty and LGBT persons, as cover for bigger threats and theft.
The American left has no experience at creating or running a left economy build on partnerships, cooperation, planning, and comprehensive problem solving, leading wage and corporate growth into new global markets. In ten years another billion people will be added to the middle class; it has no plan for cooperative prosperity. (China does; in a country producing 55 millionaires a week, it's more than just cheap wages.)
30
Walter;
Elections are won not because of being left or right. It is not even about who is right or wrong. Both party candidates say things, but only do what they are told. What that means is no-matter what you think or hear they will do differently, they will end up doing what they are told. One party may take a different path, but always end up with the same results at the end of the road.
Elections are won, because of those who supported them. The powerbrokers, Wall Street, corporations who support the political parties and who have the influence and money to buy the media and corrupt the legal system, politicians and government agencies.
No one talks anymore about how slippery Hillary and Obama running neck and neck in 2008 had a meeting with the Bilderbergers and two days later Hillary dropped out of the race. I can only imagine what was said and the deal that was made to get Hillary to drop out and put Obama into office. Hillary Clinton represents everything wrong with politicians today.
Elections are won not because of being left or right. It is not even about who is right or wrong. Both party candidates say things, but only do what they are told. What that means is no-matter what you think or hear they will do differently, they will end up doing what they are told. One party may take a different path, but always end up with the same results at the end of the road.
Elections are won, because of those who supported them. The powerbrokers, Wall Street, corporations who support the political parties and who have the influence and money to buy the media and corrupt the legal system, politicians and government agencies.
No one talks anymore about how slippery Hillary and Obama running neck and neck in 2008 had a meeting with the Bilderbergers and two days later Hillary dropped out of the race. I can only imagine what was said and the deal that was made to get Hillary to drop out and put Obama into office. Hillary Clinton represents everything wrong with politicians today.
4
Trump's lead persist, because people are voting against the corruption in both parties. It is not a vote for Trump, but a vote against the two-party bandwagons driven by the rich and powerful. If Trump doesn't get the nomination, it is because they have rigged it for him to lose.
The Democrats are doing the same thing against Sanders. People of voting for Sanders for the same reason they are voting for Trump. He doesn't represent the lies and deceptions that the Clintons and Bushes do.
The Democrats are doing the same thing against Sanders. People of voting for Sanders for the same reason they are voting for Trump. He doesn't represent the lies and deceptions that the Clintons and Bushes do.
3
(tycoon/west, oligarch/east, of course).
I would point out that, it is clear that you want to see eternal Clintonism, because, that is what secures your paycheck.
I am a Bernie supporter who was handing out his first Dem flyers, in 1966, at eleven years of age. My interest in wealth disparity started around 84 or 85.
A congressional study had been released showing that: pre-Reagan, the poorest 90% held 37% of the wealth compared to 1984 where the same held 28%.
That same year the Blue Dog cabal, the DLC (ie, Clintonism's womb) was created to turn the Party away from the New Deal & Great Society. The seed money was supplied by: Koch Industries, Philip Morris, Chevron, Du Pont, Merck, ARCO, and Microsoft (your paycheck writer).
I am steadfastly supporting Bernie in order to reclaim our democracy and send the DLC into exile.
BTW: The DLC is partly responsible for Trump's rise.