I read with great interest the article which accuses Markos Moulitsas of hypocrisy and selling out rather than "crashing the gates" of the political establishment, and Markos's reply. I have to say I agree with them both, in different ways.
The author of the first article, J Ash Bowie, argues that the Bernie Sanders campaign is a manifestation of the spirit of anti-establishment grassroots political activism and insurgency, and wonders why Markos is supporting the ultimate insider and establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton, instead of Sanders:
See, it seems to me that everything you've been working for since the release of Crashing the Gate has culminated in Bernie's campaign. They have managed to bypass the over-cautious, DC-insider consultancy class to build an energized grassroots organization using modern communication tools in a highly effective way. Maybe you don't like some of Bernie's policies or maybe you just don't like his personal style or maybe you don't like that he is an independent running as a Democrat, but surely there's no argument that he is forthright about his beliefs, proud of his liberalism, and entirely disconnected from neoliberal DLC circles.
Markos replies:
[Sanders is] not crashing any gates. He's a freakin' senator. He's already on the inside, a respected candidate of one of only two major parties, and one of just 100 members of the nation's most influential club. ... Furthermore, Sanders' mostly white, mostly male, mostly highly educated supporters aren't exactly the kind that historically sit outside the gate. Those getting shot and killed and deported outside that gate are currently supporting Clinton. Brutally ironic, that.
Yes, it is indeed brutally ironic. And what it shows is that liberals are deeply divided into two overall visions for the future of progressive politics in America. On the one hand are those, such as Markos and many Clinton supporters, who see Sanders as being "on the inside" because he's a
white male U.S. Senator from a very white state. They would prefer a candidate who mostly favors establishment-approved policies while branding herself as the candidate for women and people of color. Hillary Clinton's
gender makes her an outsider, even though her policies favor the establishment.
On the other hand are those, supporting Sanders, who see him as one of a very few thoroughly anti-establishment political leaders who has been able to get a toehold in the United States government, who fights through the policies he advocates for the interests of downtrodden, forgotten and suffering people in general -- the American poor -- despite being nominally part of the senatorial club. They prefer a candidate whose message is universal and all-encompassing, about themes of justice for all, rather than on dividing the political landscape along racial and gender lines.
The issue before us is whether liberalism in America should be primarily seen through the lens of group identity or through the lens of social and economic justice. If you prefer identity politics, you probably prefer Clinton. If you prefer a universalist politics that's centered on economic populism as the uniting message to bring together most American people -- regardless of their group identities such as race, gender, geographical location, or even party -- you probably prefer Sanders.
Objectively speaking, I don't think either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton would be significantly better or worse than each other on racial and gender issues. They both support the right policies on these issues. But on economics, there is a big difference. And on the influence of the super-rich and corporations on our nation's political process, there is a big difference. Sanders stands out as far more liberal, populist, and reform-minded than Clinton on those issues.
Furthermore, I think identity politics is fundamentally bad for America. I would like to see an America where more black people can vote Republican, and more white people can vote Democratic; where more women can vote Republican, and more men can vote Democratic. I don't think it's good for the country for each party to be pigeonholed more and more as being identified with a particular gender or ethnic group. The Democratic Party should be looking to frame its politics in universal themes that can help all Americans and make us a better, more just, sustainable, and egalitarian society. This is the path of growth, electoral victory, and a healthy democracy.
Having said that, here's where I agree with Markos:
Crashing the Gates was about the power of individuals to take on entrenched interests who were actively harming the party. In 2003, we didn't sit there and demand that the NY Times or Time or Newsweek share our passion for Howard Dean, we built our own alternative media to spread the message. We were the change we were seeking.
So worry less about me, and worry more about what you can do to build Bernie's support base. That's what Crashing the Gates was all about. And then maybe, just maybe, you can end up proving me wrong, and wouldn't that be the sweetest revenge of all?
Personally, I think nominating Hillary Clinton would harm the Democratic Party, by alienating the kind of reform-oriented independents who would vote for Bernie Sanders but will likely sit out the election, as they do in many elections, if the Democratic standard-bearer is a corporate-funded establishment candidate such as Clinton. This is a large portion of the American public today which is not being effectively reached by any candidate except Sanders.
So, to apply Markos's own argument based on this line of reasoning, Bernie Sanders supporters shouldn't sit here and demand that Daily Kos share our passion for Bernie Sanders. We should build our own alternative media inspired by the Sanders movement.
I have blogged about politics on Daily Kos for years, and I will continue to do so, because it's a great place for all types of left-of-center people to share their views and debate with each other.
But I agree with Markos that perhaps folks who think the Democratic Party needs to replace the Clintonites and embrace the Sanders economic populist and anti-establishment reform agenda do need to form their own blogging community for the purpose of amplifying the message and effective political organizing and activism.
I'm not aware of such a place, a single blog where thousands of people who want to "crash the gates" in the Sanders way -- the way of a universal, all-embracing fight for the interests of non-rich Americans, rather than the Markos/Clinton approach of prioritizing identity politics as the true hallmark of liberalism -- can come together and grow a platform for the economic populist type of liberalism we favor. Does such a place already exist?
If not, perhaps it needs to be created. Whatever we may think of his politics, Markos Moulitsas has shown a great example of how it can be created: the highly successful blog we are all writing on and reading right now! And we should thank him for it, because in the sense of democratizing the media and allowing more voices to be heard, he really has crashed the gates. Every day, Bernie Sanders diaries flood the recommended list here, and Markos allows it, because that's how this site works; what's popular rises to the top. Markos has done a great thing with this site. We just need to realize that if we want a blogging community which is actually owned and managed by Sanders supporters, we will have to build that ourselves.