Armando and Greg D Don’t Get It
Today, Armando and Greg D were discussing “Datagate.” They approached the matter from the perspective of conventional politics. What they said made eminent sense … according to the logic of practical realities for decades if not longer.
And they completely failed to get the point. Because, see, that’s why people look to Bernie. They know that the structure of practical political realities makes genuine progress impossible. It also structurally suppresses progressive enthusiasm and subverts the appeal of the political party which has no intention of tolerating genuine progressive transformation and which tries to mollify progressive energies with dribs and drabs of concession.
More importantly, Progressives are pissed off because, in disrespecting our Champion, the Democratic Party disrespects us. In the following paragraphs, I am going to try to make an argument about how these leaders of Daily Kos, my political home since 2002, really don’t understand me or the people who think as I do. If it matters to you, Greg and Armando, you might try to listen.
Note: this post discusses “datagate.” But, it’s really about much more than that. More even than the direct competition between Bernie and Hillary.
OK, in this morning’s broadcast, Greg and Kagro began discussing Bernie’s outsider status. The argument ran thus:
Bernie has never been a Democrat, but is now running to draw on the infrastructure and political assets of the Democratic Party to defeat the party’s strong front runner. No one should be surprised if that party is reluctant to equally share its assets with this outsider. The Sanders Camp has no legitimate gripe about this.
Next, Armando insisted on the significance of the data leak in terms of Iowa and New Hampshire. He made generally credible arguments about how data about a few people in a small, caucus state could make a difference. In light of this, he stressed the apparently genuine fury of the Clinton Camp.
Armando, Dworkin, and Kagro all agreed that the Sanders Camp’s explanation of what happened was suspicious, but that Bernie is likely to have been unaware of the situation. Armando argued that Bernie comes off as being out of touch with his campaign and less than adroit in dealing with a campaign challenge. He said that he had little confidence in the Sanders campaign being professional enough to win a general election against Republicans.
Armando further argued that these events work against the Sanders claim that he is running a different sort of campaign. The key point, however, isn’t so much hypocrisy, but futility. For example, he questions Bernie’s commitment to campaigning without a superpac. Armando is sure that Bernie will not be able to pass up at least the DNC superpac in a general election. In general, Armando was arguing that Bernie’s idealism was Quixotic and doomed to failure.
Now, I must say that the suggestion of a distance between the candidate’s idealistic focus on his issues and the activities of political pros behind the scenes sounds plausible to me. What do I know? And, in a general way, all of the critiques offered by the Kagro crew make perfectly good sense. They fit the practical realities of contemporary political campaigns and party dynamics. I can even see why the Clinton Camp may well have been furious, and how they may be holding further material on this issue … in case they need it.
And all of this plausible analysis misses the point. Completely.
Not necessarily about Bernie. Bernie is an inspiration, but I don’t see him as an ideal candidate. I don’t think he has much more than say, a 10% chance of beating Clinton. I love his focus and integrity, but he doesn’t really get how focus can sometimes slide over into tone deaf preaching. It isn’t even really about Clinton, who, I think, will display lots of positive qualities as a President.
No, the thing Armando and Greg missed was about us. About why we who support Bernie feel we have real reason to be furious.
See, here’s the thing. Bernie may have decided to join the party only recently. But WE have been carrying the party’s energy for decades. And, the fact is, that the DNC isn’t treating US fairly!
Election cycle after election cycle, we hold up our end. We allow ourselves to get excited about centrists who tease us with flirtatious gestures toward actual progress and then watch them swing right and genuflect to our corporate masters. We hold our noses and vote for ill-disguised sycophants because we have enough sense to see that GOP cretins are significantly worse. We repeatedly lapse into disillusionment and depression and then rouse ourselves to shake off the lethargy long enough to try to stave off neo-Fascist disaster, and try to tell ourselves, “This is the last time,” knowing deep down that we’ll do it again and again.
We fought to elect and defend Bill Clinton and got NAFTA. We were inspired by Barack Obama and now we watch him trying to ram the TPP down our throat. Along the way, we watch the DNC and the Party in general let us down over and over again. And we dream of just once getting a candidate who is actually committed to our values.
Bernie Sanders may be a recent recruit to the Party. But we’ve been here all along. And WE DESERVE BETTER! We’ve dreamed for decades of a candidate who could stand up in presidential debates and proclaim into network microphones the truths we believe in and credibly promise the actions we believe to be necessary.
And what did we get? Debbie Wasserman Schultz rigging the primaries. Arranging the debates so our champion won’t be heard. Simultaneously coopting and burying our message. Accommodating us while shoving us into the background.
Armando correctly assessed DWS to be a disaster as a party Chair, but once again missed the crucial point. He actually tried to argue that, if the DNC really wanted to rig the primary, it would have moved Iowa and New Hampshire to a later point in the sequence.
What a foolish thing to say. What an utter misreading of what is being done … TO US. The Party is doing what it always does to us. It fixes the game so that genuine progress won’t happen. At the same time, since it needs us, it has to play out the hand. No way on earth the Clinton Machine would choose this moment to finally demote Iowa and New Hampshire as a transparent way to stifle Bernie and the Progressive core of the party which supports him. (Somebody on the broadcast actually made this point.) No, give him a shot at Iowa and N H to keep the base excited about possibilities in the Party. But keep his microphone at one quarter volume so things don’t get out of hand. Then, when the Quixotic crusade grinds down, reel the Progressive core back on board before bowing to the masters of Wall Street yet again. You know … the ones behind those superpacs.
And this is why, in the end, Hillary Clinton has far more to lose in “datagate” than Bernie does. Everyone knows who Bernie is and what he stands for. Armando and Greg are probably correct in saying that his campaign will come up short. The question is this: will Clinton succeed in converting support for Bernie into support for her in the general election?
And the fact is that we are not happy. I don’t know how many of us are furious and I don’t know how many will refuse to support Hillary. I certainly will support the GOP’s opponent no matter what. But the point is that this sort of thing depresses the energy and commitment of the crucial portion of the base that provides so much of the political capital that Clinton will need to be elected. And we are not happy
Let’s stipulate that Bernie’s IT guy did the wrong thing with intent, as Armando put it. Let’s stipulate that Bernie is too fuzzy to properly manage a professional campaign. Let’s stipulate that the Clinton Camp has a reason to be furious.
Let’s also keep it all in perspective. The Sanders Camp has some reason for fury, too. They didn’t choose the DNC data vendor or create the security breach. They have as much reason to fear that the Clinton Camp sampled their data as the reverse. And let’s place the matter of the seriousness of data sampling in perspective as well. If it is significant, far more significant is the DNC’s decision to go to the press and challenge Bernie’s reputation for integrity and open campaigning.
But then, this is not the only reason why “we” are not happy. There is, after all, the matter of the suppression of primary debates. In our view, these decisions are far more significant than the matter of campaign data. So are the patterns of disregard evident in the public comments of Democratic spokespeople. It is abundantly clear to us that the Party has no interest in taking our champion seriously. Or us seriously. Bernie is an outsider, and so, really, are we.
Now, here’s the part that is hard to get at. The simple way to put it is that we—America as a whole—live in the grip of a Cath-22. We can’t get to genuine Progressive achievement unless someone finds a way to break out of the straitjacket of conventional political structures. And conventional politicians—ours as well as theirs—refuse to seriously challenge those structures since they are indebted to them for their success.
This is the core of my frustration with Armando’s comments. Armando was arguing, in effect, that Bernie can’t prevail in the primary or the general without relying on a traditional professional campaign, including the superpac as a source of funds. If he is right—and he might well be—then what he is saying is that little genuine progress will ever be made. As long as candidates are dependent on Wall Street money to get elected, then elected Presidents will never really challenge Wall Street. Surely, even the most ardent Clinton supporter understands that the degree of support Wall Street has given her will never tolerate a serious challenge to its stranglehold on our economy, our people, and the world.
Now, there is some evidence that Armando is simply wrong. As was pointed out in the discussion, superpacs on both sides are struggling to adapt to contemporary political realities. Sanders has gone much, much further than anyone thought he could go without superpac money and Trump is romping toward the finish line spending virtually nothing and hammering the superpacs supporting Bush, Cruz, and the like.
Of course, Trump has the Right Wing Noise Machine behind him, along with “centrist” media and even media loosely associated with what passes in America for “the left.” Bernie doesn’t have that.
What he does have is the next generation of grass- and net-roots support. As a committed Progressive, I have to hope that this alternative model of support could break through the Wall Street, Corporatist straitjacket of control on our political energies. Because if it can’t, nothing can. You can’t for example fix campaign finance corruption until you win elections in the current campaign finance environment. If that is impossible, then our hopes for killing Citizen’s United and securing a viable beachhead on the today’s political battlefield are mere pipe dreams.
So, we Progressives are left with 2 key questions. First, is Bernie the right champion, or is he the Moses who calls us but will stop short of the Promised Land? Maybe so. He is not a perfect candidate.
But then, genuinely credible Progressive candidates are unbelievably rare, and he comes pretty close. If he’s not the right guy, who is and when will our next chance come? And what do we do in the mean time?
The 2nd question is a larger one: is it possible? Is Bernie’s dream of bypassing the Wall Street pipelines and taking the case to the American people a pipe dream or simply a dream whose time has not yet come?
I would hope that virtually everyone here on D-Kos would share a recognition of the seriousness of that dream, that aspiration. And that we would all share a commitment to working toward it.
But then, I am not sure we do share that commitment. See, I can imagine why Kossites would support Hillary Clinton. I can understand why some would feel that Bernie’s challenge is not realistic and is doomed to fail. I could even imagine a Kossite sadly concluding that genuine Progressive achievement is pretty much a pipe dream.
What I cannot understand is how any Kossite could be unmoved by Bernie’s campaign. How he or she could cynically dismiss the enterprise or Sanders supporters. How this site can’t be united in recognizing that Wall Street money is a serious problem for our party and that it is generally desirable to find ways to bypass it. Do we not all see that?
Armando. Greg D. I have come to value your voices. But I don’t get you guys. Honestly, I don’t. Armando, do you not see the consequences of the conclusions you draw about Bernie’s campaign? Do you not see that if it is impossible to win a campaign without a superpac, then we won’t be winning any real battles against Wall Street?
Greg, I look forward to each of your morning broadcasts. I learn a lot. But, do you not see how narrow your focus is? How you let the GOP dominate your discourse?
You talk endlessly about Donald Trump. Hey … we get it. We know who Trump is and that he isn’t fading. But why don’t you talk about the POLITICS of what Bernie doing and the issues he is trying to get people to discuss? Polls are important as is inside political baseball. But what about the politics of those Bernie rallies? The reasons people support him and the potential his commitments hold for shattering the conventional political dynamic? You are an actual Progressive of some sort, right? Are you really satisfied to stare myopically at polls and the mainstream press view of Trump when Bernie is trying to at least lay down the foundation for a political revolution? Do you care about that? Do you see the power of actual populist politics done by a man with integrity and vision? Aren’t you inspired by that?
I dunno. I doubt my little rant here will have much effect. But I tell you this.
The Democratic Party can do little without the energy of the Progressive base. And just as the Right Wing base of the GOP is tired of waiting for its red meat, so Progressives are getting more and more weary of the Democratic Party’s refusal to inspire them or act on their values. Oh, we’ll probably be there for Hillary, but the shabby way we are ignored by the Party and its advocates is wearing us down. We weren’t as excited in 2012 as we were in 2008, and we we’ll be even less excited next year.
We are looking for an alternative. It would be great to find it in the Democratic Party. But we are tired of being manipulated. And one of these days, the DNC will look for us and we won’t be there.