Interesting new study comes to a few conclusions about the 2016 Democratic Party and its divisions. Essentially, the concludes that on values and policy, there is much overlap and cohesion. Democrats largely agree with an activist role for the federal government to intervene in both economic and social life in America. The one, glaring, massive division between the two wings of the party is on the issue of America itself. Clinton voters have much more confidence in the nation's institutions, believe in its system of self-government, think opportunities exist for people like them. Sanders voters have litte confidence in the economic and political system, beleive it is fundamentally corrupt and rigged against people like them, and beleive it beyond reform, requiring a sweeping political revolution:
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had very different records over the years on economic policy, and their best-informed surrogates reflect that division. But a massive new pile of research from the Voter Study Group on what really happened in the 2016 election shows that among rank-and-file Democrats, there isn’t much of a systematic disagreement about economic policy. The real divide is about American politics itself.
Clinton supporters were fundamentally happy with the United States of America, the American political system, and the trajectory for people like themselves within it. Sanders supporters, by contrast, were not, and Clinton’s various leftward feints on policy could not address that gap.
I think that sounds about right. You can see that issue play out on the issue of money in politics. For most Clinton voters, money is fungible. You raise it for the purpose of using it to further your political goals. Doesn't really matter where it comes from as long as its legal and you aren't keeping it for yourself. Furthermore, Clinton voters have no problem with political people making money in the private sector, like giving speeches or signing book deals. Clinton voters don't see the inherent bad 'optics' of being seemingly allied with industries that do not enjoy high public esteem, like Wall Street or Health Insurers.
But for Sanders voters, money is a moral choice. If you accept money from certain kinds of morally objectionable people, those people then 'own' you and this creates an inherently corrupt bargain. For them, it is objectionable to raise political money from wealthy people (depending on the industry), for example, but morally acceptable to accept it from a large number of poor people. This creates a more virtuous and more democratic form of political ownership. Sanders frequently, for example, touted his moral superiority and ethical virtue by means of his method of fundraising and not too rich personal wealth.
There is, I beleive, a sweet spot here. First, I think Sanders voters have a good point about our political system. It does need reform. It always needs reform. It does NOT, however, require revolution and is not a gigantic nefarious conspiracy out to get people. The game isn't rigged, but it could be better. Clinton voters would do well to look at innovative ways to promote more engagement and to depend a lot less on donations from wealthy people. I think a good candidate can take this issue off the table.
Sanders voters are going to have to accept that the this is the system we have and plent of Americans, far more than they could ever beat in a national election, are fine with it. Hot Red Leftist Revolution isn't as popular as they think, and that gets proven time after time at the ballot box. A focus on reform would help us unify around a common agenda and common message.