In his Wall Street Journal column Daniel Henninger tries to identify the Democrats’ core problem:
Now that Bernie Sanders—once an obscure socialist senator from Vermont—is officially the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, it is time to confront what that means.
It does not mean the U.S. is flirting with socialism. That’s not going to happen. The meaning of Bernie’s ascent is that the Democratic Party, older even than he is, has simply run out of gas.
The Democrats resemble Europe’s aging political parties—Britain’s Labour, France’s Socialists, Germany’s Social Democrats and Christian Democrats. All have simply deflated with voters.
Signs of public fatigue with the Democrats could be seen in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Besides incompetence, the big story out of Iowa was low turnout. In New Hampshire the story was voter indecision. Once past Bernie’s 25% cement-block base, many voters were flipping a coin in the voting booth to pick from the other candidates.
What does it mean that Elizabeth Warren, by now a household name, got dropped to fourth place? Joe Biden’s humiliating fifth is a personal disaster, but what does that say about the party itself?
Circling overhead is Mike Bloomberg, supposedly the party’s savior. The truth is Barack Obama was the party’s final savior, and a second coming isn’t likely. Recall the talk after the 2016 election about how the Democrats had “no bench.†They just rolled benchless into 2020.
The Democrats’ floundering to find a candidate is deeper than the split between moderates and the left. It looks to me like the accumulated costs of its long history as the self-declared party of government are finally coming due.
The party’s problem is that it doesn’t look competent anymore.
I don’t think that any of those is the Democrats’ core problem. I think their core problem is conflicting objectives. For the Democratic nomenklatura, who depend on influence peddling and public office for their livelihoods and those of their families, the Prime Directive is keeping both of those alive. To do that they are paying lip service to the often conflicting goals of the financial sector, blacks, Hispanics, and young people, maintaining their loyalty without actually fulfilling the at least implied promises they’re making.
I think the solution for that nomenklatura is to be satisfied with a smaller cut of the take and to start fulfilling their promises. They can’t do that without angering some of those constituencies. They must choose among them.
I heard an interview with Henninger on the column. I think that what you comment about is exactly what he means by out of gas. The failed and conflicting promises, amplified by the endless slicing and dicing of their base, has caused the effort to fade and lose any focus.
Shorter: They pursued a pander to every perceived constituency strategy, and its run its natural course. Its a self inflicted wound.
The democrat party, especially of late, runs on the fuel of division and vitriol. Their supposed “big tent†only includes those of the same mindset, becoming part of their ideological herd, with no critical thinking allowed or diversity of thought met without verbal insults or physical injury. More and more people supporting the opposite side, wearing non-approved progressive apparel are attacked, without a mention in the MSM, I might add. And, yet it’s the abrasive, non-conforming tweets of a disliked president that the press hangs onto, enlarges and repeats, in a droning manner, as if to indoctrinate readers/listeners rather than fully inform them by including a bilateral context.
Jan – The republican party, especially of late, runs on the fuel of division and vitriol. Their supposed “big tent†only includes those of the same mindset, becoming part of their ideological herd, with no critical thinking allowed or diversity of thought met without verbal insults or physical injury. More and more people supporting the opposite side, wearing non-approved progressive apparel are attacked, without a mention in the MSM, I might add. And, yet it’s the abrasive, non-conforming tweets of a disliked president that the press hangs onto, enlarges and repeats, in a droning manner, as if to indoctrinate readers/listeners rather than fully inform them by including a bilateral context.
I think the point that Larry is making above is that the Republican Party has been slouching towards becoming a programmatic party rather than a “catch-all” party for some time, just as the Democrats are doing now. They just have a head start.
50 years ago the Republican Party had liberal, moderate, and conservative wings. The liberal wing jumped ship 40 years ago. There are presently very few moderate Republicans in Congress and they are being replaced, either by Democrats or by conservative Republicans, as fast as the parties can manage it. You only need to look at polls and voting records to see that this is true.
From my perspective a key problem that both parties share is that relatively few Americans support the programs that the two programmatic parties would put in place.
My apologizes to all. I was not trying to be mean, rude, or snarky as my mother in law would say. Happy Friday everyone.
No apology necessary. I thought your comment expressed pretty clearly that what had been said of the Democrats largely applied to the Republicans as well.
“Their supposed “big tent†only includes those of the same mindset, becoming part of their ideological herd, with no critical thinking allowed or diversity of thought met without verbal insults or physical injury. More and more people supporting the opposite side, wearing non-approved progressive apparel are attacked, without a mention in the MSM, I might add. ”
You may be surprised to learn that many Republicans see a mirror image of what you just illustrated, Larry, from what we see as self described “Progressives”. The word itself intimates, if you don’t go along, you are regressive.
What shall we do, to at least ease tensions?
GS:
Larry was responding to Jan’s earlier comment.
I agree that both parties may seem “programmatic,†mainly because of the notable increased polarization, in adopting their defensive public stances. However, IMO, whenever it was that such a programmatic characteristic emerged in each party, the democrats have far outpaced their counterparts, becoming more ideologically driven and deranged in their rebuke of anyone republican.
For instance, in right-sided circles a person can still be pro choice, anti death penalty, maintain both socially liberal and conservative values, and not be alienated by the right for being a political hybrid. There is, however, no place on the left, for those openly debating mixed social positions. Furthermore, rarely does the progressive left experience anything more hostile than “right wing†sign-waving gatherings, verbalizing their disagreements. OTOH, there has been a significant uptick in violent behavior from Bernie Bro, Antifa and other liberal fringe groups against those espousing different POVs, as the 2020 election closes in – albeit the press seems to ignore reporting these incidents, unless they can somehow be negatively linked to the R party.
What shall we do, to at least ease tensions?
A few years ago my wife and I were hiking Hardrian’s Wall in northern England. We had stopped to look over a very old castle ruin, as we headed back to the trail another American came along, we discovered both of us were mixed up and not sure where the actual trail head was. We took out our maps, tried to orient ourselves. He was certain that the way East was in the direction we came from, my wife and I were confused, we had just come from that direction. He headed off West, we back tracked a bit and found the trail again. We don’t know how long it took him to figure out that he was going in the wrong direction, he was absolutely sure he had things right. My wife and I were disoriented for a bit, but managed to choose the right path. We made the correct decision but until we actually found the trail East we were not completely sure of our choice.
My wife and I still talk about that encounter, how far did he actually go before he realized his mistake.
I guess what I am trying to say is in the end he had to admit he made a mistake, it could have been my wife and I. The three of us talked and discussed and we each made our choice. We did it in a friendly way. If it had been our choice to go back, we would have had to admit we made a mistake. We would have had to make the correction and back track to get back on the trail.
We have to learn and admit to ourselves when we make the wrong decisions. Its pretty easy to make mistakes in life. It’s much more difficult to make corrections, could have been several miles worth for us day.
What shall we do? Stop voting for careerists, regardless of their party. I don’t think the problem is with the American people. The number of real firebrands is actually pretty small. I think most of the problem is career politicians, at the Congressional and here in Chicago at the local level.
They’re turning us against each other to their own benefit.
“admit he made a mistake”
Larry, hindsight. Once the final tally is in, I too will admit I made a mistake for voting trump to bring an end to nepotism and rent seeking and influence peddling. IF he proves guilty of the same. So far, not so. His “crimes” have been so far committed in self defense.
Dave:
Who do we have but careerists to choose from, unless you want a draft.
I spect the best we could do is congressional term limits and then put as many shackles on Presidential power as we can. For instance, limits and full public disclosure on speakers fees for ex-officeholders. We all know it’s retroactive payola.
Looks to me like a fairly common type of column where the author declares that one party or the other is dead. Like the Dems in 2000 or the GOP in 2008. I guess they are worth writing because eventually someone will be correct.
“They’re turning us against each other to their own benefit.”
Their is tons of money to be made in keeping us mad at each other. The faux outrage of the day is worth millions in donations and subscriptions and ratings.
“I don’t think the problem is with the American people.”
Disagree. It was our votes that put the two worst POTUS candidates in modern history on the same ballot. We read the toxic blogs and listen to talk radio to hear our biases confirmed and get our daily anger dose. We try to convince ourselves we are morally superior, rather than just have different ideas.
Steve
Larry, that was an amicable story, communicated well.
When traveling a trail, though, it becomes clear, fairly soon, if you’re headed where you want to go, or not. But, when dealing with political choices, the net effect of such a choice is often obscured by heavily invested emotion, or unknown for a longer period because results are time-delayed. And, If a choice does end up being a “badâ€one the remedy is not necessarily fixed by simply going back and taking the other trail.
IMHO, open dialogues exchanged between and among opposing fractions is one way to ease political tension, if by no other reason than some negative perceptions, each has about the other, may be softened, changed or having people agree to disagree, without totally demolishing another’s moral personhood. I might add that the MSM could also contribute to lowering party animosities by dialing down the partisan content displayed in their news articles.
On the other hand, Clinton did win a majority of the popular vote in 2016. However, it was concentrated in California and New York. Also, the Democrats are firmly in control of the Northeast, the West Coast, and every major city. That hardly looks like a party in decline.
And it is obvious that the US is not only flirting with socialism, but actual Stalinist/Maoist communism. Moreover, since virtually every political party in Europe is either outright socialist or has adopted most socialist programs, it cannot be said that Europe’s socialists are in decline, either.
Clinton did not win a majority of the vote, she won a plurality. And a lot of her California votes IMO are suspect because there is absolutely no vetting of voter registration. As whether the Democratic Party is in decline they’ll be plenty of discussion of that after the 2020 election, win or lose.