You might want to read Andrew O’Hehir’s message to progressives at Salon:
For many people in, let’s say, the left-center quadrant of the American political spectrum — especially those who are not all that eager to confront the fractured and tormented state of the current Democratic Party — Montana and Georgia and 2018 seem(ed) to represent the opening chapters of a comeback narrative, the beginning of a happy ending. If what happened in 2016 was a nonsensical aberration, then maybe there’s a fix right around the corner, and normal, institutional politics can provide it.
First you chip away at Republican triumphalism, and the House majority, with a couple of special-election victories. Then it’s about organizing, recruiting the right candidates for the right seats, registering voters and ringing doorbells, right? Democrats picked up 31 seats in the George W. Bush midterms of 2006 — and will need 24 or so this time — so, hey, it could happen. For that matter, Republicans gained an astounding 63 seats in the Tea Party election of 2010, and many observers have speculated that Trump-revulsion might create that kind of cohesion on the left. So we sweep away Paul Ryan and his sneering goons, give Nancy Pelosi back her speaker’s gavel after eight long years, introduce the articles of impeachment and begin to set America back on the upward-trending path of political normalcy and niceness.
I suspect it’s pointless to list all the things that are wrong with that scenario, because either you agree with me that it’s a delusional fantasy built on seven different varieties of magical thinking or you don’t, and in the latter case I am not likely to convince you.
Maybe just maybe Americans are voting for brutes like Trump and Gianforte despite disliking them and what they do but because they disagree with what the Democrats are offering or can no longer believe them.
A good start might be to reconsider where “center-left” actually is.
One of the criticisms I’ve made of the both political parties over the last 15 or so years is that they are incoherent. They claim to have unifying principles, but serially violate those principles. They support policies that are mutually contradictory. They lack a vision of governance based on first-principles. At this point, they are really just collections of special interests which fight among themselves as much as fighting the other side (while ignoring everyone else as much as possible).
Andrew, sir, I do believe you are correct. Now, what, exactly, does center left, or center right mean these days? It seems to have relevance, to whatever degree, only in the context of “social” issues.
It’s amazing to read 3 opinions – Dave, Andy, Drew – all in a row, and agree with every one of them.
As for me, I feel a greater distance from both the D $ R party affiliations with each passing election, as well as the administrations who won and stepped into power. The “people” have virtually become sidelined by party strategists, ideological goals, and polarization, designed to freeze out any bipartisan work that could be accomplished for “the people.”
Consequently, I agree with the notion that this is why such an umconventional, rogue candidate steamrolled over the brilliant punditry of the press, the right/left establishment and was ungraciously able to waltz into the Oval Office. Whether or not such a POTUS can be purged by those, who are revulsed by his conduct, mannerisms and disinterest in playing ball with the elite, remains as the highlighted question of his first term in office.
Last week, I reread all of my notes. There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice. It wasn’t FBI Director James Comey, Part One or Part Two; it wasn’t Benghazi or the e-mails or Bill Clinton’s visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. No, the conversation shifted the most during the weekend of Sept. 9, after Clinton said, “You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.â€
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/11/21/understanding-undecided-voters/9EjNHVkt99b4re2VAB8ziI/story.html
Way too much reading of the entrails going on here. You had the two worst candidates in recent history run against each other. I don’t really see how you can then make the election a ringing endorsement of one candidate and their views, or a rejection of the other. This was basically a coin toss between bad and badder.
That said, Trump has a very solid core of 30% of the population. Having lived here in the NE I have always seen him as a rich kid who was very well politically connected who screwed others to get richer. IOW, a NYC real estate guy. But some people totally buy into his celebrity and self-proclaimed being the “best” at everything. Probably just a sign of aging but I have never had much tolerance for people who have to repeatedly tell me how wonderful they are. See way too much of that in sports which has diminished the allure of some sports for me.
Steve
Guarneri,
Good questions, I don’t know what they mean anymore. Kind of like “conservative” and “liberal” don’t mean much anymore, or perhaps are apples that fell very far from the tree.
Ben, have yet to read the Boston Globe link you posted, but did scan the excerpt. I think the “deplorable” reference revealed the utter scorn the Clinton’s have had for the “little people” throughout their ambitious, self absorbed political careers. And, yes people gave HRC the finger after that remark.
I may be repeating myself here, but to me it’s revealing that Mrs. Clinton made the remark at a FUNDRAISER of LGBT activists, who needed no reminder of her opinion. She already had their votes, she wanted their MONEY. Still groveling for money when she should have been courting the votes of the Deplorable s.
Terrible candidate. Sad.