RT @ESQPolitics: What we're seeing with Bernie Sanders was a long time coming:
2016-02-01 16:26:33 GMT
Smooth Young Priest
It's interesting how the party's leaders (and many pundits) do their best to pretend the leftist current doesn't exist or act surprised/offended when it manifests itself in something like Bernie's insurgency.
They've been running with that as established "fact" for so long that it's like trying to turn the Titanic.
Also, 1988 was the first time I was really aware of a presidential campaign, and during the primaries I was a Jackson fan (though I'm not sure I was clear on why). So my leftism started early.
One of the better arguments I ever overheard between my mother and her mother was over the Jackson campaign (we were on a cross-country road trip to a family reunion.)
: Honestly, though, is the "leftist current" any different than the Tea Party contingent on the other side? Sure, we may agree with 99.9% of the things being supported on the leftist side (where we clearly disagree with 99.9% of the things being supported on the opposite end of the spectrum), but, as much as I hate to say it, that doesn't mean those leftist candidates will be any better equipped to "play ball" and actually get things done than the extreme right, does it?
Right-wing movements (like the Tea Party) are more likely to be treated as serious/principled/authentic in the media while leftist movements tend to be ignored or treated with condescension. Politicians on the left tend to work more within the system (like Sanders with the health care bill) rather than, say, shutting down the government.
The way I see it, progressives and Tea Party people have one main difference: the majority of tea partiers want to reduce the size of the government to being able to drown in a bathtub, to use the Grover Norquist euphemism, while progressives see the government programs that many, including many tea partiers, rely on in daily life as being necessary and perhaps even expanding as needed (see: universal health care).
They also have one sad thing in common: both areas of the political spectrum mentioned are shamelessly used by establishment candidates to get votes, then thrown under the bus when they prove inconvenient or are no longer useful. As the OP article stated, Bill Clinton (among others) did this to black people when a threat from Jesse Jackson came in from the left. Hillary tried to do this in 2008 to Obama, to lesser avail. Hell, even Obama did this to a lesser respect, talking a good game of being a progressive alternative to Hillary, then putting the Treasury in the hands of people like Geithner and Summers. As for tea partiers, well, as John has already said, they were useful for Republicans to use until they're not, which is why Donald Trump is able to play them like a fiddle, in essence telling them, "Hey, let's cut out the middleman."
One other thing that gets my goat is the idea that a certain candidate is the only one to "get things done". Unless one has been asleep for the last 30 years or so, that idea is hilarious, considering the sheer amount of chicanery and tomfoolery in Congress. Sure, any president can offer legislation, but by the time the idea has been put through the meat grinder of Congress, it would be a minor miracle if the idea survives in any form that resembles its original intent, if it survives at all. And that idea of "getting things done" assumes that the things getting done are in the best interests of the citizenry, and not in the interests of the donors who contribute heavily in a typical election. So, to me, "getting things done" is a less than useful concept, especially when one considers how Congress has spent their valuable time when not fundraising (see: Benghazi, repealing Obamacare, etc.
Best of Mokum