Thomas Edsall, the best New York Times columnist this side of Paul Krugman, ran an article on why Bernie Sanders scares people, and it boils down to the idea that most people in this country are not hurting and they do not want someone who might change things more than simply ejecting Donald Trump from office.
As always, reading the responses to his column is where the real juice arises.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/opinion/sanders-2020-trump.html
Yes, Bernie's past is disturbing for many, and for me, but he will be running against Trump. Talk about a past. Yes, the Republican hatchet men will run all day every day ads about that past, but the question is whether than can overcome the man we see before us today.
Dredging up Bernie's writing about how sexual guilt causes breast cancer, how he was evicted from his apartment and then siphoned off electricity using cable extensions, how he fathered his only child out of wedlock, how his "socialism" and "revolution" talk will scare off suburban housewives.
Edsall cites an economist/political guru=, Daron Aemoglu, of MIT who says, "social democracy did not achieve these things by taxing and redistributing a lot. It achieve them by having labor institutions protecting workers, encouraging job creation and encouraging high wages." But there is no reason to think Sanders would not embrace this.
Another MIT economist notes, this election will not "turn on policy ideas, factual claims or even thinking of any substantive kind. American electoral politics has become purely expressive: how much do I identify with my candidate? How much do I hate yours? The balance of these competing forces seems to determine the winner."
As so many of those who responded to the article noted, and as the MIT economists noted, Bernie Sanders would be considered a moderate in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. That story could be told, if there were enough money to shout it.
The fact is, Hillary Clinton was not defeated because she was a bad candidate. I can say that as "fact" just as assuredly as anyone who denies it is not a fact because there are no facts, only "alternative facts."
True, she was a poor candidate: she could never answer the most lethal criticism of her, that she was in the pocket of Wall Street. When asked about all those $250,000 speeches at Goldman Sachs, she looked like a deer in the headlights, as if she was never expecting that question. Never had an answer. And it killed her campaign.
Listening to Bernie Sanders on Alec Baldwins podcast this morning, "Here's the Thing," brought back the memory of the first time I ever heard Sanders speak, which was back in 2016, at the New Hampshire state Democratic convention. He was preceded by Hillary, who got the crowd to its feet and she was splendid. I was amazed how good she was before a large crowd. She walked on the stage to a tumultuous arena and looked around and beamed, "My heart is pounding!" she told the audience, as if to say, "I'm floored by this unexpected enthusiasm. I'm not worthy of it. But we can win this thing."
https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/bernie-sanders-thinks-democrats-are-still-way-course
Then came Bernie whose reception was also enthusiastic but he boomed out, "Are you ready for a REVOLUTION?" And the place went crazy. What he said got the crowd more and more frenzied. What he was arguing, obliquely, was that the Democratic party had failed to deliver for the underclass, for the guy who works three jobs and still gets evicted because he has to choose between paying the rent and buying the medications for his kids.
By the time he was finished, his simple, clear, emotion packed, irate message had reduced his audience to raw emotion. People were actually weeping with joy.
At dinner, a week later with my thirty something kids, they all said they could not support Bernie. None of them wanted a revolution. And he could never win anyway.
But, apparently, there were enough people out there who did want a revolution, in Wisconsin, in Michigan, in Pennsylvania, in Ohio.
It was simply a question of which revolution we would choose.
The same is true this time around. Will the Democrats go with Joe Biden, who is simply a return to normalcy, who is the "Restoration" candidate or will they go for a revolution against the revolution of the Right?
Will those suburban housewives stay home if it's a choice between Trump and Bernie? Will my own kids, who have jobs and lives which they don't want disrupted stay home because at least with Trump they have a great economy?
The question is: How much will outrage matter?
As always, reading the responses to his column is where the real juice arises.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/opinion/sanders-2020-trump.html
Yes, Bernie's past is disturbing for many, and for me, but he will be running against Trump. Talk about a past. Yes, the Republican hatchet men will run all day every day ads about that past, but the question is whether than can overcome the man we see before us today.
Dredging up Bernie's writing about how sexual guilt causes breast cancer, how he was evicted from his apartment and then siphoned off electricity using cable extensions, how he fathered his only child out of wedlock, how his "socialism" and "revolution" talk will scare off suburban housewives.
Edsall cites an economist/political guru=, Daron Aemoglu, of MIT who says, "social democracy did not achieve these things by taxing and redistributing a lot. It achieve them by having labor institutions protecting workers, encouraging job creation and encouraging high wages." But there is no reason to think Sanders would not embrace this.
Another MIT economist notes, this election will not "turn on policy ideas, factual claims or even thinking of any substantive kind. American electoral politics has become purely expressive: how much do I identify with my candidate? How much do I hate yours? The balance of these competing forces seems to determine the winner."
As so many of those who responded to the article noted, and as the MIT economists noted, Bernie Sanders would be considered a moderate in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. That story could be told, if there were enough money to shout it.
The fact is, Hillary Clinton was not defeated because she was a bad candidate. I can say that as "fact" just as assuredly as anyone who denies it is not a fact because there are no facts, only "alternative facts."
True, she was a poor candidate: she could never answer the most lethal criticism of her, that she was in the pocket of Wall Street. When asked about all those $250,000 speeches at Goldman Sachs, she looked like a deer in the headlights, as if she was never expecting that question. Never had an answer. And it killed her campaign.
Listening to Bernie Sanders on Alec Baldwins podcast this morning, "Here's the Thing," brought back the memory of the first time I ever heard Sanders speak, which was back in 2016, at the New Hampshire state Democratic convention. He was preceded by Hillary, who got the crowd to its feet and she was splendid. I was amazed how good she was before a large crowd. She walked on the stage to a tumultuous arena and looked around and beamed, "My heart is pounding!" she told the audience, as if to say, "I'm floored by this unexpected enthusiasm. I'm not worthy of it. But we can win this thing."
https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/bernie-sanders-thinks-democrats-are-still-way-course
Then came Bernie whose reception was also enthusiastic but he boomed out, "Are you ready for a REVOLUTION?" And the place went crazy. What he said got the crowd more and more frenzied. What he was arguing, obliquely, was that the Democratic party had failed to deliver for the underclass, for the guy who works three jobs and still gets evicted because he has to choose between paying the rent and buying the medications for his kids.
By the time he was finished, his simple, clear, emotion packed, irate message had reduced his audience to raw emotion. People were actually weeping with joy.
At dinner, a week later with my thirty something kids, they all said they could not support Bernie. None of them wanted a revolution. And he could never win anyway.
But, apparently, there were enough people out there who did want a revolution, in Wisconsin, in Michigan, in Pennsylvania, in Ohio.
It was simply a question of which revolution we would choose.
The same is true this time around. Will the Democrats go with Joe Biden, who is simply a return to normalcy, who is the "Restoration" candidate or will they go for a revolution against the revolution of the Right?
Will those suburban housewives stay home if it's a choice between Trump and Bernie? Will my own kids, who have jobs and lives which they don't want disrupted stay home because at least with Trump they have a great economy?
The question is: How much will outrage matter?
Mad Dog,
ReplyDeleteAt this point I'd say there's a substantial number of our fellow citizens who would jump at the chance for a return to normalcy. A good thing for Biden. Rightly or wrongly, Bernie scares some folks. So does the word Socialism. I wasn't aware of just how avant-garde Bernie's younger days were. Trump and crew will have a field day. Hardly a deal breaker though, given that the country elected the fool in the White House.
It was interesting, although I guess not totally unexpected, that the Democratic operatives in the Edsall piece had a far dimmer view of Bernie's chances than the political scientists in the second half of the article.
The thing is they all have their shortcomings-all twenty of them. And they don't differ much on their goals-just slightly on how they'd achieve them. So it comes down to who connects with the voters...and you're right-if outrage trumps comfort..
I agree Bernie can electrify a crowd-but so can Biden. Watching these two debate should be interesting and entertaining. I'm also curious to see how Buttigieg does... Thankfully we don't have to wait too long for that spectacle (hopefully not debacle)--the first debate is in June. Boy, that sure came fast...
Maud
Google Harry Truman on socialism as a scare word. Truman, who was no intellectual light, had a wonderful reply to that attack on "socialism."
ReplyDelete"Socialism is a scare word they've hurled at every advance the people have made. Socialism is what they called public power, social security, deposit insurance, and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for anything that helps all people."
Oddly, neither Bernie nor Warren have quoted this
Mad Dog.