Haley Sweetland Edwards tackles various efforts by progressives to move Hillary Clinton to the left. After all, we don’t want to live through either of these nightmare scenarios:
Liberals have two recurring nightmares about the 2016 elections.
In the first, they wake up on Nov. 9, 2016, to find that Americans have elected a Republican who has spent the past year and a half promising to dismantle Obamacare, undo the Environmental Protection Agency’s clean air regulations and cut corporate taxes.
In the second, they wake up on Nov. 9, 2016, to find that Americans have elected Hillary Clinton, who has spent the past year and a half promising them absolutely nothing and courting independents and moderates.
The second scenario is obviously preferable to most liberals, but it’s still worrying. They’d much prefer to elect a Hillary Clinton who has made specific, concrete campaign pledges to them — especially since political science research shows that, contrary to popular belief, politicians tend to keep their promises.
The most obvious way to move Hillary to the left or to extract some campaign promises out of her is to find a progressive alternative to run against her in the primaries, although it would help if her challenger had some degree of plausibility as someone who could both steal the nomination from her and win the general election. If anyone can pass that basic sniff test, and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has more potential on this front than Sen. Bernie Sanders, then I think they will have little difficulty making Hillary sweat. Right now, however, no one is showing even a hint of the strength they would need to rally the Clinton-doubters.
Under these circumstances, it makes sense to push Democrats in Congress to introduce progressive legislation, especially on campaign financing and banking regulation, which both poll extremely well even among rank-and-file moderates and Republicans.
Another strategy has more of a long-game flavor to it, but could be quite clever. Maybe electing another Clinton won’t do a whole lot to advance progressive causes within the Democratic Party, but what if we use her coattails to elect progressives down ticket?
National People’s Action Campaign, among others, plan to focus on recruiting and supporting progressive candidates in municipal, county and state-level elections. The idea is not only to put progressive policies in place on the local level, but also to help shape the national political landscape from the bottom up, explained George Goehl of the National People’s Action Campaign.
“If you could get thousands of people down ballot running on a similar platform and create a bottom-up swell—that would be something that both parties would have to react to,” he said. Such a groundswell could shape the Democratic Party in the same way that the Tea Party has shaped the Republican Party. “They could help energize people across the board and create a clear lime in the sand: Are you a progressive populist in this moment in time, or are you not?” he added.
There could be a bit of a mutually reinforcing strategy here, where Clinton uses her free lane to the nomination to focus on carving out more of the middle, while downticket Democrats are swept into office on the sheer size of her national electoral advantage.
This assumes that Clinton will ultimately face a very conservative Republican who is more soundly rejected than even McCain and Romney. That’s a gamble that may not come to fruition, but having the candidates in place to take advantage of an unexpectedly big presidential win is not only the best way to win back the House of Representatives and control of many state legislatures, it is a way to elect a big bench of new talent for the progressive cause.
Ultimately, what will determine how progressive Clinton is as president will be how easy or difficult it is for her to get legislation through Congress. So, winning control of Congress is the paramount concern. But the more progressive that Congress is, the better. The Clintons are probably more willing to push progressive legislation that most people realize, provided that they are rewarded for it politically. If they see a progressive agenda as a threat, they’ll oppose it. If they think that they need to cut unsavory deals with Republicans and make compromises with Big Money, well, we already lived through that once.
Kucinich.
Tanned. Rested. Ready.
>This assumes that Clinton will ultimately face a very >conservative Republican who is more soundly rejected >than even McCain and Romney.
At this point, who might that be? I personally think Walker is more conservative that McCain & Romney but I’m not sure the general electorate will. Likewise Jeb Bush, although it’s conceivable he’s less conservative that Romney. But other than those two, and assuming Christie doesn’t rise from the near dead, who else has a snowball’s chance of winning the GOP nomination?
There are few, if any, Conservatives left in modern politics. What folks are calling ‘conservatives’ are fascists/radicals. Disgusting, regressive shitheads.
That’s a good way to put it. The main driver is self interest. Make it in HRCs self interest to be progressive and that will pull her. The trick is making it self interested. Banks are already demanding Dems rein in warren and eitholding donations over it.
Schumer stands ready to do their bidding.
Edwards’s second nightmare scenario doesn’t seem likely. It’s doubtful in a tough race against likely opponent Jebster that she’ll be able to get away with promising nothing to the Dem base and then expect them to show up in enough numbers to win what would be a very close race. She needs the base fully behind her. Just being a historic first woman prez probably won’t be enough to get out the base vote in droves.
As for nudging her leftward, Warren is already doing that and I expect this pressure from the sidelines to continue on domestic matters. Fielding a solid challenger of a Warren caliber probably would do more harm to both candidates and to the party’s Nov chances. I prefer the Warren indirect pressure from outside perhaps combined with a very articulate and energetic Bernie Sanders doubling down on progressive concerns from within as a formal candidate albeit one with no chance to win.
Meanwhile, where are the strong progressive forces who will nudge Hillary leftward from her hawkish FP positions? Silence mostly from our party’s left. And what if, once in office, it turns out foreign issues are the hot crises for the new president to deal with, much as Obama was hit with a major domestic economic crisis upon taking office.
The problem is getting the rest of the Democratic base to support progressive ideas for the first time in 50 years. For a decade now, progressives have had the illusion that a big-tent party base is only one thing.
If our frontrunner and other party leaders start talking about bold progressive domestic matters, as opposed to trimming, compromising, apologizing, or talking more about Republican issues like deficits and debt and low taxes, and if they talk about it forcefully and long enough and in the right places, then the party masses will come along.
There’s already some momentum in that direction, mostly as a byproduct of the media talking up the Warren possibility. Hillary and her primary opponents Walter O’Malley and whoever else will have the rest of the year to lay the foundation as they give and take in the debates.
I can’t see HRC running on a nothing platform in the general just to appeal to centrists and moderate Goopers. It’s a sure way to lose. Humphrey ’68.
Of course, I don’t expect her to call for a complete pullout of US troops and bases from all foreign countries either. But on FP, that should be her goal once she’s elected.
Clinton has made some noise about issues with a leftish bent, but not the ones progressives are hot for at present. She has always been a big advocate of gender equality and continues to be, starting that presser she gave about the email flap with a speech calling for more gender equality. And while she hasn’t endorsed it yet, the Center for American Progress put out a call lately for German-style empowerment of labor. So I’m expecting a substantive platform from her, and while I don’t think we’re going to get a progressive wish list, I’m expecting a platform we’ll be happy to support.
Is there anyone out there who sincerely believes that Ted Cruz actually believes he can be elected as a Republican again … to ANYTHING? Ted Cruz will force the R rightward more and more crazy … and then lose.
“This assumes that Clinton will ultimately face a very conservative Republican who is more soundly rejected than even McCain and Romney.”
I think that this is exactly what will happen. I’ve been reading (while holding my nose) about what Cruz believes and has actually said. I don’t think he has any interest in being the Republican nominee for President. I think his entire plan is to fail and then trumpet that the R Party is a total and complete failure due to compromise with big $$$ (which it is). At that point, he will bolt and form a Christian Right Wing Party.
He won’t use the currently available RW parties (libertarian, AmInd, Conservative, …) because they aren’t CHRISTIAN. Which means the R presidential candidate will not have an actual RW opponent … this year.
However, Cruz will begin the actual formation of a Christian party prior to the election of 2016. This will make getting startup $$$ from the Xtian right easier. In turn, this will consume the rabid Xtians for the next 9 or 10 election cycles. Taking the Xtians out of the vote equation means the R downballot slots are in KimChee up to their eyebrows. Starting in 2018, the R downballot will have actual RW opponents with actual constituencies.
Praise be to FSM, I hope I’m right.
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/28/ted_cruzs_religious_horror_why_hes_really_running_for_high_priest_of
_america/?source=newsletter
I think you’ve got it. Salon agrees. Cruz doesn’t want the White House, he wants the big Revival Tent. He wants to be Billy Sunday.
The establishment Democrats have shown a keen interest in suppressing progressive campaigns actively so that actual progressive Democrats are never tested head-to-head with right-wing Republicans. Just running candidates on coattails is not sufficient. There will be active moves by the Clinton campaign to reduce the number of progressive Democrats she has to run with. What threatens their big money donors threatens them.
On the other hand, maybe there is a way to bridge the electoral gap.
Appreciate South Carolina’s 5 Favorite Foods
If you don’t like SC mustard-base BBQ, you can still opt for western NC tomato-base BBQ or eastern NC vinegar-base BBQ. Lord knows what those Texans, Oklahomans, and Kansans cook.
And nothing say values voter like appreciating good sweet tea.
Nothing says traditional like common dime store traditions from the segregated past, such as boiled peanuts; ironically, the one desegregated area of a dime store; anybody could buy boiled peanuts or popcorn or cotton candy. (If they could afford it; it was de facto not de jure). Everybody could listen to blues and gospel street singers too; it was the donations to them that separated folks. (Guess how?)
If you’re drinking sweet tea and talking politely at a church social, you can bring up minimum wage increases and Social Security increases and Medicare for All (it’s not Obamacare).
If you’re chugging down your Bleheim Extra Hot Ginger Ale you can tell the folks at the Legion and VFW that the DoD is wasting their money and needs to get a grip; they’ve seen it; they know; they just love to wave that flag.
And no one who is eating shrimp and grits can be denied the opinion that it’s just time to drop that whole Confederate flag nonsense because everybody knows that it’s really about flogging Yankees and not about slavery and whoo boy don’t give any politicians any crazy ideas or they will go hog wild and people will be easing into it with indentured servitude again. Tell them that while you share a plate of shrimp and grits.
Let’s talk about common sense ideas like certain types of infrastructure – pre-K education, public education, health care, public transportation, parks, renewable energy, Social Security, family leave, actual public safety and equal justice under law….for all. Those were progressive ideas a hundred years ago. Today they are conservative (but not “conservative” or “Conservative” or “Tea Party Conservative” or even pragmatic or bipartisan) ideas.
Or common sense ideas like not destroying other people’s infrastructure without good reason. Or not allowing rules to force hard-working people off jobs or into poverty when they’ve done nothing but work hard.
Or common sense ideas like equal justice under the law, a limit on state secrecy, accountability for war crimes, an actual reduction in rules and bureaucracy both public and private that affect ordinary people’s lives.
Find candidates who can say common sense things, not “progressive” things. Find candidate who can tell ordinary people what the elite futurists are saying that corporate executives believe enough to try to make money at and ask these ordinary people if that’s the way they they want to go. And listen to where they really want to go beyond the repeated radio bullshit. Call people out on their Rusbo-isms and ask them where they really want to go as a country.
If progressives cannot find or put together a slate of candidates for the full ballot in Mississippi, South Carolina, Kansas, and Wyoming that will shake up the corrupt governments of those states, we are not talking practically about what it means to use Hillary Clinton’s coattails. There are eight months left to field candidates for a whole lot of offices. Do any of the proposers of these strategies know any progressives in Mississippi, South Carolina, Kansas, and Wyoming who are willing to run as progressive? For anything?
The path out of this mess is the same that it has been since 2012–changing the political culture of how Americans talk about politics and doing that in the face of a hostile media.
So the fight is between common sense and the hog wilds.
Shrimp and grits – brrrr! Now Shrimp Etouffe, that’s Heaven.
Brr!!!
If you are eating them cold, you’re not doing it right. Hot, dripping with butter or coconut oil and with lots of black pepper.
It’s Coastal Carolina local Etoufee.
If they’re “Brr!!”, fry them good and add more black pepper. You let them get cold and congeal. Sort of a metaphor for how the Democratic establishment lost Southern Democratic voters.
They usually arrive lukewarm and tasteless with a blob of margarine in the middle. But I’ve only eaten them in Maryland.
Much prefer Cayenne to black pepper.
I would like to be optimistic about all of this but I just don’t see it.
Consider:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-problem
She is not a populist – doesn’t get it. Not because she is dumb, but because she doesn’t think populists are right. Consider this:
I think the Wall Street guys are right.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/why-wall-street-loves-hillary-112782.html#ixzz3VdI7jl
WC
To them, she’s someone who gets the idea that we all benefit if Wall Street and American business thrive.
I think the past 7 years have proven this wrong. Wall Street has thrived and the rest of us have gotten a shit sandwich.
To be clear, I think the Wall Street guys are right about Clinton. I think they are dead wrong on economics.
You wrote: “Maybe electing another Clinton won’t do a whole lot to advance progressive causes within the Democratic Party, but what if we use her coattails to elect progressives down ticket?”
Could you please explain why — if independents and moderate Republicans are brought into the ballad booth by Clinton tacking to the center — those voters would necessary pull the lever for progressive politicians on the ballot? Wouldn’t they (the Republicans, at least) be more likely just to split the ticket and vote for the Republican down ballot candidates even if they’re voting for Clinton for president?
Wouldn’t it make more sense for there to be progressive down ballot candidates AND a presidential candidate whose rhetoric draws more voters into the booth who are likely to vote for the progressives rather than those who might split the ticket?
What am I missing?
That the ticket-splitters exist, and the dark hordes of non-voting progressives don’t?
Politicians can count. Often that’s all they can do, but they can count.
Good, thoughtful post, Booman. Thanks. Also, thanks to all the commenters for an interesting thread.
Even with a great progressive wave victory in 2016, Democrats are unlikely (in the extreme) to retake control of the House. That’s doubly true even with a President Clinton in 2018, so realistically we’re looking at the 2020 election, and more likely 2022 or 2024—after redistricting, and presuming Democrats regain control of enough state legislatures—before Democrats control the House, Senate and White House simultaneously.
That suggests a strategy for progressives that looks something like this:
1 – Work to elect the most progressive Democrat who stands a chance of winning to every available federal, state and local office.
2 – Assuming Clinton gets elected president next year, organize to push her and her administration to the left in the use of any and all executive powers that she has.
3 – Push for progressive legislation in Congress not because it will pass a Republican House, but because it will set the agenda for the next time Democrats control Congress.
4 – Just as progressives in the 1920s used their power in certain state and local governments to create the template for the New Deal, organize locally to build political power and a winning, workable progressive agenda.
Some cautions.
Practical strategies to deal with these factors can help use these as an effective strategy but all of those require motivation at the grassroots level in unusual places, which implies a transformation in the political culture from the one-way consultant-driven marketing model we are currently trapped with.
Thanks for the response, wise cautions all.
A couple of additional thoughts:
#2 – I have in mind things like what Sen. Warren has done in effectively exercising a veto on Larry Summers’ appointment as Fed chairman, and Antonio Weiss as Undersecretary for Domestic Finance at Treasury, and the push to expand (re-expand) federal regulations on overtime pay.
#3 – Agreed. Sen. Murray’s unexpected victory at getting paid family leave included in the Senate’s budget resolution is a good example.
from Clinton and Obama is that it is very difficult to create a separate progressive identity in the mind of the general public if a moderate Dem holds the White House. Among rank and file voters, Clinton and Obama are liberals, and they define what is left.
I do not know how to solve this problem short of a serious fight in the Presidential primaries. Even if the fight were to lose it would start the process of an identity to Clinton’s left.
Unless Warren runs, I think that means O’Malley, but I am not sure if O’Malley is all that left anyay.
What is possible, however, is to build a more powerful progressive faction in and allied with the Democratic party so that a Democratic president (or governor or mayor or county executive) has to react to it. That’s what happened with President Obama and same-sex marriage; the boundaries of what was politically possible shifted over the course of the decade he’s been in national politics, and he shifted with them.
John Hickenlooper had a reputation as a centrist Democrat when he was mayor of Denver. When he became governor and had a Democratic legislature sending him bills to sign into law, all of a sudden he was a “liberal”. Hickenlooper hadn’t changed that much. The circumstances he which he operated changed.
Interesting that Louis Goehmert dropped the act long enough to be honest about why he’s not running for President. He cited the introduction of television and the Kennedy-Nixon debates as the end of bald men as President. Ike was the last. Likely is why Dick Cheney exercised his Presidency through the witless George W. Bush.
Similar sentiments have been voiced about Kucinich and the prejudice against shortness. So, how does the clown car stack up in order of height. From photos, it appears that the religious wing is on the short and the Cruz sabotagers are toward the tall. Does that put Jeb in the “moderate” middle?
Female candidates confound these stereotypes. Exactly how remains to be seen.
I believe 5’7 Rob Kennedy would’ve kicked Nixon’s ass. I think James Madison was 5’4 so it can happen again. Governor Patrick is around 5’7 and would give Madame Secretary flashbacks if he threw his hat in. I believe the bald Senator Booker would make a strong contender right now. But, he is a cool brother and not a 100% putz like Louis.
Probably not. He might have won but not by much. The Wallace voters wouldn’t have wasted their vote and moved over to the GOP one election cycle earlier than they did.
Just as we’ve never seen a second Catholic POTUS since 1960, we’re not going to see a second Black POTUS for a while. Even if Patrick would have made for a better POTUS than Obama.
It may be sooner than you think. We’re going to see more non white presidents. The white office holders just aren’t cool enough to shut that down.
Adam Johnson