Whether he could have won or not is impossible to know and I take no position in that question. My point is that he was able to expose where her weaknesses were and maybe provide a path forward even if he himself isn't the candidate to lead it.
Progressives in urban enclaves created for themselves the exact kind of echo chamber they regularly and rightly criticize on the right and convinced themselves that Clinton's shortcomings weren't nearly as significant as they were.
This morning a blogger I follow wrote 'The people want jobs. The elites want genderless bathrooms.' I don't want to imply that the Democrats should leave marginalized groups to fend for themselves but for the national party I think the reshuffle needs to be about finding economic answers for people left behind in the post industrial world. Sanders showed there's a constituency for that, and some of it lives in the Midwest where Clinton really lost this election. The next two pieces for the national party I think need to be reigning in the establishments appetite for military adventurism, and being more willing to talk about controlling illegal immigration (albeit in a much more humane and pragmatic way than the Republican enforcement uber alles approach).
I know it isn't the answer a lot of people who want to push cultural liberalism would like. However I think the national party needs to accept that those battles need to be fought first and foremost at local and state levels, and that some parts of the country are going to move faster than others.
I think you and jr are dead on. This was a bad outcome but the melodrama this morning is absurd. America isnt (yet) any different than it was yesterday. All we learned is that the Democrats did exactly what Bernie Sanders warned them about and nominated someone who doesn't take the trade and immigration concerns of the white working class seriously. It cost them winnable votes in Pennsylvania and the upper Midwest that would've turned the election. Chris Matthews of all people made some very insightful points to this effect around 2 AM last night on MSNBC.
The response is to push back the same as during the Bush years. Progressives have more allies and means of asserting power than they think, and for God's sake this campus style emotionalism, identitarianism, and helplessness needs to stop.
I think it's important that progressives acknowledge that in order to regroup. They fell behind a very compromised candidate and all the identity politics and appeals to establishment credentials weren't enough, even when the opponent was a demagogue and buffoon. Loss of those upper Midwest states and Pennsylvania speaks volumes.
I'm not sure I agree. We've been watching that show for the last 6ish years. No one has blinked and now we have one presidential candidate openly advocating disregarding the system and another who has a history that suggests a disquieting comfort with disregarding rules she doesn't like.
I see no reason to be optimistic that continued brinkmanship will lead to good policy or an improved political climate.
@aaron-david I think this issue gets into the 'norms' discussion. Theoretically we are always one constitutional crisis away from becoming Argentina. It doesn't mean every unconstitutional act of the government needs to turn into that. It does mean we need to constantly be on guard and ready to force corrections. Unfortunately I think we may have passed a threshold where no one believes anyone is operating in good faith anymore which has eroded the norms and made it more likely that a manageable constitutional crisis becomes something worse.
I think that's true as far as it goes but the infrastructure for modern European states was developed in the context of 19th century nationalist movements. I would contend that the seeds that got them where they are now were not laid with small or regional minorities in mind, but with the idea that ethnic/linguistic groups should break away from larger political entities to govern themselves. Our experience with our Constitution has always been different, especially post 14th Amendment with guarantees of equality across the citizenry that by its nature was heterogeneous.
There's no simple answer but I think social and ethnic solidarity combined with smaller, richer populations goes a long way (even if it's started to erode a bit lately, at least in Europe). Our demographics produce different results and attitudes.
I think this is part of it but doesn't quite tell the whole story. I agree that the Norquist faction of the Republican party has had an outsized role in poisoning our ability to take on the issue responsibly. However I also think you're giving way too much credit to other democracies. My experience is that people are just fine with high taxes that they see benefiting them and people like them but talk about the Turkish family with 8 kids in Berlin or the Estonian handy man in Manchester and it's a different response.
We may focus more on taxes whereas other democracies focus more on benefits but I think it's 2 sides to the same coin.
I can never decide if this is a problem of American culture or democracy more generally. Probably both. Either way we seem incapable of an adult conversation about taxes and government finances.
I dunno, she voted for the dumb land war in Asia and was important in giving cover to the other Democrats who did. That vote is a big part of why I don't think she has the judgment for the job. Control of military force in an era when Congress has gone to sleep at the wheel is to me the most dangerous part of the presidency (along with overseeing our various rogue intelligence and law enforcement agencies).
I try to take into consideration not only the stances of the candidate but also the powers of the office sought. I can stomach my disagreements more easily when the office is weaker in that area.
Regarding her proximity to W. politically I'm searching my mind really hard for big policy differences and the only ones I can come up with are privatizing social security and reproductive rights/abortion (not really things the presidency can make substantial changes to alone). Thats not nothing but for me it's not enough, just as being a Democrat in good standing isn't enough. I don't expect perfection just a little bit more.
@north I don't really see the relevance of the ACA. That's not an achievement of Hilary Clinton and she is the candidate I'm talking about. I've got my disappointments and plenty of disagreements with Obama but I don't regret voting for him or think his failure to achieve everything he talked about in 2008 is anything other than the normal course of politics. I'm making a judgment about a uniquely bad candidate based on that candidate's own record and coming to what in my opinion are reasonable conclusions as to what that says about the party thats chosen to support her.
I don't think that's a radical proposition, especially when we all openly discuss what the Trump candidacy says about the rump of the Republican party that nominated him.
@saul-degraw that's easy to say I think when you're largely ok with the x being prioritized over the y. I'm not a radical and don't support any sort of revolutionary agenda.
However, what if she uses all of those Democrats she puts in the executive branch to ensure that the boat isn't rocked at all for big finance (while inequality continues apace), starts another stupid war, and pushes along the majority of negative things liberals (including myself) dislike about the status quo way our government does business? Is there ever a point where it is reasonable for a liberal to conclude that the Democeats have no credibility on the big issues? Or are we just supposed to get scared of the next Republican and pretend there's nothing wrong here?
@leeesq is there ever a point where policy matters more than party? Not saying there's no overlap but is it fair for people to have varying thresholds?
As someone who will be voting 3rd party secure in the knowledge that I live in a state where it doesn't matter I appreciate this post very much. I can also fully understand why someone in a swing state has a much tougher choice and might swallow their pride and vote Hilary.
What I don't get at all is the Kushner sentiment expressed by @saul-degraw above. Watching all the loyal Democrats vehemently praising HRC, a candidate who is maybe a fingernail to the left of George W. Bush, a war monger, and openly in the service of big finance, has exposed the emptiness of the party and most of its partisans in profound ways. It's why Bernie did so well. I'm glad at least Roland is ready to grapple with that. If only more were.
Prosecution or any kind of reliable inposition of consequences would be a start. Another would be re-evaluating various other policies (war on drugs/over criminalization generally, arming police like soldiers and telling them they're at war). The result is that we tell these officers they're in constant danger, heavily arm them, then send them out into poor communities to police quality of life crimes, low level vice, and similar nuisances. We then wonder why people in those communities are periodically killed for no good reason, even if most of the time it's technically lawful.
There's a big failure of public policy going on here beyond just racism/disproportionate impact.
Why would you assume that we couldn't find any approaches we agreed on? I'm open to all kinds, including of the socioeconomic variety that would hopefully make the case for accepting a militaristic approach to law enforcement less convincing to voters and decision makers in all branches and levels of government.
Check out Governing Through Crime by Jonathan Simon if a less libertarian more Berkley guy is your style.
Non violent white suspects are killed by the police too. Ask Daniel Shaver or Cheryl Lynn Noel or Sal Culosi. Some extremely violent black suspects are taken in alive as well. Ask John Allen Muhammad (well rhetorically I guess).
The point isn't that I think you're wrong that there's a problem or even that race plays a role in it. I think this is a huge problem that overlaps considerably with our society's racial inequities. I'm not kidding when I say I think you should research the issue more. It'd enrage you but also lead to better arguments.
My issue is that I think this line of argument where we compare one cherry picked event to another cherry picked event is at best a red herring that gets us nowhere.
I think the OP ought to do a little more research into police militarization and how use of force incidents often unfold before writing these posts. Start with Rise of the Warrior Cop by Radley Balko.
A common thread is that once someone is known to have committed a major public act of violence for which they're sure to be caught and/or clearly have a death wish the police are at their most careful. The notorious example is Columbine where SWAT teams waited outside for hours because A. it was considered too dangerous to enter and B. the police knew they were being watched in what would be a highly publicized event where everything would be subject to intense scrutiny. A week later the same officers might crash through a door at 4 AM to serve a warrant for a non violent misdemeanor or immediately resort to deadly force in a confrontation needlessly created and escalated by the police.
The reason is in the latter scenarios the courts are least likely to second guess the police and 99% of the time the incident will barely register in the media (though that seems to finally be changing).
The above does not mean we don't have a problem with police use of force nor does it mean that the problem does not disproportionately harm minorities and poor people. It does mean this post is just as lacking in insight as the last time the same type of comparisons were made.
If you're passionate about this subject I think that's great. More people need to be. But this 'well how come this random white suspect survived arrest when this random black suspect didn't' is such a gross oversimplification of the issue as to completely miss the point.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “So. That Happened.”
Whether he could have won or not is impossible to know and I take no position in that question. My point is that he was able to expose where her weaknesses were and maybe provide a path forward even if he himself isn't the candidate to lead it.
Progressives in urban enclaves created for themselves the exact kind of echo chamber they regularly and rightly criticize on the right and convinced themselves that Clinton's shortcomings weren't nearly as significant as they were.
"
@leeesq I'm buying what you're selling.
"
This morning a blogger I follow wrote 'The people want jobs. The elites want genderless bathrooms.' I don't want to imply that the Democrats should leave marginalized groups to fend for themselves but for the national party I think the reshuffle needs to be about finding economic answers for people left behind in the post industrial world. Sanders showed there's a constituency for that, and some of it lives in the Midwest where Clinton really lost this election. The next two pieces for the national party I think need to be reigning in the establishments appetite for military adventurism, and being more willing to talk about controlling illegal immigration (albeit in a much more humane and pragmatic way than the Republican enforcement uber alles approach).
I know it isn't the answer a lot of people who want to push cultural liberalism would like. However I think the national party needs to accept that those battles need to be fought first and foremost at local and state levels, and that some parts of the country are going to move faster than others.
"
I like these ideas.
"
I think you and jr are dead on. This was a bad outcome but the melodrama this morning is absurd. America isnt (yet) any different than it was yesterday. All we learned is that the Democrats did exactly what Bernie Sanders warned them about and nominated someone who doesn't take the trade and immigration concerns of the white working class seriously. It cost them winnable votes in Pennsylvania and the upper Midwest that would've turned the election. Chris Matthews of all people made some very insightful points to this effect around 2 AM last night on MSNBC.
The response is to push back the same as during the Bush years. Progressives have more allies and means of asserting power than they think, and for God's sake this campus style emotionalism, identitarianism, and helplessness needs to stop.
On “Linky First Tuesday After The First Monday Of November”
I think it's important that progressives acknowledge that in order to regroup. They fell behind a very compromised candidate and all the identity politics and appeals to establishment credentials weren't enough, even when the opponent was a demagogue and buffoon. Loss of those upper Midwest states and Pennsylvania speaks volumes.
"
Wouldn't that be nice...
On “On Accepting The Results – Or Not”
I'm not sure I agree. We've been watching that show for the last 6ish years. No one has blinked and now we have one presidential candidate openly advocating disregarding the system and another who has a history that suggests a disquieting comfort with disregarding rules she doesn't like.
I see no reason to be optimistic that continued brinkmanship will lead to good policy or an improved political climate.
"
We've been living in Bonerland for some time now.
"
@aaron-david I think this issue gets into the 'norms' discussion. Theoretically we are always one constitutional crisis away from becoming Argentina. It doesn't mean every unconstitutional act of the government needs to turn into that. It does mean we need to constantly be on guard and ready to force corrections. Unfortunately I think we may have passed a threshold where no one believes anyone is operating in good faith anymore which has eroded the norms and made it more likely that a manageable constitutional crisis becomes something worse.
On “Morning Ed: Crime {2016.11.07.M}”
I think that's true as far as it goes but the infrastructure for modern European states was developed in the context of 19th century nationalist movements. I would contend that the seeds that got them where they are now were not laid with small or regional minorities in mind, but with the idea that ethnic/linguistic groups should break away from larger political entities to govern themselves. Our experience with our Constitution has always been different, especially post 14th Amendment with guarantees of equality across the citizenry that by its nature was heterogeneous.
"
There's no simple answer but I think social and ethnic solidarity combined with smaller, richer populations goes a long way (even if it's started to erode a bit lately, at least in Europe). Our demographics produce different results and attitudes.
"
I think this is part of it but doesn't quite tell the whole story. I agree that the Norquist faction of the Republican party has had an outsized role in poisoning our ability to take on the issue responsibly. However I also think you're giving way too much credit to other democracies. My experience is that people are just fine with high taxes that they see benefiting them and people like them but talk about the Turkish family with 8 kids in Berlin or the Estonian handy man in Manchester and it's a different response.
We may focus more on taxes whereas other democracies focus more on benefits but I think it's 2 sides to the same coin.
"
I can never decide if this is a problem of American culture or democracy more generally. Probably both. Either way we seem incapable of an adult conversation about taxes and government finances.
On “Washington Post: Watch Obama defend a Trump supporter’s rights at a Clinton rally”
I will miss this aspect of Obama's leadership style.
On “In Praise of Left-Wing Candidates”
I dunno, she voted for the dumb land war in Asia and was important in giving cover to the other Democrats who did. That vote is a big part of why I don't think she has the judgment for the job. Control of military force in an era when Congress has gone to sleep at the wheel is to me the most dangerous part of the presidency (along with overseeing our various rogue intelligence and law enforcement agencies).
I try to take into consideration not only the stances of the candidate but also the powers of the office sought. I can stomach my disagreements more easily when the office is weaker in that area.
Regarding her proximity to W. politically I'm searching my mind really hard for big policy differences and the only ones I can come up with are privatizing social security and reproductive rights/abortion (not really things the presidency can make substantial changes to alone). Thats not nothing but for me it's not enough, just as being a Democrat in good standing isn't enough. I don't expect perfection just a little bit more.
"
Why oh why did I click that with the door to my office open.
"
@north I don't really see the relevance of the ACA. That's not an achievement of Hilary Clinton and she is the candidate I'm talking about. I've got my disappointments and plenty of disagreements with Obama but I don't regret voting for him or think his failure to achieve everything he talked about in 2008 is anything other than the normal course of politics. I'm making a judgment about a uniquely bad candidate based on that candidate's own record and coming to what in my opinion are reasonable conclusions as to what that says about the party thats chosen to support her.
I don't think that's a radical proposition, especially when we all openly discuss what the Trump candidacy says about the rump of the Republican party that nominated him.
"
@saul-degraw that's easy to say I think when you're largely ok with the x being prioritized over the y. I'm not a radical and don't support any sort of revolutionary agenda.
However, what if she uses all of those Democrats she puts in the executive branch to ensure that the boat isn't rocked at all for big finance (while inequality continues apace), starts another stupid war, and pushes along the majority of negative things liberals (including myself) dislike about the status quo way our government does business? Is there ever a point where it is reasonable for a liberal to conclude that the Democeats have no credibility on the big issues? Or are we just supposed to get scared of the next Republican and pretend there's nothing wrong here?
"
@leeesq is there ever a point where policy matters more than party? Not saying there's no overlap but is it fair for people to have varying thresholds?
"
As someone who will be voting 3rd party secure in the knowledge that I live in a state where it doesn't matter I appreciate this post very much. I can also fully understand why someone in a swing state has a much tougher choice and might swallow their pride and vote Hilary.
What I don't get at all is the Kushner sentiment expressed by @saul-degraw above. Watching all the loyal Democrats vehemently praising HRC, a candidate who is maybe a fingernail to the left of George W. Bush, a war monger, and openly in the service of big finance, has exposed the emptiness of the party and most of its partisans in profound ways. It's why Bernie did so well. I'm glad at least Roland is ready to grapple with that. If only more were.
On “Alleged Cop-Killer Captured Alive”
Prosecution or any kind of reliable inposition of consequences would be a start. Another would be re-evaluating various other policies (war on drugs/over criminalization generally, arming police like soldiers and telling them they're at war). The result is that we tell these officers they're in constant danger, heavily arm them, then send them out into poor communities to police quality of life crimes, low level vice, and similar nuisances. We then wonder why people in those communities are periodically killed for no good reason, even if most of the time it's technically lawful.
There's a big failure of public policy going on here beyond just racism/disproportionate impact.
"
Why would you assume that we couldn't find any approaches we agreed on? I'm open to all kinds, including of the socioeconomic variety that would hopefully make the case for accepting a militaristic approach to law enforcement less convincing to voters and decision makers in all branches and levels of government.
Check out Governing Through Crime by Jonathan Simon if a less libertarian more Berkley guy is your style.
"
Non violent white suspects are killed by the police too. Ask Daniel Shaver or Cheryl Lynn Noel or Sal Culosi. Some extremely violent black suspects are taken in alive as well. Ask John Allen Muhammad (well rhetorically I guess).
The point isn't that I think you're wrong that there's a problem or even that race plays a role in it. I think this is a huge problem that overlaps considerably with our society's racial inequities. I'm not kidding when I say I think you should research the issue more. It'd enrage you but also lead to better arguments.
My issue is that I think this line of argument where we compare one cherry picked event to another cherry picked event is at best a red herring that gets us nowhere.
"
I think the OP ought to do a little more research into police militarization and how use of force incidents often unfold before writing these posts. Start with Rise of the Warrior Cop by Radley Balko.
A common thread is that once someone is known to have committed a major public act of violence for which they're sure to be caught and/or clearly have a death wish the police are at their most careful. The notorious example is Columbine where SWAT teams waited outside for hours because A. it was considered too dangerous to enter and B. the police knew they were being watched in what would be a highly publicized event where everything would be subject to intense scrutiny. A week later the same officers might crash through a door at 4 AM to serve a warrant for a non violent misdemeanor or immediately resort to deadly force in a confrontation needlessly created and escalated by the police.
The reason is in the latter scenarios the courts are least likely to second guess the police and 99% of the time the incident will barely register in the media (though that seems to finally be changing).
The above does not mean we don't have a problem with police use of force nor does it mean that the problem does not disproportionately harm minorities and poor people. It does mean this post is just as lacking in insight as the last time the same type of comparisons were made.
If you're passionate about this subject I think that's great. More people need to be. But this 'well how come this random white suspect survived arrest when this random black suspect didn't' is such a gross oversimplification of the issue as to completely miss the point.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.