The Week serves up the "Participant" trophy we all knew was coming.
Bernie Sanders is finally demonstrating what the Republican party has understood for a long time, and what the Democrats either don't seem to care about or else just aren't very good at: it's as important- or more important- to shape the social discussion as it is to present good facts or write good law. Ted Cruz: from this article. In the liberal democratic tradition, it's actually a pretty old idea (I mean, ignoring the Sun Tzu reference)- think Rousseau had a few things to say about culture-shaping- but up to now, I've only ever seen it effectively utilized by the right. Not to say that Democrats don't use it, but their track record at using it effectively is a lot more checkered than that of the Republicans. I see this most prominently in the gun debate, in the framing of the weird "industry versus environment" dichotomy, in abortion politics, and of course in the immigration clusterfuck, which seems to gain traction no matter how many times one points out that immigrants are in fact voluntarily moving back across the border these days, or else not effectively crossing, or else getting booted out in greater numbers now than ever before. Even the fact that I have to type that out as some sort of positive argument is infuriating, and a good illustration of the point. Bernie Sanders, god bless 'im, is a fantastic framer-of-the-debate. He's arguably at his best when he's tugging from the outside. That's where he can be polarizing without having to make all the necessary concessions to compromise. That's the correct position from which you effectively frame the narrative. I'll say it again as I've said a thousand times: for the duration of this primary, Sanders hasn't demonstrated any of the qualities necessary for strong, effective executive leadership. But he's got pretty much a goddamn monopoly on the qualities required of a strong, effective culture warrior, and that's what I applaud him for. I hope he keeps on pushing, both in this contest and afterward, no matter what office he achieves.In both law and politics, I think the essential battle is the meta-battle of framing the narrative[...] as Sun Tzu said, 'Every battle is won before it’s fought. It’s won by choosing the terrain on which it will be fought.' So in litigation I tried to ask, What’s this case about? When the judge goes home and speaks to his or her grandchild, who’s in kindergarten, and the child says, ‘Paw-Paw, what did you do today?’ And if you own those two sentences that come out of the judge’s mouth, you win the case.
The Republicans have had an advantage since the Southern Strategy, namely that they get to bombastically argue visceral essentialism, which has forced the Democrats into a defense of nuance. Nuance is boring and it's a bitch to rally behind. You're right - Sanders being a firebrand from the left allows the Leftists their dog whistles, too, which is damn useful. He did is a real goddamn favor by not running 3rd party. 
I wonder if there is a negative side to this. I've read a lot of info that has many people not supporting Clinton when Sanders loses the primary. I wonder if those who joined in on the political process for Sanders will return to a life of political apathy. I also can't imagine Clinton meaning anything she's said up until this point. I don't mean to sound so negative, just curious about the other side. I don't understand the concept of losing interest because a candidate didn't win. I honestly think that a federal/state/local government education should be required. For whatever reason people place way too much emphasis on the presidency.
I think it's ludicrous that anyone who went out and caucused for Bernie Sanders would sit on their hands and not vote against Trump or Cruz. I mean, that's some nose-cutting, face-spiting stupidity right there. There's also the fact that in order to caucus for Bernie Sanders, you had to register to vote and odds are, if you're under 90 you probably registered to vote absentee or early because why the fuck wouldn't you? So really, in a lot of states it comes down to "are you going to fill out this form and put a stamp on it or are you going to let Trump win? I've voted in every general, special, runoff and primary since 1992. It's just too fuckin' easy. Getting people excited about politics mainstreams you. I mean, shit - even after Kerry's bullshit showing in 2004 I still kept voting.
It may be so clear cut in the general election but the primaries are not so in several states. Washington has been vote-by-mail since before I was old enough to vote but the Democrats still hold caucuses to choose their nominees. If you want your voice to count you have to give up an entire Saturday to do so (if you're lucky enough to not work that day of course) and while there supposedly is an affidavit form to fill out if you can't attend it remains to be seen how many of those will actually be taken into consideration. For me personally. I won't vote for Hillary if she's nominated. I'll vote third party. And fuck you if you tell me I'm throwing away my vote, you're part of the problem. So really, in a lot of states it comes down to "are you going to fill out this form and put a stamp on it or are you going to let Trump win?
I'm aware of that. But our two party system is terrible and I'm not going to vote for a candidate from one of those parties if they're both terrible choices. If more people felt the same way AND we changed the way our elections work we might have a more productive government.
Driving in a snowstorm is terrible, too, but you don't improve it by bouncing off the guardrails. If the snow let up AND the road wasn't so icy, it might not suck so hard. But that's about as likely to happen as it is that the 2-party system will be changed by voting third party.
My first response to this article was: wow if that is what Nader did what an ass. Then I remembered that I must also be an ass . I have joked many times among friends that all the democrats should start voting republican if they really want change because if undiluted republican governing ideas were put into action and the results were terrible then people would be more likely to want the opposite pendulum swing and society would move much farther left in a possibly shorter time frame. I said it as a joke, but damn, some people actually adopt that as a political strategy.
All have donated the maximum $2,000 to Nader's campaign since April, records show. http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/GOP-donors-funding-Nader-Bush-supporters-give-2708705.phpBut the financial records show that $23,000 in checks of $1,000 or more have come from loyal Republicans. Among those who have given recently to Nader are Houston businessman Nijad Fares, who donated $200,000 to President Bush's 2000 inaugural committee; Richard J. Egan, the former ambassador to Ireland, and his wife, Pamela, who have raised more than $300,000 for Bush; Michigan developer Ghassan Saab, who has given $30,000 to the RNC since 2001; and frozen food magnate Jeno Paulucci, and his wife, Lois, who have donated $150, 000 to GOP causes since 2000 alone.
Voting third party in a general election will not likely get a particular candidate elected but I would not go so far to say that it does not change anything. Voting third party seems to be effective at accomplishing one goal: pushing the the Republican and Democratic parties further right and left respectively. Recent examples include Bernie Sanders support pushing Hillary into a further left position on trade agreements in the primary and Anti establishment Trump and Cruz supporters splitting republican support
I think it just goes to show how many Americans are not educated on the political process. Many people I've talked to cannot understand why not voting, or even worse voting against Clinton is a pretty bad thing. The number of times I read or hear "maybe we should get Trump, shake up/destroy the establishment" is actually alarming. I mean it's pretty upsetting how little is understood about how government works. I'm not saying I'm some master, but I have enough knowledge to understand the importance of voting.
Consider the possibility: a large number of voters for Trump are willing to accept a large part of his opinions he shares in which they disagree with - knowing they would not ideally come to pass through the structure of our government i.e. Congress and the Judicial branch. I called this event happening over three years ago to a family friend - who happens to be a U.S. Senator....sitting around a fire - I warned them of the abhorrent gridlock within our legislature would spawn the opportunity for an individual to come to power solely out of their aggression towards the establishment in D.C.. Though Trump is a bit more developed than just a single message of anger (sometimes), I'm no longer worried the result will end in the complete destruction of our governing tenets, a true fascist coming to power, and the fundamentals of our governmental framework being supplanted for any tangible socio-economic architecture that - at the very least - will bring reform. There is little intelligent representation in favor of Donald Trump on the internet (that or I just haven't cared to look) - But there are a lot of living breathing individuals who do support him. I'm an optimist - and like to think that - if Trump gets elected, he will force the legislature to get their act together - and not necessarily act to support his decrees.
Putting on my future-telling hat, I say Clinton wins this Presidential election, but only serves one term, and then loses in 2020 to a Republican. No matter what the Republicans do, they have lost the 2016 election. They are just too disheveled to make a compelling case to the ~23% of the American public that votes. Bernie's supporters - bummed by still engaged - vote for Clinton this time, so she wins. But Hillary does what Hillary does, which alienates all the idealistic Bernie supporters that voted for her and also disgusts her core base who hoped she'd be better than that, so she resoundingly loses the 2020 election to a New Republican from the reconstituted moderate republican base (Christine Whitman, maybe?). In the interim, though, Democrats empowered by Bernie's successful messaging finally make in-roads into local political races, and wind up balancing the House and the Senate. So the Republican president elected in 2020 is forced to a more centrist position to work with the balanced House and Senate, and has a largely mediocre first term, but is re-elected simply because the Republicans are better organized than the Democrats. (See Bush Jr.) Since the Southern Strategy/Karl Rove Republicans have all died at this point, a moderate R party wins four consecutive elections, returning to their base "conservative" principles ... which are, oddly enough, the principles that Bernie was spouting 30 years ago. Because, when you look at it, the actual "conservative" stance is spending money on proven successful programs and providing basic services for all Americans, as well as leveraging what has always made America great, which is the promise of the American Dream that so many come here to reach for. (AKA - Scrape off the top 1% of every other country's best talent, get them into an Ivy League school, and then make sure they get into producing amazing new innovations that the US can give to the world.) (In fact, this is basically what Bill Clinton did, politically. He co-opted all the moderate Republican programs, renamed them, spun the story around, and knocked the R's off their balance. It took them until Mitt Romney to find their feet again.) So yeah. I think Bernie has had a big effect on the national political conversation... we just aren't going to see fruit from those seeds until I am an old man.
What magical, mystical neorepublican indica bud are you smoking? I mean - Christine Todd Whitman? As I started reading your hypothesis I found myself saying "Nikki Haley?" and if you're trying to remember the name of that pretty snake with shitty policies over there somewhere, you aren't really presaging success. Thing of it is, anybody running against anybody in 2020 exists right now. They have some form of political presence. And they're either part of the Clusterfuck 2016 GOP Klown Kar or they're fucking hiding in a spider hole somewhere. Which means they have to pop up some point in the next 28 months and try to out-Clinton Clinton, who, by your own words, was married to the guy who "co-opted all the moderate Republican programs, renamed them, spun the story around, and knocked the R's off their balance. It took them until Mitt Romney to find their feet again." I mean, Jindal's dead. The Bush legacy is done. Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell is trying to get the tame crazies to come out for gun rights on the thinnest fragment of an excuse so that the feral crazies don't drag the party any closer to Ted Nugent than it already is. The Republicans, if they're lucky, get to run Bloomberg in 2020. If they're LUCKY. You think the Tea Party Brownshirts are going to rally behind a centrist New York Jew billionaire? Meanwhile you've got Trump's off-leash crazies hating on Fox News. I had a boss who pointed out that the Democrats of 2004 were a lot closer to the Republicans of 1964 than they were the Democrats of 1964, who were closer to the Green Party of 2004. I think the thing that everybody is saying but not really taking seriously is that the Democrats are the Republicans and the Republicans are the Know Nothings. The Republicans are headed for schism. I don't see a real way around it. And a party in schism doesn't win elections.
And that's my point. The Republican party, as it exists today, will not exist in 12 months. The Tea Party fragmentation was nothing like what they are gonna see when they lose to Hillary. The rats are already leaving the sinking ship, but they get to either run into the arms of David Duke, or... umm... Clinton? She's the most centrist Republican out there nowadays. The Tea Party is a joke, even amongst the Tea Partiers that got elected! That's over, and an embarrassing past that they will soon forget. (And shit.... I'm old. Christine Whitman was my go-to "reasonable Republican" mannequin because of that amazing response she gave to the State of the Union speech... in, um... lemme check... oh fuck... 1995!! Ok. Point taken. Gotta retract that example and find another rational, reasonable, old school small-c conservative Republican to trot out...) But, more to the point, in 2020 the remainder of the Republican party that can still manage to put its pants on, and not slobber too badly down the front of their power ties, will win against Hillary because her presidency is going to be a fucking disaster. Because she doesn't actually believe in anything. She just follows whatever the latest talking point is. And that's not leadership. That's the Secretary of State role, not the President. So. She fails spectacularly to do anything of any substance at all. So the Republicans prop up any ole idiot in 2020, and clear her out of office. And then, that's when the dissolution of the Republican party starts to congeal around a truly, classically-defined "conservative" viewpoint. They get out of people's bedrooms. They get out of funding overseas crusades. They focus on infrastructure. They tell the religious right to go fuck themselves. They create comprehensive programs to help TWO GENERATIONS of veterans injured in the Middle East, and make them feel welcome and prosperous in their own country again. THAT's the "conservatism" that could come out of the total dissolution of the Republican party that's coming in about 50 weeks.
Here's the problem - the fiscally-conservative, socially-liberal Republicans that Liked Ike can't afford to be Republicans anymore. You've got the rich, who want their taxes reduced, and you've got the poor, who want someone to protect them from ISIS and/or Caitlin Jenner. Back when the middle class was growing, you could stitch together a platform that might appeal to both of them but for the past 20 years or so the rich have had to trick the poor into voting against their interests through demagoguery. They've been so successful at it, though, that they can't grab any more money... and they're uncomfortable giving more social crazyness. So who's voting for Nikki Haley? And why aren't they voting for Hillary Clinton? Because I'll say it again - she almost passed Hillarycare while Rush Limbaugh was actively accusing her of murder. Maybe she doesn't believe in anything. Fine by me - the '90s kinda worked out, yo. Really - Hillary Clinton is the nicest Republican you could vote for. That she's been a Democrat since 1968 definitely speaks to your point but I will take Little Finger over Ned Stark any day. This magical Republican Party you envision, my friend, is the Democratic Party.
I think we are saying the same thing, just shouting at each other from two mountaintops next to each other. Actual real life Republicans (like my Mom) are disgusted by what the Republican Party has become. It no longer reflects their conservative beliefs. I remember R friends just being astounded that the GOP cared about what people were doing in their bedrooms. I mean, totally flabbergasted. They were like, "Who cares? That ain't the governments' place to be." But ever since George Jr, things have continued to get more histrionic and loony for the GOP. They've gone so far right they are coming around the other side again. It's been FOUR Presidential terms since my Republican friends have openly called themselves "Republican", without immediately following that with a paragraph of caveats that sound like a Lipitor ad. And I truly believe there is a huge majority of American Republicans that find the GOP repugnant, but won't vote for a Democrat. Ever. NOBODY out there represents them. And they are being painted with the same brush as the Bundy idiots, Cruz, Trump, and every other repugnant fuck that says they are a Republican. All those people are gonna go SOMEWHERE, and it sure isn't over to the Donkeys, and they've already written off the GOP. They aren't going to go for Rand Paul, or LaRouche, or any of those nutballs, either. But I tell ya, if at the Republican National Convention John McCain stands up holding hands with Nikki Haley... even I'm gonna vote Republican. It'll be a landslide. Republicans needs someone with classic republican values. Nowadays, with the data and analytical tools we have available to us, a truly classically "conservative" party would not only win, they would have a tremendous positive effect on all the issues people really care about on a day-to-day basis.
We're not, not entirely. I'm saying "actual real life republicans (like your mom)" have either bailed or are in denial. Robert Bork was '87, yo. When Bob Packwood says he is "convinced that Judge Bork . . . will do everything possible to cut and trim the liberties that the right of privacy protects" your "mainstream" Republicans are minority anachronisms. Before Nancy Reagan came out in favor of stem cell research, her husband embargoed that shit for 8 years. Then he proposed a constitutional amendment allowing prayer in schools. The Republicans - like your mom - that are still hiding in their foxholes praying for a return to Buckley-era conservative thought are mostly in denial that the Democrats appropriated their platform long ago. The denial runs so deep that you're talking about voting for a member of the Keating Five. Meanwhile out in the world I've had to have the "death panel" discussion with people I like who still think Obama is a secret Muslim. The people you're talking about are those so set in their ways they don't want to face the fact that their tribe hasn't given a fuck about them since the Iran hostage crisis. And that's where we disagree: nobody in the machine is going to wake up tomorrow and think "shit, we never should have listened to Grover Norquist!" It's all Taliban, all the time, and the people who know Barry Goldwater from something other than a history book are just the tail that the crazies know will vote for their cause until they die out of pure naked nostalgia. The Koch brothers? Not Republicans. Libertarians. David fuckin ran for VP in 1980. Those caveats? Those are the party. Effectively, your mom's generation are saying "The one thing I'm not is a Democrat."
But. This is it. "Bailed to where?" and "With how many others?" The histrionics and theater of the last 12 months only account for a tiny fraction of the people in the US that call themselves "Republicans", and the number of disenfranchised Republicans continues to grow every time Trump opens his big dumb mouth. Ironically, Trump supporters have started to wave signs that say "Silent Majority", without apparent ironic intent. They miss that when a firebrand political fringe last self-applied that moniker, it was a spectacular failure. The media bought their story hook, line, and sinker, and then when they called for "100,000 Moral Majority members" to come out to the Capital Mall in protest, I think 2500 people showed up. The "Moral Majority" moniker became a huge liability, and they couldn't even pay for airtime after that. So. Today, a bunch of asshats are dancing around like lunatics in the town square, claiming they have an army outside the city gates. But as soon as they open the gates, like Munchausen, they are gonna find the fields empty. Or, more likely, populated with a few radical nutballs dressed like walls, who the Republicans wouldn't even let inside their gated communities, much less sit down to caucus with. So what happens to all the disenfranchised Republicans? Are you saying they just man up and become Hillary Democrats? I'm saying "actual real life republicans (like your mom)" have either bailed or are in denial.
"Bailed to the Democrats" and "With everyone else willing to swallow their tribalisms." Going back to your mom & posse - the "Actual real-life Republicans" - I think it's fair to say that the following describes a disaffected voter: But ever since George Jr, things have continued to get more histrionic and loony for the GOP. They've gone so far right they are coming around the other side again. It's been FOUR Presidential terms since my Republican friends have openly called themselves "Republican", without immediately following that with a paragraph of caveats that sound like a Lipitor ad. You're reaching back to '81 to find examples of that "tiny fraction" failing to find traction. Ted Cruz was in 4th grade. Hell, Gorbachev had just hit the Politburo. There's so much history between then and now that it's barely worth mentioning. But you're using this example to prove that there are lessons to be learned by the modern Republican Party, as if the lunatic asshats hadn't been in place for generations. The ARLRs have either been Democrats since 2008 or they haven't been paying attention. The barbarians have been inside the gates for decades. If Trump's what it takes for them to realize it, maybe he actually has done some good.Actual real life Republicans (like my Mom) are disgusted by what the Republican Party has become. It no longer reflects their conservative beliefs. I remember R friends just being astounded that the GOP cared about what people were doing in their bedrooms. I mean, totally flabbergasted. They were like, "Who cares? That ain't the governments' place to be."
Worked for Reagan, and Clinton probably actually understands the current talking point. Leadership is overrated. Give me executives that just keep the trains running and let the thinking happen further down the hierarchy any day.Because she doesn't actually believe in anything. She just follows whatever the latest talking point is. And that's not leadership. That's the Secretary of State role, not the President.
True. But if Reagan actually had empathetic human beings pulling his strings, rather than sociopaths, he might have had a positive effect. He was a charismatic leader. A good figurehead. He just needed better policies. Hillary is neither charismatic, nor a leader. And I have little faith that she'd choose anybody for her cabinet that had not held an executive position at Goldman Sachs.
The hierarchy the President is on top of is the executive branch. These guys. They all have all the problems that come with being a large organization, plus patronage positions and, in the case of regulators, having to hire from the industry they're regulating because that's where the knowledge is, but for the most part they all know what they're doing and do it as well as they can within the constraints of being large organizations. They do not benefit from more leadership; like all large organizations, they could do with far fewer leaders.
My first thought on reading this comment was "heading for?", but on reflection this could just be them having the same problem the Democrats have had since the 60s, being a coalition without much to unify it stuck together because its various subsets' goals either don't conflict with each others' or conflict less than they do with the other party, and it's a two-party system. The Republicans managed to create a sort of unity by being excellent propagandists, but they can't manage it anymore. Yet the gun nuts, religious loonies, and market loonies all have more in common with each other than that the Democratic party taken as a whole. As much as I'd love to see it, I don't think they're going to have a schism so much as Republicans are going to be pulled in as many different directions as Democrats are, losing the advantage of coherence but still there.The Republicans are headed for schism. I don't see a real way around it. And a party in schism doesn't win elections.
I agree that the Republican party is definitely headed towards a schism, but I'm just curious what that looks like? Being 21 I don't have all the knowledge historically on where Republicans have been. Do you see it being a reversion to older principles of the Republican party or something different?
My first "Obama moment" was Ross Perot. He was a rich guy that got fed up with politics as usual, and decided to run completely unaffiliated. His big thing was energy policy, and getting us off foreign oil. This was back in 1992, before you were born. But, it turns out he was an indignant little dick, who couldn't take criticism. He got all huffy and just scooped up all his marbles and went home suddenly. It was the first time - before Obama - that I felt there was actually hope for the Government. That it might get wrested from the grasp of the corporations that use Government as the hand-crank on their own personal money printing machines. There were brief glimpses of happiness when Bill Clinton co-opted a couple of interesting Republican programs, and then got them passed. That led to the big dotcom boom. Then there was excitement and hope that Obama would lead us to a new kind of government. But - as is always the case - people vote for Democratic Presidents, and Republican Legislators and Senators. Because when it comes right down to it, we all want to believe in a bigger, more fluffy and embracing American Dream kind of world, so we vote Democrats into the White House. But then when it comes to raising taxes to pay for the roads and the infrastructure and transit systems, we balk at adding $26/year to our house taxes, and vote for Republicans locally, who promise not to raise our taxes. So we, being voters, are stupid, basically.
I think it looks like this. I think it looks like this. I think it looks like this. I think it looks like this. I think in the modern American political system, it looks like someone spoiling over sour grapes and the aftermath being a coalescing of that 3rd party's values in one or the other party. If we're taking bets, my bet is that the Republicans run Bloomberg in 2020, despite the fact that he doesn't speak dog-whistle. This will upset what's left of the open-carry get-a-job-morans tea party brownshirts, who might just turn Trump into their Lyndon LaRouche. This is why we were extraordinarily lucky that Bernie Sanders ran on the Democratic ticket to shape the mainstream narrative, rather than running on a 3rd party ticket to draw voters away from the democratic ticket. I'd love to live in a non-2-party system, but I don't think we'll get there by fracturing. Yet every party needs to try it on for size about every twelve years. We're well overdue.
In the interim, though, Democrats empowered by Bernie's successful messaging finally make in-roads into local political races, and wind up balancing the House and the Senate.