In many respects, we are witnessing the end of the politico-ideological cycle opened by the victory of Ronald Reagan at the 1980 elections…
Sanders’ success today shows that much of America is tired of rising inequality and these so-called political changes, and intends to revive both a progressive agenda and the American tradition of egalitarianism. Hillary Clinton, who fought to the left of Barack Obama in 2008 on topics such as health insurance, appears today as if she is defending the status quo, just another heiress of the Reagan-Clinton-Obama political regime…
new forms of political mobilization and crowdfunding can prevail and push America into a new political cycle. We are far from gloomy prophecies about the end of history.
There are more voices rejecting Clinton’s Third Way politics as a more pragmatic, more moderate, more ____, version of democratic socialism. Their politics do seem categorically different. Are there three or four points which sharpen the distinction?
Those are awesome, and I expect we could add 15 more. But I’m also curious to clarify what distinguishes their politics.
For example, is it accurate to say that Clinton’s constituency for social justice work is largely corporate and that Sanders’s constituency includes more real people?
That’s not accurate enough probably. But I think there’s something to it, esp. for explaining, even predicting, their differences on specific issues.
The difference in their donor bases suggest as much, but I haven’t seen an actual answer to your question.
As for what clarifies their politics, I would look more to what they’ve done than what they say. Clinton’s current words counter her past actions FAR more than Sanders’ do.
I imagine summaries of the specifics that you’re looking for are in many places online, and I’m sorry I don’t have time today to find any of them for you.
Yet her greatest contribution to politics, and the foundation of the right’s political success over recent decades, was not ideological but tactical. She was the first politician to grasp the fact that with the decline of the old working class, it had become possible to win elections on a platform that simply ignored the wishes and needs of the poor. There weren’t as many of them as there used to be, and the poorest among them usually failed to vote at all.
This insight was key to the success of President Ronald Reagan in the United States in the 1980s, and to the triumph of conservative parties in many European countries in the same period. It continues to be a major factor in the calculations of parties both on the right and on the left down to the present day: you cannot count on the poor to win an election for you.
And yes, Bernie and Trump are successful because that cycle is ending.
Well I’m not surprised al sharpton has wall street offices to invite hillary to. I am still reeling a bit from a brooklyn native being invited to harlem for breakfast. that’s the press stopper.
