I was just trying to frame a question. I did not expect free research.
Distinguishing their politics is interesting because it goes to aligning and accelerating democratic socialist policies.
Those sorts of tasks (e.g. overturning Citizens United, passing Glass-Steagall, busting up banks, etc.) are tougher — if not unthinkable — for Clinton, partly because her base is corporate.
I wish someone would invite me to breakfast in NY.
Wait, are we still talking about Clinton and Sanders? I’m not following. Who’s in the circle jerk? And is there a less coarse (or more funny) way to make whatever point this is going to turn out to be?
We have a tendency in American politics to focus too much on individuals and personal narratives, especially in presidential campaigns. Who’s in touch with ordinary people? Who is experienced? Who is a nice person?
I’ve read Irving Howe and other democratic socialists refer to this tendency as Emersonian.
It’s a preference for examining your conscience in the mirror over hacking around with political programs, policies and laws.
There’s an important hegemonic point about the Reagan Coalition omited in this article.
… the stagflation in the 70’s created an opportunity for Reagan to convince republicans and eventually the country as a whole to fully embrace a totally different ideology that was much closer to Coolidge’s politics than it was Eisenhower’s …
Under Nixon and Reagan, the GOP capitalized on southern racist backlash over civil rights which split dems. Inequality faded as an issue partly because working dems in the 70s and 80s split on cultural issues including affirmative action, abortion access, prayer in schools and gay rights. In many ways corporations were more suitable venues for racial and gender equity.
