Lately there has been far too much going on within and about the Trump administration to devote much attention to the Democratic Party. Yet that party has been scarcely less divided of late than the Republicans, both of them enduring significant rebellions against the party machinery.
For the Republicans, that rebellion has been fueled by two things: 1) racial and cultural fears excited by rapid social change and 2) long term economic trends that have negatively impacted rural areas and the white middle class - both Republican strongholds. The party elite, being very far removed socially from both sets of stressors, are not alarmed by them except as an abstraction. To put it mildly, the corresponding divergence between words spoken to the voters and actions taken has been notcied.
For the Democrats, there is a simpler but perhaps even messier fracture along generational lines. A lot of words have been spent in the last two years comparing the plight of the Democrats to the Republicans, in terms of a grassroots insurgency against a stodgy and feckless party leadership. The generational element is what distinguishes the two.
Regardless of self-described ideology, older voters in the Democratic primary chose establishment pillar Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Younger voters, again across ideological lines, did the reverse. Why?
I personally did not support Senator Sanders' campaign and I thought- and still think - that its tactics were crass and shabby, and that the campaign itself was far too eager to blame its own limitations on "the establishment." That being acknowledged, the glory of the Sanders campaign was that he was a left of center candidate who was willing to make bold, decisive proposals. I do not of course speak for my generation - still less those who voted for Senator Sanders - but I certainly understand and at root sympathize with the impulse that drove his support.
The preceding generation of Democrats came of age politically in an America where conservative ideology was dominant, government was a swear word, and the Democratic Party felt compelled to de-emphasize direct government action in its program. Bill Clinton was among those on the forefront of that effort, which bore electoral fruit. What it did not do is predispose Democrats of that generation to boldness or visionary thinking.
Small but concrete improvements may be the bread and butter of good government, but in extraordinary times such as those in which we have lived since the financial market crash of 2008 they seem depressingly inadequate. A new generation of Democrats has come of age in that time, electrified by the passion of the Obama campaign and disillusioned by the bruising fights of his presidency. In the middle of a decade-long political brawl with enormous stakes and a number of looming policy crises, the Clinton campaign seemed tepid and spiritless by comparison with the brash Sanders.
We were presented with an exceptional administrator and clear practical thinker in Secretary Clinton, but what we wanted in our hearts was a leader. Bernie Sanders was not that leader, but he sounded the part far more than she did. It is a leader for whom the search continues, so far as I am concerned. There are a number of plausible candidates for that mantle. What I know with certainty is that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are not those people.
One point that Senator Sanders made that I agree with is that a party can hardly be expected to achieve great things if it won't even propose them. The Democratic Party is currently held together by a shared sense of horror and outrage at the unmitigated disaster that has been the Trump presidency to date. What it needs, as has been noted repeatedly, is a message. But the best possible message to cover a timid program won't do. A more aggressive platform and a messenger with credibility are both required. For all of Secretary Clinton's merits, she did not have the latter. We need leaders worthy of the moment. For now, we have to keep waiting for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment