It’s called a policy concession:
And not just $15/hr minimum wage legislation–make it an executive order for all federal employees and contractors. Because an executive order won’t die in late-hour negotiations: it’s all on her.
This might come as a shock to the ClintonCondescenders (the analogue of BernieBros), but many Sanders supporters actually want certain policy items. The support doesn’t just stem from delayed-onset teenage rebellion Against The System, though the Clinton campaign and surrogates pushing the BernieBro thing have done a masterful job of obfusicating this.
Dan Kervick put together a partial list:
Find a couple (I’m partial to minimum wage increases but YMMV), adopt them–and not in a watered-down form. She’ll get enthusiasm. Because the ‘economic left‘ is tired of getting scraps from the Democratic Party high table. We need a seat at it. To build a coalition, you need more than “vote for us or things will suck even worse”, you have to make concessions, and not just to your clients.
Or maybe Clinton just isn’t that pragmatic after all…
I saw an interview with Sanders where he made it plain that he does have a fallback plan in case he doesn’t get the nomination, and it entails using his new muscle very much as you suggest. I figured he that he’s sharp and determined enough to have something like that in mind, but it’s still nice to hear it from him.
However, the problem is what it’s always been: It’s easy to imagine Clinton **saying** things calculated to woo Sanders voters, but who can really believe her? **Why** should anyone believe her? I hear that these days she’s against the TPP, but I’d happily bet a month’s pay that weeks (days?) after her inauguration she’ll crank up ratification efforts.
… I’d happily bet a month’s pay that weeks (days?) after her inauguration she’ll crank up ratification efforts.
Maybe Howe will take you up on that?
Your concluding paragraph is spot on. It’s not that she doesn’t say nice things, it’s that we expect her to walk them all back. (Perhaps not all but the vast majority.) In terms of concessions to Sanders supporters to win their support and generate goodwill, backing policies which can be implemented via executive order seems an appropriate means both of demonstrating good faith and accomplishing something useful. With legislation there’s always “I tried but [yada yada yada] circumstances beyond my control.” to be offered as plausible deniability. With executive orders there isn’t that cover.
This is the big nutshell with Dem candidates going back to at least Bill’s presidency: “You have to vote for us because we’re the only ones who sort of give lip service to your pet issues, even though you and we both know we’ll betray your ideals for political expediency.” aka “lesser of two evils”. If only Democratic candidates could figure out how to actually *WIN* voters over to their side rather than just take for granted that people will decide the republican is too extreme/hateful/whatever.
If only Democratic candidates could figure out how to actually *WIN* voters over to their side rather than just take for granted that people will decide the republican is too extreme/hateful/whatever.
That would cost them corporate donations. Can’t have that.
Look, the Democratic Party isn’t a really the party of ordinary people any longer. Leftists need to quit pretending that it’s anything close to a left-wing party, and apply the most basic negotiating tactic around, the willingness to walk away.
You’re doing it wrong, Mike, at least if you genuinely want policy concessions.
You don’t send in the barbarian horde, torch a bunch of villages, and then wheedle for goodies after your boy has gotten his butt kicked in the only battle that matters. By this point everyone hates you, they don’t want your support at any price, and they would prefer that you just slink back to your cave to sulk. The Good Guys will ride off to do battle against Trump or Cruz or whatever, and if they lose then life will be terrible for everyone and “The Left” – by which I mean you gibbering idiots, not the actual people on the left – will be locked in the shithouse for another generation.
So think about it. There is a reason that you always lose, and it’s not because Bernie’s ideas are bad. It’s something else. Put the PhD brain of yours to work and maybe you can figure something out.
Barney Frank said it best, “As a liberal, I am morally obligated to be pragmatic. What good do I do poor people, elderly people, people who are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation if I’m not realistic about accomplishing something.”
The problem with what Bernie says he wants isn’t the policy goals. It’s the absolutely zero chance that he’ll be able to pass even one of these measures into law. He knows this, of course; he’s been in Congress for years. Clinton knows it too; that’s why she is so relentlessly pragmatic and, yes, flexible. So why does Bernie keep saying these things?
Personally, I think Bernie is the same trap as Donald Trump. He never expected to contend seriously for the nomination, so he endorsed some policies that he knew weren’t viable. Why not? It worked for Barack Obama; he beat Clinton using the same tactics in 2008 and you can’t argue with that. And, like Trump, he now finds himself in a place that he probably wouldn’t have chosen if he knew he would get this far.
He won’t be nominated; the hill is just too steep. But, as I’ve been telling people recently, the Democrats have found their Goldwater. His ideas and his supporters will, if they have the same kind of patience, do as much to change the country as Goldwater’s did.
Seems to me, Tim, that the left loses because liberals don’t want the left to succeed and therefore never miss an opportunity to refer to them as barbarian hordes, gibbering idiots, and the like. I imagine you think otherwise so instead of posting condescending bullshit why don’t you just tell us? Feel free to carry on the liberal GOTV strategy of shitting on putative allies while doing so.
Seems to me, Tim, that the left loses because liberals don’t want the left to succeed and therefore never miss an opportunity to refer to them as barbarian hordes, gibbering idiots, and the like.
Absolutely.
And by the way, that “barbarian horde” remark (meant for Sanders people? really?!?!) is a textbook-perfect example of the smug condescension that practically defines the “serious” hacks of the DNC. Their arrogance is especially galling given that they’ve presided over the loss of hundreds of state legislative seats, a score of governorships, the House, and the Senate. **Maybe** this year Dems will get back the Senate, thanks mostly to the sequencing of elections for that body — no thanks at all to any semblance of a plan from the DNC.
And as for being “pragmatic” and “getting things done”? This year is the second year that I’m helping a friend deal with the finances of her mother’s cancer treatment. The mother (an immigrant) falls under the fabulous ACA. I believe that previously she would have fallen under Medicaid. I have sat next to my friend as we tried to choose the best plan from the Virginia state exchange. Words can’t express how fucking delightful **that** process is, especially when it involves a patient currently undergoing treatment. For, again, cancer. Maybe I’m stupid, but somehow I just don’t feel quite up to selecting the chemotherapy formulary for next year’s treatment. In the end the only thing we could decide was to leave the current plan intact, for fear of breaking something.
My friend is a working person who makes a little over $30k. If I weren’t helping her with the finances, the copays and deductibles would consume a fifth of her income. She and her mother would be even closer to the edge than they do now, which is pretty close, given the cost of living in the DC area.
DNC hacks seem to believe that ordinary people are going to view the ACA with gratitude and devotion, and that it’s going to ensure some kind of Dem lock. I think all that shows is that they’ve never had to deal with the stupid thing themselves. (Of course, it **will** garner the gratitude and devotion of the health insurance industry, and those are the constituents who really matter, right?) For now the Dems are lucky that Republicans are even more fucked in the head than they are. That won’t last, especially if the Dems go with the wheezing “safe” path, and nominate Clinton.
Sorry for the rant. Smug little horseshit lectures from “sensible” Dems set me off.