Corporate Democrats still don’t have a clue
When 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez upset a 10-term incumbent congressman in New York — in a set of Democratic primaries that saw self-proclaimed democratic socialists in the Bernie Sanders mold pick up seats across the country — The New York Times (which, true to its institutional establishmentarianism, didn’t bother to cover her campaign) predicted that her victory would “reverberate across the party and the country.”
That was June 26.
Now the Times’ fellow elitist rag The Washington Post is reacting to another round of Democratic primaries. This time, Hillary Clinton-like centrist-corporatists did well. “Signs of a tea-party-like movement in the Democratic Party that would throw winnable races to far-left candidates appear to be fading,” concluded David Weigel on Aug. 8.
Has the political world changed that much in six weeks? Of course not.
As Donald Trump said about something else entirely, “what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”
What we’re reading and what is really happening is a big wet dollop of the freakouts we see from American pundits incapable of placing current events within a historical context. After the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution overthrew the czar in Russia, many Americans experienced “a mounting fear and anxiety that a Bolshevik revolution in America was imminent — a revolution that would change Church, home, marriage, civility, and the American way of Life,” Murray Levin remembered in his book “Political Hysteria in America.” After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Francis Fukuyama made bank selling his book “The End of History,” arguing that neither communism nor any other alternative to capitalism would ever be viable again. He said we had arrived at “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.” That was alarmist and wrong; the communist ideal remains and will survive into the foreseeable future.
Then there’s my editor at Time magazine who, after 9/11, informed me that no one in America would ever be interested in humor or satire in any form again.
It’s OK to be shocked by big events. But things usually get back to normal.
For decades, the normal within the Democratic Party has been a schism between left progressives (George McGovern, Howard Dean during his run for president, Bernie Sanders) and centrist-corporatists (Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton). As I wrote in an essay for The Wall Street Journal, “Civil War in the Democratic Party,” “(Democratic National Committee)-approved ‘mainstream’ presidential prospects have adopted left-leaning positions on a variety of issues. Yet the populist left doesn’t trust them, and for good reason. (Kamala) Harris was caught fundraising in the Hamptons; (Cory) Booker is too close to bankers; (Kirsten) Gillibrand may have vested too much in #MeToo; (Oprah) Winfrey is a billionaire arriviste. They’re all silent on the working class.”
The same dynamics are taking place in many local races. Corporate Democratic candidates are adding some Bernie-like policy promises to their campaigns to attract the party’s leftist base. “The party’s establishment has embraced ideas like expanding the Affordable Care Act, shrinking the space between its leaders and its disrupters,” Weigel wrote. He quoted Washington Gov. Jay Inslee: “Trump has been the great doctor, stitching up our scars and healing us organically.”
I doubt it. The evil Trump can’t heal what ails the Democratic Party.
The fact that corporatist Democrats refuse to give progressives what they want leads me to an uncomfortable conclusion: They’d rather lose to the Republicans than govern as partners with progressives.
Ted Rall is a nationally syndicated columnist.