The elephant in the room (where do all the elephants come from?) is the extent of corporate funding of politicians. Establishment institutional Democrats cannot serve corporate interests AND their constituents.
Koch Industries has seen a large inflow to its coffers thanks to Trump's failed Iran war, despite whatever ideological differences Charles Koch has with Trump. One hand washes the other.
The problem is incumbents in both parties are more concerned with the politics of DC power brokers than the concerns of their constituent-voters. Incumbency is the problem they carry into a close election. Thus, voters who want to send a message to the party must vote out the incumbent in their district or state. The message is when a party loses, then the Washington folks who come in the next Congress must vote for new leadership. Re-electing a Nancy Pelosi or keeping a Chuck Schumer is a vote to end their congressional career.
I think you're correct--we are massively over-focused on this apparent shift, which is really about internal Democratic success in areas that are already largely Democratic-leaning. Who moves the middle will decide the next national election (assuming we have one). I do think that folks are tired of the way things have been the last few years and are looking for someone who will fight for something that looks like normalcy. That's tough to do. Though a lifelong Democrat, I can't think of a single national Democratic figure whom I would support for president without having to hold my nose. Of course, I've had to do that a lot over the past few cycles. But I'm also pushing 75 and am likely not at all a typical Democratic voter any more--too old.
I actually don’t think the pursuit of the center should be an end in itself. If you seek nothing except the center, you end up being defined solely by what you are not, and what you won’t stand for rather than what you will. We can say what we want about the extremist Republicans from the Tea Party forward, but they never paint themselves into that corner, whereas the tactical centrists do it every time. In that respect, the emergence of a genuinely competitive leftist party would be clarifying, no matter how successful they are short-term and whether they call themselves Democrats or not.
I also don’t believe that a “fighter” is ever the only thing, or the most important thing, an anti-establishment movement is looking for. What anti-establishment activists usually want is to make public participation more meaningful, more widespread, and more predictive of legislative and policy outcomes. Instead of seeking the center as an end in itself, I see an opening for a left wing that insists that only its own renewal could fulfill this exact promise of popular politics.
The elephant in the room (where do all the elephants come from?) is the extent of corporate funding of politicians. Establishment institutional Democrats cannot serve corporate interests AND their constituents.
Koch Industries has seen a large inflow to its coffers thanks to Trump's failed Iran war, despite whatever ideological differences Charles Koch has with Trump. One hand washes the other.
The problem is incumbents in both parties are more concerned with the politics of DC power brokers than the concerns of their constituent-voters. Incumbency is the problem they carry into a close election. Thus, voters who want to send a message to the party must vote out the incumbent in their district or state. The message is when a party loses, then the Washington folks who come in the next Congress must vote for new leadership. Re-electing a Nancy Pelosi or keeping a Chuck Schumer is a vote to end their congressional career.
I think you're correct--we are massively over-focused on this apparent shift, which is really about internal Democratic success in areas that are already largely Democratic-leaning. Who moves the middle will decide the next national election (assuming we have one). I do think that folks are tired of the way things have been the last few years and are looking for someone who will fight for something that looks like normalcy. That's tough to do. Though a lifelong Democrat, I can't think of a single national Democratic figure whom I would support for president without having to hold my nose. Of course, I've had to do that a lot over the past few cycles. But I'm also pushing 75 and am likely not at all a typical Democratic voter any more--too old.
I actually don’t think the pursuit of the center should be an end in itself. If you seek nothing except the center, you end up being defined solely by what you are not, and what you won’t stand for rather than what you will. We can say what we want about the extremist Republicans from the Tea Party forward, but they never paint themselves into that corner, whereas the tactical centrists do it every time. In that respect, the emergence of a genuinely competitive leftist party would be clarifying, no matter how successful they are short-term and whether they call themselves Democrats or not.
I also don’t believe that a “fighter” is ever the only thing, or the most important thing, an anti-establishment movement is looking for. What anti-establishment activists usually want is to make public participation more meaningful, more widespread, and more predictive of legislative and policy outcomes. Instead of seeking the center as an end in itself, I see an opening for a left wing that insists that only its own renewal could fulfill this exact promise of popular politics.
DeGette: 15 TERM, not 15 YEAR, incumbent
Thanks for catching -- I’ve corrected.