I just read this post, “Why Bernie vs Hillary Matters More Than People Think,” by Benjamin Studebaker, an American phd candidate in Politics and International Studies at Cambridge. It’s not really giving any history we don’t know, particularly, but it’s a great summation, and gives a great perspective on this primary and what’s at stake.
For me, it’s really NOT about Clinton’s personal foibles, the Goldman speeches, the legacy of Bill, or conversely about purity tests and berniebros, gun votes or dubiously-claimed endorsements.
It’s about neoliberalism and the future of the Democratic Party.
I thought the article might help reframe the discussion, away from fights about who’s sexist, or who’s naive, or who’s untrustworthy, or who’s self-righteous.
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? Who connects better with different identity groups? Who would you like to have a beer with?
Those personal aspects of the primary are compelling, for sure, but I agree with Studebaker that there is something of much greater historical importance going on in this primary than that.
Studebaker takes us through a succinct history of the Democratic Party’s shift from New Deal/Great Society policies towards adoption of neoliberal policies, a shift which in fact started with Carter (I know, I know, I love Carter too.) But because Carter began deregulating markets in response to the oil crisis, it left the Democrats in a weakened position to fight back Reagan’s dismantling (or let’s say, the first major moves towards dismantling) the social protections fought for and won between the 1930s and 1960s.
And then of course Bill Clinton came in, ended ‘welfare as we know it,’ repealed Glass-Steagall, deregulated the commodities market, etc etc, and the rest is history.
This chart makes clear that income inequality has been rising under every president since Carter, whether D or R.
Clik here to view.
On economic policy, contemporary establishment democrats have more in common with contemporary republicans than they do with the FDR/LBJ democrats.
And because of this fundamental economic agreement (albeit with a few significant shades of distinction), we on the left have been fighting on other important issues for the last 35 years: reproductive rights, rights of gays, lesbians and trans people, racial justice issues, gun regulation, environmental issues.
All of these are crucially important, and more than enough to keep me voting Democratic no matter what. Just to state the obvious, any one of these issues is enough to make all the distinction I need between Democrats (of whatever stripe) and the bat-shit proto-fascist excuse for a Republican party. (It’s probably just about time to drop the “proto.”)
But! As Studebaker writes:
So Bernie Sanders is not merely running to attempt to implement a set of idealistic policies that a republican-controlled congress is likely to block. He is running to take the Democratic Party back from an establishment that ignores the fundamental systemic economic problems that lead to wage stagnation and economic crisis.
and further (after a great paragraph you should read that argues that Reagan’s shift to the right was no more likely at the time than Sanders’ shift to the left might be):
In the years since 2008, many Americans, in particular young people, are willing to consider the possibility that neoliberalism–the economic ideology espoused by both the post-Reagan republicans and the post-Carter Clinton-era democrats–is fundamentally flawed and must be revised or potentially replaced entirely.
and here I’ll just quote his whole conclusion, because I can’t find a thing to add:
Hillary Clinton is a neoliberal building on the legacy of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. She doesn’t understand the pivotal role inequality plays in creating economic crisis and reducing economic growth. She has been taken in by a fundamentally right wing paradigm, and if she is elected she will continue to lead the Democratic Party down that path.
Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist building on the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. He understands that inequality is the core structural factor in economic crisis and that growth in real wages and incomes is required for robust, sustainable economic growth.
It doesn’t matter which one is more experienced, or which one’s policies are more likely to pass congress, or which one is more likely to win a general election, or which one is a man and which one is a woman. This is not about just this election, or just the next four years. This is about whether the Democratic Party is going to care about inequality for the next decade. We are making a historical decision between two distinct ideological paradigms, not a choice between flavors of popcorn. This is important. Choose carefully.
So that’s it. That’s why I’m voting Sanders. Not just two flavors of popcorn.
I urge anyone interested to read the original post, I don’t think I did it justice. And the details of his argument do matter.
Thanks for reading.