Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Left’s real choice in 2016: Why it doesn’t need Warren to run to take over party and -- America
Salon ^ | March 21, 2015 | Mike Conrad

Posted on 03/21/2015 10:58:19 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

The left’s real choice in 2016: Why it doesn’t need Elizabeth Warren to run

For all the talk of needing to primary Hillary, here's how liberals really take over the party -- and America

Disheartened progressive Democrats face the prospect of a 16-year gap between the last closely contested presidential primary in 2008 and what would likely be the next one in 2024. Elizabeth Warren isn’t running. Hillary Clinton is and she starts out with very large leads in the early states. But hope is not lost. The choice facing progressives is not and never has been to somehow make Warren vs. Clinton happen or to spend the next 22 months enclosed in a political hellscape fit for only Sean Hannity and Lanny Davis. The 2016 election season does not have to be devoid of purpose or redeeming value.

If something changes in Iowa or New Hampshire Hillary Clinton could be in danger of being upset. At this point she looks like a strong favorite for the Democratic nomination and, by extension, if people feel their economic security is headed in the right direction from around this time next year to the election in November, a pretty good bet to be the next president. Progressives may not be able to change who is nominated but they can affect who is in the room with the nominee and the forces the nominee has to contend with if they reach the Oval Office.

Sure, garbage will not be in short supply this cycle. Democrats will be alleged to “be in disarray,” as in having a healthy internal debate. Declarations that the Republican establishment is putting the Tea Party in its place will abound in spite of what is happening around those making the declaration. The strange notion that we live in a nation of political junkies closely following every single development will inform a lot of analysis. Lindsey Graham, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush will be to this cycle what John McCain and Jon Huntsman were to cycles past as much of the DC press barely manages to conceal its affection.

Surrogates will say things that will make people in every campaign including their own wonder what they could possibly have been thinking. Candidates’ physical appearance and meaningless “gaffes” (Marco Rubio took a sip of water as human beings are known to do and it became a thing) will get much more attention than they should. It would not be entirely shocking to see a prominent pundit assert that Michael Bloomberg should be nominated by either party or a new vehicle party designed for him; or preferably given the nomination of both parties and the new third party by acclimation because there’s nothing so wrong with America that cannot be fixed by what is right with a soft plutocrat in the guise of a “centrist” technocrat. Polarization will be roundly condemned.

The things voters in both parties tend to agree on that run counter to elite preferences will be overlooked.

In the midst of all of this lies an opportunity for progressives to seize and wield for substantive purposes a dynamic they’re used to rightly bemoaning: whether through the actions of a current president or the candidates in the running for the office, the presidency is the surest access point to a discussion about pretty much anything. A constant pivot from rebuffing attacks from the right to giving credit to a national Democrat when due, to giving strong criticism of that same Democrat when it’s warranted, may appear dizzying but it’s something a lot of Democrats have gotten used to over the last seven years. Yes, elected Republicans are awful on practically everything with a few exceptions on select issues. No, this is not a free pass for a Democrat to simply affirm their Not A Republican status and have whatever they do go uncritically accepted.

Individuals and organizations are perfectly capable of deciding which candidates merit what kind of support while as an overall force engaging in more definitive agenda-setting. The right uses (insert event here) to talk about (insert one of their issues here) all the time. There’s no reason progressives can’t do more to use legitimate access points like, say, the ongoing HSBC scandals to elevate questions about the Justice Department’s application of the “collateral consequences” doctrine to megabanks or the need for a fee on financial transactions within the Democratic debate.

The usual argument against progressives more assertively doing this is that it undermines party unity. This claim has even less to it than the similar assertion that a long nomination fight would spell disaster for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and hopes for a Democrat in the White House circa 2008. The specter of a substantive fight jeopardizing unity and therefore electoral victory has already been raised by people like Steve Rattner, a lead member of the Wall Street wing. Rattner conflates operational unity among the groups that make up the Democratic voting and activist base, which is important, with the struggle for influence between what Thomas Edsall aptly summed up as “the money wing” and “the voting wing.”

Party unity is a curious concept for the self-identified “New Dems” to appeal to considering that during their rise to power New Dems labeled minorities, women, the LGBT community, working people in unions, seniors, environmentalists and others “special interests” to be grouped in with “cause-orientated” Democrats and pushed aside. This was done while elevating the financial sector to the hallowed place within the party establishment from which it now delivers edicts for everyone else to be super nice to them. Note that Rattner’s highly selective brand of party unity was not enough to prevent his key support of Reshma Saujani’s unsuccessful 2010 primary challenge to New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, who Rattner deemed insufficiently deferential to finance’s interests.

What About Warren?

It’s not difficult to see why Democratic activists are organizing around the Massachusetts Senator with the Oklahoma-tinged accent and the Minnesota issue profile. She is adept at making plain what entrenched interests would prefer seem prohibitively complex. Warren’s supporters generally pride themselves on making a real effort to be substantive so there’s reason to think the draft effort could shift into a formal effort to put her issues at the forefront of whatever kind of Democratic primary takes without losing too much steam.

As we’ve already seen on a number of economic policy fights, Warren can be plenty consequential right where she is in the Senate. However, if a future Hillary Clinton Administration can not abide the thought of reporters rushing to Senator Warren first to get her take on Clinton’s proposals (and they would) Clinton could ask whether Warren’s disinterest in the Executive Branch extends to the cabinet. Specifically, Treasury Secretary. Just hearing the words “Treasury Secretary Warren” is liable to make the Grey Poupon hit the fan in the headquarters of Wall Street power brokers. Perhaps they should learn to compromise. In the (Bill) Clinton and Obama Administrations the role of Treasury Secretary was filled by Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and Jack Lew. That list is a bit like an alphabet that spans all the way from R to U. If the Rubin school wants to argue that finally having a Treasury Secretary who is closer to J is too much to ask, that’s on them.

Of course any advocate is going to prefer a candidate who is already with them to one they have to spend a lot of time and energy moving. Even in our system, with its myriad chokepoints making positive legislative change difficult barring a trifecta of partisan control, this is a non-trivial difference. But the victories that coincided with and then served to reinforce the rise of power centers within the respective parties (1932 and 1964 for Democrats, 1980 for Republicans) are not the only way for an intraparty power rebalancing to take place.

Countervailing Forces

Efforts to add to the ranks of the Warren-Sherrod Brown wing in the Senate have begun in earnest and there is cause for guarded optimism. Not that economic issues are the only set that matters but Senate races in California, Wisconsin and Ohio are on track to produce solid nominees on this front. Illinois, Pennsylvania and Maryland are still more of an open question but Donna Edwards, in many ways the embodiment of the “Better Democrats” ethos, is running in the Free State primary with strong backing from progressive groups.

As far as Congressional Democrats overall go, much of the infrastructure for a modern version of the Democratic Study Group or an institution that would function in a similar way is already in place.

On the presidential level, candidate Clinton could be pressed to adopt ideas raised over the course of the Obama Administration that have yet to reach their full potential. In the first 2 years of the Obama presidency there was some talk of a bulked-up, more independent version of the Middle Class Task Force. Last year the White House held a Summit on Working Families. Why not aim to establish a running, more influential institution modeled on either? Staffing and level of independence would go a long way to determining whether a longer-term entity would become a means to co-opt progressives or a counter to any advisers from the Robert Rubin school, but that now is the best time to litigate all of that. In recent years we’ve seen the money wing get the Bowles-Simpson and Immelt Commissions created and then stacked to its liking. It’s time for the voting wing to be heard at a volume that is at the very least equal to that of the most wealthy within the party.

As all of this falls under the rubric of electoral politics or inside issue advocacy, it would be remiss to leave out the force that has proven just as vital to any progressive change: outside progressive social movements. We probably can’t make exact predictions about when these movements will emerge, but we can be on the lookout for them and be ready when they make their presence known. It’s safe to say that what whatever comes along will be imperfect and almost certainly an affront to the sensibilities of the Very Serious in style as well as substance.

A fiercely contested 2016 primary would certainly be healthy and helpful. Yet if one never materializes it does not leave progressive populists without recourse. At the dedication of his presidential library Bill Clinton said that “Progressives, at their very best, tear down walls that should never have been built.” The former president should let Robert Rubin and company know that they’re standing on one. Regardless of what either of the Clintons do, economic progressives can and should live up to what we can be at our best. The wall of Rubinite domination of Democratic economic policy is coming down, brick by brick if necessary.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: agitators; incite
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last
As all of this falls under the rubric of electoral politics or inside issue advocacy, it would be remiss to leave out the force that has proven just as vital to any progressive change: outside progressive social movements. We probably can’t make exact predictions about when these movements will emerge, but we can be on the lookout for them and be ready when they make their presence known. It’s safe to say that what whatever comes along will be imperfect and almost certainly an affront to the sensibilities of the Very Serious in style as well as substance.

THAT would be the LIBERAL SUPERSTRUCTURE a term coined by J.R. Dunn, who, along with the rest of the nation was watching the 2011 Wisconsin protests. Dunn's excellent insight and warning is in the article linked below.

American Thinker - July 6, 2011 - J. R. Dunn Democrats Unveil the Weapon of the Future "......This is an extraordinary series of events, of a type that we haven't witnessed before. Even more singular is the legacy media's insistence on covering the story (with the exception of the siege of Madison, which got the standard "unions unbound" treatment) as if it were commonplace to the point of boredom. It is no such thing; it is an ideological campaign of a magnitude and breadth that we have not seen in quite some time, if ever.

What all this amounts to is the baptism of fire of what I have taken to calling the "liberal superstructure." This superstructure is the vast constellation of advocacy groups, think tanks, single-issue outfits, unions, and various other flotsam constructed by the left over the past half-century or so. There are literally thousands of these groups, ranging from the ACLU and the Sierra Club with their hundreds of thousands of members to the local "Friends of the People's Venezuela" outfit which amounts to a retired feminism professor and her six cats. These organizations are ubiquitous, universal, and networked to a fare-thee- well. They are also liberalism's last great hope of controlling politics in the United States....."

1 posted on 03/21/2015 10:58:19 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Still waiting for Obama to announce he’s running for a third term ,maybe a little more power grabbing first


2 posted on 03/21/2015 11:02:31 AM PDT by molson209 (Blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Syndicalism Syndicalism is a type of proposed economic system, a form of socialism, considered a replacement for capitalism. It suggests that industries be organised into confederations or syndicates. It is "a system of economic organization in which industries are owned and managed by the workers."

Its theory and practice is the advocation of multiple cooperative productive units composed of specialists and representatives of workers in each respective field to negotiate and manage the economy. Syndicalism also refers to the political movement (praxis) and tactics used to bring about this type of system.

Each Line on this list has LINKS to more LINKS and more groups [1000]: that link to Syndicalism

3 posted on 03/21/2015 11:04:07 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Please don’t refer to them as “Progressives”. They are MARXISTS” Their goal is a Communist dictatorship. They have been at it for over 100 years and will not give up without serious bloodshed. Whoever is their candidate will only really be a mouthpiece for the Marxist programmers in the background. If they can find another Islamaphobe in the bargain they will be in nirvana. 2016 will be another date to remember, one that will also live in infamy?


4 posted on 03/21/2015 11:07:04 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

I told a Dem friend pissing and moaning about Hillary that now he knows how conservatives felt about GW Bush; a phony, an idiot, part of the insider clique that is part of the problem but shat can you do when the machine has made its decision?


5 posted on 03/21/2015 11:08:05 AM PDT by RedStateRocker (Nuke Mecca, deport all illegal aliens, abolish the IRS, DEA and ATF.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

#DraftGrayson

Because halfass psychosis is is like know psychosis at all.


6 posted on 03/21/2015 11:13:19 AM PDT by cripplecreek ("For by wise guidance you can wage your war")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Lefty’s sure like to blah blah blah till you think your head is gonna split.


7 posted on 03/21/2015 11:14:20 AM PDT by DaxtonBrown (http://www.futurnamics.com/reid.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: molson209
The Democrats need a U.S. Attorney General who will allow their marching army to do anything during the run-up to the 2016 election

Obama On Loretta Lynch: 'You Don't Hold Attorney General Nominees Hostage

8 posted on 03/21/2015 11:15:27 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: molson209

I think you’re right.
Obama runs again, F the constitution.


9 posted on 03/21/2015 11:16:03 AM PDT by right way right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
The liberal solution for virtually every problem ailing anything or anybody in the U.S. invariably begins with Plan A....the government steps in and takes over....If Plan A fails (as it almost always does) then there's liberal Plan B...the government steps in and takes over.

There's literally very few problems that liberals do not believe with all their hearts that can't be solved by more government.

10 posted on 03/21/2015 11:31:37 AM PDT by driftless2 (For long term happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedStateRocker

I will admit that “Treasury Secretary Warren” sounds downright spooky.

She’d nationalize all the banks a la Fidel Castro just for starters.


11 posted on 03/21/2015 11:45:34 AM PDT by elcid1970 ("I am a radicalized infidel. My bullets are dipped in pig grease.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: molson209

The Hillary is definitely running crowd is sounding kind of desparate.


12 posted on 03/21/2015 12:35:40 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Mike Conrad has penned a gag-inducing TLDR screed that says nothing.

I am so surprised (not)...


13 posted on 03/21/2015 12:48:04 PM PDT by Zeppo ("Happy Pony is on - and I'm NOT missing Happy Pony")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

I don’t know about you but I do not feel at all confident about this next election. The Dems have such an advantage in the electoral college. This much seems certain, if the Republicans (let alone, conservatives) can’t pull out a win, they will never win ever again. The Left will be totally entrenched. Only misery follows. Even if the Republicans win, it would only give a brief respite. As we all have seen how the Republicans “fought” after the last election, so we can’t really be optimistic regarding a political solution. We are declining so rapidly it’s truly amazing. When I think about how Jesus framed the event using the analogy of labor contractions and seismic activity it seems reasonable to conclude that we are very close to Last Days’ events. The pot is really being stirred. Internationally, we in a financial race to the bottom. All western countries are playing the game of chicken. The U.S., at present, is doing a slightly better job than most but there is an end in sight - 8 - 10 yrs. maybe. When it happens we all know what will take place afterwards. If you cannot see how our own president parallels the coming antichrist, in attitude and actions, you have no discernment whatsoever. God Almighty is getting ready to judge the nations. If you haven’t already, open your Bible and ask Him for wisdom. Repent and take Christ as the only One that can save your soul. Be ready to pay for your faithfulness to Him at the cost of your physical life - like believers in the middle east and Africa are doing. In the resurrection you will be numbered with the sheep and not the goats.


14 posted on 03/21/2015 12:50:43 PM PDT by Lake Living
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: right way right

I was thinking that if a TEA Party candidate wins in 2016, Obama would prevent him or her from taking Office & remain POTUS himself.

Does that sound like crazy thinking, or is Obama just the type to do it?


15 posted on 03/21/2015 1:47:39 PM PDT by Liberty1st
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Notice the “...to take over party and — America” in the title of the article. TAKE OVER America? That sounds quite authoritarian to me...does it you (or anybody else)?


16 posted on 03/21/2015 1:47:39 PM PDT by Liberty1st
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1st

He’s the type but, that action would bring his end.


17 posted on 03/21/2015 1:58:30 PM PDT by right way right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: right way right

Oh please Obama runs again such BS he just aint going to leave he will just suspend the elections


18 posted on 03/21/2015 3:33:08 PM PDT by al baby (Hi Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: al baby

Good point.
Running again would be work.


19 posted on 03/21/2015 5:26:12 PM PDT by right way right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
You dive pretty deep. Not many conservatives (whose disposition is their definition, as per Wm. F. Buckley and Emmett Tyrrell) would follow a Lefty thinkpiece as deeply as you did, and surface its correlation with a conservative thinkpiece about the Left's "superstructure" (which was also a good read). Thanks much for finding and posting.

I've known about the "Rubin wing" for years, and how they dominated Slick in the 90's by controlling his education on issues. I've also been mindful of the role of Money in Democrat politics (as in, "Penny Pritzker" and her many ilks). People talk about George Soros as if he were Fu Manchu, but he is only symbolic of a whole movement. And we are all aware of the Horowitz Theorem, that "It all comes together at the top." Obamacare is the unfortunate, even mindfully disastrous, proof of Horowitz's thesis.

Notice also the reference to the "New Democrats": This is "hidespeak" (my coinage) for the Communists who guided Obama to the nomination. The writer advises us they are still there. Well, yeah -- Valerie Jarrett has already negotiated her policy-czar job with a Warren Administration, if Warren does run and is elected. Interesting, too, that Jarrett has promised Warren the nomination if she runs.

Good get, thanks.

20 posted on 03/21/2015 6:39:22 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("If America was a house, the Left would root for the termites." - Greg Gutfeld)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson