Bernie v. Hillary
Feb. 4th, 2016 03:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
randy_byersI'm not sure why I feel the need to post this. Probably it's because so many of my friends are Bernie-supporters that I feel compelled to say that I'm no longer part of the club. That is, I've been saying since the campaign began nine hundred years ago, or whenever it was, that I would vote for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general election, because I didn't think Bernie had a prayer of becoming the Democratic nominee. I still don't, but as push has come to shove and people have started making passionate arguments for and against the two candidates, I find that I have changed my mind and decided to vote for Hillary in the primary too.
The reason for my change of mind has been the realization that many, if not most of, Bernie's supporters, including very much Bernie himself, are the left-liberals who have found Obama weak, disappointing, and basically a closet Republican. I feel, and have always felt, that this is pure horseshit. For me, Obama is the best president in my lifetime, which goes back to JFK. This is what a transformative, progressive presidency looks like in our age, unless, like FDR, you have 69-75 Democratic senators out of a total of 96 and 313-333 Democratic House members out of a total of 435. That's what total control of the government looks like, and that's what allows pretty radical changes to happen. Our system of checks and balances is otherwise rigged against rapid change, and even FDR was slowed down by the Supreme Court, much to his annoyance. If you are impatient with Obama, it's because you are impatient with the American political system, and obviously a lot of Bernie's supporters think the whole thing is hopelessly corrupt and needs to be swept away in a revolutionary tide and replaced with something more perfect.
I believe that's highly unlikely to happen, and that what's more likely is what we've seen under Obama: painfully slow and imperfect change against fierce, grinding opposition. Yet Obama embraces the system, and I think the results under his leadership of the Democratic party have been utterly remarkable. As for the idea that he's basically a moderate Republican, show me the moderate Republican (John McCain? Mitt Romney?) who would have stood up to the frothing reactionaries in his own party to kickstart the Green Energy Revolution by investing stimulus money in solar and wind power, or who would have massively expanded Medicaid (single payer insurance!) as in Obamacare, or passed the Dodd-Frank financial regulations, or who would have done away with Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, or who have negotiated a nuclear treaty with Iran, or normalized relations with Cuba, or regulated coal plant emissions with the EPA, or, leveraging the reduction of carbon emissions from that and the Green Energy Revolution, would have concluded a carbon emissions deal with China and India and all the major industrial nations, again in the teeth of raging right wing opposition. It's impossible to imagine any Republican doing any of that. Instead they would have cut taxes, further deregulated Wall Street, probably continued to cut back on social spending rather than increase it, and probably started a war with Iran instead of negotiating a treaty.
All of these accomplishments by the Democrats are BFDs, for those of us who believe in progressive change, and if you think it's not enough, you know, you're right! The system really is rigged for the haves and against the have-nots, and it's rigged to make it hard to unrig it. But if you think Bernie is going to completely transform the American political system, which by the way would require completely rewriting the Constitution, you are a dreamer. If you think that what has been accomplished in the past seven years is a disappointing failure by somebody in over his head, then we are not seeing the same world. If nothing else I have a number of good friends who now have health insurance because of the Medicaid expansion. It's not great health insurance, but they are getting treatment for pre-existing conditions, and that will very likely prolong their lives. That's real progress.
My biggest problem with Hillary has always been her association with Bill, whom I hated while he was president. I never voted for him, voting for small third party candidates both times. But you know what, I was a lot more idealistic then, and I really had no clue how constrained presidents are within our system. I didn't really understand that he was signing bills that the Republican Congress wrote, at least during his second term, that's how ignorant I was. That said, I believe he really was an inferior president to Obama, because he didn't get much done while the Democrats had control of Congress in his first term. Partly that was because the Democrats still had a lot of conservative Dixiecrats (hello, Sam Nunn, hello, Don't Ask Don't Tell) in their ranks at the time, but partly it was because Clinton made a lot more rookie mistakes than Obama did, maybe because he was unwilling to use any of Carter's staff in his own, which left him with an inexperienced staff. Certainly Clinton muffed his own attempt at health care reform, and Obama was able to learn from that when his own time came and he staffed his administration with people from Clinton's.
In any event, I have no idea how good a president Hillary will be, if she wins the presidency, but I do know that she's embracing Obama's legacy, while Bernie is saying it ain't good enough. Bernie is right that it isn't good enough, but I believe it's the best the system will allow. Revolution isn't on the agenda, and it certainly isn't going to be fomented from above by a sitting president. So I'm voting for the woman who embraces incrementalism (What do we want? Change! When do we want it? Real Soon Now!), and my 25 year old self is shaking his head in sad disbelief. Sorry, 25 year old self, but I see things differently now. On the bright side, I see that some things are improving and that hope for even better is not lost. It will just come slowly, as it always has.
The reason for my change of mind has been the realization that many, if not most of, Bernie's supporters, including very much Bernie himself, are the left-liberals who have found Obama weak, disappointing, and basically a closet Republican. I feel, and have always felt, that this is pure horseshit. For me, Obama is the best president in my lifetime, which goes back to JFK. This is what a transformative, progressive presidency looks like in our age, unless, like FDR, you have 69-75 Democratic senators out of a total of 96 and 313-333 Democratic House members out of a total of 435. That's what total control of the government looks like, and that's what allows pretty radical changes to happen. Our system of checks and balances is otherwise rigged against rapid change, and even FDR was slowed down by the Supreme Court, much to his annoyance. If you are impatient with Obama, it's because you are impatient with the American political system, and obviously a lot of Bernie's supporters think the whole thing is hopelessly corrupt and needs to be swept away in a revolutionary tide and replaced with something more perfect.
I believe that's highly unlikely to happen, and that what's more likely is what we've seen under Obama: painfully slow and imperfect change against fierce, grinding opposition. Yet Obama embraces the system, and I think the results under his leadership of the Democratic party have been utterly remarkable. As for the idea that he's basically a moderate Republican, show me the moderate Republican (John McCain? Mitt Romney?) who would have stood up to the frothing reactionaries in his own party to kickstart the Green Energy Revolution by investing stimulus money in solar and wind power, or who would have massively expanded Medicaid (single payer insurance!) as in Obamacare, or passed the Dodd-Frank financial regulations, or who would have done away with Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, or who have negotiated a nuclear treaty with Iran, or normalized relations with Cuba, or regulated coal plant emissions with the EPA, or, leveraging the reduction of carbon emissions from that and the Green Energy Revolution, would have concluded a carbon emissions deal with China and India and all the major industrial nations, again in the teeth of raging right wing opposition. It's impossible to imagine any Republican doing any of that. Instead they would have cut taxes, further deregulated Wall Street, probably continued to cut back on social spending rather than increase it, and probably started a war with Iran instead of negotiating a treaty.
All of these accomplishments by the Democrats are BFDs, for those of us who believe in progressive change, and if you think it's not enough, you know, you're right! The system really is rigged for the haves and against the have-nots, and it's rigged to make it hard to unrig it. But if you think Bernie is going to completely transform the American political system, which by the way would require completely rewriting the Constitution, you are a dreamer. If you think that what has been accomplished in the past seven years is a disappointing failure by somebody in over his head, then we are not seeing the same world. If nothing else I have a number of good friends who now have health insurance because of the Medicaid expansion. It's not great health insurance, but they are getting treatment for pre-existing conditions, and that will very likely prolong their lives. That's real progress.
My biggest problem with Hillary has always been her association with Bill, whom I hated while he was president. I never voted for him, voting for small third party candidates both times. But you know what, I was a lot more idealistic then, and I really had no clue how constrained presidents are within our system. I didn't really understand that he was signing bills that the Republican Congress wrote, at least during his second term, that's how ignorant I was. That said, I believe he really was an inferior president to Obama, because he didn't get much done while the Democrats had control of Congress in his first term. Partly that was because the Democrats still had a lot of conservative Dixiecrats (hello, Sam Nunn, hello, Don't Ask Don't Tell) in their ranks at the time, but partly it was because Clinton made a lot more rookie mistakes than Obama did, maybe because he was unwilling to use any of Carter's staff in his own, which left him with an inexperienced staff. Certainly Clinton muffed his own attempt at health care reform, and Obama was able to learn from that when his own time came and he staffed his administration with people from Clinton's.
In any event, I have no idea how good a president Hillary will be, if she wins the presidency, but I do know that she's embracing Obama's legacy, while Bernie is saying it ain't good enough. Bernie is right that it isn't good enough, but I believe it's the best the system will allow. Revolution isn't on the agenda, and it certainly isn't going to be fomented from above by a sitting president. So I'm voting for the woman who embraces incrementalism (What do we want? Change! When do we want it? Real Soon Now!), and my 25 year old self is shaking his head in sad disbelief. Sorry, 25 year old self, but I see things differently now. On the bright side, I see that some things are improving and that hope for even better is not lost. It will just come slowly, as it always has.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 12:22 am (UTC)It's nice to see that irony is not dead. What was the model that the ACA was largely modeled on? Would that be the changes in the Massachusetts state health insurance regulations under a certain Mitt Romney? That was in fact commonly called "Romneycare" in joking parallel to "Obamacare"? Dude.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 12:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 12:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 12:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 12:41 am (UTC)It's not ideal, not ideal at all, but given the screwed up nature of US politics and the weird nature of 'blue dog' democrats, I strongly doubt that Obama could have delivered Single Payer even with his super majority - it must be remembered that even with 60 in the Senate that still included some DINOs and in the end not one Republican broke ranks.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 05:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 01:21 am (UTC)Thanks to your post, I've also done some further research and learned that in Massachusetts, unenrolled voters can vote in either party's primary. I didn't vote in the two presidential primaries since I moved here since I thought only voters enrolled in the party could cast a primary ballot.
I think Obama has accomplished many remarkable things, especially considering the political climate he's been working in.
I don't think Bernie is going to completely transform the American political system, but his beliefs and politics match mine closely enough that I'll likely vote for him in whatever election(s) I can. I've been following him (albeit casually, like so much of my political awareness/involvement) for several years now, long before he announced his candidacy for the presidency. I was surprised when he did so and my first thought was that he hasn't a chance. He probably still doesn't, but he's doing far better than I ever thought he would, and that's bringing ideas and conversations I support and think we need to be having into the spotlight.
Hillary is remarkable. Her transition from First Lady to Senator and then Secretary of State is unprecedented. The fact that she's endured, that she's persevered through all of the Republican-driven attacks against her speaks well of her strength and determination. I expect I'll be learning more about her current political positions on a broad range of topics as the election campaign continues. At least, I hope I will. It's all to easy for the sound bites to drown out in-depth, nuanced reality.
It's a digression to your post, but to me, the real question is what the hell is it going to take to get a functional, working Congress again? (And am I going to see us moving in that direction in however much remains of my lifetime?)
no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 05:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 01:32 am (UTC)But I just don't accept the line that "Obama couldn't have done any more, because Congress." What he could have done is he could have TRIED. He promised Hope and Change, but he ran a discount on the Hope, so the Change dribbled out the pocket too. With the health care bill, which even started out, as others have noted, closer to the Gingrich alternative to Hillarycare than anything else, instead of selling it on the bully pulpit, Obama kept stripping out provisions in an attempt to woo the so-called "moderate" Republicans. But they refused to be wooed, so that didn't accomplish anything on what wound up being passed on, IIRC, purely Democratic votes.
With such a damp squib, no wonder the people lost enthusiasm, and that meant low turnout, and that is why the Democrats lost Congress in 2010. No other reason. The 2009-10 Congress was, though not filibuster-proof, movable. The ones since then have not been. But it wasn't cosmic fate that did that, it was disappointment in what happened in 2009-10. So Obama is, in that sense, responsible for the existence of the Republican Congresses.
I don't expect that a better Obama would have been able to do much more, but I think he could have made incremental improvements, in two or three ways. 1) A president savvier in the ways of Congress could make more and better deals. (This is still the Democratic Congress I'm talking about.) No, he can't steamroll over them - even FDR couldn't do that - but there are ways to grease their intransigence. 2) The bully pulpit: whip up the enthusiasm of the people. This has the beneficial effects of a) putting pressure on Congress, b) encouraging progressive voter participation, c) moving the Overton window.
And yes, Obama's policies and procedures are effectively those of a moderate Republican. So, for that matter, in practice were Bill Clinton's. You question this, asking what Republican of recent times could they possibly be like. Answer, none! There are no moderate Republicans any more! We (I say "we" because I was originally that even longer-gone species, a liberal Republican) have all become Democrats! Which is why the Democratic Party today is full of moderate Republican policies. Please remember that McCain, one of your suggestions, is on many issues further right that Reagan (who at least had the sense not to chant things like "Bomb-bomb-Iraq"), and that Reagan came on to the presidential stage as the clearly-different right-wing alternative to Gerald Ford, and that Gerald Ford was, in his day, a conservative Republican. Not a moderate. Things have shifted that far.
As for Hillary, I expect her to become President, and I expect she'll be no worse than Bill or Obama. And any Democrat, even one far worse, would be infinitely better than any of the troglodytes who call themselves Republicans these days. So, unlike many Bernie supporters, I'd be content with her. What bothers me about Hillary is not the specter of Bill. Bill is Bill, and Hillary is not responsible for that, and over the years she's clearly separated herself from that. What I worry about is her neocon instincts, and what digs at me is the history of Hillarycare. Not the proposal itself, which was good, but the way she failed to sell it to Congress (again, a Democratic Congress, and - again - the only Democratic Congress that administration ever had). That failure denied us a health care program for FIFTEEN FRICKIN' YEARS. I'd like to see her acknowledge that she screwed that one up, and to show that she's learned better how to work with Congress - exactly the thing that Obama didn't know either.
In the end, I'm supporting Bernie because he's proposing the things I really want, and Hillary isn't. That's really the whole story.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 02:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 02:54 am (UTC)Your hypotheticals about who would vote for what miss the point. The key is not about working harder, but working better.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 05:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 05:30 am (UTC)You want a specific thing he could have done, he could have pursued health care with more vigor and less apologetically, not to have gotten more in the health care bill (though maybe it would have), but to have left his supporters encouraged - along with more vigor in the bully pulpit generally - so that they would have turned out enough to have won the 2010 midterms, which, if they had turned out, would have happened.
After that alt-history split, the ground rules are different. It's no longer the same situation.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 05:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 06:19 am (UTC)Middle Eastern policy is more dampening. I don't believe there exists a good and productive policy there. All we can aim for is a least bad policy, and I think Obama has been aiming at that. I approve.
Then there's normalizing relations with Cuba. That one's pure A #1 +. The reversal of a truly stupid counter-productive policy that nobody else had the guts to cancel. Obama did. I cheered. That's the Obama that I voted for.
I am not anti-Obama. I am not anti-Hillary. I just think we could have done better, in the ways I've already irritated you by describing. I don't expect Bernie to win the nomination, I don't expect him to be able to accomplish much of his agenda if he does somehow become president, and I'm totally embarrassed by finding myself in the same camp with a bunch of sexist pigs who hate Hillary (apparently) because she's a strong woman. (Those guys should be Republicans and back Trump.) I'm supporting him because his goals are my goals.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 06:48 am (UTC)For what it's worth, I agree about the Middle East, particularly Libya and Syria and Yemen, but I think the nuclear deal with Iran is a BFD that could pay off in unexpected ways (i.e. maybe allowing us to ultimately cut ties with the despicable Saudis) in the long run. To me that's a great example of his negotiating ability, too, because he included Russia, China, and our main European allies in a way that will make it very hard for Republican hardliners to undo the deal down the road, much the way that the Medicaid expansion is designed with an economic logic that will force the hold-out states to accept it over time.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 07:03 am (UTC)Also, as you note, getting those other countries on board. That reminds me of the difference between Gulf War I and Gulf War II. Unlike many of my fellows, I thought Bush Sr. did the right thing here, and getting Russia on board only a year after the fall of the Iron Curtain was a major accomplishment. W's "Coalition of the Willing" was a grotesque parody of this.
My biggest concern about Bernie is: does he have any idea of what he's doing in foreign policy? It's just not his area of interest. Of course that was initially Obama's problem too, but he learned fast, and he got really big cheeses to help him. We've had occasional Secretaries of State who would be believable as President before, but Obama has had two of them.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 02:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 02:47 am (UTC)Recently, in PA, we had 4 (four!) supreme court openings simultaneously. A young woman in my office who has a lot to say about politics, and was registered, didn't find the time to vote. I was astonished.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 05:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 03:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 05:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 05:40 am (UTC)Look, FDR didn't cure the Depression overnight. In fact, he never cured it at all. It cured itself when the war started, because that demanded enough deficit spending to get the job done. The entire New Deal programs put together were tiddlywinks in comparison, far too small to get the job done.
So why was FDR revered, even at the time? Because he showed he cared, because he put all his effort into getting the best he could, because he kept the goal in sight and constantly aimed at, because he didn't cower before political opposition but kept on pushing, even when defeated again and again. (The Supreme Court was a thorn far worse than it's been for Obama: the Republican majority on that court didn't hesitate to do the kinds of things Roberts has quailed at doing.)
That's the likes of what Obama promised to do when he ran, that's the way he ran his campaign, that's what we expected in the crunch. Not achievement: effort.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 05:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 06:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 06:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 06:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 06:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 04:18 pm (UTC)As for the current race, I like Bernie. I like Hillary too. Bernie speaks compellingly about the need to end economic inequality in America. I think Bernie says it better partly because he has nothing to lose and this is his last hurrah. Hey, I really liked McGovern too. Meanwhile, Hillary has created a campaign that is broadly inclusive. It is a coalition to reduce not just economic inequality but also racial and gender inequality. I think Hillary cannot say it as well because she doesn't want to promise anything she can't deliver. She is running not just to win but to govern. She has a better chance of making this country a better place than anyone else running.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 08:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 03:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-05 03:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-07 02:20 am (UTC)I'm kind of hopped up on goofballs right now (Tramadol) so I'm not thinking as clearly as I'd like to be. But honestly it's this sexism that's turning me Hillary's way. My personal politics certainly are far more to the left of Hillary and I had been saying that I'd vote for Bernie in the primary and whoever was next to the (D) in the election, but now I think I am going to make a stand and switch. And honestly on her own basis, I need a tough-minded and ready-to-rumble multi-issued President, not one that's entirely focused on one issue.
I also worry that America is still antisemitic enough to not vote for a Jew, and if he is the candidate the middle of the country might vote (R) just to not vote (J). Ugly, but possible.
My thoughts are disjointed, but still evolving. Sorry!
no subject
Date: 2016-02-07 03:41 am (UTC)Good luck with the goofballs!
I'm with you
Date: 2016-02-08 10:54 am (UTC)Should stress that I have always liked Clinton and felt she did a good job both in the Senate and as Secretary of State.
I agreed with most of what Obama has done as president. Most of what he could not do, he could not do because of Congress. To claim he was a Republican was ludicrous - he was measured and cautious and made decisions based on facts and the Constitution.
I will vote for Clinton in the Pennsylvania primary this year. I would like to see her be elected president this year. Despite 25 years of Republican inquiries and negative advertising, she's generally stayed focused on her job (which, right now, is running for president). I don't like the strain of negativism among some of the loudest Bernie bros - I really think a chunk of them are Republicans in disguise. I found at least one guy on Twitter who was Bernie-broing away yesterday...and reading some of his other tweets made it clear he was really a conservative even if he said he was supporting Bernie.
So I'm voting for Clinton. She's got the strongest experience of any other presidential candidate, a fact that horrifies some people.
Re: I'm with you
Date: 2016-02-08 04:07 pm (UTC)