By
Michael Brenner
The Clinton juggernaut is losing traction. Powered by the full weight
of the Democratic Establishment, it was designed to smoothly carry its
idol across America and into the White House. It still may get there.
But now it must traverse a far more treacherous and uncertain route than
Hillary and her entourage ever imagined. The course is lined with the
pundits, operatives and analysts who will cover the spectacle with their
usual attention to trivia and a faith in their own perspicacity
matching that of the heroine herself.
This was all predictable. For it conforms to the parochialism and
inbreeding that for so long has infirmed the Democratic Party's
leadership as well as the punditocracy. Fortunes could be made betting
against the "Washington consensus" whose singular talent for getting it
wrong extends from the country's endless skein of foreign misadventures
to electoral politics. They give the impression of all sipping out of
each other's double-lattes at Starbucks in Dupont Circle. The resulting
damage done to the party's traditional constituents, to the integrity of
national discourse and to America's interests in the world is
incalculable -- and may well be irreparable.
Still, it is worth recording the pathologies that this latest
bruising encounter with reality reveal. Most obvious is the disconnect
between political elites and the country they presume to know or aspire
to govern. The success of Bernie Sanders makes that transparently clear.
His greatest asset is simply that he ran as a "Democrat" -- that is, as
representative of the party as forged in the mid-20th century and whose
precepts conform to the socio-economic interests and philosophical
truths typically held by most Americans today. He is the first
Presidential candidate to do so since Walter Mondale in 1984. Mondale's
defeat convinced many pols that the future lay with the Reagan
smorgasbord of discredited nostrums and myths repackaged by skillful
political craftsmen as the new Revelation. Market fundamentalist
economic models, a cartoonish version of American individualism a la Ayn
Rand, financial libertinism, muscle-flexing abroad in the mantle of
democratic proselytizing, and anti-government demagoguery were fashioned
into an intoxicating cocktail. It worked to the extent that the cheap
high thereby produced tapped latent racism, jingoism, evangelical
Christian passions, and a new-found greedy selfishness which was the
mutant offspring of 1960's liberation.
Disoriented Democrats badly miscalculated the danger, and in the
process lost sight of who they were. Most damaging, many found a
comfortable niche in this new world of hallucination. Among them are the
careerists, the trendy intellectuals, and the ambitious politicians who
thought that they had discovered the one route to recouping power and
glory. Together, they reshaped the Democratic Party into a me-too
auxiliary to a waxing conservative movement. Today, it is radical
reactionary Republicans who sweep elections at state and local levels,
who hold an iron grip on the Congress, who have used their power to
ruthlessly transform the judiciary into an active ally.
True, Democrats have won the White House twice. Bill Clinton did thanks
to Ross Perot and then retained it against feeble opposition. In the
process, he moved progressively to the Right in policy and philosophy
("the era of Big Government is over"). Republican ascendancy followed.
Only the Bush era collapse into disaster abroad and at home made
possible Barack Obama - who presented himself not as the embodiment of
Democratic values but as a transcendent bipartisan healer- with just a
few vermilion strokes. A prophet without message or mission. Whatever
liberal ideas he had sounded were swiftly abandoned in what is surely
the most shameless bait-and-switch in American political history.
This was predictable. After all, he thrice cited Ronald Reagan as the man who most influenced his view of the Presidency.
His administrations arguably were oriented to the Right of Richard
Nixon -- on civil liberties as well as on economic and social programs.
Look it up. His White House actually took delight in maligning
"Progressives" -- as made manifest in Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's
cursing out of their representatives personally within its walls. That
was the administration of which Hillary Clinton, the born-again
'progressive,' was a mainstay.
The cause already was abandoned in his first months in office when
the Democrats held majorities in both houses of Congress. Indeed,
Obama's embrace of the Wall Street barons was what allowed the Tea Party
to channel popular anger and fear into a well-financed anti-government,
know-nothing movement which nowadays dominates the political landscape.
Hence, Obama drove the final nails into the coffin of the old
Democratic Party.
This evolution of American politics in effect disenfranchised
something like 25% of the electorate. They are Bernie Sanders'
constituency. It's as simple as that. Personalities do play a role, but
it is a secondary one. Sanders as a person stands out for his integrity,
his earnestness, for his truth-telling, for his transparent decency. It
is the message, though, that counts above all. An old Brooklyn Jew who
advertises himself as a "Socialist" is not a compelling figure on the
political stage. Intelligent and well-informed on domestic matters, he
is not a phrase-maker, not verbally nimble, an incurably respectful
gentleman, and largely disengaged from foreign policy where Hillary was
custodian of ACT II in the pageant of American failure and fiasco in the
Middle East. In addition, he feels inhibited about attacking the
misdeeds of the Obama years out of a concern for estranging black
voters, and turning the President from Hillary's tacit ally into an
active ally. Yet, he has made history with unprecedented accomplishments
in the teeth of implacable opposition from the entire political and
media establishment.
Clinton's shortcomings and failures are aggravated by the widespread
distrust that she engenders. That was evident a year ago. She has had
higher "negatives" in polls that any serious candidate ever.
So why was
she coronated even before the contest began? Why did no other candidates
present themselves? Why did Democratic bigwigs feel so complacent at
the prospect of another electoral setback?
One common answer is that there was nobody else. Decimated at the
state level, and lacking fresh blood in the Senate, they have a very
thin squad. For the better part of a decade, Harry Reid has been the
face of the Democratic Party outside of the White House - and during
Obama's romantic non-partisanship phases, its face country-wide. Still,
someone like Martin O'Malley could have been promoted as a credible
candidate had the party bigwigs the will to do so. Compare him to George
W. Bush in 2000. The Republicans molded that non-entity into a winner
with relative ease. Democrats had much more to work with in O'Malley.
Or, they could have rallied behind Elizabeth Warren. Admittedly, she
wasn't interested. Just think, though, of what could have happened had
she been persuaded to run. For one thing, she quickly would have
eclipsed Hillary as the front runner. Razor sharp, personable, with a
blue steel edge to her words, and resolute -- she likely would have
delivered the Last Rites to Clinton by Super Tuesday.
And then imagine
her against any of the Republicans hopefuls whose only chance of winning
turns on Clinton's negatives. A Warren -- Republican X contest,
moreover, would have raised the prospect of a Democratic comeback across
the board that it utterly beyond Clinton's capabilities.
The principal reason the Democratic Establishment lined up behind
Hillary in lockstep is their lack of conviction and a political timidity
that arises from 1) capture by the big donors, and 2) past failures
that have sapped self-confidence. Their uniform commitment to a flaccid
orthodoxy has been evident for all to see these past few weeks as
Hillary's supporters hit the panic button. It has not been a pretty
performance. From the editors of The New York Times and Paul Krugman
(who now sees Hillary as the heir to Obama whom he biographically
refers to as "one of the most consequential and successful President in
American history") to the feminist brigade headed by Gloria Steinem and
Madeleine Albright, Democratic stalwarts have embarrassed themselves by
their contrived and specious arguments for Hillary. This is not to say
that there isn't a reasonable and logical case to be made for voting for
her. It is the falsity of the presentation by those eminences that
reveals the hollowness at the party's core. Its leaders never miss an
opportunity to display their political obtuseness and fearfulness about
leaving their very narrow, personal comfort zone.
The blunt truth is that the Democratic leadership has been meek and
fearful for decades. They can't stand the sight of blood - especially
if it's their opponents. It took Newt Gingrich in 2012 to make an issue
of predatory hedge funds and private equity. Reluctantly picked up by
Obama, it resonated well - so well that a gaggle of Wall Street
operatives led by Steven Ratner called the White House to express
vehemently their displeasure. Obama pulled the ads. (Jane Meyer Dark
Money).
Now it is Donald Trump who boldly steps forth to declare that
the intervention in Iraq was based on lies, and that it is the source of
our current troubles in the region. No Democrat, including Sanders, is
ready to make that case with equal force. None has since 2008. One can
go on and on. It's a loser's mentality.
In the end, Hillary Clinton in all likelihood will be the nominee.
Equally true, she will arrive at the convention in Boston D.O.A. That is
to say, D.O.A. if the Republicans somehow free themselves from their
adrenaline soaked tantrum to nominate a sensible candidate. For the
Democrats' one hope is that the opposition continue on its suicidal
track that runs parallel to their own. Such is the state of American
politics.
