Both of the campaigns have their ugly sides. The Clinton campaign plays the F card (if you’re a real feminist, you must vote for Clinton); the Sanders campaign is all about a persecution complex, much like the US Right in the 70s and 80s (only then their bogeymen were the “Liberal media” and the Hollywood “Gay Mafia” rather than the “mainstream media” and the DNC — at least the DNC actually exists).
Hints to both sides: feminism means women can make up their own minds on how to vote, and whining about conspiracies gets old really fast.
Not an organised one. There’s a tendency in journalism to overcover the presumed default in any competitive story, and a bit of lag in recognising when the default changes, but just as they eventually swung from from Clinton-is-inevitable to Obama-is-inevitable in 2008, they’ll be able to swing in 2016 if/when circumstances dictate.
The big problem is that the Sanders supporters (not necessarily Sanders himself) seem to need to see themselves as victims of a massive conspiracy as part of their collective identity. It probably works on the inside, but it plays badly outside the echo chamber, and won’t scale as a message as Sanders’ support grows.
I also think there is some institutional bias against Sanders in the media and the leadership of the Democratic party. The corporate ownership of the media is challenged by Sanders’ message and is therefore inclined not to want to actively support him. Clinton on the other hand is worthy of even financing through direct donation. You see various actions by CNN and Murdoch where they are angling for influence and access with the next Administration.
The whole purpose of the Democratic party, its prime directive—as with all centre left parties—is the hew to the centre and actively prevent actual leftists from having any influence. This is not a conspiracy, its just the way things work. Social-democracy is all about silencing its left wing.
You could generalise that to say that every labeled political movement is about silencing or excluding its outliers, and beyond that, there’s the fight to define who are the outliers vs the true core — the Clinton and Sanders camp are fighting that fight right now, as are the religious right and Trumpy camps in the GOP.
That’s certainly true. It comes down to what is considered “left”. Objectively Sanders would be politically close to what would pass as “right” in Australia in the 1970s but these days the Overton Window has him pinned to the leftmost edge. Institutionally the Dems would prefer a candidate like Hill because she talks a good “progressive” game but acts in a clearly centrist way.
The Centre remains committed to a 1990s style compromise with business liberals but the current economic situation has brought an even older style politics to the fore. Left-wing populism was declared dead and buried by the 1970s because the middle class had clearly won. Now that compromise is looking as shaky as the middle class itself.
I find it hard to come up with any specific definition of “Left” that applies across multiple times and places, because there are too many orthogonal axes: economics, social justice, (anti-)authoritarianism, intellectual freedom, multiculturalism, pacifism, etc.
For example, Stalin and Lenin were economically left, but extreme right (by most reasonable definitions) on the other axes; Carter (during his presidency) was economically and militarily right, but more to the left on many of the others.
These axes represent real differences although I’m not convinced that they are all that orthogonal. Some “dimensions” continue to define what makes the difference between Left and Right. The chief one for me is whether it works to reduce or increase hierarchy, i.e. reduce social mobility and increase inequality within society.
In this regard, the Authoritarian Left was always a contradiction in terms. Their chief message: “Outsource your struggle to us because we are an enlightened vanguard who knows your interests better than you do. In fact we will defend your democratic rights without you even needing to elect us!” Despite its obvious flaws, it can be argued that Communism really did flatten the social hierarchy for most people at least in its first decades. Inevitably however it became corrupt and the Nomenclatura (Russia) and the Princelings (China) made obvious use of the lack of freedom to improve the situation for their own families.
It was an unfortunate detour from the Left’s previous struggle which was to increase, not decrease democratic representation. This has always been the positive message of social democracy as opposed to revolutionary socialism: the system can be reformed, things can change if we apply pressure and bust open a few clubs. Revolution can be abstract and doesn’t actually need to involve killing people.
But like communism, this philosophy doesn’t handle generational change all that well and with time, the club busters become club members. It’s convenient when those people stop identifying themselves with the Left and go on to become full-blown self-describing conservatives, but it doesn’t always happen. Sometimes the whole definition of what is Left needs to be renovated by the next generation.
Never Stop Posting 
If there is one thing the Democratic Party leadership is extremely good at, it is making awful decisions that lose elections.
LikeLike
Both of the campaigns have their ugly sides. The Clinton campaign plays the F card (if you’re a real feminist, you must vote for Clinton); the Sanders campaign is all about a persecution complex, much like the US Right in the 70s and 80s (only then their bogeymen were the “Liberal media” and the Hollywood “Gay Mafia” rather than the “mainstream media” and the DNC — at least the DNC actually exists).
Hints to both sides: feminism means women can make up their own minds on how to vote, and whining about conspiracies gets old really fast.
LikeLike
David Megginson you’re saying there is no mainstream media (cable TV news, network TV news) bias against Sanders and in favor of Clinton?
LikeLike
Not an organised one. There’s a tendency in journalism to overcover the presumed default in any competitive story, and a bit of lag in recognising when the default changes, but just as they eventually swung from from Clinton-is-inevitable to Obama-is-inevitable in 2008, they’ll be able to swing in 2016 if/when circumstances dictate.
The big problem is that the Sanders supporters (not necessarily Sanders himself) seem to need to see themselves as victims of a massive conspiracy as part of their collective identity. It probably works on the inside, but it plays badly outside the echo chamber, and won’t scale as a message as Sanders’ support grows.
LikeLike
I also think there is some institutional bias against Sanders in the media and the leadership of the Democratic party. The corporate ownership of the media is challenged by Sanders’ message and is therefore inclined not to want to actively support him. Clinton on the other hand is worthy of even financing through direct donation. You see various actions by CNN and Murdoch where they are angling for influence and access with the next Administration.
The whole purpose of the Democratic party, its prime directive—as with all centre left parties—is the hew to the centre and actively prevent actual leftists from having any influence. This is not a conspiracy, its just the way things work. Social-democracy is all about silencing its left wing.
LikeLike
You could generalise that to say that every labeled political movement is about silencing or excluding its outliers, and beyond that, there’s the fight to define who are the outliers vs the true core — the Clinton and Sanders camp are fighting that fight right now, as are the religious right and Trumpy camps in the GOP.
LikeLike
That’s certainly true. It comes down to what is considered “left”. Objectively Sanders would be politically close to what would pass as “right” in Australia in the 1970s but these days the Overton Window has him pinned to the leftmost edge. Institutionally the Dems would prefer a candidate like Hill because she talks a good “progressive” game but acts in a clearly centrist way.
The Centre remains committed to a 1990s style compromise with business liberals but the current economic situation has brought an even older style politics to the fore. Left-wing populism was declared dead and buried by the 1970s because the middle class had clearly won. Now that compromise is looking as shaky as the middle class itself.
LikeLike
I find it hard to come up with any specific definition of “Left” that applies across multiple times and places, because there are too many orthogonal axes: economics, social justice, (anti-)authoritarianism, intellectual freedom, multiculturalism, pacifism, etc.
For example, Stalin and Lenin were economically left, but extreme right (by most reasonable definitions) on the other axes; Carter (during his presidency) was economically and militarily right, but more to the left on many of the others.
LikeLike
These axes represent real differences although I’m not convinced that they are all that orthogonal. Some “dimensions” continue to define what makes the difference between Left and Right. The chief one for me is whether it works to reduce or increase hierarchy, i.e. reduce social mobility and increase inequality within society.
In this regard, the Authoritarian Left was always a contradiction in terms. Their chief message: “Outsource your struggle to us because we are an enlightened vanguard who knows your interests better than you do. In fact we will defend your democratic rights without you even needing to elect us!” Despite its obvious flaws, it can be argued that Communism really did flatten the social hierarchy for most people at least in its first decades. Inevitably however it became corrupt and the Nomenclatura (Russia) and the Princelings (China) made obvious use of the lack of freedom to improve the situation for their own families.
It was an unfortunate detour from the Left’s previous struggle which was to increase, not decrease democratic representation. This has always been the positive message of social democracy as opposed to revolutionary socialism: the system can be reformed, things can change if we apply pressure and bust open a few clubs. Revolution can be abstract and doesn’t actually need to involve killing people.
But like communism, this philosophy doesn’t handle generational change all that well and with time, the club busters become club members. It’s convenient when those people stop identifying themselves with the Left and go on to become full-blown self-describing conservatives, but it doesn’t always happen. Sometimes the whole definition of what is Left needs to be renovated by the next generation.
LikeLike