The Establishment v. The Outsider

Dear Friends,

The Establishment of the Democratic party has long favored Hillary Clinton, just look at the absurd debate schedule promulgated by Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the number of super delegates who immediately jumped on her bandwagon without considering any other candidates.  The establishment media has also consistently favored Hillary Clinton with significantly more coverage than they give Bernie Sanders.  The only reason he is getting some media attention now is that he is consistently rising in the polls, and the media can now cover a fight for the nomination.  Although I must say that most of the articles that I read in the establishment media start from the assumption that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee.  Apparently, they did not learn anything from Iowa in 2008.

The Establishment, both Democratic and Republican, does not like significant change and anybody who passionately proposes significant change is considered an outsider.  So the establishment media treats Bernie Sanders as an outsider and an oddity.  Even though Bernie Sanders was drawing large and very enthusiastic crowds consistently and significantly larger than those of Hillary Clinton, they gave him no coverage and continued the narrative that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee.  Now that the polls show a very close race in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment media is being forced to give Bernie Sanders more coverage.

At the same time the Democratic Establishment is circling the wagons to protect Hillary Clinton.  A prime example is that for the first time ever Planned Parenthood Action has endorsed a candidate during the primaries and has done so in a blatantly false and disingenuous manner.  (See my prior post here.)  All the Democratic women senators, other than Elizabeth Warren, have endorsed Hillary Clinton.  Only a few Democratic members of the House of Representatives have endorsed Bernie Sanders, notably the co-chairs of the House Progressive Caucus.

However, the prime example of the Establishment trying to protect Hillary Clinton (the Establishment candidate) from Bernie Sanders (the Outsider) comes from Hillary Clinton.  Everyday she ties herself closer and closer to Barack Obama assuring the Establishment that she will just take steps to very gradually build on what his administration has done.  She is telling the Establishment "don't worry I won't upset the apple cart, I won't try for any big changes, your lives will remain the same".

While I very strongly believe that we need significant changes to and the disruption of the status quo, I am not angered by her position.  What does upset me is the tactics she and the Establishment are now using to make sure the status quo is maintained.  A few days ago there was an article in The New York Times by Patrick Healy (here) entitled "Clinton Campaign Underestimated Sanders Strengths, Allies Say" which contained these sentences:

According to Democrats close to the Clintons and involved with her campaign, Mrs. Clinton and the former president are also unnerved by the possibility that Mr. Sanders will foment a large wave of first-time voters and liberals that will derail her in Iowa, not unlike Barack Obama’s success in 2008, which consigned Mrs. Clinton to a third-place finish. They have asked her advisers about the strength of the campaign’s data modeling and turnout assumptions in Iowa, given that her 2008 campaign’s predictions were so inaccurate.

The idea that any Democrat would be concerned that there will be "a large wave of first-time voters" is such an anathema to me that I cannot believe that any potential Democratic Presidential candidate would hold that view.  The only logical extension of that view is to suppress the enthusiasm and the voting by the millions of people in this country who do not vote, most of whom would vote Democratic if they did vote.  The only way for Hillary Clinton to secure the Democratic nomination is for her to maintain the support of the Democratic Establishment and suppress the enthusiasm generated by Bernie Sanders so as to keep new voters out.

I am afraid that the way that Hillary Clinton has decided that she can stop new voters from coming into the process is through fear tactics.  Her fear tactics were in full view in the last debate with statements like; if you bring up single payer health care, we will lose all the progress we made with Obamacare; if you move to a single payer plan you will raise taxes on the middle class (with no reference to the reduced premiums that would be significantly greater than the tax increase); if you elect Bernie Sanders he will be weak on gun control (despite his D- rating from the NRA); if Bernie Sanders is the nominee, he cannot win the election (despite the fact that the polls show that he beats all the leading Republicans); if you elect Bernie Sanders he will not keep America safe as he doesn't know much about international affairs; etc.  In the debate she was completely disingenuous and misleading in saying that Bernie Sanders voted in favor of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act in 2000.  He did in fact vote in favor of that act which did provide for deregulation and was a bad law.  However, that act was drafted in part by Bill Clinton's staff and signed into law by him.  Here is how the Washington Post summarized what happened (here).

The CFMA made its way through Congress on the back of a must-pass, 11,000-page bill to fund the government that year. This is where Sanders comes in, he joined a majority of Democrats and Republicans in approving the omnibus bill, which was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

In contrast to Hillary Clinton's use of scare tactics to secure the nomination.  Bernie Sanders remains committed to a discussion of the real issues on which his positions have not changed.  His proposals are for big change which scares the Establishment, but which are exactly what this country needs.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal