Let me begin with full disclosure: I am a Warren Democrat.
I have been a Democrat and a liberal my entire adult life. Not once have I have voted for a Republican presidential candidate (my first presidential election was in 1980). My idea of a Democratic presidential candidate is an FDR, a Truman or a Bobby Kennedy; a nominee who can be both poetic and practical. It is someone who cannot only be conversant in policy ideas but who can also effectively translate them into a personal connection with everyday voters.
My dream is for the Party of FDR to again start acting like the Party of FDR.
I am not a DLC “centrist” (a description that has been mangled by the media and neo-liberal types) After being disappointed by the economic policies of every Democratic administration since LBJ I have been waiting for someone to again embrace policies that are designed to further economic justice while strengthening, not destroying capitalism – the very economic policies the created a solid middle class.
This means electing a president who will seek the restoration of pre-Reagan era marginal income tax rates; the appointment federal judges who will not gut workers’ rights; believes in distributive justice; and financial services reform with an eye towards the restoration of a modernized Glass-Steagall.
But I am also not a socialist. While I am firmly in favor of a sturdy government that is able to stay the hand of overly powerful individuals who use private coercion to deny others any sense of upward mobility or self-improvement, my economic beliefs are also based upon the protection of private property and the profit motive. Yet, I accept a reasonable amount of inequality for economic incentive. As for wealth, I follow Theodore Roosevelt’s admonition, “We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.”
I differ from conservatives because property should be intended for defensive use, not offensive use. Restraint is essential to the exercise of liberty especially when the abuse of private power results in a net loss of liberty for the community at large. At the same, I differ from DLC types because I oppose the taxpayer funding of non-public charter schools, the privatization of roads, prison and other traditional government functions.
And to these ends, I want a president who will resume the trajectory of New Deal legacy economics or, as my candidate of choice describes it, accountable capitalism. And because of my belief in an evolved, fairer form of capitalism, I am a liberal.
As a liberal I reject the archaic ideas of both libertarian laissez-faire and neo-liberal economics. That is why I have experienced disappointment with many of the economic policies of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and even Barack Obama. Too often they have walked away from the Democratic Party’s legacy of Keynesian economics and they have too often demonstrated a willingness to engage in unnecessary deregulation. I see similar economic staleness in candidates Joe Biden, Mike Bloomberg and Pete Buttigieg. Bloomberg – besides making my hometown, New York City, a rich man’s town – has profited handsomely from neo-liberal economics, Buttigieg, it should be noted, is a favorite of Helen Milby, a former Director of Development for the Democratic Leadership Council. Milby is the founder of a DLC-leaning organization going by the name, “The New Deal” – a misnomer if there ever was one. Click on their health care “Ideas” page and you’ll see a prominently place image of Mayor Pete.
TND is a perfect example of a group of Democrats who claim to be of the Party of FDR but don’t often act like it. They either do not understand – or pretend not to understand – what past liberal Democratic actually believed. They will never tell you that FDR, Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan all believed in Medicare For All. Nor will they remind the electorate that Democratic icons from FDR through Bobby Kennedy believed a 70%, plus top marginal tax rate was considered not only mainstream, but sound economics. In that sense such Democrats have mangled the true meaning of “the center.”
Progressive liberal Democrats must now reclaim the heart and soul of their party. But to do so they must take up the cause of saving capitalism, not by being seen as its potential destroyer.
This brings us to the problems that will very well arise if Bernie Sanders becomes the Democratic Party’s Presidential Candidate. What follows is a sober assessment of what every potential Sanders voter should consider.
In the 1980s when Sanders chose a Socialist organization with which to align himself, he did not choose the Democratic Socialists of America; Michael Harrington’s organization. Instead, he went with The Socialist Workers Party, something much further left and well out of the mainstream – unlike the DSA, a group that helped contribute to LBJ’s Great Society.
There are socialists and then there are socialists. DSA is far more mainstream and has been anti-communist; the SWP is Leninist and fringe. The GOP is ready to play this card against a Sanders-led Democratic Party. In fact, they already are.
This is not redbaiting. Instead, it is a warning to be aware of the Trump-GOP redbaiting that is sure to come if Sanders is the Democratic nominee. It will be a devastating, relentless assault that may well cost Democrats dearly in many down-ballot races in swing states such as Arizona, Florida and Virginia – and even in a number of Blue state swing districts.
In fact, I believe that Bernie no longer is the socialist he was back in the 1980s. As is the case with many of us his views have evolved. Although he calls himself a socialist I believe he is very much a capitalist. But with that said, his adherence to the socialist label confuses people. He is strong on moralizing and vague on actual policy proposals. He allows his supporters to hear and see what they want.
As a political researcher Dr. James Scaminaci observed, “Revolutions are hard to start. They usually happen after an economic collapse, military conflict or, after a protracted internal guerrilla war. Movements can pressure Congress, but that is not a revolution. Challenging the distribution of power and wealth is now necessary more than ever. But telling voters that they are going to achieve or must achieve a revolution to win is incorrect, even misleading. They will be disappointed by the pedestrian task of filling jobs in an administration or building congressional coalitions necessary for making legislation into law.” He added, “The danger of campaigning on an -ism [as Bernie does] is that it assumes the average American voter knows what you are talking about; it allows for opponents to weaponize it; and, you end up constantly defending something abstract.”
Beyond that, Bernie has had his moments that clearly do not fall in line with progressive liberal values. I remember in the early 2000s when I was actively engaged in the stem cell research movement Sanders let us down by opposing therapeutic cloning. His gun control stances have been problematic, voting five times against the Brady Bill and other gun control legislation – something that has not been lost on folks such as Fred Guttenburg whose daughter died in the Parkland massacre or four years ago, the parents of the children who were murdered at Sandy Hook.
But there is another element that concerns me about a Sanders nomination and that is his demeanor. Whenever he speaks it is always with an angry, repetitive tone. In a way, it at times reminds me of the way the current President speaks – always on the attack and without any sense of poetry or inspiration. Occasionally, he can come across as caustic.
He has flaws that may prove fatal this Election Day.
But beyond that, Sanders confuses the American electorate with his branding to differentiate himself from neoliberal Democrats.
Economist Paul Krugman has taken note of the potential problems Sanders’ self-branding presents. In his New York Times column he recently warned:
The thing is, Bernie Sanders isn’t actually a socialist in any normal sense of the term. He doesn’t want to nationalize our major industries and replace markets with central planning; he has expressed admiration, not for Venezuela, but for Denmark. He’s basically what Europeans would call a social democrat — and social democracies like Denmark are, in fact, quite nice places to live, with societies that are, if anything, freer than or own.”
So why does Sanders call himself a socialist? I’d say that it’s mainly about personal branding, with a dash of glee at shocking the bourgeoisie. And this self-indulgence did no harm as long as he was just a senator from a very liberal state.
But if Sanders becomes the Democratic presidential nominee, his misleading self-description will be a gift to the Trump campaign. So will his policy proposals. Single-payer health care is (a) a good idea in principle and (b) very unlikely to happen in practice, but by making Medicare for All the centerpiece of his campaign, Sanders would take the focus off the Trump administration’s determination to take away the social safety net we already have.
An example of the Vermont Senator’s confusing rhetoric: In his speech last June where he supposedly defined his democratic socialism he actually defended New Deal-style liberalism but mislabeled it as democratic socialism.
It is not that many of Bernie’s policies are bad. I support his policies that are very similar to Warren's. But, Warren carries none of the ideological baggage and faux socialist branding of Sanders.
Warren’s Advantage Over Bernie
Clearly, it would be naïve to think that the GOP wouldn’t also attack Warren with the same redbaiting attacks they have are ready to throw at Bernie. Of course they would. But with that said, Elizabeth Warren can better inoculate herself against such attacks. Let’s consider a few things.
First and foremost, Warren’s self-description as “a capitalist to her bones” is her best line of defense. It also gives the Bay State senator an opening for counter-attack by pointing out that there is not just one form of capitalism, but several – especially, her version based in New Deal legacy economics.
Secondly, she can then pivot into an attack on the fallacies and archaic nature of laissez-faire libertarian economics, effectively tying Trump to such tired dogma. Along this line of attack, Warren could then frame an increasingly anti-democratic, libertarian conservatism as the true threat to capitalism – the real radicals. Because of their respective self-brandings, Warren can more readily present herself as the defender of a better form of capitalism where Bernie cannot. By his incorrect description of capitalism as a monolithic entity and accompanying wholesale dismissal of such, Bernie has forfeited this valuable option.
Many Bernie supporters will say that poetry no longer matters. I disagree. All one has to do is look at the importance of poetry in inspiring citizens to action. Look at FDR’s fireside chat on the 1933 bank holiday; JFK’s 1962 “We choose to go to the moon” speech; LBJ’s “We shall overcome” address to Congress on then-pending civil rights legislation; and Bobby Kennedy’s speech to a largely African-American crowd on the night Martin Luther King was assassinated. All of these are examples where poetry and grace affected people’s actions; it does matter, indeed.
Along this very same line, Warren, unlike Sanders, has the ability to translate her policy plans into warm human stories. This is the power of connection. As I listen to many of Sanders’ speeches I just don’t hear that same warmth and connection. It takes more than moralizing to win the Presidency; it takes empathy.
Secondly, Warren has the ability to attract more moderate voters without her progressive values. She can do this not by surrendering her principles but by taking a page from Bobby Kennedy’s 1968 playbook and use her campaign to embrace her definition of the mainstream. Think of Kennedy’s engagement with the students of the University of Indiana during that state’s primary.
But before liberalism can resume its forward march a conversation must first take place. Groundwork must be first laid in place. A new narrative must be successfully injected into the national discourse; one the reclaims the general understanding of both liberty and freedom. It is a prerequisite that will require blood, sweat, toil and tears. Most of all, it will require patience.
And the best place to start is with the nomination of Elizabeth Warren as the Democratic Party’s standard bearer.
