"The Republican rank-and-file seems to be split between those enthusiastic about a Trump presidency and those terrified of a Clinton presidency. Neither of those groups is likely to sit at home—or switch their vote.
Clinton, on the other hand, must placate the most passionate, enthusiastic, ideological elements of the Democratic Party—many of whom have spent months directing their passion against her.
In office, Obama has delivered on his progressive promise. He has been ideological and combative,
unafraid to abuse his executive authority and fully content to govern unilaterally. He has been a passionate voice for government regulation, redistributive economics, identity politics, and global warming—the pillars of modern progressivism.
How have Democrats responded? The Clinton/Sanders split shows that Obama has succeeded in moving his party so far to the left that he himself now defines its center. The animating belief of Bernie Sanders' campaign is that Barack Obama was a sellout. To Sanders and his followers, Obama has been insufficiently ideological, too accommodating to Republicans and capitalists, inexcusably timid in his exercise of executive authority, and lackadaisical in his pursuit of progressive goals.
Clinton is visibly comfortable with Wall Street—not to mention the billionaires who have positioned themselves to profit handsomely from regulations allegedly necessary to combat global warming.
In short, Clinton is running to be more pragmatic than Obama. Sanders is running to be purer than Obama. Were Sanders to seize the nomination, the passionless pragmatics in the Clinton camp would fall in line behind his enthusiastic supporters—much as they have throughout the Obama presidency, and much as the pragmatic Republican voters have fallen in line behind Trump.
Clinton, however, will have to convince her party's most passionate ideologues—people who have already demonstrated their willingness to resort to violence—to rally behind her vision of a pragmatic entrenchment of accomplishments they already consider insufficient.
All we can say is, good luck with that." CNBC
Clinton, on the other hand, must placate the most passionate, enthusiastic, ideological elements of the Democratic Party—many of whom have spent months directing their passion against her.
In office, Obama has delivered on his progressive promise. He has been ideological and combative,
How have Democrats responded? The Clinton/Sanders split shows that Obama has succeeded in moving his party so far to the left that he himself now defines its center. The animating belief of Bernie Sanders' campaign is that Barack Obama was a sellout. To Sanders and his followers, Obama has been insufficiently ideological, too accommodating to Republicans and capitalists, inexcusably timid in his exercise of executive authority, and lackadaisical in his pursuit of progressive goals.
Clinton is visibly comfortable with Wall Street—not to mention the billionaires who have positioned themselves to profit handsomely from regulations allegedly necessary to combat global warming.
In short, Clinton is running to be more pragmatic than Obama. Sanders is running to be purer than Obama. Were Sanders to seize the nomination, the passionless pragmatics in the Clinton camp would fall in line behind his enthusiastic supporters—much as they have throughout the Obama presidency, and much as the pragmatic Republican voters have fallen in line behind Trump.
Clinton, however, will have to convince her party's most passionate ideologues—people who have already demonstrated their willingness to resort to violence—to rally behind her vision of a pragmatic entrenchment of accomplishments they already consider insufficient.
All we can say is, good luck with that." CNBC
No comments:
Post a Comment