The Rise of the New New Left

[cali]

Maybe Bill de Blasio got lucky. Maybe he only won because he cut a sweet ad featuring his biracial son. Or because his rivals were either spectacularly boring, spectacularly pathological, or running for Michael Bloomberg’s fourth term. But I don’t think so. The deeper you look, the stronger the evidence that de Blasio’s victory is an omen of what may become the defining story of America’s next political era: the challenge, to both parties, from the left. It’s a challenge Hillary Clinton should start worrying about now.

To understand why that challenge may prove so destabilizing, start with this core truth: For the past two decades, American politics has been largely a contest between Reaganism and Clintonism. In 1981, Ronald Reagan shattered decades of New Deal consensus by seeking to radically scale back government’s role in the economy. In 1993, Bill Clinton brought the Democrats back to power by accepting that they must live in the world Reagan had made. Located somewhere between Reagan’s anti-government conservatism and the pro-government liberalism that preceded it, Clinton articulated an ideological “third way”: Inclined toward market solutions, not government bureaucracy, focused on economic growth, not economic redistribution, and dedicated to equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. By the end of Clinton’s presidency, government spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product was lower than it had been when Reagan left office.

For a time, small flocks of pre-Reagan Republicans and pre-Clinton Democrats endured, unaware that their species were marked for extinction. Hard as they tried, George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole could never muster much rage against the welfare state. Ted Kennedy never understood why Democrats should declare the era of big government over. But over time, the older generation in both parties passed from the scene and the younger politicians who took their place could scarcely conceive of a Republican Party that did not bear Reagan’s stamp or a Democratic Party that did not bear Clinton’s. These Republican children of Reagan and Democratic children of Clinton comprise America’s reigning political generation.

<huge snip>

But that may be changing. Look at the forces that created Occupy Wall Street. The men and women who assembled in September 2011 in Zuccotti Park bore three key characteristics. First, they were young. According to a survey published by City University of New York’s Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor, 40 percent of the core activists involved taking over the park were under 30 years old. Second, they were highly educated. Eighty percent possessed at least a bachelors’ degree, more than twice the percentage of New Yorkers overall. Third, they were frustrated economically. According to the CUNY study, more than half the Occupy activists under 30 owed at least $1,000 in student debt. More than a one-third had lost a job or been laid off in the previous five years. In the words of David Graeber, the man widely credited with coining the slogan “We are the 99 percent,” the Occupy activists were “forward-looking people who had been stopped dead in their tracks” by bad economic times.

<another big snip>

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/12/the-rise-of-the-new-new-left.html

[eridani]

1. Not to put down all the other things that Occupy Wall Street has done--

--but I wish they'd engage Democrats the way the Teahadists have engaged Republicans.

[marble falls]

9. Good point.

[Douglas Carpenter]

2. "And when you see these things happening. Look up and rejoice and know that your redemption drawith

nigh." - Luke 21:28

Come soon, revolution, come soon..

[Recursion]

17. Name me a revolution that has made things better (nt)

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. I suspect the American revolution has

[Recursion]

19. Meh. It extended slavery in the US for 50 years after the commonwealth outlawed it

I think we'd be in a much better position if we were a single Commonwealth union with Canada and had gone the way they did. Universal health care, for one...

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. frankly when I use the term revolution - I do not mean a cataclysmic total revolution like the

French revolution or the Bolshevik revolution or even the American revolution. I mean it sort of like someone might use the phrase, "the Reagan revolution" - except of course in reverse. Total overthrows of existing orders almost always lead to long periods of chaos and a great deal of violence. When I say revolution I would speak of a total change in direction from that last several decades. Not only is this desirable - I see it as necessary for sustainability. As our economy drifted from industrial and production based to highly speculative - we are now in an economic model that simply cannot last or even maintain a western standard of lifestyle for the majority in the long run.

[blkmusclmachine]

3. .

.

[eridani]

4. Commentary on 2016

Hillary starts the 2016 race with formidable strengths. After a widely applauded term as secretary of state, her approval rating is 10 points higher than it was when she began running in 2008. Her vote to authorize Iraq will be less of a liability this time. Her campaign cannot possibly be as poorly managed. And she won’t have to run against Barack Obama.

Still, Hillary is vulnerable to a candidate who can inspire passion and embody fundamental change, especially on the subject of economic inequality and corporate power, a subject with deep resonance among Millennial Democrats. And the candidate who best fits that description is Elizabeth Warren.

First, as a woman, Warren would drain the deepest reservoir of pro-Hillary passion: the prospect of a female president. While Hillary would raise vast sums, Dean and Obama have both shown that in the digital age, an insurgent can compete financially by inspiring huge numbers of small donations. Elizabeth Warren can do that. She’s already shown a knack for going viral. A video of her first Senate banking committee hearing, where she scolded regulators that “too-big-to-fail has become too-big-for-trial,” garnered 1 million hits on YouTube. In her 2012 Senate race, despite never before having sought elected office, she raised $42 million, more than twice as much as the second-highest-raising Democrat. After Bill Clinton and the Obamas, no other speaker at last summer’s Democratic convention so electrified the crowd.

Warren has done it by challenging corporate power with an intensity Clinton Democrats rarely muster. At the convention, she attacked the “Wall Street CEOs—the same ones who wrecked our economy and destroyed millions of jobs—[who] still strut around Congress, no shame, demanding favors, and acting like we should thank them.”

First, as a woman, Warren would drain the deepest reservoir of pro-Hillary passion: the prospect of a female president. While Hillary would raise vast sums, Dean and Obama have both shown that in the digital age, an insurgent can compete financially by inspiring huge numbers of small donations. Elizabeth Warren can do that. She’s already shown a knack for going viral. A video of her first Senate banking committee hearing, where she scolded regulators that “too-big-to-fail has become too-big-for-trial,” garnered 1 million hits on YouTube. In her 2012 Senate race, despite never before having sought elected office, she raised $42 million, more than twice as much as the second-highest-raising Democrat. After Bill Clinton and the Obamas, no other speaker at last summer’s Democratic convention so electrified the crowd.

[maindawg]

5. Elizabeth Warren is not going to run for president

in 2016. She may be nominated to run a VP by Hillary. But I doubt it. Hillary should choose a younger man who the occupy people[and I consider my old self one] would be exited by.
We need representation. Washington has been dominated by old white corporate clones for far too long. They have created a mess. It is especially disheartening to know that our current administration is wholly owned by the same billionaires who gave us the players we have endured for some 50 years.
When John Kerry becomes a war monger, you know who is pulling the levers.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. I'm sure Hill would love to have the Occupy crowd "exited."

And ou don't think the Clintons are old white corporatists? Remember NAFTA.

Liz Warren is sitting in a position somewhat similar to that of Obama at this point--a popular Democratic freshman Senator in a liberal state…

[maindawg]

11. absolutely agree

and yes the Clintons are part of the establishment. But Hillary is a woman. Elizabeth wont challenge her.

[Jackpine Radical]

12. I'm not at all convinced Hill will even run.

And why soule the fact that they're both women affect Liz's decision?

[maindawg]

16. because her running would only help Christie

By splitting the vote

[hootinholler]

20. Put the crack pipe away

Warren running will split the Dem vote and let Christie win?

[Katashi_itto]

14. I won't vote for Hillary. After voting for Obama and seeing the result.

It would only be more of the same.

Warren would get my vote easily.

[LongTomH]

6. This should really dominate the political discussion in the US.....and especially here!

It was a younger generation, turning out in large numbers, that put Barak Obama in the White House. It may be decades before that millennial generation can 'take over;' but they will increasingly be a force in American politics.

We need to discuss how to keep these young people activated, and we need to discuss how to make the Democratic party more responsive to their concerns now, not 30 years in the future.

[Egalitarian Thug]

7. If the Democratic Party shoves Hillary down our throats, they'll ensure even more

republican victories. Things already look bad for the mid-terms and if TPTB impose their apparent will on us, we might be unfortunate enough to have President Obama's failures brought into stark contrast by seeing just how much can be done by one party in control of both the executive and the legislative when that party is motivated to actually accomplish its goals.

I suppose the good news will be that we will never again have to listen to the "it was all that could be done" excuses.

[marble falls]

10. Sen Hilliary voted with W a lot. I don't trust her yet.

[Wilms]

13. Yet? Any longer, for me.

And her husband with it.

[JI7]

26. you aren't part of the democratic party ? pretty much everyone i met who is working on liberal

causes seem to support her so far .

[leveymg]

27. Those are just the careerists - the ones actually getting paid in politics, The Professional Center

On the other side is the volunteer base of the party -- the union hall guys, the issues activists, the immigrants rights groups -- are mostly far, far to the Left on economic and war&peace issues from the Clintonistas and the well-heeled DC handlers.

There's always been tensions between the two groups, but the last few months have brought the differences to a head, and the split is not going to heal anytime soon.

[JI7]

28. i am talking about the volunteers since those are the ones i come in contact with mostly

recently it was a group of people trying to get support for same sex marriage.

[truebluegreen]

15. Excellent, and hope-inspiring read. Thanks for posting.

p.s. thank Dog for the young.

[stevenleser]

21. Was at a breakfast for the African American parade today in Harlem. One of the things we were all

discussing is how De Blasio beat Thompson in all precincts in Harlem and with black voters in general, he beat Quinn with women and LGBT voters, etc.

It was the policies he was for. All kinds of different people transcended what some folks refer to as "identity" politics to vote for progressive policy and ideology.

[Uncle Joe]

23. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, cali.

[L0oniX]

24. K & R

[JI7]

25. didn't read the article but pretty sure de Blasio had support of Hillary supporters and he will

probably endorse her.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1391498.1373076587!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/social6n-14-web.jpg

[Earth_First]

29. If "...pro-capitalist, anti-bureaucratic, Reaganized liberalism."

is the *new* Democrat, we truly are fucked.

[libdem4life]

30. Just read this refreshing article. Any anyone that thinks Hillary will not lilt left...and she

can and will if necessary to get elected, which it may be, will be mighty surprised. She doesn't have to lean that far to pick up the pragmatic Left...forget the frantic ones chanting the Anti-you-know-who mantra...they are beginning to sound like the Republicans. No. Just No. Just Because. Her baggage is old, and her outstanding behavior and roles since then have eclipsed that anyway.

There is a clear path for her, at this time, and she knows Washington inside and out. She knows where the bodies are buried going in and will not hesitate to use that power to their chagrin and her Democratic political advantage. That's one of her strongest political weapons, it's surely not demurely lady-like, and why so many think she's uppity...because she is. However, that is a feat that Obama is still learning...both the uppity part that it is really OK and the "take no prisoners" part, leading to some mighty ill-conceived decisions. I believe he hides it behind "Bipartisanship".

He didn't know or understand the players/bureaucracy/lifers, The Beltway Bureaucracy, who effectively run the nuts and bolts of the government regardless of the party in power. He also has the added burden of being half black in a Beltway (and the other two branches of government) that gives mostly lip service and a bit of tokenism to other races. They're welcome... behind their desks with $50,000 a year or an embarrassing SCOTUS. They have many ways to block and have no problem publicly saying so these days. But it is still a racial ceiling that Obama broke through based on voters. (I'm sure DeBlasio is grateful) The Power Washington Insiders were not happy and he has paid dearly, IMO. I think he has done an amazing job, in spite of it and is an amazing and caring individual.

Elizabeth WILL NOT be responsible for a bruising Primary in which she'll almost certainly lose, let alone risk her stellar reputation. It is not in her psychological makeup. She is a Teacher/Professor/economist...watch that pointed finger, how she leans forward, and her intense commitment to truth. Uncomfortable, incontrovertible, spreadsheet balancing Truth Telling does not describe our national political process or the winners, especially the Presidency...no way, no how. (No one even mentions or seems to care about the small matter of her family...the publicity and who knows what await them. They may not all be politically correct.)

She will be unable to get significant corporate funds...which said Dreamers apparently think she won't need. Nor is she independently wealthy to self-finance, not a member of the 1% herself. Further, she is currently unbelievably successfully taking them to the proverbial woodshed. Suddenly deciding to carry their water and spend their ill gotten profits/complete with political IOUs, won't be successful any more than a populist opponent of Hillary will be successful in obtaining party funds. Right or wrong, good or bad, inconvenient or not, dreaming doesn't cut it. It takes a billion dollars. EOS.

And Julian Castro, who is under consideration and likely VP candidate, brings an inspiring, Way Left Liberal origin, who won his San Antonio Mayorship by more than 80%, has been remarkably successful, and vital grass roots Hispanic support. Hispanics will forgive her most anything, just for that. He's a Mexican's Mexican...one must correctly pronounce their Spanish names which the typical Republic demographic will absolutely hate. It's not John or Jack so they can fit in with their betters ... the Anglos. No, indeed....no Cruz/Rubio HINOs here...it's Julian (and Joaquin), en espanol, and She and he look healthy, energetic and great together.

And if Hillary disappoints in 4 years, then hallelujah and pass the potatoes, we could have a Castro candidacy or DeBlasio. You can bet the twins will deliver Texas and the other New York...probably in 2014 and definitely in 2016. And they are working hard at it now, even though it is just 2012, and looking way down the road. I'd love to see an Italian-American and a Mexican-American as the national ticket in 2022 right after 8 years of the first woman!!! Buh Bye, Tea Party and aging, grumpy old Republicans as we used to know them. They will be absolutely required to shift to the left. Most especially as the ACA get the kinks out.

OK, so it's too early for 2022...even 2016 to some here. But that's because they don't have a "dog in the hunt" or understand the inside political system. It does not just magically produce these folks. Even Obama...Hillary was not a strong candidate, based primarily on the difficult Hillarycare history. Obama ignited the Left not only with his well-delivered speech, but his personal presence and he also has the "take no prisoner" quality. He talks and thinks like a politician which means he can talk out of more than one side of his mouth (required to get 50 million or so voters), and, he was a male. I can already hear the PC gender tut-tuts and get it, even though it's bull. I

Sea Changes, as opposed to revolutions don't work, ask Ron Paul or Ralph Nader or Ross Perot. As a lasting trend, thus shift...the New New Left...such as this will take years of commitment, candidate and party building. The journey of 10,000 steps begins with just one.

Local base is built ultimately on the careers and fortunes and reputations of those on the national scene. Call it coattails, or whatever, it's political reality. But to go out and work on the Mayor or State Representative Democratic races and GOTV, and still bitching about Hillary...stay home if necessary, beat the bushes for someone else, but other than DU, please don't share. It's not a good plan for any race in the Democratic Party.

Also, it's that Vision Thing, and all. The New New Left ... not just Hope, but real Change, party building and actual wins.