Hey all,
Posting this because I haven’t seen something quite like it in the lively discourse on the strengths and weaknesses about the two candidates remaining and their theories of political change. This isn’t necessarily a plea for cordiality and false blandness in discourse. I don’t really do pearl clutching for the sake of it. We’re vying for a major influence over our way of life for four, maybe eight years; it’s gonna get messy.
But, seriously, if we want to win we’ve got to keep our narrative tight and consistent just like Bernie currently is in trying to control the dialogue. So, perhaps we should look at and agree to a common definition of “Establishment” that doesn’t alienate groups we need for victory, or frankly make us look like a bunch of first-year political science students that just discovered Marxism.
Here’s a working definition for the purposes of this campaign that probably matches what Bernie is going for:
A group of elites safely in power with a strong interest in maintaining current political, economic, and social arrangements, and is willing to engage in non-democratic or even repressive tactics in order to do so.
Members of Congress or other major political bodies: Typically Establishment
I think it’s hard to argue that it doesn’t come much more “Washington” than actually being in Washington. You typically have to acquire allies if nothing else but to have a tiny bit of sympathy in the brutality of the town. It is of course possible to buck the system in some key ways — Senators Warren and Sanders both take their jobs as stewards of the regulatory system pretty seriously. But everyone has to cut deals and make compromises to have any effectiveness. Bernie has been bludgeoned by Hillary Clinton over his previous political expediencies with the gun lobbies. It was a legitimate choice: get past the concerns of hunters and manufacturers in his state so he could try and defend it from predatory finance.
But of any population in the political United States, I think it can be safe to assume that decisions, especially public ones like endorsements, are more often tactical rather than personal preference.
The important thing to tease out to identify truly Establishment Washingtonians: Is their power predominantly used to comfort the comfortable or the afflicted?
Mass Media: Definitely Establishment
I don’t think this one’s too hard to figure out. I mean we’re down to what, six companies that own the mass media? Maybe seven or eight once you include the large newspaper chains. I think we’ve seen with Occupy, Black Lives, and other recent social media that the only way to get the mass media to even acknowledge certain topics is to make them so obvious that to ignore them is to risk a truly massive loss of credibility.
Major unions: Maybe, maybe not Establishment
It’s hard to argue that unions are really happy with the way things currently are as they have been losing membership and position for decades now. However, I don’t think it’s been unheard of for activists in the labor movement to accuse some of the larger bosses of being too comfortable with being large fish in shrinking ponds. I’ve certainly heard of many rank-and-file members that leadership can get to enjoy the attention and perks of the offices a bit too much at times.
But, I mean, really these are the people the campaign are all about. Calling unions “Establishment” plays too much into Republican memes that Big Labor is in any way a real counterweight to Big Business. If you start to claim “Union Super PAC” is anything like Wall Street firms or multinational conglomerates trying to buy face time for profit-growing regulations or federal buys, you’re paving the road to Hell for which our Republican adversaries have been laying the bed.
Civil rights organizations: Definitely not Establishment
Planned Parenthood? Human Rights Campaign? Really? This is where we should probably be pretty careful. I’ll definitely check my own privilege here. Wall Street and Big Business can royally screw over my family and home town. Civil rights is all about those groups of people that everyone screws over in ways big and small. If this is a campaign about messed up power relations in our country and the increasing lack of inclusion in our democracy, we can’t just go back to June Cleaver. We really need to push the needle hard the other way and get everyone included, where everyone means everyone. I think Bernie’s history and vision is in line with that statement. We have to be clear that even though he pounds on Wall Street because “bigoted small-town mayors and self-serving police chiefs” don’t have the same pop in a national election, the more parochial embodiments of the Establishment would and should also face increased pressure and scrutiny.
A Small Twist — “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” for the left
I can’t recall the previous diary or how to find it, but I do recall an interesting thesis that civil rights and social issues caused a “What’s the Matter with Kansas” situation on the left that can be exploited by the Establishment as a wedge issue. Goldman Sachs can easily be pro gay marriage without it denting their profits in any way or shape. In fact, it is probably one of the few nice faces they can put on what they do. GE invests in many initiatives that might be called greenwashing. This is where you can get Democrats who are not particularly progressive economically but fight hard for specific communities.
To coin a term, perhaps I’d put forward “Rainbow-washing” (as in Rainbow Coalition) for this effect. We again have to be careful here: it’s not that civil rights should take a back seat as less important than oligarchic power struggle. To argue or imply this opens up BBB’s “oh now you care about inequality?” hypocrisy charge. Just like greenwashing, it’s a hard charge to levy and make stick. A useful criteria to test for this is whether the efforts are token, like a major bank throwing a couple of tens of millions of dollars at a wetlands project while still putting up bonds for tar sands drilling. Perhaps ditto something like this for McDonalds that shows smiling ethnic faces on foundation literature while engaging in wage theft.
Conclusion: Remember when we are fighting our adversaries and when we are arguing with our friends
I think all the above goes without saying. The primaries are mostly a heated argument among friends about what to do for our mutual benefit. Arguments aren’t always 100% civil, and that can sometimes be okay. But in arguing with our friends, we have at minimum the duty to be honest. Being careful with loaded terms like “Establishment” is a big piece of that.
And for the record, I have noticed independently the trend that leadership-driven endorsements have gone to Hillary and endorsements based on votes have gone to Bernie. But that could be explained by the yawning age gap in support as much as anything.
Good luck out there. Don’t worry about it being rough but keep it above the belt.