Paul Rosenberg’s piece in Salon offers an interesting (and lengthy) look at how we got to where we are in this election cycle, and where we’re heading. It’s part sociology, part economics, part political science, and sometimes tangential, but it raises some important observations and offers some incisive glimpses into the electorate.
www.salon.com/...
His contrasting of Sanders and Clinton offers a succinct (and accurate, in my opinion) summary of the fundamental difference between the candidates, and more importantly, of the voters who support them:
“Sanders represents a revitalized New Deal-style social democratic vision, characterized by universalist programs like free public education, Medicare and Social Security, in which the fruits of a successful economy are broadly and equitably shared by all. It represents the kind of fundamental shift in logic to a broadly cooperative social order that’s exactly what we need to reverse our current trend toward social instability, even crisis.
In contrast, Clinton argues for updating 1980s “New Democrat”-style improvements within a capitalist meritocratic system, expanding opportunities for the most successful individuals of formerly excluded groups, but leaving the underlying logic of selective individual success in place, with narrowly-tailored means-tested programs purported to serve those left furthest behind. The game of musical chairs can be improved significantly, Clinton argues, if only everyone is allowed to play and “compete equally,” but Sanders points out that the game is rigged: a shortage of chairs is the whole point of the game.” (Emphasis mine.)
I think this is a fair view of the argument taking place now within the left side of the political spectrum. If you’ve got the time, give it a read. I’m interested to see what others think about it.
Please note that while this quote has a pro-Sanders tilt, and I myself am a Sanders supporter, comments that Clinton has won and it’s all over will add nothing to the discussion about the themes and ideas of the article I’ve linked to. Saying “yeah, but he won’t be the nominee so it doesn’t matter” misses the point entirely. This article is looking at how the election reflects broader changes and trends, and how those will be a factor going forward.
It would be great if we can avoid grabbing the thread at comment number 4 and compressing the text into a skinny column of bickering at the right margin of the page, and instead focus the discussion on the topic at hand. Are we up to the challenge?
Thanks! :)