@MatthewSitman I think it’s more tactical than that. A huge swath of the Democratic Party came of age or came to power when the height of Democratic strategy was Clintonism—a permanent defensive crouch against ever being seen as “too liberal,” and a hyper-focus on white rural “swing” voters...
@MatthewSitman Clintonism was obsessed with trying to SEEM acceptable to cultural Republicans or Reagan Democrats. Keep the far left at arm’s length. Don’t over-play to minority or urban voters. Play up your faith. Pick a Southern guy as a running mate (or be one). Go hunting. Etc...
@MatthewSitman For years this was because Democrats seemed to internalize Republican criticism of them, and felt like they were surrounded by a country that hated liberalism and liberals, so the only way to win was to convince them you were “one of them,” and not give them an in...
@MatthewSitman It also meant, electorally, taking urban voters, young voters, minority voters for granted and instead focusing on and almost fetishizing those 5% of white Christian rural blue collar “swing” voters. THEY were the battleground, THEY were where all the energy went electorally...
@MatthewSitman So THEY—or at least some imagined version of them, those “real” Americans—came to be the measuring stick against which all national Democratic politics was judged. Forget Brooklyn, forget Memphis, forget Sacramento—how will this play in Scranton or Des Moines?!?...
@MatthewSitman That thinking became fundamentally ingrained in the party, and frankly almost all “centrists” who came up during this period (late 80s to late 00s). Not just HRC or whoever, but David Brooks, Chuck Schumer, Chuck Todd, Joe Biden, whoever. This way of thinking was foundational...
@MatthewSitman It is, fundamentally, about chasing that imagined 5%. Here’s what it’s not about: bringing in new voters, amping up turnout and intensity among traditional ones, building say urban or minority strength to DROWN OUT white rural cultural divides, etc...
@MatthewSitman To Clintonism, doing those things isn’t just not a priority, it is expressly counter-productive! You can’t seem “too black,” you can’t seem like a San Francisco/New York City liberal, you can’t be “far left” - that’ll scare off the white Reagan voters in Scranton!...
@MatthewSitman I think that’s where the divide is. To a Clinton type Dem, someone like Ocasio or Bernie is terrifying. Why, they just seem so...so LIBERAL! And the whole point of politics, to them, is to NOT do that! Whatever will Limbaugh say! People will run ads saying how liberal they are!..
@MatthewSitman Of course, everyone did that to Clinton-Dems ANYWAY. That MAYBE worked a little in 1993, but hasn’t really since. But still that defensive crouch persists. It is thoroughly ingrained. It is hardwired. No evidence to the contrary can shake them of it, no alternative strategy...
@MatthewSitman So every election is mainstream Dems trying to persuade the electorate they’re not liberal, and largely losing anyway. But a new wing is coming forward offering a different argument - I am liberal as hell, here’s why, here’s who I’m bringing with me and here’s why that’s better..
@MatthewSitman And the only way Clinton Democrats process it is going “but...but McGovern!”
It’s just two fundamentally different ways of looking at the political universe, one defensive and based in the past, one forward-looking and based on pride and enthusiasm. THAT’S the real divide. /fin
It’s just two fundamentally different ways of looking at the political universe, one defensive and based in the past, one forward-looking and based on pride and enthusiasm. THAT’S the real divide. /fin
