Musings on the
2016 election
Politics in the United States
excites me. It’s crazy, up-and-down and unbelievably impactful on everyday
lives. I’ve been engaged in politics since about 2007, when then-Senator Barack
Obama announced his candidacy for president.
During his two terms in office, I
stayed engaged by following developments in media and local politics through
volunteering and many discussions with fellow citizens. I was very excited for
the 2016 election, and am still trying to keep up with what’s becoming another
historic presidential term.
There are so many angles and
opinions in society about the 2016 election, the Trump administration, the path
of the United States and the world and so on. One particular cog in the the
machine of politics that excites me is the questioning that is currently occurring
within the Democratic Party.
What the ____ happened?
This is a question with many
answers, and one that divides over numerous societal lines, be it race, gender,
economic, education and more. One of the lines I’ve been focusing on is one of
political orthodoxy: for Democrats, an existential question concerns money in
politics.
Philosophically, many in the party
dislike the influence of it. But what to do? It’s no secret large amounts are
needed to launch and maintain campaigns, yet there are growing cases of voters
within the party responding to candidates who refuse large campaign contributions.
This is the aforementioned orthodoxy line, with rank-and file voters and the
party apparatus itself trying to figure out the best way forward.
To
spend or not to spend?
This brings me to a spirited
conversation I’ve had with an older generation voter. This particular voter
identifies as an independent, so I’ve enjoyed having frank, often intense political
conversations with this voter. I recently sent a clip from Mike Figueredo’s
Humanist Report podcast to the voter, titled “Where Do Progressives and
Berniecrats Go From Here?” The podcast took place just after the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) chair race in late February, and I found it informative and
interesting:
As I expected, this voter had vivid
thoughts. I also had responses to this voter’s responses to the video’s response
to the 2016 election and the DNC… follow?
My
voter-friend’s take:
“Obviously,
after listening to this, confirms what I said about them being concerned about
taking on the billionaires in the next election. So you need a progressive-left
billionaire so they can threaten the Dems. That could run as an independent.
Bernie is awesome but obviously he has reason to believe that he is not the one
to do this? Money? Bernie is going to retire soon, I'm sure the thought of
burning up his retirement funds on winning an election for you may not appeal
to him or his family too much. Bernie will not run again so who will be the
leader of this new party? Start making your list of rich progressives!”
My take:
The DNC seems to be on the side
of the divide advocating a “more money equals more results” response. Recently
elected chair Tom Perez has voiced no qualms about this, as Lee Fang outlined
in a January
article. The weekend of the DNC chair election, the
party voted to allow more corporate money in the process.
However, the Democratic Party primaries
of last year showed a candidate can win widespread voter support and public office
from numerous small money donations by voters, rather than a few large donors
or bundlers. Democratic Party presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders had equaled contender
Hillary Clinton in campaign money raised by late March, according to the Federal
Election Commission.
The next month, Nadia Prupis described
in an article
how not only was this a winning financial strategy, but also a strong voter support
strategy, as Sanders was viewed as more favorable by large swaths of both
Democratic and independent voters than Clinton. Clinton would go on to win the
primary battle, but ultimately lose the electoral war to Donald Trump.
I’m of the opinion that “rich progressives”
may not be the winning strategy for the Democratic Party at this point. I also
think the small contribution/many donor grassroots strategy doesn’t live and
die by Sanders: he used it, but it is an external tool. It can be picked up and
used as an electoral blueprint by anyone. So although Sanders himself may not
run for president again, the movement and blueprint exist for Democratic voters
to utilize… if they choose to.
My
voter-friend’s take:
“Bernie doesn't want to risk it;
Money runs the machine! I get grass roots, but apparently not enough people
contribute, Bernie's election was a great start though, now what? My opinion is
that progressives need to stop whining about what they didn't get, and start
using what they have to make change happen. Follow your leaders lead, you like
them because they get it i.e. Bernie and Keith, Bernie told his followers to
vote for Hillary, because the option is worse, his plan was to work from the
inside, so now because they didn't listen he has to fight the opposition. He
could have done so much more with Hillary.”
My
take:
Beginning at the end, voter-friend
may have a point: could the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party have gotten
action on the influence of large money in politics under a Clinton
administration? It’s hypothetical now, but I would say no, mainly due to
Clinton’s use of this resource in her campaign. She must believe in it on
principle at some level to have used it so much and so successfully throughout
her political career. Would she have moved away from this strategy if she was
in the White House, knowing she had to protect her party in upcoming elections?
I have serious doubts.
I think her administration would
have been comfortable knowing they won with heavy use of large donors, and
maybe taken light steps at reform, but would always have the argument of “we
won this way, so why drop this strategy now?”
A question the DNC should ask
itself, and voters have already raised, is how a candidate can out raise an
opponent, and still lose an election? A December Bloomberg
Politics article discussed how super-PACs and large contributors largely
helped Hillary Clinton raise just over $1
billion as against just over $600 million for Donald Trump. By itself, I
think the amount of money involved in federal elections is staggering.
As far as progressives “whining”, it
seems they are the ones most vocal and politically engaged during this still
young Trump presidency. They have been the ones marching, protesting, and
setting up political campaigns on the state and federal level to challenge
sitting Republicans and Democrats in
upcoming elections. I have asked my voter-friend this: where has Hillary
Clinton been?
Regarding leadership, perhaps the
power of this progressive movement in and outside the Democratic Party is that
there is no de facto leader. There are many well-known politicians or activists
within, but no one man or woman can lay claim to all the people striving for
positive, progressive change in law and society.
This is a collection of individual
leaders, each and every voter and citizen acting under independent power to
create change. Coming together to influence, yet remaining mindful of agency
and the awesome power of personal civic engagement. Acting to make a message a
reality.
Sanders himself has acknowledged he has
no personal control of this growing movement, just aligned political
objectives.
It seems my voter-friend believes
these movements only survive with a hard-and-fast leader and structure that is
powered on money, no matter who is supplying it.
To
be continued…..
Forrester
Pack is a graduate of the University of Minnesota School of Journalism and Mass
Communication. He is a freelance writer in Minneapolis.
Comments
Post a Comment