|
>that the candidates are moving to the right because the >ELECTORATE is moving to the right. That's not to say that the >PEOPLE are moving to the right, but the people who show up to >vote are moving to the right. The electorate can move to the >right even if the people move left, if the right side gets >more passionate while the left side gets more passive and >self-destructive. No this isn't a Nader thing, but Nader was a >symptom. When a party is (according to popular conception) in >power, its supporters get complacent and allow more >infighting. This happened to Democrats near the end of the >Clinton years, to Republicans near the end of the Bush years, >and it's happening to Democrats again at the end of the Obama >years. And when a party is (according to popular conception) >OUT of power, then they will put more of their infighting >aside and unite for what they consider to be the common good. >We saw this with the Gingrich revolution in the Clinton years, >the Obama insurgency at the end of the Bush years, and the Tea >Party in the Obama years. > >The parties don't just "decide what they want to be." The >electorate SHOWS the parties how to get votes, and thereby, >how to survive. If nobody will show up for single-payer >healthcare, then no party in its right mind would jump >directly to single-payer healthcare.
You're only talking about elections that have happened in a framework where the right has control of the electorate. That's my whole point. By following voters, parties have shifted right. It's going to take a re-articulation and re-definition of politics to reverse that trend.
Hillary and Trump take your point to extremes. Their strategy is 100% tell the voters what they want to hear. It's not a good thing.
Even in the cyclical examples you've mentioned, we've been working under the assumption that Republicans get what they want legislatively until they REALLY fuck up, and then the Dems get maybe 2 years to try to do something, but in most cases they don't because they're afraid of losing the next election.
The current alignment is not permanent, but the DNC acts like it is. That's a failure in leadership and articulating a platform. it's what happens when you take politics one election at a time.
>That said, I firmly reject the idea that Hillary is to the >right of Al Gore. On the issues Hillary is identical to Barack >Obama, Al Gore, and in terms of goals even Bernie Sanders. The >broad outlines of Bernie's policy proposals are the same as >the broad outlines of Hillary's proposals. The only >differences are in the details, and that's only because the >Sanders campaign hasn't taken the time to spell out any of >those details. >
Al Gore went out of his way to endorse an anti-war candidate in 2004. He would not be nearly as pro-corporate as Hillary is. He would have been more aggressive about issues like the Keystone XL pipeline than Hillary (and Obama) have been. That's not to say that they aren't mostly the same, but yes, definitely, she is to the right of Al Gore.
|