Home | About | Donate

No Honeymoon for Hillary


#1

No Honeymoon for Hillary

William Greider

ere’s a question to ponder during the final crazy moments of the 2016 election. Who will own the working-class anger once Donald Trump has been dumped by the voters? If Hillary Clinton wins the election, the Democratic Party will have the chance to reclaim its ruptured relationship with working people—the wounded victims who lost their livelihoods to brute-force globalization.


#2

Good overview of the "populist" issue brought to the forefront by this election. Putting aside the prevarications of elites like Larry Summers, who as the article describes may now be recognizing publicly the anger of the millions hurt by globalist trade deals, as Mr. Greider notes the unanswered question is where will the millions of voters attracted to Trump's populist, anti-trade deal message go?

It seems to me they were natural constituents of Bernie Sanders' campaign, but have now been lost to Trump. They certainly have not flocked to Clinton, and although she will likely win the election the close races in Ohio and Michigan convey the truth about how many of these voters have been lost to the Democratic Party.

Democratic Party elites who assume they'll simply return to the fold in 2020 because they'll have no place else to go once the post-Trump, pro-trade establishment Republicans attempt to unify, may be engaged in wishful thinking. The problem for Democrats will only be exacerbated if Obama succeeds in ramming the TPP through the lame duck Congress, as he seems intent on doing.

Another tragic consequence of the nomination, and likely election of Clinton.


#3

After the 1985 DLC formation, the Party dismissed the need to attract the most progressive segment of the Democratic Party base, and focused on attracting more Republicans to the extent that 30 years on Clinton has a record number of Republicans endorsing her.

I recall November 2008 when I was deluged with 132 applications from highly qualified candidates for one job that when it was advertised three months earlier had received no applications because the job didn't pay as much as those 132 applicants were making in the jobs they had prior to being laid off in the aftermath of the September 2008 economic collapse.

It was against that landscape that newly elected POTUS Obama announced his first round of appointments, all of whom it was instantly apparent, were the antithesis of the hope and change mantra that he echoed across the nation throughout 2008, and making it clear by the end of November 2008 that the victims of the 2008 collapse and progressives were welcome to vote every two years but they better hide out and remain silent at all other times.
Obama's solutions were Wall Street's, not Main Street's solutions in November 2008 as they are today and as Clinton's solutions are expected to be.

Progressives need to stock up on whatever anti-acid and anti-depressant medication works for them as they watch a repeat of the 2008 lame duck period with TPP thrown in to sour the pot.


#4

The Democratic party had a golden opportunity to tap into voter anger and go pro working class with the much more electable Bernie Sanders. Instead they chose Clinton, who they figured, bad as she was, could still beat Trump. Meanwhile, Sanders, et al, have assured us that they will hold Clinton's feet to some imaginary fire that exists only in their dreams. Oh, yeah, pass those medications around.


#5

The Democratic Party never cared if Clinton could beat Trump. They knew that Clinton would sustain and enhance the annual billion corporate dollars flowing into the Party, whereas a Sanders nomination would have redirected much of that money to the GOP.

Sustaining corporate cash flow is the highest Party priority...winning elections is secondary.


#6

Something Clinton had better realize fast, if she hasn't faced this cold fact already, is that the progressive movement didn't join with her as a marriage of love but one of convenience and we demand a prenup. Her neoliberal views do not jibe with the party most of the progressives endorse and her closeness with the 1% is given little to no support. Rather than a honeymoon she should be expecting a serious demand for a statement of purpose if not an inquisition. She has a lot of splaining to do since so many of us still wish that she hadn't made the ballot. We had a better candidate in mind.


#7

Indeed. The whole thing makes one wish for a worldwide distribution of cyanide pills just to get it over with.


#8

We seem to have a communication problem. Progressive politics centers on core socioeconomic issues and policies. Liberals focus on cultural issues and those things that appeal to the bourgeoisie. Liberal media have virtually disappeared the progressive economic perspective since the 1990s.

This isn't a matter of nit-picking about the meaning of words. The two words define very different perspectives, different goals.


#9

I don't know of any progressives who voted for Clinton. They have consistently opposed the Clinton right wing since the 1990s -- rejected it then, rejected it in 2000, rejected it again in 2008, and even more reject it now.


#10

11/9/2016 12:49AM EDT this whole column is on the verge of being moot.


#11

It is moot. And now we get to see first hand what happens when a nut job and his acolytes control the entirety of the executive branch, Congress, and the courts. I suspect many people on here who attempted to minimize what a Trump victory means, are going to wish they took him more seriously.


#12

No problem.


#13

I speak only for myself. I in no way minimize the dangers of Trump. I do think that he will face restraints that Clinton would not face -- her dangers being what those who could push back want from her.


#14

Let's hope that Trump won't face such a Honeymoon, considering though that the house and senate will also be republican controlled for the next four years I doubt it though. Both candidates are potentially terminal diseases.


#15

The House, Senate, and courts are now his. What check will he have?


#17

Man, what do you think happens when the government is controlled by people who are against your interests? How do you get voters, who rejected Russ Feingold again, back on your side? This happened before, after the 1984 election, when the liberal, traditional labor backed candidate got trounced. The DLC was formed afterwards because the public rejected the labor-backed candidate by massive margins.

We are in a really bad spot now. I think this election does show the importance of strategic voting, though I don't know how much it would've helped.


#19

Man, what if they don't share your interests? Feingold lost, and he's a down-home progressive. Why did voters choose the corporate stooge Johnson?


#21

I suspect more Republicans members of all the above, and from outside the above, than Democrats who would have checked Clinton,


#22

Well I guess that my comment is mute, I sincerely hope that the rejection of Clinton will be worth it but I am not going to put much faith in that. This election was both party leadership's fight to lose and the Democrats pulled defeat from the jaws of victory. The Republicans lost control and won the electorate of the "must win" states while the Democrats hammered Ms. Clinton into the nomination, baggage and all. This is the first non politico president we have had since Eisenhower and I don't remember him doing all that bad a job. We shall just have to wait to see.