(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
An important point missing from Bernie Sanders's and others' election post-mortems [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2025-01-19
If we could turn back time
Donald Trump was always such a monumentally flawed candidate — and human being — that it’s been very hard for many or most of us who can see his gross villainy and venality and stupidity to wrap our heads around his electability. How can a man remain electable after fomenting a deadly insurrection against our democracy, after a rape liability verdict, after being arrested in four separate criminal cases — and, in the case that finally made its way to court, being found guilty on all counts?! He’s the only president to have been impeached twice and the only to have had senators in his own party vote to convict. And as if all that weren’t disqualifying enough, how can anyone be electable who has a history of denigrating our country’s POWs and fallen soldiers?
It’s impossible for us not to see how wretched and worthless he is and so it follows that he should be a totally unviable, eminently beatable candidate, if ever there was one.
So when he ends up winning, we have to resolve in our minds how such an anomalous and odious thing could have happened. We could just toss out our conviction that he was eminently beatable, but, by definition, convictions are not easily tossed out. Rather, we naturally hold fast to our convictions. Many of us will resolve Trump’s victory as confirmation of our convictions.
The prescriptions (or complaints) folks offer in their election post-mortems are apt to reflect whatever has long been their view of Democratic shortcomings. Some prescriptions and complaints may be quite valid.
Yes, the Democratic Party, like every other organization of human beings, is flawed and fallible. It’s sensible for the party establishment and every concerned member to give a fair hearing to constructive criticism. Some advice is surely good advice, even if it’s not new advice.
When looking backwards at what Democrats coulda shoulda done differently, it’s a good rule of thumb to state our opinions humbly (IMHO!) because unless we can turn back time, and have the Party or ticket do that very thing we think coulda shoulda been done — and in this turned-back-timeline we actually witness Trump being defeated — unless that happens, we don’t know for sure that the outcome would have been different.
Confirmation bias
Bernie Sanders is not one who wallows; he takes setbacks in stride and continues to fight the good fight. (It's a very admirable trait; personally, I’m still wallowing.) In an op-ed published shortly after the election, Sanders writes:
We passed the American Rescue Plan to pull us out of the COVID-19 economic downturn; made historic investments in rebuilding our infrastructure and in transforming our energy system; began the process of rebuilding our manufacturing base; lowered the cost of prescription drugs and forgave student debt for five million Americans. Biden promised to be the most progressive president since FDR and, on domestic issues, he kept his word.
Not surprisingly, Sanders goes on to argue that “[w]e must acknowledge, however, that what we’ve done is nowhere near enough.” Congress’s longest-serving independent and two-time Democratic presidential primary runner-up offers advice to the Party which reflects the convictions he’s long espoused. I won’t go into great detail here, but I’ll note that the Harris/Walz campaign advocated some of the same things Sanders stresses in his article. For example, Sanders says:
We must build 3 million units of low income and affordable housing
Kamala Harris proposed building 3 million new units. Reviewing her plan, the National Housing Conference called it “detailed, serious, and impactful” and praised both Harris and Tim Walz for their “long history of housing leadership.”
We must do what every other wealthy nation does and guarantee health care to all as a human right, beginning with the expansion of Medicare to cover home health care, dental, hearing, and vision.
Harris advocated expanding Medicare to cover home health care, hearing and vision, a proposal Sanders applauded: "Congratulations to Vice President Harris for announcing a bold vision to expand Medicare.”
We must bring back defined benefit pension plans so that workers can retire with security.
Here Sanders is telegraphing that he supports union efforts to revive private sector pension plans. Clearly, so does Walz: the vice-presidential candidate had an oft-repeated line in his stump speech about how every worker ought to have a defined benefit pension plan. The National Public Pension Coalition complimented Walz for “saying what pension allies should have been saying for decades.”
Readers familiar with my Daily Kos diary history know I strongly supported Sanders in both of his presidential runs, so I’m not coming from a position of any disrespect when I say I think there may be some confirmation bias in his conclusion about the election. Sanders writes:
In my view, the Democrats lost this election because they ignored the justified anger of working class America and became the defenders of a rigged economic and political system.
For me, there’s too great a disconnect between Democrats having passed the most progressive domestic agenda since Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the notion that they lost the election because of their manifest unprogressiveness.
Sanders seems to be taking Trump’s victory as confirmation of his own admirably progressive worldview: while he recognizes that Biden’s domestic policy achievements were among the most progressive in history, in Sanders’s view Democrats lost because the average American needs and wants a far bolder progressive agenda.
Sanders advice is forward-looking, but it begs the question: What if Harris’s policy proposals had been as bold as Bernie Sanders’s or Elizabeth Warren’s 2020 proposals? Then Trump would have lost? What if more of the original Build Back Better agenda had been realized? Then Trump would have lost? It does make sense that voters would reward Democrats for legislative achievements which reduce their economic burdens, increase their employment and educational opportunities, etc. The unsatisfying truth, however, is that there’s no guarantee that people will always vote sensibly, especially when Donald Trump is on the ballot.
The power of myth
Sanders’s post-mortem is typical of some others I’ve read in that it reiterates the author’s or organization’s longstanding concerns about and advice for the Democratic Party but never fully acknowledges just how tough a nut to crack Trump really is.
In a recent comment responding to a Daily Kos diarist who was denigrating Harris and who asserted that either of their preferred candidates (Michelle Obama or Amy Klobuchar) would surely have beaten Trump “by a landslide,” I confessed that
I used to think Barack Obama won by a landslide in 2008 because he was [a] phenomenal candidate — a super intelligent, appealing, attractive, wonderfully gifted orator. Now, I believe he won because his opponent wasn’t Donald Trump, the greatest flimflam artist in American history, who appeals to so many Americans’ sense that fabulously wealthy businessmen are very savvy (because how else could they become fabulously wealthy?) He also obviously appeals very much to the unfortunately sizeable portion of the electorate which is attracted to authoritarian, racist demagogues. Americans were mesmerized by the image of Trump fabricated in large part by the production team of “The Apprentice,” which premiered 4 years before Obama ran for office. Had Trump run against Obama, with his facade as a savvy billionaire businessman, his faux populism, and his racist bile, I believe Trump may well have beaten the first term senator from Illinois. I also believe Trump may even have won a second term back in 2020 if he hadn’t discouraged his supporters from mail-in voting during the pandemic. In my opinion, Harris and Walz were very meritorious candidates who ran a topflight, highly energetic, exciting campaign. Millions of Democrats felt a vibe of joyful hope that was reminiscent of the Obama campaign. That vibe, I think, was genuine. But this time around, our opponent was not a normal candidate (like John McCain or Mitt Romney) and I've come to believe that no normal politician on our bench (nor any popular Democratic personality like Michelle Obama!) would have been much more likely to have beaten Trump than Harris was. Perhaps another celebrity billionaire businessman — Mark Cuban comes to mind — would have had a better chance than any normal candidate.
A peculiar creature
Sen. Bernie Sanders at a rally in Michigan to protect the Affordable Care Act in 2017
Self-reflection after a defeat is natural and sensible. Of course we should discuss and debate how Democrats can be more successful — and work diligently to implement strategies to achieve that goal. At the same time, we must not be so self-critical as to become cynical and lose sight of the importance of Democratic accomplishments, including those that fall short of our progressive ambitions. For example, one of my relatives who survived a perilous health crisis says that they owe their life to Obamacare; this is among the reasons they vote Democratic. Bernie Sanders is a perfect example of someone who understands that progressivism is a continual process, not an endpoint. Though he’s America’s most famous advocate for a single-payer system, he well understands how beneficial the ACA has been, and no one in Congress has fought harder to preserve it from GOP repeal attempts. And we should not lose sight of the historical competence gap between Democratic and Republican administrations. I shudder to think of public health outcomes in 2021 pandemic-stricken America had Biden not defeated Trump — and now we face the chilling prospect of a “Heckuva job, Bobby!” moment in our future.
Vice Pres. Kamala Harris and Gov. Tim Walz at their first 2024 campaign rally in Philadelphia
Notwithstanding our understandably extreme disappointment (or despondence) regarding the outcome of the 2024 election, we should also not lose sight of the genuine talent of our 2024 ticket. Vice President Harris has been a dedicated public servant for decades. She was energetic and effervescent on the stump and she eviscerated Trump on the debate stage. Likewise, Gov. Walz has a long and praiseworthy record of achievement in public service and a folksy charm which complemented the top of the ticket while not overshadowing it.
Moreover — as I alluded to in the title of this diary and elaborated on in the preceding section — we should not lose sight of the fact that despite all the crucial legacy achievements and competence that Democrats deserve credit for, and all the genuine accomplishments that the Biden/Harris administration deserves credit for, and all the objective merit of our ticket — despite all that and despite our opponent’s astonishingly sordid baggage, Donald Trump nonetheless has a powerful sway over the electorate which is as extraordinary as it is dangerous. It is a sway arguably unprecedented in American history and, fortunately, unmatched by anyone else in today’s GOP. The right wing does have tremendous financial resources and a vast media infrastructure, but that alone will not win the White House. Something peculiar about Donald Trump himself (perhaps largely a result of the myth-making of “The Apprentice”) has been key to his electoral success.
Recall that mega-moneybags Elon Musk had originally supported not Trump but rather Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a politician who has tried to emulate Trump’s demagoguery. After Trump’s defeat in 2020 and his unraveling and impeachment in 2021, many in the GOP considered DeSantis their best and brightest hope for 2024. Today, if DeSantis’s primary run is memorable at all, it’s only for going nowhere in a somewhat more cartoonish fashion than all the other not-Trumpers.
Assuming our Constitutional republic, and the 22nd Amendment limiting presidents to two terms, manage to still be viable four years from now, then Donald Trump will be out of office — forever — and the bizarre, radioactive, malignant effect that this peculiar creature has had on the American Experiment will, I think, substantially subside, and, hopefully, the experience of it will leave us better prepared to handle whichever wannabe dictator the GOP decides to rally around next. It’s not inconceivable, too, that some Republican politician who is not altogether terrible (yes, they do exist, for example my state’s governor) will come along and actually lead their party out of the Trumpian rabbit hole it’s gone down. I hope so, even if I don’t expect so. It’s one thing to have small political parties down rabbit holes — that’s democracy — but having one of America’s two major parties down a rabbit hole is disastrous.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/1/19/2292548/-An-important-point-missing-from-Bernie-Sanders-s-and-others-election-post-mortems?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
