A Clear Study of the Split among the Democrats

a writer of whom I have not heard before: Pete Davis, has an interesting article in the Guardian, one for which we should be thankful.  Democrats of all shades of blue should try to read and understand this--luckily, it is not hard to understand.  Still, I'm going to try and paraphrase some of the most interesting points for slow readers out there.  (You know I love you, but face it: you don't read very difficult prose.)

Davis's article is about the fact that the Democrats are divided into two groups: the traditional Democrats, the Party Loyalists, who mostly voted for Clinton in 2016, whom he calls the Liberals; and the rebels, the Bernie followers, who were mostly disgusted with the 'business as usual' attitude of the Party Loyalists, and who kept asking 'But what are you going to do about **?'  He calls this group the Leftists, and so the article is about the Left / Liberal Divide.

The various ways in which the two groups contrast with each other makes fascinating reading.  For instance, the Liberals are concerned with the nuts and bolts of getting the Dems back into power, and resisting the evils of the Republican agenda.  The Leftists are more concerned with the finer issues-- which remain in the periphery, because of Liberal platform control--and moving them into the center of the conversation.  The Liberals are the ones who go door to door before an election, getting out the vote.  The Leftists are often furious with the party leadership by that time, and won't have anything to do with the election.  It goes without saying that unless there is some cooperation between the two groups, elections can't be won.

But, even before reading Pete Davis's prescription for a strategy for both groups to cooperate as needed, it is interesting to read the different characterizations of the two groups, and recognize their behavior.

The Liberals, for instance, he says tend to adopt Republican rhetoric.  Remember, rhetoric is patterns of speech that have a particular intention.  If we adopt the rhetoric of Republicans, we run the risk of supporting conservative intentions, and, as the Left declares, end up being pulled to the right.  Something Davis does not mention is that Bernie Sanders brought up the issue of income inequality, something which the Liberals have abandoned as being too "socialist" for America.

Another interesting point is about the implied strategy of the two groups.  To put it simply, the Liberals are all about winning; once they have won, they feel they would have some flexibility about how to proceed, to focus on various initiatives post-election.  For the Left, he says, the ideology comes first; if they cannot win the immediate election, they're resigned to waiting until the party has come round to their way of thinking.

How the Democrats respond to these conditions, whichever group they may happen to be in, will influence how things turn out.  And the Dem response, I believe, will depend on clearly understanding what this article explains.

Homework for you!

Arch