Bloombergism

[zoogs]

Slate: The Party of Michael Bloomberg

This was a really great article. It's a compelling and cogent summary of the political landscape today.

First, I agree with its premise: that there's a strong possibility Democratic Party will move to the center-left, rather than further shift to the left. The GOP has vacated the ideological middle, and that is a major prize. The Sanders movement is credible, but it will be jettisoned if this happens.

Also, it's a good look back at what might have been if Sanders had secure the nomination. Would Bloomberg have been able to peel centers from both parties to rally around him? I think that's a serious possibility. If the parties get seized by their flanks, the opportunity in between will not be ignored.

As it stands, that opportunity may be seized upon by the Democrats, which will disappoint people (including me) who hope for them to chart an even more progressive course. However, it opens up a future where the GOP dwindles down to a UKIP-like nativist bellow, the Democrats become even more the party of businesses and upper middle class than they already are, and ideological parties consolidate on both margins to keep the policy debates fresh and productive.

Not an entirely bad future, right?

 

[84HuskerLaw]

There is nothing optimistic or particularly bright about the political 'middle' and certainly not the middle of today. The Democrat party of today is basically a socialist organization and that is not an over statement at all. Today, JFK, perhaps one of the Democrats' better Presidents in the past one hundred years, would be considered to the RIGHT of Donald Trump, certainly no conservative by any stretch. As a result, I doubt JFK could win the Republican nomination, much less the Dems. Today's liberals are practically in a state of panic over the thought that Trump, a middle of the road moderate by historical comparisons, might actually win. Bernie Sanders is somewhat left of 'socialist' and borders on communist. The fact that he nearly WON the Democrat nomination ought to be terrifying to about 90% of the American population!

America moving leftist at a breakneck pace and such radical and sudden political shift is dangerous at a minimum. Social change needs to be 'glacial' not sudden or rapid. These radical changes risk turning the stable body politic into a raging caldron of unrest. Far too many signs of this instability are everywhere today. We don't need anymore.

 

[Danny Bateman]

I think you're seeing a microcosm of this unfold in the election right now, Zoogs.

By passing on a progressive hero like Warren in favor of a stable, sturdy moderate like Tim Kaine as VP, I think Clinton is aiming to build a larger tent than the GOP currently offers. I think it's correct to say there's a large number of socially liberal, fiscally conservative people out there. I think a lot of people on this board might fit that mold: They crave a way to address the debt, want a little less regulation here and there, and are perfectly fine with marriage equality and not overturning Roe v. Wade.

It's important to note that Bloomberg declined a run specifically because Sanders wasn't going to win the Democratic nomination. Say what you will about Bloomberg, he's no dummy. He was willing to bet that both Sanders and Trump appealed to too narrow a slice of America that he could've been competitive appealing to those in the middle left without a home.

I think she's betting herself that a big tent that appeals to people along the lines of safety, stability, and sanity, rather than along partisan lines, is a more powerful campaign strategy than betting heavily on veering left and firing up the base.

We'll have to see how that plays out. Were that wager to prove correct, however, it's the recipe for a blowout.

 

[HuskerNation1]

There is nothing optimistic or particularly bright about the political 'middle' and certainly not the middle of today. The Democrat party of today is basically a socialist organization and that is not an over statement at all. Today, JFK, perhaps one of the Democrats' better Presidents in the past one hundred years, would be considered to the RIGHT of Donald Trump, certainly no conservative by any stretch. As a result, I doubt JFK could win the Republican nomination, much less the Dems. Today's liberals are practically in a state of panic over the thought that Trump, a middle of the road moderate by historical comparisons, might actually win. Bernie Sanders is somewhat left of 'socialist' and borders on communist. The fact that he nearly WON the Democrat nomination ought to be terrifying to about 90% of the American population!

America moving leftist at a breakneck pace and such radical and sudden political shift is dangerous at a minimum. Social change needs to be 'glacial' not sudden or rapid. These radical changes risk turning the stable body politic into a raging caldron of unrest. Far too many signs of this instability are everywhere today. We don't need anymore.

Well said, and I completely agree that today's Democratic party has gone way too far to the left. As for Bloomberg, he's too much of an elitist for me, wanting the government to dictate what to drink, what to drive, etc.. He's probably a good candidate for a large city like New York but I don't believe his approach carries over well to the nation.

 

[BigRedBuster]

There is nothing optimistic or particularly bright about the political 'middle' and certainly not the middle of today. The Democrat party of today is basically a socialist organization and that is not an over statement at all. Today, JFK, perhaps one of the Democrats' better Presidents in the past one hundred years, would be considered to the RIGHT of Donald Trump, certainly no conservative by any stretch. As a result, I doubt JFK could win the Republican nomination, much less the Dems. Today's liberals are practically in a state of panic over the thought that Trump, a middle of the road moderate by historical comparisons, might actually win. Bernie Sanders is somewhat left of 'socialist' and borders on communist. The fact that he nearly WON the Democrat nomination ought to be terrifying to about 90% of the American population!

America moving leftist at a breakneck pace and such radical and sudden political shift is dangerous at a minimum. Social change needs to be 'glacial' not sudden or rapid. These radical changes risk turning the stable body politic into a raging caldron of unrest. Far too many signs of this instability are everywhere today. We don't need anymore.

Excuse me about the "middle"?

On each side, we have two horrible candidates who shouldn't be anywhere close to the Oval Office and your saying the people in the middle of the two groups that love each of these candidates aren't bright?

 

[zoogs]

I think if Sanders and Trump had been the nominees, the ideological center might have found a candidate one way or another. But I do think the ideological center doesn't necessarily describe the mean, median, and mode American, who don't care about wonky details or policy issues nearly as much as other things -- like fear of the other.

(I'd also point out that a virulent endorsement of the Libertarian platform does not come from anywhere near the ideological middle. /ducks.)

Food for thought: in a society with truly open democracy, shouldn't those people, animated by nativism as they may be, get significant representation?