The Challenge From The Left
By the time I post this article, the election returns may have already been announced in New York state's Democratic gubernatorial primary. I state this up front to let readers know that I'm writing this before knowing how big a margin of victory the current governor, Andrew Cuomo, manages to gain over his Progressive challenger, Zephyr Teachout. Cuomo's victory is pretty much a foregone conclusion, but the size of his victory may be an important gauge of the growth of the Progressives, or what has previously been called "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." If Teachout does better than expected, it could have reverberations in the next few years, as the 2016 presidential contest gets underway.
For the past few years, Democrats have been pretty astoundingly united in Congress. After the passage of the Affordable Care Act and -- more importantly -- after the 2010 midterm "shellacking," Democrats have done a much better job of holding together and (mostly) singing from the same songbook than they have managed to do in quite some time. Partly, this was due to the defeat of a large portion of the "Blue Dog Democrats" in 2010, who had fractured the party during the entire Obamacare debate. The Blue Dogs were "centrist," which (in the Democratic Party) translates to "further right than the party as a whole." They were an outgrowth of two political tactics: Bill Clinton's "New Democrat" stance, and the "50-state strategy," which elected a lot of members of Congress with a "D" beside their name but with strong ties to Big Business and other non-traditional bedfellows for Democrats. The Blue Dogs, at their height, were a powerful faction within the party and they effectively killed any sort of public option (to say nothing of the single-payer option) in the Affordable Care Act. But now the Blue Dogs have been on the wane for years, and the faction that is getting a lot more attention in the Democratic Party is the Progressives. The "Overton window" within the party may be shifting from moving steadily rightwards to tacking back to the left, to put this another way.
The most-prominent example of this can also be found in New York, in the Big Apple itself. New York City has a new mayor, Bill de Blasio, who ran on an unashamedly Progressive platform. Now, one big-city mayor does not exactly a political wave make (as Yoda might put it), but the election did shake up Democrats to some extent, as de Blasio proved that Democrats can indeed be elected not just by giving lip service to grand (but nebulous) ideas like "fighting income disparity" but by championing actual Progressive policies to attack the division of wealth. Zephyr Teachout tried the same thing on a much bigger scale.
She is going to fail. That much appears certain. But Cuomo's reaction to her campaign was instructive, in a way. In some ways, he treated Teachout as a political gadfly not worthy of attention (he famously refuses to even speak her name, and refused to debate her, which is indeed what most strong candidates do with very minor challengers), but Cuomo also simultaneously played some political hardball against Teachout (filing a lawsuit in an effort to kick her off the primary ballot) which is not exactly normal when you are confident you're going to crush an opponent.
In all fairness, Cuomo isn't the worst Democrat out there when it comes to Progressive issues; although in some of these cases he's either been awfully reluctant to act or has only acted in response to Teachout's campaign. He was forced to tack left to pick up some key endorsements, which he likely wouldn't have bothered doing if Teachout didn't at least cause him some degree of electoral concern. Part of his problem was that Cuomo reportedly is obsessed with winning the vote in Western New York, which voted not only against him last time but also against his more-famous father as well. In a classic political triangulation move, he added Kathy Hochul to his ticket as the lieutenant governor candidate, because he thought her more centrist positions might provide him a landslide. Instead, it annoyed Progressives.
The reason all of this is more interesting than just a regional contest is that Hillary Clinton (another New Yorker, at least since 2001) may have to run the same gamut. Clinton is a little weak on her left side, being demonstrably more hawkish than both Barack Obama and the party as a whole, and also being a lot more friendly with Wall Street and Big Business than is considered seemly these days among the Democratic base. Hillary Clinton has never noticeably shifted much from her husband's "New Democrat" positions, to put this another way (although she certainly might in the heat of an election, to give her the benefit of the doubt). Hillary Clinton helped Cuomo campaign against Teachout, which some New Yorkers might remember in 2016.
It is hard to gauge the proportional importance of the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party, though, so it is premature at best to speak of how 2016 is going to play out. Progressives do not wield anywhere near the power within their party that the Tea Party faction of Republicans enjoy. There has always been a faction of Democrats who fervently wish that the national party (and their national candidates) would champion Main Street over Wall Street more often (see: Howard Dean). They have always been a minority within the party, though, and they likely still are. How much of a minority, in New York, may become apparent later tonight.
Still, Progressives can't be completely written off as somehow irrelevant to the Democratic Party as a whole. Not by a long shot. If this were true, there would be no Mayor de Blasio. And Andrew Cuomo wouldn't have had to shift his positions to gain party support. This is the current value -- incremental though it may be -- of the Progressives to the Democratic Party. Progressives are showing that they are not content anymore to just be "one part of the Democratic coalition which joins to support the major candidate," but instead are now willing to put up primary challengers against pre-chosen candidates. This fueled the Tea Party's rise to power, but it's an unfair comparison because (again) Progressives are nowhere near as powerful within the Democratic Party as the Tea Partiers are in the Republican Party.
There will likely be a Progressive favorite running for president in 2016, though. The Democratic primaries are going to produce at least one (possibly more) candidate who stands firmly to the left of where Hillary Clinton is comfortable standing. Bernie Sanders has expressed some interest in becoming this person, although Elizabeth Warren (another prime candidate) likely will sit this one out. I could even see Joe Biden attacking Hillary from the left. Or, just as plausibly, it could turn out to be someone not currently on anyone's radar inside the Beltway.
How Clinton reacts is going to be interesting, to say the least. She's already run one campaign where a relative no-name challenger knocked her off her stride (to say the least), so she will likely be a lot more attentive to such a possibility this time around (watch for her political team to fight strongly against any suggestion that she considers herself the "inevitable" candidate, for example). Clinton, in an ideal world (with an ideal 2016 nomination campaign), would much prefer to play it safe on contentious issues, and either attempt to laugh them off or repeat platitudes carefully designed to appeal to everyone. A strong Progressive challenger might preclude this option, though.
Which is why, regional contest and foregone conclusion though it may be, I will be interested to see what the margin of the vote will be in New York tonight. Will the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party begin an outward growth from New York City? Or will it remain in the gadfly category for most national Democratic strategists? Progressivism (or Populism, if you will) has some planks in their platform which are wildly popular among the American electorate. Democrats have been content, for the most part, to offer up lip service to these issues and then conveniently forget about them when the hard bargaining takes place in Washington over must-pass bills. Voters have become accustomed to one major party all but admitting they don't care about the little guy (because their political philosophy is "give the big guy lots of money and everyone will eventually be happy"), and the other party mouthing bromides about helping the little guy out -- but only seldom following suit on such promises. A strong Progressive showing could signal a shift in this scenario, however.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
John Oliver did an excellent segment regarding student debt this past weekend.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/08/john-oliver-student-debt_n_5784266.html
I feel sorry for kids today. I went to a state-funded university and I took out a government-subsidized student loan. Otherwise, no degree. I would not be able to do that today. I would never take on the staggering debt that they do. It all seems pretty unsustainable to me.
I can honestly say that I've never heard of Zephyr Teachout before today, but I might just be willing to vote for her based on that name alone.
John From Censornati -
I have a hard-and-fast rule that I never make fun of people's names, even if they're a politician. I did so once (Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter, I believe), and regretted it almost instantly.
But I do admit that I did indeed think about it for Zephyr Teachout. What I might have written, if I had broken this cardinal rule, would have been: "a name worthy of inclusion in a Robert Anton Wilson novel."
How's that for obscure?
Heh.
-CW
That's pretty obscure. I've never heard of RAW. Wikipedia says his "religion" was Discordianism and his goal was "to try to get people into a state of generalized agnosticism, not agnosticism about God alone but agnosticism about everything." I may have to look into him.
I really do like that woman's name though. I wasn't making fun. I would vote for her.
BP should be deported for its lawlessness.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/09/09/video-foxs-defense-overruled-bp-to-blame-for-gu/200700
BP should be deported for its lawlessness.
It's funny...
David complains when large corporations take their jobs oversees...
You want to hurry them along and FORCE them to take their jobs overseas...
Herding cats, indeed... :D
Michale
I might just be willing to vote for her based on that name alone.
She's got it way too easy in the name recognition department. Perhaps that's why Cuomo refused to even say her name.
Or acknowledge her in any sort of way whatsoever at the Labor Day parade.
http://vimeo.com/105433950
The video is worth watching just for the cringeworthiness of Cuomo. From the comments:
"[Cuomo] looks like he was just hit in the head with a pillowcase full of doorknobs. Cuomo is so used to being the bully that he just freezes up when a little girl that isn't scared of his bark starts actually coming at him."
I was lucky enough to get to talk to Zephyr for a few minutes at Netroots this year. She would have made a far better candidate than Cuomo. Kudos to her for running and fighting the good fight!
-David
P.s. CW, who the hell is Robert Anton Wilson? Ok, ok. I know. There's that thing. Google or whatnot.
who the hell is Robert Anton Wilson?
It's been a while since I read anything by him but his most famous work, The Illuminatus! Trilogy which he co-authored is the mix between sci-fi and Illuminati paranoia by someone to makes Phillip K. Dick seem down right normal and main stream in comparison...
Hi Chris:
A DailyKos diarist wrote that Teachout won big primarily among well educated well-off folks -- http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/10/1328535/-NYC-Where-Teachout-won-and-where-she-lost
The diarist basically felt she was unable to or ineffective at reaching out to people that weren't her own personal demographic - white, well-educated liberal.
I think that's a legitimate problem in the Dem party -- there really is a divide between the -- I'll say "white collar" and "blue collar" -- voters in many respects and it's a rare politician that can span the divide. So Teachout had 2 problems: the divide, and lack of money. Overall I think she did well under the circumstances and she may learn and come back stronger next time.
"This fueled the Tea Party's rise to power, but it's an unfair comparison because (again) Progressives are nowhere near as powerful within the Democratic Party as the Tea Partiers are in the Republican Party."
It's also an unfair comparison because Progressives are sane.
"It's also an unfair comparison because Progressives are sane."
I think it's very important to always note that the Tea Party has power because it supports 1% interests. Progressives threaten 1% interests so all sorts of power brokers line up to marginalize them.
Wrassler Jesse Ventura hosted wRong Paul (R) on his show last week. Paul appeared as his wrasslin' alter-ego The Broken Clock.
"Pardon them all, let them go, because they haven’t committed a violent crime. Can you imagine now with the understanding of the pros and cons of marijuana how many people are still in prison over this!”
I wonder if Rant Paul (R) would follows Dad's advice if he were president. We need to know the answer to that question, but I won't hold my breath while I wait for somebody to ask him. There are more important things to ask him about like Benghazi™.
Speaking of Rant Paul (R), Bill Maher said this: "He’s way less of a hawk than Hillary, and that appeals to me a lot because I’m not crazy about how warlike she is.” and "Rand Paul could possibly get my vote”
Now since Bill's season premier is this Friday, I don't know that I really believe him. I think he just wanted a headline (or maybe he has ulterior motives - see my last comment). Rant has joined the Crush and Destroy the Evildoers bandwagon, so I'm not really sure how he qualifies as less warlike. Is he propsing some kind of un-warlike crushing and destroying that I missed?
That's a very good point Paula.
David, that video is pretty icky. Lucky for him that the GOP probably won't be able to use it against him.
John From Censornati -
RAW is a pretty wild ride. I suggest starting with the Illuminatus trilogy.
My reference was to him choosing amusing names for characters (example: "Justin Case").
His perspective is to believe all conspiracy theories simultaneously. Also, a fresh new religion "Discordianism." Like I said, a pretty wild ride!
BashiBazouk -
Nice comparison to PKD. Very apt.
Oh, and might I add: Hail Eris!
:-)
Paula -
Thanks for the link, I will check it out. I personally think the money disparity made the demographic problem worse -- TV ads reach a lot of people, but they're expensive in NY.
Pastafarian Dan -
Heh. Well, I wanted to be nice...
:-)
John From Censornati -
As far as I can tell, Rand Paul has taken pretty much every position possible on Iraq. It's hard to know which (if any) he really believes, at this point.
-CW
Program Note:
Today's column (Wednesday) will be a snap reaction to the president's speech. So it will be posted later than normal, just to warn everyone.
-CW
Oh, and I think I forgot to mention to everyone...
I went back and answered comments for all of last week's columns, so check them out.
:-)
-CW
"As far as I can tell, Rand Paul has taken pretty much every position possible on Iraq. It's hard to know which (if any) he really believes, at this point."
I suspect that he believes the same stuff his father does to a great degree. The old man didn't really care about winning but he does, so he says what he has to. Crushing and destroying are popular with American viewers.
I would like to see him challenge Clinton from the left by promising to pardon non-violent drug offenders. It would have to be a clear promise with no wiggle room, but I would consider voting for him if he did. Somebody has to end The War On Poor People. On the other hand, the GOP would probably nominate Willard if he did.
PF
It's also an unfair comparison because Progressives are sane.
Yea, the crazy ones ALWAYS thinks that they are sane.. :D
Paula,
I think it's very important to always note that the Tea Party has power because it supports 1% interests. Progressives threaten 1% interests so all sorts of power brokers line up to marginalize them.
Progressives CLAIM to be against the 1%... But it's all just lip service..
When the rubber meets the road, Progressives always vote for the 1%'s interests...
Michale
The Illuminatus! Trilogy which he co-authored is the mix between sci-fi and Illuminati paranoia by someone to makes Phillip K. Dick seem down right normal and main stream in comparison.
Any comparison to Philip K. Dick is high praise indeed. I may have to check this out, Bashi.
I think that's a legitimate problem in the Dem party -- there really is a divide between the -- I'll say "white collar" and "blue collar"
Hmm. Interesting, Paula. This could just as easily be name recognition, however. A "white collar" audience is going to have the resources to find a better candidate. To reach "blue collar" audiences requires money because they may not be as engaged. Idunno. Hard to tell.
-David
His perspective is to believe all conspiracy theories simultaneously.
*snort* Now I'm gonna definitely have to check him out :)
Shoot, sorry to post again. I just wanted to also give a quick shout out to the Working Families Party.
Regardless of whether Teachout won or not. Her run and the WFP, however, have significantly shifted the debate.
http://www.thenation.com/article/180314/how-working-families-party-already-changing-electoral-politics
There is much to be cheer and be hopeful about!
Shoot, sorry to post again.
You have learned well, grasshopper :D
Michale