The Anti-Populists

 

Take_your_choice

Thomas Frank‘s recent piece at Harper’s, an excerpt from his forthcoming book, argues that we do not understand the meaning of populism in the age of Trump. The president is not a populist–at least in the historic sense of the word. As has been the case with much of Frank’s work, he wants to reclaim the 1890’s understanding of populism as a movement of economic reform.

I am reminded here of my recent conversation with Eric Miller in Episode 65 of The Way of Improvement Leads Home Podcast.

Here is a taste of Frank’s piece.

…The English language provides a great many solid choices for someone wishing to describe a leader who plays on mob psychology or racial intolerance. “Demagogue” is an obvious one, but there are others—“nationalist,” “nativist,” “racist,” or “fascist,” to name a few. They are serviceable words, all of them. In the feverish climate of the Democracy Scare, however, none of those will work: “populist” is the word we are instructed to use. “Populists” are the ones we must suppress.

Let’s find out why.

Drive the highway between Kansas City and Topeka and you will pass through a landscape of peaceful, rolling hills (and occasional scenes of violent tornado damage). In the fertile valley of the Kansas River, the farms are raising corn and soybeans; through the fields run the tracks of the old Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway.

It was somewhere in this bucolic setting that the controversial word “populist” was invented. There are no historical markers to indicate exactly where the blessed event took place, but nevertheless it happened—in this stretch of green countryside, on a train traveling from K.C. to Topeka—one day in May 1891.

Could they have peeked into the future, that group of Topeka-bound passengers would have been astonished by the international reach and malign interpretations of their deed. That they were inventing a noun signifying “mob-minded hater of all things decent” would have come as a complete surprise to them. By coining the word “populist,” they intended to christen a movement that was brave and noble and fair—that would stand up to the narrow-minded and the intolerant.

And this:

From the very beginning, then, “populism” had two meanings. There was Populism as its proponents understood it: a movement in which ordinary working people demanded democratic economic reforms. And there was Populism as its enemies characterized it: a dangerous movement of groundless resentment in which demagogues led the disreputable.

The specific reforms for which the People’s Party campaigned are largely forgotten today, but the insults and accusations with which Populism was received in 1891 are alive and well. You can read them in best-selling books, watch them flashed on PowerPoints at prestigious foundation conferences, hear the long-ago denunciations of the Kansas City Star and the Topeka Daily Capital echoed by people who have never heard of Topeka: Populist movements, they will tell you, are mob actions; reformers are bigots; their leaders are blatherskites; their followers are mentally ill, or ignorant, or uncouth at the very least. They are cranks; they are troublemakers; they are deplorables. And, yes, they still have hayseed in their hair.

The name I give to this disdainful reaction is “anti-populism,” and when you investigate its history, you find its adherents using the same rhetoric over and over again. Whether defending the gold standard in 1896 or NAFTA in 2016, anti-populism mobilizes the same sentiments and draws on the same stereotypes; it sometimes even speaks to us from the same prestigious institutions. Its most toxic ingredient—a highbrow contempt for ordinary Americans—is as virulent today as it was in the Victorian era.

Read the entire piece here.

It’s Time for Bernie to Drop Out

bernie-sanders-portrait-01

Bernie Sanders made a nice run. He has secured his place in American history for the way he has pushed the Democratic Party to the left. I fully expect many of his policy ideas will one day become a reality, not unlike how the views of the late 19th-century populist movement found their way into the political mainstream or how the conservative ideals of Barry Goldwater influenced the Republican Party. (See Michael Kazin on these historical developments).

Last night Joe Biden scored overwhelming victories in Florida, Illinois, and Arizona. He has an almost insurmountable delegate lead.  There are now three main reasons why Sanders must drop out.

  1. He has very little chance of winning in the nomination.
  2. If the primary race ends here, the Democratic Party can unify early and thus more effectively prepare for November.
  3. States can cancel or postpone primaries and thus follow the advice we are getting from the health care community about social distancing.

Assessing Last Night’s Democratic Debate

Biden Sanders

Over at The New York Times, an impressive group of commentators and intellectuals evaluate last night debate—perhaps the last–between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. The group includes Gail Collins, Nicole Hemmer, Michelle Goldberg, Wajahat Ali, Peter Wehner, Jamelle Bouie, and Elizabeth Bouie.

Here is Hemmer on Biden’s performance:

The smartest move Biden made in the debate — other than committing to a female running mate — was tying revolution to disruption. At a moment when the world’s been turned upside down, he offered to flip it right side up, not shake it up more. His reassurances send a powerful general-election message — and why he won the debate.

Here is Elizabeth Bruenig on Sanders’s performance:

That’s odd about Sanders is that he’s simultaneously the ideas candidate — unlike Biden, he has a philosophical brief against the excesses of American individualism — and the practical, materially focused candidate, worrying over how low-wage workers will survive this crisis financially. That breadth of interests came through strongly in this debate, and the no-audience format suited him well.

Read the entire piece here.

Ron Brownstein on the Democratic Primary: “It’s Over”

Bernie

Here is the veteran political writer at The Atlantic:

After two insurgent campaigns that rattled American politics, Bernie Sanders’s dream of becoming the Democratic presidential nominee is effectively over.

Tapping an enormous wave of grassroots energy in both bids for the White House, Sanders galvanized young people, transformed online fundraising, and changed the terms of debate in the Democratic Party on issues ranging from health care to college affordability. But as his defeats last night made clear yet again, his unflinching call for a “political revolution” could not build a coalition broad enough to capture the ultimate prize.

For now, Sanders is staying in the race. “While our campaign has won the ideological debate, we are losing the debate over electability,” he said today in a short speech from Burlington, Vermont. He still plans to attend an upcoming debate with former Vice President Joe Biden, who remains well short of the 1,991 delegates needed for a nomination on the first ballot at the Democratic National Convention in July. But Biden’s resounding victories last night, and his widening delegate lead, have prompted even some of Sanders’s ideological allies to question whether the senator from Vermont should continue his campaign.

Read the rest here.  Bernie will not be president.  But American political historians will study his 2016 and 2020 campaigns for a long time.

Thinking Historically About Bernie’s Socialism

bernie-sanders-portrait-01

Stanford historian Richard White argues that Sanders best represents the Gilded Age socialists of the late 19th-century.  Here is a taste of his piece at The New York Times:

The socialists Mr. Sanders most resembles were Gilded Age intellectuals, reformers, union members and ordinary citizens who self-labeled as socialist. There were immigrants among them, but the leading voices were, like Mr. Sanders, native-born and middle-class advocates of reform within the Democratic and Republican parties, whose bosses they often criticized.

Mr. Sanders sounds like these Gilded Age socialists in part because the issues of their time were similar to ours — immigration, environmental deterioration, declining well-being and growing inequality in a period of rapid technological and economic change. Mr. Sanders — whose socialism, built on fairness, is remarkably nonideological — shares the conviction of these old socialists that values, not economic laws, determine the contours of American society. The Gilded Age socialists admitted what their opponents often did not: Americans did not all share common values.

Like most modern pundits, 19th-century liberals — the equivalent of modern libertarians — believed that Americans always have been and always will be individualists. They imagined society to be a collection of autonomous subjects whose competition achieved the best possible outcomes. To deny this truth, they felt, was to deny reality.

Those who called themselves socialists echoed Dr. Leete in Edward Bellamy’s best-selling 1888 novel “Looking Backward,” a book that imagined a socialist utopia. Dr. Leete defined the core problem in American society as “excessive individualism.” The socialists stressed collectivities — the home, the community, the church and the nation. They spoke to another equally American tradition that had flowered in the Gilded Age: The Knights of Labor, who envisioned worker-owned cooperatives replacing wage labor and sought to amend “the work of the Founders” to “engraft republican principles on property and industry.” Their influence pervades “Looking Backward,” which is less a novel than a compendium of desired reforms. Not surprisingly, some of Mr. Sanders’s supporters have rediscovered the novel.

The more his opponents caricature Mr. Sanders as a Sandinista or a Bolshevik, the more Mr. Sanders’s actual similarity to 19th-century socialists makes him seem unthreatening, even avuncular. He is infinitely closer to William Dean Howells, the 19th-to 20th-century novelist who for a while proclaimed himself a socialist, than to Joseph Stalin.

Read the entire piece here.

Michael Walzer: “Sanders is alone with his excited followers”

Bernie Sanders

Michael Walzer is a public intellectual, co-editor of Dissent, and a life-long democratic socialist. Over at Tablet, he offers his take on Bernie Sanders:

What should lifelong democratic socialists and social democrats, like me, think about Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist? He isn’t like the socialists whom we know from other countries, where this kind of politics is much more common than it is in the United States. Socialist politicians usually emerge from powerful social movements like the old labor movement or from political parties like the Labour Party in the United Kingdom or the Social Democrats in Germany. Sanders does not come out of, nor has he done anything to build, a significant social movement. That wouldn’t be an easy task in the United States today; in any case, it hasn’t been his task. He has, moreover, never been a member of a political party—not even of the Democratic Party whose nomination he is now seeking. He has never attempted to create a democratic socialist caucus within the party. For all the enthusiasm he has generated, he has no organized, cohesive social or political force behind his candidacy. If he were elected, it is hard to see how he could enact any part of his announced program.

Several conservative writers have said it: Sanders is best understood as a left populist. He stands to the Democratic Party today very much like Trump stood to the Republican Party in 2016. I understand that Sanders stands for policies radically different from Trump’s. He speaks to the needs of millions of vulnerable Americans and to the anxieties of young people entering an unwelcoming economy—and, like populists everywhere, he promises to solve all their problems. But he stands in the political arena without the political support necessary to do that or even to begin to do that. He claims to be leading a movement. Look closely: He is alone with his excited followers.

Read the rest here.

What Bernie Sanders Might Learn from Jesse Jackson

Sanders and jackson

Here is Georgetown University historian Michael Kazin at The Washington Post:

It was the 1988 election and the insurgent candidacy of Jesse Jackson that provides insights into the current fight and why Sanders’s campaign has captured such passionate support, particularly among young people who want to transform the political and economic system.

Unlike the more liberal contender in other primary fights — figures such as Ted Kennedy in 1980, Mondale in 1984 or Bill Bradley in 2000 — who mostly wanted to extend the liberal reforms of the Great Society, Jackson, the minister and civil rights leader, dreamed of something much bigger. He proposed a sweeping egalitarian overhaul of American society. He set forth, in stirring cadences, a program that included single-payer health care, free community college, equal pay for women, LGBTQ rights, some form of reparations for black people — and a vast plan to build affordable housing and mass transportation that resembles Sanders’s program now.

Like the Vermont insurgent, Jackson proposed reversing tax cuts for the richest Americans that the incumbent Republican president had signed into law and advocated sizable cuts in the defense budget, moving away from a foreign policy dependent on force to one that advanced disarmament.

Both candidates share another similarity: They transformed themselves from protest candidates into serious contenders for the nomination by building a multiracial coalition of the working class and the young. Jackson’s “rainbow coalition” posed the most direct and far-reaching alternative to the party “establishment” before Sanders battled Hillary Clinton nearly three decades later. And unlike their moderate rivals, each man inspired a mass of ardent followers who dedicated themselves to the cause.

Jackson exceeded expectations in 1988 and won over 1,200 delegates. At the convention, he delivered a bravura oration that easily overshadowed the technocratic Michael Dukakis’s rather tedious acceptance speech. When it seemed he might actually win enough delegates to take the nomination, most white Democrats — officeholders and ordinary voters alike — got cold feet. One of Jackson’s closest advisers reflected, “As long as people could vote for him as sending a message to Democrats [that] we support this kind of economic populism and moral voice, they were anxious to vote for him. But as soon as he got close to actually winning the nomination … people just said: ‘Whoa, We’re never going to do this.”

Read the entire piece here.

Does Bernie Sanders Still Want to Challenge the Rules of the Democratic Convention?

Bernie

Joe Biden had a big night on Super Tuesday.  He now has the delegate lead. It is likely that he will still have the delegate lead when the 2020 Democratic National Convention begins on July 13th in Milwaukee.

Here are the convention rules regarding the selection of a presidential nominee:

A candidate will need 1,991 of the 3,979 pledged delegates to win the Democratic nomination on the first ballot. Per the Democratic National Committee, a candidate needs a majority of those eligible to vote on the ballot. Most importantly for the calculation, the candidate needs “a whole unit of delegate above half.”

Half of 3,979 is 1,989.5. As there are no delegates in this round with a half vote, a whole unit of delegate is one. Therefore, the requirement is 1,990.5 (1,989.5 + 1) delegates, which is rounded to 1,991.

If no candidate wins on the first ballot, all delegates become unpledged. There are 4,750 delegate votes on the second – and any subsequent – ballot. This total is comprised of the 3,979 formerly-pledged delegates from the first ballot as well as 767 automatic delegates [or so-called “super delegates”] with a full vote and 8 automatic delegates with a half vote.  This means there are 775 automatic delegates with a total of 771 votes, with 4,750 equal to 3,979 + 771.

Since there are delegates with a half vote, a half vote is considered a whole unit of delegate for any ballot after the first round.  Half of 4,750 is 2,375. Therefore, the requirement is 2,375.5 delegates to win the nomination when all delegates are voting.

Note that since automatic delegates are specific people or positions, the number can vary slightly – up or down – over time. For example, all Democratic members of the U.S. House are automatic delegates. If there was to be a new vacancy that remained unfilled at the time of the convention, there would be one less delegate in this category.

Before Super Tuesday, Bernie Sanders said that these rules were unfair. He is opposed to super delegates because they are not chosen by the people. Sanders probably also opposed these rules because he thought he might be leading on July 13, 2020, but would not have the 1,1991 needed to nominate.  Watch this:

Now that Biden has the delegate lead I wonder if Sanders still believes this. It may not matter since most super delegates support Biden.

Is Bernie Sanders Really a Socialist?

Bernie

Over at The New Yorker, Isaac Chotiner interviews Georgetown University historian and Dissent editor Michael Kazin. Here is a taste:

Bernie Sanders likes to say that his proposals aren’t very radical if you take a long view of American history. Do you agree with that?

I agree and disagree. On the one hand, he’s channelling F.D.R. rather than Eugene Debs. He’s saying he’s going to complete the New Deal, and he talks about the Four Freedoms, which F.D.R. talked about in his State of the Union Address in 1941. So, in a sense, he’s going along with the social democratic tinge of the New Deal and arguing Roosevelt would be supporting Medicare for All, free college, the Green New Deal, that F.D.R. would be wanting to strengthen labor unions and tax the rich, and that he—Sanders—is not out of the mainstream of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

On the other hand, he calls himself a socialist, which F.D.R. never did, because he wasn’t. The fact is also that Sanders is running in some ways against the so-called Democratic establishment and has never really become a Democrat, and he wants to transform the economy as utterly as he can. That would make him the most left-wing candidate for President that any major party has ever nominated. He’s sort of straddling a more legitimized politics—with more mainstream rhetoric within the mainstream Democratic Party—with ambitions which will clearly go beyond what any Democratic nominee has ever stood for. He seems very shrewd about that, because on the one hand, clearly, a lot of his policies are popular. On the other hand, as we know from polls, most Americans don’t like the idea of socialism.

Read the rest here.

Listen to our own interview with Kazin in Episode 41 of The Way of Improvement Leads Home Podcast.

Biden Wins South Carolina. What Does it Mean?

Biden 2

The networks are telling us that Joe Biden has won South Carolina. There is also a chance Biden will be the overall delegate front-runner in the Democratic race for the nomination after the votes are counted.

We now move to Super Tuesday when Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia will hold primaries.  Biden is now the candidate of African Americans. But I also think he will be the candidate of older white working-class voters.  This coalition, with the help of the mainstream Democrats who are scared to death of a Bernie Sanders nomination (including the super delegates at the conventions, if they are needed), will lift the former Vice-President to the nomination.

So what should we expect in these states:

Alabama:  I have not seen a recent poll for this primary.  I imagine that Biden’s success among African Americans in South Carolina will help him win Alabama.

Arkansas:  This will be a close race between Bloomberg, Biden, and Sanders. I think Biden’s success in South Carolina will help him win Arkansas.  These three candidates will split the delegates.

California: Sanders in a landslide. I will be looking to see if Biden’s finishes second over Elizabeth Warren.

Colorado: Sanders in a landslide.

Maine:  Sanders will win.  After South Carolina, it now looks like second-place will be a toss-up between Buttigieg, Warren, Bloomberg, and Biden.

Massachusetts:  Sanders should win. Warren will finish second.

Minnesota: Amy Klobuchar will do well here since she is a Minnesota Senator, but I am going with Sanders.

North Carolina: This is going to be a close race between Sanders and Biden, but I think Biden will ride his win in South Carolina to victory.  It will not be a big delegate sweep for either candidate.

Oklahoma:  I am going to predict a Biden victory over Bloomberg.  Bloomberg will pick-up some delegates here.

Tennessee: Biden in a landslide.

Texas:  I think this is going to be a toss-up between Biden and Sanders.  Bloomberg is also running strong in Texas.  The winner will not have a big delegate sweep.

Utah: Sanders in a landslide.

Vermont: Sanders in a landslide.

Virginia: Sanders is leading in the polls, but I think Biden’s win in South Carolina, coupled with endorsements from Tim Kaine and Terry McAuliffe, will lift Biden to victory.  Again, whoever wins will not have a huge delegate victory.

Final thoughts:

  • Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer, and Warren do not have a path to victory.  They need to drop out, but I doubt they will.  (We will see what Steyer does tonight).
  • Sanders seems to have the progressive lane all to himself, but it is worth noting that Biden is polling very well in some of these Super Tuesday states despite the fact that moderate Democratic vote is still divided between Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar. Biden can only go up after tonight’s win in South Carolina.
  • After Super Tuesday it will be a two candidate race.
  • Finally, Biden’s victory tonight will help him in primaries and general elections in places like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.  More people will start looking at him as the overwhelming front-runner in the moderate lane.  I still believe Biden has the best chance of beating Trump in Pennsylvania.

Carlos Eire: “Castro’s literacy campaign and authoritarianism go hand in hand”

Bernie Sanders has taken some heat for praising the late Cuban dictator Fidel Castro’s literacy program.

Watch:

Carlos Eire, author of one of the best books I have read in the last decade, Waiting for Snow in Havana, is a Yale historian and native of Castro’s Cuba. He brings some historical context to Sanders’s praise of Castro’s literacy program in a recent piece at The Washington Post.  Here is a taste:

Unfazed by the howls of indignation — honest or feigned — over his recent praise of communist Cuba, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has reaffirmed his admiration for the Castro regime’s social policies over the past few days. He has done so while simultaneously insisting that he’s “very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba.”

But can the achievements of any monstrous regime ever be praised? Is it really possible to separate the cruelty of any dictatorship from any of its policies? In the case of communist Cuba, a further question arises: Is it possible to believe any of the claims it makes for its own achievements, given that it generates its own statistics and promotes its own version of history?

One has to wonder how accurate the Sanders version of Fidel Castro’s literacy campaign really is — whether it truly was an unalloyed success, good and noble enough to justify the firing squads, torture chambers, gulags and other disagreeable inconveniences that were inseparable from it. And anyone who would care to do some fact-checking, as did The Post’s Glenn Kessler a few years ago, will quickly discover that the Sanders version of Cuban history is far from accurate.

First, consider the issue of literacy in Cuba before Castro came along. Was pre-Castro Cuba a nation of illiterates, and Castro’s literacy campaign as great an accomplishment as Sanders avers? Not at all. A Cuban census from 1953 found that 77.9 percent of the island’s total population was already literate, and that in urban areas the literacy rate was 88.9 percent: among the highest in Latin America and higher than in some benighted rural counties in the United States. Seven years later, in 1960, according to data compiled at Oxford University, the literacy rate for the entire island was 79 percent.

So the scope of Castro’s 1961 literacy campaign, much admired by Sanders, is more myth than reality. Moreover, the image of pre-Castro Cuba as a primitive society rescued from poverty and illiteracy by a so-called revolution is a deceitful caricature, one brilliantly conceived by the Castro regime to make its brutality seem less offensive — merely “authoritarian” rather than monstrous.

Read the entire piece here.

Christian Dominionism at CPAC

Charlie Kirk is the twenty-six-year-old founder of a Turning Point USA, a pro-Trump non-profit organization active on college campuses.  He is also the co-founder of Liberty University’s Falkirk Center.  (You can read our posts on the Falkirk Center here).

Here is Kirk at the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC):

Comments:

  • Kirk tells people to stop giving money to their universities because they are Marxist. The only universities that deserve our money are Liberty University and Hillsdale College.  Such a suggestion is immoral.  I have a friend who is getting cancer treatment right now at Johns Hopkins University Medical Center.  They need all the money they can get to help continue their research.  I am sure we can think of hundreds of other ways that research universities are at working solving the problems of our world today.
  • Kirk says that colleges are producing Marxists activists who will one day destroy America. Has he really been on university campuses?  Where are these activists?  Most college students in the United States are sharing photos on Instagram, watching Netflix, working two part-time jobs, and trying to keep up with their studies.
  • Kirk says that we should fear communists on school boards.  Really?  He should come visit central Pennsylvania.  Please contact me if you know of any communists elected to local school boards.
  • It is clear from Kirk’s speech that the Right sees Bernie Sanders as a real threat.  When the Christian Right starts fear-mongering it is a clear sign they are worried.  Bernie Sanders is not a communist or a Marxist.  He is not even a real socialist. When I interviewed a real socialist on my podcast a few weeks ago he told me that no true Marxist would support Sanders because he is not far enough to the left.
  • Kirk has a meltdown when the crowd boos Mitt Romney.  He encourages the boos and then goes-off on a rant about how Romney lied to the people of Utah by claiming to be a conservative during his Senate race.  In Kirk’s estimation, no one can be a true conservative and cast a vote to remove Donald Trump from office.  But think about this.  Romney’s vote to remove Trump was an example of faith-informed politics. It was made possible by the fact that the Utah Senator has the religious liberty to follow his conscience.  Last time I checked, pro-Trumpers are fighting for a faith-informed politics and religious liberty.  This is further proof that they only care about a faith-informed politics and religious liberty that benefits Trump.
  • Kirk says Obama, the president who ran in 2008 and 2012 to the right of all the Democratic candidates in this year’s race, is a Marxist.  This is not true.  It is more fear-mongering.
  • Finally, Kirk brings up the “7 Mountains of Cultural Influence” and claims that Trump understands them.  First, I am guessing that Trump has never heard of the “7 Mountains of Cultural Influence.”  Second, “7 Mountains” is a phrase used by Christian Dominionists who want to make America a Christian nation by taking control of family life, religious life, education, the media, the entertainment industry, business, and government.  For many Dominionists, the Second Coming of Christ will return when Christians gain power over these areas.  We spent a lot of time writing about this kind of Dominionism during the 2016 election and even won a journalism award for a piece on the subject at Christianity Today.   Read our posts here. Right Wing Watch has a good story on this here.

When Bernie Sanders Tried to “Primary” Barack Obama

Sanders and Obama

Here is a taste of Edward-Isaac Dovere’s piece at The Atlantic, The Hidden History of Sanders’s Plot to Primary Obama“:

Bernie Sanders got so close to running a primary challenge to President Barack Obama that Senator Harry Reid had to intervene to stop him.

It took Reid two conversations over the summer of 2011 to get Sanders to scrap the idea, according to multiple people who remember the incident, which has not been previously reported.

That summer, Sanders privately discussed a potential primary challenge to Obama with several people, including Patrick Leahy, his fellow Vermont senator. Leahy, alarmed, warned Jim Messina, Obama’s presidential reelection-campaign manager. Obama’s campaign team was “absolutely panicked” by Leahy’s report, Messina told me, since “every president who has gotten a real primary has lost a general [election].”

David Plouffe, another Obama strategist, confirmed Messina’s account, as did another person familiar with what happened. (A spokesman for Leahy did not comment when asked several times about his role in the incident.)

Messina called Reid, then the Senate majority leader, who had built a strong relationship with Sanders but was also fiercely defensive of Obama. What could you be thinking? Reid asked Sanders, according to multiple people who remember the conversations. You need to stop.

Read the rest here.

*Washington Post*: All the 2020 Democratic Candidates Are Running to the Left of Obama

Sanders and Obama

This is true.  As we noted earlier today, Bernie Sanders has pushed the party in a leftward direction.

A taste of the Post‘s recent editorial:

But the fact that Mr. Sanders’s and Ms. Warren’s positioning puts them decidedly to the left of others in the race does not make their competitors “centrist.” All, in fact, have put forward ambitious, progressive platforms for reducing inequality and promoting access to health and education.

Former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg wants to make college free for pretty much everyone — just not for the wealthiest families. He does not favor Medicare-for-all — but he does propose a generous public health-care option that, he predicts, would eventually drive private insurance companies out of business. He just would not force people to move off private plans, as Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren would.

Former vice president Joe Biden may not favor the precise Green New Deal that some activists desire, but he wants to spend a whopping $1.7 trillion to enable the country to eliminate net carbon emissions by 2050, a massive undertaking. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) was the first candidate to roll out a hefty infrastructure plan, proposing $650 billion in federal spending, and she favors legalizing marijuana. Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg would add a 5 percent surtax to income over $5 million per year, raise the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent and tax investment income of high earners at the same rate as ordinary income.

Then there are the policy moves that practically all Democrats agree on: giving legal safe harbor to the young immigrants known as “dreamers”; reviving and expanding President Barack Obama’s climate regulations; reengaging with Iran; raising the minimum wage; keeping abortion legal; cracking down on guns.

In fact, every major Democratic candidate is running on an agenda to the left of Mr. Obama’s.

Read the entire piece here.

How Bernie Sanders Has Transformed the Democratic Party

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders holds a campaign rally in San Diego

William Jennings Bryan, George McGovern, Jesse Jackson, and Barry Goldwater all failed in their bids for the presidency.  But their ideas lived on and profoundly shaped the future of their parties.  According to historian Michael Kazin, Bernie Sanders is doing the same thing.

Here is a taste of his New York Times piece “Bernie Sanders Has Already Won“:

Since he began running for president five years ago, Senator Sanders and his supporters have nudged Democrats to take stands to the left of where the center of the party was when Barack Obama moved out of the White House. Every remaining candidate for president now endorses either Medicare for All or a robust public option, doubling the minimum wage, much higher taxes on the rich, legislation to facilitate union organizing and a transition to an economy based on sources of renewable energy. Even if the delegates in Milwaukee this summer choose a different nominee, they will surely endorse such policies and make them central to the drive to make Donald Trump a one-term president.

So whatever his electoral fate, the socialist from Vermont who is pushing 80 is likely to be remembered as a more transformative figure than many politicians who won an election but whom most Americans were quite glad to put behind them. Mr. Sanders wants to be the next Franklin Roosevelt — but if he can’t, better to be the next William Jennings Bryan or Jesse Jackson than the next William Howard Taft.

Read the entire piece here.