The mouthpiece of the Democratic Party establishment, the Washington Post, is back to slandering "Bernie Bros".
But here come the Bernie Bros and sisters to the Republicans’ rescue: They’re sowing division in the Democratic Party and attempting to enact a purge of the ideologically impure — just the sort of thing that made the Republican Party the ungovernable mess it is today.
That "ungovernable mess" that just happens to have knocked the Democrats into the political wilderness by winning every level of government. Democrats surely don't want to win elections like that, right?
Are you insane?
The Clinton News Network (CNN) repeated this line, with a little less condescension.
But even as Sanders and party leadership increasingly make ties on Capitol Hill, infighting with roots in the ideologically loaded and often deeply personal 2016 primary are threatening to blow up the détente.
This new series of emotional and racially tinged arguments could shatter a fragile peace, forged in opposition to President Donald Trump, and undermine Democratic efforts to claw back control from Republicans in Congress during next year's midterm election season.
It's become painfully obvious that "unity" means nothing more than "STFU Progressives!"
The people preaching "unity" are the ones most married to the status quo (that voters decisively rejected), and were also the ones universally wrong about last year's elections.
It shouldn't surprise people that even Republicans have chimed in with support for the Democratic establishment's position.
one can’t escape news of the Democratic Party’s supposed massive circular firing squad, also known as the “Left’s War of Mutually Assured Destruction.” Senator Bernie Sanders, according to some, is “sabotaging the Democratic Party,” and has started a “foolish family feud.” And it’s not just folks on the left hand-wringing over this internecine warfare—opportunistic conservatives are leaning heavily into this narrative. In The Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove, once known as “Bush’s brain,” warned Democrats that “progressive intolerance” poses a “life threatening” challenge to the party’s future.
Most of that is nonsense.
If you are a Democrat and you are in agreement with Karl Rove, then you should start questioning your life choices.
The New York Times reported on the party fight in an article entitled: “Democratic Split Screen: The Base Wants it All; the Party Wants to Win.” The basic theme was the activist “base” of the party—which the authors mistakenly equated with the Sanders movement—wanted a revolution, while the party pros just wanted to use this moment to win elections.
But, given the track record, clearly the party pros don’t have much of a clue on how to win elections, much less forge a lasting majority coalition. There is no show worth applause.
What's going on is that the establishment Dems have gone back to Hippie Punching, which has worked in the past. However, it's not working this time, and the Dems simply don't have a back-up plan to slandering, shaming, and offending their progressive base.
It's their only play.
That got me thinking: How come you never hear Republicans slandering and disrespecting their own base, like the Democrats?
So I looked into what happened during the Tea Party revolt.
The Tea Party delivered fresh shocks to the Republican establishment in a series of primary elections that highlighted the apparent civil war being waged among US conservatives.
The grassroots movement backed by Sarah Palin pulled off a dramatic coup in Delaware and New York and ran a close second in another bitterly fought election in New Hampshire. The upheaval could damage Republican hopes of taking the US Senate from the Democrats in November's mid-term elections.
Tim Kaine, the Democratic party chairman, in an NBC interview, said the victories were a sign of the battle raging in the Republican party. "That creates opportunities for us," he said.
Ah, yes. All that infighting in the GOP sure did "create opportunities" for Democrats in 2010.
If by "opportunities" you mean "getting your ass kicked".
The Republican civil war translated directly into an electoral tidal wave. So don't tell me that lack of unity will hold the Dems back.
The biggest of the surprises was Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party-backed candidate in Delaware, who beat the Republican establishment candidate, Mike Castle, a party veteran and former governor....
Her win comes on top of a series of Tea Party scalps dating back to Republican Scott Brown's win in January to take the late Ted Kennedy's former Massachusetts seat. Since then, they have won primaries across the country, including Kentucky, Florida, South Carolina, Utah and Alaska, shifting the Republicans to the right.
Did all those primary wins turn into election wins for the GOP? No. But they did do one thing - they made the party respect its base. Which is something the Dems obviously don't do.
Candidates bearing the Tea Party mantle defeated “establishment” politicians in open primaries across the country for House, Senate, and governor, championed by talk radio and blogs like RedState. To survive, sitting Republican officeholders scrambled to prove their Tea Party bona fides.
There's a lesson to be learned here - power respects power.
The Tea Party had an easier road than progressives have.
The Tea Party had Fox News and the Koch brothers underwriting their cause. Progressives have no one on their side (see OWS). So a victory over the corrupt Dem establishment will require a Herculean effort, but it can be done.
Just look at how Jeremy Corbyn had to repeatedly defeat neoliberals in his own party.
On the other hand, a lack of establishment backers should mean that a progressive insurgency won't sell out its cause for cash and a seat at the adult's table, like what happened to the Tea Party.