The Democratic Party establishment has recently found itself discomforted by Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign to return the party to its modern roots of New Deal social democracy. The establishment’s response has included a complex coupling of elite media and elite economics opinion aimed at promoting an image of Sanders as an unelectable extremist with unrealistic economic policies.
The response provides a case study showing how the party suffocates progressive change. Every progressive knows about the opposition and tactics of the Republican Party. Less understood are the opposition and tactics of the Democratic Party establishment. Speaking metaphorically, that establishment is a far lesser evil, but it may also be a far greater obstacle to progressive change.
The elite media’s response was captured in a snapshot report by Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) showing that The Washington Post ran 16 major negative stories on Sanders in 16 hours, prior to the Michigan primary. The headlines were particularly hostile, and since only 40 percent of the public reads past the headline, that is as important as the substance of the story.
Economic policy has been the fulcrum of Sanders’ campaign, and the response of elite opinion has been exemplified by Paul Krugman of The New York Times.
For years, Krugman has mockingly used the term “very serious people” to attack Republicans opposed to President Obama’s policies. Now, he unironically revokes the credentials of all who do not support Clinton by declaring that “every serious progressive policy expert on either health care or financial reform who has weighed in on the primary seems to lean Hillary.”
Regarding Sanders’ opposition to neoliberal trade agreements, Krugman writes: “In this, as in many other things, Sanders currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he’s never been anywhere close to the levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that Clinton couldn’t and can’t.”
The slamming of Sanders has also been joined by a gang of past Democratic appointee chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers. In an open letter co-addressed to Senator Sanders, Messrs. Kruger, Goolsbee, Romer and Tyson mauled a favorable empirical assessment of Sanders’ economic program conducted by Professor Gerald Friedman. Without any detailed independent assessment, they simply declared the assessment unsupported by the “economic evidence”.
Messrs. Kruger et al. were then joined by Justin Wolfers, via one of his regular New York Times opinion pieces. His accusation was that the beneficial effects of fiscal stimulus would disappear once full employment was reached and the stimulus withdrawn.
Wolfers is co-editor of the prestigious “Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.” Ironically, a recent issue contained a lead article by elite Democratic economists Larry Summers and Brad DeLong invoking a similar mechanism as Professor Friedman. Summers and DeLong argued a large negative temporary demand shock can permanently lower output: Friedman simply reversed that and argued a large positive temporary stimulus can permanently raise output and growth.
There is legitimate room for intellectual difference. What is so stunning is the tone of the critique and the fact it sought to diminish an important policy (fiscal stimulus) just because Sanders was using it to his political advantage.
Given their elite professional standing and easy access to elite media, these attacks quickly ramified throughout the mainstream media, illustrating how the elite-media/elite-opinion nexus works.
The slamming of Sanders reflects an enduring status quo defense mechanism which usually begins with insinuations of extremism, then mixes in charges of lack of qualification and realism, and ends with assertions of unelectability. It is applied in both political and public intellectual life.
The extremism gambit explains the persistent linking of Sanders and Trump. Whereas Trump is an egotistical demagogue and businessman with a disreputable business history, Sanders is a thoughtful social democrat with a long history of public service through high electoral office.
The unelectability charge pivots off the extremism insinuation as follows: Americans will not elect extremists; Sanders is an extremist; ergo, Sanders is unelectable.
As with the extremism insinuation, the unelectability charge lacks foundation. Polls show Sanders beating all the potential Republican nominees, and beating Trump handily.
The third charge is lack of qualification. The reality is Sanders has a 50-year history of political involvement, working his way through the political ranks serving people. He was mayor of Vermont’s largest city; then Vermont’s representative in Congress, where he co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus; and after that became a senator for Vermont. That seems to be exactly the career and CV a president should have.
Lastly, Sanders has been dismissed as selling unrealistic pipe dreams. Social Security would be a pipe dream if we did not already have it; so would Medicare and public education, too. There is a lesson in that. Pipe dreams are the stuff of change.
Rather than an excess of pipe dreams, our current dismal condition is the product of fear of dreaming. The Democratic Party establishment persistently strives to downsize economic and political expectations. Sanders aims to upsize them, which is why he has been viewed as such a threat.
November will be a time for Democratic voters to come together to stop whoever the Republicans nominate. In the meantime, there is a big lesson to be learned.
Today, the status quo defense mechanism has been used to tarnish Bernie Sanders: tomorrow it will, once again, be used to rule out progressive policy personnel and options.
Progressives must surface the obstruction posed by the Democratic Party establishment. Primaries are prime time to do that, which means there is good reason for Sanders’ campaign to continue.