Portside

The Democratic Party finds itself with some serious divides that ought to be settled by the electorate. Some are clear-cut policy differences, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an enormous free-trade agreement with Pacific Rim nations that Warren opposes and Clinton backs. The big-picture debate on financial regulation and income inequality is what's most at peril if the Democratic primaries come and go without top-notch opponents for Clinton.

A profound crisis of identity burdens the Democratic Party. What does the party really believe? Whose interests will the nominee truly fight for? Democrats lost their old soul long ago. The 2016 election could become the decisive moment that either transforms the party with an aggressively liberal economic agenda or clings to the past and the “corporate-friendly” straddle devised a generation ago by Bill Clinton’s New Democrats.

There are two compelling reasons for a challenge in the Democratic primaries: We need a big debate about the direction of the country, and a growing populist movement would benefit from a populist challenge to Hillary. In fact, there are deep divides between the party establishment and the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. All affirm, finally, that this economy works only for the few and not the many. But after that, the differences are immense.

After the pity party's through, let's get organized. There was one exception to the dearth of Democratic leaders who championed populist proposals. Sen. Elizabeth Warren crisscrossed the country attempting to galvanize the electorate in key Senate races. One thing has not changed: "The stock market and gross domestic product keep going up, while families are getting squeezed hard by an economy that isn't working for them." Now is the time for Warren or Bernie Sanders.

Bill Fletcher's post on the recent midterm elections and what progressives need to do, in order to win, sparked a number of reader responses. Fletcher drew on lessons from the elections, and past elections, putting forward a call for progressives to effect politics that can improve the lives of the majority in our country. Below is a long post from Jonathan Nack, a response from Ed Hunt, further comment from David Schwartzman, and a note from Portside Moderator.

Instead of positioning as an advocate for the people, and especially the people who are being squeezed, too many Democrats were running as technocrats and bi-partisan healers. The election was fundamentally about frustration with a recovery that most people haven't enjoyed. The GOP theme was to blame President Obama and tie Democrats to him, arousing their base. Democrats chose not to run nationally against Republican obstruction.

I feel this morning the way I felt the day after Ronald Reagan was elected president. While the Reagan presidency institutionalized a neoliberal economic agenda that has shaped the national and global economy ever since, we also witnessed in the subsequent years massive movements against nuclear weapons, huge mobilizations against wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and on-going struggle. Joe Hill was correct when he urged his comrades "don't mourn, organize."

Reader Comments- 2014 Elections; Jim Crow Returns; Toni Morrison, Angela Davis; U.S. Used 1,000 Nazis; Syrian Labyrinth; Draft Could Be Next; Responses to Joel Klein; Nobel Peace Laureates Call Full Torture Disclosure; Activists Block an Israeli Shipping Ship; Women of Afghanistan; Saudi Arabia and ISIS; Fukushima; Announcements-Miners Shot Down-Film Screening-Nov 10; Elections-Who Won? Who Lost?-Nov 14; Folk music greats honor David Amram-Nov 20; PM Press Book Sale

Why vote for someone hesitantly and semi-apologetically tacking toward the right when you can just vote for someone who goes balls-to-the-wall rightward and is damn proud of it? At least that person gives off the sense of actually enjoying his own beliefs.