Inkrementalni realizem Hillary Clinton ali sanjaška revolucija Bernieja Sandersa?

Kaj vam je ljubše (vprašanje seveda velja za liberalce, konzervativci imajo bistveno večje težave glede možnosti pametne izbire): Inkrementalni realizem Hillary Clinton ali sanjaška revolucija Bernieja Sandersa? Sanders zna biti simpatičen s svojim anti-establishment pristopom, toda lekcija Obaminih dveh mandatov – v nebo lansiranih sanj, ki so se razbile na čereh republikanske večine v Congresu in bolj ali manj grdih kompromisov – je jasna: naivno sanjaštvo ima appeal, nima pa prihodnosti. Na drugi strani je Clintonova, ki kot del establishmenta in bogato spoznorirane kampanje s strani Wall Streeta, ne ponuja vizije, pač pa inkrementalni pragmatizem na omejenem številu področij.

Kdo bo zmagal demokratsko nominacijo? Jasno, tisti, ki ima za seboj več denarja (beri: Wall Street). Kdo bi lahko naredil več za prenovo ameriške družbe in socialne države? Najbrž inkrementalni pragmatik, kljub pomanjkljivi viziji in paktiranju s top 1%.

Revolucionarna vizija Bernieja Sandersa:

This is the vision Sanders is selling in Iowa. It’s a vision that is hopeful both in its diagnosis of the problems in American politics and in its prescription. It’s a vision that says liberals were right all along, and the American people have always been with them, and it’s the corrosive influence of corporate donors that has snapped that bond and confused the country.

It’s a vision that is intuitively plausible to many liberals because it resonates with their own experience. They remember being excited by the promise of Obama’s agenda and then disappointed by the compromises he made, the fights he backed away from, the deals he cut with industry. They remember being organized in 2008 and demoralized in 2010. They remember feeling like they could accomplish anything, only to be told they needed to stop hoping for so much.

And it’s a vision that underscores the very real ways in which Clinton and even Obama’s political pragmatism blurs into political cynicism. The limits of the presidency and public opinion are very real, but the massive speaking fees Clinton accepted from multinational corporations, the huge amounts of money Obama raised from Wall Street, the fundraisers they both attend for their personal Super PACs, and the ex-financiers both of them relied on as advisers all help explain, to Sanders and his supporters, why Clinton and Obama’s agendas were so compromised, and why their dimmer view of the possibilities of American politics may be more than a little self-interested.

Inkrementalni pragmatizem Hillary Clinton:

The problem for Clinton is that the immediate future looks grim for the progressive agenda, and she knows it. Republicans are likely to hold both the House and the Senate. They have a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court and, at least for the moment, huge majorities in governorships and state legislatures. Americans are, if anything, growing more divided. Money is an ever more powerful force in American politics. The fact that voters don’t want a fight doesn’t mean they’re not going to have one.

Clinton doesn’t have an easy answer for any of this, and, perhaps to her credit, she’s refused to pretend otherwise. Democrats were bitterly disappointed by the compromises Obama made when he had huge Democratic majorities. The compromises the next Democratic president will have to make, given the likely Republican dominance of Congress, are going to be even more brutal for liberals — and if they’re not, it will likely be because nothing of importance gets done in the first place.

The argument for Clinton is that she’s best suited to handle this war of partisan attrition — she knows how to work the bureaucracy, defend against a hostile Congress, and find incremental gains where they exist. This is a realistic vision of a Democratic presidency after Obama. It’s a vision, as best I can tell, that’s shared by Obama. But it’s not a vision liberals want to believe in. It’s not a vision that Hillary Clinton has figured out how to sell. Perhaps it’s not a vision that can be sold.

Vir: Ezra Klein, Vox

Inkrementalni pragmatizem = vizije izpraznjena politika, ki sicer deluje:

Hillary Clinton, it’s worth saying, has the opposite problem. Her experience in two administrations—and her overall approach to politics—suggests an eye toward the incremental. A President Clinton would have modest goals, pursued with focus. But, as we’ve seen with the Obama administration and its challenges, from health care to Wall Street, there are limits to liberal incrementalism. For as much as it shrinks the chance of failure, it also robs liberals of the ambition that they crave. It accommodates the institutional barriers to progressive change, instead of overcoming them. Pragmatism can work, but it’s often bleak and uninspiring.

Vir: Jamelle Bouie, Slate

%d bloggers like this: