I wrote this comment and realized it’s likely gonna get lost amidst a sea of comments related to the Democratic Party nominee.
Many of us have noted that Bernie says, “WE” most of the time, and that Clinton says “I” most of the time. I have a couple of thoughts on that:
The distinction is really important!
Clinton charges money for her rallies and fund raising events. And that’s fine, she gets to do that. It’s an ordinary and expected thing to do in politics today.
When she does this, she is selling the Clinton brand. It’s a straight up power broker type deal. And that’s fine too. She gets to do that, and arguably, having done it, she’s in a position to get dirty along with the rest of them, and hopefully, we are better off for her doing that. And I submit, relative to what our competition in the GOP would bring us, we will end up better off in an incremental, pragmatic way. All of this is a perfectly valid proposition for any voter to consider.
Let’s call that new school politics.
Bernie is from and about older school politics. It has worked before, and he’s suggesting it can work again, but with a catch!
In times before large money in politics and media / establishment consolidation / corruption, votes mattered. People very clearly trumped money, and there was the common interest of the public good. Newsrooms were not profit centers, research was often public funded, and politicians were expected to work to the public good. There was a political process, need to inform, educate the populace, and a meaningful debate. In this older time, both parties had a much stronger incentive to stay rooted to the public good, and the debate and policy outcomes largely reflected that incentive.
Reagan changed all of that, kicking off new school politics proper.
We all know what that is today, with Citizens United being the pinnacle of what new school means. Money is politics now, and SCOTUS has called it speech and corporations people. While this idea is deeply offensive to many of us, and the public at large, it remains the law of the land. As law, it has impacted our politics in a negative way, most of that obvious to everyone here.
To me, part of the attraction Bernie has is people powered money along with a populist message, and how that is a mix of old school politics and necessary new school politics! He has shown us that when the alignment on all of that is good enough, people speak with money, which buys them the opportunity to speak with their vote. Prior to this campaign, the suggestion that a people funded campaign could be in any way competitive was a suggestion not taken very seriously. Arguably, and rightfully so, as many have also observed the necessary alignments and numbers of people impacted have only recently peaked into voters willing and able to vote.
Bernie is working with a blend of new and old.
Most interestingly, one has to secure some power within the current system in order to reform it.
That’s what Bernie is doing and that’s why he says “we” so much. It has to be “we”, as no one “I” type person has enough power or money to actually do any material good! This is due to the money in politics problem being so intertwined with every other problem!
Secondly, “we” are going to return to something closer to old school politics at some point, ideally tearing down, or diluting new school money in politics, and how and when that happens depends on our money, political will, and how many of our peers buy into both ideas.
And I mean “buy” literally, as in voting with money as well as a traditional vote!
The use of “we” isn’t just a figure of speech, or habit, or deflecting type of framing, though it can easily be those things. In this case, the use of “WE” in campaign rhetoric speaks to a deliberate vision aimed at meaningful reform. I submit, a type and scale of reform not addressed by “I” type rhetoric and vision.
This is a primary, and fundamental contrast the voters need to consider as they prepare to cast their vote in the remaining primary elections. For those of us who have voted, it’s on us to help do the work to insure remaining voters understand these distinctions and what they suggest as possible futures, if we are to get the most benefit from those votes cast.
Now, before anyone goes off, know I do not mean any of the above as a negative. My purpose for posting this up really was to make an observation about old politics, new politics, and provide some basis for this growing awareness of a movement happening with an intent for more meaningful, material reform.
I think it’s important to understand people powered money, this movement and contrast that with the usual big money, augmented by people money, and what that can mean in terms of the party and policy futures overall.
Discuss, if you will. Or not. I really just wanted to make sure this observation got out there as food for thought.