Among the many identity-based divisions this nomination campaign has revealed in the Democratic Party, perhaps the largest gulf of all is between the class of elite party activists (superdelegates and $4,600 donors), and the emerging class of nouveau riche, grassroots activists within the party (small donors of $200 or less, high-level political media consumers, and political rally attendees). Consider the following statistics that compares how this "aristocratic" and "bourgeois" activist support is breaking:
Superdelegate endorsements (aristocratic)
Clinton: 240 (60%)
Obama: 162.5 (40%)
Caucus support (bourgeois):
Obama: 278 delegates (65%)
Clinton: 151 delegates (35%)
Contributions from maximum donors (as of 12/31, aristocratic):
Clinton: $49.4M
Obama: $33.2M
Contributions from small donors (as of 12/31, bourgeois):
Obama: $31.9M
Clinton: $13.8M
Consider further that Clinton was well ahead of Obama in every insider's poll ever conducted, while Obama was well ahead of Clinton in just about every single blog straw poll and MoveOn.org poll ever conducted. There is a huge gap in the candidate preference of superdelegates, large donors and other party insiders (the Democratic activist aristocrats), and the preference of high-level consumers of progressive media, small donors, and political rally attendees (the Democratic activist bourgeois). Note that I keep calling one group the "aristocracy," and the other group the "bourgeois." Within the world of Democratic politics, neither group is really "the people." Unlike the great majority of voters, these are all highly engaged activists who ravenously consume political media, donate to a wide range of political campaigns, and engage in other forms of political activism on a regular basis.
The class groupings I am positing here are not based upon the personal income of the two groups, but rather upon their level of ownership over the Democratic Party. Each class of activist breaks about 60-70% in favor of one candidate. These two different types of activists are engaged in a direct struggle for control over of the Democratic Party. Their goal is to convince the working classes, aka the great mass of primary voters, to join their cause. Until this week, the two classes basically cancelled each other out. Only now has Obama has the taken the advantage.
More than two years ago, in an article that I believe was forwarded to Hillary Clinton's campaign staff at the time, I predicted that she would have serious problems with the bourgeois activist class:
Within the world of progressive activists, from the viewpoint of the working and middle class progressive activists, Hillary Clinton is seen as hopelessly aligned with the establishment activists, with the insider activists, with the wealthy activists, with the well-connected activists, and with every possible progressive activist "elite" you can possibly imagine. Is it thus in any way surprising that the activist base, which is largely on the outside looking in, generally does not harbor much positive feeling toward her? The progressive activist base considers the progressive activist elite to be the main culprit in progressives losing power around the country. We keep losing, and we blame them. Thus, why should it be a surprise to anyone that we dislike the person who is viewed as their primary representative? We literally hold her, and what she represents within the world of progressive activism, to be responsible for the massive progressive backslide that has taken place over the past twelve years.
This is a struggle between the volunteer envelope stuffers and the managers of the campaigns those volunteers try to help out. It is not really an ideological struggle, as exit polls have confirmed in state after state. It is, instead, a bourgeois uprising in responsive to the perceived failure of Democratic activist elites in their competition with conservative activist elites. The envelope stuffers are tired of volunteering for campaigns that either lose or, when they win, fail to make significant change in Washington, D.C. It is a progressive grassroots rebellion against perceived progressive elite failure. And if you really want to know what the seemingly vacuous "yes we can" or "change you can believe in" lines mean, at its roots it ultimately means an end of progressive failure to enact a progressive agenda. It is about the envelope stuffers growing tired of failure, and wanting to hope that their activism will actually make a difference this time.
Personally, I wish there was more of an ideological component to Obama's activist support. Also, whether or not Obama actually is the change the envelope stuffers hope for is entirely open to debate. However, no matter which side of that debate is more accurate, it does not change the reality of this class war. The Clinton campaign is aware of this class war itself, as evidenced by comments like "my supporters will be working" instead of attending caucuses. Further examples include any of the other attacks the campaign and its surrogates have leveled at the caucus system and Obama's creative class supporters (see here and here). For the Clinton campaign, the bourgeois caucus goers are interloping newcomers, while superdelegates are the "keepers of the faith." This entire argument over caucuses and superdelegates is being carried out in language that is strikingly reminiscent of political struggles in the late 18th century in America, Britain and France. This is a full-blown activist class war within the Democratic Party, and right now the bourgeois are winning.
Even if it lacks a clear ideological component, an Obama nomination strikes me as one of the logical endpoints to the new wave of progressive activism that began in response to Democratic and progressive failures around the Clinton impeachment, the Florida recount, and the Iraq war. The envelope stuffers are tired of losing, and they want a chance to see if they can do better.
|
STATE BLOGS
