JVL: Hillary and the one thing the Left truly believes in

For a better read, view this email in your browser. June 3, 2015 No. 175 By Jonathan V. Last COLD OPEN Our friend Matt Continetti wrote a great column last week about Bernie Sanders' quixotic quest for the Democratic nomination: Picturesque: a large, celebratory crowd listens to inspiring oratory near the shore of Lake Champlain. The speaker is Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, announcing his candidacy for president of the United States. It's a fiery, detailed, leftwing speech-about what you'd expect from this 73-year-old self-described democratic socialist and grandpa. But columnist Byron York noticed something odd. "The racial issues that have dominated the news at various times in the past year were nowhere to be found." Trayvon, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray went unmentioned. The words "Dreamers" and "executive order"-they weren't said. No resounding endorsement of same-sex marriage, no call to the barricades in support of trans rights. "It struck me as a missed opportunity," said MSNBC host Chris Hayes. What we have here is an apparent cleavage in the Democratic party. It isn't about "centrists" versus "progressives." Rather, the rift is between people who think the most important subject in America is redistributive economics, and those who think it's identity politics. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama created this world. After the fall of communism, President Clinton reconciled Democrats to the free market-suddenly it was okay for Democratic politicians to not even pretend to have socialist sympathies. They could pay attention to the bond markets, take donations from Goldman Sachs, and more or less throw in their lot with the Chamber of Commerce. Sure, they'd argue around the edges, but for better or worse, they became a party at peace with the free market. President Obama took this relationship further, putting Democrats in the absurd position of talking about "the 99 percent" while being the party of Wall Street and crony capitalism. (That's why Elizabeth Warren left the Obama administration in frustration.) Instead, he redirected liberalism's energy into identity politics, where what matters isn't ideas, but racial, ethnic, and sexual bean-counting. The worship of identity politics has been simmering on college campuses for years, but when the Obama phenomenon erupted in 2008, it took over the mainstream of the Democratic party. And as things stand today, it's the single non-negotiable tenet of liberalism. Economic inequality? The 1 percent? That stuff is all just window dressing. Identity politics is  everything in the Democratic party. And as things stand right now, that's Obama's chief political legacy. But here's the thing: This shift isn't as foundational as it might look. In fact, it might actually be superficial, because beneath both views is a constant: What the left really cares about is power. The power to pick winners and losers. The power to tell people what to do. Over the last 45 years-whether you were talking about economics or identity-the real questions have been always been, "Who? Whom?" LOOKING BACK "The current crisis of the European single currency was an accident waiting to happen. The adverse consequences of imposing a single currency on a disparate group of countries were initially hidden by the short-run advantages that the weakest countries enjoyed when they adopted the euro in 1999_and by the favorable global economic conditions that prevailed until 2008. But we now see very serious problems affecting both individual eurozone countries and the overall single currency system." _Martin Feldstein, "A Predictable Crisis," from our June 14, 2010, issue. Remember you get full access to THE WEEKLY STANDARD archive when you subscribe.   Slim Pickings The Democrats' bench is laughably weak.   The Libya Files Hillary's - and Sid Blumenthal's - that is.   THE READING LIST Tales from the French Open in a time of war. ** On the history of black holes. ** What happened when a broke gambler tried to rob a casino with a 1,000 lb. bomb. INSTANT CLASSIC "[I]t's hard to imagine polygamy being embraced as a major progressive cause or hailed as the next great civil rights movement. (I'm doubtful that most of Gallup's pro-polygamy 16 percent see it that way now.) And the courts, being political entities, are unlikely to redefine marriage further merely because the logic of past rulings points that way. "With all this said, however, polygamy has already become more mainstream than even a slippery-sloper like myself once expected. The suburban plural marriage on HBO's Big Love seemed like a fantasia when the show first aired, but thanks to the magic of reality television (which has produced three polygamist-themed shows in the last five years) we know not only that such families exist, but that their lives can be turned into bourgeois-seeming sitcom fodder as easily as any other arrangement. "We know, as well, that a bourgeois polygamy can win victories in federal court, as the Brown family of Sister Wives fame has done: Not formal recognition for their marriage(s), but the right to live as man and wife and wife and wife without fear of prosecution. "And we also know that 'polygamy' is just the uncool, biblical-sounding term of art. Call it polyamory or 'ethical nonmonogamy' and suddenly you have a less disreputable demographic interested_not only the commune-and-granola set, but the young and fashionable in Silicon Valley, where it's just another experiment in digital-age social life. "So polygamists don't have to win explicit marriage rights to become more legally secure, more imitated, less frowned-upon and judged. Indeed, greater acceptance is almost guaranteed. "The question is, what then?" _Ross Douthat on the coming slide towards polygamy, June 1, 2015 THE LAST WORD So does Bernie Sanders have a chance? Does Martin O'Malley, for that matter? I've been saying for months now that Hillary Clinton is vulnerable within the Democratic party, but it strikes me that the window of opportunity for challengers is closing. With every passing week, it becomes harder for a serious opponent to put together the necessary infrastructure to wage a winning campaign. If, for instance, Deval Patrick had started organizing for a run in back March or April, he could have presented all sorts of problems for Clinton. But even if Patrick started moving tomorrow, it would be a hard row to hoe- look at the problems Rick Perry had in 2011, when he started thinking about running in late May and didn't announce until August. At this point, every day that ticks by diminishes the chance that a formidible competitor will get into the race. If Clinton can keep the field clear for just twelve more weeks, then she's likely to only have to deal with Sanders, O'Malley, and (possibly) Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee. She'll still be challenged. Someone-Sanders, O'Malley, or someone else who's not in the race yet-will close in on her in the polls. All races tighten. At some point, they'll get within hailing distance. They'll probably even get more votes than you think; heck, they might even give her a scare in Iowa or New Hampshire. But think about it this way: In 2008, Barack Obama had a ton of early, high-profile money on his side. He had identity politics. And he had an organization that exploited a huge strategic error when Clinton failed to aggressively engage small-state caucuses. And he still got fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. Take away any one of those factors, and Clinton wins the 2008 nomination. Hands down. None of her opponents so far have anything like those advantages. Bernie Sanders may be closer to the base. And Martin O'Malley may be a better pol. But it's hard to see how either of them could actually put the nomination in jeopardy. And the hour is getting late. Best, JVL P.S. To unsubscribe, click here. I won't take it personally. MORE FROM THE WEEKLY STANDARD Religion and Democracy The fight that Obama forced. Read more...   Repealing the Medical Device Tax This is Congress's priority? Read more...   When It Comes To Campaign Songs Never go full Tom Petty. Read more...     Online Store Squeeze the head to the left to relieve stress. Yes you can! Only at our store.     Subscribe Today Get the magazine that The Economist has called "a wry observer of the American scene."   Read probing editorials and unconventional analysis from political writers with a dose of political humor at weeklystandard.com. To unsubscribe, click here.