Bryce Covert is what you might call a licensed, faultlessly authentic, publications-certified progressive. She was once the editor of the Next New Deal blog; she's now a Nation magazine contributor and ThinkProgress's economic policy editor. Today, in a NY Times op-ed, she draws on her notable progressive credentials and produces a theory on theories: Democrats, rather than squabbling about fundamental policy aims betwixt the Sanders and Clinton camps, are instead — or somewhat merely — "deciding between two theories of how to get things done."
If Covert's theory if valid — if, that is, Sanders's approach is a legitimate political theory of "how to get things done" — then creationism and intelligent design are scientific theories as legitimate as evolution. I appreciate Ms. Covert's attempt at intellectual mediation and conciliation, but it just doesn't wash.
While it's true that Clinton and Sanders agree on much in general terms — paid family leave, an increased minimum wage, further banking reforms, and universal healthcare to name a few, as Covert does — and though it's true that Sanders "sounds a lot like many prominent Democrats" (like a "tried and true liberal" of the new Clintonism, says Covert), the candidates' similarities become utter strangers when it comes to the how part; the how-to-get-things-done phase.
As is creationism, Sanders's theory of getting things done is baptized by the magical, mysterious, and supernatural. His "political revolution" is a magnificent singularity of explosive potential that comes out of nowhere, yet we know its prime mover: working-class consciousness. Millions of the recently indifferent will undergo electric political enlightenment and then coalesce into an Engels-like army of outraged had-enoughism, tote Bernie to the White House, and simultaneously clean out the filthy, corrupt stable that is the United States Congress. The genesis of Sanders's theory is essentially biblical in its millennialist faith.
If one wishes to call this a theory, one is most welcome to do so. At best, however, it's an improbable theory of impossible change. On the other hand we have what Clinton is offering, which in all probability is even less than meets her promises — which are few, for the next Democratic president will be inescapably bagged by that which has plagued President Obama. Is there any need to again identify this Manichean force of darkness that has obstructed Obama's every proposal of intelligent governance? I think not.
Except for the occasional executive action, Clinton's theoretical approach to the presidency is empirical and profoundly realistic: just hold the friggin' fort. As opposed to Sanders's impossible change, Clinton promises the protection of gains. That may not sound like much, it may be less than inspiring, it may even contain undesirable elements of political resignation. But it looks 2017 squarely in the face and says: Bring it on, but you can't have what you want — that being the unraveling of Obamian progress.
In itself, that will be a presidential accomplishment. There shall be no ensuing disappointment in the protection of gains. Holding actions are successful when they hold, and if first understood that that is their purpose, then such success is agreeable. Disagreeable are otherworldly assurances that go down like a fireball.
Contra Ms. Covert, what we have here are differing approaches to 2017. One is grounded not only in the possible, but the probable; the other is intoxicated faith in the altogether impossible. They are both, as noted, approaches to the presidency, yet only one is a workable theory.