I recently came across what just might be the key question for 2020, raised by Adam Johnson over on FAIR:
Maybe Rich Liberals Don’t Hate Sanders Because They Fear He Can’t Win, But Because They’re Rich
The New York Times (4/16/19) profiled a network of “wealthy liberal donors” who, shockingly, are not fans of Bernie Sanders, who according to the same report has rejected their big-bundler funding and instead opted for small donations. (The Times reported the same day that 84 percent of Sanders’ donations are less than $200; by contrast, only 37 percent of Kamala Harris’ donations are.)
That a network of multi-millionaire and billionaire donors would dislike a candidate who not only rejects their funding, but is actively trying to tax them at rates not seen since 1960, would surely be enough reason to explain why these wealthy elites would want to “stop” his nomination. But not to the credulous New York Times, which takes at face value rich donors’ claim to oppose Sanders because they believe he simply can’t defeat Trump.
I think Johnson poses a very good question, and frankly, it is one that even I had not allowed myself to consider. In the case of Log Cabin Republicans, we know that for a certain set of rich gays, their $$$ trumps their own self-interest regarding discrimination of the LGBTQ community. This group appears to self-identify as being rich more strongly than they self-identify as being gay. So it seems reasonable that this phenomenon might also hold on the other side of the aisle, namely there might be a certain set of rich liberals for whom their $$$ trumps their passion for various progressive causes.
Because it would be unseemly to suggest a group of super-rich hedge fund managers, Hollywood producers and CEOs would dislike a candidate who has made a career out of promising to expropriate the bulk of their wealth, we get a faux pragmatism argument. But polls show Sanders defeating Trump with numbers comparable to any other declared candidate—a fact the New York Times never bothers to mention, letting the idea go unchallenged that “socialist” (!!) Sanders is an electoral liability. The simpler, less altruistic motive is simply never entertained.
Agreed. The simpler, less altruistic motive seems pretty obvious once one stops to think about it. But if MSM journalists never raise it as a question, many folks — at least folks like me — won’t actually take that necessary moment to stop and think. But wait, there’s more. Johnson has also picked up on what might be a new definition for “mainstream Democrat,” which is: mainstream Dems are the ones with the money, baby.
Throughout the article, the Times’ Jonathan Martin bizarrely used “mainstream Democrats” and “Democrats” to refer to what is little more than a clique of wealthy donors. “Mainstream Democrats are increasingly worried” he tells us. “Stopping Mr. Sanders,” he added, “or at least preventing a contentious convention, could prove difficult for Democrats.”
It’s this last part that is the most compelling, though, I think.
But why would “Democrats” want to “stop Mr. Sanders”? Sanders has a 78 percent favorability rating among Democrats and leads every poll among declared candidates. Martin is, of course, not talking about “Democrats” or “mainstream Democrats”; he’s talking about rich donors. But because it would be vulgar to mention their obvious class interests, they morph into simply “Democrats” without explanation.
Vulgar indeed. But the truth is, rich Democrats are different than you and me: they have more $$$. Maybe we need to remember that.