The current Presidential campaign has evolved much further, towards a potential major ‘realignment moment’, than is widely appreciated. Much of the Hillary-supporting drumbeat of pressure on Bernie includes realignment concerns in its undisclosed agenda. The end game remains unpredictable-- even without any Hillary-damaging ‘wild cards’ popping up directly or indirectly from the FBI or the Panama Papers. Bernie and Trump have been wild cards enough to make the entire alignment of national politics look as much like a house of cards as the 2008 crash revealed the US-led international banking system to be.

The recently disclosed April 11, 2016 Greenberg-Carville memo ( posted in pdf here ) helps clarify certain options and decisions of Hillary’s Presidential campaign, of the Republican establishment and of Bernie’s campaign. The memo is no less useful because it is being publicized by right-wingers, or because its express analysis contains some weaknesses.

The memo helps clarify the Democratic establishment’s awareness that the Republican party’s fast-formalizing formal disintegration offers an opportunity, which money-focused Democrats led by Hillary are actively moving to seize, to pursue:

Monied elites’ formal realignment into a single dominant Democratic Party which would (in order to include the all-important big donors, lobbyists and employers) would exclude (from policy influence):

… thereby leaving these excluded demographics divided into two (or more) powerless fringes.

Although it can be argued that an informal but substantive version of this alignment has been gelling at least since 1980 or even 1972, the mechanism used to formalize it is important, and now appears likely, in the 2016 Presidential election, to include:

• Honest-Libertarians who realize the impossibility of extending libertarianism beyond social tolerance to reach the economic structure of our technological civilization, complex economy, and over-burdened global climate and biosphere.

• Gullible-Libertarians who are blind to the "socialism for the rich."

D. Libertarians logically should divide along (and should support different parties in accordance with) the following lines:

C. Economic populists will be forced to choose between being a powerless fringe in an existing major party, or coalescing around a third party, created anew and/or through mergers of existing parties such as the Green, Working Families, Peace & Freedom &/or Democratic Socialists of America (whose brand has been invigorated by Bernie’s campaign).

B. Republican Party structure (at least at the federal level) being abandoned by most types of big donors, and being left entirely to ethnic tribalists and/or religious tribalists (who need each other, and who overlap, probably enough to coexist in that single party)

A. Democratic Party structure becoming the formal home of the most of the monied establishment;

III. While not persuasive in all of its express or implied analysis, the April Greenberg-Carville memo highlights several important elements of the Republican fracturing, the Democratic semi-fracturing, and the resulting options underlying the Hillary campaign’s actions and messaging of recent weeks. The contents and consequences of the memo can be summarized as follows:

A. Everybody at higher levels of Hillary’s campaign has been aware since early April of opportunities to expand the Democratic-supporting electorate, in a context where:

1. Blacks & Hispanic general election turnout for Dems will be high in response to Republican extremism directed at them.



2. Younger generations’ attention to politics & concern about inequality is surging.



3. Many Republican-supporting voters of recent decades can be pulled back to the Dem side among:



• Higher income socially moderate “fiscal conservative” Whites, OR

• low-income whites

B. It now seems clear that Hillary’s campaign has decided to prioritize Democratic Party big tent expansion through (relative to Bernie’s very popular campaign platform) "fiscal conservatism" that will continue the bipartisan establishment donor-driven policies under which non-elites must fight over crumbs from elites’ huge slice of the economic pie. It is not clear whether one or the other of the following reasons mainly caused this decision (or even whether these two reasons can be disentangled from each other):

1. Hillary’s campaign early on was forced to prioritize raising cash after heavy and frontloaded spending collided with narrowness of donor base and with Bernie’s popularity and much broader donor base.

2. Hillary’s campaign, from its inner circles outwards through its surrogates, endorsers and donors, are people whose career status and income, and accumulated wealth, benefits to the point of complete dependency, on:

• “fiscal conservatism”,

• leaving only crumbs outside the 1%’s huge slice of the economic pie, and

• keeping political donations flowing from the 0.1% and 0.01%.

C. The need to select among mutually exclusive priorities would have been clear to all key players, because (using the categories highlighted in the Greenberg-Carville memo):

1. The “fiscal conservatism” of highly educated socially moderate White Republican-supporters conflicts with the concerns about unequal economic opportunity held by both:

• Younger generations, and

• low-income whites



2. Only a break with "fiscal conservatism" could enable simultaneous success in:



• Preserving and expanding rights of Blacks, Hispanics & immigrants, and

• Addressing the worry among low-income whites that, with "fiscal conservatism" being largely code for "non-elites must fight over crumbs from the 1%’s huge slice of the economic pie," the portion of those crumbs available for low-income whites is reduced by every action that preserves and expands rights, especially of immigrants, but also of all Hispanics & Blacks.

D. The consequences of the above decision are most obvious in Hillary supporters’ efforts to gin up Black and Hispanic anxiety about the exaggerated Whiteness and largely fabricated "racism" (not to mention totally fabricated "English only-ism") of the "Bernie Bro" stereotype that they partially succeeded in spreading. Although this was probably motivated mainly by Hillary’s campaign’s need to distract Blacks and Hispanics from Bernie’s economic and racial justice positions, it has likely had the important side effect of confirming the longstanding presumption, among low-income whites, that they are the main losers from alliances between the Democratic establishment and Blacks & Hispanics… And perhaps has foreclosed any possibility (if there ever was one) that the Democratic establishment would subordinate many of its big donors’ interests to economic policy outreach to low-income whites.





E. This leaves us with the same, but starker than ever, ‘chicken-&-egg’ question that has dominated moderate Left American politics since the 1960s:

• Which of these mutually reinforcing tendencies came first?

• Are Democratic politicians driven to rely on (and do policy favors for) big donors because low-income whites are too racist and tribalist to join a coalition with minorities?

• Or are Low-Income Whites driven by big donor-favoring economic policies into intense opposition to sharing pie crumbs with Blacks, Hispanics and immigrants?

Some Hillary supporters have expressly argued that it’s simply not possible-- or moral-- to build a coalition with people who so easily line up behind racial, tribal and religious supremacism. Of course the "moral" element is secondary, as shown by Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, and some of his later policy decisions, which created memorable memes like "a Sister Souljah moment," along with an expanded drug war and incarceration industry complex.





But is this type of a coalition still possible in today’s demographic context, as the numerical majority long held by White voters inexorably decreases, and as Black and Hispanic voters’ influence over Democratic party policies increases. Evidence, that this coalition is still possible, can be found in Bernie’s having attracted significant numbers of votes from low-income Whites, even while highlighting his commitment to:

• (along with economic justice for all)

• racial justice,

• related criminal justice reform, and

• respectful economic and political treatment of undocumented immigrants.

How can Bernie be making inroads into the same demographics that Trump has dominated largely by highlighting rhetoric that is diametrically opposite on immigrants, and dismissive of the need for respect towards minorities and women?





One longstanding hypothesis seems to have been tested by the primary cycle, and proven to have some validity, as follows:





Trump shares with Bernie an emphasis on corrupt dominance of politics and economics by insiders, notably through international trade deals like the existing NAFTA and the impending TPP. Clearly low-income whites supporting Trump are (as they so often have done in the past) conflating:

• their fear and anger at being forced to fight for economic crumbs left over from elites’ pie-slicing

• their socially inherited reflexes of suspicion, dislike and supremacism towards Blacks and other minorities.

But those who respond positively to Bernie are showing that:





1. If offered a chance to cut elites’ pie share down to a fairer size, leaving more for everybody else to divide (and/or a chance to vent and act on their anger at those elites), then





2. They don’t cling so tightly to racism or tribalism as to cast, as the now-hoary cliché goes, a "vote against their economic self-interest."





F. All of this matters now more than ever because: