Democratic donors still think they can anoint rising stars in the Hamptons | Ross Barkan

Kamala Harris, the California senator and new darling of the left, did what all liberal darlings do when their stars begin to burn bright: she went east, way east, to the Hamptons.

In the old world, before a democratic socialist and a reality show nativist upended politics as we know it, the narrative would write itself. A little-known possible presidential candidate with a compelling backstory and a buzzy turn in the spotlight visits the millionaire and billionaire donors who decide who can run and who can’t.

The gatekeepers, cloistered in their estates, beckon the candidates, who promise – if they’re Democrats at least – to be the acceptable sort of progressives, those who hit all the right notes without rocking the boat too much.

Harris met with some of Hillary Clinton’s beloved megadonors this past weekend. Reportedly, they were all smitten. She has been a hero of the MSNBC set since she sparred with Republican senators during intelligence committee hearings involving testimony from the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein.

Maybe Harris has what it takes and will surge ahead of the pack in a few years to win the right to dethrone Donald Trump. It’s too early to tell. But her Hamptons gallivant with Clinton plutocrats is a dispiriting reminder that the Democratic party thinks all can be as it once was, and the status quo isn’t worth being ruffled. Donors can still vet candidates and propel them forward in the press. Anyone beyond the upper crust isn’t a serious agenda setter.

What’s strange about living in the year 1 AT (After Trump) is how Democrats continue to disregard the phenomenon in their wake. If 2016 was Trump’s story, it was also the year of Bernie Sanders, one that taught us a candidate once considered a fringe player can raise tremendous amounts of money from small donors on a policy platform alone.

It wasn’t Sanders’ meme-worthy eyeglasses and hair that electrified voters under 30 – it was his calls for single-payer healthcare, free college and a return to New Deal-style governance. It wasn’t even unadulterated socialism, as it was portrayed in the media. But at time when both parties embraced austerity and neoliberal bromides, it qualified as radical.

As of now, no candidates offering themselves up to the 2020 rumor mill have embraced Sanders’ vision or tactics. Harris, from what I can tell, has no policy platform – it’s still early – and is internet-famous for joining in on the Democratic party’s Russia resistance.

Other potential candidates, as the New York Times recently reported, are determined to ignore the Sanders movement as much as possible. Steve Bullock, the moderate Democratic governor of Montana, is forming a political action committee to explore a presidential bid.

Bullock is “pragmatic”, in the Times’ formulation, because he rebukes Sanders. “While appealing to the Democratic heart, Mr. Bullock also has a message for the Democratic head,” the Times wrote. “He talks of the party’s need to broaden its appeal beyond the coasts – Mr Bullock won re-election as Donald J Trump captured Montana by over 20 points – while implying they cannot turn to a septuagenarian as their nominee.”

Everything about this is odd, and speaks to the tone-deafness of a rudderless political party and the antiquated ways reporters continue to frame our politics. In a time of yawning income inequality and instability, with a bulk of young Americans rightfully pessimistic about their futures, there is nothing Pollyannaish about running a campaign that can somehow speak to this despair.

Healthcare in America is a travesty and single-payer is not without its flaws – but it remains a more humane way forward, putting people ahead of predatory insurance companies.

There is nothing “pragmatic” about ignoring the fact that Sanders, a once unknown senator from the 49th largest state in America, was able to raise $44m in one month against a celebrity front-runner who coalesced the Democratic establishment around her candidacy like few who came before her.

There is nothing “pragmatic” about ignoring that Sanders was easily able to broaden his appeal “beyond the coasts” in the Democratic primary, losing urban centers to Clinton while dominating many rural parts of the country, including Montana, a state he won by eight percentage points.

And it’s reality-defying to say the party can’t turn to a septuagenarian as its nominee when Trump, at age 70, just became president. None of Trump’s supporters cared that he was trying to become oldest man to ever take office and no one cheering on Sanders cares that he is 75 going on 76.

An elderly candidate with a compelling message for people in desperate need of change in their lives will throttle someone much younger and milquetoast, every time.

For political journalists and operatives inside the Beltway carapace, the siren call of centrism will always have appeal. It promises pain-free bipartisanship, a return to the way things used to be. It stands for little, so it can’t court too much controversy. For anyone who knows bad policy can mean the difference between life and death – the poorest and the invisible, the sufferers on the margins – it offers nothing. And it never will.