Rob, you bring up several points. I'll try and give you my views on a couple of them.
I'll start with the last point first, as it's central to this thread:
Oh. I have not read the entire thread, but did you guys already compile a list of Democrats that you consider "corporate" and who you want to be "kicked out" ?
If so, which metric did you use to determine "corporate" and "non-corporate" Democrats ?
Did you look at their voting records or so ?
I, personally, haven't had the time to look at all Democrats and their voting records, but from my perspective - here in Austria, not the USA, of course - there are a couple of (leading) Democratic politicians that really give the impression that they're more interested in serving their donors than the American people: Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Cory Booker, Joe Manchin, and of course, the Clintons and Obama. And then there's the DNC, with Tom Perez, Donna Brazile and a host of others, superdelegates included.
It's not necessarily about creating some black list with clearly defined, scientific parameters. It's clear that politicians sometimes have to make compromises, especially in a political system that is as tainted as the American one. But there's a limit to how large the difference between public and private positions can get. And everyone agrees that money has to be taken out of politics (the DNC recently voted against it).
There has to be a clear message that this is no longer accepted, pressure has to be put on politicians to give priority to the needs of the people over the needs of the very few, very rich, or else... And then, by their reactions will they be known.
This isn't just about morals. It's also about strategy. The reason that the Democrats are so massively unpopular isn't just because of some successful smear campaign by the Republicans. It's the Democrats that provide the fodder themselves, making it super easy to smear them. If only for the fact that they have moved so far right they can't be called progressive any longer, which makes them hypocritical at the very least (Obama being the prime example). And so they lose.
Like you say yourself, Sanders is showing the way out, by talking about the issues the American people care about and by not taking any corporate money to show he means business. That's a winning strategy.
If you want to have a strong Democratic party that represents the people, then you should try to bring people together, not try to divide them or "kick them out" as this thread suggests.
People are together and united. You yourself have mentioned the Bernie movement. There are large groups of activists who band together to help candidates that aren't beholden to special interests get elected to Congress (see
Justice Democrats).
But these are the very people that are being shut out by the Democratic Party and the DNC! Have you noticed how the Resistance is most notably resisting Sanders, the most popular politician in the United States with the most popular ideas? Why would that be? Why isn't he the leader of the Democratic Party, with all the Democrats echoing his ideas and plans.
It's clearly a winning strategy, Trump has proved as much (although he was lying, of course), so why isn't the Democratic Party following Sanders' lead?
The reformation that Thomas Frank is suggesting is already happening with the Bernie movement. That is why I'm so disappointed that Frank did not even mention Bernie in his interview.
There are dozens of interviews with Frank on YouTube, and he mentions Sanders all the time. In fact, he wrote an essay in Harper's Magazine to point out the inexplicable media hostility towards Sanders (and then explain it).
As for reforms. Yes, Sanders wants to reform the Democratic Party, so that it becomes a party of the people again. But he is being resisted. There's clearly an internal struggle going on within the Democratic Party that may well determine the fate of the USA, but what's not clear, is who is going to come out on top. Right now, the Corporate Democrats still have their hands firmly on the wheel, trying to throw out any Bernie progressives and creating all kinds of obstacles for candidates that don't toe the party line. Are you following any of this, or is it new to you?
That's just playing in the hands of Republicans, who have a huge propaganda machine running that is non-stop smearing the Democratic party and trying to divide it. Why do that, guys ?
Everything plays into the hands of the Republicans, because they are lying SOBs. So why worry about that all the time? Not only does this fear lead to paralysis and contortions, but it inevitably leads one to start thinking like a Republican. Another reason the Democratic Party has moved so far right, causing the GOP to move even further right. And time and again they prove they're willing to use the same dirty tricks as the Republicans (like colluding with a foreign government to find compromising material on political opponents), which gives Republicans something to hide behind.
You have to think long and hard about what you stand for, and then actually stand for it, unwaveringly. Who cares what the Republicans will say about it? What kind of an argument is it to say that the Democratic Party must not change (and resist Bernie Sanders and his ideas) because it might play into the hands of the Republicans? Do what's right for the American people, g*****n it! Show some spine!
Did you see how Bernie Sanders recently completely destroyed Ted Cruz by continuously stressing the fact that he is sponsored by oligarchs and does their bidding? Which Corporate Democrat can do that? They can't, by default, because 1) they mustn't disappoint their donors, and 2) everyone can see they're full of s***. And so they stay polite, beating around the bush, presenting their hollow non-vision full of commonplaces and identity politics.
Frankly speaking (no pun intended) I think Thomas Frank does the Democratic party a great dis-service. It's almost as if he is working for Trump.
Not mentioning Bernie, and this down-playing of Russian meddling in the elections is another reason why I think Frank is more interested in destroying the Democratic party than in building it up. In other words : He is advancing the Trump agenda.
It's the Democratic Party in its current form that is advancing the Trump agenda, with its hollow words, its clear ties to corporate donors/oligarchs and its massive own goals. When someone points out this is so, and explains the history and psychology behind all of it, you can either think about what he/she says and decide which parts you find plausible and which you don't. Or you can just smear that person off the bat and indirectly advance the Trump agenda some more.
Let me ask you, Rob: Is the Democratic Party perfect as it is? Do Corporate Democrats not exist? What, if anything, needs to change?