Better days for Bernie Sanders. |
Listen.
With all due apologies to plus
size women and forswearing, forever
fat shaming, that sound you hear is
the fat lady singing. Bernie
Sanders’s last legitimate hope
of wresting the Democratic Presidential nomination from Hillary Clinton lay with a big
win in California and hopefully New Jersey to demonstrate to the party regulars who are super delegates, that Clinton was damaged beyond repair and that he was
the only real hope to stop Trump. But not only did he not surprisingly fail to win the Garden State, he lost
the big prize but did so by a
wider margin than the last minute surge his
supporters counted on.
Although
the AP and other news outlets were premature in declaring Clinton
the presumptive candidate on the eve of Tuesday’s primaries, it is impossible to deny reality any
longer. Of course many Sanders diehards blame the early call as a media conspiracy to suppress the vote, there is no turn out evidence that it actually did
so. Did some voters decide at the last moment to hop on the presumptive band
wagon? Inevitably some, but partisans on both sides were so entrenched for their candidate that the
pool of last minute undecideds and wishy-washy leaners was surprisingly
small.
Predictably
Bernie-or-Busters are also crying foul and alleging election fraud and voter
suppression over irregularities in
Tuesday’s vote in the Golden State, mostly
late opening polling places and provisional ballots issued to late registers who were missing from
some voter rolls. No question that in California and in many
states election reform is an on-going issue that critically needs to be addressed, but
again there is no evidence that there was any conspiratorial manipulation, but plenty for the chaos of a big election in a populous
state. And less evidence that the
chaos significantly affected the outcome.
Now
the shake-out begins. Tremblers within the Party registered 5.5 on the totally
unscientific Murfin Scale—a lot of potential
damage but far short of the Big One which would level civilization and hand the smoking ruins over to the Trumpistas.
Naturally,
Clinton partisans and the Democratic
establishment have stepped up calls for Sanders to withdraw from the race and endorse Hillary or at least concede defeat and not put up a senseless battle at the Democratic National Convention next
month in Philadelphia. They argue that Clinton won three million
more votes through the primaries as well as a majority of elected delegates not
counting those controversial Super Delegates.
In normal circumstances it
would be clear that she was the choice of
a majority of Democrats.
Clinton
herself has been more circumspect,
as well she need be. In 2008 she
famously vowed to take her fight “all
the way to the Convention” after
it became clear that Barack Obama had
secured the nomination. Just as now,
there were plenty of calls for her to drop out and unite the party. Now she says that she “understands how it
feels to lose” and says she doesn’t expect Sanders to call it quits before the
convention. A smart move to avoid
charges of hypocrisy, and maybe smarter politics for a stab at eventually
winning over Sanders’s hyper-loyal
followers.
Clinton Revels in clinching the nomination. |
On
the other side the Bernie-or-Busters are louder
than ever and striking out viciously
at anyone tempted to fold their
tents or join in party unity behind
Clinton. Their list of traitors, turncoats, shills for the
oligarchy, toadies, and general lickspittle grows daily and
includes any number of yesterday’s
progressive heroes, allies, and activists
with solid credentials going
back decades. Some are hearing the siren song of Jill Stein and the Greens who
has dramatically stepped up her wooing of the disenchanted. Others say they will write in Sanders or boycott the election entirely, damn the consequences. Should Trump win because of it, they say
blame will be on Hillary, not them and it will serve the Party and country
right for their rejection of Bernie’s political
revolution.
The
question is how many of this loud chorus are serious and how many are Trump and
GOP trolls making mischief? Back in ’08 there was a lot of noise about
women sitting out the election out of anger at Obama’s supposedly sexist campaign. A lot of that did turn out to be Republican mischief and most legitimately disappointed Clintonistas
has thought better about it by the election and joined in making the Obama
landslide. Will the current split work
out that way? I suspect generally so. But I never
underestimate the suicidal
tendencies of some members of the doctrinaire
and purer-than-thou left.
Anti-Hillary memes like this flooded Facebook--Right wing, Bernie or Bust, or one-size-fits all--who could tell? |
Sanders
himself seems to be of two minds. Rationally, he realizes he has
lost. He is immediately downsizing his national campaign staff by half and seems to be curtailing some of his famous nickels-and-dimes-of-ordinary American
fundraising that has here to fore
been fabulously successful. Or at least he recognizes that it will
dry up on its own. He meets with
President Obama today in the White House
where he knows he will hear an appeal for unity. Will the president also try to broker a deal? Probably not crassly but he may pass on Clinton overtures which might
include DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s—Sanders loyalists’ chief boogie woman—head on a platter, platform concessions, possible future rule changes on Super Delegates,
and a progressive vice-presidential
choice.
On
the other hand Politico has painted Sanders as personally bitter in defeat and in no mood to roll over. His staff is
painted as divided and supposedly leaked embarrassing details about the
controversial Nevada Caucuses. In his California speech after losing the
primary he acknowledged that “the math is against me,” but vowed to stay in the
race to the Convention. In fact he
probably owes his supporters the spectacle
of having his name put in
nomination, fiery seconding speeches, and a noisy, enthusiastic floor demonstration. It may prevent the Convention from becoming a
seamless Clinton coronation, but it would not be
historically out of line for Democrats.
But
after that Sanders must call on his
supporters to unite behind Clinton, with whom he once shared an almost identical Senate voting record.
Faithful
readers of this electronic rag know
that I was an early and enthusiastic Sanders supporter. I was proud to support a democratic socialist who mirrored
my own values and positions so well. I was thrilled as the campaign, against all
odds, took off and proved that millions of Americans shared those values and
were ready to make a public commitment to
them.
The Proprietor at a Labor Day Rally in Woodstock, Illinois put on by local Sanders supporters. Proof that I was not always an apostate. |
You
may also recall that I have spoken out against the behavior of some Sanders
supporters—or alleged Sanders supporters because I suspect some of them were agent
provocateurs—whose attacks on Clinton and her supporters were nakedly sexist and often misogynist; aped, mirrored,
and amplified decades of right wing smears; and were vicious in attacks on and harassment of anyone who dared depart a degree from their narrow ideology. Those voices never represented the vast
majority of Sanders supporters, volunteers, and donors, but their noisy clamor drove away many—especially
women—who might have otherwise supported the campaign and gave the Clinton
campaign fat targets on which to turn their guns.
Which
the Clinton camp was more than eager to
do. They were not blameless or bereft of their own shrill
voices. Bernie’s Boys became a slur to
categorize the whole campaign as the creature
of spoiled, entitled frat boys when
in fact Sanders’s appeal was always deeper and broader than that convenient stereotype. Too often any criticism of Clinton, even
on substantial issues not innuendo was met by blanked accusations of sexism. Women in support of Sanders were denounced as
traitors to their sex and to feminism just as Blacks and
Latinos were scolded as tools of white
privilege.
In
point of fact divisions among women
and minorities between the two camps were shown to be more generational than anything else with younger feminists and minority
activists tending toward Sanders. The
rifts exposed within the feminist movement and between an older generation of civil rights leaders and those who grew
up in the Black Lives Matter and Moral Mondays movements seriously need to be worked on in those communities.
So
after all of this, the questions are what
am I going to do and what are you
going to do now that our candidate will surely not be the nominee.
I
am going to support Hillary Clinton. I am
not waiting until the Convention to say so although I respect Bernie’s
right to have his name put in nomination.
And I am not doing so reluctantly
or half heartedly. I said even in my original endorsement post long ago that
Democrats were fortunate to have such strong and attractive candidates. I meant it then. I mean it now. I endorse her enthusiastically and will work
toward her election.
Clinton
is, as advertised, the most experienced and seasoned Presidential candidate in living memory. Although some
hold her long resume against her, it
is a distinguished record of public service to be proud of. I never bought the many smears, innuendos,
and accusations against her, most of which originated with that vast right wing conspiracy which she
was once mocked for naming. She has been, on the whole, an honest public servant and a generally liberal and progressive one. Remember that in 2008—an election in which I
was an early Obama supporter—Clinton was promoted by many as more authentically
liberal than the Illinois Senator who
was portrayed as a trimmer and compromiser by contrast. She has always been forthright in explaining her positions, although those positions
have changed and evolved over time—a sign of growth for the most part, not, as
usually charged sheer opportunism or
lack of firm principles.
Clinton
has always, instinctively been a gradualist
rather than a revolutionary as exemplified by her jury-rigged health care plan in her husband’s administration was a prime example—she thought a single payer scheme would have been
killed outright as socialist. But the very good news is thanks to the
success of the Obama administration and
Sanders campaign, the center of American
politics has shifted to the left for
the first time in history. The rise of
Trumpism is actually a sign of the success of that shift. That means that the scope of what is
achievable for a gradualist like Clinton is far broader than it was even eight
years ago. She has already moved left on
environmental issues including fracking.
She is moving away from
her husband’s disastrous tough-on-crime
sentencing guidelines that have resulted in the Black gulag. She is
modifying her positions on banking
regulation and undoubtedly recognizes that Sanders and Elizabeth Warren
have successfully established a strong Democratic constituency consensus on this issue. With the likelihood of a solid majority in
the Senate and at least a less
overwhelmingly Republican House she
may have more room to maneuver and advance these causes.
Clinton
already has a strong record on reproductive
rights and other feminist issues as well as positions on gun control that are more in line with
general Democratic sentiments than Sanders.
This
does not mean that I agree with Clinton on everything. There is no evidence that she is yet willing
to surrender her neo-liberal orthodoxy on
Free Trade. Like Obama, she will continue to support
international trade agreements that have been disastrous for American workers
while creating slave-like dystopias in
China, India, and third world
countries. Even worse is her
instinctive hawk-like foreign policy which
tends to look at Obama’s do nothing
stupid rule as weak and her
slavish devotion to Israel come hell or
high water will empower the draconian occupation policies of the current government and possibly even
abet an Israeli attack on Iran just when Obama’s policies are leading to a
general relaxation of tensions.
I
expect to be a vocal critic of these positions, just as I have been a critic of
Obama’s failed drone wars. I am not writing any candidate or
President a blank check of
approval. But I do note that even at
her worst in this area, Clinton does not compare to the wild danger of hair-trigger
playground bully like Donald Trump backed by the imperialist dreams of the until now discredited neo-conservatives of the Dick Cheney ilk.
Which
brings us to the Trump threat, which is real even though he represents a violent and resentful minority of the American population. Under the right circumstances he could
stumble into the Presidency and usher in America’s Dark Age. And high among the
circumstances that could make that possible is a disunited Democratic Party, a
liberal/left at war with itself, or
a smug boycott of the election by
the Holier-than-Thou purists.
I remind you of the alternative. |
But
I also want to make clear that this is not
just a choice between two evils. Donald
Trump and the Republican Party are evil. Hillary Clinton is not evil. Let me repeat that. Hillary Clinton is not evil. She may be in some ways a flawed candidate and she may have
positions and do things which I do not approve off. But on the whole she is liberal and
progressive enough to make her a positive
choice.
Those
are the reasons that I am, as of this day, a Hillary Clinton supporter. If that makes me a traitor—I have already heard the charge—so be it. By throwing the massive influence of my blog,
which is at least clicked on a
few hundred times a day, I guess I am enlisting in Shills for the Oligarchy. Fat cat bankers who would like to make
my corruption complete can contact
me for information on where to send the
check.
What
should you do? Well, I am pretty much a
let-your-conscience-be-your-guide kind of guy unless your conscience tells you your hurt feelings are worth a Trump Reich. If that’s the case, I have no problem calling
you an ass wipe to your face.
If
you cannot be one hundred percent
enthusiastic for Clinton, you still owe
her and the country your begrudging vote. If you don’t want to campaign for her, it’s
up to you. But there are ways that you
can effectively continue the political revolution Sanders started. A lot of folks figure that you will walk away from politics now that you
have lost. But there are signs that a
lot of folks are willing to go deeper—to extend the revolution to other Federal, state, and local races putting
progressives and democratic socialists in office at every level. Here in McHenry
County several leading Sanders volunteers have become candidates in races
like county board seats and state legislative seats. Many are supporting progressive Congressional candidates like Jim Walz in the 14th District and Amanda
Holland in the 6th. We can actually learn something from how
the Tea Party reshaped the Republicans from the ground up.
It
has long been my contention that electoral
politics, especially on the Presidential and national level, are largely defensive. At least in recent years we have been voting
for Democrats as a sea wall to keep
us from being flooded by bigotry and
yoked into further serfdom.
For positive, progressive change to come, it requires a popular movement in the streets and direct action. That is the
lesson of the Occupy Movement, the
press for marriage equality and immigration reform, Moral Mondays,
Black Lives Matter, and the push to a $15
national minimum wage. Direct Action
has moved the needle on these issues
and force politicians, sometimes kicking and screaming, to confront them. To make your political revolution, you
actually have to make a revolution.
The ball is in your court.
No comments:
Post a Comment