If you read through this blog's history, you'll see that I was definitely not a supporter of Hillary Clinton in 2008. I was rooting for Obama to run for President from the day I listened to his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and I was elated when he won both the nomination and election. It's been a tough seven (going on eight) years, with plenty of successes, but plenty of disappointments as well. All in all, however, I am happy with the President, and feel that he has restored a modicum of competence to an office that was a disaster in the hands of George W. Bush.
I also think it's crucial that a Democrat gets to follow an outgoing Democrat in office, the first since Truman replaced Roosevelt in 1945. Doing so will better entrench the gains we've made over the Obama administration, plus it's imperative that any Supreme Court vacancies go to jurists who aren't of the Rehnquist/Scalia/Roberts/Alito mold. It's unlikely that Congress and the President will work together, provided the President is a Democrat. As such, it will take ingenuity and strength to solve many of our outstanding issues in a way that won't require Congressional legislation.
By now you probably think I am leading up to me stating my support, however reluctant, for Hillary Clinton. After all, she seems more concerned with continuity with President Obama's agenda than Sanders does. She's shown experience in both the realm of legislative and executive experience, and does seem to value pragmatism and accomplishment over "the good fight". Sure, she has shown herself way too comfortable around the Goldman Sachs of the world, and her foreign policy is at best Chickenhawk Lite. But her administration would be a good rendition of Obama 3.0.
With all that in mind, this isn't an "endorsement"* of Hillary Clinton. Quite the contrary, this is an endorsement of Senator Bernie Sanders, and an argument as to why his candidacy is the first step in something bigger, something more formative than a Presidential election.
It's not that I'm delusional. Odds are against Sanders beating Clinton for the nomination. The party establishment has so far marched lockstep with Hillary Clinton, with hundreds of superdelegates** already endorsing her. With that support, it makes the math much more difficult for Sanders to win the nomination outright, or to even force a brokered convention***.
Even if he somehow beats Clinton for the nomination, that just means he's out of the frying pan and into the fire. Would the Clinton supporters join the Sanders team and push to beat Trump/Cruz/Kasich/Rubio/Bush? Or would they sit this one out, a replay of Rockefeller Republicans in 1964, or Daley and the Democratic Machine in 1972? It's highly unlikely Hillary and Bill would campaign vigorously for Sanders, and I have doubts about Obama and Biden doing much, assuming Sanders even would ask for the help. And that doesn't even get in to all of those Clinton surrogates. Democrats are notorious for not helping other Democrats even when they are "good moderates", let alone a "Democratic-Socialist". It's not that it would be impossible, just a much tougher campaign than, say, 2012 or even 2008.
And even in Sanders wins in November, he's unlikely to have a Democratic Congress. Structural advantages for the GOP in the House, coupled with decades of gerrymandering accomplished thanks to Democrats losing their way on the state level, has left it next to impossible for the Democrats to take back the House without a wave like 2006. The Senate is more achievable, but it still remains unlikely the Democrats will take that back. Even if they do, it will be with such a small margin that very little will be accomplished, at least not that progressives would like too much.
So with that rough road to victory, and little promise of anything being accomplished afterwards, why do I support Sanders? Quite simply, it's because he coincides with my own views better than Clinton, and because he represents the future of the Left, rather than our rather depressing present.
Let's face it, the state of the Left in 2016 is not too great. This is especially true if you equate the Democratic party with the left side of the political spectrum****. Both houses of Congress are controlled by the Republicans. While the Senate is within the realm of possibility for the Democrats to take back in 2016, the House is so Gerrymandered and gives the GOP so many structural advantages that to take it back for more than a election or two will take a concerted effort that could take years, even a couple decades. Worse than that, a solid majority of the states are controlled by the Republicans. Not just the usual suspects like Utah and Oklahoma, but even Obama supporting states like Iowa and Wisconsin. Even Illinois, with its Democratic supermajority in the General Assembly, has a Republican governor.
Sure, there have been some great strides made by the left, particularly in the realm of LGBT rights. Even the most optimistic dreamers in the 1990s would never have thought in two decades the right for gays to marry would be the law of the land, and that full acceptance of gays in the military would have happened. But this victory is precarious, particularly for transgender Americans. Even fairly liberal bastions like Houston have succumbed to specious and unproven lies to enshrine bigotry against this misunderstood and endangered element of our population. It's a legitimate worry that the coalition that pushed for the gay marriage will now unravel when there is still much to do. And these troubles don't even count the opposition, many of whom are still unwilling to accept the law of the land. They will seek to roll back this progress.
The left, whether through the Democratic party, a new party, or by other democratic means, needs a new strategy. We need to put together a movement, much like the disgruntled mixture of businessman, Birchers, ex-segregationists and the standard-bearers of Nixon's "silent majority" worked to establish the "Reagan Revolution". It needs to be focused on the nation as a whole, so that we can stand up to the Rick Scotts and Paul LePages of the world. We need to replenish the bench (preferably not with DAs who protect kid killing cops) of candidates for not only Congressional races, but for state offices and legislatures. Arguably most important, we need to establish strategy at the local level, to influence the school boards, county boards, city councils, and other local offices which is where much of the legislation and government functions that truly matter to us happens.
It's not something that can happen overnight. It won't happen in November of 2016, 2018, 2020, or possibly for several elections beyond that. It will take a lot of effort, more than our share of disappointments and defeats, and a hell of lot of tough decisions. It will take a movement, not just one campaign built on incremental change.
Is this Sanders' goal? In part, I think it is. He's certainly in it to win it at this point, even if early on that may not have been his primary goal. His theory of change is built on the idea of "political revolution", where Americans will rise up and topple the status quo and replace it with a more perfect union. While he argues it will happen this year, I remain skeptical.
Nevertheless, I think he's on the right track. Sanders represents a new way forward, a giant step beyond where Obama has brought the movement, rather than a small step down a precarious, rocky path. We need candidates who are wiling to trust us, and not be so condescending as far too many politicians tend to be. We need candidates who aren't afraid to wear their ideals on their sleeves. Most importantly, we need candidates who revel in being called "Progressive", "Liberal", "Socialist", "Radical", rather than meekly offering dithering equivocation. Having a candidate like Sanders, who unashamedly wears the title "Democratic-Socialist", contend for the Presidency is a great first step.
Note that I say first step. This is due to something that many progressives seem to not get a handle on. The battle is not won by winning an election. The obstinate fits the right pulled after Obama was elected in 2008 should have shown you that. Frankly the battle will never be over. In this ideologically polarized times, it will likely be necessary for us to win elections to pursue the agenda of the New Left. This means winning 50% + 1 in the U.S. House, up to 60 in the U.S. Senate, and as many governorships and state legislatures as possible. We'll still be open to compromise, and will need to compromise, if only between the various elements of the Democratic party. We should be plenty open to compromise across the aisle as well, provided the compromise is not of a style where only the other side gets anything of worth.
So do I believe Bernie Sanders can win the nomination and election? Yes. Do I think he will win? No, I don't. My support isn't contingent on him winning the White House, it's more a first step in a much larger strategy, much of which I'll be elaborating on in posts to come. I want him to win as many delegates as possible, give as many victory speeches as he can. I want to let the establishment of the Democratic party know that we on the left aren't happy with the way things are going, and want to see a new direction in the party. Hopefully we can use this leverage to gain some controls on electoral strategy, perhaps even control of the DNC. From there it will be a long road, but one with a worthy destination at its end.
*As if an endorsement from a blog that nobody reads (and rightfully so) is worth more than the digital paper this is printed on.
**While Democratic primaries and caucuses are effectively built on a form of proportional representation, they have a extrademocratic set of delegates based on Governors, Congressional members, former Presidents/Vice-Presidents/Speakers of the House, and other party luminaries. The purpose of these delegates is to act as a check on the party voters, so they can't nominate someone outside the purview of the party. It was added to the primary process as consequence of the disastrous McGovern campaign of 1972.
*** Because of the superdelegates it's highly unlikely a two person race can cause a brokered convention. It would take a third party who can siphon 100-200 (or more) delegates to create a stalemate scenario.
**** Not all members of the left are Democrats, and not all Democrats are members of the left. However, in this day and age the most conservative Blue Dog in Congress is still to the left of the most liberal Republican. On state and local levels, this isn't quite true, but it still mostly works that the Democrats are Center-Left, and the Republicans are Right, with a small rump of Right-Center/Center-Right in certain states.
No comments:
Post a Comment