Look, I know the Sanders camp is still beating the drums and saying it's still feasible for them to win. "Wait 'til New York, Bernie's a native."
"California, folks, that's the place you oughta be. Bernie will win there."
"Don't forget Montana and Idaho. Bernie will do great there!"
Nope. Uh-unh. And true, but those states have like six delegates. It's not enough. The math is just not there. Anybody who thinks otherwise is either a) Just not ready to face the facts or b) is willfully lying in the pursuit of their own interests. If you're the latter, well, you won't be convinced by me because you're lying. But if you're the former, perhaps you can be convinced.
I'll say it once, because to be honest it doesn't sit on my tongue too well. OK, heeeere it goes.
Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, and she's our last, best hope to keep the clown show on the GOP side from destroying everything we've gained during Obama's tenure, if not the country as a whole.
Frankly, it's been obvious this would be the result after she destroyed Sanders in South Carolina. It was there that any idea of Sanders reaching African-American voters vanished in smoke. This was further reinforced by her staggering victories on Super Tuesday, which gave her a very large delegate lead. The 45 delegates Sanders netted from his four victories were more than wiped out by her victory in Georgia. And that doesn't even count the lopsided losses he suffered in Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, Virginia, and Arkansas.
This is a weird mirror of 2008, with Clinton in the role previous occupied by Barack Obama. Where the math belied her campaign's protestations in 2008, today they favor her. And guess what? Her delegate lead (not even counting the superdelegates) is already larger than Obama's ever was.
There's an argument for Sanders continuing to campaign. He can keep pressure on Clinton to continue tacking leftward (and she needs that pressure). It will give media exposure to her during these months before the big show begins post convention, instead of it being All Trump all the Time. And finally, he can give further reinforcement to the importance of income inequality, and how maybe there are other ways we can tackle it than the same old sorry ass crap. These are all great reasons for him to continue running. But the one that isn't good is him acting like he can win.
A year ago, had you told me Sanders would seriously put the scare into Clinton and win not only New Hampshire, but several other states, I would have thought you wildly delusional. But today, as strange as it is, this unlikely prospect feels like a drastic disappointment. The fact is Sanders' weaknesses probably doomed him, but they probably didn't have to be as bad as it turned out.
The fact is, if you want any movement from the left to succeed electorally you have to have a multicultural coalition You cannot do it without African Americans, without Hispanics, and without Asians. Sure you need some white voters, of all ages, but you aren't going to rally the mythical "Reagan Democrats" back into the fold. They're all "Reagan Republicans" now, if they haven't passed on. That isn't to say that there isn't a progressive case to be made to lesser educated lower income white voters. Just that there's a whole heap of work to do there, and you can't do it without tackling head-on the grim specter of white privilege, itself just the most prominent remnant of the ever-present legacy of American white supremacy. In other words, this is a long term goal, not a short-term electoral goal.
When I wrote a post stating my enthusiasm for Sanders campaign back after the stunning victory in New Hampshire, I thought that his campaign understand that, had synthesized that, and truly had a plan post New Hampshire. As it turned out, hindsight shows they didn't have a plan for cracking Clinton's in-grown advantage with the Democratic base, and instead pinned everything on attracting white independents to pursue the "political revolution". This was in large part because of blind spots of Bernie Sanders, and in large part because Tad Devine and Jeff Weaver are about as good at modern politics as Mark Penn was with the Clinton campaign in 2008. It's no surprise, then, that the Sanders campaign has often looked at best clueless, and at worst even encouraging some light version of the old racial dog whistle strategy so fondly used by the other party.
Look, gaining the trust of black voters in South Carolina, or hispanic voters in Texas, was going to be a tough get for Sanders. Clinton has decades of connections in these communities, and had some idea how to reach them. She also clearly used her connection as a member of Obama's cabinet to point a clear path from his legacy (He's a popular guy in the Democratic party, particularly with the black voters that are so crucial to the party). Sanders, on the other hand, has never quite gelled with this line, fumbling for a way to start a political revolution that also doesn't crap on the legacy of his would be predecessor. It hasn't worked so well. Also not helping is that as fumbling and incompetent as his messaging and campaign has been at times, Clinton seems to be firing on all cylinders. There is no doubt she is a more confident candidate, more comfortable on the trail. A large part of it is Robby Mook is much better at this than dinosaurs like Mark Penn (and Tad Devine). Especially post New Hampshire, she's just ran circles around Sanders at times.
I'm still not sold on Clinton, and I am completely unsold on her bonafides as a force of change, at least one for the progressive movement. I think she'll be effective at holding the line and protecting Obama's legacy, and perhaps she can do something about the impending climate crisis, as well as the major problem of police killings that fall overwhelmingly on the black communities of the United States. Maybe she'll be able to get enough Democrats and the few remaining reasonable Republicans together to finally put a compassionate and sensible immigration solution in place, erasing the failures of 2007 (in part due to Sanders opposition) and 2013 (the famous gang of eight failure that failed presidential candidate Marco Rubio walked away from). It's unlikely she'll have any chances at legislative victories beyond that, given that the house is unlikely to fall back into Democratic hands for a good while. Most importantly, she'll likely be in place to name replacements for one or two Supreme Court justices.
However, it's in the realm of foreign policy I'm the most worried about her. I truly believe that her decision to support the Iraq War was a terrible judgement call on her part. Her foreign policy ideology is more hawkish than my own preferences, and the preferences of Obama.Whereas the Obama Doctrine is effectively "Don't Stop Stupid Shit", her philosophy can better be described as "Sometimes Do Stupid Shit, if You're doing it With Good Intentions". True, that's better than Sanders "What the Hell is Foreign Policy?", or the GOP'S "ALL STUPID SHIT ALL THE TIME". But it still worries me that we aren't facing down the foreign affairs establishment that has basically been entrenched since Yalta and doesn't seem to learn from its own mistakes. Clinton is a part of this, and it makes me uneasy. Perhaps she'll ease this by putting people more from the Obama side of the party in her cabinet, but she'll be calling the shots.
As I hinted at, however, even her well intentioned, old school doctrinaire foreign policy is still better than the disaster that would be the Trump (or Cruz) Doctrine. Put aside that, a GOP controlled White House will likely mean the Senate and House will also remain in the hands of the GOP. If you like the disaster wrought upon Kansas and Louisiana by their "model red state" experiments, than you'll love the disaster when it's put into Primetime. If either of these awful people take the Oath of Office next January, the international situation will destabilize instantly. It will be a complete failure for the millions of Americans who are Hispanic, or Muslim, or LGBTQIA (or all of the above), as honest to god white supremacists will feel empowered to "read between the lines" and dole out their own "justice". In other words, it will take the legacy of that wonderful November in 2008 and completely erase it.
If Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency on November 8, the Democratic party will have a chance to do something it hasn't done in 180 years. It's something Adlai Stevenson failed at in 1952. Hubert Humphrey couldn't do it in 1968, and Al Gore was denied it in 2000. That's right, it will be a Democrat following an incumbent two-term Democratic tenure. It's a rare chance to build upon what we've done so far, to at worst be a rear guard protecting the vital remnants of the New Deal and Great Society as we work to build a true response to the madhouse on the right, and continue to erase the damage that's already been done by decades of "Trickle Down Economics", "Compassionate Conservatism", and all the other terrible ideas of the conservative movement. As much as I don't trust her, and with all the reservations I have, I can't say its worth throwing that opportunity away. In other words, I won't let the perfect be the enemy of the (mostly) good.
We need a true movement on the left that can give us true leverage within (and without) the Democratic party. We need more Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warrens, Sherrod Browns, and Al Frankens in the Senate. We need more Keith Ellisons, Raul Grijalvas, John Lewises, and Dolores Huertas in the House. We need to get rid of awful garbage governors, whether they are Rick Scott, Sam Brownback, or Bruce Rauner, and replace them with governors who won't preside over the liquidation of our education system, the enshrinement of privatized prisons that are effectively a new form of slavery, and the destruction of even the most basic infrastructure needs. These are the goals of a true political revolution, and won't happen in one, two, or probably even a dozen elections. There is work to be done, people to listen to, and above all organizing that must happen.
So to all reasonable Bernie Sanders supporters out there, take your time to come to grips with the inevitable, but once you do, build off what you've learned, and let's get to work. It's not going to get any easier from here, and it doesn't end in November, or January, or November 2018, or 2020 and so on. If we are to build a future we can believe in, we'll need to put our effort into stopping Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. This starts by taking a deep breath, swallowing our reservations (for now) and saying "We're with Her!"
No comments:
Post a Comment