Political and social change
emanates from persistent pressure for a just world, not settling for what is
“realistic” before even getting to the negotiating table.
As Bernie Sanders defies
expectations with a resounding New Hampshire victory and a virtual tie in Iowa,
Democratic Party leaders still insist
Hillary Clinton is the pragmatic choice to beat Republicans and bring effective
leadership and change—if incremental—to Washington. Clinton and her supporters
frame the race, and her appeal, as a matter of “ready on day one” leadership
and “get things done” practicality. But what does the record show, and what do
leadership and pragmatism really mean?
On the pragmatics of
electability, nearly every major national poll consistently shows
Sanders equaling or bettering Clinton against all Republicans. Polls
show Sanders nearly tied with Clinton nationally and rising. On electability,
if anything, Sanders has the edge right now. There is nothing empirical to
suggest Clinton’s superior electability—quite the contrary given her loss to
Barack Obama in 2008 and her flagging campaign
this year. While Clinton might gain more moderate Independents (particularly
against a polarizing Republican nominee), Sanders can inspire massive
Democratic and liberal Independent turnout and likely win
over many white working-class swing voters.
Clinton’s most persistent
attack—parroted by mainstream media—claims that Sanders’s agenda is perhaps
laudable but unrealistic.
Moderation is more effective, she claims. However, this is a misreading of
American politics and factual comparisons of the candidates’ track records.
The Clinton pragmatism frame
is a strangely naïve and fatalistic misjudging of political culture and
dynamics. During most of his eight years in office, President Obama has tacked
to the center in hopes of bipartisan compromise
on everything from gun control to the budget, only to be met by relentless
Republican obstruction,
even labeled a “socialist
dictator.” Republicans did much the same during Bill Clinton’s first
term—pushing him more deeply into the political center, where, with plenty of support
from Hillary, President Clinton and the Gingrich Congress gutted welfare,
enacted a deeply compromised crime
bill, and reversed bank
regulations (something Hillary is OK
with even after the financial crisis).
No matter where a Democratic
president is on the spectrum, Republicans block and push rightward. In her
campaign, as in the past, Hillary Clinton has compromised her agenda before the
political battle even begins.
Based on her record and
political positions, it is not credible for Democrats to hope that a Clinton
presidency can deliver progressive change. It is not pragmatic to hope that
Clinton, by dint of her centrist leanings, can work with Congress on anything
other than a centrist agenda—at best. To the extent that she gets things done
with a Republican legislature, based on an electoral mandate of centrism, there
is zero prospect of progressive reform on Wall Street, corporate
accountability, wealth inequality, or campaign finance. In politics, if you
demand a mile, you get a foot; demand a moderate inch, and at best, you get a centimeter.
On the other side of the
ledger, history shows that political and social change emanate from persistent
pressure—organizing and arguing for a more just world, not settling for what is
deemed “realistic” before getting to the negotiating table. Remember when gay
rights and gay marriage were “unrealistic”? Remember when voting rights,
desegregation, and other basic justice were far from “pragmatic”? They became
real through years of dedicated, principled, idealism—by insisting the
unrealistic become real.
If liberals and progressives
support a $15 per-hour minimum wage, universally accessible health care, fair
taxes on corporations and wealth, and meaningful reforms of Wall Street and
campaign finance, they should elect a president who actually fights for these
things. Sanders has spent his whole political life in pursuit of these ideals,
and his campaign has moved these conversations to the fore; Clinton’s record on
the other hand shows a consistent pattern of following,
not
leading on these issues. Clinton’s brand of pragmatism surrenders
progressive change to centrism even before negotiations begin.
Change is not, as Clinton has claimed,
a matter of “magical” thinking or waving a “wand”—it is about pushing ideas,
building movements, and challenging the status quo. Even before the general
election, Clinton is campaigning on a deflating and defeatist politics of
half-a-loaf “pragmatism,” aiming
lower on minimum wage, opposing
free college, opposing
single-payer health care. With Sanders, there is no question he will push for
meaningful progressive change. No candidate can guarantee passage of their
platform—but at least Sanders makes change possible.
On the question of leadership,
Clinton’s other central campaign theme is her record of experience. As first
lady, Clinton failed
at health-care reform. She never pushed for single-payer health care and never
built a coalition for anything beyond a compromised managed-care system. She
also supported three of Bill Clinton’s signature measures, which all proved
disastrous: welfare
rollback, which unraveled
safety-net supports for poor families, low-income women, and millions of
working-class Americans; the omnibus crime
bill with its three strikes and mandatory minimum sentencing, which
contributed to a generation of long-term, largely African American inmates and
felons; and NAFTA,
which helped impoverish millions of Mexican and Central America farmers,
leading to mass migration and social and economic upheaval.
In one undistinguished term as
U.S. senator, Clinton opposed
gay marriage, voted
for the Iraq war, and supported
the Patriot Act, among other positions. As secretary of state, while logging
impressive global mileage, Clinton pushed
for aggressive regime change in Libya, and she worked hard to expand
corporate military contracts
and fracking
abroad. Whether the American public finds her record favorable or not, it is
not one of progressive, forward-looking leadership.
Sanders has consistently demonstrated
leadership, speaking out, introducing legislation, and laying the political
groundwork on a wide array of issues, including: gay
rights (long before they gained mainstream support), workers’
rights and union
rights, universal single-payer
health care, family and medical leave protections,
and expansions
of Social Security. On nearly every
major issue—labor and economic justice,
to the Iraq
War and the Patriot Act,
welfare
reform, NAFTA,
the Keystone
XL pipeline, and the Transpacific
Partnership—Sanders has taken clear consistent stands, while Clinton has
waffled, backtracked, and leaned to the center.
There is no magic wand to
accomplish change. No candidate or president can promise change—he or she can
only make it possible. What makes change happen, history and current U.S.
politics show, is principled and courageous commitment and integrity—not
Clinton’s fatalistic pragmatism, which insists that pushing for more is
unrealistic and therefore capitulates before the fight even starts. On the
other hand, it is entirely pragmatic to expect a President Bernie Sanders to
fight hard for the justice and equality issues he has championed his entire
political life—giving these ideas a chance, rather than no chance at all.
About the Author
Christopher D.
Cook is a journalist based in San Francisco. He has written for the Los
Angeles Times, The Economist, The Christian Science Monitor, and Mother Jones.
No comments:
Post a Comment