By Walker Bragman
| March 9, 2016 | 9:22am
Photo by J.D. Pooley/Getty
After Hillary Clinton’s
southern dominance, as well as her narrow wins in Iowa and Massachusetts,
Bernie Sanders’ Michigan win could be a turning point. For weeks the Wolverine
State appeared to be a safe bet for Clinton—even FiveThirtyEight gave her a greater
than 99 percent chance of winning. However, as voters became more familiar with
Sanders, the dynamic changed. This latest victory is a welcome narrative shift
for the underdog Vermont Senator which promises to carry him to future
victories in the North and states that Democrats can win in a general election.
Sanders’ win is a good thing
for Democrats because he is the only candidate who can unite the party in
November. There is no way economic progressives and Bernie supporters will
accept a Hillary Clinton nomination after everything they’ve seen in this
primary.
The other night Vermont
superdelegate Howard Dean tweeted the following:
In Dean’s state, Hillary
Clinton won less than 14 percent of the popular vote. To Bernie Sanders
supporters, Dean’s promise to vote Clinton in spite of the overwhelming voice
of the people of Vermont is just the latest example of the primary being rigged
against them. To progressives, it is further evidence of the “coronation” which
has dissuaded many from voting (voter participation is down nearly 30
percent from 2008).
The feeling that Bernie
Sanders has not been given a fair shake has given rise to the “Bernie Or Bust”
movement—voters who will turn their backs on Hillary Clinton in November if she
wins the nomination. These voters now represent roughly 14
percent of the Democratic base, and are a growing concern for party leaders
who fear that the division will lead to a President Trump or a President Cruz.
This fear has caused much hand wringing and outrage from Clinton supporters
directed at the Bernie Camp.
However, if this scenario does
happen, and Trump or Cruz wins the election due to low Democratic turnout, the
blame will lie squarely with Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and the media for
alienating Bernie supporters.
Hillary Clinton
In spite of her
record, her donor
list and the fact that most of her campaign funding (83
percent) comes from large donors—all of which progressives find
troubling—Hillary Clinton could have stemmed the spread of “Bernie Or Bust.”
Instead she has conducted her campaign in such a way that, now, most
voters feel she is dishonest.
A recent
article from the New York Times revealed that Clinton’s strategy to defeat
Trump boils down to fear. She hopes to scare enough of the economic progressive
wing of the Democratic Party (Bernie’s camp) into voting for her while she
appeals to social moderates on the right. This is why Clinton flip-flops
on progressive rhetoric even in the internet age where voters can easily see
her playing both sides on Youtube.
This inconsistency is due to
the fact that the Clinton Camp does not appear to view Bernie’s progressive
voters as reliable—nor do they appreciate their situation. To that end, Hillary
has dismissed concerns about her record; she has not released the transcripts
of her paid Wall Street speeches (which made her millions of dollars); she has
characterized Bernie supporters as unrealistic, sexist, and seeking
handouts.
On the other hand, Donald Trump,
often speaks about inequality in America: protecting workers from free trade,
taxing “hedge fund guys,” and allowing the government to negotiate drug prices
for Medicare. In the past he’s supported liberal causes like abortion rights
and universal health care. This rhetoric appeals to many blue-collar Americans
who make up the Democratic Party’s economically progressive base. The Clinton
Camp’s response to this appeal is troubling to Bernie supporters. As former
Pennsylvania governor Edward
G. Rendell indicated:
For every one of those
blue-collar Democrats he picks up, he will lose to Hillary two socially
moderate Republicans and independents in suburban Cleveland, suburban Columbus,
suburban Cincinnati, suburban Philadelphia, suburban Pittsburgh, places like
that.
Indeed, many moderate
Republicans have said they would vote
Hillary Clinton over Trump, which means that if those two were the nominees
for their respective parties, the Democratic Party would expand to encompass
these conservatives. Sanders supporters worry that in an effort to win two
terms, Clinton would try to appeal to these new conservative voters by tacking
right on economics. This is not the direction Sanders progressives think the
Democratic Party needs to move—nor is it the direction the party or the country
has
been moving over the past eight years.
As such, they worry that their
concerns would not be listened to by a center-right Clinton administration.
The DNC
But Clinton is not the only
one apparently taking progressive votes for granted. From the debate schedule
and the threat of punishment for any candidate caught participating in
unsanctioned debates, to lifting its own rules against donations from federal
lobbyists and superPACs, it has become apparent that the DNC has not been
worried about Sanders supporters defecting or sitting out—until recently.
The superdelegate system is a
relic of the 1980s when Democratic leadership sought to win back the formerly
“Solid South” from the GOP which it had lost pursuing a Civil Rights platform.
Last month, the system was put under the microscope when DNC Chair Debbie
Wasserman Schultz, who served as Clinton’s co-campaign chair in 2008, admitted,
in a moment of candor, that superdelegates (whose ranks include Bill Clinton)
exist to insulate
party leaders from “grassroots activists.” Thanks to this election cycle,
Ms. Schultz now faces a progressive primary challenger, Tim
Canova.
Fearing similar backlash, some
party leaders in safe districts have sought to distance themselves from
Schultz. Nancy Pelosi, for example, has come
out against the superdelegate system as being undemocratic. However, the
damage has been done. Schultz’ and now Dean’s remarks have cemented the worst
fears of Bernie supporters—that party leaders, regardless of popular vote, will
subvert the will of the people and hand victory to the establishment candidate,
Hillary Clinton.
But superdelegates aren’t the
only problem with the primary process Sanders supporters see which stems from
the 1980’s. The fact that the southern states who vote GOP in the general
election overwhelmingly
vote first, setting the narrative for the rest of the primary, is seen as
indication that the party really values conservative voices over its liberal
base.
The DNC’s actions have many
progressives seriously considering whether or not the Democratic Party is the
right vehicle for the changes they want to see—especially since Trump is doing
so well on the other side. If Hillary were to win the nod, it is likely both
parties could realign as it would seem a confirmation of an answer in the
negative.
The Media
The final nail in the
lesser-of-two-evils coffin has been the perceived pro-Clinton media bias.
From the start of the primary,
news outlets, wonks, and talking heads have been helping spread a narrative
that Bernie
Sanders can’t win. Additionally, Sanders supporters have been labeled
everything from naive to sexist.
At the same time, they’ve seen Hillary Clinton asked fluff
questions at town halls; they’ve seen her hailed as the responsible choice
though she has not outlined any concrete plans for major issues like health care reform;
they’ve seen her allies make sexist
remarks, and get away with it.
Adding insult to injury, many
of the people pushing the pro-Clinton narrative were those progressives once
counted among their ranks. And many of the news outlets promoting the former
Secretary were those they previously trusted.
It didn’t take long before it
came out that many of those individuals and outlets had ties
to the Clinton political machine. Paul Krugman, who made a prima facie
argument against the recent study showing Bernie Sanders’ economic plan would
generate unprecedented growth. He called it “voodoo,” but he never
even ran the numbers, or looked at the models. Also included under the The
Washington Post, owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos whose financial ties to the
Clintons are well-documented,
recently ran 16
anti-Sanders stories within 16 hours. Blue
Nation Review, owned by political trigger-man and Clinton attack dog, David
Brock, is an anti-Sanders propaganda site.
Recently, Gawker
revealed the extent of the Clintons’ influence over the media by leaking
screenshots from 2009. The first is an email in which Clinton’s
then-spokesperson, Philippe Reines, told then-politics editor of The Atlantic,
Marc Ambinder, what language to use to describe a speech of Hillary’s in an
upcoming article. The second picture shows the article using the language.
Regardless of what side one
comes down on, this influence
is disturbing. Bernie progressives have, through this primary, unwittingly
uncovered the corrupted heart of our system: that influence peddling and money
rule on both sides of the aisle. Supporting Hillary, to some extent, means
capitulating, and accepting this system—which is exactly what Bernie Sanders is
fighting against.
No Good Options With Hillary
If Bernie Sanders wins the
nomination Clinton supporters will likely fall in line. The simple reason for
that is there’s nothing they have to lose with his presidency. And while they
may disagree on certain issues, they do accept that he’s fundamentally
different from, and better than the GOP.
However, the same cannot be
said if Hillary Clinton wins. To Sanders supporters, the prospect of a Clinton
nomination presents a serious dilemma. They would be torn between stopping a
crypto-fascist from reaching the White House for four years (and all that
entails), and voting to potentially kill their own movement. Voting for Hillary
would mean diluting their power within the Democratic Party by supporting a
leader who is bankrolled by big donors, caters
to economic conservatives, and has shown progressive causes little
commitment save for when it is convenient for her political career.
Additionally, it would show the DNC that their votes are guaranteed despite the
disregard shown by the party towards them. And most importantly, it would set a
dangerous precedent that the media gets to pick the winners of the primary
before any votes are even cast.
The “Bernie Or Bust” movement
is controversial, and is viewed as destructively naive by some. However, the
decision not to support the potential Democratic nominee for president with all
that that entails, is not one reached lightly. The promise of a Clinton
coronation has resulted in low
turnout already in this primary. Voters want change, and they do not see
Mrs. Clinton as a vehicle for it. Democratic leaders like Debbie Wasserman
Schultz and Howard Dean should recognize the
danger they’ve put the party and country in.
As I said in the beginning, it
is a good thing for Democrats that Bernie Sanders won Michigan last night.
No comments:
Post a Comment