Bernie Sanders (D) is already a compromise. How dare you ask me to vote for Hillary Clinton?
On March 24, U.S. District Judge Richard Story ordered Georgia’s election code to ease the restrictions on third party candidates, saying the constraint “prevents Georgia voters from being able to effectively exercise their political choice in favor of third party or independent candidates.” This argument, that allowing a party monopoly or duopoly restricts the rights of voters to participate and effectively change our situation, ought to be used more in the near future. We need more democratic ways to be a democracy.
Almost every day now someone argues that the inter-party divide between the Republicans and Democrats is more significant than the intra-party split between Clinton and Sanders. Whichever candidate the Democratic Party chooses, the claim goes, she should be supported by all liberals so that Donald Trump or Ted Cruz does not win the election. (Sorry, John.) This argument is deeply flawed, myopic, and, quite frankly, dishonest because the supposed left-wing party is currently choosing between a center, maybe center-left, candidate and a Republican; long-term political goals are not taken into account; and proponents contradict themselves when they speak about general election viability.
Yes, Bernie Sanders is actually a centrist. Not Centrist Third Way, but his platform is exactly what Americans want from our government. This is well-documented, and Mother Jones consolidates it all here: Americans know the current economic system is unfair; 68 to 79 percent say the wealthy pay too little in taxes. Sixty-four percent of us favor regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Sixty-three percent support a $15 minimum wage; over half of Americans (including 25- 33% of Republicans) support single-payer healthcare. On and on, down to social issues. Statistics can be misleading, but when survey after survey gives the same general result — sixty-something percent here, sixty- or seventy-something there, more than half — it becomes a trend. If Americans voted on issues, rather than candidates, Bernie Sanders would have been president long ago. This is also known as populism. The other alarming conclusion here is that the state of American Politics today is such that a candidate who represents most citizens is a “radical Socialist.” Take a moment to digest that.
Now that we have established Sanders around the center of the political spectrum, representative of a majority of Americans, is it difficult to believe that there are people to the left? There are plenty of reasons Bernie may not be someone’s cup of “revolutionary” tea. While Bernie is sometimes critical of Israel’s actions, he does not seem intent on changing much about our exorbitantly overfunded military; he opposes reparations for descendants of enslaved Africans and seems a little blind to the fact that racism is not completely a function of classism and wealth inequality. He is a little softer on Snowden than the Republicans, but he would still see the whistleblower prosecuted instead of deemed a hero. Without a doubt, Bernie Sanders is a lousy radical. Not to mention that he is running as a Democrat, a party deep in the pockets of corporations and lobbyists. Even if he can successfully change the culture of the party, there are so many constraints within it that many leftists see blocking his way from making any progress; the party is too corrupt and too far gone. He has also vowed to back Hillary Clinton if she does win the nomination (though this seems increasingly up in the air).
Bernie’s success, however, is a testament to what the American people really want. That even within the anti-grassroots Democratic Party, citizens are angry at Wall Street, at corporate bailouts, at skyrocketing CEO pay with a stagnant minimum wage (at a culture which approves of setting wages as low as an employer legally can). Those on the left admit that his campaign’s resilience is a good thing and this may be our best shot at getting anything close to changes we would like to see into the nation’s highest office. Not unlike how Clinton supporters say that, even though she is a moderate and bought off by Wall Street and sort of a Republican and ran a racist 2008 campaign against Obama and opposes Glass-Steagall and sends orphans back to Central American smugglers to “send a message” and changes positions based on public opinion, she may be anybody’s best shot at some incremental change to the left of Trump. We are voting to make change within the system just as you are; we just seek bigger increments and a better goal.
What offended Hillary supporters do not understand about Bernie or Busters is that we are not otherwise-Democrats who would be content voting for Hillary Clinton if there never were a Bernie Sanders (Just as Nader voters in 2000 were not otherwise-Democrats; while 12% of actual Florida Democrats voted for George W. Bush, fleeing a Democratic Establishment candidate who was forced onto them — sound familiar?). Senator Sanders commands a lead of 36% among independents while Secretary Clinton’s favorability rating among independents has gone down 31 points since her first run in 2008. Comparable demographic data of each candidate’s supporters is difficult to find, but it seems safe to say that Bernie’s base consists of significantly more independents and even Republicans than Hillary’s. This might answer the question as to why one-third of Bernie Sanders supporters will not vote for Hillary Clinton in a general election. You can make a pretty solid argument that Hillary Clinton is preferred by Democrats and, thus, should be the Democratic Party’s nominee. Democrats, however, do pander to independents; it is they who bring up the claim about keeping a Republican out of the White House, and Bernie does a better job at that than Hillary.
Does it not say something important that Clinton supporters will almost all support Sanders in a general election, but a large number of his supporters cannot stomach voting for Clinton? If you are really worried about Trump winning the White House, is that not reason enough to pull Hillary out now and nominate Bernie? The Democrats are not actually interested in defeating the Republican. They are interested in seeing Hillary Clinton become president. Piece after piece tries to argue that “She’s more electable” (yes, I’ve seen capitalized She) or “far more likely to win the general election than Sanders” with nothing more to that statement, no link or citation. As much as the establishment tries to contain it, Bernie Sanders has shown to have the competitive edge over Hillary Clinton against every Republican. I fully accept that polling data this early on is next to useless, but it is all we have; and if you are going to bring up electability you must include the objective numbers. They are not simply misleading statistics thrown without context: multiple polls over time show the same trend. Again, poll after poll demonstrates the same result and they are not in Clinton’s favor. Sanders is far more likely to win in the general election than Clinton (at this point in time). This is not up for debate. Stop making that claim.
In what world, I then ask, does the Democratic Party continue to push an unliked, in fact disliked, and distrusted, candidate onto voters and oblige us to vote depending on which candidate is worse? Oh, right, the same one that made the people’s candidate the radical Socialist. (And Hillary Clinton the Progressive.) So, if the Democratic Party does nominate Hillary Clinton, is it not better to keep Donald Trump or Ted Cruz out of the White House, even for independents and some Republicans? Thus far, my response has been that it would not be that bad, representation aside, if we have a president who both Republicans and Democrats alike hate. Yes, Supreme Court justices are on the line and there are significant executive powers, but remember our system of checks and balances. And if nothing else, Congress has proven its ability to obstruct everything the president does. The latest objections to Bernie or Bust have something to do with privilege and marginalized people suffering under a Republican president at the hands of Bernie-backing crybabies. (Never mind the people who have suffered and will continue to suffer at the hands of people voting for the lesser evil — Holly Wood has some excellent pieces on what voting for the lesser evil over time gets us.) So, what is it that makes voters, who obviously care deeply about the marginalized, willing to see four years of a Republican who we presumably disagree with more than Hillary?
A rejection of Lesser Evilism — that is voting against rather than for — has not convinced many who, reasonably, view the two-party system as the reality of politics. I maintain that refusing to validate a campaign system which obstructs the will of the voters does not make us culpable for the result. The DNC, the media, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz forced Hillary Clinton onto us and we found a way out. When we realize the Democratic Party is also the party of economic deregulation and gutting social safety nets, all we want to do is throw them a big middle finger. Do not discount the voters on the right, as well, unwilling to vote for their frontrunners. The only candidate with any chance of beating both Sanders and Clinton has been fully dismissed by voters.
As it turns out, there is deeper strategy to this. Democrats will not keep the White House over and over. In fact, having just had two terms of a Democratic president, it is next to impossible that we would have two more Democratic terms. Both Clinton and Trump have such low approval ratings going in, that either presidency would be perceived to fail. American voters are very reactionary: An unpopular figure winning in 2016 means 2018 elections will swing toward the other party. Shane Ryan argues that Trump winning “would give America’s growing left enough energy to elect actual progressives across the board” come 2020 which, he also points out, is a census year in which districts get redrawn and the majority party will decide the country’s political path for the next 10 years. On the other hand, a Clinton presidency would bring a Republican sweep and another decade of backwardness. Needless to say, that would be worse. This is not an endorsement of Donald Trump in 2016. My bigger goal is to rid the country of the corporate two-party dominance.
By the way, Supreme Court justices will always be available: only four presidents have not had the opportunity to shape the Court, all single-term presidents, two of whom died within a month and within a year, respectively, after taking office. If you allow the potential for presidential influence on the High Court to dictate how you vote every election, we will never get anywhere!
There are other valid strategic reasons for liberals not to vote Democrat, in particular to vote Green. Voting for the lesser evil might make you feel good short-term, but it reinforces the two-party control (Also, the lesser evil is still evil.) Irrespective of the dominant parties, if enough people vote for the Green Party and Dr. Stein receives 5% of the vote, instead of less than one percent, Greens would be eligible for the Presidential Election Campaign Fund’s grant in 2020. Candidates who poll at 15% are allowed to debate. Remember how you keep trying to convince me that incremental change is more realistic? There you have some tangible increments to satisfy your lust for settling. Just like Donald Trump.
