Overhyping Sanders
One thing I continue to clash with many people on, especially in DSA, is the importance of Bernie Sanders to our current political moment and the support leftists should or shouldn’t lend him if he runs for president again. I should preface this by noting that though I am skeptical of electoral politics in general as a means of building a socialist movement, I have respect for those in DSA who have been successful and I can acknowledge the benefits the work can bring us on a local level. However, I don’t think any of this is relevant to Sanders. Compared to local electoral situations, I think the issues that Sanders poses are more about ideological consistency, standing up for our principles, and the desire we should all feel to hold those in power accountable.
Even if you’re like me and don’t have a strong political identification with Sanders, the impact of his presidential campaign on the American left is pretty undeniable. It opened a lot of people’s eyes to the possibilities of a grassroots, anti-corporate politics on the biggest stage that it had ever been on. Generally speaking, he is a welcome change in the US political hellscape and often times is literally the only person advocating for (some) basic leftist principles. Arguably though, the significance Sanders carried was not his own campaign or ideas, it was the amount of people who instead responded by slingshotting all the way past him ideologically. On a national level, DSA is the most important and successful example of this.
When you look at DSA and Bernie Sanders side-by-side, while he is by far the most palatable mainstream voice in politics, Sanders is a socialist in name only; he is not and has never been in favor of the kinds of radical change that would dismantle our most oppressive structures. For example: DSA as an organization passed a resolution supporting the BDS movement against Israel, in order to work towards ending the occupation of Palestine. Meanwhile, Sanders has explicitly rejected BDS, complained about Israel being “singled out” for human rights violations (his signature is also on a letter from AIPAC saying as much), and continues to voice the arguably outdated two-state solution. Another DSA endorsement of Sanders without holding him accountable for this pathetic cowardice, as Palestinians continue to suffer under apartheid, would render us nothing less than hypocrites. I could write an entire essay about the ideological inconsistencies between Sanders and the radical movement we’ve worked so hard to build in the last two years. Open the floodgates: police and prison abolition, radical economic planning (vs. glorifying capitalist Scandinavian countries as his ideal), the US state department and foreign policy in general……this can go on. But I think my criticism of his views on Palestine suffice for the purpose of this argument. I don’t think it should be so controversial to state that we have a moral imperative to not campaign for someone who doesn’t support BDS.
Anti-imperialism is a difficult topic to engage in for the western left. We live in the heart of empire and by default we contribute to the oppression of the global south. By nature these issues will not be solved in the short-term, nor through anything less than a seizure of state power by our movement. I understand the necessity of prioritizing our action to the short-term and towards actually securing that power, but in my opinion, this is precisely why it is so important to hold elected officials accountable to our demands. The reason my personal feelings on electoral politics tend towards skepticism is rooted in this: where does that accountability actually come from?
The primary reason people are in favor of a Sanders endorsement would likely be the success of the previous campaign for DSA as an organization. I do not contest this. DSA would almost certainly grow again(though to what degree is debatable) with an endorsement of a 2020 Sanders presidential run. What I do contest, however, is the idea that we should compromise on our politics as a price for this second surge in numbers. DSA has already successfully exposed more people to socialist politics than any other organization in recent history. This achievement belongs to us, not Bernie Sanders. I detest the idea that we have to stop spreading radical politics to a bigger and bigger audience because of deference to someone’s electoral ambition.
Someone help me understand: Why would Sanders, or any politician, ever listen to our ideological demands when they can win without us? If we do not make our radical, anti-imperialist, socialist politics clear now, why would any politician suddenly adopt them at the drop of the hat after they get elected? What is holding them to even a stated promise?DSA does not own or control Bernie Sanders. It would be marvelous if we did! In writing all of this I have posed a problem that I do not necessarily have a clear answer to, at least in terms of electoral solutions. I am not opposed to capitalizing (ironic word choice)on any advantage or numbers that Sanders is able to give us, but these kinds of benefits are a zero-sum game — and our interactions with him should be at his loss and our gain. I believe the relationship between leftist movements and their figureheads/elected officials should be one of subservience from our candidates. That has never been the case, however. Our country’s political tradition so often seems to assume the inverse; that the success of the individual should be served by the movement under them. Let’s reject this trend for once.
