Sorry Berners, There Never Was a Revolution

It’s time to admit the truth.

So let’s call it. Campaign slogans notwithstanding, Bernie Sanders never led a political revolution. Don’t get me wrong, I love everything Bernie stands for. But was he, is he, a revolutionary? I say no. And I admire him more for it. Allow me to state my case — and explain why it’s important to put this belief to rest.

How far was Bernie willing to go?

While hardcore Bernie-or-busters would love to see a progressive third party, the Vermont senator himself never wanted it. (Though that would indeed be revolutionary!) He said way back in January, 2015, “I don’t want to be a spoiler.” It’s one reason why he ran as a Democrat in the first place — so he could take his agenda to the national stage without siphoning votes from the Democratic Party. Though his most ardent devotees would like to, er, Bern the house down, he himself never aspired to be the next Ralph Nader.

What about his ideas? Free college? Ambitious! Overturning Citizens United? Audacious! But raising taxes on the rich? Ehh. Raising the minimum wage? Already happening. And jobs, jobs, jobs? No duh. These last three planks are boilerplate progressivism. A career politician switching parties to work within the electoral system to enact a set of policy changes, is not all that revolutionary.

While he did insist “we’re in this race to win,” it’s not at all clear he meant it. Upon announcing his bid for the White House, no one really thought he’d get as far as he did. Not even him. Massively outgunned by the Republic of Hillary, the best he could say about his odds of going all the way was, “I think people should be a little bit careful underestimating me.” He was right, by the way.

Then he declared himself a democratic socialist. (Not good timing, considering that in re Obamacare the term had almost become a swear word.)

Next, he had to teach America what socialism is. (That it’s not a revolutionary idea.)

None of these are exactly the choices of someone who hopes to seize the Oval Office. Yet, they’re not quite as incendiary as you’d expect from an actual revolutionary. They’re definitely the kind of thing a protest candidate would say.

Let’s take a quick look at the arc of his campaign.

If Sanders’ intentions were to stage a political revolution of any magnitude, he would have recognized that he couldn’t lead it alone. He would have used his campaign travel stumping for other progressives so that, once elected, they could help fight for his vision on Capitol Hill. But he didn’t do much of that until very recently — mid-April, 2016 — and only after it became a liability for his campaign.

In entering the primary race, Bernie indicated the kind of campaign he’d engage in: one free of the obligatory mudslinging it takes to win, promising “serious debates over serious issues — not political gossip, not making campaigns into soap offices. This is not the Red Sox versus the Yankees.”

Unfortunately, that didn’t last. Soon enough, his talking points expanded to criticism of Hill over her email travails, Goldman Sachs speeches and other presumed character issues as ammo in an all-out war for super-delegate votes. It was “the Red Sox versus the Yankees.”

So much for the “serious debates over serious issues.” He got sucked right into the system of dirty personality politics he’d repudiated. Electioneering, like war, changes a man. What started out as a genteel bid to bring key issues into the spotlight ended in a bare-knuckled fight for Pennsylvania Avenue.

In his defense, it’s possible that, just as he was nudging Hillary further to the left, hardcore Berners were likewise prodding their apostle toward an increasingly strident tone. They were a gale force and he was their kite. He began conforming to the talking points of a movement that he hadn’t foreseen and couldn’t control. Too little, too late, he tried to reign the Berniebros in.

Welp. Now what?

While the phrase “political revolution” made a great rallying cry, it was never the reality. Now it needs to be dialed down. Why? Because none of us really want to see what happens after the Bernie-or-busters ride the B Train right off the edge of an election-year Bernipice. We’ve got a job to do: bring a good-enough — maybe even great — Democrat to the White House. (Remember, Hillary’s the one who earned a whopping 69% approval rating as Secretary of State!) To borrow from Obama, it’s time to eat your peas.

Besides, not all was lost. He did what he originally set out to do: force Hillary’s hand on progressive issues—and she accommodated him, rejecting TPP (at a certain political cost, by the way), adding tuition-free college and vowing to make Wall Street and the 1% pay their fair share. As president, she’ll have to live up to those mandates.

Bernie Sanders tried his damnedest to move the country beyond corporate politics — and he scored some good points. Good on him. Now he’s gunning for the candidate most likely to see his vision through. So don’t resent him for working with Hillary—he’s a politician, not a radical. Don’t cry because his political revolution is over, smile because, in the end, we’ll have a very good shot at getting the changes we need.

OK. Go ahead. Crucify me in the comments. But if you liked this, I’d love a little 💚 bump.