The Dirtiest Word in the 2016 Race
It is blatant that Bernie Sanders is the far left Democratic candidate. In comparison with Hillary Clinton, on perhaps every issue with the exception of gun control, Sanders has tackled more extreme positions. At essentially every debate Sanders has used this fact to draw distinctions between himself and Clinton and pin himself as the better candidate. In the Town Hall on February 3rd and again in the debate on February 4th Sanders attacked Clinton with her labeling of herself as a “moderate” years prior. He additionally used establishment support as an example to further his point. In his classic cadence he shot out, “She has the entire establishment, or almost the entire establishment, behind her!” In response, Clinton’s volume increased and her frustration grew more apparent. She was on the defensive: “Senator Sanders is perhaps the only person who would characterize me as representing the establishment.”
Since when is representing the establishment something a candidate needs to deny? As Clinton went onto explain, establishment support simply means that those who have worked with her and have experience in politics support her. The two eventually seemed to reach some consensus about this: the topic itself is simply not worth the time. This back and forth exchange, though, is just indicative of a recurring issue. His attack and even her need to deflect the label portray a general problem with the 2016 race, on both the Democratic and Republican sides.
“Moderate” has become quite the dirty word.
Being the better candidate is suddenly equivalent to being the further out on the political spectrum candidate.
It is naive and narrow-minded for party members to assume that the more extreme candidate is automatically the more qualified one. It is a pretext for Americans to remain uninformed about policy and ignorant towards the entire policymaking process. At a time when the electorate is more polarized than ever, a moderate or establishment candidate would not be the worst thing. Having the ability to work across the aisle and cooperate with a Republican congress is actually an expertise.
Distrust in D.C. is at such a heightened level; it is understandable that Americans are being drawn to those more radical. But Sanders and many other candidates denoting establishment support and moderatism as a negative thing will only exacerbate this distrust.
Both the Democratic and Republican debates have spent minutes upon minutes squaring off about labels and scandals. And while the Democratic candidates have done a fairly good job regarding keeping these debates substantive, duking it out over labels and accepting “moderate” as a negatively conotated adjective takes them back a few steps. Sanders should stop glorifying his position on the political spectrum, and Clinton should stop feeling the need to defend herself against her own. And Democrats must stop buying into the whole charade. It might actually get policy accomplished that will further the party’s agenda as a whole.
