Establishment Democrats Are Not Republicans
A plea for the “or bust” voters to examine the facts
Bernie Sanders is a smart guy. He has, on multiple occasions, promised to support whoever the eventual Democratic nominee for president ends up being, just as he did in 2016. This is most certainly because he understands what is at stake. For all of his (mostly valid) critiques of the Democratic Party establishment, it is abundantly clear that even the most establishmentarian Democrats in the race are many orders of magnitude better than Donald Trump on policy.
Unfortunately, policy does not seem to matter as much as it should for a particular cohort of possible voters. Having apparently learned the wrong lessons from Trump’s narrow 2016 victory, some diehard Sanders supporters are still ignoring their hero’s advice and discouraging their comrades from voting “blue no matter who.”
To be fair, it is not all, nor exclusively, Sanders supporters doing this. Some followers of other outside-the-mainstream candidates (Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard), have also vowed to only support their number one. That said, Sanders has built up a significantly larger following than these other candidates, and, according to at least one poll, nearly half of Sanders supporters are considering staying home if their man is not the nominee.
The “Bernie-or-bust” crowd sometimes uses a strange circular logic to justify this. If Sanders does not get the nomination, many of his supporters will simply stay home. Therefore, they argue, opponents of Trump had better make damn sure he lands the nomination, or else. If this is the case, though, it is only because many of these same people have been actively encouraging their peers to vote Bernie-or-bust. Spreading hyperbole and misinformation about the other Democrats online probably does hurt said Democrats’ chances of winning a general election. Perpetuating the myth that Sanders is the lone saint in a crowd full of liars and heretics only serves to add a layer of cultishness to his candidacy. Spreading conspiracy theories about the Iowa Caucus plays right into Trump’s hands. Making people believe, incorrectly, that any “establishment” Democrat will be just as bad as the Republicans is certainly bad for Democrats.
To see the error in this belief, skeptics of the Democratic establishment need only look to Virginia. It has been just over a month since the state’s new Democratic majority came to power. Virginia, mind you, is hardly known for being a progressive powerhouse. It is a Southern(ish) swing state where Democrats typically position themselves as centrists in order to win elections. Virginia’s current governor, Ralph Northam, handily defeated a Sanders-backed progressive candidate in the 2017 gubernatorial race. Northam is famous for his moderate posturing, folksy demeanor, and deeply problematic past. Despite this, Democrats were still able to reclaim control of the state legislature in 2018, riding a blue wave of anti-Trump sentiment. Most of the winners (both at the state and federal level) ran on relatively moderate platforms (more moderate than Pete Buttigieg’s) . What have these tepid fence-straddlers accomplished since taking back the state? A lot.
Five weeks into the new legislative session, many substantial reform measures are accelerating through the Democrat-controlled statehouses. An Equal Rights Amendment. New legal protections for LGBTQ Virginians. Increased access to abortion. Gun control (in the NRA’s home state, no less). Rolling back Republican voter suppression laws. Driver’s licenses and other legal protections for undocumented immigrants. Decriminalization of cannabis. More education funding. And this is just the beginning! In a state that only recently expanded Medicaid (thanks, Obama!), the possibility of a state-run health insurance exchange is now on the table, along with new plans for investments in renewable energy. And while we’re at it, let’s throw in a minimum wage hike.
It almost feels like what we need is nothing quite as dramatic as a political revolution. Rather, we simply need to get the obstructionist GOP out of the way and start passing smart, pragmatic reforms like these that will benefit most people.
But wait! If all we need is a Democratic majority to make real progress happen, why did President Obama not take advantage of the two-year Congressional majority he oversaw at the beginning of this first term? Well, he did. The reforms that passed during Obama’s first term were as progressive as the makeup of Congress would allow at that time. If Bernie Sanders becomes the next president, he will have to compromise some of his vision as well (even his top surrogate now admits this). It is important to be honest about political reality. It may be easy and cathartic to call someone a shill or a sellout, but the truth his usually more complicated.
And let us be clear about another thing. There are plenty of legitimate critiques that can be made about Democratic politicians. But crucially, this does not equate them to Donald Trump or the modern GOP. For example, Obama’s record on immigration was a mixed bag. During his first term, his administration oversaw a continuous rise in deportations. Then, after securing his second term, he signed DACA, providing a temporary sense of security for millions of undocumented Americans. Many on the left were rightfully critical of Obama’s reluctance to take a firmer stance on immigrants’ rights. But to conclude that Obama's immigration legacy is comparable to Trump’s is to blatantly ignore reality. The Trump administration has attempted to undo many of the good aspects of Obama’s immigration policy (threatening DACA protections, drastically cutting the number of admitted refugees, rescinding temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of long-term displaced people) while pushing the worst aspects of US immigration policy to a whole new level (the Muslim ban, a new zero-tolerance policy for illegal border crossings, increased ICE raids). Trump and his ilk are insistent on making this humanitarian nightmare worse, while Democrats across the country are doing what they can to mitigate the damage.
Yes, it is both contentious and polarizing to say that one political party is responsible for most of the bad while the other party is responsible for most of the good. But it is also true.
I am personally able to recognize that, in many ways, I’m a privileged person. Having worked/volunteered with extremely underprivileged communities (undocumented immigrants, the homeless, those with severe mental illness), I feel grateful every day for the privileged existence into which I was born. That being said, it is hard for me to comprehend the level of privilege that it takes to say, “If I don’t get my way, everyone less fortunate than me may as well suffer for it.” If you fully understand the harm that Trump has done and will continue to do if given the chance, yet still choose not to vote for a candidate who you know will do much less harm, that is the moral statement you are making.
Sanders may well win the nomination, and if he does, I will be helping people get to the polls on election day and encouraging everyone I know to vote. As Joe Biden put it, “I’m going to work like hell for him.” Any opponent of Trump’s autocratic and ultranationalist impulses should be prepared to do the same for any of the Democratic candidates.
There is something rather inconsistent, and a bit unsettling, when people who claim to be advocates for democracy, egalitarianism, and people-power start zealously elevating one candidate to god-like status. Idolizing politicians is a dangerous game.
Making consequentialist calculations about “lesser evils” is not super emotionally satisfiying. Politics would be a lot easier if life were like the movies and the world had clearly defined heroes and villains. In the real world, all people are fallible, some more than others. Most politicians have a mix of good and bad ideas, some more good than bad and some vice versa. Even some well-intended policies may be harmful, and some “cynical compromises” may be largely beneficial.
When we support a candidate, it should not be because we believe them to be a white knight committed to fighting the forces of evil. It should be because we have carefully examined their policy posistions and come to the conclusion that they will do more good and less harm compared to their opponent. Instead of putting all our faith in some make-believe hero, let’s be real and vote for less needless suffering in the years to come. Falsely proclaiming that most politicians are essentially the same is far more cynical and dangerous.
