Taking the “Democratic” out of “Democratic Party”
If establishment Democrats don’t want progressive votes in the primary, why should we bother with the general election?
Woody Allen once famously said that “eighty percent of success is showing up.” In politics, it’s more like 99%, which is why I have previously encouraged everyone — on both sides of the aisle — to go out and vote in the primaries. But I am so disgusted by Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and the Democratic Party’s leadership, that I don’t know if I can bring myself to show up for the general election this year.
I am an ardent progressive. I believe that one of the key functions of our government is the promotion of social justice and equality of opportunity. By regulating private industry, encouraging diversity, and protecting the interests of the majority of citizens over wealthy elites, I know we can move forward toward a fairer, freer America. Unsurprisingly, tomorrow I will enthusiastically cast my ballot in Pennsylvania’s primary in favor of Sen. Bernie Sanders. He is an inspiration to people who share my views, and I truly believe if more voters knew about him and the principles for which he stands, this race would have been over long ago.
Though I still hold out hope for Sen. Sanders to secure the nomination, the odds certainly favor Sen. Clinton at this point. There are many reasons for her growing lead in this primary. She certainly deserves credit for her resounding success attracting minority voters, though I personally chalk that up to the “Clinton brand” more than Sen. Clinton personally. Her greatest advantage, however, has always come from superdelegates. Superdelegates are party leaders and other important figures who are permitted to cast votes at the Democratic National Convention. Since they are not elected like the rest of the (pledged) delegates, they aren’t bound to any particular candidate and can cast their votes in favor of whoever they wish.
Democratic National Committee chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz explained the function of superdelegates during a February interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper as follows:
Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists.
Let that sink in for a minute. Rep. Wasserman Schultz explicitly admitted that the entire reason superdelegates exist is to hamper democracy. They shield establishment politicians from the inconvenience of running against outsiders, and keep them from the horror of having to take firm, consistent positions on the issues. A colleague of mine, an active, old-school Democrat, has explained to me that in his view, superdelegates are specifically intended to prevent the Party from becoming too liberal. He remembers Sen. George McGovern’s crushing defeat in 1972, and feels that ideologues like me need to be restrained for our own good. Superdelegates are the means by which such control is accomplished.
This line of thinking, and the superdelegates which undergird it, are perfect representations of everything that is wrong with our current political system. They are, in literal terms, “the establishment” that the electorate has chosen to roundly reject this season. These superdelegates are unelected and therefore totally unaccountable, and most of the time we don’t even hear about them. Yet they cast around 15% of the total votes in a Democratic primary. They are more than enough to swing any remotely close election. When combined with tactics like rigging delegate tallies, manipulating debate schedules, and intentionally purging otherwise eligible voters from the rolls, they permit the Party leadership to tip the scales in favor of a given candidate. In the past few weeks, it has become increasingly clear that the DNC’s leadership has chosen to use this power. The fix is in. Sen. Clinton won this primary before it even began.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, supporters of Sen. Clinton have now taken to deriding those of us who question this broken process. Apparently, now that the Party leadership has made its decision, we are meant to shut up and vote for Sen. Clinton in the general election. Why? Because whoever the Republicans nominate is surely going to be worse. So not voting for her is being a spoiled brat; nothing more than cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Patton Oswalt, the comedian, recently echoed this sentiment quite bluntly. He said that if a Sanders supporter will not vote for Clinton in the general election, it’s because they are “a fucking child.” I beg to differ.
For a progressive, Sen. Clinton is simply not an attractive candidate. The only reason she is even discussing progressive causes is because Sen. Sanders’ campaign has forced her hand. Sen. Clinton’s positions on major issues change when it suits her. Perhaps that’s why more than a third of primary voters in her home state don’t trust her, twice the number of those same voters who question Sen. Sanders.
It may also be because she, like her husband, is a “New Democrat.” They claim to be moderate, and therefore a realistic option. Such has been the common refrain of the Clinton campaign: Sanders is great, but too outspoken and ultimately “unelectable,” while middle-of-the-road Hillary can win and “get things done.” In actuality, New Democrats like Sen. Clinton are markedly right-leaning and unprogressive. Remember, it was Bill Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall, allowing investment banks to torpedo our country’s economy. One could hardly imagine a less progressive move from a Democratic president.
The fact that the Republicans are likely to nominate either a religious zealot or a borderline lunatic doesn’t mean that Sen. Clinton is in any way exciting. It just makes her the less crappy of two astoundingly disappointing options. So to be presented with her condescending, paternalistic, and flat-out-wrong line of reasoning makes me furious. Yes, Sen. Clinton is not as bad as Sen. Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. But she is not going to enact progressive policies once in office. So why should we be excited if she wins? With Sen. Clinton as the Democratic nominee, progressives lose no matter what happens in the general election.
For the first time in my life, I truly question whether I can, in good conscience, cast my ballot in favor of the Democrats for president. I have done so before because in each presidential election in which I have voted, the Democratic choice has always been clearly superior. But I also did so because I believed that my voice, and the voices of progressives like me, mattered to the Democratic Party. This primary clearly shows that if that was ever the case, it certainly isn’t anymore.
Ultimately, my allegiance is first and foremost to my ideals. While I think he has done an exceptional job in office, I do not agree with many of the choices made by the current head of the Party, Pres. Barack Obama. His positions with respect to, for example, domestic surveillance, or the use of drones abroad, are unacceptable to me. I suppose that my reluctance to blindly support Pres. Obama makes me a bad Democrat. As perhaps does my disinclination to vote for Sen. Clinton. But when it comes down to a choice between the two, I would much rather be a good progressive than a good Democrat.
We are still half a year away from Election Day, and it really is too early to make a decision one way or the other. Maybe between now and then, Sen. Clinton will change my mind. I will certainly allow her to try. Something tells me, though, that once the primaries are complete, she will “pivot” away from liberalism in favor of more politically appealing moderation. If she does, I won’t have much choice but to pivot away from her — and possibly the Democratic Party — for good.
