Resilience, but no revolution

Bernie Sanders won’t be the Democratic nominee for president. And it’s not because of superdelegate shenanigans or imaginary Clinton conspiracies* or the media’s reluctance to validate his candidacy. It’s not even because I endorsed Hillary and voted for her in the primary.

*Honestly, I don’t get the Clinton hate. To hear some of my leftish acquaintances tell it, the Clintons are somewhere between Richard Nixon and Attila the Hun on the universal scale of evil. 

But give the guy credit. He did better than expected on Super Tuesday. Not well enough to give him a shot at the nomination, but more than well enough to keep his candidacy going all the way to the Democratic convention.

Which is an absolutely worthwhile goal: get all the publicity you can for progressive ideas, and compel the Democratic Party to honor the left wing for the first time since, oh, 1972. Bernie has proven that the left wing is as strong a potential source of energy (and even money) that the party can’t afford to ignore. That is his enduring gift to our political discourse.

I may support Clinton, but I want the tough-as-nails Clinton who can force Republicans to acquiesce on advancing a progressive agenda, not the triangulating Clinton of the 1990s. And there’s the thing: some see the Clintons (Hillary, to some extent, unfairly tarred with her husband’s record) as heartless powermongers; I see them as fighting a rearguard action throughout the 90s against the advancing forces of Reaganism and the Gingrich Congress.

Well, I know I’m not getting anywhere relitigating that stuff.

I don’t believe conspiracy theories, but I will say this. The Super Tuesday lineup was stacked against Bernie. Monday night, Rachel Maddow had a good explainer about the Republican primary process: after Mitt Romney’s troublesome ride in 2012, the GOP decided to stack the deck in favor of the front-runner.  The crucial part of the schedule was compressed and front-loaded; Super Tuesday was stocked with Southern states representing the rock-solid Republican base.

The strategy backfired on the GOP this year, of course. But it made me wonder why the Democrats put so many Southern states on Super Tuesday. The schedule was set before Bernie emerged as a serious contender, so it wasn’t specifically designed to kill his chances. But intended or not, it made Bernie’s path more difficult than if states like California or Washington or New York had been among the first.

The Southern tinge of Super Tuesday accomplished two things, one good and one bad. It gave the black electorate more of a say in the nominating process, which is good. But it also empowered the relatively moderate white Southerners who send people like Zell Miller and Jim Webb to Washington. The Democrats would do well to rejigger the schedule next time around and give some large liberal states more influence in the party they sustain.

But the schedule is not why Bernie’s behind the eight-ball; it only hastened the inevitable. Truth be told, Hillary Clinton has earned a ton of credibility with Democratic voters for her nearly three decades of service and for standing tall under withering fire from the conservative noise machine. There are good reasons why the Clinton name is hallowed by many Democrats, and none involve wealthy donors to the Clinton Foundation.

Well, I’m not getting anywhere relitigating that either. The point is, a whole lot of people respect and support Hillary Clinton. That’s what made her a very tough candidate to beat.

I want Hillary to be the nominee, but I also want Bernie to fight on. Make her work for every delegate. Make her incorporate progressive ideas into her agenda. Establish the left as a potent political force, just as crucial for the Democrats as the Tea Party is for the Republicans.

The idea of a political revolution always filled me with skepticism. Last time we tried that, we wound up with Richard Nixon. I’ve seen too many attempted revolutions go nowhere to believe that Bernie could have inspired one in 2016. But what he’s accomplished so far, and is posed to accomplish through the rest of the campaign? That’s a damn miracle, and it’s more than enough to cement Bernie’s surprising place in our nation’s politics.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Resilience, but no revolution

  1. ApacheTrout

    Many people view Hilary as having contributed in many ways to the rightward drift of the Democratic Party. Specific votes can be documented on issues such as banking & finance, welfare, drugs, war, civil rights, and criminal justice that played a substantial role in the economic malaise of the past decade. When real poverty rates in the country are rising, and so many people are living from paycheck to paycheck, is it any wonder that so many here in Vermont and throughout the country see Bernie as a better candidate?

    Reply
  2. Rita Pitkin

    My take is the media has been virtually ignoring Bernie Sanders for months (about nine months actually) until New Hampshire happened, and they could no longer dismiss him as a fringe candidate. And look how far he has come! Media matters A LOT.

    Reply
  3. Rita Pitkin

    The media didn’t pay much attention to Bernie until New Hampshire happened. He had been campaigning for months and got hardly a mention. Now look what he has accomplished. Media matters A LOT and most are in the pockets of the wealthy and connected. I am glad that Bernie has had some victories and glad he will stay in the race, he’ll have some power at the convention that can’t be denied.

    Reply
  4. fatherlinda

    Re: “Last time we tried that, we wound up with Richard Nixon.” (Apart from the fact that Nixon signed the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act . . . ) I take it you are suggesting that it was the revolt against the Vietnam War and the candidacies of Eugene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy — and not the ruthless suppression of that reform movement by the party bosses at the 1968 convention — that gave us Richard Nixon? Really? Indeed, it was that suppression, and the foisting of the hapless Hubert Humphrey (previously a fine left-wing Democrat) on the unwilling Democratic electorate, and the resulting apathy of that electorate, that brought about Nixon’s election. And you may well expect that a similar ignoring/riding roughshod over the desires of the young, old, and poor voters who find hope in Bernie Sanders will lead to a similar attitude toward Hillary Clinton and the delivery of the country into the hands of Donald Trump. If the Democratic Party wants to win, it had better read history differently from the way you are reading it. (And believe me, I was there!)

    Reply
  5. Faith Biggs King

    “Rear guard action?” Is that what we’re calling welfare ‘reform’, the crime bill and 3-strikes you’re out? Well, you can “see” things anyway you like. But too avoid calling those policies out for what they were borders on callous. If “beating the Republicans” if the ne plus ultra of aspirations, then many of us are having none of it. And no, she wasn’t president then – but did you watch Clinton (H) schooling that young black woman who had the unmitigated gall to interrupt her at a fundraiser the other day? Robert Reich made two recent observations re: HRC. She was, in fact, Bill’s chief advisor. Period. She wants credit for championing health care reform while First Lady, well then, she can’t pick and choose. She c an take the blame. Reich’s second observation? HRC has no dreams, no vision, no lofty goals for this country. This country has “gone big” in the past and can do so again. It won’t happen under HRC, though. The “We Can’t Do It” candidate.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s