02.20.2016
Voting
for Hillary Part III – HRC v BS II
A couple of days ago I made a comment on
the Face Book page of a friend of mine. I said something to the effect of this:
“If Senator Sanders wins the Presidency
(and I think he could do it if he wins the nomination of the Democratic Party),
it will set back the progressive agenda by a generation.”
This may seem counterintuitive to most
people who read it, because Senator Sanders (BS) is clearly the most ardent,
and idealistic spokesperson for the progressive agenda in our public life at
this time (with the possible exception of Senator Elizabeth Warren).
Why is that the case, why would the
torch-bearer of the progressive movement, be the biggest threat to the cause of
progressivism?
This is complicated, and I ask you to allow
the whole argument play out in order to arrive at its conclusion.
Therefore, let us talk about the
candidates, and what they would bring to the table if they were President. What
are the expectations attaching to each of them
I think I think Secretary Clinton (HRC)
will be a least as effective as President Obama in advancing the progressive
agenda. Many idealistic progressives will scoff at this; many of the most
active liberals I know think that President Obama has accomplished very little
in terms of genuine progressivism, and so this claim is not convincing to them.
Those people complain that the Affordable Care Act was a giveaway to the
insurance agencies, that our armed forces are still far too involved in
conflicts around the world, they complain about the rate at which immigrants
are being deported, they complain about the sequester, and so on. While they
complain the apologists for
President Obama, of which I am one, will tell you
that he got what he was able to get while negotiating with Congress; Congress which
actually controls the legislative agenda.
President Obama barely passed the
Affordable Care Act, at a time when his party controlled both chambers of
congress, when he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. At the same
time President Obama could not even close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay,
which he ran on as a first order of business for his administration. Why was it
so difficult to get the one thing done, and impossible to do the other? It is
because every little thing that the president wants to do are reduced to
negotiating points to be made with hostile actors; hostile Republicans and intractable
Democrats alike. A president cannot even rely on members of their own party to
support their agenda; if those members discern even a tiny bit of political
peril in it for them.
In the current political climate, while
Republicans control both chambers of Congress, making some advances on the
progressive agenda would be great, even small ones, but holding the line on
what has been achieved over the past eight years is even more important. No
backsliding!
When we Democratic voters, we liberal
progressives are dreaming about raising the minimum wage, universal health
care, strengthening unions, breaking up big banks, overturning Citizens United,
subsidizing college tuition, major increases in domestic spending, protecting
voting rights; we must bear in mind, that roughly half of the electorate will
be voting for the other side. The other side already controls the Senate,
already controls the House of Representatives, controls the majority of state
legislative assemblies, and the majority of gubernatorial chairs throughout the
country. The other side wants no minimum wage, no regulation of banking, health
care provided through the free market, no right to organize unions, Citizens
United affirmed, and the rights of corporations expanded, no support for higher
education, and all domestic infrastructure spending made piecemeal through
block grants, given to the sates and along to the private sector, they want all
of that and the sharp curtailment of voting rights. Throw into the mix their long
standing desire to privatize social security, to keep burning fossil fuels, and
to ramp up the war footing of the Nation.
Holding the line will, if that is all we
are able to do, that will be a victory for the next President. I believe HRC
can do that, and I believe she can do more. I believe she can build on the
legacy of President Obama. HRC will able to hold the line precisely because her
rhetoric is not calling for revolution. While some may criticize her for
setting the bar too low, I believe she is setting the bar realistically. This
is vital, because the most important thing about keeping the agenda moving
forward is too not lose the support of the base. If you promise what you cannot
deliver, they will become disillusioned and fall away. This happened to
President Obama, people have written books about how he has “betrayed” the
progressive agenda, and it happened to President Jimmy Carter, whose legacy
should be a cautionary note for how we can view a possible BS administration.
Because the agenda that HRC has put
forward is as tempered as it is, ordinary people on both sides of the political
spectrum, everyone in the much maligned-muddy-middle, all of those supposed moderates,
they can understand it, and because they understand it, they won’t feel
threatened by it, they can support it, even in the face of opposition. Some
people on the left might want more progressivism, some on the right might want
more conservativism, but when one side or the other wins an election they get
the mandate to expand their cause. The majority of Americans understand this,
but they do not want, and they do not expect to gyrate wildly from poll to
poll, they expect a moderate expansion of the franchise from the margins at the
middle.
The majority knows who to hold at fault
when the government gets shut down, if one side is being moderate, and the
other side is acting from the demands of their ideals. If a BS administration
threatens to veto a budget because it lacks some provision he has demanded from
the furthest reaches of his idealism, BS will get the blame, and not congress.
Listen to me; progress is progress, even
if it is gradual, and incremental.
This is not exciting. I realize that,
but it is the truth, and I hope you can realize this too.
This is exactly how we would view it if the
conservative side gets a victory. If the republicans win and decide to try and
implement a legislative agenda that looks like the most ideal version of their
conservative torch-bearers; deport eleven million people, build a giant wall on
the border with Mexico, go to war again in Iraq, and in Syria, ban Muslims from
entering the country, undermine the separation of church and state etc, etc,
etc…we would expect our democrats to muster whatever power they had to block
everything. That is what will happen if progressives try to do the same, they
will block everything (only the conservatives hold more cards right now).
Here is what will happen in a BS administration. He will either compromise severely, thereby disillusioning
his voters (I don't think this is likely), causing them to fall away. Or he
will stick to his idealism, and he won't even get democrats to work with him. A
BS administration will be a laughing stock either way, and it will ruin the
cause of progressivism for at least a couple of decades; ala Jimmy Carter.
I have not heard BS say this himself,
but I have heard Tad Devine, his campaign manager say it. He has admitted that
the endeavor the BS campaign is engaged in is going to take a generation to develop.
He is an experienced operator, and it is obviously true. They know that they have
not only to win the presidency, and hold it, but that they also have to win a
majority in congress, and keep it for at least one or two cycles. If liberal
progressives are going to have a lasting chance, and the BS revolution succeed,
they need to control congress in 2020 when the entire legislative map is up for
redistricting. Unless they can do that; liberal progressives will continue to be
at a significant disadvantage, and the BS revolution, even if he wins the
presidency, will never materialize.
BS does not talk this way on the stump,
but his more candid spokespeople do. They are talking behind the scenes about
the realities of gradualism, the necessity of incrementalism, in this way they
are indistinguishable from HRC. There is a difference however; HRC is leveling
with people, and BS is trying to get people caught up in his romantic revolution.
HRC’s approach asks people up-front to
sign on for the long haul, wherein progress (no matter how small) will be
hailed for what it is progress. BS is asking people to “Feel the Bern,” to
light the match, but as we all know the
flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long.
What will happen to all of that passion
when the cold water gets thrown on it. Will people be writing books about how BS
betrayed the progressive movement? I don’t think so, BS is not the type to
compromise, at least not on the big things. He will stand his ground, and the
ground will fall out from under him, progressives may not blame him for
standing his ground while giving voice to their ideals, but as the ground falls
out from under him; because he is unable to compromise, it will fall out from
under the progressive movement as well; creating the opportunity for a nearly
completely discredited conservative movement to come roaring back
Remember Jimmy Carter; arguably one of
the smartest, most rationale, most authentic, and most sincere of our modern
presidents. He did not lack for good ideas, he behaved like a leader and put
those ideas forward, but his inability to accomplish those goals turned his
legacy into a subject of ridicule. I am not saying that his administration
deserves the ridicule, but they suffered under it anyway, and continue to
suffer from that ridicule thirty-six years later. The failures of the Carter
administration set the stage for the so-called Reagan Revolution. A BS
administration threatens to set that stage again.
It was under President Reagan that the
nation began to move to the rightwing in a way that has been; anti-intellectual,
anti-science, religiously fundamental, ahistorical and absolutely irrational.
We risk that happening again, unless we are able to demonstrate in an
irrefutable way that the leadership of Democratic presidents, championing
liberal ideal, while implementing progressive policies is the key stability for
the nation; and that will set the stage for economic growth, economic justice,
and prosperity for all.
I believe that HRC can do this, and I
have no faith that BS can. I believe this because Hillary speaks directly, and honestly
to these points, while Bernie continues to dream the revolutionary dream.
More
to follow…