The June 7 primary results, particularly California, pretty much seem to have sealed the deal as to who will be the Democratic Party's Presidential nominee. Many Bernie supporters are now in the rather unhappy position of having to decide where to go from here. Some are “Bernie or Bust,” others favor hopping on the Hillary bandwagon, and some even lean towards an anti-Trump effort that is not explicitly pro-Clinton. As one who did some registering, calling and canvassing for the Bernie campaign and who is “still Bernie” based on respect for many of the positions he espoused, and for the courage and integrity he brought to this race and to the political system, below are a few of my thoughts .
First, some basic facts. At the start of his campaign Bernie made it clear he was going all out to win this race, which was considered a long shot but a possibility. He also acknowledged that a key aim of the campaign was to mobilize a large number of disaffected Americans into an effective movement for greater equality and justice in this country. At this point, it seems clear that Hillary will go to the convention with the majority of total delegates and the largest number of pledged delegates, and will have received the largest number of votes from people who turned out in Democratic Presidential primaries and caucuses. While there are some very legitimate complaints about the role of the Democratic National Committee in putting its thumb on the scale particularly through its scheduling of debates, and there have been concerns about election fraud having taken place at various state primaries and caucuses, all in all as expected Clinton does appear to have the most votes, and barring any indictments before the convention, is set to be the Democratic Presidential nominee, all talk of convincing the super delegates notwithstanding.
Many Bernie supporters, including myself have some very real concerns with Hillary in terms of policies and integrity. Her hawkish foreign policy views and military industrial complex support seem to augur a foreign policy of greater emphasis on military intervention (as well as unnecessary deaths and casualties), which in the long run will likely prove to be counterproductive to our security, economic and environmental interests. Her much touted “experience” in foreign affairs has often been indicative of poor judgement leading to tragic consequences, including her support for intervention in Iraq, for anti-democratic policies in Honduras, and blustery rhetoric but ultimately failed policies in the Middle East. If she had a strong environmental perspective, her propensity to support military action would ultimately override its impacts. But she has actually been pretty weak on a number of key environmental issues of our day. On the Keystone XL pipeline, as Secretary of State she was strong on “no comments” when not expressing her inclination to approve the project - right up to the outset the race for the nomination (at which point she decided that she actually did not support the pipeline). Similarly, on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement strongly opposed by most environmentalists as well as labor, she indicated approval of the agreement until the primary campaigns, and then declared her opposition. The Obama administration has acted to prevent release of State Department records on her role and what she said in discussions on this agreement, which seems to be consistent with her general tendency towards lack of transparency (see record on Wall Street speech transcripts, and State Dept. emails - on which there is a current criminal investigation taking place which could also impact the Presidential election). Her previous support for Monsanto and fracking also grate against the sensibilities of environmentalists and others concerned with increasing corporatization. Finally (at least for this paper), Clinton’s close association with and support from and for Wall Street and the banking and finance sectors make it unlikely that the current drift towards oligarchy would be slowed significantly under her administration. It seems that even the Koch brothers and the Bushes may end up supporting her candidacy.
With all this said it is worth pointing out as Bernie himself has, that Donald Trump would be a danger and disaster as President of the United States. Trump’s fraudulent business practices (for which he is currently being sued, and also evident in his four business bankruptcies which left creditors holding the bag for his mistakes), his appeals to bigotry, his narcissism and demagoguery, all suggest an easy willingness to manipulate, exploit, and scapegoat others in pursuit of personal gains. His outright denial of climate change and support for unbridled fossil fuel development would, according to most scientific estimations, fast track us to environmental catastrophe. While at times he claims that his foreign policy stances would be less provocative and war prone than those of Hillary, it’s hard to give credence to much of what he says because it changes so often. Those who tend to be most vulnerable in this country, women, minorities, working people would very likely bear most heavily the brunt of a Trump administration. And his rhetoric and support from extremists often bring forth a noxious aroma of ethnocentrism and even fascism.
So how do we deal with this lesser of two evils situation? Bernie has intimated that he will stay in the race at least until the party convention with a contested convention in mind, and I hope he does despite all the flack he'll get for that from the media and the beltway. As an authentic voice for a significant number of Americans who believe in progressive policies that have generally not been on the table, and who generally have not had much of a voice in the political system, his voice and the movement he represents deserve to be heard. Sooner or later, however, it will be necessary to decide how to proceed and my feeling is that rather than draw lines in the dirt right now, it might be better to adopt a more nuanced approach, keep an open mind and see how things play out. If the “Bernie or Bust” people end up helping elect a President Trump, they probably won’t be doing the country a favor. On the other hand there are certainly reasons to be concerned about and fed up with Hillary. Probably the best check on Hillary would be recognition and a role for the Bernie wing. Thus, in deciding on a position towards Clinton, significant consideration should be given to the extent to which concerns of the Sanders campaign are addressed before and during the Convention. If Hillary really wants to include Bernie supporters rather than just co-opt them, she could provide evidence in a number of ways. One would be through her choice of a running mate. A genuine progressive (my favorite would be Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the one Senator to support Sanders) could reflect sincere interest in reaching out to Sanders and his supporters. There is currently some talk of Elizabeth Warren, a bit of a progressive icon at least until the Bernie campaign in which she remained neutral. I personally am a bit dubious about Warren in terms of likelihood and effectiveness. But she or any non-Bernie supporting Progressive would be ok with me as long as they signify outreach to rather than marginalization of Bernie and his supporters. Bernie brought something to this campaign that has not been seen in this country for a very long time, an outside voice of integrity from the left that sought to change the course of this country towards a more democratic, socially just and environmentally conscious direction. Any attempt to marginalize this voice and treat Bernie in a way that leaves him and the movement which garnered close to half the pledged convention delegates in the lurch, does not deserve the support of this movement, regardless of the convention’s VP choice.
A fair share of influence and some concessions to Sanders’ ideas in drawing up the party’s platform should also be considered reasonable to expect in return for support from the Bernie wing. We will certainly not be getting, and shouldn't expect to get everything on our wish list. But issues like campaign finance reform and transparency, election reform (including primaries and caucuses), health care improvement and extension, effective action on climate change, movement towards ending growing income equality, and inexpensive access to higher education, should be clearly and strongly addressed. And I think they will be at the convention, although putting Clinton’s feet to the fire in following up may be required later on. Different people will have different conceptions of what would be acceptable. But if there is willingness on the part of the Clinton side to reach genuine agreements in an atmosphere of mutual understanding, this could be considered an invitation to sit at the table that should be accepted in order to accomplish goals that will benefit the American people. If such actions are not taken, then it’s everyone to their own conscience as it is clear that there is not, and probably will not be a door open for cooperation should Clinton become President, at least in any way beyond rhetoric and clichés. Some will still see Hillary as the better of the likely alternatives in the Presidential race, others will say a pox on both houses and sit out or maybe vote Green, while a possible middle ground would be an Anti-Trump movement that is not explicitly pro-Hillary.
This brings me to the second, and possibly even more important issue that I think will have to be addressed soon, especially after the convention, e.g., the direction of the movement that Bernie’s candidacy has catalyzed. With his vision of a broad based movement drawn from people serious about doing something to protect this planet for future generations by doing something about climate change, those interested in transcending identity politics in favor of greater opportunity for lower income and middle class people of all backgrounds, those furious about the ever growing oligarchic domination of political and economic life in this country in contrast to valued democratic ideals, Bernie presented a bit of an alternative to the politics as usual that has been leading us to a dangerous and challenging crossroads. And he succeeded in rallying large numbers of concerned Americans into a significant political force. If that base fragments it will likely be back to square one and politics as usual, at least until that wheel gets reinvented (or broken). On the other hand, a lasting legacy of the gallant, grassroots movement that propelled an unusually brave voice in the American political system could be a continuation and growth of the movement and networks that have been formed in this campaign, with the potential to bring to the table of the U.S. political system a perspective that has long been absent. This will not be easy without the campaign related media publicity (meager in Bernie’s case) and the consistent trail of events and rallies characteristic of an ongoing presidential race, and with stubborn and independent minded people holding similar values but different priorities, and groups differing on how to achieve even shared goals eyeing each other suspiciously. After the convention there will be some who go the route of Bernie or Bust, and others who will hop on to Hillary and Democrats. Already, MoveOn and Robert Reich, (as well as Bernie himself) have made it clear that in their view, going along with Clinton will ultimately be necessary to ensure Trump’s defeat. For the movement to continue it will have to find a means of recognizing and ultimately accepting as legitimate these different perspectives in order to avoid the typical factionalization and recriminations that often disable political movements. This may be the ultimate test of its ability to succeed, a willingness of people in the movement to respect and encompass different viewpoints on tactics in the effort to bring about their shared goals.