The Pragmatic Case for Bernie Sanders

Dear Friends,

I just read a great article by Christopher Cook on theatlantic.com (here) entitled "The Pragmatic Case for Bernie Sanders".  You really should read the entire article.

Mr. Cook starts by rebutting the claim that Hillary Clinton is more electable than Bernie Sanders.  Since polls today show that Bernie does better against the potential Republican candidates, the Clinton campaign says that Bernie Sanders will be destroyed by negative ads from the Republicans.  Needless to say, the Republicans hate Hillary Clinton at least as much if not more than they hate Bernie Sanders.  What I think is important is that all that most people know about Bernie Sanders today is that he is a democratic socialist so it is unlikely that Republicans attacking him on that basis will hurt significantly more than it does today.  Plus when people listen to his positions, they like them.

Mr. Cook then challenges that Clinton campaign position that being pragmatic will get progressive things done.  History does not support that claim.  Mr. Cook points out that President Obama was continually moving to the center to try to get Republican support and all that happened is that the Republicans moved farther to the right.  President Bill Clinton was another President that moved to the center or right of center to be pragmatic and get things done and look what happened.

The Clinton pragmatism frame is a strangely naïve and fatalistic misjudging of political culture and dynamics. During most of his eight years in office, President Obama has tacked to the center in hopes of bipartisan compromise on everything from gun control to the budget, only to be met by relentless Republican obstruction, even labeled a “socialist dictator.” Republicans did much the same during Bill Clinton’s first term—pushing him more deeply into the political center, where, with plenty of support from Hillary, President Clinton and the Gingrich Congress gutted welfare, enacted a deeply compromised crime bill, and reversed bank regulations (something Hillary is OK with even after the financial crisis).

Mr. Cook continues by discussing how real change happens.

On the other side of the ledger, history shows that political and social change emanate from persistent pressure—organizing and arguing for a more just world, not settling for what is deemed “realistic” before getting to the negotiating table. Remember when gay rights and gay marriage were “unrealistic”? Remember when voting rights, desegregation, and other basic justice were far from “pragmatic”? They became real through years of dedicated, principled, idealism—by insisting the unrealistic become real.   

If liberals and progressives support a $15 per-hour minimum wage, universally accessible health care, fair taxes on corporations and wealth, and meaningful reforms of Wall Street and campaign finance, they should elect a president who actually fights for these things. Sanders has spent his whole political life in pursuit of these ideals, and his campaign has moved these conversations to the fore; Clinton’s record on the other hand shows a consistent pattern of following, not leading on these issues. Clinton’s brand of pragmatism surrenders progressive change to centrism even before negotiations begin.

Hillary Clinton asserts that she is the one who has demonstrated real leadership.  However, the records of Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders do not support this assertion.  As Mr. Cook notes.

On the question of leadership, Clinton’s other central campaign theme is her record of experience. As first lady, Clinton failed at health-care reform. She never pushed for single-payer health care and never built a coalition for anything beyond a compromised managed-care system. She also supported three of Bill Clinton’s signature measures, which all proved disastrous: welfare rollback, which unraveled safety-net supports for poor families, low-income women, and millions of working-class Americans; the omnibus crime bill with its three strikes and mandatory minimum sentencing, which contributed to a generation of long-term, largely African American inmates and felons; and NAFTA, which helped impoverish millions of Mexican and Central America farmers, leading to mass migration and social and economic upheaval. 

In one undistinguished term as U.S. senator, Clinton opposed gay marriage, voted for the Iraq war, and supported the Patriot Act, among other positions. As secretary of state, while logging impressive global mileage, Clinton pushed foraggressive regime change in Libya, and she worked hard to expand corporate military contracts and fracking abroad. Whether the American public finds her record favorable or not, it is not one of progressive, forward-looking leadership. 

Sanders has consistently demonstrated leadership, speaking out, introducing legislation, and laying the political groundwork on a wide array of issues, including: gay rights (long before they gained mainstream support), workers’ rights and union rights, universal single-payer health care, family and medical leave protections, and expansions of Social Security. On nearly every major issue—labor and economic justice, to the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, welfare reform, NAFTA, the Keystone XL pipeline, and the Transpacific Partnership—Sanders has taken clear consistent stands, while Clinton has waffled, backtracked, and leaned to the center.

Mr. Cook closes his article as follows:

What makes change happen, history and current U.S. politics show, is principled and courageous commitment and integrity—not Clinton’s fatalistic pragmatism, which insists that pushing for more is unrealistic and therefore capitulates before the fight even starts. On the other hand, it is entirely pragmatic to expect a President Bernie Sanders to fight hard for the justice and equality issues he has championed his entire political life—giving these ideas a chance, rather than no chance at all.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal