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

What can we learn from the Democratic New Hampshire primary?

Dear Friends,

Last night, Bernie Sanders won the Democratic primary in New Hampshire by a landslide (60.3% for Sanders and 38.0% for Clinton) after essentially splitting Iowa (49.9% for Clinton and 49.6% for Sanders), yet in the all important delegate count.  Secretary Clinton reportedly leads with 394 delegates compared to 42 for Senator Sanders.  In the Iowa caucuses, the regular delegates are split according to the percentages 49.9% to 49.6%.  In New Hampshire there are 24 allotted delegates of which 13 (54.2%) to Senator Sanders and 9 (37.5%) to Secretary Clinton with 2 delegates who have not been allotted.  In order to divide the regular delegates in accordance with the popular vote, the 2 delegates who have not been allotted should be allotted to Senator Sanders.  Of the 8 New Hampshire super delegates (party officers and elected officials) 6 are currently committed to Secretary Clinton and 2 are uncommitted.  Consequently after his landslide victory, Bernie Sanders has 13 New Hampshire delegates and Hillary Clinton has 15 delegates.  Reportedly the delegate count after the Iowa caucus (essentially a tie) and the New Hampshire primary (a landslide for Senator Sanders) stands at 394 for Secretary Clinton and 42 for Senator Sanders when you include both regular and super delegates.  The Democratic Party does not have a very democratic system.  It is a system that supports the establishment candidate.  I will probably write more about that another day.

The exit polling for the New Hampshire primary is fascinating and tells us quite a bit about the contest between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.  I have compiled the following chart that is primarily from The New York Times (here) and where there is an * the information was from ABC News (here).

Question	Answer	Sanders	Clinton
Sex	male	66	32
	female	55	44
	female under 45*	69
	female under 30*	82
Age	18-29	83	16
	30-44	66	32
	45-64	53	45
	65+	44	55
Urban, Suburban,	population over 50,000	57	40
Rural	suburb	58	40
	small city + rural	63	36
Honest + trustworthy	only Clinton	-	-
	only Sanders	95	3
	both	26	73
	neither	-	-
Shares your values	only Clinton	-	-
	only Sanders	97	2
	both of them	48	52
	neither of them	-	-
More important to you	position on issues	66	32
	leadership/personal qualities	44	54
College degree	college graduate	56	43
	no college degree	67	31
Income	under $30,000	71	25
	$30,000 - $49,999	60	38
	$50,000 - $99,999	64	35
	$100,000 - $199,999	55	44
	$200,000 +	46	53
Your political philosophy	very liberal	66	33
	somewhat liberal	57	42
	moderate	58	39
Replace current health	support	70	29
care with single payer	oppose	39	58
Worried about	very/somewhat	56	43
terrorist attack	not too/ not at all	71	29
Worried about	very/somewhat	65	34
direction of economy	not too/not at all	43	57
Independent	yes	72	27
Financial status	getting ahead	53	47
	holding steady	59	39
	falling behind	69	28
Life for next generation	better than today	61	37
	worse than today	70	29
	about the same	48	50
What issues matter	healthcare	54	45
most	economy/jobs	59	38
	terrorism	49	47
	income inequality	70	29
Income tax rates	increase for all	-	-
	increase for over $250,000	59	40
	no increase	-	-
Gun owner	yes	69	28
	no	57	43
When decided on	today	44	48
candidate	last few days	-	-
	sometime last week	-	-
	in last month	70	29
	before that	61	38
Candidate quality that	electability	19	79
matters most	cares about people like me	82	17
	honest + trustworthy	91	5
	right experience	15	85

There are many amazing numbers in this chart.  Here are just a few that I think are important.

Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in every demographic category except women over 65 and people with incomes over $200,000.  Senator Sanders did particularly well with younger voters.  In the 18 to 29 category he got 83% of the vote, in the 30 to 44 category it was 66% of the vote and in the 45 to 64 category it was 53% of the vote.  Senator Sanders lost the 65+ category by 44% to 55%.  

Bernie Sanders won the women's vote overall 55% to 44%.  The numbers were even more surprising with younger women voters.  Bernie Sanders got 69% of the women voters under 45 and 82% of the women voters under 30.  Since overall Bernie Sanders got 83% of the voters under 30, there is no difference between between young women and young men voters with respect to their support for Senator Sanders.

Clearly Secretary Clinton has a real problem with respect to how Democratic voters view her honesty and trustworthiness.  None of the voters believed that only Secretary Clinton was trustworthy and none believed that neither of them were trustworthy.  Of the people that said that Senator Sanders was the only trustworthy one 95% were Sanders' voters and 3% of those people that believed that only Senator Sanders was trustworthy were Clinton's supporters.  Of those that believed that both are trustworthy 73% were Clinton's voters and only 26% were Sanders' voters.  On the question of what quality is important to the voters, of those who thought honesty was most important 91% were Sanders' voters and only 5% were Clinton's voters.  

In an interview on Monday night with Rachel Maddow, Secretary Clinton tried to blame the Benghazi issue and the constant attacks by Republicans for the perception that people have that she is not honest.  It is completely implausible that Democratic voters are swayed by the Republican talking points.  Most of Secretary Clinton's problems with her perceived lack of trustworthiness are her own doing.  Most recently, her denial that all the money she has received from Wall Street has no impact on her is so absurd that nobody actually believes it.  She, Bill, their campaigns and their foundation have collected more than $100 million from Wall Street.  She is also refusing to release the tapes of her now infamous three $675,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs.  Her lack of judgment is also apparent from her decision to have her own email server and have her own people decide what she should turn over to the State Department adds to her problems.  I also think her many position changes in response to Senator Sanders' push from the left have hurt her.  The Keystone pipeline was moving quickly through her State Department and then at the end of the day, she says that she is not for it because it is a distraction.  She still doesn't understand that the carbon needs to stay in the ground.  She called the Trans Pacific Partnership the gold standard of trade agreements as she worked it through the government, but when faced with an electorate that is against it she says now that she has seen it, it doesn't meet her standard.  The list goes on.  These issues are not Republican talking points, they are Secretary Clinton's record.

The question about what is more important a candidate's position on the issues or the candidate's leadership and/or personal qualities.  Of those who said that personal qualities are more important 54% were Clinton's supporters and only 32% of those who think that a candidate's position on the issues is more important were Clinton's supporters.  But of those that think that a candidate's position on the issues is most important 66% were Sanders' supporters.  I have felt for a long time that the Sanders campaign is about a movement or as he would say a political revolution and the Clinton campaign is about Secretary Clinton.  She ties everything back to her.  A prime example was in her concession speech last night she tied her opposition to the Citizens United case to the fact that it came out of an attack on her.  I never hear her speak that she does not reference the scars she has, and how hard she has fought, and how people attack her.  All of that is true, but to me it misses the point.  Senator Sanders' message is all about his policies, bettering the lives of the people, taking control of our democracy, etc.  Seldom do you ever hear about Senator Sanders.  Only recently has he talked about his parents and their story.

Senator Sanders has more support than Secretary Clinton across the political spectrum.  As you would assume, he wins easily among those voters that describe themselves as very liberal (66% to 33%), but he also wins among those who describe themselves as somewhat liberal (57% to 42%) and moderates (58% to 39%).  Equally surprising and perhaps most important for the general election, Senator Sanders is overwhelmingly favored by independent voters (72% to 27%).

Secretary Clinton attacks Senator Sanders for a lack of foreign policy experience and knowledge, yet even among those voters who are very or somewhat concerned about a terrorist attack, they support Senator Sanders (56% to 43%).  Even when asked about the most important issues, of those that cite terrorism 49% were Sanders' supporters and 47% were Clinton's supporters.  Based on this data, it doesn't appear that voters are giving Secretary Clinton any more support than Senator Sanders even when it comes to terrorism.  I suspect that most Democratic voters now view Secretary Clinton's vote for the Iraq war as a mistake and perhaps a sign of bad judgment.

Secretary Clinton wins among voters with more than $200,000 of income which probably why of those voters that said that they were very or somewhat worried about the direction of the economy 65% of them were Sanders' supporters and 34% were Clinton's supporters.  Of those that were not too or not at all worried about the direction of the economy 57% were Clinton's supporters.  If you have income over $200,000 and you are not very concerned about the direction of the economy, it is also likely that you are only for incremental changes and are ok with an only slightly changed version of the status quo.  I believe that the vast majority of the country understands that we need significant changes even though change is uncomfortable for those that are doing ok now.

Secretary Clinton's message of incremental change is certainly borne out when the voters were asked about what quality in the person matters most.  Of those who answered electability 79% were Clinton's supporters and 10% were Sanders' supporters, and of those who answered right experience 85% were Clinton's supporters and 15% were Sanders' supporters.  As you would suspect stability and only incremental changes are much more important to older, wealthier voters than to younger voters.

The one area that this data clearly indicates that Senator Sanders needs address is electability.  Certainly this win and the fact that he won virtually all demographic groups should help dramatically to indicate his broad appeal.  The electorate in New Hampshire is much whiter than the general electorate.  Senator Sanders now needs to demonstrate that he can generate support and enthusiasm among black and latino voters.  He will have the opportunity to do just that in the next several weeks.

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

Bernie Sanders Gets Things Done

Dear Friends,

One of the many narratives that the Democratic establishment is using to attack Bernie Sanders is that since he is passionate and consistent about his positions, he cannot get anything done.  There are two prongs to this attack, one is that he will face a Congress controlled by Republicans who will not pass anything he is proposing.  With respect to this point, the real question is which candidate, Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, will change the face of Congress more.  My contention is that since Bernie Sanders generates incredible enthusiasm that has motivated tons of first time voters, the face of Congress will change more with a Bernie Sanders victory than with a Hillary Clinton victory.

The second prong to the Democratic establishment's attack on Bernie Sanders is that he will never compromise and will not get anything done but by comparison Hillary Clinton's incremental approach will somehow permit her to get more done.  There are two big problems with this attack. The first is that Hillary Clinton will be just like Barack Obama for the Republicans.  They are certain to do anything to make her fail.  That may also be true for Bernie Sanders but given his favorability ratings it will certainly be less than for Hillary Clinton.  The second is that Bernie Sanders has a really great record of getting important progressive changes to legislation through the use of amendments, much of the time with bipartisan support.

Paul Krugman made the Democratic establishment's argument in a column a few days ago in The NewYork Times (here) entitled "How Change Happens".  He ends with the these rather arrogant and patronizing paragraphs.

The point is that while idealism is fine and essential — you have to dream of a better world — it’s not a virtue unless it goes along with hardheaded realism about the means that might achieve your ends. That’s true even when, like F.D.R., you ride a political tidal wave into office. It’s even more true for a modern Democrat, who will be lucky if his or her party controls even one house of Congress at any point this decade.
Sorry, but there’s nothing noble about seeing your values defeated because you preferred happy dreams to hard thinking about means and ends. Don’t let idealism veer into destructive self-indulgence.

Bernie Sanders has had a long career as an effective legislator.  To say that he does not have "hardheaded realism about the means that might achieve" his goals, is just ridiculous.  This same argument, even citing Krugman is made in an even more obnoxious manner by John Avignone in an article entitled, "I have had it with naive Bernie Sanders idealists" with the subtitle, "Take a lesson from Paul Krugman: We don't have political revolutions.  This is a democracy of incremental change." on Salon (here).  Mr. Avignone claims that the Civil War was the last time there was fundamental change in the United States.

Bernie Sanders says he will bring about a political revolution to make his dreams of a democratic socialist society come true, which seems an unlikely proposition given that the GOP is sure to control one house of Congress and may well control both. Hillary Clinton advocates a pragmatic approach: protecting the progressive gains won under the Obama administration, taking what new gains may be possible in a divided government and setting the political table to back for more later.
Historically, it is this latter approach that has produced change. In any democratic system of government, progress is incremental. Only one time in our history as a nation have we seen such sweeping ideological change at a fundamental level happen in a brief span of time, and that change came at the price of five years of bloody civil war and some 500,000 deaths.

Apparently, Mr. Avignone does not think that Women's suffrage, Social Security, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Medicare, Roe v. Wade and marriage equality were fundamental changes in America.  All of those significant changes in America were the result of the people pushing Congress and/or the courts in what was at the time of each a radical change.  FDR, Truman and Johnson were not elected as radicals but as representatives of the values they held.  Until Bill Clinton, Democrats were Democrats.  Bill Clinton ushered in an era of Democrats trying to be Republican light.  The Democratic Party is just as responsible for the overwhelming increase in economic and social inequality in our country as the Republicans because we, Democrats, went along with the changes because the Democratic establishment decided after losing to Bush I and Reagan that the way to win was to become Republican light.  Unfortunately, the Democratic establishment is clinging to that strategy as they circle the wagons to protect Hillary Clinton.  It was the enthusiasm and energy created by Barack Obama's candidacy that broke the Republican reign.  Unfortunately, the Democratic establishment has not learned the lesson that Democrats win elections when we stick to our true beliefs and make sure that the voters understand the critical role that government can and should play.

The Democratic establishment's narrative that Bernie Sanders is an idealist who will not compromise and cannot get anything done has no basis in fact.  As I wrote in my post about the endorsement of Hillary Clinton by Planned Parenthood Action (here), Bernie Sanders has introduced, worked for and voted for many legislative actions for women's rights.  The list of his progressive legislative accomplishments is very long.  I commend to you an article at People's War (here) entitled, "What Bernie Sanders Got Done in Washington: A Legislative Inventory".  It is of necessity a really long piece because it lists all of his legislative accomplishments both in the House and the Senate.  If you don't read the article here are my favorite paragraphs.

Bernie Sanders is a progressive who likes to get things done and his record of legislative accomplishments in the House of Representatives and the Senate shows it. Despite being independent from both the Democratic and Republican parties, he got more done in his first eight years in the Senate than Democratic Party superstar Hillary Clinton did in her eight years there. Before the people of Vermont elected him to the Senate in 2006, Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi dubbed Sanders the “amendment king” of the House of Representatives noting:

“Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, no other lawmaker – not Tom DeLay, not Nancy Pelosi – has passed more roll-call amendments (amendments that actually went to a vote on the floor) than Bernie Sanders. He accomplishes this on the one hand by being relentlessly active, and on the other by using his status as an Independent to form left-right coalitions.”

There is a shorter version of his legislative accomplishments in an article on Alternet by Zaid Jilani entitled, "Bernie Gets It Done: Sanders' Record of Pushing Through Major Reforms Will Surprise You" (here).  The article starts with the following paragraphs:

“I'm a progressive, but I'm a progressive who likes to get things done,” Hillary Clinton said at the first Democratic debate, in response to a question from moderator Anderson Cooper about whether she defines herself as a moderate or a progressive.
The implication was that progressive Bernie Sanders is too far to the left to accomplish anything—all of his ideas are pie-in-the-sky. You have to be able to find the bipartisan, “warm, purple space” as Clinton said earlier this year, to get anything done. Slate's Jamelle Bouie was super-impressed by this rationale, saying Clinton has “skilled use of bureaucratic power.”
The problem with this narrative is that it is completely false. Not only has Sanders gotten a lot more things done than Clinton did in her own short legislative career, he's actually one of the most effective members of Congress, passing bills, both big and small, that have reshaped American policy on key issues like poverty, the environment and health care.

Mr. Jilani then goes on to enumerate quite a few of Bernie Sanders' legislative accomplishments that he deems important.  He concludes his piece as follows:

It's easy for the establishment media and politicians to make the assumption that Bernie Sanders is not an effective lawmaker or executive. He has strong convictions and he stands by them, and we're often told that makes one a gadfly—someone who is out to make a point rather than make an actual change. But with Sanders we have the fusion of strong principles and the ability to forge odd bedfellow coalitions that accomplish historic things, like the audit of the Federal Reserve or the rejuvenation of Burlington that has served as a model for cities around the country. “Don't underestimate me,” Sanders said at the beginning of the race, words that anyone who knows his political and policy history take to heart.

Do not underestimate what a passionate person with great legislative skills can accomplish.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal