Late Night Thoughts on a Sellout

Earlier today, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders endorsed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. The endorsement comes after a hard-fought campaign from both candidates, one riddled with controversy.

The endorsement came as a surprise to many Sanders supporters, who feel their candidate has sold out to the Democratic establishment and big-money politics. Others feel that Sanders’ influence is not in his continued candidacy, but in his impact on the Democratic platform. Other theories suggest Sanders endorsed Clinton for political expediency, and some believe Sanders will still steal the nomination from Clinton at the convention.

The reality, though, is a complete concession to the Democratic establishment and an admission of defeat. In attempting to suppress the Trump threat, Sanders disregarded his supporters and endorsed a near-complete political opposite. Sanders sold out.

The claims of an impact on the Democratic platform are well-founded: Clinton has endorsed a federally-mandated fifteen dollar minimum wage. The realities of this, though, are much bleaker. Aside from campaign rhetoric, Clinton will have no impact on the implementation of a federal minimum wage. Such action would require legislation, meaning Congressional Democrats would need to embrace it. Given the tendencies of “blue-dog” Democrats, the required responsibility of Representatives to their constituents, and the complications a federally-mandated minimum wage would provide at the state level, Clinton’s acceptance is irrelevant.

With this, the campaign influences end, and the differences between Sanders and Clinton become more apparent. Sanders supported regulating banks and Wall Street; Clinton, although claiming to be in favor of stricter regulations, has a long history of taking money from Wall Street, including hundreds of paid speeches following her time as Secretary of State.

Sanders supported overturning “Citizens United v. FEC”, a Supreme Court ruling that allows for nearly-unregulated campaign donations. The ruling, overturning much of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (championed by the unnecessarily-vilified John McCain), has resulted in Super-PACs spending millions of dollars in support of candidates. Sanders affirmed his refusal of Super-PACs, and the prominence of small donations, throughout the campaign; Clinton, meanwhile, has refused to condemn Super-PACs or the Citizens United ruling, instead benefitting from their continued spending.

Sanders and Clinton also differ fundamentally in foreign policy: while Sanders has supported an anti-interventionist approach, condemning the Iraq War and the toppling of secular dictators in the Middle East, Clinton voted for the Iraq War, convinced President Obama on regime changes in the Middle East, and has supported a heightened American presence in Syria. Here, Sanders’ beliefs are more in line with Donald Trump’s than Clinton’s.

Still, the largest point of contention between the Sanders and Clinton camps remains the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) actions throughout the primary process. Beginning with the significant drop in debates from 2008 (which contributed to Clinton’s loss) and former-Clinton campaign manager Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s role as chair of the DNC, Sanders faced electoral fraud and media suppression throughout the campaign. The Clinton conspiracy peaked on June 6th, when the Associated Press (AP) claimed Clinton clinched the Democratic nomination. Their call came the night before the California primary, the largest in the nation, and outraged Sanders supporters.

With ideological differences and allegations of voter fraud and media suppression, a Sanders endorsement of Donald Trump appeared more likely than one for Clinton. Yet, Sanders endorsed Clinton earlier today, abandoning his principles out of either delusion or political expediency.

Sanders’ grassroots campaign has drawn comparisons to that of Ron Paul in 2012. A self-identified libertarian, Paul’s run for the Republican nomination attracted support from disenfranchised voters across the political spectrum. Despite winning significantly-fewer states than establishment favorite Mitt Romney, Paul attempted to bring his campaign to the Republican National Convention. That is, until the Republican Rules Committee altered rule 40 (b), making a Paul nomination impossible.

When faced with electoral fraud and a significant ideological difference, Paul refused to endorse Romney. Had Sanders wished to continue his “movement”, or to maintain any dignity, he would have followed Paul’s lead.

Bernie Sanders’ endorsement of Hillary Clinton is a victory for the continuation of an era of establishment politics, of unregulated campaign finance, of an interventionist American military. Sanders may claim to have endorsed Clinton to influence her campaign platform, but the changes will be redundant. He may claim to have endorsed her to suppress Donald Trump, but an endorsement of Trump would make more sense than one of Clinton. There was no justifiable reason for Sanders to endorse Clinton: he sold out.

 

Fifteen minutes on Bernie Sanders

In what will no doubt return disastrous writing pieces, I’ve decided to limit myself to fifteen minutes to write about Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. I will begin writing at 4:49 P.M. on March 31, 2016, and will hit “publish” at 5:04 P.M. on the same day. Bear all of this in mind when reading. And…go!

Mainstream media has ruled out a Bernie Sanders run for the presidency, and with good reason. The realities of Sanders earning the nomination are improbable: 57% of the remaining delegates are needed to tie Clinton, and an even larger proportion to make up for the superdelegates that will no doubt remain with Hillary. Clinton, too, has ruled out Sanders as a legitimate candidate, refusing to debate him before the essential New York primary in a few months.

While it is unfair to call the race with dozens of primaries remaining, it is fair to say that a miracle is needed to get Sanders the Democratic ticket. With this in mind, it only seems fair to begin looking back at the legacy the Sanders campaign will have left on presidential politics.

Sanders has been given every leftist label in the book. From progressive to socialist, and even as far as communist, the independent senator from Vermont has been viewed as unelectable by Democrats looking for more centrist candidates.

Which raises the question of who is less electable: a value-driven idealist or a money-driven centrist? There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been driven by corporations. But, her position on many issues has been in line with many on the right (combatting ISIS, refusing universal healthcare). Being able to agree with the Republicans could prove essential to earning victory in battleground states like Michigan or Ohio, where blue collar coal miners and white collar businessmen have seen the two states run some of the tightest presidential races in recent memory. Could Hillary Clinton steal these states for the Democratic ticket?

The answer, unsurprisingly, is opaque. While Sanders rallied for one of the biggest upsets in history in Michigan, his campaign took a hard loss in Ohio. Both states hit hard by economic downturn, but returning very different results. The two states offer an interesting observation into American politics: some will side with the value-driven idealist (Sanders), while others will side with the money-driven centrist (Clinton, and decisively so).

The legacy of the Sanders campaign will not be a tarnished one. He has run one of the most honest campaigns in recent memory, and should be applauded for his ability to unite the left in protest of corporate America. More importantly, he has shown that even battleground states can “feel the Bern” and refuse to support corruption in the name of political victory.

His campaign, however, provides a cautionary tale for those looking to enter contemporary presidential politics. Sanders’ positivity throughout his campaign has been his downfall in recent months. His failure to reveal many of Clinton’s shortcomings as a politician have seen her image remain a positive one in much of the mainstream media (which, as an aside, is funding her campaign).

While Sanders’ campaign should be viewed as a success story, it is, in the end, a loss. Hillary Clinton will likely enter the White House in 2017 and attempt to tarnish a relatively-positive legacy left by Barack Obama. Sanders’ failure to attack Clinton until recently was his undoing. The Sanders campaign was a good one. Pretty, pretty good. But it was not good enough.

 

 

 

Late night thoughts on Hillary Clinton’s fragile image

Debate is an essential component of a democracy. Where there is debate, there are informed voters. Political awareness should be a goal of those running for office, and any opportunity for debate should be accepted without hesitance.

Don’t tell any of this to Hillary Clinton. A report out of the Clinton camp today asserted that the former secretary of state refuses to debate Bernie Sanders until his tone improves.

The initial response is to correct Clinton and to reassure her that the opponent in these debates will not be Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Rather, it will be the optimistic revolutionary senator whose positive campaign has inspired the youth of America to rage against the establishment machine in hopes of a greater, more equitable country.

But, after Hillary’s insistence of Sanders’ aggressiveness, it is clear she is not preparing for general election debates in October in refusing debate. Sanders’ campaign, she claims, has adopted a negative tone recently, with the Vermont senator “attacking” Clinton’s Wall Street history and email scandal.

But Bernie Sanders is not a demagogue, like various Republican candidates. Nor is he a liar. His concerns with the Clinton campaign are legitimate. Given the importance of transparency in a democracy, Sanders has an obligation to inform the public of Hillary’s political shortcomings, as does Hillary of Bernie’s.

Clinton is justified in her anger at the message Sanders is sending about her campaign. But, she has no right to withhold debates from the people. Debates are essential in ensuring the candidate that best represents the people receives the nomination. In eliminating debates, Clinton is taking away part of the citizen’s ability to determine the candidate that best represents their interests.

Calling for an “improved tone” is Clinton asking for her history to be kept out of political discourses, an absurd request. Secretary Clinton’s attempt to keep her past out of the public eye is a response to the trend that has haunted her throughout her political career. The more people learn about Hillary, the less they like her. This phenomenon was seen in the 2008 Democratic primaries, when eighteen national debates saw Clinton’s double-digit lead over eventual nominee Barack Obama disappear.

In requesting an “improved tone”, Hillary is hedging her bets. Should Sanders temper his rhetoric to appease the secretary’s demands, her history will be kept out of the media, if only temporarily. Should Sanders refuse, she can deny him debates and keep herself out of the public eye. Whichever decision the Vermont senator makes, negative images of Clinton will be kept at a minimum.

With accusations of voter suppression in Arizona, it is clear something is afoul in the primary process. Hillary Clinton’s refusal to debate is only contributing to the regression of democracy in the United States. If Sanders’ accusations were false, Clinton should have used the national spotlight to explain the senator’s untrue rhetoric. In denying debate, Clinton is avoiding facing the truth about her past, and is keeping the voters from important democratic information. The only thing deplorable about Sanders’ truth-telling campaign is the undemocratic response from Clinton.