Bernie or Bust is Pragmatic
I posted this on DK this morning, and I knew it would get some bad attention. I am surprised though, at how little thoughtful discussion was brought about by it. Today seems like an exceptionally Hillary day over there, I'm thinking either too many are afraid of being banned for not talking up Hillary enough, or too many already have. Hopefully this will encourage some thoughtful discussion here. My first post here, so please let me know if it is out of line.
I’ll get back to the Bernie or Bust thing, let’s talk about pragmatism first. To Quote Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” According to Merriam-Webster the most appropriate portion of the definition of pragmatic is “practical as opposed to idealistic.” Looking at it a little differently we could use the old phrase: “Don’t let perfection get in the way of progression.” These are often used to claim that Bernie Sanders may be perfection for idealistic progressive goals, but Hillary Clinton is Pragmatic, so vote for Hillary because she will beat the Republicans and can get things done. There’s a real problem with that — the pragmatism of progression is not a short term goal.
Idealists look at this election and say we can get things done quickly. They say “all we need is someone that knows how to work the system, and we can pass laws.” They say: “hey, let’s elect Hillary because she can get stuff done!” Realists, however, know that we’ve gone backwards in economics, foreign policy and social support over the past 30 years, and a quick fix is not going to happen. Those being realistic know that it will take all of us a long time to bring it back to the right place, slowly, by moving in the right direction.
What is Hillary Clinton going to be able to get done? Our goal as progressives is to make sure our nation gives a fair shake to everyone, be it in opportunity, education, safety, protection, law or rights to choose how they live and treat their own bodies. Hillary Clinton’s goals are split. I know she has some liberal ideas. I know like Barack Obama she will try to get some good things done where she can. But I also know that much of her PAC support comes from oil companies, from pharmaceutical companies, from hedge funds. Clinton has promoted things from these companies many times. Her abandonment of the public option or single payer since her years as First Lady is a prime example. Now she supports the plan that she fought against when she was promoting a more liberal policy. This is not progress, this is not a realistic way to achieve our goals. Thus, this is not pragmatism.
Pragmatism is not giving success after success to the current bulwark of a Republican congress, hoping that they will pay back the favor later. That’s like trying to play tennis over a busy freeway, expecting that if the cars get to eat enough tennis balls, eventually they will stop to let the ball through.
Our goals are long term, and they will not be resolved by a single person in a short time wanting to be a champion like a patrimonial knight in shining armor. A realistic, pragmatic progression is for all of us to work together. Without a single champion. Without short term band aids that actually send us backwards.
Pragmatism is not voting for the same thing over and over again, hoping that eventually it will work. Every Bernie support that I know understands that having Bernie as president will not mean we get everything that he supports. Not much of it, in fact. Even if the new young voters for him come out in droves and bring change to the down ballot elections as well, he will never get much of what he wants through congress. But at least we’ll be moving in the right direction. Changing this country is not a one day event and is not done by a single person.
Back to the Bernie or Bust thing, back to real pragmatism, and back to where this diary is intended to make Hillary Clinton a better candidate and Kossacks better supporters. Bernie or bust is a pragmatic methodology of improving any Democratic Party candidate, making the Democratic Party candidate more progressive and helping them stand for all of us.
The reason is simple: if we give in to a commitment to support Hillary Clinton as the candidate regardless of where she turns, we have no say in this election anymore. If we Bernie voters say: “I support Bernie, but will vote for Hillary if she is the candidate no matter what,” we have lost. Bernie has lost. The Democratic Party is then free to pivot to the right as soon as they believe they have the primary wrapped up. Hillary is likely to triangulate to the right for the general election, can we trust her to shift back to the left when elected? If yes, why would the right of center voters voting for her in the general trust her to stay in her triangulated position?
The DNC would count on our votes no matter how right wing she becomes, and there is lots of room to shift to the right and still be far left of the Republicans currently running.
The Democratic base would again be taken advantage of. Taken for granted. Assumed to vote for the Democratic candidate whether the promote Democratic policies or not. I already believe that the Democratic Party has left me, and I’ve been told that, despite trying to work within for 45 years, I should keep trying because I can’t make a difference from the outside. If they take our vote for granted no matter their stance, we are not improving the party at all.
That is not being pragmatic, that is being a pawn. I will not be bullied into committing to vote for a candidate that I don’t believe in. If Bernie Sanders loses the primary I will not commit to not voting, nor will I commit to voting for a Republican (which I would never do for any of these candidates). What I will commit to is voting for Hillary Clinton if she wins my vote after winning the primary.
That is pragmatism. That is reality based democracy.
Comments
Honestly
I'm in a solidly red state.
I always vote for the progressive third party candidate in the general, because-HEY! Thanks to the electoral college, my vote magically becomes a vote for the Republican candidate.
I mean, I might as well. Were I in a less...uh...frightened and frightening and ill-educated state ( I mean, really, we have to try and engage them somehow...sigh...) I might vote differently.
...if I voted for Hillary, I'd feel like the blood she's gonna shed will be on my hands, in part.
That's a good moral reason not to vote for her.
Fnord
Utah may surprise everyone this time
It's an understatement to say Utah is a red state. But there is a poll that indicates Trump-phobia has gotten to the point where Utah could actually vote for a Democratic presidential candidate this year for the first time since 1964 (Lyndon Johnson). I know it's April 1 but this is real.
Poll: Utah would vote for a Democrat for president over Trump
"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."
The problem with all the "Clinton is better than any Republican"
arguments is that Clinton is merely hiding her right-wing agenda whereas the Republicans express theirs openly, and that Clinton is at this point the anointed head of the syndicate whereas the Republicans are mere blowhard asshole wannabes representing new money.
The behind-the-scenes organization behind the two-party charade is far tighter than the nice liberals realize.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
I posted this on DK this
"I posted this on DK this morning, and... I am surprised though, at how little thoughtful discussion was brought about by it."
I'm not surprised. Most of the remaining commentors there have been conditioned to pounce and ridicule anything that's not overtly haliographic over Clinton. It's become a cult atmosphere, and you're either in it, or you're a threat to it.
"Polls don't tell us how well a candidate is doing; Polls tell us how well the media is doing." ~ Me
I'd experienced some of that
But my post a few days ago about being driven out of the Democratic Party after 45 years of support made the top of the rec list and had at least mostly reasonable discussion. I guess hoping for that to continue was the problem.
It just seems like today is far worse than just a few days ago.
Old Bird
Possibly a sign
I think the plunging poll numbers in WI and NY, and then Hillary melting down on a young female Greenpeace activist (she might as well have kicked a kitten on live TV), has them spooked and they're lashing out in desperation to hang onto their narrative more because of it.
"Polls don't tell us how well a candidate is doing; Polls tell us how well the media is doing." ~ Me
Another sign?
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
All the people willing to have a thoughtful discussion
have left. Moved on to places like this where thoughtful discussion is still possible. Most of the well-known media outlets and blogs are wholly owned subsidiaries of either the RNC or the DNC or the wealthy donors behind both the RNC and DNC...seems pointless to waste a beautifully written essay in that kind of vacuum, so thanks for posting it here!
Thanks!
Old Bird
Is Hillary really the "lesser" evil?
I often wonder. Looking at the Bill Clinton administration, Mr. Clinton embraced any number of right-wing policy initiatives, from job-killing "free trade" deals to draconian criminal justice "reforms" to "ending welfare as we know it". And it's not widely remembered that his efforts to privatize Social Security and Medicare were only derailed by the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
If Bush I had been re-elected, it's very likely these initiatives would have met with far more resistance in Congress -- but because Clinton was a Democrat, the opposition within his own party was effectively muted. Thus, arguably Bill Clinton was not the lesser evil at all, but in fact the more effective one. And given her cozy relationship with Wall St. the fossil fuels industry, the military establishment, the Israeli lobby, etc., I very much doubt that Hillary's embrace of right-wing policies would be any less fervent than that of her husband.
inactive account
Clinton can still be the lesser evil
while at the same time being the smarter, more powerful evil.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
Monica ought to get a medal
It's no exaggeration to say Monica Lewinsky ought to get a medal for saving Social Security and Medicare.
"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."
First off - hi everybody!
First off - hi everybody!
I tend to agree with you mouselander that the whole "lesser evil" argument in a Trump v Clinton election may not have an easy answer. On the one hand sometimes Trump sounds more like he wants to be Grand Wizard rather than President. But Clinton has her own serious baggage, including but not limited to her unwavering support for seemingly any war, her close ties to questionable industries both through speaking fees and the Clinton Foundation, and arm sales to human rights abusers that strangely correlate to large Foundation donations. I'm really not sure who is worse or which would be more dangerous (not necessarily the same thing mind you!).
I do know given my views on Clinton's past, especially her Iraq War support that should she secure the nomination I won't feel bad in the slightest voting Green. At least then whatever horrible things the President does - and I think both would at least try to do horrible things - won't be done with my support.
When Shit sandwiches become shit sandwiches
...and we will no longer eat them. That is the rejection point we are about to get past.
It is a rising sense of 'I don't give a fuck'. We are not going to be Charlie Browns trying to kick the football again.
That's the Bernie or Bust mentality. Supreme Court, blah, blah, blah. Clintonites need to realize that enough is enough is no longer exclusive to Republicans. It also means milquetoast Corporate Third Way Establishment Dems. That's what Clintonites are missing at their peril. Two of shit is still shit, the size of the pile does not matter.
Hillary Clinton and the Third Way Corporate Dems and all of the liberal interest groups that have welded themselves to HRC are playing a very dangerous game this time around.
They are playing a game of Democratic Party Chicken. We might not blink this time around. Maybe if we let them know early enough, they will be the one's to swerve. It's about the only card we have to play. The refusal card. Or to be completely yet purposefully flippant, like ghost busters, we cross the streams. The door swings both ways...
[video:https://youtu.be/9wrEEd1ajz4]
Clinton and the Supreme Court Argument
Obama's Supreme pick, Garland, is so far right, he'd fill Scalia's shoes to a T, and we'd be back to the 5-4 vote hell that gave us Citizens United. Since Clinton and Obama are joined at the hip all of a sudden, you can bank on Clinton getting him on the Court, should she prevail in the election. There goes her argument for a D (who's really an R) on the Court.
the turd way...not my path
I'm Bernie or bust. Of course no real ethical dilemma here in Alabama where the rethugs rule.
I'm more hopeful than I've been in the last couple of weeks that we will have Bernie as the nominee in the general. The Clintons and their political machine might steal it from us, but I think the worm has turned and Bernie is headed for victory. We'll know better after seeing margins in WI and NY. Winning in NY puts us on the path to the nomination in my view, and I'm hopeful.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Thomas Frank's take on the lesser evil
In his new book, "Listen, Liberal" he makes a powerful case that starting with Bill Clinton the Dems did more damage because, as Dems, they had the ability to hide behind "brand loyalty"(that Dems will help working people) and then made deals that cut off working people at the knees. Reagan did not do a horrible welfare reform, or NAFTA. Bush got us into wars but did Dems work to rein in military spending when all the tax cuts came? Honestly, I want Bernie to win just so we do not face a coronation of "more of the same Dem establishment." I think that is highly pragmatic, and I am in a position of being close to Medicare age with a teen approaching college(adopted when I was older than normal mom) -all the decisions of the next four years will matter directly to my family. I keep thinking that if Trump were elected, he would spend all his time fighting with his own party until they collapsed. Still, I am Bernie or Bust - because if this country really can find enough people to vote for Trump, my little vote is the least of our worries. I am too old to vote for someone who represents nothing of my values.
i had shared TOP link often when urged to be pragmatic there...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/01/27/1475582/-Actually-I-ve-Had-It-W... by Greywolfe359
The new mainstream media message that echoes Hillary Clinton’s own closing argument last night in Iowa is that we should all “get real” and choose the pragmatic Hillary Clinton over the idealistic yet naive Bernie Sanders.
Paul Krugman urges us to face healthcare realities and give up on the progressive vision for universal healthcare.
John Avignone at Salon rushed to tell us that “quixotic insurgent campaigns” have “been the road to ruin of every political movement and every political party” that have tried them.
Both argue that we need to nominate Hillary Clinton, the pragmatic, realistic candidate who will work with a GOP-controlled Congress to make incremental progress. Bernie has great ideas but Hillary is the one who will “get things done.”
I’m sorry, but how can anyone be so fucking naive?
First, how can anyone keep a straight face while reminding us that the GOP will likely still control the House and in the same breath claim that Hillary Clinton will be able to work with that Congress? Have you been watching Congress for the past 8 years? Hell, do you remember the last time a Clinton was in the White House? The Republican House impeached one Clinton and I’m sure they are chomping at the bit to make it two for two. As we know from before, they don’t even need a good reason!
The majority of GOP House seats have been gerrymandered into rabidly red districts where the voters already HATE Hillary Clinton. The only danger they will face is getting primaried by someone who faults them for not impeaching the second Clinton fast enough. They are going to double down on the “make a one-term president” strategy they employed against Obama and say no to absolutely everything.
Hillary Clinton has no better chance of passing progressive reforms through Congress than Bernie Sanders does. Period.
Second, to the extent that she could get anything done, it’s precisely what might get done that scares the hell out of me.
You may be right that Hillary Clinton is more likely to find common ground with a GOP Congress on certain issues than Bernie Sanders would. But let’s think for a moment about what those issues would be…
Remember the common ground the first president found with a GOP Congress? Remember welfare reform? Remember financial de-regulation? Remember the expansion of free trade agreements that were devastating to American workers?
Hell, look at where the current president is finding common ground with Congress to pass the TPP over the objections of BOTH sides of the political spectrum. Or expand drone strikes and the surveillance state.
Yes, I can see Hillary Clinton finding common ground with a GOP Congress to do all these kinds of things. Anti-worker free trade laws. Hawkish foreign policy. Cuts to vital social services. Raising the retirement age? Tax cuts for Wall Street?
When I think about what Hillary Clinton might actually “get done” with a GOP Congress, it scares the hell out of me.
Third, in the face of an intransigent GOP opposition, we need a president who will use the bully pulpit of the Oval Office to fight for progressive ideas and win the battle for hearts and minds that will lead to electoral victories so we CAN pass progressive legislation.
Sanders can start to make incremental changes with good appointments to the federal agencies. Sanders appointees can start to reign in Wall Street and bolster workers by implementing new policy in the Departments of Treasury, Commerce and Labor. And Sanders can continue to give voice every day to the progressive changes we need.
Did you know that during one of the Democratic debates, one of the most googled phrases was “universal healthcare”? Already more Iowa Democrats are comfortable calling themselves “socialist” as opposed to “capitalist”. A majority of Americans support Sanders on nearly every major issue. We need those issues to be what is being talked about and debated and discussed. We need a champion for those issues with the biggest microphone there is—the White House.
We got our asses kicked in 2010 because Democratic leaders bent over backwards to work with GOP Congress that voted no on everything in the end anyway. Progressives stayed home because Democrats didn’t actually act progressive once in office. We didn’t even get a fucking public option.
The stimulus was too small and too focused on tax cuts. Wall Street got a bail out, homeowners got none and we didn’t prosecute the banksters.
And establishment Democrats can whine all they want that Republicans wouldn’t have let them. But how do we know? They didn’t even try! It would have been better to propose real solutions to our problems and LET the Republicans vote now and block it. Let THEM be the reason we failed. Then go back to the people and tell them to kick the bums out!
That’s how we win in 2018 and 2020. Not by passing shitty legislation that continues the transfer of wealth to the top one-tenth of one percent that has been going on for thirty or more years.
So don’t be so naive again. Let’s get real and vote for real change. And keep voting for it until we get it.
This Comment needs to be a Essay of its own!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Excellent points brother!
Let's not forget, S.N.A.P. benefits just dumped some half a million people. S.N.A.P. cost US tax payers somewhere around 80 to 85 annually. Quantitative Easing, spent 85 billion a month for 4.5 years! helping wall street, not to mention the 16 trillion in short term loans to the biggest banks, under a democrat in the WH. Who offered up cuts to social security during the grand bargain? Our military budget is like 3 times what it was in 1993, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We have troops on the ground in Iraq, still in Afghanistan, over 800 military installations across the planet. (face palm)
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote