If my caucus were held today, I know who I’d vote for. But I’ve changed my mind over and over again in the past few months, and I fully expect I will change it a few more times before the caucus Tuesday night. To be clear: I like both our candidates. A lot. In the Democratic primary we have an embarrassment of riches, compared to what’s left of the clown car that is the Republican nominating contest. I believe both candidates can win the general election. I’m familiar with our candidates’ positions, backgrounds, and speaking styles. But my criteria for choosing a candidate are different than those that are usually debated (and thrown around in pie fights) here.
Rather, it comes down to a single, but complicated, question: Which candidate can best bring about long-term progressive change? The complication comes from the fact that we’re really looking for two very different qualities in a single candidate. The first quality is that of a movement-builder. This is someone who can promote strong progressive values and bold policy programs, someone who can expand the Democratic base and build excitement for progressive politics. The second quality is that of the executive—someone who can manage the day-to-day political fights that move the progressive agenda forward. Certainly Sanders is more of a movement-builder, while Clinton exhibits more of the executive quality. If we could merge the two with some sort of Star Trek transporter malfunction, we'd have the perfect candidate.
The executive quality has been underrated in the discussion of the campaign. It has largely come down to "There will be a political revolution" or "nothing much will happen under a Republican congress anyway." But this underestimates the power of the President. In fact, the President has one big piece of legislative leverage, and it can be exercised by using the eight magic words, “I will not sign the budget bill unless...” The budget is the one bill that must pass Congress and be signed by the President every year. That’s why it’s been the vehicle for the GOP to try to repeal Obamacare and eliminate Planned Parenthood. That’s also why it’s been the means for Obama to get the small rollback of the Bush tax cuts he’s been able to manage.
A Democratic president can demand progressive change out of the budget, but it's tricky. If an agreement isn't reached, the government shuts down. Then it becomes a fight in the court of public opinion. Each side will try to present themselves as reasonable, while blaming the other for the shutdown. Demand too much, and risk looking too extreme. But demand too little, and the base loses motivation to fight for you. The President also has to keep the party and its allies on message to maintain public support for the progressive position. As we all know too well, congressional Democrats are a fickle bunch, and it won't take much erosion in support for them to start jumping ship and risking a veto override. But, while most the safely-gerrymandered GOP caucus can hold their position without risking their seats, the GOP leadership knows that getting blamed for the shutdown can hurt the party brand overall, and eventually cost them the majority. I have no doubt that should the government remain divided come 2017, there will at least be a serious possibility of a shutdown. The president needs to have the both political skill to navigate a budget fight and the courage to hold firm when necessary.
Both qualities are necessary for a President to be truly effective at bringing about progressive change. A movement-builder is needed for the Democrats to maintain enthusiasm into the 2018 midterms, and for down-ticket races in 2020 that will control the next round of redistricting. A movement-builder is also needed to marshal support for the legislative budget battles in the short term. Movement-building alone is not enough, though: Legislative success is necessary to keep the movement going. Obama’s campaign in 2008 build a great movement—and then it fizzled. Perhaps Obama's greatest failing was his clinging to bipartisanship, completely underestimating the vitriol the Republicans would throw at him from day one. This hamstrung his legislative agenda, even with large Democratic majorities in Congress, and by the time the 2010 midterms rolled around, the base was demoralized. In short: Bernie can throw for the end zone, while Hillary can grind out yardage with the running game. We need both for a successful offense.
It's worth pointing out that this problem is unique to Progressives. Conservatives build and sustain their movement through their vast infrastructure of think tanks, media outfits, and grassroots organizations. We've come a long way in that regard since 2004, but we're still not a match for conservatives. Republican lawmakers, at all levels, can simply follow the lead of their infrastructure, which does the heavy lifting of formulating policies and the framing and messaging to sell them. Not so on the Left. We still need the President to lead the movement.*
So where does this leave me? I now have less than 48 hours to decide. It's not so much that my thinking shifts, but that the candidates do. They're both improving their campaigns and honing their messages in response to the other. So I might have settled on Hillary, and then learn that Bernie has further broadened his mastery of issues. But then I see a speech by Hillary where she delivers a more populist message with authenticity. This dynamic is healthy and strengthens both candidates. It may come down to a vote for Bernie only because he appears to be the underdog right now and I want the campaign to continue. But I'll probably change my mind. More than once.
*Being undecided, I haven't donated to any Democratic candidates this cycle. Instead, I've given to the Roosevelt Institute, and locally to the Bell Policy Center and the Colorado Center on Law and Policy. These kinds of organizations are critical to building the progressive movement. So if your favored candidate doesn't win the primary, and you can't stomach donating to the other, consider donating to one of these organizations, or a similar one active on your state.