I initially wrote this as a comment, then thought I’d put it forth as a diary. Just a few thoughts on the nature of the Democratic primary as it now stands.
Bernie and Hillary represent two sides of the same progressive coin. Both are fighting oppression; both happen to concentrate on different aspects of oppression. Bernie concentrates on the economic, HRC focuses on social justice.
One does not necessarily negate the other. Just as I’m sure Bernie does not disagree with social justice, although he may de-emphasize it, I'm sure that Hillary does not disagree with economic justice, although she may de-emphasize it.
I do think that we can all come together in the middle.
I believe that HRC will listen to the concerns of Bernie supporters. I believe she has already started to do so. I believe that she already supports many of Bernie’s issues. Their voting records in the Senate are very similar. And in some cases, as with guns, HRC has been to the left of Bernie.
Hillary also has a history of listening. Hillary has a history of “getting it.” (See Obama’s nomination and election and presidency.)
My major concern about this type of dialogue is that whenever Hillary Clinton says she supports a Bernie idea, Bernie people say they don’t believe her. That’s kind of conversation stopper.
How can you ever satisfy someone who refuses to win? Or keeps putting up another hoop once you jump through the last one?
If Bernie and his supporters truly want to negotiate with HRC, I continue to hope that they will do so in good faith.
As for me and why I support Hillary even though I am sympathetic to Bernie’s message--I am a socialist feminist and have been for forty years.
I’ve fought the good fight, been a union organizer, anti-war protester, anti-nukes protester. I am a Quaker and a pacifist. I am proud to have raised a son who is a progressive feminist. I have taught the history of oppressed peoples, including the history of the working class and the labor movement. As a historian, public librarian and a government archivist, I’ve never made over $50,000 a year. And I’m fine with that. I am proud that I spent my work life making important information accessible to all people, regardless of income or education. What I did was always more important than the money I earned doing it. As long as I could live on it, I didn’t have a lot of desire for more.
I am an HRC supporter because my decades’ worth of experience in this country on the left leads me to believe that the best and most popular way to win with a message of economic equality and social justice is to fight for raising the “floor” rather than imposing a “ceiling.”
I believe, in short, that we should talk about fighting for a living wage for all, rather than talking about limiting the wealth of a few. I think that HRC does this, and can be pushed to do this even more.
To me it’s clear that in order to create a living wage, the rich have to give up some of their wealth in taxes and in wages anyway. The income inequality gap will narrow on its own if we focus on creating a better life for the poor. You don’t have to demonize the rich as the front and center of the message, as Bernie sometimes does when he rails against “millionaires and billionaires” without any regard to who they are, what they believe, and how they obtained and spend their money.
Most Americans admire the wealthy. There’s nothing you or I or Bernie can do about this. So I think it’s better just as a practical matter to concentrate on cultivating American compassion rather than trying to stir up American antipathy to wealth.
I also happen to prefer a message that focuses on love and kindness and lifting all boats, rather than a message that focuses on anger at a chosen enemy (the rich).
And just a note on foreign policy. I wish HRC were more of a pacifist. However, I believe that a progressive woman running for President, even in this day and age and in this country, must unfortunately project an image of “strength” in order to combat stereotypes of women—See Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir.
Also, call me a cynic, but I think that the military-industrial-national-security apparatus in this country is too strong to be dismantled by one person in one term. Because of that, I prefer a person whose first choice is more diplomacy, less war. I believe that describes Hillary Clinton.
I hope that the conversation can continue—
I also hope that it continues by talking about ideas rather than by bashing nominees.