Hillary Clinton yesterday rightfully questioned Bernie Sanders’ Democratic credentials:
Clinton told Politico's "Off Message" podcast. "He’s a relatively new Democrat, and, in fact, I’m not even sure he is one. He’s running as one. So I don’t know quite how to characterize him."
He is not a Democrat. I completely agree with her insinuation.
He may have caucussed with Democrats, but he’s been an Independent since he first defeated the incumbent Democratic mayor of Burlington in 1980. He is still an Independent today.
What does that mean? Well, let’s look at his record and how it lines up with the Democratic Party.
“We are a national community based on a commitment to social justice.”
Franklin Roosevelt
Bernie Sanders as Mayor
His Wikipedia page describes his election victory over a five-term Democratic major and subsequent reelection 3 times including in 1987 when Sanders defeated a Democrat endorsed by both parties.
During his mayoralty, Sanders called himself a socialist and was so described in the press. During his first term, his supporters, including the first Citizens Party City Councilor Terry Bouricius, formed the Progressive Coalition, the forerunner of the Vermont Progressive Party. The Progressives never held more than six seats on the 13-member city council, but they had enough to keep the council from overriding Sanders's vetoes.
And what did this ‘socialist’ — who allied with a ‘Progressive Coalition’ and was opposed by both major parties, united in trying to unseat him — do as mayor? From the summary of The Nation’s article on his mayoral record:
Sanders revitalized the economy and solidified support for progressive municipal policies
In particular defending the working families living in affordable housing, built on the back of federal subsidizes, whose landlords wanted to turf out in order to exploit the real estate:
“Bernie pounded his fist on the conference table in his office and told the owners, ‘Over my dead body are you going to displace 336 working families.’”
...
In addressing this and many other issues, [Sanders] encouraged grassroots organizing, adopted local laws to protect the vulnerable, challenged the city’s business power brokers, and worked collaboratively with other politicians to create a more livable city.
In 1986, Sanders unsuccessfully challenged incumbent Governor Madeleine Kunin (D) in her run for reelection.
In 1987, US News & World Report ranked him as one of the best mayors in America.
He stepped down as mayor in 1989 after 4 terms. Part of his significant legacy is that Burlington is often regarded as one of the best places to live in America.
Bernie Sanders in Congress
In 1990, Sanders defeated incumbent Vermont Congressman Peter P. Smith (R) to become the first Independent congressman in 40 years.
What did he think of the Democrats back then?
During his first year in the House, Sanders often alienated allies and colleagues with his criticism of both political parties as working primarily on behalf of the wealthy. In 1991, Sanders co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of mostly liberal Democrats that Sanders chaired for its first eight years.
Basically the Democrats were not progressive enough for Bernie Sanders. He managed to identify a few that were a bit closer to him, but he was way to the left of the core of the party that the Democrats had become.
In 2005, Sanders ran for the Senate as an Independent but was endorsed by the DNC, including voices such as Schumer, Reid, and Dean. Barack Obama joined him on the campaign trail. He won in a landslide and caucussed with the Democrats to give them a 51 to 49 majority (critical because a tie is decided by the VP — then Dick Cheney).
His voting record rates him as 100% “Hard-core Liberal” (according to ontheissues.org).
The Democratic Party
“Our party is committed to equality and justice for all.”
Lyndon Johnson
Equality and justice for all. Think about that for a moment. That is what being a Democrat is supposed to be about. I would hope pretty much any DailyKos member would identify whole heartedly with that.
Herein lines the problem. When Sanders entered politics in the 1980s, it was not what the core of the Democratic Party represented any more. Corporate America had infiltrated Washington and only escalated its influence as time went on; there was no political will to curb the influx of corporate money and wealthy donors. This was epitomized in 1999 when the banks bought themselves deregulation.
The banking, insurance and brokerage industry lobbyists have combined their forces over the last five years to mount the best-financed campaign of influence-buying ever seen in Washington. In 1997 and 1998 alone, the three industries spent over $300 million on the effort: $58 million in campaign contributions to Democratic and Republican candidates, $87 million in "soft money" contributions to the Democratic and Republican parties, and $163 million on lobbying of elected officials.
In the House, 155 Democrats voted for it while Sanders opposed it. In the Senate, to their credit, 44 Democrats opposed it, but Clinton signed it into law and we are all too familiar with the consequences.
Then there’s the lobbying that bought privatization of prisons, whilst record levels of Americans were getting incarcerated. Practically every industry lobbied and practically every industry got a bit of what it wanted. It’s not that Bill Clinton wasn’t trying to get progressive things done or that the Democrats had no progressive agenda, but they were being defeated by the influx of money in politics. The Republicans had completely sold out. As a Democrat, either you carefully picked your fights and kept your door open to lobbyists or you didn't get funding and faced well funded opponents in the next election cycle.
Professors Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin I. Page (Northwestern University) looked at more than 20 years worth of data to answer a simple question:
Does the government represent the people?
Gilens and Page, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” Perspective on Politics, 2014
“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”
Still No Change
Obama ran a brilliant and inspirational campaign in 2008. Cogent of the rising anger with the influence of money in politics, his campaign eschewed lobbyists and PACs and he attempted to reform the Democratic Party by making his campaign’s policy the official party policy (even though he broke his promise on not appointing lobbyists to his administration).
Obama’s reforms lasted until the 2016 Primary. On 12th February 2016, the Washington Post reported:
The Democratic National Committee has rolled back restrictions introduced by presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 that banned donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees.
...
The change in the rules, already apparent to leading Washington lobbyists, was quietly introduced at some point during the past couple of months.
Quietly introduced. Quietly letting in lobbyists, bundlers, and Super PACs, who already knew it was coming and were ready. That means it was coordinated. Conversations were held, agreements made, and lobbyists and bundlers and Super PACs re-introduced.
The core, the soul of the party, had been bathed in corporate money for decades. Without it, unfamiliar with appealing to Americans on a purely progressive platform, the party folded limply and lost control of Congress. So it returned to its corporate roots.
Obama’s election had proved the grassroots of the party was as passionate and progressive as ever. The party establishment did not live up to that promise.
Not a Democrat
Bernie Sanders — a “hard-core liberal”, a progressive through and through — has been an Independent firebrand in an era of unprecedented growth of wealth inequality and enduring social injustice. Why would he be a Democrat when they were complicit in that?
He’s 74 years old. At an age where a normal person is retired, he is working harder than any 74 year old should, campaigning for equality, campaigning for social justice.
I ask you, isn’t this the passion and values that you want your Democratic Party to represent?
“Elections are not a game.”
I do not dislike Hillary Clinton, nor do I think she would be a bad president. However she is undeniably entrenched in the system. Whilst Bernie is speaking to enthusiastic crowds and reaching out to everyday Americans for support, Hillary is on a fundraiser tour speaking to wealthy Americans and corporate interests.
Hillary had a vision for securing the nomination and winning back Congress and it involved the support of corporate and rich America — including Wall St, big pharma, private prisons, even energy companies. They all contribute, they all get listened to, it’s as simple as that.
Hillary could have gone to ordinary Americans whilst Sanders was still a fringe candidate and 50 points down. This was not forced upon her; she chose her own path.
The Devil Is In The Details
Listen to this exchange carefully:
Sanders and Clinton debate on breaking up banks
It’s the caveats that should make you uncomfortable.
Clinton states:“I will use [the power to break up big banks] if they pose a systemic risk.”
Sanders retorts: “When you have 3 out of the 4 largest banks in America today bigger than they were when we bailed them out because they were too big to fail… time to break them up.”
Clinton’s response: “We have a law… to determine whether a systemic risk is posed.”
A law written by a man who declares proudly that banks donated money to him and says some institutions shouldn’t be broken up because, “I don’t believe in one size fits all.” A law to be enforced by a president that is close to the very banks that are now bigger than they were when they were too big to fail, but they still don’t meet the criteria for being broken up. It’s insanity.
It is also a microcosm of corporate influence. Even if you believe that Frank and Clinton are genuine in their positions — which they may well be — it is unrealistic to think that these laws and their applications are not influenced by the machinations of the banking industry. Influence isn’t just explicit exchange of money for favours. It is the voices which make up the noise in the room. The modern Democratic Party fills its room with the wealthy and corporate interests. These are the voices that are heard before all other voices and the majority of Democrats in Washington are completely at ease with this.
Bernie Sanders is the antithesis of the modern Democrat, which is why he is not a Democrat.
This is a fight for the heart and soul of the party. Let’s hope one day Bernie Sanders will be proud to call himself a Democrat. That day is not here yet.
Thank you for reading.
“This country belongs to all of us.”
Thursday, Apr 7, 2016 · 1:23:30 PM +00:00 · charlieg
Made a few edits. Also added a chart from political compass and added these paragraphs:
Obama’s election had proved the grassroots of the party was as passionate and progressive as ever. The party establishment did not live up to that promise.
Hillary could have gone to ordinary Americans whilst Sanders was still a fringe candidate and 50 points down. This was not forced upon her; she chose her own path.