Now that the primary season has wound down, it seems like it is time for some reflection on long term Democratic strategy. I want to specifically focus on Bernie Sanders’ announce goal of leading a “political revolution.” To start, let me say that I supported Sanders. I gave him some money early on and happily voted for him in my state’s Democratic Presidential primary. I was, and am, delighted that he raised the level of discourse during the primary process.
However, I have a profound strategic objection to characterizing the goal of the campaign as “political revolution.” A Presidential campaign is very likely the worst venue for initiating such a revolution.
First of all, there is the simple question of what is meant by the term “political revolution.” I don’t think that the Bolsheviks storming the Winter Palace should be the first image that springs to mind. As I interpret what Bernie has been saying, he wishes to get a larger share of the American populace actively involved in the political process. A majority of the American population takes absolutely no part in politics at any level, they don’t even vote. This is an appalling record for the world’s oldest democracy.
Limited participation leaves politics especially vulnerable to the influence of special interests who can mobilize their supporters to participate in both voting and lobbying. And in a market economy, the predominant special interest is the interests of the moneyed classes. So naturally the Republican party and, to a lesser extent the Democrats, kowtow to the wealthy. If even sixty per cent of all citizens eligible to vote actually participated, the Republican party in its current incarnation would never win another election.
In this regard, Bernie’s campaign with its ability to inspire tremendous enthusiasm among his supporters is admirable. However, the Presidency is an institution with severe limitations. First of all, there are two other branches of government which have the ability to frustrate the ambitions of any President. We’ve seen this recently in the Republican controlled Senate’s refusal to even consider Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court and that court’s failure to sustain a President’s policy making role in immigration enforcement. Electing Bernie with a Republican dominated Congress would have been no more effective in advancing progressive goals than President Obama has been.
The other limitation of Presidency flows from the nature of our electoral system. We elect members of legislative bodies (and the President) through single member constituencies where the winner is the candidate who achieves a plurality. This system tends to create a party system with two broad electoral coalitions. What that means is that no matter how progressive a presidential candidate is, if elected, they will govern from the center to insure the survival of their coalition.
What is necessary for a “political revolution” is to expand the left/progressive coalition and shift it to the left. This cannot be accomplished in the framework of a presidential campaign. Instead what is required is building from the grassroots. This is doing the hard and dirty work of challenging local elites for control of local government. Then governing effectively and in the interests of the majority will hopefully inspire the passive majority to greater levels of involvement. We can take a lesson here from the performance of the right over the past forty years. They behaved in exactly this manner, burrowing into school boards, city and county governments, and building from there. In this endeavor, they had the advantage of greater resources from certain politically meddlesome plutocrats and a patient long term strategy.
We need a similarly long term strategy which has the advantage of creating a “deep bench” of individuals primed to seek higher offices. State and national legislative races are the natural next step. Once a progressive legislative majority is in place, electing a progressively inclined Governor or President will be the culminating step, not an exercise in frustration.
To Bernie’s credit he has urged his supporters to move in this direction. That is how we achieve a “political revolution!”
Note that the emphasis here is on expanding the progressive tendencies in politics by building a larger more inclusive coalition by reaching out and activating the politically apathetic low income, low information voters. You do not achieve this by supporting a third party movement. In that case, purity is realized at the expense of actual results. (Looking at you, Jill Stein.)