after the events this past weekend in Nevada. The lead editorial in the paper is titled After tensions explode in Nevada, it’s time for Sanders to be honest with his supporters.
Before I get to the editorial itself, let me anticipate some of the pushback. Don’t tell me that I am posting this because I am pro-Clinton. Don’t dismiss it because Jeff Bezos, a billionaire, happens to own the Post (when he bought the newspaper he met with the staff and promised to protect its editorial independence). I did not include the actual challenge in the title.
I am posting this because it is important, it is yet another major voice expressing dismay and/or disgust not merely at what happened at the Nevada state convention, but also disappointment at the response from Senator Sanders.
So here are a few snips, although I urge people to read the entire piece.
Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) shouted, cursed and threw chairs during a state party convention in which they failed to force rules changes they wanted. Even though they were attempting to get more delegates than the caucus results in the state suggested they deserved, they attacked the process as unfair.
Please note both the link to support the assertion that some still try to deny, and also the fact that the Sanders people were attempting to gain more delegates than they deserved based on the original results of the caucuses.
Mr. Sanders responded with self-righteousness and hypocrisy.
He offered a throwaway line, three paragraphs down, condemning his supporters’ hooliganism in a statement that mostly justified it.
Had Sanders simply ended his statement before the word “But” or even reaffirmed his rejection of violence and attempt at intimidation, the level of pushback and criticism now being seen would not have happened. It is increasingly clear that the “But” and the words that followed have become for many the final straw.
Mr. Sanders’s irresponsibility is sadly unsurprising.
Those words are followed by acknowledging that he has stirred up populist energy, although he has resorted to “hyperbolic language” in his attempt to convince people of the need for the revolution he advocates, resulting in attracting large and passionate crowds. But as he has lagged in getting the actual electoral support to win, he has
questioned the legitimacy of the process and encouraged his supporters to feel disenfranchised. The result is a toxic mix of unreason, revolutionary fervor and perceived grievance.
Before I continue with the words of the editorial, let me offer some thoughts that I have been reflecting upon this week. Sanders is encouraging a dangerous kind of populism in a way that is the mirror image of the kind of populism being offered by Donald Trump on the other side. It builds on something of a sense of grievance, offers a convenient target. Please note, I am NOT equating either Mr. Sanders with Mr. Trump, his criticisms of America with the blather of The Donald, or even the reactions of supporters of Trump with the vast majority of those of Sanders. I am noting the dangers of unrestrained populism of any kind, and the reflecting upon the sad history of such populism in our national past. I think that is part of what is fueling some of the current pushback, especially when Sanders seems to rationalize the extreme actions that have occurred.
Returning to the editorial:
What is particularly galling about the Sanders camp’s complaints of disenfranchisement is that Mr. Sanders has benefited or tried to benefit from a variety of sketchy quirks of the nominating process.
Quite obviously the piece addresses the very undemocratic nature of caucuses, from which Sanders has greatly benefited. It notes his complaints about closed caucuses — although it does not address what others have, that this is a process to nominate a Democratic candidate and for the most part those who want to participate are not barred from so doing even in closed primaries, since they have the option to register as Democrats for that purpose.
The editorial concludes with one strong paragraph, which will be the only paragraph I quote in its entirety. For those who are paying attention, this paragraph makes clear that the newspaper will strongly endorse the Democratic nominee against that of the Republican party, assuming as seems apparent that the Republicans will nominate Trump.
Mr. Sanders denies reality when he tells supporters he still has a plausible pathway to the Democratic presidential nomination. But passion cannot trump reality. It also cannot excuse violence, threats and attempts at mob rule. It is past time for Mr. Sanders to be honest with his supporters, before they take the campaign’s irresponsible ethos to greater extremes and thereby help ensure the election of Donald Trump.