By Karen Rubin, News & Photo Features
What the Bernie Sanders followers loved best about him was that he was a principled non-politician. Authentic. No ego. When he entered the contest, he was at a 3% support – mirroring the percentage of people who even knew who he was, a Senator from a tiny state whose population, 625,000, is less than half that of Nassau County, `one of the least diverse demographics in the country.
He has been an independent ever since he couldn’t win election as a Democrat, and has managed not to run afoul of the NRA ever since he lost his first campaign.
Now, after he has been decisively beaten in total votes — by nearly 4 million, 16,554,911 (55.6%) to 12,744,268 (42.8%) - and in pledged delegates 2219 to 1879. And even though Clinton beat Sanders in the biggest states and only really lost in the states which held open primaries (meaning those not registered as Democrats could vote) and caucuses (the most undemocratic of primary processes), even so, Sanders is demanding concessions from the Democratic Party in exchange for him stopping bashing the presumptive nominee and the first woman to be the nominee of a major party, Hillary Clinton.
In essence, Sanders is inflicting his “political revolution” on the Democratic party, which up until now has treated him with extraordinary respect and deference – giving him chairmanship of important Senate committees, for example.
Now, he is demanding – extorting – changes in how the Democrats run their primary – essentially to be more like the Republicans (and how did that go this year?) – eliminating Super Delegates, opening up all primaries to non-Democrats, and, oh yes, removing Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz from her position as DNC chair.
As a registered Democrat who leans progressive but also hugs a more moderate, centrist position, I object.
First, on SuperDelegates: they are in place because of past experience because it is well known that primaries bring out the most rabid, extreme, fringe voters. The Super Delegates – consisting of elected officials and party stalwarts – are like party elders who have a more intimate, long-term, big-picture understanding of issues, candidate positions, and electability (all of which a majority of primary voters said Sanders fell short about). They are meant to be a moderating influence, and doesn’t the GOP Establishment wish they had Super Delegates.
Open Primaries invite conspiracy to defeat a worthy candidate by the opposition. In many cases, in open primaries, Republicans and Independents cross over to cast a vote for or against a candidate because they either want to torpedo the candidacy or see the candidate most likely to fail against the Republican get the nomination. And while it may seem like a noble pursuit, as Sanders claims, to “bring in new people to the party” that is not what is happening at all. You are basically giving control over to people who do not adhere to the party’s values or ideals.
DNC: Sanders has really a lot of nerve – once again, not really a Democrat – in tearing down Wasserman-Schultz. I happen to admire her and she doesn’t deserve at all the bashing from a sore loser. Let’s be reminded whose campaign stole data from the opponent. The DNC has done nothing to adversely affect Sanders’ campaign – as for the number of debates, it can be shown that everywhere they debated, but Michigan, Clinton won. Sanders chose not to fund-raise with the DNC – after all, that was the essence of his campaign, how independent he was. And frankly, if he had gotten the nomination, it would have been virtually impossible for him to go it alone without the DNC.
But Sanders got his way, didn’t he, with Wasserman-Schultz being replaced by Hillary Clinton’s choice, Brandon Davis, to run the day-to-day operations until a new chairperson is selected at this year’s convention.
Another thing that proves fair and moderating is the proportional distribution of delegates, rather than winner-take-all. This should be the practice for the Electoral College as well, instead of basically committing to the trash compacter of history 49.9 percent of votes. But until all the states adopt this practice, it can be used as yet another tool for Republicans, who will never get a majority of votes, to steal the election (voter suppression, gerrymandering, and campaign finance are three other ways the system is actually rigged, unlike what Sanders is accusing the Democrats of).
But here’s my theory: after spending 30 years in Congress as a scold, unable to enact any of the noble, progressive policies he advocated, serving in comparative anonymity, all of a sudden he has gotten a taste for real celebrity, for real political power. Just as he shifted his tone from promising to focus only on issues (in order to pull the Democratic Party toward progressive policies), he began to intensify his confrontation with candidate Clinton, tarring her as a corrupt politician in the pocket of Wall Street, handing Donald Trump his script for the general election attacks Trump will certainly wage. Sanders, beloved for his “authenticity” and “principle” and “unpolitic” character, became more and more like every other politician who wants to win, who has discovered the warmth of the limelight. And he has not been willing to give that up and return to just being a Senator from a small state. No, he will milk it until the convention.
But in the process, he will continue to harm Hillary Clinton, possibly irreparably, and accomplish what he says he most wants to avoid: Donald Trump in the White House (except I predict the RNC will find a way to dump Donald Trump and replace him with a Ted Cruz-Nikki Haley ticket, in which case Hillary Clinton will need all the support she can muster from the Bernie supporters.)