I have a serious and, I feel, legitimate question concerning the Democratic primary. It may seem snarky or anti-Hillary, but that is not its purpose. For full disclosure, I support Bernie and do not like what I've seen of Hillary's policies and positions thus far. That said, I'm getting quite sick of the primary coverage I've seen thus far for two reasons. The first, I'm tired of seeing individuals espousing otherwise progressive principals and relying logical, rational, and evidenced based arguments for their view point turn into a cliche generator every time something negative is said about Hillary (e.g. "If you support Sanders why don't you just vote Republican." Really? That's supposed to be a persuasive argument? Next tell me how I needed to support GWB or the terrorists win.) The second, I'm trying to determine what the purpose of the progressive movement is with regard to this year's primary, and I am a bit at a loss.
Follow below the fold for a fuller discussion.
With regard to the first issue, it seems that every diary focusing on Sanders, Clinton, or the 2016 election will inevitably see a Bernie supporter and a Hillary supporter get into an argument. These arguments always seem to include a comment from a Hillary supporter that, paraphrased, says "If you support Sanders you should just vote Republican," or "Attacking Hillary now will make it easier for Republicans in the general." I feel that progressives making these arguments should be embarrassed for the clear attempt to shut down discussion. It's essentially the Godwin's law of Dkos, but since it comes up so frequently I'll address it. Firstly, it is possible to both support Sanders as the presidential nominee and not want to see the Tea Party win the general election. To assert otherwise relies on such a tenuous chain of "logic" and causation that it must be taken on extreme faith, since it cannot be shown. So, if you truly believe that supporting Hillary or supporting the Tea Party are the only two possible modes of action, then why should we have a primary process? Instead, let DWS and the DNC tell us who the nominee is, since that is essentially the outcome you're shilling for. Also, kudos on re-purposing the GWB's "you're either with us or with the terrorists" line.
Secondly, if the Clinton campaign is so fragile that dissent during the primary process prevents her from winning the presidency, then maybe she isn't as electable as her supporters claim. This transitions me into a discussion of my second point.
In diaries and discussions supporting Clinton over Sanders I have yet to see an evidenced based argument that Clinton either supports more progressive policies or more effectively implements progressive policies. I won't saddle her with her husband's policies, mainly because I agree that she can have different policy preferences than him, but based on her own statements and votes, I think it would be difficult to objectively demonstrate that she supports more progressive issues or more effectively gets those issues enacted/implemented. This leaves two basic arguments that I see frequently: 1) Hillary is the more electable candidate in the general election; 2) Sanders won't be able to move a progressive agenda with a Republican legislature.
As to 1, YeaYouRite wrote a great piece on this issue. Beyond that, either candidate is able to beat a Tea Party candidate if the voters show up, and it seems that each candidate is able to excite a sufficient voter base to win the election. This, combined with the less excited voters who may be worried about what a President Trump or Carson might do makes it likely either would win the general
As to 2, I agree that Sanders would have a difficult time moving the progressive agenda through a Republican dominated legislature. But so would Clinton. This is less an argument in favor of Sanders and more a pre-emptive hedge against Clinton "compromising" on key progressive issues. Since none of the candidates will have an easier time with a Republican Congerss than Obama has, this argument would tell us to ignore the primary and just vote for the candidate with a D because they'll all be similarly ineffective.
Now, if you believe 2 and that leads you to vote for the person you believe is most electable then I have one more question. Are we fighting to make the country better or merely slow its decline?
The status quo is not a healthy state for our country. High income inequality, perpetual military engagement, and significant power in the hands of the plutocracy are a threat to America as we want to see it. More over, the threat of climate change is one that could end the U.S. as a nation if we don't prevent it. A vote for the status quo is essentially a vote to continue political stagnation. A vote for an incrementalist policy implemented by a "safe" establishment candidate would be a great strategy, if we still had 50 years to fix the problems in front of us. We don't. If we take no significant action on climate change in the next decade then we are locking in a future that will be horrible for the planet. If we take no significant action to rain in Wall St. and improve the condition of American workers (not mention dealing with the issue of higher unemployment as more jobs become automated or are outsourced), then we are guaranteeing a plutocracy which will not cede power peacefully.
I can see why some think Clinton is a "safe" candidate who can win the election. But if we win the election only to allow the decline to continue, then what's the purpose. If you think Sanders is a gamble, then I say what better time to take a gamble than when you're back is against the wall and you're desperate for a big change. I fervently believe that a vote for the status quo or gradual change is a vote to make us feel better that we didn't do enough to leave the country in a state we would be proud to hand on. It's a position that tells future generations "I tried...a little." As I see it, absent big changes our country will face substantial disruptions. As a progressive I think it's time to gamble on the visionary who walks the walk. If we lose the gamble then we will definitely be in a worse position, but the biggest gains the progressive movement made in the 20th Century came after the Great Depression. Maybe America is ready for a visionary and maybe not. Maybe America needs a catastrophe to wake up and retake the ground that was lost. What I am confident of is that continuing on our current course is continuing towards disaster slowly, and we likely won't avoid disaster unless we take the initiative to swerve now.
So, again, I ask what the purpose of this primary is. Are we trying to merely slow the decline of our country, or are we trying to make it better?