I've been thinking a lot about Bernie Sanders '16 and President Obama'08, because I think the similarities and differences of the two movements speak to a crucial strategic divide on advancing the causes of global social and economic justice.
On the surface it seems like history repeating. In both instances, progressives rallied around an insurgent candidate, challenging the supposed inevitability of Hillary Clinton.
And I do think that Obama is nominally more ideologically progressive than Hillary. However, as the Obama administration unfolded, it became clear that many progressives felt that the rug was pulled out from under them. It's the Obama "blank slate" theory; that his campaign promises were couched in just such a way as to indicate to people across the spectrum, from moderate to far-left, that Obama would advance a transformative agenda.
The disillusioned Obama supporters felt taken in by the President's strategy of incremental change, of moving the ball forward in small chunks, according to the dictates of political realities. After Scott Brown lost the MA Senate seat, the reality was that Republicans had the votes to block anything they wanted. Even before that time, conservative Democrats used their leverage to push legislation (like the ACA and financial regulation) to the right.
My point here is that a schism developed among self-identified progressives after Obama's election. And I think this schism has been widely mis-interpreted. The same progressives who felt betrayed by Obama's tactics (and even by his stated goals), have tended to assume that Obama and his supporters hail from the moderate wing of the party.
Progressive supporters of Obama, however (myself include) take offense to that, and have for the past 7 years, because strategic and tactical differences were assumed to be indicative of differences in GOALS, as well.
(I'll get back to Bernie in a minute here, I promise.)
The schism played out over the ACA, as Obama and his supporters among the public pushed hard for the changes they felt were plausible. Meanwhile, Obama's detractors on the left felt betrayed by the fact that single-payer was off the table so early.
And yes, I also realize that many progressives felt not simply betrayed by Obama, but also disagreed with his strategies and tactics. (They challenged his negotiating skills, for example.)
The schism has lasted throughout Obama's entire term (over financial regulation, civil rights, role of the military, response to jihad, trade, and on down the line).
And now, getting back to Bernie vs. Hillary, we have a continuation of the schism, with some progressives supporting Hillary as our best chance to move the ball forward (and avoid the calamity of new Republican-appointed justices, foreign-policy decisions, etc.) and some supporting Bernie because he is, no doubt, authentically and demonstrably progressive at his core.
Those who felt that Obama's "hope and change" arguments were basically meaningless, seem to feel they have a real champion this time around in Bernie. And I think the vast majority of self-identified progressive Clinton supporters would agree that Bernie is better on the issues.
But the schism persists, and the frustration of Obama's progressive detractors must be threatening to boil over, as once again they feel that the party is being hijacked by moderates who capitulate to business as usual (pun intended.)
This time around, I found myself initially inclined to support Hillary, and then had a season of doubt, as Bernie's momentum increased over the summer and fall.
Now I'm back firmly in Hillary's camp, as I note the increasing likelihood of a Cruz or Rubio nomination, and begin to envision the horror of their actions as President. I am thrilled that Bernie is on the national stage, shouting with righteous indignation about the fundamental injustices of our entire economic system.
But with the progressive divide preparing to leap over, intact, from Obama to Hillary...I think now is the time for progressives to soul-search about strategy. To what extent, and in what context, do you fight for the enactment of fundamental change? More pointedly, to what extent to you seek, as a movement, to inflict political damage on your party's leadership, for advancing an agenda of pragmatic compromise?
Bernie vs. Hillary distills that strategic divide down to its essence, because so few people would even argue that Hillary represents the left-wing of the party better than Bernie. To me, this campaign represents a much clearer choice between ideological purity vs. the attainment of actual political progress. (After all, what Bernie Sanders policies would a GOP-controlled house of reps sign-off on?)
I hope that, when the primary campaign is said and done, the temporary "losers" of this schism will agree to join the Democratic Party bandwagon, and advance their opinions strongly while still remaining under the umbrella. Certainly, if Bernie emerges on top, I will be there on the front lines shouting about a $15 national minimum wage, even as I fear alienating general-election swing voters. Will Bernie supporters accept the Democratic party's choice, if Hillary gets the nomination, of picking the most electable candidate, as opposed to the most ideologically pure? Or will they sit out the campaign, and become armchair critics, unleashing friendly fire during 8 years of Hillary and hamstringing her in many of the ways that Obama was hamstrung, getting hit nearly as hard from the far left, as from the far right?