In discussions of the Democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, many people assume that if (probably when) Sanders loses, most of his voters will support Clinton in the general election. This assumption is based on the idea that since both candidates are essentially "liberal," Sanders voters will be okay with the slightly less liberal Clinton. They might be disappointed if their candidate doesn't win, but in the end they will just vote for the Democrat, no matter who it is.
I think this is a misreading of the Sanders phenomenon. In fact I think it is profoundly mistaken.
The appeal of Bernie Sanders is not based on the fact that he's a little bit more liberal than Hillary Clinton. Sure, that's part of it, but that's not what's fueling his remarkable surge in the polls and the massive crowds showing up at his campaign events.
Most people who #feelthebern are supporting Bernie Sanders because he is the anti-establishment candidate in the race. They are supporting him because he stands for the opposite of what Clinton stands for, on the defining issue of our time: the role of big money in politics and society.
Hillary Clinton is funded by the very banks that crashed the economy in 2008. Does anyone really believe that these big corporate donors are just giving her charity? No, they are funding her campaign because they want influence in her administration. They want government policy to be skewed in favor of their economic self-interest -- which is against the interest of ordinary middle-class and working-class Americans.
Bernie Sanders, in contrast, does not take money from big corporate donors. He certainly isn't funded by the "too big to fail" financial establishment. Instead, like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, he "welcomes their hatred." His campaign is funded by a multitude of small donations by regular people, and it is their interests that he will represent as president -- in opposition to the interests of the banking plutocracy and the multinational corporations who strive to maximize their profits at any cost to human wellbeing and our planet's environment.
The "bern," as it is raging across America, is being fueled by a desire of many people for a president who is fundamentally unlike Hillary Clinton. Sanders supporters do not believe that politicians should be on the payroll of the wealthy and powerful. Sanders supporters believe that this type of politics, which both Hillary Clinton and the Republican candidates practice, is the politics of corruption and should be replaced by a new politics powered by democratic discourse among the great masses of people, regardless of how much power "corporate persons" are trying to wield through legal forms of bribery.
No, most of the people supporting Bernie Sanders for president are not just a little bit more liberal than the supporters of Hillary Clinton. The Sanders movement includes the very liberal, to be sure, and it also includes anti-establishment populists from across the political spectrum. It includes independents who normally have little or no interest in politics -- who could only be motivated to get up off the couch of political apathy by a leader of the caliber of Bernie Sanders, whose fearless speech and common-sense policy proposals cut through the bullshit of mainstream American politics like an enema through a perpetually clogged and stinking colon. It even includes some Republicans who support authenticity and principled statesmanship in governance -- which Bernie Sanders embodies to the very core of his being.
The "bern" is being fueled by people who are light years away from Hillary Clinton in their fundamental political values. It will either burn out, and its dying embers will become a caustic smoke of cynicism that will linger as a pall of lost hope and voter apathy upon the choking campaign of the plutocratic Democrat in the race. Or it will burn ever hotter and brighter, powering the senator from the great state of Vermont to become the next President of the United States -- a potentially transformative president who, unlike any other president in recent memory, could reshape this country by fighting for the interests of the average American with a substance, an intelligence, an inspirational message and tenacious ferocity that has only been found among the ranks of the Washingtons, Jeffersons, Lincolns and Roosevelts.
Hillary Clinton? She stands not for any great principle, but for seeing herself in the White House along with the stale moneyed elites who support her. And at this critical junction in American history, that is exactly the type of president the American people have no desire to vote for.
I don't know how many people who vote for Sanders in the primary would vote for Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee. The lesser-of-two-evils argument will undoubtedly win the votes of many loyal Democrats, maybe enough to carry her to a hollow victory.
But what will be lost in the process? Not nominating Bernie Sanders would be one of the greatest missed opportunities in American political history. This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for the Democratic Party to truly embody the populist spirit at the top of the ticket; to recapture the hearts and minds of average hard-working folks who feel the system is working against them, who have largely given up on good government and despise most politicians; and to make a new generation of Americans passionate about voting and politics as an avenue for meaningful change.
Bernie Sanders offers a seat at the table of power to every American. The same cannot be said for Hillary Clinton. The difference is vast and fundamental. The choice is momentous in its significance -- and America and the world will have to live with this decision for decades to come.