I would like to think I’m very well informed about both of the leading candidates on the Democratic side who are running for president. However, I have been a Martin O’Malley supporter. With his suspending his campaign, I have been unable to decide on which of the remaining candidates I can support.
I’d like to invite supporters to make an affirmative case for their candidate. I, at least, will not be swayed by hearing how awful the other candidate is, or how stupid the other candidate’s supporters are. To me, no one is elevated by the tu quoque strategy.
I’ll explain my disquiet with both candidates below. Be aware that I have discomfort with both, so don’t expect me to just bash Hillary (yes, I’m left wing) or Bernie (yes, I voted for her husband enthusiastically once and reluctantly the second time). I do not mean to persuade anyone with what follows. I mean to be persuaded, instead.
Hesitation with Hillary Clinton
Many youngish voters feel disappointed by the incredible enthusiasm and hope they felt in 2008 and then the reality of 2010 — present. For me, that same feeling of disillusionment came with 1992 and then 1994 — 2000. However, the periods differ in many ways. Bill Clinton faced an incredible army of opposition, and a tidal wave of vicious, cruel, and insane hatred went toward Hillary Clinton herself, but Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton herself, vocally made a change in their policies. President Obama has changed his policies in some important areas, but not audibly. By 1996, it was hard — very hard — for those of us who had voted for the liberal Bill Clinton of 1992 to vote for the man who signed the acts that made federal programs into block grants, that put time limits on aid to families, and that pushed for NAFTA.
In her stump speech, Hillary Clinton makes competing claims. This reawakens the feelings of treachery and insincerity for those of us who were hopeful in the 1990’s. Sanders didn’t “cherry pick” the quote where Hillary Clinton said, with pride, that she was a moderate. “Moderate” resonates with the voters of 1992 and reminds us of “triangulation” and the “third way” that would eventually lead to Democrats wanting to cut entitlement programs (to be “realistic”).
While a senator, Hillary Clinton favored approaches to Wall Street that rejected regulation of the commodities market, and she has consistently opposed Glass-Steagall. While that one act isn’t panacea, and it’s true that reinstating it won’t stop corruption, it’s also true that the removal of the act led to an orgy of bank acquisition and capital flow into “investment” that led to sharps conning other sharps (“investment bankers” becoming the suckers in bets made with bank wealth).
Both as a senator and currently on the stump, she has spoken of the need for greater “national security.” She wants to see personal data encryption broken, according to one statement at a debate. Instead of opposing NSA spying on US citizens, she has taken a “moderate” position on the matter. She has not taken, to my knowledge, a current stand on repeal of USA PATRIOT Act.
In the debates, and on the stump, she talks about her liberal credentials and the things she “has done.” These things are true, but they are true of the pre-1994 Hillary Clinton. She was a tireless worker for women and the poor and minorities, and no one can deny it. The question that keeps bothering me is whether she has changed from her post-1994 positions on globalization, capital growth, and privacy and what liberal activism she’s done since 2000. (There’s no crime in serving on advisory boards and working with the Clinton Foundation. That’s appropriate for someone of her position and power, but it doesn’t square with the stump speech.)
Mind you, there was an argument made for globalization in the 90’s. The argument was that seeing labor fly to third world nations would lead to rising wages, which would foster a middle class, and democracy depends not on US military power, but on a nation’s wealth. Therefore, the argument went, seeing low skill work move across borders would lead to greater capital in the U.S., which would be good for investment in the real economy and aid structural movements toward a high tech workforce, and it would lead to greater hemispheric and global stability. There is nothing wrong with believing this. I don’t. I’m not sure the workers at Carrier in Indianapolis feel that “structural economic forces” being appeased will help them avoid poverty, either.
Hesitation with Bernie Sanders
As a lefty, I like Bernie Sanders, and I love the fact that Democrats are now acting unafraid, but….
Mr. Sanders has a history of being both a Cassandra and a Quixote. His ferocity has meant that he has relatively few distinct accomplishments in the senate. He’s no Ted Cruz who would rather see the world burn than sacrifice a principle. (In fact, the votes that the Clinton campaign are trying to hang around him now — for the Crime Bill, even the indemnification of gun makers — are signs that he does know how politics are done. Instead of being disqualifiers, they are negations of the Clinton argument that Sanders would be such a purist that he would torch the Democratic Party and “undo the ACA.”) Nevertheless, despite being political, he has not been a particularly adept coalition figure. That’s part of his role: being the voice in the wilderness calling for repentance.
I know that Sanders supporters will instantly tell me that my argument is self-negating, but Mr. Sanders’s years in politics have shown him to be supremely competent, compassionate, and committed, but not charismatic. While I, least of anyone, want America to opt for demagogues and feverish speakers, I hesitate over Bernie Sanders because we are essentially running 2008 all over again. If no one else will say it, then I will: this election is about 2010 and President Obama’s reversals (civil liberties (use of the Espionage Act against whistle blowers), domestic spying) and his willingness to trust Congress to do the reasonable thing. Bernie Sanders’s speeches about a “revolution” speak to me of a wave election wherein the popular president can lead his reluctant, money-addicted Congressional delegation to passing substantial reforms. That depends upon a leader who is not merely right, nor popular, but charismatic, it seems to me.
My ick factor
I have been turned off by the Clinton campaign’s attempts at showing that Sanders has been wrong on an issue and therefore must be a phony. I have also found the Secretary of State’s insistence that she “has been” and “has” done great progressive things (pre-1994) insulting, since the question for informed Democratic voters has never been about that Hillary Clinton. The question has been about the NAFTA and beyond Hillary Clinton.
I have been turned off similarly by Sanders supporters suggesting that Hillary Clinton is corrupt. She isn’t. This is not merely legal parsing, either. There is every reason to believe that Hillary Clinton has a viable political philosophy that suggests that globalization and global liberty of capital is good, and good for democracy. This is not being bought off. Nor is she trading favors for contributions. It is enough to ask whether the philosophy is one voters agree with or not, and it is reasonable to ask every candidate — including the Republicans — to explain where they stand on the issue of borderless capital.
Please
If, in comments, you can explain why I should support one of the candidates, that would help. I only ask that you not make your argument based on what the Republicans will say or do. We know that they’ll be vile. They managed to put John Kerry’s service record in doubt. They circulated photos of John Kerry sitting next to Jane Fonda. They don’t need “Democratic Socialist” to be nasty, when they’ve had forty years to make “Hillary Clinton” an incantation that summons demons on Fox News. I’d rather not anyone make the argument on whether this candidate or the other will make Democrats stay home, either, because that’s all smoke.
I’d like to be persuaded by an affirmative argument.
Finally, I would like to apologize to anyone offended by my personal list of hesitations on the two candidates. If you are on fire for one of the candidates, then I applaud and envy you. I hope you continue to feel that fervor and that you forget the rancor that the “battle” part of the primary is causing. Anyone short of Andrew Jackson would be better than any of the current Republican candidates.