Susan Sarandon, a long time progressive activist and current Sanders supporter, is obviously raising a few hackles today. Telling MSNBC interviewer Chris Hayes that she remains uncertain about whether or not she could ever support Hillary, she has, in this moment of candor, revealed a dilemma for progressives. Articulating a number of reasons to not be supporting Hillary, she has, unsurprisingly, been the recipient of some scorn from Hillary’s supporters — who make the equation that an abstention from supporting Hillary is a de facto vote for Donald Trump. But it may be worthwhile to pause this fight for a moment, to step back, and to examine someone like Sarandon and her decades long history of progressive activism. This is, after all, a woman who:
*was an outspoken critic of Reagan’s human rights abusing proxy wars in Central America
*has been a long time supporter of Emily’s List, help to elect pro-choice female Democratic candidates to office.
*served as a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassdor, thus helping to promote the cause of serving the world’s most vulnerable populations
*was a strong, steady, and consistent voice against the war in Iraq. She also allied herself with Code Pink, one of the more vigorous antiwar organizations of the Iraq War era.
*was a participant in a "Love is Love is Love" commercial, which promoted the acceptance of the LGBT community, at a time of rising homophobia courtesy of the religious right.
*was involved directly with the Live 8 concert
*was a member of the organization Racism Watch
*has been a Goodwill Ambassador for FAO, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN. She clearly understands that the right to not be hungry is a basic human right
*has been an activist against capital punishment
*was a supporter of Occupy Wall Street
*was a supporter of the Wisconsin protesters who were protesting Scott Walker’s Koch funded corruption
And these are in addition to her acting achievements.
So, I am going to go out on a limb and say that I support Susan Sarandon. She has a lot of credibility with me, and her support for progressive causes, such as solidarity with the victims of Reagan’s proxy wars, or the Occupy movement, ring as very authentic. I thus support her right to free speech. I support her right to use her celebrity to pursue the political causes that she sees fit to support. I’d even remind Hillary’s supporters that Hillary used her own fame, as a former First Lady when she moved to my state to launch her political career by running for Senate there. And as far as the argument that she needs to be saying that she will support Hillary, that is her decision to make. Her hesitancy in doing so means that while Bernie is resonating with her, Hillary is not, at least not yet. It’s really up to Hillary to win over progressives and/or independents, like Susan Sarandon and others like her, with her views and supporting the sorts of causes that she supports. Win them over by convincing them that you mean what you say.
But not by attacking. Not by red baiting. Not by calling people like Susan Sarandon a “privileged fool,” or “shallow,” or “idiot,” etc. And trying to scare people with the “a refusal to vote for Hillary is a de facto vote for Trump” argument is also tiresome. There may be truth in this, but it is still a tiresome argument. Because in doing so, people — specifically engaged progressives — are being asked to toss aside their beliefs for the sake of expediency and on behalf of a politician who, they suspect, and with good reason, will shake their hand and thank them for their vote, and then ignore them once in office.
Finally, as far as Nader. I voted for him in 2000 and from a safe state (NJ). Why? Simple — to protest against a Democratic Party that chose the odious Joe Lieberman as its VP and thus to begin a process of pushback toward this party with the aim of pushing it further to the left. Nader didn’t elect Bush. Republicans — with a strong assist from the Supreme Court, and much help from a network of right wing propaganda — did.