Today’s New York Times has a pointed column by Charles M. Blow written in response to the now well known recent remarks by Susan Sarandon, a highly visible surrogate for Sen. Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nominee.
It is column that should be read by ALL partisans during this Democratic primary season, even as its occasion is in response to a Sanders supporter.
Blow certainly takes Sarandon directly to task with these words:
The comments smacked of petulance and privilege
No member of an American minority group — whether ethnic, racial, queer-identified, immigrant, refugee or poor — would (or should) assume the luxury of uttering such an imbecile phrase, filled with lust for doom.
But his point is far broader than that, and is expressed succinctly in this part of his column:
Be absolutely clear: While there are meaningful differences between Clinton and Sanders, either would be a far better choice for president than any of the remaining Republican contenders, especially the demagogic real estate developer. Assisting or allowing his ascendance by electoral abstinence in order to force a “revolution” is heretical.
This position is dangerous, short-sided and self-immolating.
If Sanders wins the nomination, liberals should rally around him. If Clinton does, they should rally around her.
This is not a game. The presidency, particularly the next one, matters, and elections can be won by relatively small margins. No president has won the popular vote by more than 10 percentage points since Ronald Reagan in 1984.
THIS IS NOT A GAME — which we all should remember.
Bush reminds us that during 2000 some suggested that a vote for Gore was the same as a vote for Bush and supported Nader instead, with what were clearly tragic consequences for this nation and the world. Among those making that choice then, he also reminds us, was Susan Sarandon.
But this is more than about rejecting the particular words, whatever their intent, offered by Sarandon.
This is about the implications of this election.
This is about the future of the courts, not just the Supreme Court with its current vacancy, but the appellate courts as well. Referring to words by Jeffrey Toobin Blow makes sure we remember that at the end of Bush’s term Republican appointees controlled 10 of the 13 appellate courts, now Democrats control 9, despite the obstructionism of the currently Republican controlled Senate.
Then there are the statistics of those Obama has appointed, even beyond the statistics of Bill Clinton — 42% women and 36% minorities (including one of the two finalists for the current opening on the Supreme Court).
There is Obama’s record on gay rights, which would be continued by either Democrat, and clearly opposed vigorously by both Trump and Cruz (here I note that Kasich is a bit more sane on this topic, but only in comparison to the other two).
Blow, who does not like to mention Trump’s name and only does so in this column when quoting Sarandon, says of that person
There is no equivalence between either of the Democratic candidates and this man, and anyone who makes such a claim is engaging in a repugnant and dishonorable scare tactic not worth our respect.
He makes a distinction between Sanders and his surrogates on this, noting
As Sanders himself has said, “on her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and president than the Republican candidate on his best day.”
There is much at risk in this election, perhaps as much as in any election I can remember, perhaps more.
Politics is the art of the possible, at least in our system of government.
We cannot afford to be fractures as Democrats, liberals, progressives.
It is true Trump might not get the nominee, but in some ways Cruz is just as scary, and Kasich seems moderate only in comparison to those two.
Even were Republicans to turn to someone not running, whether a Romney, a Ryan, or somebody else (something that they could only day by changing the convention rules after the end of the primary season, which might well fracture their party) what they would offer as a party — with ANY candidate — is something that would not only stop the progress we have been making, but move to role back advances, cripple unions, destroy public institutions like schools, and likely bankrupt the government for the benefit of the wealthy.
So if you are a Clinton supporter, remember we have had surrogates who made stupid remarks as well. No matter had insulting the”Bernie Bros” may be, they are not the candidate. No matter how much the Sanders campaign may push limit of sensibility in the desperate attempt to overcome the long odds and win the nomination, look at the bigger picture, exactly the same way Blow is pointing out in response to the notion of Bernie or Bust.
In that regard I will close with his final words:
Elections are about choices, not always between a dream candidate and a dreaded one, but sometimes between common sense and catastrophe. Progressives had better remember this come November, no matter who the Democratic nominee is.
