First: The Presidency is more than a set of promises– it’s about the unpredictable, it’s about all the issues we don’t even know are issues yet. The Presidency is about foreign policy, and making decisions under pressure, and about commanding our military presence around the world. Hillary Clinton is by far the most qualified, experienced candidate for President in modern times. That experience should matter to us, it has prepared her to confront one of the most complicated sets of foreign policy challenges any President has confronted in decades.
Second: The Presidency is about legislative action. Hillary Clinton has laboriously built alliances in Washington and across the 50 states. She is ACTUALLY building the infrastructure of a political revolution because she’s laying the groundwork necessary to ACTUALLY get things done. She is doing the work of UNITING the democratic coalition around her policies. And those policies ARE liberal because SHE is liberal. An independent, non-partisan analysis’ of her records and rhetoric show that she’s got a voting record on par with Elizabeth Warren.
Third: The Presidency is about the future of the party. Whether we like the two party system or not, the democratic party is the organization that stands between us and the GOP. Talk about the billionaire class being in charge! The GOP makes no bones about being owned by their contributors. They have no problem being the party of fossil fuels, or of war, or of the 1%– they embrace it! It will take money and party building to keep the GOP at bay. It will take a strong democratic party to actually achieve campaign finance reform, to successfuly bring about and defend policies that help rebuild the middle class. Has the party system done a great job so far? No. But destroying the one party that, at the very least accepts that we need to do something, as a response to not having done enough results in having nothing done at all.
Fourth: The Presidency is about weathering scandal. The GOP smear machine is a multi-million dollar, multiple media juggernaut. We’ve seen it deployed against Bill, against Obama, and against Hillary… our candidate and eventual President needs to be expert at handling the dirty tricks of the GOP and Hillary knows how. She’s been dealing with it for years and, while not immune, has a higher political tolerance for such attacks because people assume they’re empty.
Fifth: The Presidency is about balancing interests. There used to be a saying, “What’s good for GM is good for the nation.” That was replaced by, “What’s good for GE is good for the nation.” Now the common wisdom is, “What’s good for the middle class is good for the nation.” The truth is, none of those absolutist statements are true. The truth is that we need to balance the interests and needs of many constituencies whose desires are often at cross purposes. Billionaires and corporations are no more ‘the enemy’ of the people as lions are ‘the enemy’ of the gazelle. They are both essential parts of an economic ecosystem that has dominated the globe for almost 100 years. Are there too many lions? Yes. Is that a problem? Yes. Are the gazelles starving? Yes. Is that a problem for the billionaires? Yes.
Both candidates are calling for solutions that are financed by taxes on wealth. Those solutions are non-starters if we don’t also continue to encourage policies that grow the wealth we plan to tax. Thus, being sympathetic to the concerns of corporations and American business is not mutually exclusive with being sympathetic to the concerns of the people. They are inextricably linked. What we lack is balance.
And having laid out my affirmative case for Hillary, permit me a moment to address why I firmly believe supporting Sanders is a mistake.
First and foremost: It seems like people want to vote for Sanders because he says things they agree with. I don’t think that’s enough, and neither does Sanders. He has said repeatedly, “no matter who is elected to be president, that person will not be able to address the enormous problems facing the working families of our country.
They will not be able to succeed because the power of corporate America, the power of Wall Street, the power of campaign donors is so great that no president alone can stand up to them.
That is the truth. People may be uncomfortable about hearing it, but that is the reality. And that is why what this campaign is about is saying loudly and clearly: It is not just about elected Bernie Sanders for president, it is about creating a grassroots political movement in this country.”
Forgive me for not having more faith in the American public, but a vote for Sanders is a vote for the belief that the next four years are going to be four years of nationwide citizen activism so powerful that it will move even recalcitrant GOP Senators and House members to support democratic-socialist policies. That’s not a belief I possess.
Senator Sanders is saying in NO uncertain terms: I won’t be powerful enough to do the things you want, I will NEED you to be constantly mobilized. I see no evidence that the American people will be. Nor do I see any reason why the conservatives in gerrymandered districts will have reason to be worried even if they were.
But that aside, there’s good reason to believe that a Sanders’ Presidency could be disastrous for the democratic party and the policies we care about.
Imagine for a moment a President Sanders, swept into office on a wave of populist discontent. His big missions: tax increases, financial regulation, campaign finance reform.
Whatever solutions he proposes will be on the far end of the liberal spectrum. Before we even get to inevitable GOP obstruction, we have to confront how he wins the democratic caucus to his causes…
First he’ll have to win them over despite spending a career calling them names from outside the caucus. He has impugned members philosophies, calling them “ideologically bankrupt,” and insulted their morality by suggesting they’ve been bought and sold.
He’ll have to wage these legislative battles along side the likely democratic leader Chuck Schumer (a conservative democrat) and in the house Nancy Pelosi (an avid Clinton supporter). He’ll be fighting these battles not as a loyal democrat with a deep well of respect, but as an outsider coming in. And worse, an outsider who refuses to fundraise or conduct comprehensive polling… so he won’t be able to offer vulnerable democrats in swing districts political information or financial cover…
For another thing, he will have to compromise on at least some of his views. For a man who makes his name on consistency, such compromises will be high profile and they will be paraded around by his opponents and lamented by his dedicated followers. (Who may, in their disappointment, fall back from the ranks of the grassroots movement he openly admits he will require to get anything done.)
For yet another, democratic members more to the right of his positions (who occupy that space, presumably, because theirs represents a portfolio of views that gets them elected) will worry about monied opponents taking them on. Usually a President soothes those concerns by offering the full support of the DNC, or contact with a bundler or a high dollar donor that will help them weather such a storm… but Sanders has made clear he’s not interested in the money game, eliminating this avenue of persuasion OR setting up another major ‘compromise’ with his principles should he realize the importance of high dollar donors to down ticket races.
And those are just the challenges he faces in his own back yard.
Meanwhile, on the ground around the nation the Koch’s and their friends will be unleashing millions to prop up local groups opposed to the “Socialist Sanders Plan” or “Sandercare” or whatever this hypothetical Sanders administration rolls out first. They’ll plaster the airwaves with ads against “socialist solutions.” We’ll have a President with absolutely no connection to, or contacts in, the ‘billionaire class’ and no funds and fewer allies to fight or negotiate with them. We’ll have donors threatening to primary vulnerable democrats or heavily fund their republican opposition.
Who do you think will win those fights?
Now we’ve got the first socialist President compromising, AND losing nonetheless. After four years of a President who can’t get thing one done, how hard do you think it will be for the GOP to paint a picture for the American people about needing more moderate, reasonable leadership? Leadership they’ll no doubt claim only THEY can provide.
How much damage will be done to the democratic party between the hypothetical beginnings and endings of such a Presidency?
It’s also worth considering what a President Sanders, as a leader of the democratic party, would mean for the party itself… when the party is marching to the tune of a man who doesn’t seem to think the party, or its leadership, or its members have much value. A leader who thinks it’s politically and morally corrupt to raise money from high dollar donors or corporations.
Meanwhile last year the Republican party alone (not including individual candidate funds) raised over 600 million dollars. Outside spending that same year was 530 million. (In 2012 in was 1 billion.)
Destroying a practice is not the same as replacing it with something more just, more in keeping with your goals. When you destroy something, if there is something that CAN take its place, it will.
A Bernie Sanders victory is not going to suddenly cause all that money to stop flowing to the GOP or to individual democratic candidates. It’s not going to stop powerful interests from trying to exert influence. In fact, without a well-monied, well-organized, unified democratic party the likelihood is that the ‘billionaire class’ is only going to become exponentially more powerful.