That contradiction will be resolved during the course of the campaign, by Bernie Sanders and by his supporters. He and they will either reconcile with Democratic Party's austerity and imperialism, in return for mild concessions on a few "middle class" issues -- the choice, in fact, he has already announced, or break with the party decisively and undertake a campaign completely independent of the Democratic Party for real social reforms. 5 From everybody's point of view, the quicker this happens, the better.
What's creating complications for Sanders and the Democrats is that Hillary's campaign has been too weak to win quickly -- and maybe too weak to win at all -- while his campaign has been more successful than anyone expected at building a sense that something different was possible . That unexpected situation may well make the process of Sanders's capitulation more complicated and grotesque for his followers, and more damaging for the Party, when it all shakes out. It's not a process that's going to persuade many of those already-disgusted Democrats to pull that lever. The bad news, in the present American context, is that the resulting disillusionment is at least as likely to result in depression and withdrawal rather than redirected militance among his supporters.
When the Sanders campaign started up, I read and agreed with Bruce A. Dixon's analysis that Bernie is playing the role of a "sheepdog," whose job is "to divert the energy and enthusiasm of activists " away from building an alternative to the Democratic party." Dixon's sheepdog candidate gathers in and riles up the disaffected progressives for the Democratic primaries until some comfortable point before the convention, when he "surrenders the shreds of his credibility to the Democratic nominee in time for the November election," and "the narrative shifts to the familiar 'lesser of two evils.'" Dixon foresaw the Bernie Sanders campaign ending "as the left-leaning warm-up act for Hillary Clinton."
I understand that Sanders is not your typical corrupt, opportunist politician, that his career has been unusually honorable, and that his policy proposals (single-payer alone!) though very far from comprehensively addressing what's wrong with America, incorporate real saves rather than adjustments to the speed with which we hit the wall. Having just watched former Ohio State Senator Nina Turner give a fabulous, impassioned, and spot on defense of Bernie to Chris Hayes, and knowing many of his supporters, I also understand that a lot of good people have been positively energized by his campaign. So I hate, really hate, to say that I think Bruce Dixon's is still the operative paradigm.
It has, however, become more complicated and potentially interesting. Hillary Clinton is having a lot of trouble getting out of the Green Room, Bernie's act is going over very well, and the producers are going to have a hard time finding an understudy for the fading star, who will keep the audience in their seats. The upshot is still, I think, infinitely less likely that Bernie gets to be the star of the show than that he delivers that concession/endorsement speech, standing with a new cast member, and our next president, who has not yet appeared on the stage.
Notes and Links
1 The first political problem political problem is Sanders's terrible foreign policy stance. His, let's call it "legacy," Zionism is objectionable, though he's not the worst kind of congresscritter in that respect, and I suspect he's educable. I am sure the Israelis do not want to see him become President. I know, from a friend of mine in the FIRE industry, who had a high-level guided tour of Israel last year, that all the Israelis he spoke to were ecstatic at the prospect of Hillary's election. Bernie's proposal that we should get the Saudis more involved in fighting terrorism in the Middle East is horrific, bordering on the delusional. It is certainly reasonable for any leftist to reject Sanders on that basis of these stances. It's an obvious, inexcusable cop-out to think you can promote a transformation of all kinds of American social policy while avoiding any thoroughgoing critique of American exceptionalism and military alliances. If even it were possible, single-payer imperialism is no better than equal-opportunity imperialism.
Another important issue is the question of what Bernie Sanders means when he says "socialism." There are, of course, many different uses of the word. Nonetheless, I think it's fair to say that Bernie's "socialism" is what historically been called "social democracy." That distinction runs, roughly, as follows: "Social democracy" is a form of altruism. It seeks social justice through the fair taxation of the rich, the redistribution of income, and ameliorative, "New Deal" or "welfare state," policies. "Socialism," on the other hand, seeks permanent social justice through the working class taking control of social capital, replacing the political hegemony of the capital of class with the political hegemony of the working class, the great mass of society, through all means of democratic struggle. The question for social democracy is: How much inequality is there between the poor and the rich? The question for socialism is: Who controls social capital and therefore the polity? Those who call themselves "socialist" in the latter sense (as I do), would want to be clear (and I think he would agree) that Sanders is not talking about the same thing they are , or about what historically was understood as the strong meaning of the word.
A few critiques of Sanders: Paul Street, Bernie Out of the Closet: Sanders' Longstanding Deal with the Democrats, Joshua Frank, Ted Rall, My Critique of the Bernie Sanders Campaign, Shamus Cooke, Does Bernie Sanders' Imperialism Matter?, Ashley Smith, The Problem with Bernie Sanders | Jacobin.
2 Despite the attempt of liberal commenters (and Bernie Sanders) to insist "There's nothing to see here. Move along," it is inexcusable for a Secretary of State to keep state documents and correspondence about sensitive diplomatic and national security matters on a private server in her bathroom. We now know this included information that was classified "Above top secret/SAP" (Special Access Programs). SAPs are the "crown jewels" of the intelligence community, Alien Bodies-type secrets. If Donald Rumsfeld had done something like this when he was Secretary of Defense, Chris and Rachel and Lawrence would have done ten shows each on how outrageous it was. It is outrageous, and prima facie illegal, and the scuttlebutt that FBI agents are pushing for an indictment and will revolt if it is quashed, is credible. This is an egregious example of the kind of personal appropriation of classified information for which the Obama administration has prosecuted many good people. If such an indictment comes down, it will destroy the Clinton campaign in an instant.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
