Leading protests and stirring up trouble in the Senate might be all that’s left for Bernie Sanders to contest a Hillary Clinton administration that, as is expected, should diverge from her public embrace of some Sanders’ positions once her hand is lifted from the inaugural Bible.
“I won’t stay silent if Clinton nominates the same old, same old Wall Street guys,” Sanders railed this week. “The leverage that I think I take into the Senate is taking on the entire Democratic Party establishment, and, you know, taking on a very powerful political organization with the Clinton people. We won 22 states and 46 percent of the pledged delegates, 13.4 million votes . . .and a majority of the younger people, the future of the country. . . . That gives me a lot of leverage, leverage that I intend to use.”
He said he’s begun to draft some of his planks in the Democratic platform into legislation: on climate change, minimum wage and breaking up big banks. But given what we now know for sure about what the Clinton machine thinks of him, it’s debatable how much leverage he has.
It’s not hard to imagine Sanders contemplating what could have been as he sees the two most unpopular candidates in modern history beset by ever deepening scandals: Clinton from Wikileaks revelations and Trump from exposure of alleged sexual misconduct.
Sanders now knows for certain how the Democratic National Committee conspired to defeat him when it was supposed to remain neutral. And he knows from Wikileaks’ disclosure of Clinton’s Wall Street speeches, which he repeatedly demanded she make public, what she really thinks of ordinary Americans and how cozy she is with plutocrats.
In the context of these revelations, is it not reasonable to assume that if Sanders had taken Jill Stein’s offer to head the Green Party ticket that such a team would have gotten 15% in the polls and a place at the debates? Wouldn’t Sanders’ presence at the debates have given an alternative to voters who detest both Trump and Clinton and at least a chance to build a viable third party movement?
Sanders said he supports Clinton because an independent run would have handed the election to Trump. “I don’t want to end up like Ralph Nader,” Sanders told journalist Chris Hedges. Nader is blamed, unfairly, for handing the 2000 election to George W. Bush over Al Gore with his Green Party run.
But it is questionable whether Sanders would have divided the Clinton vote to make Trump president. Millions of angry voters from an eroding middle class could have supported Sanders instead of Trump. In other words, Sanders could have taken away just as many and perhaps more votes from Trump, as both were insurgency candidates against the Establishment’s choice.
Sanders who hasn’t even a whiff of corruption about him might well be soaring above both of them in the polls by now.
It also appears that Sanders made his decision to support Clinton almost wholly based on domestic issues, which he focused nearly exclusively on during his primary campaign. On immigration, climate change, gun control, and a number of other issues, Sanders aligns with Clinton rather than Trump.
Sanders rightly feared Trump’s xenophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny, racism and demagoguery. But he’s overlooked his conciliatory approach to Russia and Clinton’s warmongering. Given Sanders’ critique of Clinton’s love of regime change, hope for peace would have been greater, though not ensured, with Sanders rather than Clinton.
Sanders had an historic opportunity and obligation in the face of the ruin of the American middle class and the danger of looming global conflict, but he failed to seize it. He either did not take seriously or understand the urgency of the situation nor the meaning of “revolution,” which is to upend the status quo, not to go along with it. Given his outburst this week, he might well be regretting his decision.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.