I’m With Her… I Guess.
“She’s more electable!” “He’s more honest!” Ugh, shut up already.
Growing up, my political leanings always trended left of center, maybe more than most. I was an enthusiastic supporter of Ralph Nader in 2000, even so far as to print out all 30-odd pages of the Green Party platform to measure each bullet point against my own beliefs. In 2004, I found Vermont governor Howard Dean’s anti-Iraq War candidacy exciting, even after the infamous Scream Heard Round the World (to think that now, in the Age of Trump, that was then the apex of political extremity). Likewise, I voted for hopey, changey Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. But when the New York State primary finally came around on April 19th, I cast my vote for The Establishment. I’m not particularly thrilled about it, but until general election time, I’m with her.
Don’t get me wrong — I love Bernie. I’ve known of Senator Sanders since 2000, when I was living deep within Southern Vermont ski country. Amid a conservative backlash after the governor (Dean again) signed a bill making Vermont the first state in the US to recognize civil unions, I appreciated his unequivocal support at a time when popular attitudes on gay rights were first beginning to shift. And his fearless, unapologetic endorsement of small-s socialism was refreshing, especially given the prospect of living in America under Bush II.
On paper, he’s perfect. Against the death penalty? Check. Against military adventuring in the Middle East? Check. Fierce advocate of Canadian-style, single payer health care? Yep. How about free tuition for public universities? Absolutely! I mean, he’s been pro-gay rights and against the War on Drugs since the damn 1970s.
As I began to look deeper at both candidates, Secretary Clinton, while knowingly more moderate than Sanders, become even less appealing. On many key issues, including those I am most strident with (see above), Clinton either equivocates or fundamentally disagrees. Yes, to the death penalty, but within reason. Yes to fracking, but within reason. Single payer? Nope. Moreover, while I trust her abundant experience on foreign policy, which outclasses anyone in the current presidential field by far, it’s punctuated by a worrisome number of ugly footnotes, not to mention a fondness for military intervention. Honduras? Kissinger? Libya? Netanyahu? Oy.
But as much as I agree with Sanders, and as unenthused as I am with Clinton, my choice isn’t as clear cut as one would think (and I would prefer). We don’t live in a political vacuum. Knowing that whomever is the eventual nominee will face significant challenges both before and, if elected, after the presidential race, I have never been able to shake a nagging sense of skepticism for the Bern.
Say what you will about the anti-democratic nature of superdelegates (you’d be right), Clinton has proven to be a more competitive candidate than Sanders, period. Her endorsements to date outnumber Bernie’s. She won consistently in the South among African-Americans and more conservative Democrats, in more counties that resemble America than the lily white states of New England and the West. And while the South will no doubt bleed blood red for the general election, I imagine it unwise to write off an entire region of equally passionate primary voters, as Sanders seems to have done.
More importantly though, how would Sanders fare against the Republican media juggernaut? I can imagine the attack ads now, bleated ad nauseum on every airwave: Sanders is a Northern, secular, Jewish Socialist that will raise your taxes in the service of big government and the redistribution of your hard-earned wealth to the lazy and undeserving. I know that’s bullshit — the “lazy and undeserving” part, that is; everything else is fine by me — and you might agree. Would the “average American voter”? I’m not so sure.
While Clinton would no doubt be subject to the same relentless smear campaign (I’m waiting patiently for Fox News to rescue Dick Morris from the pastel echo chamber of his YouTube channel), Mother Jones’ David Corn notes that she’s been battle tested already, fending off rabid Republican hatred since the early 90s. She’s been travelling down this road longer than many Democrats have been in office. Hell, she has shorn the hide from the vast right wing conspiracy’s corpse and made it into a lovely parka to complement her pantsuit.
Hillary has the benefit and the curse of a long career in public policy, but her detractors fault her on a number of issues that I don’t consider quite fair, namely the Clinton administration’s passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, as well as her previous opposition to gay marriage. Judging politicians beholden to the whims of their constituents by the attitudes outside of their own time seems problematic. Whatever her views were at the time, should she not be given some credit for finally coming around? There is indeed a fine line between evolution and expediency (Exhibit A: Clinton’s very recent opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership), but in this case I’m willing to give her the benefit of doubt.
But whatever. To hell with purity, screw consistency. The one quality of Clinton’s that tips it over the edge for me? Like her former boss, Clinton is a shrewd, clear-eyed technocrat. With each policy she engages with, she seems to understand and express that the solution is often more than a simple matter of black and white and, well, I value that, even with issues I might not necessarily agree with her on. Nuance is a quality that is far too lacking in the modern politician. In this way, Clinton, not Sanders, might actually be the one candidate that truly is the anti-Trump.
As a status-quo candidate, Hillary offers incremental, progressive change and the continuation of Obama’s legacy. To hear her tell it, she doesn’t support a single payer health insurance system because after so much congressional hand-wringing in the effort to bring the ACA to life, the act passed on the slimmest of margins, and that was after multiple concessions despite Democrats having a congressional majority. As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with her that European-style single payer is a fantasy right now. Instead, Clinton supports efforts to make the ACA better, to build upon the progress that has already been made. That clear-eyed realism resonates with me more than anything Bernie can say about Citizens United or the billionaire class.
But inequality is a serious problem that must be addressed, and Bernie Sanders has a place in the conversation. His campaign has been extremely valuable pushing the narrative leftward in a country that relies far too much upon a neoliberal framework. This has had a beneficial effect on the Clinton campaign and the national discourse. Whatever happens between now and the convention, I urge him to carry on in the hope that his perspective becomes a more prominent aspect of the Democratic Party.
There’s a significant part of me that is worried that, in the likely event that Sanders doesn’t win the Democratic nomination, a great many of his supporters will opt out of voting altogether, or worse, cast an scorched earth vote for Trump. While I am sensitive to the essence of democracy, that one person may vote for whomever they wish and whatever negative repercussions thereof are inherent to the system or rather, bad party choices. Without trying to condescend, I ask only that perhaps it would be worth it to think once more about your choice, and if a potential Trump presidency really is best for this country, especially if you happen to be poor, gay, of color, or female.
I’ve read thinkpiece after op-ed after thinkpiece, winced every time Hillary put her foot in her mouth, was left wanting every time Bernie defaulted to decrying inequality when what I really wanted instead were substantive and focused answers on foreign policy. I’ve agonized over this choice for months to a point that isn’t even necessary, especially considering that I will 100% vote for either of the two candidates come Election Day.
But given a choice between the two, it isn’t 2000 anymore, and naked idealism will no longer cut it. Perhaps if I were a bit younger I would have thrown in my lot with Sanders, but for now, I’ll vote for Clinton behind gritted teeth, though I really would give anything to be able to vote Obama back for another four years.
