I must admit that I am somewhat disturbed by the untoward conduct of some Sanders supporters in Nevada this week, but I am even more discomfited by the candidate's lack of vigor in condemning that conduct. Disruption of a convention is one thing. Sometimes disruption is the only course of action available in pursuit of a noble goal. But threats of violence are beyond the pail, and Bernie Sanders, who started his campaign as the noble warrior, has become the progressive version of Donald Trump, and his moral flexibility does not redound to his credit. His outrage about Nevada was focused on what he and some of his followers perceive as unfair rules in Nevada's Democratic delegate allocation process, and I candidly admit that I have no idea what the rules are in Nevada or whether the criticism of those rules is valid. But the one thing I am sure of is that the civility that I attributed to Sanders from the beginning of his campaign seems to be eroding to the point that my support is eroding with it. All Sanders is reported to have said about the violent threats is that, "it goes without saying" that he opposes violence. He did not condemn the actions of the few in his camp in Nevada specifically, but rather relied on a statement of general principle, with which I must assume--given the descent of Sanders' campaign into such familiar, questionable strategizing--that he was endeavoring not to alienate those supporters whose standards of conduct used to be beneath him. I expect some old 60's style guerilla leanings from him, but the failure to outright condemn such threatening and personalized rancor as swelled to a crescendo in Nevada is far worse than progressive activist irascibility. It is the beginning of a descent into political hell, until now the exclusive domain of the great Satan, Donald Trump and his Republican imps.
If you look at the delegate count, Hillary Clinton seems on her way to winning the nomination even without the super-delegates about which the Sanders campaign is complaining. We needn't get into why those super-delegate seats at the convention were created other than to say that the intention was sound, albeit expedient and pragmatic to a fault perhaps. Thus complaints about them are not born solely of Sanders' personal convenience, but while it behooves us all for Sanders to continue advocating his position through the convention, it is unjustifiably risky for him to allow this kind of off-the-rails support to go un-denounced. If Sanders wins the popular vote in the end, then there will be cause for ardent protest and maybe even finger pointing. But as of this moment, principle should prevail in the Sanders camp, whereas it looks more and more like it is more personal ambition than principle that is motivating Sanders, and his compatriots are beginning to reflect that departure from Sanders' original purpose. I can understand such a lapse; it is quite human. Engaging in politics seems to taint even the righteous souls. But in Sanders' case, it seems to be verging on hubris, and that taints the whole effort.
I still believe that income and wealth inequality are the greatest problems we face as a society, and that from them stem many social evils: unequal access to health care, lack of economic power in labor negotiations for individuals, economic stagnation caused by stifled demand, disparities in the availability of quality education and the juxtaposition of Sybarite life stiles with poverty so abject that food is an issue in a nation that has so much of everything. But I also believe that the descent of our politics into partisan bickering and status seeking, control of our governance institutions by ideologues who stymie progressive initiatives but propose no alternatives for addressing our pressing social problems, and in general, the hegemony of epicene fogies in our legislature who manipulate the system with what is almost hereditary power is a function of personal ambition and greed. Thus, for Sanders to show signs of being tainted by the quest for power is frightening. If even our sainted defenders can bow to the temptation to ascend to such power, what do we have left to hope for.
That's where Hillary Clinton comes in. She is somewhere in between the best and the worst of us. Her judgment is questionable, as in the whole personal server scandal, but on the larger issues, she is sane and reasonable, albeit tending a little too much toward pragmatic. I find her morals questionable, not so much with regard to her flexibility relative to her husband's dalliances but more with her possible involvement in legal affairs than personal ones: Whitewater and the missing travel documents that turned up on her desk in the White House when Bill was president come to mind. Yet, I believe that she is on her side, even if it is only because of her desire to be president, which I think is also a desire to be remembered in a good way rather than in the way in which so many think of her when they rate her unfavorably in political polls.
For those reasons, and for other more nuanced ones, I feel compelled to commit to Clinton now in the hope that, in concert with those of many others my voice will rise to a level that Bernie Sanders can hear. I still want to hear what he has to say, and I still feel that he would be a good president, though possibly as much of a demagogue as Ronald Reagan was, only our demagogue rather than theirs. But as of now, Clinton is my choice, and I think, the choice of many others. Sorry Bernie, but you did it to yourself.
Your friend,
Mike
Leave a comment