Written with Helen A. Berger, PhD, resident scholar at the Women's Studies Research Center at Brandeis University and author of A Community of Witches.
Is the Bernie or Bust movement working, just not in the way that its founders envisioned? On the front page of the New York Times this weekend, there was a story that Hillary is trying to make inroads with those Republicans who are in the Never Trump camp. Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's Secretary of Labor, has become a strong Bernie supporter and has a very successful following online. On the same day that the New York Times article appeared, he wondered online if Hillary risks alienating Bernie's followers if she moves to include Republicans.
Certainly, if she wins the election, Hillary will have to move to be president of all Americans, whether they voted or not, and whether they voted for her, her rival, or a third party. So yes, it makes sense that she includes the widest swath of Americans possible. But more to the point, Bernie's supporters have been threatening to not vote in the general election, and some even to vote for Trump, if the Democratic Party doesn't choose their candidate. This is despite the fact that Bernie is almost 300 pledged delegates behind Clinton and has lost the popular vote as well. Their threat leaves Hillary no choice but to start looking elsewhere for support.
Politicians are beholden to those who vote for them. They are swayed by their concerns as they are the people who "brought them to the dance." No, the superdelegates are not going to go against the majority of the Democratic voters to put someone else in because a subset of voters threatens to take their ball and go home if they can't get their way. No organization could do that. So I am left wondering if the Bernie or Bust group is shooting themselves in the foot. They are well organized, they have some power, they can influence the course of the election--but not if they threaten to leave the party, or to support someone whose ideals are so different from their own.
It is fairly common these days online to see someone offering the opinion that it would be great if Trump won as it would hasten the revolution. The notion appears to be that it would be a bad two years but then certainly progressives would take over the House, and two years after that the Senate and the Presidency. This is a fantasy, and a dangerous fantasy at that. Why? Well first, there is no country in which the election of a demagogue resulted in the development of a strong and viable progressive movement. None. Not one. Furthermore, the makeup of the Supreme Court will be determined by the next president. Imagine who Trump would nominate. The Supreme Court decides on voting rights, on redistricting, on money in politics, and on all the things that make it possible to even think of electing progressives. So after two years of Trump, we would have less chance of a progressive future. He could also do immeasurable damage to the USA international standing. He is already hurting it.
Throughout our history, progressives, from time to time, have thrown up their hands and said "a pox on both parties." They contend that "only our candidate knows true North, our primary opponent and the opposition candidate are the same." Only to find that this is not true. Ralph Nader, along with a willing press, and ultimately the Supreme Court, worked to put George W. Bush in the White House, stopping the candidacy of Al Gore. The irony of the Green Party having a hand in stopping a man who would shortly after get the Nobel Prize for his environmental work is too great to not mention, but the real issue is that George W. Bush is responsible for our involvement in the war in Iraq, helped pass laws that deregulated banking, and worked to keep the Supreme Court very conservative. But, no revolution followed him. After a too brief period, first the House, then the Senate, again became Republican. Voter suppression and gerrymandering made that possible.
Taking home your ball and refusing to play because you can't get your way may seem like you are empowering yourself. But really, you are not. Those of us who consider ourselves progressives have watched, appalled, as Republicans have replaced scientific reasoning with fantasy and insisted it was true. We have seen them deny the existence of climate change, and hide behind freedom of religion to limit women's access to comprehensive medical care. It is sad to see some who claim to be progressives online creating a different but equally fallacious fantasy of there being no difference between Trump and Hillary, or that Trump will help bring in the revolution.
Of course, in the online realm, we never do know who is creating this false fantasy. Are they progressives or Trump supporter,s who want you not to vote or to vote for their man, regardless of your reasons? Either way, fantasies may be fun to pass the time on a rainy day, but they can be dangerous, if you confuse them with reality. The fantasy that Trump and Hillary are the same is one such fantasy.
Don't buy into the the fantasy that the Republicans have been creating for years, that Hillary is dishonest or weak. We have seen time after time, in one expensive and unwarranted investigation after the next, that she is neither. Bernie can have real influence now, but only if he can rely on those who have been his most vocal supporters to join him in supporting the Democratic candidate.