On the day of the New York primary, well known political pundit and Bernie supporter Robert Reich made some very sensible remarks on the need for Democrats (and presumably Independents) to "tone down negative characterizations" of our respective Democratic candidates. Here is what Reich had to say via his Facebook feed:
"Reading through many of your comments about today's New York primary, I want to urge that Bernie supporters tone down negative characterizations of Hillary, and Hillary supporters do the same with regard to Bernie. I know both candidates personally. Both are thoughtful and dedicated people who care deeply about this nation. Either of them would be a thousand times better president than any of the Republican candidates. But we will need to join together to ensure one of them becomes president. It's important we not jeopardize that future joint effort through excessive divisiveness now. What do you think? "
Now Reich enters complicated territory here. Is he himself compromising his own view because of that good old pragmatic impulse and concern for national homeostasis? Does he really believe that Hillary is 'thoughtful and dedicated,' and 'cares deeply' about the American people? Or is Reich temporarily strategically cooperating in order to ensure that no Republican is elected in which case things would get entirely out of hand?
These are not rhetorical questions. I respect Reich and if what he affirms about Hillary is true (to himself, at least), then that gives us some hope that maybe, just maybe she will actually heed the core critiques and urgency of Sanders; in the best case scenario, she would make him VP. At least we can give her a chance to surpass our expectations by moving explicitly in a more benevolent direction (even if she will continue to thrive as the shrewd and diplomatically agile leader who does not hesitate, in principle, to ignite wars overseas for the sake of her so-called 'deep care' for America - some things never change, as the saying goes).
In what follows, I want to convey my basic take on some possible outcomes for Bernie supporters moving forward, if he is not elected. I will then briefly explain why all the rage and negativity should not be 'toned down' but instead redirected away from Hillary as object of scorn (while still implicating her directly, especially if she becomes President) and instead aimed systematically and deliberately at Establishment politics and neo-liberalism. My argument is that this is a rare and powerful opportunity for all Democrats, Independents, and whatever other parties may form to come together and bring about profound changes in America during these riveting (if terrifying) times.
First, we have anarchists and extreme radicals that insist without compromise on NOT voting for Hillary. This group consists of some of the smartest, most well-informed and passionate people voicing their concerns of late, who have developed a conscientious (if severe) outlook that seeks to deconstruct the political landscape as it stands, even if that means acknowledging the possibility of outbreaks of chaos and violence closer to home (particularly if Trump or Cruz becomes President). I am tempted to call them contemporary revolutionaries (though the word 'revolutionary' has too much mixed baggage).
Second, we have strong Bernie supporters who will become dedicated to something like a people's democracy (not to be too closely associated with post WW2 ideologies) or a social democracy movement. If Hillary is nominated, these Bernie supporters may rise up variously in resistance to the status quo, choosing not to vote, perhaps forming something like an Occupy Washington movement, among other initiatives. This could eventually develop into a new party that gains momentum with the youth and fundamentally changes American politics over the next few decades.
Now the first group, the contemporary revolutionaries as I've tentatively called them, will not vote for Hillary, no matter what. The second group may or may not support Hillary depending on the urgency, radicalism and strategic vision related to their broader efforts of mobilization toward enacting a people's or social democracy movement. So, they might vote for her either to buy time for developing such change from 'within' the political infrastructure or simply out of the understandable fear that things could go completely haywire otherwise (which, again, is what certain extreme radicals and anarchists anticipate).
In response to Reich's post, then, I think that regardless of the smearing, negativity and even media-exaggerated scapegoating, most progressives will definitely vote for Hillary, even as a movement forms and anarchist dissenters slowly multiply (especially among the youth).
However, to address Reich's point about toning down the negativity, I think there is a justifiable rage and passion that needs to be voiced and elaborated. Clinton ignites this rage because of the provocative nomination conditions and her pragmatic, hard-nose approach which fails to urgently address the need for drastic socioeconomic change with nearly the same intensity and moral honesty as Bernie.
Many Hillary supporters feel that those who Feel The Bern have lost their minds, are too aggressive toward Hillary and far too polarizing in general. Hillary supporters seem to think that the outraged Berners just need to pop their idealistic bubble, calm their adolescent emotions, apologize for dehumanizing Hillary, and look more tactfully at the situation in order to foster incremental change.
But Bernie supporters need to realize that the underlying causes of their own outrage and revolutionary impulses have much less to do with Clinton and far more to do with rampant systemic injustices and blatant financial asymmetries of our economic landscape, all of which affect the flourishing of the entire country.
If we deeply consider the pain and struggles of the millions of Americans who can barely pay their bills, get proper health care and provide for loved ones, all-the-while the filthy rich - the 1/10 of the one percent that own roughly 90 percent of the country's wealth - have abundantly more money than they know what to do with, then such vehemence and rage are entirely understandable, even respectable. Further, Sanders' voice is above all else a loud and clear instrument that has magnified these issues and sharpened the peoples' understanding. It's less about the man and more about what he is pointing out (which has very little to do with idealism) and the passion he brings.
On the other hand, Hillary supporters would do well to hesitate before immediately taking the moral high ground simply because they are fed up with Bernie supporters making all this fuss and commotion. This is not unlike being mad at others for being outraged by pervasive injustice and corruption! After all, the animosity toward Clinton is really an animosity toward tremendous injustice and national strife that Hillary herself tends to downplay while Sanders relentlessly emphasizes it. This is not personal, this is not about people hating one woman (or two men). There are far deeper, divisive, real and enduring grievances and power dynamics unfolding here, and Hillary happens to be the most powerful Democrat with tendencies that contrast sharply with Sanders; thus she has to take a lot of heat.
In closing, I want to reiterate that Hillary supporters ought to acknowledge the rage of radicals, 'revolutionaries' and progressives alike, realizing that these people aren't just blindly angry and spewing their resentment at Hillary while naively presuming that Bernie is some saint or prophet with all of the answers and skills to fix America's predicament. At the least, when it's all said and done, Bernie's function will have been to set up very real preliminary conditions for what can become unprecedented and enduring transformation in American politics over the next few decades.
Just as many pioneers of social justice (Mandela, MLK, Parks, Gandhi, and many others) exposed and uncompromisingly resisted certain social conditions, which only now in retrospect we see as detestable but in the past wanted to put off or deal with diplomatically (and, make no mistake about it, Hillary is quite the diplomat), well that's exactly the kind of awareness Bernie is bringing to the current state of affairs; and damn right it's pissing people off and they are taking it out on someone like Hillary (considering her status). As yet she has shown no sign of fully acknowledging the depth of the economic, ecological and social crises we are in.
Regardless of the outcome of this particular nomination trajectory, the impact of Bernie has only just begun. What is most critical moving forward for liberals and progressives is that Bernie's lucid exposure and ongoing interrogation of Establishment politics and neo-liberalism are taken seriously - both inside Washington and especially on the ground, among the American people.