Thursday, January 14, 2016

Do Not Waste Your Vote On Bernie Sanders

I was born in 1970. I have no recollection of Watergate or Jerry Ford taking a tumble down the stairs as he alit from Air Force One. My earliest political memories are of Jimmy Carter hosting the Camp David summit and American hostages being held in Iran. But from before I was a teenager until I was old enough to (legally) drink, Republicans inhabited the White House. It was an awful time for Democrats - Dukakis in a tank and Mondale losing 49 states. As someone born smack dab in the middle of Nixon’s first term, a Democrat had been in the White House for a mere four years of my life until January 20, 1993.
 
I worked for Bill Clinton in 1992. I was in Little Rock on election night and the sheer euphoria of a Democrat finally winning back the White House is a feeling I still remember. But for Democrats born in 1975 or 1980 or beyond, their relationship to our party’s hold on the Presidency is far different. It is taken for granted that a Democrat can be President. If you are 35 years old, you probably have vague memories of George H.W. Bush, but otherwise, you have lived through four terms of Democratic Presidents with the utter failure of W in between.
 
In other words, you do not really appreciate what it was like to lose five of six Presidential elections or how hard Democrats had to work to elect a President in your lifetime. So maybe you do not think it is a bad decision to support Bernie Sanders because the causes he believes are ones you do too. You might also believe that a Sanders win would mean a tidal wave of progressive votes that would sweep massive Democratic majorities into both houses of Congress, thus resulting in passage of every pet policy you hold dear – Medicare for All, drastic cuts to the Department of Defense, a minimum wage increase, huge tax increases on the wealthy – and on and on.
 
But such a belief is pure fantasy. Putting aside the gerrymandered Congressional districts that make it all but impossible to flip the House (and thus, smothering any dream you might have of getting a President Sanders agenda through Congress) and the fact that Democrats would have to carry 14 Senate races to gain a filibuster-proof majority (another impossibility), two of the biggest landslide Republican victories in history occurred when Democrats nominated so-called “liberal” candidates – George McGovern in 1972 and Walter Mondale in 1984. Each lost all but one state in the nation (and two other landslides, Reagan in 1980 and Bush 41 in 1988 were almost as bad).
 
Why hand Republicans a gift like a peacenik who will be portrayed as wanting to crush our economy under massive tax increases? Democrats have assiduously cultivated the so-called “Blue Wall” (18 states plus the District of Columbia) since 1992, winning what now equal 242 electoral votes in six straight elections. This formula is based on moderation, not revolution. The suburban soccer moms of Montgomery County (Pa.), bellwether voters of Macomb County (Mi.) and the once rock ribbed Republican enclave of Orange County (Ca.) that are now reliably Democratic are not looking to burn down the system and are not going to entrust the nuclear codes to a 74 year old socialist from Vermont.
 
And to older voters, you should know better. To me, this has the vague feeling of 2000, when just enough people voted for Ralph Nader thinking there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush to nudge the election in the latter’s favor (and do not just look at Florida and its contested vote. Check out New Hampshire, which Gore lost by 1.2% with Nader getting 3.7% of the vote. It’s the only time between 1992 and 2012 that the Democrats lost New Hampshire and would have given Gore the White House regardless of Florida).
 
Bernie may inhabit the fever dreams of ultra-lefties like the editorial board of The Nation, but the same true believers who thought the country would rally to George McGovern (he got 38% of the vote) are fooling themselves if they think Bernie Sanders has any chance of being elected President. Younger voters, who came of age under Obama can be excused for thinking that someone of Sanders’s political leanings could win a national election, but older voters should appreciate the risk of entrusting our party’s nomination to someone who is not even a Democrat and whose defeat would signal not just risks to things like the Affordable Care Act, but any chance of “flipping” the Supreme Court for decades to come. This election is far too important to throw away your vote on a gadfly from Vermont who has zero chance of ever being elected President.
 
 Follow me on Twitter - @scarylawyerguy

28 comments:

  1. You are so right my friend. Great article, I sent it to everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've been thinking this also. The republicans are going to drill into people's head about "all the "free stuff" Sanders wants to give away, so why even do anything?? Bernie's got you!" Why should anybody get a job?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After Republicans are done dropping about a billion dollars in negative ads, they'll make Bernie into the second coming of Karl Marx.

      Delete
  3. The only sure-fire way to lose, that I know of, is not to try. As a lawyer you probably get used to the taste of crap but I think I'll just keep trying for that sweet taste of victory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess we have different definitions of "victory." If you truly believe that a 74 year old socialist from Vermont can win a general election in America in 2016, god bless. I guess I'm more of a realist and also someone who understands, having worked in politics, that results matter. The same people who took your attitude in 2000 helped "elect" GW Bush - he appointed a Chief Justice who is likely to serve for another 20-25 years along with an Associate Justice who will probably serve for 30. Oh yeah, he also drained our Treasury and left thousands of dead in the Middle East. But hey, you do you.

      Delete
    2. scarylawyerguy, I tend to agree with you. He has killed his chances of winning the general election by proclaiming in the past that he is a Socialist and now a Democratic Socialist. He is not a Socialist nor has he ever been one. Referring to himself as a Democratic Socialist is idiotic. The opposition is having a field day and will continue to do so.
      Even if one believes he has a chance, it would still be irresponsible to take that chance. As you pointed out, this election is far too important; the appointments to the Supreme Court should be the number one reason in deciding ones vote.

      Delete
    3. scarylawyerguy, I tend to agree with you. He has killed his chances of winning the general election by proclaiming in the past that he is a Socialist and now a Democratic Socialist. He is not a Socialist nor has he ever been one. Referring to himself as a Democratic Socialist is idiotic. The opposition is having a field day and will continue to do so.
      Even if one believes he has a chance, it would still be irresponsible to take that chance. As you pointed out, this election is far too important; the appointments to the Supreme Court should be the number one reason in deciding ones vote.

      Delete
  4. And were you awake during the run up to the 2008 elections, when common knowledge predicted the country wasn't ready for a black president?

    We need a president who will represent ALL of America, not just the donor class. A vote for Bernie is a vote for the people. Hillary is first and foremost a corporatist. That's a stripe that's not ever going away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was awake in 2008, but your suggestion that Bernie = Barack is off the mark. Bernie has a decades-long record of admitted "socialist" views that the Republicans will use to eviscerate him. Obama also benefitted from W's deep unpopularity, a Wall St crash that happened 2 months before the election and McCain's selection of Sarah Palin.

      If you truly believe Hillary is a corporate tool, I suggest you go back and research her long history of advocacy for issues like health care, women's rights, and middle east peace. She was well ahead of her time and has taken Republican blows for 20 years and is still standing. Do you really think Bernie will be able to withstand their blows?

      Delete
  5. There is a bunch of the same old crap here. But another lackey for the status quo is not the progress many people want after suffering 35 years of accelerating corporate control. If the system allows B.S. a chance ( it's a big if ), he will win the general and some change will begin. A new skin tone or a new gender is not necessarily any change at all but a principled person might be. Smells like Scaredlawyer has a stake in the current shitty system.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How will that "change" occur without a Democratic Congress? Seriously, how will that happen? I guess you forgot that Obama had huge majorities in 2009-10 and still struggled to get the ACA through (and stripped out the "public option" to ensure its passage). Your deluding yourself if you think that some tidal wave of voter outrage is going to put in a circa 1933 amount of liberals to enact anything. When things go to shit, the Rs would swamp us in 2018 off years.

      If you think the "status quo" is what Bill Clinton and Barack Obama represent, you're obviously not a Democrat. All wages rose when Clinton was president because he actually invested in the middle class. Obama has pulled the country out of the depths of the recession. Bernie has been a back bencher not doing jack squat for 20+ years in Congress.

      Delete
  6. McGovern lost to Richard Nixon. You know, the guy whose VP had to resign because of a scandal he was involved in before he was VP. The guy whose Attorney General went to jail. The guy whose close advisors went to jail. The guy who had to resign the Presidency because of the stuff his campaign did to throw the election in which he beat George McGovern.

    You say you "have no recollection of Watergate" but then try to base an argument on a claim about an election in which Richard Nixon's crimes figure large. Yeah, McGovern lost. He lost to one of the most devious characters ever to inhabit the White House. He lost because people ignored his warning about Nixon. He lost because Democrats like Jimmy Carter who were rock-ribbed supporters of the Vietnam War undermined him and called him terms like "peacenik." They're the ones who set the stage for Reagan, Bush, and more Bush.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess I would argue that if McGovern lost to such a mendacious figure, it must mean he was a really weak candidate. You missed the point of the post entirely. The *country* is not where you (or McGovern) were/are when it comes to who they want in a President.

      McGovern was a decent guy, a WWII vet, and he was so easily caricatured as a "acid, amnesty, and abortion" candidate. That is my point - the Republicans would do the same to Sanders and in the balance, eliminate all of the progress Democrats have made under the last 2 Presidents.

      if you want to risk having an R in the White House when (potentially) both Breyer and Ginsburg step down and Kennedy too, and have 3 40 or 50something "strict constructionists" added to the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, you're a fool.

      Delete
    2. You don't know your history very well.

      Nixon wasn't out to defeat McGovern. He was out to defeat anyone who would challenge him. He ran dirty tricks campaigns throughout the 1972 Democratic primary campaign in order to weaken every potential candidate, not just McGovern. Whoever won the nomination would have been up against a criminal enterprise that wasn't just Nixon and a few cronies. The basis of the impeachment proceedings against him was that he was using the machinery of the FBI, IRS, and other governmental agencies to maintain himself in the White House.

      And about that "acid, amnesty, and abortion" line: It was publicized by Robert Novak. In his last book, Novak revealed who he'd gotten it from. It was Democratic Missouri Sen. Thomas Eagleton, the guy who (after he and other pro-war Dems shivved McGovern during the primaries) clutched on to the VP nomination after his electroshock treatments were revealed.

      The idea that there's more dirt to throw against Sanders than Clinton is pretty laughable. Clinton's been having dirt thrown her way for more than two decades on the national stage. She's done remarkably well in its face, but if you think that's going to stop during the next nine months, I think you're the fool.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the history lesson. It is well known that Nixon and his operatives played dirty tricks against the Democrats in hopes they *would* nominate McGovern. Mission Accomplished.

      If you're hoping to re-litigate the 1972 campaign in an effort to prove the Republicans would not be able to tar Bernie Sanders with the same brush, have at it. I guess you were not around when George HW Bush slimed Mike Dukakis, Reagan shredded Mondale, or W (along with a complicit media) turned earnest technocrat Al Gore into a lying, beta male.

      In fact, little has been written about Sanders and the media is just now digging into his past support of things like nationalizing utilities and the oil industry. If you do not think those statements will be used against him, along with his current support for higher taxes (even if they are in the service of an admittedly good idea) I'm sure you were one of those who did pull the lever for Ralph Nader and then walked away from responsibility for Bush's election in 2000.

      Finally, what exactly has Bernie Sanders ever done in Congress? What evidence is there that he could run a huge government bureaucracy? How exactly will he get anything passed in light of his belief in the need for a political revolution? You do realize there is a co-equal branch of government that will basically snuff out anything he proposes, right?

      Delete
  7. "but older voters should appreciate the risk of entrusting our party’s nomination to someone who is not even a Democrat"

    thank you, this cannot be stressed enough. Sanders opportunistically "became" a Democrat, because he knew his socialist bit wouldn't play in the rest of the country. yes, all politicians are opportunistic, but that doesn't mean, by definition, they should be rewarded for it.

    look at who's attending the "Bernie Rallies", and you'll notice it's a pretty pale, nearly transparent group, with the occasional spot of color offsetting it. Sen. Sanders has spent his entire political life appealing to a demographic that's 99.99% caucasion, and hasn't displayed any public ability to appeal to minorities, because he's never had to. Ms. Clinton will run over him in primaries where the electorate is more diversified, because she and her husband have been doing it for over 30 years. minorities/women like and will support Ms. Clinton. they will vote for her in numbers/%'s that will dwarf all the candidates, D & R, combined. now isn't the time to be figuring out how to appeal to a critical demographic, if you don't have it by now, it's too late. neither Sen. Sanders (and all the R candidates) has it, and this will be his/their undoing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment. I think the fact that Sanders was not, until recently (if at all?) actually registered as a Democrat is telling.

      Delete
  8. Excellent article and responses to comments, too!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. For what it's worth, it's not that I don't believe in some (not all) of Sanders's positions, but the risk of nominating him is enormous. The same bubble that we accuse right wingers of living in is seeping into the belief system of lefties who kid themselves into thinking Sanders's message would not be crushed by the Republican spin machine.

      Delete
  9. Excellent. Wish the Berniacs could understand that politics is the art of the possible.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  12. with the Democrats losing ground for the past 20 years or so, taking a big hit in the mid year cycles especially in recent years, you suggest more of the "careful" use of more of the same? perhaps Dems are losing ground by triangulation and going "central" a central that is more often than not really as central as some would like to believe, but right...perhaps you are right, but we know that in Canada, and elsewhere, there has been a move back to more progressive or left policies, perhaps in baby steps--but important steps all the same, I'd hazard...Brad Vauter

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's part of why I have a major problem with Sanders. Where has he been for the last 25 years? Has he been trying to elect Democrats? Going to the proverbial rubber chicken dinners to collect campaign cash so down ballot Democrats won? No. He's a one man band while the Clintons (and now the Obamas) have been working to get Democrats elected to push forward the very policies you want.

      I appreciate what Bernie has done to highlight certain issues, but the reality is that the complaints you express, about low mid-term turn out or gerrymandered CDs all stem from Democrats not coming out to vote and nothing Bernie has pitched will change that. The idea that there is some nascent political revolution brewing if only the right leader stepped forward is simply not borne out by the results of the primaries thus far, where Hillary has a 3:2 advantage in total votes (and delegates).

      Cementing legacies and policies is about the daisy chain of going from one President to the other. You only need to see how quickly W undid the solid fiscal situation given to him by President Clinton to understand that.

      Delete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete