theindependenteye
04-26-2016, 07:34 PM
Not that I have any expertise in the political process, but I try. So here’s my thought about what Bernie Sanders should best do if he doesn’t win the nomination.
Pushing for progressive platform planks is fine, but platform planks are pretty much subject to dry rot. And as the Sanders campaign has been so much based on attacking Clinton’s integrity, he’d come across as a hypocrite if he backpedals on that. His formal endorsement would be credible; his enthusiasm, not.
What he could best do, for the sake of the country and the party and his own values (and mine), would be to continue campaigning as vehemently as if he were the nominee, but for progressive candidates for the Senate, House, and governorships who share his values. He has the star power, perhaps even more than if he himself were the candidate, to get out the vote for vital races. If the Democrats take Congress, and with a strong contingent of progressives, that will not only empower Clinton to have any effect beyond the current gridlock but push her further to work with a progressive constituency in Congress.
A non-candidate Sanders could make the difference. To my mind, while big money in politics is a mustache-twirling villain, even more toxic is the belief, rife among progressives, that nothing matters except the Presidency. Moving away from this Big Daddy concept is absolutely essential to any progress. Sanders could be the game-changer.
And if, wonder of wonders, he actually becomes the nominee, he should do exactly the same thing. Like Clinton, his Achilles’ heel is credibility: not disbelief in his sincerity but disbelief in his actual capacity to make change happen. A campaign not to bring “down-ticket” candidates in on the Victor’s coattails but to bring the Victor in on theirs—that’s what we need.
If you agree with these thoughts, I’d earnestly invite you to forward this to any forum you’re part of. If we can start a bit of low-level rumble, it might eventually find the relevant ears.
-Conrad
Pushing for progressive platform planks is fine, but platform planks are pretty much subject to dry rot. And as the Sanders campaign has been so much based on attacking Clinton’s integrity, he’d come across as a hypocrite if he backpedals on that. His formal endorsement would be credible; his enthusiasm, not.
What he could best do, for the sake of the country and the party and his own values (and mine), would be to continue campaigning as vehemently as if he were the nominee, but for progressive candidates for the Senate, House, and governorships who share his values. He has the star power, perhaps even more than if he himself were the candidate, to get out the vote for vital races. If the Democrats take Congress, and with a strong contingent of progressives, that will not only empower Clinton to have any effect beyond the current gridlock but push her further to work with a progressive constituency in Congress.
A non-candidate Sanders could make the difference. To my mind, while big money in politics is a mustache-twirling villain, even more toxic is the belief, rife among progressives, that nothing matters except the Presidency. Moving away from this Big Daddy concept is absolutely essential to any progress. Sanders could be the game-changer.
And if, wonder of wonders, he actually becomes the nominee, he should do exactly the same thing. Like Clinton, his Achilles’ heel is credibility: not disbelief in his sincerity but disbelief in his actual capacity to make change happen. A campaign not to bring “down-ticket” candidates in on the Victor’s coattails but to bring the Victor in on theirs—that’s what we need.
If you agree with these thoughts, I’d earnestly invite you to forward this to any forum you’re part of. If we can start a bit of low-level rumble, it might eventually find the relevant ears.
-Conrad