The Bernie Sanders campaign, which I’ve critically supported, has now over-reached in a way that makes apparent what was wrong with it all along. And it has come to a moment of truth that will determine whether it will be a long-lasting force that changes our politics for the better or a momentary explosion of energy that leaves behind far less than it should—or even damages our country.
I’ve been supporting Bernie Sanders for president, despite a lot of misgivings about his political and policy analysis, because on two overarching issues, I agree with him. First, he seeks to make economic inequality a far more important issue than it has been. And second, he’s deeply dubious about military intervention abroad.
On both issues, Sanders is in the right place and Clinton is not quite there. Contrary to her critics among Sanders supporters, Clinton has long been concerned about economic inequality. But the Sanders campaign has shown that there is energy in the county to address it more boldly than Clinton had recognized. On the foreign policy issue I, like a lot of other Democrats, am distrustful of Clinton’s interventionist inclinations.
While I’ve supported Sanders, I’ve done so critically. There are a number of ways in which his analysis of our politics and policy seems to me to be wrong. I’m not going to talk about them again here. Instead I want to point to an underlying approach or attitude to politics in the Sanders campaign that I have only fully grasped in the last few days.
This approach or attitude is the cause of the rude and obnoxious behavior we’ve so often seen in his on-line supporters for a long time. And it was the source of the awful behavior by his supporters in Nevada.
When I called out the Bernie Bots a few months ago, a friend of mine said that I shouldn’t hold Sanders responsible for what his followers say and do. He pointed to how young an inexperienced many of his supporter are. But it is now clear to me that the problem begins at the top, with Sanders himself. Because along with his impassioned call for equality and criticism of a militaristic policy—with which I agree—Sanders brings a problematic approach to politics. And that approach has been part of his campaign from the beginning.
Sanders seems to think that politics is mainly about having a pure will. He thinks that the fundamental, indeed the only, real political choice, is whether you stand with the people or the powerful corporations. And he thinks that if enough of us stand together we will not only have a right to power but will sweep aside all the barriers that stand in our way of attaining our goals.
This is an attractive story for a number of reasons. First, it means that if we are with Sanders, then we are one of the saintly, upstanding people. We all want to see ourselves in that light so this is deeply attractive. Second, it simplifies our political task—there is the right side and the wrong side and we just need people to join our side. Third, it simplifies political analysis. We don’t need to concern ourselves with the details of political strategy or policy analysis. We don’t have to worry about how to craft policies that appeal to the varied concerns of the American people or that can secure a majority in Congress. We just need to get all the good people to join us. Fourth, we don’t have to worry about working through the rules and procedures that stand in our way—whether they are rules for winning delegates or the procedures of Congress or even the political parties themselves. Since we stand for the good and the right any rules or procedures that block us are unfair and rigged and should be swept away. And if our movement grows to where it should, we will sweep them away.
This set of assumptions is deeply appealing to those who are frustrated by our politics and especially to those who are new to it. It tells those who believe the story that they are not only enlightened, but that all they need to do to triumph is keep the faith and get others to see the light.
Once you see what is at the core of Bernie’s appeal, the disturbing features of his campaign become understandable. Bernie and his supporters see this election not as a campaign on behalf of one group or set of ideas or even an ideology but as a fundamentally religious crusade between the force of light and forces of darkness. Why do the Bernie supporters attack Clinton so harshly? Because she leads the forces of darkness. Why do they jump on those of us who disagree with them about anything so fiercely, even if we support Sanders? Because even if we support Sanders we are helping the dark forces by criticizing him. Why are they so impatient with argument? Because the only thing that counts is whether we choose the right side. Why are they constantly complaining about the unfair media and the rigged system? Because anything that stands in the way of the forces of light is wrong and unfair. Why is it ok to lie in pursuit of victory—to make up stories about what happened in Nevada and elsewhere or to keep saying that Sanders can win when he clearly cannot? Because truth is secondary to victory for the forces of light. And if you’ve seen the movie or read the book that inspires these religious crusades you know we may have to wait until the end, but those who stand with the good and the true always win.
It’s finally dawned on me that the reason I’m not comfortable with so much of the Sanders campaign is that Sanders is not leading a normal political campaign. He’s leading a quasi-religious crusade. And for many reasons religious crusades and democracy don’t go well together.
They don’t go well together, first, because good is almost never wholly on one side. I agree with Sanders on some basic issues. But even his causes can be taken too far. I’m dubious about military intervention, I’m not ready to give up either humanitarian intervention or the fight against radical Islam.
The don’t go well together, second, because even if good is on one side, the people are not necessarily on that side. Progressive change in America is not fundamentally blocked by corporate power. It is blocked by division in public opinion. We shouldn’t and can’t make progress just by steamrolling those who disagree with us. We have to convince them. And claiming that only our side knows the truth is not an effective way to do that.
The don’t go well together, third, because convincing people to agree with us, and overcoming the organized power of those who oppose us is not just a matter of will. And while a huge movement can make a great difference, mobilizing people for something other than a presidential campaign is immensely difficult. No president, not Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders can easily keep the level of intensity of a campaign going for long. So when Sanders and his supporters say that he’s going to create a political revolution that dramatically changes our country, those of us who have been on the front lines of progressive politics for years shake our heads. We know how hard it is to mobilize people. We know that doing so effectively takes sound strategy and resources. And we know that it takes working at least part of the time through a political party.
They don’t go well together, fourth, because rules and procedures actually matter. They matter because Sanders hopes to transform the country over the opposition of many people and people are only reconciled to losing politically when they believe the rules and procedures are fair and have been followed. And they matter because rules and procedures protect our higher order interests—in liberty and democracy itself—from being trampled by movements no matter how pure. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t change our rules and procedures to make our country more democratic. But it does mean that we should follow them until we change them. And we should’t evaluate those rules and procedures–and change our evaluation of them from day to day–just on the basis of whether it helps our cause or not.
And they don’t go well together, finally, because crusades, when thwarted, almost always turn to violence. The vile rhetoric we see on Facebook and the violence we saw in Nevada wasn’t an accident. It was primed by a campaign that has come to see itself as a crusade.
The religious approach to politics that has characterized too much of the Sanders campaign is not intrinsic to his message and his appeal. Indeed, I think it very much weakens his appeal. The Bernie Bots have turned of many more people they have recruited.
We can—and should—support progressive economic policies and a less militaristic foreign policy without carrying on a crusade. We can have aggressive goals and support bold policies without a crusade. We can appeal to young people and generate political energy without the crusade.
Sanders needs jettison the crusade. And he needs to do it now. Because a Sander campaign constituted as a crusade can’t and won’t support Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump or support all but a few Democratic members of Congress. And the long term consequence are even worse. The political education this campaign is giving his young and inexperienced followers is utterly misleading about how real change is created in America. And those who are part of his crusade–which as a crusade is going to crash and burn–will ultimately be left cynical and dispirited.
I don’t want those new people mobilized by Sanders to leave politics. And I don’t want Sanders to stop running. I don’t want him to stop trying to influence the platform. I’d like to see him turn his campaign into an organization that supports Clinton and progressive Democratic candidates in November and beyond. If he does all that, the Sanders campaign will have an enormously good effect by pushing our politics to the left and by helping keep President Clinton from drifting to the right.
But we need a Sanders campaign that fights for our political goals without putting will above strategy, without constantly claiming that it’s been cheated, without spinning wild conspiracy theories, without demonizing the opposition, and without being a sore loser. If the crusade continues, at best it will lose power as more and more people become disappointed and then disenchanted by it. At worst, it will help elect Donald Trump in November.
The fact is that Bernie has already one. We have a Party that is debating whether the minimum wage should be $12 or fifteen. We are arguing how much lower college should be. We are uniting against Citizens United. Hopefully we are going to reign in big banks. None of this would have happened had HRC been left alone. The Sandesr campaign can take credit for this.
Consider that all Hillary voters in the Party would vote for Bernie if he were the candidate. Sanders brings new voters with him many of whom would not vote at all but for his draw, including the far left who cannot bring themselves to vote for another neoliberal Democrat. Among independents, those who would vote for Hillary knowing she’ll nominate progressive justices would also vote for Bernie, but she’d lose the anti-free trade vote to Trump. Sanders would split them.
It seems obvious that he’s the stronger candidate. Do Clinton supporters call for him to leave the race because they are in denial of the obvious or because they see it all too clearly? Or are they in machine or coronation mode and just haven’t thought about it? In any case, calling for him to leave just further alienates Sanders fans creating greater resentment towards Hillary and lending more scent of autocracy to the party insiders.
Was Bill and Hillary’s attending Donald Trump wedding just a display of really, really bad judgment on their part?
what were they thinking?!
Quite long and not easily readable, but a couple of thoughts. I do not want your own beliefs to be thought of as mine. I support Bernie for other reasons than you propose are “THE reasons” folks support him. You have taken your personal and made it generalizable – and it is not. Like many, I support him for a *multitude* of other reasons than listed by you and it has to do on many levels with his policies and what he wants to do for America. Simply put, I support all of that more than I support the proposals and policies of Clinton.
But my anger (and that is real) is that the Democratic party is trying (and succeeding) in rigging this election for Hillary Clinton. From Super delegates voting out of concert with the majority of the state, to the ways in which rules are changed to favor her (i.e. Nevada, or Arizona, or New York) is unfair. Now life is unfair – often – but when the party of the people (which is how I have looked at the Democratic party for ever) starts to cheat me and those like me out of our voice, well, I get angry. And so “rudeness” might be in the eye of the beholder here.
One could argue that is was “rude” for many New Yorkers in a heavily Bernie favoring neighborhood (the Bronx) to be disenfranchised (many thousands of voters). Or that is was “rude” for the Arizona Democrats to somehow unlist my niece and many others like her from the rolls of the democratic party and to list her instead as an “independant” just before the election. Or that it was “rude” for the democrats in Nevada to jury-rig the rules for the final allocations of delegates.
It is this growing awareness I have that there is a sense of entitlement by those most firmly established in the Democratic party to get it their way and that there is an associated willingness to cheat to get it done – this is what causes me despair. For the stupid claim that there is “no difference” between the Republicans and Democrats (patently wrong) now seems to be….. less wrong.
And to fight for the entrenched mediocrity of Hillary Clinton in the coming months does not, candidly, appeal to me. And when I imagine that she might lose to Trump and that is is possible that Bernie Sanders might do better – well then I really wonder what motivates the party machine to fight so hard for her.
Hint: it might have to do with money.
Excellent commentary Marc. Hopefully the right people read it.
Excellent analysis but I would have liked to see some analysis of racial inequalities, given Sanders lack of support from that crucial demographic- the lowest on the economic ladder- that he would have needed to create a real movement!
All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Schopenhauer
If Sanders is responsible for the actions of his supporters in Navada, is Clinton the bearer of responsibility for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill?
Thank you for an outstanding essay.
If I was able to publish first-hand footage of trump protest, you all would know sanders protestors are not that bad. However, because you view Sanders protestors as anti Clinton, you demonize them.
From the beginning of this campaign, there has been ongoing condemnation of Sanders for running, and of his supporters for their preference. Even in your lukewarm overview, you accept the idea that he is overly determined that he is right in his beliefs. I cannot recall another candidate being condemned on this basis. Compare his stance and his followers to JFK. -The attitude is more similar than different. The core problem is that when a person says the world needs to be fairer and better, that perspective is anathema to neo-liberals. For them the world cannot be better than the market desires it to be. Any effort to fall out of lockstep with the market is perceived as irrational, and god-forbid that a politician comes forward who states that there is a better way, and that he wants to help get us there.
I’m a republican and I’m horrified by the rise of Trump. I have to, as usual, cross party lines. smh
Maybe it wasn’t a book or a movie. Jeff Weaver used to run a comic book store.
I’m ready to start a GoFundMe to buy him a new one as that’s clearly a career better suited for him.
In western PA, I see more and more Trump signs in front of working class homes. I also see his campaign signs in more affluent neigborhoods. As has happended in the past, poor ignorant white people will join forces with educated or affluent white voters to uphold and promote white supremacy.
Given the fact that our craven television networks have been shamelessly promoting Trump from the day he announced his candidacy, I truly fear that he will win the election, and it won’t make a dime’s worth of difference whether Hillary or Bernie is the nominee. They will cover Bernie or Hillary for two minutes and then interrupt to show a Trump event from beginning to end; I have even seen MSNBC televise an empty podium for half an hour while they wait for Trump to arrive. If this promotion of Trump does not end, neither Hillary nor Bernie will be able to get their message out. Just last night I watched a new low in journalistic cynicism on MSNBC as Donnie Deutsch told a group of “experts” that if Hillary gives long and detailed policy speeches, the networks will not cover her, because Trump is more “outrageous” and more “interesting.” Rather than admitting that Deutsch’s statement was a damning indictment of their coverage of this election, the three journalists at the table just nodded in agreement.
As I have said elsewhere, Bernie’s more rabid supporters are his worst liability, as well as a danger to the Democratic Party and an asset for Donald Trump.
And we can thank HRC and the Democratic Party for not allowing any other viable candidates to join the race. everyone simply assumed that it’s “Hillary’s turn” so, let’s not rock the boat. We can thank corporate and political cronyism for the rise and possible election of Trump.
Bottomline, HRC will barely windemocratic race. The anti-intellectual Americans will rise up to support their chosen candidate. Most likely, we can prepare to have Trump as next president of the U.S.
It’s the system that is broken, not the people protesting the broken system!
Over the past 10 years, I’ve grown to despise the Clintons. From Rwanda to unfair sentencing for possession of crack cocaine, the Clintons have shown that their intention is to maintain the status quo. Yes, I’d like to see a woman in the W.H., but not HRC. I wish the Clintons would gracefully ride off into the sunset. But no, they feel entitiled by their privilege to regain the WH. With HRC as the only viable option, no wonder Trump supporters are growing…
I’m a Bernie supporter and I’ve not attacked anyone. Why do you lump all his supporters with the few who act out? I’m not sure all this angst is justfied. we already know that American capitalism will win out in the end. Corporate America will continue to control America, regardless of who sits in the whitehouse.
Great analysis. I’ve been ringing the alarm bells for quite some time that this is a movement primarily about ideological purity where the appeal of the heroic storyline trumps (pun intended) facts and reality every time. The whitehot hatred of HRC is best understood in the light of the Eric Hoffer quote: mass movements can do without a god but must have a devil. Even before this phenomenon went full blown with Sanders, we’d seen ideologically pure folks on the Left who made it their mission to never be satisfied with President Obama and to be critical of any progress made while seeming oblivious to the scorched earth opposition of Republicans. It’s the system, man! I would add that the climate of extremist ideological tribalism on the Right created by right-wing media (Fox, hate radio, etc) was bound to have the effect of encouraging an analog of Leftist extremism from the most ideologically oriented amongst Progressives.
Yasher Koach!
Bernie cannot fail. He can only be failed. Now pray harder.
As someone who admires both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, Marc has explained some of my own growing concerns about the attitude shared by some (although obviously not all) of Bernie’s most ardent supporters. I have endured vicious and nasty personal attacks almost daily on Facebook from people who support Bernie–not just because I have expressed a few tiny reservations about him, but also because I have dared to defend Hillary against some of the most paranoid conspiracy theories. Even if I try to explain that she didn’t kill Vince Foster, for example, I have been accused of being “naive,” “ignorant,” and “willingly ignoring the facts”; I have been accused of “lying,” of “contempt for the truth,” “deliberately trying to mislead uncommitted voters,” and much worse, by multiple people. But no matter how many reservations I express about Hillary, none of her supporters has ever responded with an angry attack–not one. There really does seem to be an almost religious zeal among those who claim they would never vote for Hillary; they do indeed see this as a crusade against evil, which is why they fall prey to believing even the most egregious Republican smears. They really see her as a demonic figure without even a semblance of humanity. If you mention her Beijing speech about women’s rights, for example, they will say it was just a cynical attempt to manipulate people and she will betray these principles the moment she is elected. No amount of evidence will convince them that she has any human feelings or values, and no reasoned discussion is possible.
Thanks for this, Marc Stier! Extremely well thought out and written.
hillary should drop out…..she is unelectable…..Bernie is beating trump by double digits…..if hillary cared about Democrats or America she wouldve already dropped out….but she must have her….moment…
DROPOUTHILLARY
If the actions were truly about a movement, you might forgive all of this. But it has devolved into a cult of personality. ” Bernie or bust” and “never Hillary ” slogans stopped speaking to issues like inequality a few months back.
did Hillary denounce Wendall Pierce and Ed Rendell yet?
As a die-hard, and slightly (hopefully only slightly) obnoxious Hillary supporter, I think the forces most positively engaged in the Sanders campaign WILL have a lasting effect.
I think it’s two-fold: First, progressives like you always gravitate toward the candidate perceived as most progressive, and usually are activists, advocates or thinkers of some type. So these ideas will live on in your collective work.
Second, I think the Sanders campaign is an extension of the largely-thwarted Occupy movement. Hey, I took my shifts on the capitol steps, I saw how quickly and decisively our movement was crushed before it could mature. And it still makes me angry, and disgusted, and afraid for what such overly-active police actions mean for our Republic (and given some of the lessons of Ferguson, Baltimore this fear is not unfounded).
The trick is, HOW how how can the energy of the Occupiers be used constructively? They’ve been thwarted twice now. Will they learn how to leverage the system? Or will they seek to destroy the system?
Amen.