Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! CounterPunch is entirely supported by our readers. Your donations pay for our small staff, tiny office, writers, designers, techies, bandwidth and servers. We don’t owe anything to advertisers, foundations, one-percenters or political parties. You are our only safety net. Please make a tax-deductible donation today.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Overlooked, Simple Reason Democrats Should Nominate Bernie Sanders

by

shutterstock_335859515

Many people on the left, including many registered Democrats, dislike Hillary Clinton.  But won’t they ultimately surrender and vote for Hillary because they fear having a Republican President?  Democratic party leaders have relied on such fear to win the last election despite putting forth a candidate who could be described as George W. Bush II, and it worked.

Democrats shouldn’t count on that cynical strategy this time around.  Unlike in 2012, there’s a true liberal candidate in the primaries generating deep enthusiasm and support. If the Democrats crown the right-leaning Hillary, it will be a rejection of Democratic Party ideals, a slap in the face to liberals, a raised middle finger to Bernie’s supporters.  It will also validate the fears of many that the Democratic Party is really just a kinder and gentler version of the Republicans.

Why won’t everyone on the left vote for Hillary in the general election?  Think back to 2002-05, when many of us marched in the streets against the Iraq War, torture, the USA PATRIOT ACT, and the government spying on us. While we marched, Hillary voted for these things.  (On the other hand, Obama at least had opposed the war from its inception, and as a candidate in 2008 promised to end it.)

Today, Hillary outright opposes single-payer heath care and free tuition for higher education, as proposed by Bernie Sanders.

But, many Hillary supporters say, “Even if Bernie gets elected, his ideas will be dead-on-arrival in Congress, because America isn’t ready for him!”

That’s wrong. The widespread, growing support and enthusiasm for Bernie shows that many Americans not only are ready for his ideas but that they’re ready, willing and able to work and donate money to make them happen. That a “socialist” could get so far in the electoral/media process shows how much things have changed — and why pundits such as Jonathan Chait and Sandy Goodman, who think Bernie can’t succeed or is “unelectable,” are out of touch.

And what if a President Sanders faced obstruction? Would he just give up? No. He would use the bully pulpit and educate Americans why these ideas are in our nation’s interest.  He’d point a finger at those who would prefer we bankrupt ourselves trying to pay for life-saving medical treatment and college tuition and get them voted out.

Moreover, a President Clinton would face steadfast obstruction from Republicans, who virulently hate her, even more than they hate Obama. Odds are, Hillary would accommodate intransigent Republicans, until something they like got passed. She’d trumpet how she “won,” “got something passed,” and “crossed the aisle and worked with Republicans.” But where’s the win for Democrats in a President who saddles us with more right-wing policies?

Better to have a fighter than an appeaser. That way, liberal proposals with widespread benefits at least would have a chance of becoming policy rather than dying in utero.

Bernie is a “uniter” who stands for Democratic Party ideals. In the general election, all Democrats will vote for him, and many liberals and independents who would otherwise vote third party or stay home will vote for him, too.

On the other hand, Hillary is a “divider.”  Many Democrats and liberals and independents dislike her.  So if she gets the nomination, they’ll vote third party or stay home.

That’s it.  The choice is between a candidate who can get the support of all Democrats and many independents versus a candidate who can get only a fraction of that support.

Beyond that, the choice is between promoting truly progressive policies that will benefit most Americans, or sticking with the status quo, which benefits the wealthy few.  Choosing the former will expand the party. Choosing the latter will cause many Democrats to leave it in disgust, especially now that a viable progressive movement is taking shape.

Democrats should realize that they court disaster for their party if they nominate Hillary.

 Brian J. Foley is a lawyer and the author of A New Financial  You in 28 Days! A 37-Day Plan (Gegensatz Press). Contact him atbrian_j_foley@yahoo.com.

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

Weekend Edition
September 30, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Henry Giroux
Thinking Dangerously in the Age of Normalized Ignorance
Stanley L. Cohen
Israel and Academic Freedom: a Closed Book
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Can Russia Learn From Brazil’s Fate? 
Andrew Levine
A Putrid Election: the Horserace as Farce
Mike Whitney
The Biggest Heist in Human History
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Sick Blue Line
Rob Urie
The Twilight of the Leisure Class
Vijay Prashad
In a Hall of Mirrors: Fear and Dislike at the Polls
Alexander Cockburn
The Man Who Built Clinton World
John Wight
Who Will Save Us From America?
Pepe Escobar
Afghanistan; It’s the Heroin, Stupid
W. T. Whitney
When Women’s Lives Don’t Matter
Howard Lisnoff
What was Missing From The Nation’s Interview with Bernie Sanders
Julian Vigo
“Ooops, I Did It Again”: How the BBC Funnels Stories for Financial Gain
Jeremy Brecher
Dakota Access Pipeline and the Future of American Labor
Binoy Kampmark
Pictures Left Incomplete: MH17 and the Joint Investigation Team
Andrew Kahn
Nader Gave Us Bush? Hillary Could Give Us Trump
Steve Horn
Obama Weakens Endangered Species Act
Dave Lindorff
US Propaganda Campaign to Demonize Russia in Full Gear over One-Sided Dutch/Aussie Report on Flight 17 Downing
John W. Whitehead
Uncomfortable Truths You Won’t Hear From the Presidential Candidates
Ramzy Baroud
Shimon Peres: Israel’s Nuclear Man
Brandon Jordan
The Battle for Mercosur
Murray Dobbin
A Globalization Wake-Up Call
Jesse Ventura
Corrupted Science: the DEA and Marijuana
Richard W. Behan
Installing a President by Force: Hillary Clinton and Our Moribund Democracy
Andrew Stewart
The Democratic Plot to Privatize Social Security
Daniel Borgstrom
On the Streets of Oakland, Expressing Solidarity with Charlotte
Marjorie Cohn
President Obama: ‘Patron’ of the Israeli Occupation
Norman Pollack
The “Self-Hating” Jew: A Critique
David Rosen
The Living Body & the Ecological Crisis
Joseph Natoli
Thoughtcrimes and Stupidspeak: Our Assault Against Words
Ron Jacobs
A Cycle of Death Underscored by Greed and a Lust for Power
Uri Avnery
Abu Mazen’s Balance Sheet
Kim Nicolini
Long Drive Home
Louisa Willcox
Tribes Make History with Signing of Grizzly Bear Treaty
Art Martin
The Matrix Around the Next Bend: Facebook, Augmented Reality and the Podification of the Populace
Andre Vltchek
Failures of the Western Left
Ishmael Reed
Millennialism or Extinctionism?
Frances Madeson
Why It’s Time to Create a Cabinet-Level Dept. of Native Affairs
Laura Finley
Presidential Debate Recommendations
José Negroni
Mass Firings on Broadway Lead Singers to Push Back
Leticia Cortez
Entering the Historical Dissonance Surrounding Desafinados
Robert J. Burrowes
Gandhi: ‘My Life is My Message’
Charles R. Larson
Queen Lear? Deborah Levy’s “Hot Milk”
David Yearsley
Bring on the Nibelungen: If Wagner Scored the Debates
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]