Don’t Laugh at the GOP if You’re a Sanders Supporter

The Republican debate on Thursday, March 3, was an instructive moment in American politics. Viewers watched as the GOP establishment attacked the front runner Donald Trump in a coordinated effort and ended with every candidate on the stage re-pledging to support the billionaire if and when he becomes the nominee.

Before anyone on the left starts making hay, though: Bernie Sanders already did the exact same thing for Hillary Clinton back in late 2014. Sanders swore, before his campaign even began, that he would support the likely Clinton general election candidacy.

The American political duopoly does not allow for principled independence.

For the GOP, forcing Republican candidates for the presidential nomination must have seemed like a stroke of genius back in August. At that time, a Trump nomination didn’t seem realistic. Party elders thought they could end a Trump independent bid for the presidency by forcing a public pledge during a prime-time debate.

Things didn’t work out the way the GOP establishment wanted them to. Trump not only refused to pledge allegiance to party over self in August (he later recanted), he actually gained support in the aftermath of that public stand. It’s support that has continued, despite the efforts of party brass and his two closest challengers Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.

Now, all three candidates sharing the limited real estate on the Republican stage- Cruz, Rubio, and John Kasich-have pledged once again that they will support Trump if and when he is the GOP nominee.

Many liberals have pointed out the hypocrisy in spending two hours tearing down an admittedly repulsive politician, only to end those hours by pledging to support him in the event of his nomination. And they are right- this is the lowest form of hypocrisy and craven partisan pandering.

A vote for Rubio, Cruz, or Kasich is a vote for Trump.

Unfortunately, if a begrudging pledge by Trump’s fellow Republicans to support him in the general election renders their criticism of him toothless, then what does that say about a pledge by an Independent Senator from Vermont whose candidacy is ostensibly based on striking terror in the hearts of the Democratic establishment?

Or, to put it a different way: If Sanders wants to “highlight differences between himself and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton” on issues relating to party orthodoxy re free trade and the corporatocracy, that’s fine as long as he doesn’t pretend those differences really mean anything. Because they don’t if the nominal socialist plans to endorse Clinton anyway, with no conditions- which is, again, exactly what he promised to do.

It puts the lie to Sanders’ declaration that he and Clinton are “trying to treat the American people with intelligence.” Sanders is selling his supporters out to a different degree than other sheepdog Democrat candidates before him by promising to support the eventual Democratic nominee and not to run third party; his nominal independence could have left the possibility open but he closed the door on it before he even announced his candidacy.

A vote for Sanders is a vote for Clinton.

This leaves Sanders supporters with two viable ideological options: Either their candidate runs third party, in which case he is at least as much a liar as Clinton; or he endorses her and is a toothless Democratic Party shill whose candidacy only exists to shepherd unenthusiastic progressives to the party and Clinton.

These are similar to the two options that face the Republican electorate: Either their candidates reject the buffoonery and flirtation with white nationalism that the Trump campaign has begun to represent; or they agree to endorse him in the event he wins the nomination, rendering all their complaints meaningless.

The latter is the realistic choice for each party. And that will only lead to more disillusionment and anger, because even in the face of the public’s utter rejection of establishment politics and partisan power plays, the duopolistic political machine continues onward into the future, crushing hope and idealism under the weight of its well funded heels. Sanders or Rubio, Clinton or Trump- it makes no difference in the end.

As long as the American electoral system is allowed to run as a duopoly, rhetoric and movements within the two parties will be empty and fail to create any alternative to the political system. The empty promise of the Sanders candidacy and the craven refusal to buck party bosses by the non-Trump GOP candidates makes this crystal clear.

The partisan adherence to party loyalty is everything that is wrong with modern American politics in our modern era.

More articles by:

Eoin Higgins has a master’s degree in history from Fordham University. He lives in New York.

July 17, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Trump & The Big Bad Bugs
Robert Hunziker
Trump Kills Science, Nature Strikes Back
John Grant
The Politics of Cruelty
Kenneth Surin
Calculated Buffoonery: Trump in the UK
Binoy Kampmark
Helsinki Theatrics: Trump Meets Putin
Patrick Bond
BRICS From Above, Seen Critically From Below
Jim Kavanagh
Fighting Fake Stories: The New Yorker, Israel and Obama
Daniel Falcone
Chomsky on the Trump NATO Ruse
W. T. Whitney
Oil Underground in Neuquén, Argentina – and a New US Military Base There
Doug Rawlings
Ken Burns’ “The Vietnam War” was Nominated for an Emmy, Does It Deserve It?
Rajan Menon
The United States of Inequality
Thomas Knapp
Have Mueller and Rosenstein Finally Gone Too Far?
Cesar Chelala
An Insatiable Salesman
Dean Baker
Truth, Trump and the Washington Post
Mel Gurtov
Human Rights Trumped
Binoy Kampmark
Putin’s Football Gambit: How the World Cup Paid Off
July 16, 2018
Sheldon Richman
Trump Turns to Gaza as Middle East Deal of the Century Collapses
Charles Pierson
Kirstjen Nielsen Just Wants to Protect You
Brett Wilkins
The Lydda Death March and the Israeli State of Denial
Patrick Cockburn
Trump Knows That the US Can Exercise More Power in a UK Weakened by Brexit
Robert Fisk
The Fisherman of Sarajevo Told Tales Past Wars and Wars to Come
Gary Leupp
When Did Russia Become an Adversary?
Uri Avnery
“Not Enough!”
Dave Lindorff
Undermining Trump-Putin Summit Means Promoting War
Manuel E. Yepe
World Trade War Has Begun
Binoy Kampmark
Trump Stomps Britain
Wim Laven
The Best Deals are the Deals that Develop Peace
Kary Love
Can We Learn from Heinrich Himmler’s Daughter? Should We?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Franklin Lamb, Requiescat in Pace
Weekend Edition
July 13, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Brian Cloughley
Lessons That Should Have Been Learned From NATO’s Destruction of Libya
Paul Street
Time to Stop Playing “Simon Says” with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: In the Land of Formula and Honey
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s Intellectuals Bow to the Queen of Chaos 
Michael Collins
The Affirmative Action Silo
Andrew Levine
Tipping Points
Geoff Dutton
Fair and Balanced Opinion at the New York Times
Ajamu Baraka
Cultural and Ideological Struggle in the US: a Final Comment on Ocasio-Cortez
David Rosen
The New McCarthyism: Is the Electric Chair Next for the Left?
Ken Levy
The McConnell Rule: Nasty, Brutish, and Unconstitutional
George Wuerthner
The Awful Truth About the Hammonds
Robert Fisk
Will Those Killed by NATO 19 Years Ago in Serbia Ever Get Justice?
Robert Hunziker
Three Climatic Monsters with Asteroid Impact
Ramzy Baroud
Europe’s Iron Curtain: The Refugee Crisis is about to Worsen
Nick Pemberton
A Letter For Scarlett JoManDaughter
Marilyn Garson
Netanyahu’s War on Transcendence