FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

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.

Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail