Bernie's home stretch campaigning must prepare his loyal followers to be ready to support Hillary Clinton.

Many of Bernie's supporters are angry at the notion of compromise itself. Hillary's positions on war, money in this campaign, etc. are seen as moral failures about which no compromise is acceptable.

But, it's too broad of a statement to say that compromise itself is bad or immoral or never a good option. No relationship can survive without compromise and no politician can either. We are not absolute rulers in exclusive kingdoms but members of a polity made up of diverse and opposing opinions and we must work to find common ground to get things done. 

It took Hillary a while to learn this and Bernie too. As an office holder, he has had to compromise on just about everything he stands for--he could not have survived this long without that-- but his supporters feel this is a mistake for them now. Bernie voted for the war in Afghanistan, but not the one in Iraq. He voted against holding gun sellers liable for acts of violence perpetrated by their customers. He has taken money from individual bankers but not banks themselves. I respect these positions of his and salute his spirit of compromise as a Senator and a candidate. I do not think his campaigning against Clinton now is insincere nor inappropriate. He is making his points and driving to the convention to get the Democrats on a better political footing even as they nominate Hillary. But he should not portray Hillary as a slimeball politician; he will wind up supporting her as he should, after turning off many of his current supporters that are needed to get Hillary elected over Trump. That is a compromise he will make, after getting some policy concessions from the party and from her, and one that he needs to prepare his supporters to make as well.

My letter about Bernie Sanders has just been published, though it's a week or so behind events, including the New York primary. It still represents my opinion of a candidate I want to support but no longer can. His plan to "flip" the super delegates continues his reckless drive to the top that will surely find him out of contention before the convention.

Letters   04/21/2016

What does Bernie really want?

As an early Sen. Bernie Sanders’, I-Vermont, supporter I have to ask now, after he’s become a nasty Hillary critic, what does he really want?

To accomplish his fantastic campaign goals, he calls for nothing less than a national “revolution.” With his down-ballot impact disturbingly invisible, his enthused supporters must grow in number, rise up and replace existing officeholders in a clean sweep. He no longer wants to engage in the long bloody battles that require frustrating compromise to get half a loaf. He’s done with that.

He’s a purist on a sacred mission, which can only be accomplished on his terms and no other’s. He’s the secular version of evangelical politicians, with his followers espousing the same absolutist positions as the noble leader. He’s made those positions the conditions for supporting Hillary. He’s not going to take half a loaf even now, even if it costs the Democrats — his newly adopted party — the election. This surely has something to do with his long-frustrated career as a progressive outsider, now potentially unwilling to support his capable rival, whose own potential revolution as a woman president means nothing to him. So he assaults her.

The more Hillary gets maligned by him and the other absolutist males, and the more they portray her as scarred and bloodied and scandal-ridden, the more I like her. She‘s the ring-battered, tested champ facing a stable of down-card amateurs who have not yet felt her counterpunches. They are coming.

To foment his political and cultural revolution, he attacks Clinton, the winner of primaries and the delegate and vote leader, and charges her with "obscene" fundraising, and then wants the party to embrace him and his cadre of untested millennials to carry the day. Really? A national campaign will require funding from many sources. Most of the women, minorities, regulars, electeds and endorsers will not follow if he as the nominee defines himself as the only pure one. So, the Democrats lose — but that’s OK with his supporters, if he loses on principle — Bernie’s whole career practice.

I now see him as more of a self-obsessed idealist than a capable reformist and national leader. He's waited 40 years to pick his all-defining fight with the Democrats and he's found at long last his big opportunity—attack Hillary, his Democratic team rival, whom he now, in this crucial election, defines as an establishment hack. He won’t commit to supporting her and has said he would not appoint her to a position in his cabinet.

Bernie Sanders is surely now a force to be reckoned with — as the most effective source of a frustrating loss by the Democrats to the right wing champions of repression and greed.

Robert Chianese

Ventura

            Political discourse for this election seems over-the-top extreme. How we can account for this? It may be due to the intensity and consequences of the issues themselves and the dismay and anger of the population as a whole. Also, the rise of the radical right helps make hyperbole and exaggeration the norm: with 17 initial candidates, the Republicans have had to find ways to shout over all their own noise.

            But another phenomena may account for most of the acrimony of the whole campaign itself-- that is, much of it is being conducted through the Internet and on twitter. Discourse on such media has become dependent on hyperbole, with essays, comments, and twitter remarks often taking the form of inflammatory headlines and droll sound bites, as if anything one says in this new media environment must sound like the front page of a tabloid newspaper, with slanderous exposes or snide mockery grabbing our attention.

            Individual candidates get defined by taglines such as those that Donald Trump himself assigns to people: Lyin’ Ted, Low-energy Jeb, Crooked Hillary. Such epithets somehow stick even though they exemplify schoolboy bullying tactics. It's as if once a name or phrase gets enunciated, it becomes a persistent short hand for referring to the candidate, whether it fits or not.

            The source of this extremism perhaps lies in the “either / or” framing of questions and issues that predominate the Internet. Such black-and-white options take us off the hook of critical thinking and result in us feeling that we've made some cogent opinion about whatever issue we’re being asked to comment about. And the extensive polling, official and casual, makes us feel even more privileged to offer opinions that may do nothing more than ratify comments and positions we see endlessly on the Internet.

            The exaggerated extremes have become the norm. For the Democrats, Hillary is an establishment tool or an experienced and tested policy expert. Sanders is a naïve dreamer or a radical visionary. She is seen as untrustworthy and vile in comparison to his ideological purity and virtuousness, or he is an impractical incompetent compared to her skill at getting things done. All of of this mindless short hand now qualifies as thinking.

There are thoughtful and extensive analyses of the political situation on the Internet. I forwarded one last week in which Tom Hayden, former member of SDS and a once hated radical, wound through his reasonings about the benefits of Bernie versus Hillary, finally winding up supporting her. I thought it was important to follow his reasoning as well as acknowledge that a former radical could finally settle on someone like Hillary.

Strangely enough that forward provoked quite nasty responses. One of my dear friends attributed Hayden's shift to moderate liberalism to getting old and having a heart attack. But the worst response was from a distant female friend who was vicious not about Hayden, but about Hillary and about me for even sending it:

Bob, Thanks for your due diligence, of sorts--perhaps more 'keep things the way they are with modest changes'--but I'm a Bernie supporter and will remain so.  Hillary lies.   Hillary takes money from Wall Street and Big Pharma.  And MONSANTO!   And lies and lies and lies.   I have personal experience with her lies when she ran against Obama, who I am quite unhappy with though he's finally getting his cojones (pardon my vulagarity) when it's likely too late, as well as now. 

I'm ashamed H's a female.   If she were to be the Democratic candidate I might not be able to vote, or I might just vote for an Independent.   She is slick, lies, and takes money and wants to keep Wall Street and Big Bidness as is, with a tweak here and there.   The only Progressive changes she's made (rather, says she's made) have come as a result of Bernie gaining favor with so many of us.

I'm rather amazed that you are at least seemingly supporting her.

Again, no response to the detailed claims and arguments of Tom Hayden, just rehearsal of nasty claims and that final parting shot at me.

What I am hoping by setting up the blog is that we could discuss the pros and cons of Clinton and Sanders with some insight and care and keep our eyes on the Republicans too.  I am willing to try it.

HOWEVER, some of us oldsters can’t seem to work the blog, which requires you sign in with a Google account or a facebook account in order to make a comment. I won’t post things for you after the first go round. The addresses of my “Liberal” list serve now appear in the address box so you can ‘Reply to All,” but the blog is better since clearer about who is commenting on what to whom.

  

The ADDRESS is      http://debating2016election.blogspot.com/

Bob

 Bob Chianese's Initiating Comment on email April 20, 2016

Well, Hillary did it, by 16 points, and Bernie left the field, but for his home in Vermont to "recharge." He's apparently planning to fight on until the convention where he will try to pry loose those Clinton-committed super delegates. It doesn't matter to him that she has a couple million more popular votes and many more earned delegates. His claim that polls show him able to beat Trump better than Clinton is his battle cry.

The question is whether he will recharge to launch more attacks on Hillary, which may have cost him more than a few points in the election today, or begin the process of becoming a help to the Democratic party to beat Trump (or Ryan/Haley). This is the crucial question that goes right to the essence of his character--is he forever a dreamy outsider purist or a wounded and seasoned pragmatist. This must be a tough night for him, where he needs to look in and discover his core values before the speaks in the morning and decides how to move ahead.
Bob Chianese