Well, Sanders suspended his campaign the other day.
I’m not sad, and I’m not here to conduct a pity party on behalf of anyone hurting. It’s been a long time since I thought him a force for net good in the progressive movement and its high time progressives reckon with that. Any reasonable look at his two presidential runs reveal deep, systemic flaws in his approach.
On the Supposed Weaknesses of Clinton and Biden
Let me grant, for the sake of argument, his Democratic opponents are weak. You thought Clinton was too “establishment” or “corrupt” or “neoliberal” to support? You think Biden is too “senile” or “gross” or “moderate” to run. Well, I have news for you: you misjudged those arguments on some combination of counts.
First, if Biden or Clinton were in fact that weak, Sanders is demonstrably weaker. Twice now in head-to-head elections Sanders has done worse. I’ve seen the argument that Sanders would have done better in the general, but its not a strong argument. The idea that there are a bunch of Sanders supporters waiting out the primaries to vote for him in the general strains credibility, and, even if you’re sold, his refusal to try and coax them into voting in the primary was an actual strategic misfire. Either Sanders is weak or he’s failing to bring his strength to bear—he’s weak in practice.
Second, that implies that your arguments for Sanders were not as persuasive as you think. If Clinton and Biden are in fact ripe for destruction, then Sanders’ vision of Democratic Socialism is even riper to be taken out. If the best Clinton and Biden can bring forward are easily dispatched, then why did your arguments for democratic socialism fail against them?
If you are very sure that Biden and Clinton are screamingly obvious misfires, that should raise a red flag for you: What does Sanders look like then outside of the demonstrably smaller pro-Sanders bubble? Progressives must choose someone who can overcome these “obvious” weaknesses, or adapt their agenda to the electorate.
On the Supposed Strength of Biden and Clinton
A possible takeaway from the preceding section is that Biden and Clinton are politically strong. That is, they were able to use the levers of power to make their policy weaknesses irrelevant. But again, this argument rebounds in full on Sanders.
There was a conspiracy conducted in broad daylight for Biden to secure the nomination. It wasn’t vague or shadowy either; Biden just did it. He got Klobuchar and Buttigieg to drop out right before Super Tuesday and endorse him, giving him a huge boost as the progressive wing split between Sanders and Warren. Sanders’ supporters cried foul—how could Biden call in favors and make promises! In politics, no less!
Let me be blunt: if Sanders is unwilling to pull those levers of power, he would make a terrible president. Sanders will have to work with Senators and other elected officials to advance his policy agenda. It recommends Biden to the job that he has the pull to broker deals with his rivals and create a winning coalition. I’m not asking you to like it; I’m a longtime Biden skeptic myself. But Biden was able to wield power effectively and Sanders was not. Heck, a major criticism of Biden—that I share!—is that he doesn’t want to wield those levers much. From that perspective, Sanders’ pitch requires more proof he can use the power of the Federal government, yet Biden still beats him on that metric.
Likewise, if Sanders was unable to pull the levers of power, he would make a terrible president. Blame Warren if it makes you feel better, but that rebounds on Sanders as well. I was assured for years they were friends with common goals, but let’s grant Warren is a conniving snake and a she-witch concerned only with her own power. If that is where Sanders places his confidence, if that is what the good relationships he has built in the Senate are worth, he cannot expect to pass Medicare for All or anything else.
These issues hardly came up with Clinton, though not for lack of his supporters trying to raise them. The DNC set the debate schedule before Sanders was a Democrat; remember, he changed party affiliation to run in 2015. The DNC added debates to accommodate him when he performed better than expected. Clinton got a lot of Superdelegate promises, but again, why couldn’t Sanders have called in his relationships to get elected Democrats to support him? “Superdelegates” are “the people the President will have to work with” if they win the general; Clinton getting more was actively damaging to his case for the presidency*. Superdelegates, however, ended up being besides the point as Clinton won a majority of pledged delegates in fair and free elections. But Clinton proved she would be better at wielding power.
In short, the political strengths of Clinton and Biden reflect on their ability to do the presidency. Sanders in turn revealed huge weaknesses in his movement; it was virtually non-existent in the House and Senate in 2016 and is still greatly lacking in 2020. Progressives must choose someone capable of wielding power in 2024.
On the Conspiracy Theories
A vocal minority of Sanders’ supporters have burned a lot of credibility arguing conspiracy theories. In my experience, its not worth arguing against conspiracy theorists, except for the fun of sharpening my debate skills. I will merely assert that most of the arguments of “rigged” polls are, to say the least, baseless. If you feel I’ve not considered some example of “rigged” polls, by all means, I have a comment section and I’ll take a look.
Sanders himself has equivocated on the issue. He has unambiguously said he thinks the elections themselves are conducted fairly, but he also claims the process is “rigged”. He is appalling vague on the latter point, giving a lot of room for that vocal minority of supporters to project their conspiracies anyway. He bears responsibility for that contradiction and the consequences therein.
Most of the time—the high profile exception in the Michigan primary in 2016 notwithstanding—Sanders’ support in polling matched his support in voting. Refusing to engage with those electoral realities is damning. (Voters are just not that into him!) That a sizable proportion of his voters are inventing reasons that he lost undermine the democratic norms of the United States run counter to the claim that his movement respects democracy**.
That he draws vocal conspiracy theorists is a structural weakness of his candidacy, and one he bears some responsibility for. Progressives must choose for 2024 a standard bearer willing to clearly address systemic flaws while realistically assessing actual support.
On the Bros
I’ve said a lot elsewhere about how progressives in 2024 must take seriously the complaints of potential allies who find the conditions around your headline campaign unbearable. Even if you refuse to believe it, (and, like, sigh), we do and failure to address it isn’t going to help your campaign. I won’t beat that dead horse too hard here, but seriously, addressing the toxic atmosphere around Sanders would have breathed oxygen into the campaign.
On the Cult of Personality
Progressives fighting moderates is a healthy primary. Having a preferred progressive candidate and spirited debate about it is normal. But there has been an appalling lack of perspective around Sanders, sometimes verging into outright hypocrisy.
Warren, Clinton, and Harris all have strong progressive selling points. Clinton and Harris have large drawbacks, and I will not begrudge anyone who wished Warren had stuck to more of her progressive bona fides as the primary progressed. However, Sanders’ supporters must admit then that Sanders too had progressive drawbacks: he has long supported positions advanced by the NRA and his diagnoses of America’s problems are not very intersectional, instead relying heavily on simple class analysis. The issue of intersectionality comes up concretely every time Sanders makes nice with anti-feminist reactionaries like Joe Rogan in exchange for working class support that may or may not materialize.
Ranking these things are complex, personal, and difficult. Those who put Sanders first are not in some way objectively wrong. I was unexcited to vote for Clinton in the 2016 primary in part because of her record on the Iraq War. I heavily weighed her apology—detailed, thoughtful, and backed by a different paradigm as Secretary of State—against that grave error. But, I begrudge those who gave it less weight nothing because she was constrained by Obama during that time. Either way, the idea that she was some kind of conservative Antichrist, which is where a lot of progressive rhetoric around her landed by the summer of 2016, was not warranted by the facts at hand. She has supported MFA from Washington for as long as Sanders has been there and worked to pass a number smaller progressive bills. A Clinton presidency should have been acceptable to any progressive who valued progressive outcomes.
I was assured that none of this had to do with sexism because Warren would receive a lot of support if she ran. I can send you some snake emojis if you still think that is true†.
Again, the point here isn’t that supporting Sanders was wrong. The point is that Sanders gets explicit passes for his political judgement but other progressives do not. The myth that Sanders alone can solve our problems is belied by the fact that Sanders alone has not. The cult of personality around him lacks perspective and is toxic to the progressive movement.
Progressives must reckon with the fact that only a broad-based movement that can tolerate different approaches will be successful.
On Waiting for the Revolution
One frustrating aspect of Sanders movement has been, if you can tune out the din online, how inert it is. Sanders has gotten some admirable low-stakes activism, mostly in the form of small donations to his campaign. But I can’t think of much more than that.
The theory of power that underlies both Sanders’ campaign and many of supporters’ worldview if that eventually people will get mad enough to support Sanders. Indeed, there was a theory in circulation that a Trump election was good for Sanders because four years of Trump would bring people to their senses. That does not appear to have panned out, to put it mildly.
Much of Sanders’ support has been predicated on the idea that if they wait long enough the revolution will come. It will not. It will the product of years of building layers—state and Federal resting on grassroots support. It will require compromise at the best of times and a recognition that without an outright majority of seats in the House and Senate, any victories will require giving something up elsewhere.
I’m a blogger, so I am required to be thoughtful when talking about online activism. I’m a bigger fan than most! But the idea that you can avoid touching the gears of power—either cooperatively or antagonistically—and expect the status quo to change is stunningly naive. Whoever leads the left in 2024 will need the support of real-world activism.
Conclusion
At his best—and especially as a Senator—Sanders is an insightful critic of economic inequality in the United States. But at his worst he is a scold obsessed with a single issue and poorly recommended by a thin practical record of affecting change and few allies at his side. Sanders will not likely be physically up for a 2024 run, which presents his movement with a real opportunity.
Moving beyond Sanders means a chance to build a larger base. It means getting beyond the binary thinking of ranking Sanders first or being a neoliberal shill. It means a chance to center a more holistic view of American inequality that is more intersectional and centers more women and people of color. It means focusing on down ballot runs and what we can achieve with the elected officials we have while trying to win seats with well-picked candidates rather than wishful talk of revolution.
But none of that will happen if his supporters, grieving as they are, do not take the time to honestly appraise Sanders’ record.
*You might walk away from this piece with the sense I support Superdelegates. In short, I much prefer the new rules where they only have a say in brokering a contested convention. They should not have the power to override a majority of voters, though the case against giving the party a say in brokering its own nomination process if the will of voters is unclear is much harder to make. The point here is merely that complaining that Sanders could not lean on his relationships with elected officials reveals a weakness.
**I don’t want to downplay systemic voter disenfranchisement in the United States. It’s real, and it bears talking about. But you can’t argue that a Sanders win is a legitimate manifestation of the will of the people and that a Sanders loss is the product of that disenfranchisement without a lot of credible proof. My beef is NOT with people who support greater polling access, but people who only come out to talk about it (and nothing else) after the votes are counted and Sanders has lost.
†I’ve actually laughed at the assertion that hating on Warren isn’t rooted in sexism because of AOC. The second time around you have to show up or shut up.
Proof of Burden 