0 Shares 0



0

0







In a perverse way Donald Trump summed it up:

"Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs."

But does this ignore the reality of American politics, which is ultimately political survival?

The cries of 'sellout' are infiltrating our airwaves, the internet and the echo chambers on the liberal left. Depending on who you talk to, those who rode the Bern train now feel utterly sickened and betrayed.

How quick and easy Sanders sold his principals and turned his abhorrence to Clinton into sweet endorsement they argue. Miserable hypocrisy rolls over American politicians. They collectively ask themselves "How much have they paid you, Bernie? At least Trump is a straight forward guy who cares about his people. Clinton, on contrary, is a warlord backed by Wall Street, oil corporations and Pentagon."

Then there's a more tangible sense of disappointment. Those who now wonder what a monumental waste of time, money and energy the entire Sanders ride was. Better to not even start if you don't have what it takes to go all the way, they would argue. Rolling over and endorsing the person who embodies everything corrupt and rotten in American politics was about the worst thing he could've done, they contend.

He gave up his leverage, rendered himself irrelevant, and further empowered the death grip of the establishment all in one fell swoop. And for what? A few non-binding promises from a pack of known thieves and liars. That was sure worth the sacrifice. Not. What a pathetic end to what was a truly inspiring campaign, they will tell themselves.

And then an ugly reality hits. This is American politics.

If logic were to prevail, those who have acquiesced would simply argue that Sanders couldn't win, that has been clear for some time. But instead of stubbornly and stupidly shouting into the void, he's decided to use his newfound leverage to force a reshaping of Clinton's manifesto.The logic being along the lines that when you can't win the big victory, you make sure you can win some small victories that end up having lasting effects.

Bernie's running as a Democrat because he recognizes that you can't get elected unless you're the nominee for one if the two parties -- you can't compete with the highly developed party structure, the resources for research, the mature databases, and of course, the money. It's one thing for Bernie to have raised the kind of money he has thus far, but a presidential race as the nominee will become exponentially more expensive. Even Trump has said he'll need money from the GOP if he's the nominee because it's so incredibly costly.

Bernie is an independent and his choice to run under the Democratic Caucus is political survival.

Since Ross Perot, name a candidate outside of the two parties that has been invited to the televised debates. The system is rigged and Bernie knows it.There are aspects to it that you must engage in to stay where you can try and bring positive change.

It would be interesting to know how Clinton and Sanders have compromised on policies. Will Clinton regulate Wall Street more? Will she get corporations to pay more tax? Will she commit to end fracking? Will she introduce a $15 minimum wage? Will she be less hawkish in the Middle East? I can understand the need to unite against Trump but their campaigns have been diametrically opposed to each other throughout the primaries. Bernie offered hope, Clinton offered more of the same.

Clinton will make some "progressive" noises and will promptly forget about them the second she is confirmed president and can start preparing the next war, we might argue.

The presidency is practically a figurehead position. If it had any real power without the support of Congress, then after eight years of Obama we would have gun control, universal healthcare, and effective paths to citizenship for (some) undocumented immigrants. The Republican-controlled Congress has thwarted all of these progressive policy proposals. I don't say that in some constitution-praising love-in about how wonderful the system of checks and balances is - it leads to political gridlock and at times outright paralysis, particularly thanks to conservative ideological rigidity - but to point to how it works in practice.

The bogeyman of the moment is the Supreme Court nominations issue. Republicans have so vehemently signalled their intransigence ahead of time that Obama has barely bothered attempting to replace Scalia. And yet the issue is a rallying cry for Democrats seeking unity and support for Clinton from progressive Bernie supporters: Trump could potentially nominate up to three lifetime conservative appointments to the bench, potentially setting back liberal issues for decades.

This is not wholly inaccurate – though it sounds like Clinton propaganda to me – but if Obama's experience is anything to go by, Trump's going to have an equally difficult time. Even with a Republican-held Congress, he has to face the problem that his party hates him and, even if they didn't, there are more pragmatic politicians who would veto the likely mind boggling appointments he would likely attempt.

So here's the hypothetical gamble. Sanders supporters (and, in my experience, good numbers of people who aren't card-carrying Bernie supporters but can't in good conscience vote for Clinton) end up letting Trump have the presidency by abstaining.

As that terrible reality looms near, it galvanises Democratic supporters to vote downballot congressional races (which they don't usually turn out for) to ensure Trump's ideas don't see the light of day. Even if that support can't be mobilised this year, it almost certainly will be in the mid-term elections two years later when people start to realize how crazy (but ineffectual) he is, putting in a Democrat-controlled Congress for his last two years, at which point he is certainly likely to be voted out as a one-term president.

So, the gambling question is: with no policy experience, surrounded by either equally inexperienced people or safer pairs of hands in his inner circle, with a hostile Republican *or* Democrat congress blocking him, what can he possibly achieve in two years other than nominating someone more conservative than Scalia - assuming such a person (barring Ted Nugent) can be found? And what's to say their appointment would be confirmed?

To me, the Clinton schtick to reluctant Bernie supportes is "vote for me or the kitten dies". While that works to some extent, there's that argument risking a Trump win might have a lot of strategic value in denying Clinton's guaranteed program of more-of-the-same-but=worse. The question is whether a) the US trust the political system of checks and balances to tame some of Trump's excesses and b) whether they can be persuaded to turnout in congressional and state elections to guarantee a).

To the ideologues and Sanders supporters in tears, perhaps an ugly reality just burst the bubble. It's a single-member-district, winner-take-all election coupled to a two party system. It's always been about the lesser of only two evils. You should've copped that in high school civics. Our peculiar twist on democracy usually makes Presidential elections an issue of damage control.

Sanders always said a political revolution wasn't about him or any one candidate. It was both wonderfully true and also sounded like a tacit admission he wasn't going to win. In my mind he has now fallen on his sword and we must all pick up the work.