Our new issue, “After Bernie,” is out now. Our questions are simple: what did Bernie accomplish, why did he fail, what is his legacy, and how should we continue the struggle for democratic socialism? Get a discounted print subscription today !

Michael Bloomberg is the kind of rich person Donald Trump aspires to be. While both men are billionaires, Bloomberg boasts a vastly greater net worth. While both men slap their likenesses on business enterprises, Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Radio easily outpace Trump University or Trump Steaks. And while both are rank misogynists, Bloomberg has even more women who have accused him of sexual harassment than Trump. The two are also similar on a political level — especially if we ignore Bloomberg’s newfound commitments to a variety of liberal positions he didn’t pretend to support in the recent past (just last year, Bloomberg was calling trans people “it” and warning about “a guy in a dress” going into women’s locker rooms.) Like Trump, Bloomberg is very concerned about undocumented immigrants — so much so that he once advocated that all Social Security cards include fingerprints to stop such workers from getting jobs. Like Trump, Bloomberg has a long history of making openly racist comments about racial minorities and crime. Nor was this just idle talk — from the horrifying “stop and frisk” program to the mini-police-state he set up for Muslims in New York City, Mayor Bloomberg put his Trump-like ideas into practice. Despite all these parallels between the two oligarchs, some progressives may have trouble letting go of the idea that everyone has a duty to vote for the Democratic nominee — even if that nominee ends up being Michael Bloomberg — to deny Trump a second term. Their slogan is “vote blue no matter who” — no matter what role the “blue” candidate played at the 2004 Republican Convention or who he was doing fundraisers for as recently as 2018. That’s a red line we can’t cross.

The Standard Case for Lesser-Evil Voting In 2016, most Bernie supporters held their noses and voted for Hillary Clinton. The former secretary of state had a terrible record on issues ranging from NAFTA to welfare reform to the invasion of Iraq. Even so, most leftists decided that there were good moral and strategic reasons, at least in swing states, to pull the lever for her on Election Day. First, although Clinton would have inherited Barack Obama’s mantle of “Deporter-in-Chief,” there was no reason to think she would do things like try to institute a Muslim ban or systematically separate immigrant and refugee families. She would have been a good custodian of a deeply unjust status quo, but she wouldn’t have initiated any lurch to the Right. Second, Clinton is a loyal product of the Democratic machine. Her appointees to bodies ranging from the Supreme Court to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to the Environmental Protection Agency would have been standard-issue Democratic nominees — mediocre from a left-wing perspective, but certainly better than standard-issue Republican nominees. Third, a mass defection of left-wing votes from Clinton in swing states would have made it easier for centrists to demonize and marginalize the Left as they did after Al Gore’s loss in the 2000 election. Finally, the political terrain would have been more advantageous to the Left if our chief enemy was a centrist Democrat rather than a far-right Republican. I was sympathetic to this perspective in 2016, and it still seems correct to me in retrospect. If the Democrats nominate some terrible Clintonian like Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg, I’ll probably vote for them. (I live in Georgia, which hasn’t historically been a swing state, but might be in the process of becoming one.) A Bloomberg nomination, however, would be too much. No one should vote to replace one Republican oligarch with another.