Today marked the first day of signature gathering for a letter compiled by our local grassroots organization urging Bernie Sanders to commit to three simple positions.

Do not concede the Democratic Presidential nomination. Continue to disavow, not endorse, Hillary Clinton. Immediately begin laying the groundwork for an independent or third party run.

As you can imagine we were met with very mixed results. While overall the letter was met with a 50/50 positive vs. negative response, there are two other benefits which were already derived from our efforts. The first of these is our ability to seriously talk about issues concerning the “two-party system” and the ongoing failure of our democracy to produce the positive changes which are needed at this historical juncture. The second benefit is the capacity to assess where the general population is at politically, but why.

Political Fearmongering and the Continuation of the Status Quo

Among many of those who were concerned with the possible outcome of pushing Bernie to make an independent run, the layman prophets of the Santa Clara Farmer’s Market were out in full force. Not only are they able to predict that both presumed nominees and their future campaigns will succeed in their respective corners of the political market, but they are also able to predict the precise outcome of a Bernie Sanders run.

Spoiler alert: Trump wins.

Interestingly, there was one individual who was concerned that an independent run by Bernie would guarantee Hillary the White House. Despite the seemingly contradictory prophecy, only the name of the inevitable winner had changed. The overall message, undoubtedly revealed to this and all such individuals, remained the same.

The message:

We can’t allow that to happen. Allowing X to become president is not only overtly dangerous, it may very well, in fact, result in the collapse of the United States and the end of the world. At the very least we will lose all semblance of freedom and democracy.

This perennial argument is seemingly not dependent on the specific major party candidate or their potential spoilers. The real irony is that all while decrying the threat of a third-party candidate, the same freedom and democracy they say we risk undergoes continuous attacks.

When “a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush,” there is no impetus to seriously consider, investigate, or inevitably fix the clear cases of voter suppression, broken electoral systems, and outright fraud. Instead we are assured that we know why Gore lost. We had too many choices! We had too much freedom!

In short, we are told that Gore lost because we dared to practice democracy for a single election cycle.

As a prerequisite to this, any serious attempt to fix the actual problems in our democratic institutions, is necessarily a distraction from the real goal of protecting our freedom and democracy by not electing “the other.” We’re told we can always address those things later. Right now, we just need to unify and win this one, else we may lose our democracy altogether!

The Benefits of Limited Democratic Forms

Of course no system, no matter how terrible, is not without its benefits. But benefits are never without recipients. And benefits to all are no benefit at all. So who benefits?

The so-called “two-party system,” which “we have” and “can’t fix, so we have to make a choice,” definitely has its benefits. For Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump (currently), but more broadly for the two parties that constitute that “system,” those benefits are obvious.

In that system, you don’t have to be an excellent choice for president, you need merely be better than your opponent. More, you don’t even need to adequately make a case in favor of you and your policies, merely to make a case against your opponent’s. Indeed, it’s best if we don’t talk about policies at all very much. That might actually require us to commit to something. We can, instead, focus largely on the individual character which is preferable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it affords us the most speculation about how horrible their presidency will be.

In an effective “two-party system,” wherein the phrase itself justifies its own perpetuation, one does not need any sort of plurality to become the leader of the “free” world. Quite the contrary, the more people you can keep out of the system, the more likely you are to win. Although Bernie often makes this point as a criticism of Republicans only, recent events have shown this truism clearly extends to the Democrats too. The only problem was is that Bernie forgot he wasn’t a Democrat, or at the very least, he forgot he wasn’t as much of a Democrat as his opponent.

Again, we are faced with a condition wherein the incentive for change is conveniently suppressed by the most basic assumptions of our electoral process. If it will always be a fight between Democrats and Republicans then both parties have a vested interest in exclusion. They simply don’t need to convince as many people to be afraid of the alternative.

How Do We Regain a More Worthy Democracy?

Bernie began his campaign by pointing out the fact that the United States was dangerously approaching a system that appeared more as a form of oligarchy than it did democracy. He even suggested it may be, “too late,” as a way to hedge his own political viability.

Over a year later a huge number of the concerns he and his campaign expressed have been proven inconsequential by his own victories. This is not to say, for example, that money in politics is not a problem. It is. But it is not, at least yet, an insurmountable barrier. This is precisely why it is so important to strike while the iron is hot.

There may come a day not too far off wherein this barrier does become insurmountable. It will be a day when we don’t have a demonstrably progressive candidate with 30+ years of experience and personal integrity. It will be a day when the the voting rights act is an even more distant memory. It will be a day when we have failed to organize a viable grassroots presidential campaign for 8 or more years.

In order that we may protect our freedom and democracy, we must practice our freedom and democracy. What this means practically is that we must encourage choice, not discourage it. We need to assert our freedom to vote for who we want, not merely against those we fear. Any defense of the notion that can protect our freedom and democracy by consciously limiting choices we should have and the choices we should make is self-defeating. We must oppose all such language regardless of who we will inevitably vote for and whatever our reasons for that vote may be.

A Message to the Vigilant Pragmatist (Bernie)

For those who remain unconvinced by the philosophical argument, let me make a more practical case for an independent Bernie. In the past few days Bernie has amassed ~7000 people who have registered in the interest of running for local offices. Thousands more still have offered to volunteer. Combining this with the existing database of his own supporters, Bernie has the capacity to bootstrap a broad base of people who seek to expand the political revolution.

While this mitigates a number of concerns one might have for local and state level contests, we are left without a viable mechanism at the national level. A concession and endorsement of Hillary Clinton will not merely result in disillusionment of millions of enthusiastic supporters, it will sideline the coordinated organizational gains while efforts are redirected towards her support. Despite the political foresight required to admit Trump may win if we “split votes,” there is essentially no mention of what happens if Trump wins regardless. There is no mention of what happens if Hillary proves to be a significantly flawed candidate, incapable of victory even with the support of Sanders.

Pragmatists should not believe in prophets and despite all the self-assurances they can muster, a failure to form a contingency plan is perhaps an even greater disaster than not having one for the sake of “unity.” Without an ongoing and capable third option we find ourselves, potentially, in the weakest position possible. Namely, what we may find ourselves with is a floundering Democratic party; a party not merely incapable of victory, but equally incapable of offering a serious defense against future encroachment. Perhaps worse still, believing they need to actively foster such encroachment to regain their own political power.

In a system mired with advanced forms of voter suppression and potential election fraud, the 7000 candidates will face increasingly significant challenges. Without the immediate ongoing participation and continued engagement of Sanders supporters at a national level we will see months and potentially years of organizing gains washed away. An entire infrastructure may become lost for a handful of tepid attempts to restore what could amount to an self-obsoleting political machine, the Democratic party.

There is quite literally nothing to lose. If the fight between Clinton and Trump is close, then a nationally organized independent campaign can make a clear appeal to its supporters weeks before the election about the immediate need for political expediency, e.g. to vote for Clinton. Not only do those supporters remain engaged and more likely to receive that message, the message may, in fact, be much stronger because of the clear and imminent risk of a Trump presidency. In making such a last minute appeal as opposed to a highly speculative one based on vague concerns, the organizational arm of this new progressive movement, the political revolution, will be at the height of its strength with months of additional development.

Still, this appeal is a conscious and transient decision with the clear intent of doing what is politically expedient in that instant. The organization gets to continue immediately on its way, not missing a beat and may, in fact, gain more strength as “queen maker.”

Alternatively, should Trump inevitably win anyway due to the existing and real threats to our freedom and democracy, only with this effort will we remain in a position to immediately organize in opposition and to defend against the inevitable future attacks. Lastly, if Trump pulls significantly ahead, we may be the only viable opposition to truly defeat him. Perhaps too, we might simply win in what, regardless of our actions, could already be a three way race.

To become a third or fourth option is not and cannot be rightfully construed as a threat to freedom and democracy. It is necessarily the realization of freedom and democracy.