by Fred
Baumgarten
I’ve
changed my mind. In September I wrote that I would not be fooled by
another salesman named Bernie peddling hope and change. I deplored
his foreign policy, and I still do. I questioned his commitment to
bringing about greater equality, and I still do. His “socialism”
is fake. At best, as others have said, he is a “social democrat.”
Up until now
I planned to sit this election out. For me, it is a matter of
conscience. Lending my support to any person who will use power to
kill innocent civilians, at home and abroad, physically pains me.
Lending my support to a broken electoral system just perpetuates it.
Personally, making a decision to vote for Sanders, or virtually
anyone else, is extremely difficult.
But here I
am, the day of the Iowa caucus, ready to vote in my home state of
Connecticut when the primary rolls around. “Probably,” because if
by the time of our primary Bernie has already been done in by the
broken voting system, which for no good reason gives Iowans and New
Hampshirites more power than most of the rest of us, then I will
return to my previous position and opt out.
Among the
legions of CounterPunch writers I admire, I owe a lot of my decision
to Dave Lindorff, who had a similar epiphany, if I may call it that,
in January. I don’t want to go over the ground he covered so well.
Suffice to say I am convinced Bernie is qualitatively different,
certainly from Obama, and substantively from other “outsider”
challenges.
What has
pushed me over the line is the tone of the attacks on Sanders that
have hit the media in the past week or two. They are clearly
indicative of the political establishment circling the wagons to
guard against a viable threat. That alone says Bernie’s arrows are
hitting home.
Predictably,
the euphemisms used include that Bernie is not “credible,” not
“qualified,” and not “pragmatic” enough to get the “job”
done. Aside from being absurd on its face, since he has been an
elected official for most of his adult life, these attacks are really
about someone who might just stick to his beliefs and fight for them,
rather than compromise them away to oblivion. That’s the dead end
track we’ve been on. “Experience” is code for “with the
program.” Terrified are those who think Bernie might actually carry
through on his policies and politics.
A more
disturbing challenge is represented by a recent article that equated
Sanders’ “anti-establishment” stance with “misogyny.” The
gist of the author’s polemic is that Hillary Clinton can’t, by
definition, be a member of the – white, male – political
establishment, and therefore Bernie’s calling her a representative
of the establishment is wrong and misogynistic. I admit I was pulled
in by the argument, until I realized a few things:
- The author places much emphasis on Obama’s role as the first black President. By being “more than a symbol,” his presidency has “changed the establishment forever.” Not so – as those of us who refused to vote for him in the past could see even before he was elected. It’s possible to yearn for an African American President, or a woman President, or an African American woman President (I sure do!) and still believe Obama has been a tool of the political establishment.
- The author passes over the fact that Hillary has done quite well in politics, thank you, even if the Oval Office has been denied her, and as a woman has held positions of power.
- From the point of view of Hilary’s political leanings, neoliberalism, war-hawkishness, Wall Street backing, and a host of quotations very well chronicled here, it is simply not credible to consider her anything but part of the “political establishment” (i.e. the duopoly), notwithstanding that her being a woman puts her in a difficult position. I can no more vote for Clinton than I could for that empty suit, Obama.
If a big
part of what keeps the political establishment entrenched is
corporate control over elections, then Sanders’ financing his
campaign with citizen-donations is a real antidote. It is proof that
he is putting his money where his mouth is. Unlike any candidate I
can think of, he has also opened himself up to feedback and
adaptation, as he did under initial criticism from the Black Lives
Matter movement. True, it could be a pose; and true, he drew the line
at reparations, unfortunately. But, call it a hunch, I think he is
genuine.
In response
to my not voting for a president for the last two election cycles,
and for proclaiming my intent not to vote in this one (as well as for
voting for Nader once), I have been regularly and publicly dressed
down by friends, families, and acquaintances. I’ve been told that I
forfeit any right to “complain,” whatever that means. I’ve been
told that I will have no voice at all if I don’t choose a
president, I’ll be responsible for a Trump presidency, and I’ll
be responsible for a right-wing Supreme Court and all that follows. I
have been informed that not only is it my obligation to vote for a
candidate, but it’s my obligation to vote for Hillary Clinton,
because of course if she doesn’t win, Trump or Cruz or some other
cretin will.
Now that I’m
proclaiming my support for Sanders, I expect the vitriol to be no
less intense, though maybe from some other quarters with different
arguments. Secretly my friends will suspect that maybe I’m a
misogynist, too, and don’t want a female president. I’ll be
accused of being “impractical” and “hopelessly idealistic,”
and of “wasting” my vote. And I’ll still be held personally
responsible for getting Trump elected!
What’s
ironic about this is what my friends don’t understand: that voting
at all, even for Bernie, half feels like a surrender to our murderous
façade of a system. But I’m willing to throw this one final Hail
Mary pass before seeing it torn down completely, as is my most
fervent hope.
Source:
Comments
Post a Comment