Thoughts on Bernie Sanders' endorsement of Hillary Clinton

On July 12th, 2016, Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.  He concedes the nomination to Hillary Clinton.  He congratulates her on the nomination and states he will do whatever it takes to allow her to become president to ensure a Democratic victory on November 8th.  He praises Hillary's supposed promises to create a living wage, as well as to rebuild crumbling infrastructure.  This will of course contrast with Trump's plan to nominate a right-wing Supreme Court Justice and to cut minimum ages.  

While this move has finally ended Bernie Sanders' conflict with the Democratic Party, it has split Sanders' progressive base.  Some believe that Sanders made the right decision, rooted in his earlier promises that he will endorse Clinton to defeat Donald Trump.  They believe that the threat of Donald Trump and the alt-right eclipses any sort of protest that could be achieved by voting Third Party.  Thus it is wrong to support Green Party presumptive nominee Jill Stein because all that would do is take away votes from Clinton, viewing Trump's plans to be detrimental to a progressive America because of his far-right polices.  Others believe that the Sanders' "Political Revolution" laid the grounds for genuine independence from the Democratic Party through an independent Left.  Consequently, they view Sanders' endorsement as a sell-out or a betrayal.  When looking at these arguments, I feel that, while Bernie Sanders may not have sold out(at least in my opinion), the latter camp is in the right, and that it was wrong for Bernie Sanders to have endorsed Hillary at this stage of the campaign.   That is because Hillary's behavior often makes it hard to believe that she would stay true to fighting for a progressive campaign, and this was in fact reflected in certain campaign decisions that was made by her as the convention neared.  Likewise, if she becomes president, it would not be guaranteed if she would actually move to implement more progressive policies because of the supreme court of whatnot as, much of which has come about as progressive policies was due to grassroots activism.  

It also bears noting that this endorsement could actually benefits the alt-right, whom would use Bernie's endorsement to paint Bernie as "corrupt" or no different than the rest.  This will be contrasted with Trump, who would be seen as "incorruptible" and the only one to "deliver" America from corruption.


Did Bernie Sell out?

Before an analysis on why Bernie's endorsement was wrong can begin, it is important to analyze the belief that he has "sold out" in supporting Clinton.  My opinion may be biased given my support of him, but I do not think he sold out.  That is because, Sanders himself emphasized that it was not enough to vote in Hillary but to continue to build strong progressive movements.  And he himself has started progressive think tanks to help progressive candidates to be elected into office.  USA Today reported that Sanders has launched the Our Revolution political organization to help progressive candidates running for a wide range of public offices at least through the 2016 elections.  Furthermore, while Sanders said he would endorse Clinton, there are some implications from body language that it was a reluctant and hard choice, particularly after an intense campaign of questioning Clinton's own merits as president.  Therefore it may be a bit hard to truly say Sanders has sold out, through my assertion my be biased here.

If Not, Why Was it a Mistake?

Yet, I feel it was a mistake for Sanders to endorse Clinton under the belief that the democrats have been pushed to the left and that Trump would be devastating to a progressive movement in the nation. This is because of Clinton's own track record of flip-flopping that may be hinder any progressive initiatives promised by Clinton.  One of Sanders' preceived achievements in supposedly pushing Clinton to the left is on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement(TPP), which Sanders opposed on the basis that the TPP would protect the interests of large multinational corporations at the expense of the working class, the consumers and the environment.  He also stated that the TPP would force American workers to compete with low wage labour around the world, which causes massive job losses and the shutting down of American factories and industry.  Sanders' bringing the TPP as a key issue supposedly shifted Clinton to the left, this being due to the Clinton campaign calling for trade rules being enforced in a way that will benefit American workers.  Clinton also stated she would consider a $15 minimum wage phased in incrementally dependent on the impact of the new wage on areas with lower costs of living.

Yet even before the national convention could happen, the Democrat Party is already starting to take measures to reject elements of Sanders' platform that Hillary supposedly moved to the left as a result of Sanders' campaign.  On June 25, 2016, it was reported that the DNC, in a Missouri meeting, rejected much of Sanders' proposals to reform the democratic party.  For instance, representative Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a Sanders representative, attempted to insert language into the platform that stated Democrats would not hold a vote on the TPP in order to effectively end the plan’s prospects, but this proposal was rejected supposedly as to avoid indirectly criticizing President Obama on the issue, despite Clinton's supposed newfound opposition the deal.  While Sanders supporters did see progress on issues such as opposition to the death penalty and the $15 dollar wage, several significant proposals were rejected outright. 350.org founder Bill McKibben tried to insert language on both a carbon tax and a national moratorium on fracking, but both were rejected.  The committee also rejected Sanders' desire for a single-payer healthcare policy, this being stated by Hillary to be a policy that has no place in America despite 58% of Americans support federally funded healthcare policies.   

Overall, while Sanders believed that Clinton would be more progressive and now ready to push for a progressive America, the rejecting of significant elements of Sanders platform and the dems backtracking on committed opposition to the TPP raises questions about if Clinton is really committed to a progressive platform, or is simply poaching Bernie supporters for votes she needs to defeat Trump.  This rift between Berniecrat Progressives and democrats was even apparent in the Missouri meeting, with Cornel West choosing not to vote on the platform decided in Missouri and Caleb-Michael Files,  the digital strategist for People for Bernie Sanders, deciding the platform was neoliberal rather than progressive.

In fact, the notion that the democrat party needs to stand for and stay true to progressive values, an issue raised by Sanders, has received backlash from democrats.  On July 6th, 2016, it was reported that Bernie Sanders was booed by house democrats simply for pointing out that upholding progressive policies are more important than defeating Trump.  This demonstrates that Sanders' message is not taken seriously by certain elements of the democrat party.  Ultimately, despite Clinton's supposed shift to the left, there are signs that the shift may just be supposed opportunistic rhetoric used to capitalize on Sanders' supporters as voters against Trump.

Another reason why Bernie Sanders was wrong to endorse Clinton was because of the fact that it ignores other factors that could be used to make the country more progressive, but implies that "we need to have a democratic president for any hope for progressive politics to take root".  While Sanders implied that activism, not politics are what's needed to move the country forward, his implication was that we needed Hillary at the helm for America to become more progressive.  The key point of this argument lies in the importance of the Supreme Court appointments in the wake of Conservative Judge Antonin Scalia's death.  While Obama has appointed centrist Merrick Garland to succeed Scalia, Republicans are blocking his choice and Trump seemingly has a list of conservatives to continue Scalia's conservative role in the Supreme Court.  Thus because Hillary would uphold the nomination of Garland, but Trump seeks to maintain the conservative dominance of the Supreme court, it appears to be vital for a centrist to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Yet, this assertion infers that a progressive Supreme Court, as well as a progressive governing body, would be needed to make America more progressive.  This assertion neglects the role of grassroots activism in pushing the American government to adapt more left leaning policies.  Back in 2015, on May 1st, David Swanson of WorldBeyondWar.org stated on Counterpunch that while he is glad that Sanders is in the race and he would prefer Sanders or Stein to Clinton by a long shot, he believes that activists should not invest all their time and energy in electing a progressive president, stating that it was more important to organize energy in organizing  "against racism, militarism, extreme materialism, and the corruption of our elections ever seen, complete with food supplies and bail funds for as long as it takes" or for a genuinely progressive and pro-peace election(he states "Instead of a march for nothing, how about an occupation for no more Bushes or Clintons or anyone like them?"  Swanson cited that grassroots movements and activism was intergral in ending child labour, giving women the right to vote, and ending the war on Vietnam escalated under presidents Johnson and Nixon.

In fact, a constant critique of Sanders from the left is his faith in the need for a president to be progressive for activism to flourish.  Paul Street argues on Counterpunch, in an early critique of the Sanders campaign, that while Sanders understands that a popular movement is needed to push the country left, his belief in having a movement organize and change the democratic party from within may be detrimental to movement building because it runs the risk of the Democratic party co-opting the discourse of any activist movement that was nominally independent to political partisanship, Street argues that the Democratic Party has been the "graveyard of popular movements" ranging from the Populists of the 1890s to the Winsconsin "worker rebellion" against Governor Walker in 2011.

In recent years, the success of grassroots activism could be seen in two instances.  One instance was the 2013 decision by the US government to launch military attacks on Syria.  This was opposed by a mass antiwar movement that petitioned and called on members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, to vote against the war; ultimately causing Obama to withdraw from escalating operations in Syria.  Likewise, the use of grassroots activism was also important in allowing for greater LGBT rights in America, when popular pressure caused the Supreme Court, which had Scalia as a Judge at the time, to make same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.

Looking at Garland's credentials, assuming Hillary wins, then it is not guaranteed he would be more progressive.  For instance, Garland has voted against detainees at Guantánamo, and he has supported a unanimous opinion in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission that gave rise to “super PACs.” in the wake of citizens united.  Therefore, it is hard to say that Garland will be more inclined to progressive opinion without pressure just because the GOP dosen't like him and Hillary would uphold Obama's choice.

Lastly, by stating how Hillary would be necessary in moving the country in a progressive direction and neglecting how the country could move to the right under Hillary(such as Merrick Garland's own credentials and the DNC's snubbing of Sanders), Sanders neglects other ways in which the country could be prevented from moving to the right even under a Republican or alt-rightist government.  While a republican government under the control of the alt-right will legitimatize their xenophobia, it does not rule out how activists could form movements to counter the alt-right in power.  For instance, the 2018 midterm elections could be crucial in pushing for more progressives and Berniecrats in office against alt-right or establishment politicians.  Likewise, there could be movements dedicated to pushing for getting the Greens on ballot access or local offices such as sheriffs or state representatives, to oppose the alt-right, as well as establishment Democrats and Republicans.

So what does this mean for the Alt-Right?

Because Clinton's record does not paint a pretty picture of Clinton as a effective progressive choice, Sanders' endorsement could actually end up benefiting the alt-right.  That is because they will present themselves as the only "pure" ones in a "corrupt" system.  Donald Trump has, for instance tried to capitalize on the Sanders' supporters by stating he would welcome any Sanders supporter that comes to the Republicans in the event of a Hillary victory.  He himself also used this to paint himself as more "purer" than Sanders, stating that Sanders' endorsement was like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs because of Clinton's voting record.  And of course, "he's not Clinton".  Considering that some Sanders supporters feel Clinton to be worse than Trump and that half of Sanders millennial supporters would vote third party if Clinton wins, there is an opening for Trump to deliver this message: "the left" is made of sellouts and opportunists, but the far right is "pure" and represents the wishes of the American people.  "Therefore vote for me because I'm not Clinton and I will deliver you from this rigger system!"
   
Conclusion:

Overall Bernie Sanders made the wrong choice to endorse Hillary Clinton.  That is because Hillary and the DNC have not genuinely adhered to a progressive platform despite what Sanders said given their actions and as Hillary is not guaranteed to be progressive, to say that for her to win is the only way for a grassroots movement to take root neglects other ways to fight the alt-right or to push for more progressive policies through grassroots activism, but not necessarily under a democrat presidency.  Due to Hillary's flaky record, the endorsement opens up ways for the alt-right to capitalize on said endorsement by painting Sanders' as a sellout and themselves and their candidate (Trump) as the only ones to deliver America from Hillary's corruption.     

Some Sanders supporters such as HA Goodman, as well as Ralph Nader, the later who is even more critical of the two Party System. have argued that this move was realpolitik and a necessary evil, that Sanders endorsed Clinton in a way that meant "I want to say what promises she has made so you can hold her to her feet so you can put up the pressure on her and have a degree of animosity to her".  And in doing so, he actually indirectly released his supporters to vote their conscience and hold Clinton to greater scrutiny.  I will admit there is still time for Sanders to lessen the blow and act on the basis that this endorsement was indeed realpolitik.  He could have his "Our Revolution" campaign continue beyond the 2016 election and have Greens, independent left politicians and Berniecrats be promoted and signify the willingness to work with independents, or even push for Third Party candidates to appear in debates or for ballot access.  The objectives of the Sanders foundation could differ depending on who wins.  If Trump wins, it will be the goal of his political revolution to counter the alt-right with a genuinely leftist movement(and not just enable establishment democrats to swoop in again).  If Clinton wins, it will be to constantly hold her feet to the fire, even if it means supporting independents and getting them onto the ballot.  If Sanders makes his legacy to start a mass movement that lasts beyond the election of 2016, than it will be a positive one.

Yet, even if Bernie would push for greater representation by independents and left movements regardless of who wins, overall, because of the reasons mentioned above, Sanders made a mistake in endorsing Clinton by inferring that Clinton is the only way for America to be more progressive.  Yet, because of Clinton's own record it has actually opened more avenues for the alt-right to manipulate voters to drive home their message: the system is rigged, the left are sellouts, and their far-right demagogue boy Trump is the only hope of changing it in the 2016 presidential cycle regardless of what it means for those who would be marginalized!