CommentsGELFAND’S WORLD--An internet acquaintance asks, "What would Bernie do at the Democratic convention if he is close, but Hillary has the delegate majority?" Would he try for some major concession on the platform, or ask for speaking time, or what? I responded that if he asks for speaking time, but also asks for a chair to go with his speech, that would be the time to worry.
In a more serious vein, I think it's time for all us Sanders supporters to talk turkey about this country's immediate future, by which I mean don't anyone do another Nader in this election. There is another way of putting the argument, which is what the rest of this column is about.
I think people react positively to Sanders because he is a truth teller. He doesn't seem to be running through all the political calculations in his head when being asked a question, but instead answers based on his internal compass -- for example, his answer to one of the questions in the first Democratic presidential debate. His campaign had gotten into a little trouble over his staffers accessing the Democratic Party computer files. When asked whether he owed Hillary Clinton an apology, he didn't hedge. He just said that he did owe her an apology. He then extended the apology to his own supporters.
We used to refer to this kind of person as a straight shooter.
He also doesn't seem to worry a lot about carrying the label Democratic Socialist. That's significant, because avoiding being called a socialist is among the highest of priorities for pretty much every other American politician. Bernie just goes with it.
We have good reason to support Bernie Sanders as a candidate and to vote for him in the primary. That's our privilege. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that our votes are most likely going to be symbolic statements at best. Hillary Clinton can coast to the nomination by taking about 40 percent of the remaining votes. Does anybody think that Sanders can run up a two-thirds majority in California or New Jersey? Seems unlikely to me.
So we might rephrase the original question by asking what us voters and Bernie should do together, assuming that Hillary Clinton will go into the convention with about two-thirds of the available delegates. I am going to make the working assumption that Bernie is, indeed, an honest man and that he wants to do what is best for the country. It follows that the Sanders wing of the party should support the Clinton candidacy. That also includes us Decline to State voters and Greens who vote for Democrats. That much goes almost without saying, although there are a few folks out there who are saying that they will never vote for Hillary no matter who is running against her.
For the rest of us who don't want to have to live through a Trump presidency and would very much like to see an end to Mitch McConnell's reign of error in the U.S. Senate, there is more to the equation than passively supporting the next member of the Clinton dynasty.
If Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have any sense at all, they will create a smooth transition towards ensuring Democratic victories in both the presidency and the Senate this year. The alternative is a Supreme Court appointment that replaces Justice Scalia with someone even worse. Must we endure another 20 or 30 years of ultra-conservative control of the Supreme Court? Does anyone even need to consider this question? We need to recover those Senate seats and hold onto the oval office.
What does all this entail?
The first and most important element does not require that Bernie Sanders drop out of the race. He can continue to campaign and win additional states and a few hundred more delegates. But he has to remember, as does Hillary, that they have to avoid doing damage to each others' credibility as leaders. She is going to need him in the general election, and for this to be effective, he can't be tarnished. They can continue to disagree on a few small items, and make clear their differences on trade agreements (getting narrower even as we speak), but Bernie has to recognize that there is going to come a time when he endorses Hillary.
It has to be more than the weak sort of endorsement that we are seeing among the Republican dropouts. Bernie has to make clear that he wholeheartedly supports Democratic control of the White House and the Senate, and that he is keeping his fingers crossed about control of the House too.
One remaining question is when the swerve on Bernie's part will begin. I'm guessing that it will be in mid-April or early May, even if both candidates officially remain in the campaign through the final primaries in June. If Hillary locks up the majority of elected delegates (leaving out the so-called superdelegates) by sometime in April or early May, then once again, we Californians will be left out of the primary process rather than being controlling agents. It seems to me that the last time the California primary was controlling was 1968, and even then it didn't work out.
The other question -- the one that will obsess the pundits for the next couple of months -- is what Bernie himself should do. I offer my humble thoughts. First, the fact that Bernie will be endorsing Hillary does not mean that he has suddenly forgotten his principles or even his positions on specific issues. I think that Bernie, in keeping with his well established persona, should give a speech in which he points out not only the positions he has in common with Hillary, but also the positions in which they have differed. This won't hurt Hillary. To the contrary, it will demonstrate to voters that an honest man can admit that there are specific differences in the minutiae, while strongly supporting her candidacy. This could potentially be Bernie's speech at the Democratic convention.
Bernie should also make a commitment to campaigning vigorously for the presidential ticket and for Democratic senatorial candidates. If his influence can swing a couple of House seats, better still.
I have a small piece of advice to our next president as well. The Republicans have made mockery of the system by their persistent threats to shut down the government. The Democrats in the congress haven't handled this wonderfully well. The answer to such threats is for the Democrats to say, If we have to have the governmental shutdown, then let's have it right now at the beginning of the term. If and when the Republicans decide that they really do have to compromise on a few things, then we will talk. In the meanwhile, a lot of red states will be feeling the pain just as much, if not more so, then the blue states.
This isn't a lot different from what Ronald Reagan said when he became governor of California. It would be a sign of strength, and (as discussed here previously), would cause voters in the more conservative congressional districts to demand that their elected congressmen learn to compromise. Their paychecks will depend on it.
By the way, here are a couple of items that the Republicans will have to give in on if they want to get their side of the government back up and running: the expeditious appointment of Supreme Court justices and the support for Planned Parenthood.
The alternative to the end of Republican game playing is that some big payrolls at southern military bases and government installations will get frozen. The rest of us had to put up with the governmental shutdown when Ted Cruz and his cronies forced the issue the last time. Let them feel similar pain if they want to test President Clinton's will.
In other words, the threat of a shutdown can just as easily come from Hillary as it can come from the other side. Budget items that support red state economies should be put on the table right alongside of Hillary's judicial nominations, realistic action against global warming, and the social safety net.
Addendum
Sometimes I feel all alone in continuing to complain about the undue influence of Iowa and New Hampshire in picking presidential candidates. But there are a couple of bright spots. The first is that Iowa Republicans are now getting good at picking candidates who go on to disaster in the rest of the primaries. Cruz will most likely join Santorum and Huckabee in the loser category.
The more interesting observation is one that I've been making for at least two decades: To get elected president (not counting popular incumbents running for reelection), you have to finish exactly second in the New Hampshire primary. We might just restate this by pointing out that winning the New Hampshire primary is the kiss of death for any candidate, just as winning the Iowa caucuses is the kiss of death for Republicans. We can with some confidence predict that New Hampshire is likely to become an irrelevance in future presidential seasons.
(Bob Gelfand writes on culture, science, and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected])
What Should Bernie Do?
