CommentsSORTING OUT ELECTION SCENARIOS-Senator Bernie Sanders has repeatedly emphasized the importance of mass movements as an essential instrument for social, political and economic change in the United States. For example, here is a typical Bernie quote from a recent CNN interview, “The only way we bring about real change in this country, which represents the needs of the middle class and working families, is … a mass movement, and that's what we are trying to create and are succeeding in creating right now." Bernie has also repeatedly argued that a Sanders administration could only implement his campaign platform with the strong, sustained support from an external mass movement.
My own circle of friends and acquaintances in Los Angeles is filled with people who are feeling-the-Bern. Few of them, however, have grasped Senator Sanders’ message about mass movements, as well as his reluctance to actually organize and lead the sustained, non-electoral mass movement he repeatedly mentions.
Yes, they are ecstatic about his campaign to the win the Democratic Party’s nomination in Philadelphia in late July. They are filled with upbeat reports about Senator Sanders’ speeches at the LA Sports Arena and the Wiltern Theater. They are gearing up for many more Sanders visits to Los Angeles before the June 7 California primary. I fully expect them to walk precincts and phone people in LA and elsewhere in California right up to the primary election, and possibly into November. They are filled with what-if scenarios, usually built around potential Sanders’ victories in the critical New York, Pennsylvania, and California primaries -- based on his phenomenal successes in Wisconsin, Wyoming, Washington State, Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Hawaii, Idaho, and Utah.
On one hand, I fully appreciate their abhorrence of the two Republican candidates: Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. I also understand their distaste for Hillary Clinton because of her war-mongering and links to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banking and investment firms.
On the other hand, their adulation of Bernie Sanders will reach the next stage on November 9, 2016. On that Wednesday we will know who won the Presidential election. This is when one of these three scenarios will appear, and all three will demand serious responses from those now living in their feel-the-Bern moment.
Scenario 1 – Hillary Clinton wins: A likely scenario is that Hillary Clinton will be elected President, with the support of Senator Sanders and many of his supporters. If the next President Clinton is lucky, the Democrats will have a narrow majority in the Senate, but there is little chance that she will put her presidency on the line to support Senator Sanders’ policies, such as campaign finance reform, free higher education, universal health care, and a lightened US military footprint is foreign crisis areas.
What then do they do with their commitment to his platform, as well as greater economic equality in the US, Black Lives Matter, and the US becoming an honest broker for Israeli-Palestine peace? Do they follow Senator Sanders’ lead, step back, and get ready for the next election? Do they put pressure on him when he returns to the Senate, like John Kerry before him, to not just campaign with slogans about mass movements and revolution, but to actually lead a non-electoral mass movement to transform the Democratic Party, as well as the United States? After all, Senator Sanders’ positions are similar to those of Occupy, but without leadership and organization, that mass movement fizzled out and is nearly forgotten.
Scenario 2 – Donald Trump or Ted Cruz wins: Another likely scenario is that a Republican will beat the Democratic nominee. If the next President is Donald Trump, no one can predict what he would do in office, but given his history – and Cruz’s -- we should expect serious nativism, especially harassment, outbreaks of violence, arrests, and expulsions of immigrants from Mexico and Muslim countries. What then? Do those now feeling-the-Bern sit on their hands and wait for Senator Sanders to turn his volunteer and contributor email lists into a quickly mobilized mass movement? Do they join non-Sanders’ mass movements, including those attached to third parties, like the Greens, that Senator Sanders has chosen to not work with?
And, what would they do when the next administration turns hawkish in some far-flung trouble spot, like Yemen, and many of most Congressional Democrats support military intervention. After all, even Senator Sanders, clearly the most liberal member of the US Senate, supported US military attacks on Yugoslavia under President Clinton and on Afghanistan under President Bush junior. He also has voted for many Pentagon budgets, and he has repeatedly stated that the United States needs a strong military.
Scenario 3 – Bernie Sanders wins: We also need to ask those feeling-the Bern what they will do if their wish comes true, and Senator Sanders is elected President? Even though many liberal and left-liberal Democrats have tried and failed (Henry Wallace, Eugene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, George McGovern, Jesse Jackson, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and Howard Dean), history moves forward when events like this appear for the first time. But, it should be obvious that Congress, even with a slight Democratic majority in the Senate, would be on a totally different wavelength when President Sanders turns his campaign platform into legislative proposals.
Even though Senator Sanders’ campaign has almost entirely focused on domestic issues, it is guaranteed that his administration would face many international crises, such as bolder moves by China and Russia, refugees and asylum seekers still flooding into Europe, and many continued and new wars throughout the Middle East. We can easily predict that most of the political class, media, and foreign policy establishment will push for US military responses to these crises.
Despite the obvious dovishness of those now feeling-the-Bern, a Sanders Administration would most likely be swept up in war fever. So, what do they do then? Sit on their hands or take to the streets in a revived anti-war movement opposed to Congress and the Sanders Administration? Do they get involved in mass movements that pressure Congress and the White House to step back from new wars, shift US military spending to domestic priorities (e.g., higher education tuition), and reduce the massive US military global footprint of about 800 foreign military bases?
The answer to the questions about these three post-election scenarios is the transformation of the ‘Sandernistas” into a long-term mass movement, despite Senator Sanders own reluctance to create an independent, non-electoral movement.
One well-known writer, with strong LA roots, is the Washington Post’s Harold Meyerson. He is an optimist, and Meyerson argues that the current electoral campaign will morph into the mass movement that Senator Sanders calls for, but has not yet organized. In effect, Meyerson foresees the resurrection of Occupy, but as a sustained political movement supporting Senator Sanders and his positions.
Former NY Times war correspondent and now Truthdig.com columnist, Chris Hedges, argues it will never happen. Hedges points out, like Meyerson, that no other left-liberal Democrat has ever succeeded in creating a sustained mass movement. In contrast to Meyerson, Hedges argues that Senator Sanders is not even making a token effort to form a long-term mass movement. He also predicts that those now feeling-the-Bern will either be drawn into mainstream Democratic Party politics as voters, or they will fade away for either four or eight years until another, Bernie-type liberal Democrat runs for the party’s Presidential nomination and wakes them up from political hibernation.
So, where do the Bernie supporters stand in this discussion? What will they do on November 9, when the winner is known, and after January 20, 2017, when the next President is sworn in and unveils his plan for his first 100 days?
(Victor Rothman can be reached at [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.
