Martin DyckmanThe rap against Bernie Sanders, as propagated by Hillary Clinton’s media claque, is that he’s too progressive to be an effective president. They say he’s an idealist rather than a doer who never accomplished much in the Congress. His program would hit gridlocked Washington like a crash dummy test car slamming into a concrete wall.
So they say.
Piffle.
John F. Kennedy’s legislative record was short and thin. So was Barack Obama’s. They were elected because of their inspirational appeal to their fellow citizens. Assassination foreclosed JFK’s opportunity to prove himself. Obama, however, rescued the economy and achieved a monumental health care reform despite unprecedented personal animosity and political sabotage on the part of the Republicans.
Sanders too is an inspirational campaigner. His success as president would depend, as he says himself, on the strength of the popular revolution he symbolizes. A Democratic president elected with a comfortable popular majority and a Democratic Senate would be an omen that the Republicans could not ignore even if they manage to retain the House.
A goal that he shares with Clinton, repeal of the Citizens United atrocity, could be fulfilled in short order if either of them or President Obama gets to fill the vacancy at the U.S. Supreme Court. That’s reason enough—as if there weren’t so many others—to not want Donald Trump or Ted Cruz making that appointment.
But if that’s not to happen, Clinton and her claque should consider the potential cost of their Bernie-bashing.
Assuming she’s the nominee—although she hardly has a lock on it—she will need the Sanders enthusiasts.
They are, to a remarkable extent, the Democratic version of what’s happening in the Republican primaries. They’re fed up with government as usual. They’re angry over the dwindling middle class, stagnant wages and vanishing opportunities; the broken promises that were made to enact the North American Free Trade Agreement; extortionate drug prices; staggering health insurance co-pays; and—above all–with the perceived haughtiness of a political establishment that evokes memories of the divine right of kings.
Significant numbers are members of neither party who have taken advantage of open primary rules.
The difference between the Democratic and Republican versions of this rebellion is that Sanders appeals to idealism, not bigotry; to good taste, not vulgarity; to better angels not base instincts. He’s a gentleman and a selfless patriot who wants to put the public’s anger to constructive use.
The more that Clinton disrespects him, the more she risks his people turning their back on her if she’s the nominee. Some wouldn’t vote. Others would turn to the dark side.
She couldn’t afford that.
The New York Times – which has endorsed her – cautioned her sternly after the Michigan upset:
“Even with a double-digit lead before the primary,” the editorial said, “she failed to avoid the type of negative tactics that could damage her in the long haul … Mrs. Clinton may be annoyed at the continued challenge posed by the self-described democratic socialist from Vermont. ‘The sooner I could become your nominee, the more I could turn our attention to the Republicans,’ she told a crowd in Detroit. But Mr. Sanders is likely to remain in the contest to the end, and if she is the Democratic nominee, Mrs. Clinton must win over and energize his supporters. The results in Michigan suggest she has a ways to go.”
She has a ways to go also in overcoming the widespread suspicion reflected in the recent poll finding that only 37 percent of Americans find her honest and trustworthy.
It’s hard to believe that somebody so intelligent can’t see how that suspicion is fed by her inexplicable and – yes, let’s say it – arrogant refusal to release those speeches that were worth $675,000 to Goldman Sachs.
The dodge that she’ll release her speeches only when others publish theirs insults the intelligence of every voter. She’s the one running for president, not any other former secretaries of state.
Her problem could be simply that she doesn’t want anyone telling her what to do. It could be that she said things to those bankers about their future in a new Clinton administration that wouldn’t look good in print. It could even be that there was nothing noteworthy in them, which would beg the question of why they were worth so much to begin with if not to buy the affection of a potential future president.
But none of those are good reasons—not when she’s asking the people of America to trust her with the most honor and power that are theirs to bestow. The sooner she releases those transcripts and takes her lumps, the sooner the issue will fade.
The longer she stalls, the worse she will look.
• • •
Martin Dyckman is a retired associate editor of the newspaper formerly known as the St. Petersburg Times. He lives in suburban Asheville, North Carolina. Column courtesy of Context Florida.
