Bernie Sanders said something this week that really upset this yellow-dog Democrat, so I wrote about it at New York:
At a time when plenty of people have advice for unhappy progressive Democrats, one of their heroes, Bernie Sanders, had a succinct message: Don’t love the party, leave it. In an interview with the New York Times, he previewed a barnstorming tour he has undertaken with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez but made it clear he wouldn’t be asking audiences to rally ’round the Democratic Party. “One of the aspects of this tour is to try to rally people to get engaged in the political process and run as independents outside of the Democratic Party,” Sanders said.
In one respect, that isn’t surprising. Though he has long aligned with the Democratic Party in Congress and has regularly backed its candidates, Sanders has always self-identified as an independent, even when he filed to run for president as a Democrat in 2020. Now, as before, he seems to regard the Democratic Party as inherently corrupted by its wealthy donor base, per the Times:
“During the interview on Wednesday, Mr. Sanders repeatedly criticized the influence of wealthy donors and Washington consultants on the party. He said that while Democrats had been a force for good on social issues like civil rights, women’s rights and L.G.B.T.Q. rights, they had failed on the economic concerns he has dedicated his political career to addressing.”
Still, when Democrats are now already perceived as losing adherents, and as many progressives believe their time to take over the party has arrived, Sanders’s counsel is both oddly timed and pernicious. Yes, those on the left who choose independent status may still work with Democrats on both legislative and electoral projects, much as Sanders does. And they may run in and win Democratic primaries on occasion without putting on the party yoke. But inevitably, refusing to stay formally within the Democratic tent will cede influence to centrists and alienate loyalist voters as well. And in 18 states, voters who don’t register as Democrats may be barred from voting in Democratic primaries, which proved a problem for Sanders during his two presidential runs.
More fundamentally, Democrats need both solidarity and stable membership at this moment with the MAGA wolf at the door and crucial off-year and midterm elections coming up. Staying in the Democratic ranks doesn’t mean giving up progressive principles or failing to challenge timid or ineffective leadership. To borrow an ancient cigarette-ad slogan, it’s a time when it’s better to “fight than switch.”
That said, there may be certain deep-red parts of the country where the Democratic brand is so toxic that an independent candidacy could make some sense for progressives. The example of 2024 independent Senate candidate Dan Osborn of Nebraska, who ran a shockingly competitive (if ultimately unsuccessful) race against Republican incumbent Deb Fischer, turned a lot of heads. But while Osborn might have been a “populist” by most standards, he wasn’t exactly what you’d call a progressive, and in fact, centrist and progressive Nebraska Democrats went along with Osborn as a very long shot. They didn’t abandon their party; they just got out of the way.
Someday the popularity of electoral systems without party primaries or with ranked-choice voting may spread to the point where candidates and voters alike will gradually shed or at least weaken party labels. Then self-identifying as an independent could be both principled and politically pragmatic.
But until then, it’s important to understand why American politics have regularly defaulted to a two-party system dating all the way back to those days when the Founders tried strenuously to avoid parties altogether. In a first-past-the-post system where winners take all, there’s just too much at stake to allow those with whom you are in agreement on the basics to splinter. That’s particularly true when the other party is rigidly united in subservience to an authoritarian leader. Sanders is one of a kind in his ability to keep his feet both within and outside the Democratic Party. His example isn’t replicable without making a bad situation for progressives a whole lot worse.
Kerry should spend no time addressing Ralph Nader. Bush/Cheney should be the sole targets for our nominee.
Nationally, that is the job of Howard Dean, who managed to draw in progressive and liberal minded people to his campaign by reminding them that the Democratic party is the party of economic and social progress.
Locally, that is the job of progressive and liberal minded people who mistakenly backed Nader in 2000 and no understand that their mistake brought an extremist to office whose agenda was counter to every one of their values that they wished to express with their ill-conceived vote. Remind them that Ralph Nader’s candidacy gave us a president who has already rescinded and/or undermined the majority of environmental, consumer, and labor safeguards that make Nader’s committments in those areas pale in comparison. Also, remind them that Nader did not seek a third party like everyone assumed, but rather played electoral politics by focusing on only the nine swing states and that Pat Buchannan to his credit ran a national campaign.
Unrelated to the question is this: If someone is still unwavering in their support for Nader, implore them to responsibly vote by finding someone in a solid red state who wants to vote for Kerry and have that person vote for Nader on the basis that there will be a vote in a swing state cast for Kerry.
My friend is unwavering in his support for Nader and he and I have since made a deal. I will cast my vote in Idaho for Nader, whie he will cast his vote in Ohio for Kerry.
Events are out of our hands.
A missed warning and a terror bombing stateside, a serious stock market tumble, another round of massive layoffs, Iraq in flames — any of those things could get rid of Bush. Not much else.
I don’t think there’s much Kerry can do either way. His job right now is not to sell a new program. Just don’t fuck up too bad and be there when the dust settles.
If events don’t cause a Bush implosion, he will be re-elected. I think it’s that simple.
You all seem much more optimistic than me. I am very concerned that they are so close in the polls. What more could Bush do to lose public support? Given his wars, his attacks on the constitution and the nevironment, his appointments of radical judges, his cover-ups of 911 toxic contamination and intelligence failures…and Kerry is only 5 points ahead? Plus I am afraid that the more people learn about Kerry, the less they like him, so I fail to see how he will gain in the polls. I’m sorry to be negative, but I really want to win in November and I am trying to be a realist. I really hope Kerry will pick Edwards as a VP, because I think Edwards can provide the inspiring, exciting, and positive energy that this campaign desperately needs. I think he coulde get us a few points in every state, because he has a very diverse appeal. I hope our Democratic leaders are thinking about this, because there is just so much at stake!
Kerry doesn’t need to be tough on Bush. Kerry needs to show he’ll be tougher on terrorism than Bush.
Because of his record, Bush is in self-destruct mode. Remember it’s about competence.
Or, stated another way, it’s about incompetence, stupid – Bush’s stupid incompetence.
Kerry only needs to show he won’t be distracted by his own ideology.
Kerry should be defining himself right now. Tough on Bush, sure – but only to keep Bush on the defensive (where the Bush guys seem to flounder).
Kerry first needs to define himself, then when normal people start paying attention get tougher on Bush. Make calls for Bush to investigate the failures of his administration and accuse him of stonewalling when he does nothing.
I think Kerry needs to be tougher on Bush, too, and I think increased toucghness will help pull people away from Nader. If the Nader people see and hear Kerry saying the things about Bush which need to be said, they will be more enthusiastic about voting for him. I am disappointed right now in Kerry’s ads. The ones I’ve seen are too wishywashy and in the stye of Dukakis and Mondale. he needs to be slapping that 500 billion dollar deficet up against everybody’s eyeballs.
While polls are interesting to look at from time to time, maybe there is something else to talk about for the next five or so months until polls actually start to mean something. And let’s not forgot, a national poll means little, especially in a close race. As we all know, Gore won nationally last time and it didn’t mean anything.
I am still puzzled by the size of the Nader support. If it is centered in California, Mass., Vt. and other safe Blue states, it might not make a difference. But if Nader is picking up support again in Fla. or Ohio, Kerry, and America, will have a big problem on Nov.2.
I think its time that Kerry not only gets tough on Bush, he should also start peeling the bark off of Nader. This is no longer funny.
Not only does it show that Bush’s drop is not just a temporary dip, but it shows that the first $15-20 million that Bush spent on ads in all those swing states has amounted to something around nil.
Let’s hope that the rest of Bush’s ads over the course of the next eight months are just as effective.
reignman, are Hispanics *that* loath to vote for Kerry?
How awful for Democrats. I guess that gay-bashing and abortion-bashing keeps Hispanics with the GOP.
The problem for Kerry is that any comment he makes will be distorted by the media. So even if he makes a fantastic foreign policy or national security speech, the media will say that he was wearing mismatched socks, or that his suit is tailored.
The media doesn’t want Bush to lose. And unless that changes, he won’t lose.
One other thing:
in the 1980 election, 40% of those who voted for Reagan didn’t believe in the things he was saying, they just wanted Carter out of office.
another example: I was watching MSNBC, and they were talking about Bush’s declining popularity w/ hispanics, so the narrator of the piece surmised: who else are they going to vote for?
obviously, Kerry has to say was he is FOR as opposed to what he is AGAINST, or he will suffer from Perot syndrome.
yep.
This must be Bush’s lowest approval rating in a Zogby poll sunce taking office..