For several years, my work involved investigation of fires. It taught me a tremendous respect for fire. It also convinced me that whenever a person ignites a match, he is responsible for whatever results. I have no patience for an arsonist who lights a fire in a building, but claims she didn’t intend to kill the firefighter who died trying to put the fire out.
I think that’s what’s bugging me about the Nevada Convention. The early story didn’t bother me. Someone in the Sanders campaign was smart enough to read the rules for the county conventions and to realize that those delegates didn’t have to have been elected as delegates or alternates in the local caucuses. So, they made sure they had enough bodies at the county conventions to fill in for all their no shows. Good on them for paying attention. Bad on Clinton’s folks for being asleep at the wheel — especially after getting outmaneuvered in caucuses the last time around.
At the state convention, it looks like the roles were reversed. Clinton’s campaigners made sure their people turned out. Sanders’ campaigners apparently forgot to make sure that all their delegates met the eligibility requirements for the state convention. However, for whatever reason, they didn’t get their eligible delegates to turn out at the rate that Clinton’s did. Instead, they tried to change the eligibility requirements to make more of their delegates eligible. When that didn’t work, they sued to force a rule change. But not only did they sue to change the eligibility rules — they sued to throw out the rule that allowed disruptive folks to be removed from the convention. What was that about? It sounds like the kinds of disruptive behavior that occurred at the convention was pre-planned. Why else try to change that rule?
When the court case failed, the Sanders campaigners began to push what polite folks would call a “false narrative,” but which I’ll refer to as a lie: that the party chair had changed the rules to undo the results of the county conventions. They used that to stoke anger among their delegates, specifically targeted at the convention chair. Even after they knew they didn’t have the majority of the votes at the convention, they continued to lie about what was happening to continue to enrage their delegates. Those lies were communicated among the delegates, then to social media, then to traditional media. Sanders supporters everywhere were, unsurprisingly, angered. Some did what angry people do: stupid, hurtful things.
Here’s the thing: when angry people become convinced that the rules aren’t fair, they lose sight of the moral code that keeps us from being total shits to each other. If the rules aren’t fair, why obey any of them? Why not shout down a speaker and scream “bitch” at her? Why not throw/lift/knock around/flip chairs in a threatening manner? Why not publish someone’s personal information online to invite harassment? Why not make anonymous threats? Why not shut down a business? Why not scream at a child and rip up her poster? The rules are unfair, so fuck them all. How far, really, is it from the conduct we’ve witnessed by democrats to the protester punching we’ve seen at Trump rallies? When people are enraged, it’s not too far at all.
So, who lit the match? I think in this case the Sanders campaigners in Nevada did. I think they deliberately provoked and stoked anger among the delegates by pushing lies. They personally called out and demonized the convention chair. And, in my view, it makes them directly responsible for the fallout — all of it. The campaign person that wrote the fake “minority report” should be fired. The super delegate who helped instigate the scheme should have her status removed. And anyone else involved should be appropriately sanctioned.
And Sanders himself? Well, he had an opportunity to help put out the fire, but he actually threw gasoline on it. There are a million ways he could have clearly communicated that the conduct by his supporters at the convention and following the convention was not acceptable. This Gamergater style of harassment, especially of women, is a real and substantial problem. He should have directly addressed it. He could have encouraged his supporters to take whatever anger they were feeling and channel it towards knocking on doors, making phone calls, contributing to the campaign, or any number of constructive acts. Instead, he didn’t directly address the events at all. Even worse, he repeated a number of the lies told by the folks in Nevada as if they were some kind of justification. In doing so, he gave cover to those who think that their anger justifies what occurred at and following the Nevada convention.
I’m not a Clinton fanatic. Last time around during the primaries, I went from supporting Edwards, to supporting Clinton, to finally happily supporting Obama. I’m one of what I think are a large number of voters who are happy that we have two candidates that are head and shoulders better than anything the other guys had to offer. But for a kid I had to take to the doctor, I would have caucused for Clinton, mainly because I had reservations about Sanders’ leadership skills. Campaigns are 99% set pieces — the candidates have their scripts and routines and we rarely get to see those moments that give us a peek into how they will behave as leaders. After the Nevada convention, I thought “Here is a good chance to get a look at what kind of a leader that Sanders would be.” And I was very disappointed.
Look, I understand that this has been a long and bitter campaign, at least here at the Great Orange Satan. There’s a natural reflex to defend our chosen candidate to the death. Each side looks at each other with suspicion, and every remark is given the most inflammatory interpretation possible. But it’s not a sign of weakness to admit that our candidate has made a mistake. If we refuse to consider the possibility that they’ve made a mistake, we just encourage them to keep on making them over and over.
Sanders made a mistake, and now finds himself on the wrong side of a media narrative that you may feel is overblown, wrong, or a coordinated smear. Welcome to Clinton’s world! It sucks. No one knows that better than her. But this is an unforced error on his part that he can still fix.
I want to reiterate that, in my opinion, it was a small group of folks in Nevada who lit this match. It was a larger group that acted the way people act when they are provoked to anger. But they are a very small percentage of Sanders supporters, who are good people with whom I happen to disagree over who would be a better president. I look forward to the end of the primary campaign, when we have a chance to reach out and mend fences. But for now, Bernie is still interviewing for the job. He had a chance to help put out the fire. He did the opposite. And he his accountable for that.
I don’t care whose candidate we are talking about. I’m not going to defend match lighters. I’m not going to defend the angry folks who committed the acts. And I’m not going to defend the guy who threw gas on the fire instead of trying to put it out. Because if I do, I think I’m condoning bad behavior.
UPDATE: MamajeanB has done some digging and written what I think is a great look at how local politics may explain some of what went on in Nevada. Please click and read.
And thanks for the rec list thing. Given all the smart people and great writers here, it’s kind of humbling.
Read More
