I’ve been very intrigued by the various ways the Sanders and Clinton camps tend to express themselves. It’s like we think differently, care about different things, and speak a different language. I’ve concluded that there are essentially 6 distinct species of Clinton/Sanders supporters (each, of course, having many variants). These are: Wing Nuts, Non-Party Progressives, Sanders Democrats, Clinton Democrats, Establishment Democrats, and the Borg. Almost everyone on dkos is either a Sanders Democrat, a Clinton Democrat, or a Non-Party Progressive. There are a few Establishment Democrats and a few more Wing Nuts. I don’t think anyone from The Borg participates on this site.
I identify myself as falling in the category that I refer to as Non-Party Progressives. So, my categorizations of the various species are from the vantage point (bias) of one particular variant of the Non-Party Progressive species. Starting from the center, here are my descriptions:
1. Clinton Democrats: Clinton Democrats, as the name suggests, like the Democratic Party and like Hillary Clinton. Prominent reasons are Hillary’s vast experience, the fact that she would be the first female president, the fact that she has withstood outrageous right wing attacks, the fact that Bill Clinton left the economy in good shape, the fact that Clinton has long-term ties to the Black community, etc. Clinton Democrats are, first and foremost, Democrats, and will continue to be Democrats with or without Hillary Clinton. Clinton Democrats tend to like Bernie Sanders, but may believe he is less realistic, would be less effective, or less electable. At the current stage of the primary, many Clinton Democrats feel that Sanders’ rhetoric is too negative towards Clinton, that he does not fundraise enough for the DNC, DCC, and DSCC, that he’s wasting Democratic resources on a campaign he can’t win, that his negative campaigning may harm Clinton in the general election, and that Sanders should probably drop out.
2. Sanders Democrats: As the name suggests, Sanders Democrats like the Democratic Party and like Bernie Sanders. Prominent reasons are his long history of consistent support for the concerns of common people, his willingness to speak out passionately, the enthusiasm for his campaign, his awesome wife, the fact that he is crowd-funded, his progressive policy proposals, etc. Sanders Democrats are, first and foremost, Democrats, and will continue to be Democrats with or without Bernie Sanders. Sanders Democrats tend to respect Hillary Clinton, but may consider her to be less consistent, less electable, or less likely to foment the degree of change they believe is called for. At the current stage of the primary, Sanders Democrats believe that Bernie should continue campaigning all the way to the convention, but that he should not criticize Hillary Clinton and should work to unify the party behind the eventual nominee.
3. Establishment Democrats: Establishment Democrats are people who have worked their way into a position of influence, power, and/or remuneration within Democratic politics, and have become part of the machine. They could be union leaders, journalists, heads of non-profits, talking heads/pundits, politicians, party members, campaign operatives, founders of prominent blogs, or connected insiders of many varieties. Many establishment Democrats got involved in politics because they once held principled political convictions. But, over the course of time, they have seen those convictions slowly eroded, one small conflict of interest at a time. Fundraising, party loyalty, favor-exchanges, access, power, career, money, social pressures, etc. have all caused them to sell-out from time to time, each time lowering their own ethical bar another notch. Of course, many still hold strong positions on some issues and do good work, but when it really comes down to it, Establishment Democrats are concerned with their own personal interests over those of the general public. They have become part of the game and have long since stopped trying to change it.
Few consciously choose to become Establishment Democrats. Rather, their rise to positions of prominence within the establishment places them within the milieu of the establishment bubble, where they hobnob mostly with other ethically compromised members of the establishment, leading to an erosion of their values and the making of small compromises benefitting themselves at the expense of their principles. I imagine they don’t even notice that this is occurring as it happens, but after a while, when they reflect back on their lives, they see that at some point they stopped challenging the establishment and were absorbed into it. They sought re-election, access, promotion, payments, or appointments more than they sought the noble ends that once motivated their involvement. Nearly all elected politicians eventually fall into this category. To avoid being co-opted into the establishment, a politician has to continually resist the gravitational pull. Few succeed. Even those whose intentions started out good. Bernie Sanders is a lonely exception in that he has been an Independent gadfly to the Democratic establishment for decades. Hillary Clinton is the quintessential Establishment Democrat.
Establishment Democrats almost all support Hillary Clinton, unless they are currently on the payroll of the Sanders campaign. They see that she is excellent at playing the establishment game and will likely win the election. They love her fundraising. They want to be on the winning team. They know that many benefits could arise from expressing loyalty to Clinton. They know they will get no personal benefit from supporting Sanders. They recognize Clinton as their own political species. They know she won’t rock the boat or upset the gravy train, and that supporting her may be a boon for their careers. They like the primary campaign because being Democrats is what they do and this is where they get to do it. They want Sanders to keep the primary going, but they are putting their thumbs on the scales wherever they can to make sure that Clinton wins.
4. Non-Party Progressives: Non-party progressives couldn’t give a damn about the Democratic Party, except in that it’s been the most likely vehicle for progressive politics in modern times. Non-party progressives don’t essentially care whether or not a politician has a (D) after their name and would be happy to vote Republican, Green, or Martian, if that’s what would lead to the enactment of a progressive agenda. They have a loose alliance with the Democratic party, but it’s a marriage of convenience and the minute a better prospect comes along, the divorce will be quick and painless. Non-party progressives are generally disappointed with Democratic politicians, with very few exceptions, and this is why they are so thrilled with Bernie Sanders. They recognize just how rarely there is a politician who is both viable and progressive at the same time, and there is no way they would vote for anyone else in a primary election. Non-Party Progressives see issues like income inequality and climate change as so urgent that we simply can not afford to wait for incremental half-measures. They point to Obama as a president they love and admire, but who, despite many incremental efforts, presided not over a decrease in global warming or income inequality, but only over a slower increase than would have happened under a Republican president. To them, more of the same would be unacceptable. Every year we have an Establishment Democrat in the White House is another year that climate change and economic inequality gets worse, with no hope of getting better. Thus, they are not interested in, nor would they be satisfied with a continuation of the Obama legacy.
Non-Party Progressives are generally not thrilled about Hillary Clinton. They see her as dishonest, beholden to corporate interests, unprincipled, and lacking adequate policy proposals to address the great challenges of these times. They recognize that Hillary Clinton is their opponent in this campaign and not just another player on the Democratic team. Clinton is the only obstacle between them and the presidency of the first electorally viable true progressive in their lifetime. They want Sanders to continue fighting her and fighting her hard. They see nothing wrong with criticizing Clinton or questioning her fitness for the job. They see such criticism as fair game and quite distinct from the type of dishonest and deceitful statements that Clinton has made about Sanders’ (and Obama’s) record. They are thrilled that Sanders is not fundraising for the DNC, etc., knowing that Sanders will use his network to support truly progressive candidates and not the party machine that they despise. They may choose to vote for Clinton in the general election, but they will do so pragmatically, if they decide to go that way. If they live in a swing state that in fact turns out to be contested, they will likely vote for Clinton as the lesser of two evils. But, if the circumstances call for it, they may cast a protest vote and write in Bernie Sanders.
5. The Borg – The Borg is the network of big money interests that are running the game in politics. These are the corporate execs, the lobbyists, the independent billionaires and multi-millionaires who have a financial stake in government policy. They support both Democrats and Republicans and generally don’t care which side wins as long as the winner is on their payroll. They love Establishment Democrats because they can be easily manipulated and they have always been loyal lapdogs protecting their bottom line. They love Hillary Clinton because she has a long track record indicating that she is open for business and she, like her husband, will play if you’ll pay. Whether they represent fossil fuels, private prisons, wall street shadow banks, or lone currency manipulators, they know that if the choices are Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz, it’s heads they win, tails we lose. They don’t care how long the campaign goes as long as they keep raking in the loot.
6. The Wingnuts – Wingnuts are those folks that have very strong opinions, but that can’t really back them up with logic or reliable facts. They are unable to distinguish between a halfway decent source, like the New York Times, and a completely fact-free blog, like naturalnews. These are the people who think vaccines cause autism, there are chemtrails in the sky, 911 was an inside job, etc. You can often spot a wingnut by their repeated use of the word Monsanto and Hillary Clinton in the same sentence. Wingnuts love Bernie and hate Hillary with an almost rabid passion. They are Bernie or Bust and there is no way in hell they would vote for Clinton, even if their vote were the determining vote between a Trump and Clinton presidency.
So, why are these categories worth mentioning? Because I think they shed some light on how we communicate to and receive communications from each other. Every day the rec list is full of diaries written by Clinton Democrats decrying the negative tone of the Sanders campaign, linking to hit pieces by Clinton surrogates, or pointing out the utter futility of Sanders’ electoral prospects. Non-Party Progressives respond with hit pieces by Sanders’ surrogates, critiques of Clinton, and very optimistic electoral math. When it gets too heated, a Sanders Democrat might play the adult in the room, issuing a solemn warning about the future of a political party that us Non-Party Progressives are really not all that concerned about. Occasionally, a wing nut will chime in with a Monsanto reference.
This is what I have to say as a Non-Party Progressive:
To the Borg: Fuck You!
To the Establishment Democrats: Fuck You, most of the time.
To the Clinton Democrats: I think you are wasting your expressions of indignation on us. We view Clinton as our opponent, not our ally. Political campaigns are tough, there’s a lot at stake, and they involve offense and defense. You can call someone out for playing dirty, but not for playing hard. We might form an alliance with Clinton’s general election campaign when pragmatic in the future, but right now she is the one thing standing in the way of what we see as the only hope for a progressive presidency in half a century. All this complaining about Sanders going negative sounds to us kinda like Jon Stewart when he’s mocking Lindsey Graham. We also couldn’t give a damn that Sanders isn’t fundraising for the Democratic Party. In fact, that is one of the biggest reasons why we love him so much. We also love that he’s an Independent, using the Democrat party as a vehicle for his campaign, and not an Establishment Democrat.
To the Sanders Democrats: We are allies in the progressive cause, but we don’t care so much about the success of your party. Don’t assume that we do and we won’t assume that you don’t. Let’s win this one together, despite our differences.
To the Non-Party Progressives: I love you beautiful people. Let’s Bern this Mutha Down!
To the Wing Nuts: I’m so happy to see so many of you taking an interest in electoral politics because of Bernie. Please be careful and do some fact-checking about the things you say. You probably don’t realize it, but you may be inadvertently helping Clinton by going after her with wild, baseless attacks. Between the wing nuts on the right and those on the left, there are so many false scandals about Hillary Clinton, that when people raise something scandalous that is actually true (the campaign lies she’s told, the sources of her funding, the sell out on the Bankruptcy bill, the goodies that Clinton Foundation donors got from the State Dept., the Marc Rich pardon/campaign funds connection, her anti-feminist treatment of the women who accused her husband etc. etc.) Hillary can brush it off as just another crazy (Bengazhi, Monsanto, etc.) attack. Think about taking it down a notch. She is an Establishment Democrat, not the root of all evil. We need to win this election, not associate the Sanders campaign with conspiracy theories and internet rants.