My heart is with Bernie Sanders. His passion for the common person, opposition to neo-cons’ love of war, and acceptance of science with the concomitant need to act on it represent my views better than any other candidate for decades.
My head however remembers another candidate who was most like Sen. Sanders, and that man is George McGovern.
McGovern captured the hearts and minds of a young generation. He pointed America in the direction of a new era of peace and prosperity. However, even though he was a decorated bomber pilot in World War II, his views were painted as detrimental to the country, even anti-American. Coupled with some campaign miscues, such as the vice presidential fiasco, and Nixon’s dirty tricks, the result was an electoral college disaster, and Nixon carried 49 states.
The question that haunts me now is that if Sanders were the nominee, would the same thing happen again? Sanders is certainly as progressive as McGovern and, as a self-described socialist, would be subject to the same endless attacks. The term “socialist” raises a red flag (pun intended) to many people who would simply infer that means communist. While we here on Dailykos know better, there is an amazing amount of ignorance that Fox and the right wing media will pounce upon. As we know, we cannot trust the traditional media to report it accurately. Instead of calling those assertions the lies that they are, they would feel the need to report it in a balanced way, which actually gives it some credence.
My heart says “screw it” – support the candidate who I most agree with. My head however is haunted by another specter – the 2000 election. Many usually-reliable Democrats voted for Ralph Nader, understandably feeling he offered the best choice. There was also a sense among many otherwise progressives that the differences between Gore and Bush were not that significant, which led to more support for Nader and a relative lack of enthusiasm for Gore. While there may be some disagreement, the general consensus is that Nader took enough votes away from Gore that allowed Bush to be selected(sic) president.
After two wars, disastrous judicial appointments, fiscal mismanagement, and fiddling while the earth burned, we learned that the election made a crucial difference for the direction of the country.
Similarly, I know many people feel that Hilary Clinton is so tied to Wall Street that she does not present much of a difference from any of the likely Republican candidates. However true that may be, it is safe to assume that her judicial appointments and overall economic and social policies, which might not go as far as we would like, would nevertheless be far more favorable than a Republican’s. So, here is my dilemma: Do I vote for the candidate I most agree with who is more likely to lose the general election or do I support the candidate who has the better chance of winning even though she might not give me everything I want?
I honestly don’t know.