One of the leading tendencies among Bernie fans is to denounce Hillary's ties to the "establishment." In invoking the term, Sanders supporters are most often referring to the Democratic Party. Indeed, many claim that Democrats are too centrist nowadays--that there are simply not enough people in Congress fervently pushing an agenda that works for average Americans.
It's time for a reality check. The Democratic party, which Sanders shunned for some 20 odd years, has helped push, in recent years, some of the greatest liberal reforms. Whether we consider the huge gains of the LGBTQ community, post-2008 reforms in the financial system, or the advent of the most liberal Healthcare legislation yet (the ACA), the progress pushed by Democratic leaders is not negligible.
Granted, we have not made enough progress. Americans still suffer from a lack of good healthcare, overly expensive college tuitions, discrimination, and a host of other issues. But the idea that Democrats have been too soft in pushing for change is simply false. Taking a look at just a few of the bills authored by Democrats in Congress, it is clear that the party's stance is far more liberal than the Obama administration's accomplishments would indicate. Why? Because Obama only had a Democrat-controlled Congress for two years. And when he virtually begged for his supporters to vote Democrats into office in midterm elections, Americans (as always) showed up to the polls in disappointingly low numbers and effectively deprived the President of the chance to continue rolling out huge progressive reforms like the ACA or Dodd-Frank. Democrats--and the President--had effectively been stopped in their tracks. Where were the Bernie supporters that call themselves "real" progressives then?
Obama's election in every way represented a political revolution on the scale of Bernie's: he was an ardent liberal, the first African-American to be nominated by a major party, and promised sweeping changes. But without a Congress to support his agenda, Obama did the best he could: compromise, negotiate, and get every inch of progress possible. And he did tremendous work given the situation he inherited. Now, however, the rhetoric so often heard among young and nearly fanatical Bernie-lovers is that Americans are sick of the pragmatism they saw in the Obama years. They want "real" change.
The claim many make goes something like this: "Obama did a good job in all, but now it's time for big progress--and only Sanders can deliver that." Wrong. There are only two plausible scenarios that could come out of a Sanders presidency.
In scenario 1, Sanders comes into office carrying a Democratic Congress (by no means a certainty, but let us go along with this vision). Democrats will be willing to pass some big reforms, but certainly would not go as far as passing Single-payer Healthcare (and I do mean certainly given that Obamacare was a compromise reached among a majority of Democrats and that there are currently as few as 23 Bernie supporters running for Congress nationwide with horridly underfunded campaigns). At that point President Sanders could choose to stick to his guns--aka. not give in to the vile "pragmatism" of the political establishment--and rather than settle for smaller reforms, keep hammering away at his points and explain to the people how anything short of Single-payer Healthcare (among other gargantuan reforms) is unacceptable.
After two years in office, he would have virtually nothing to show, leaving him vulnerable to Republican take-over in Congress, and further reducing his chances of getting major reforms passed. He would then face a re-election campaign in which Republicans would rightly ridicule him as ineffective, and in which his supporters will have lost faith in the "political revolution." In all likelihood, the most lasting effect of his term will thus have been to ridicule the idea of democratic socialism and potentially empower a conservative comeback.
In far less likely scenario 2, Sanders decides to negotiate, compromise and get whatever he can out of the (let us assume) Democratic Congress--even if it means accepting reforms far short of what he sought. But then Americans who had felt the Bern just a few years earlier would have to ask themselves: where did his "political revolution" go? How is he any different from Obama, who made us all so passionate and hopeful yet delivered less than he had promised?
Indeed, why not have voted for Clinton, who at least never denied that she was a pragmatic candidate? In a situation where pragmatic compromising and negotiating would be required, the former secretary would have been far better equipped: with a more moderate stance, tremendous respect from Democrats in Congress, and a record of rallying officials to back progressive legislation (like the ACA), Clinton would certainly extract more out the legislative body.
Some would disagree, claiming that a President who asks for a mile (Sanders) gets a foot, while a President that asks for half a mile (Clinton) gets an inch. Yet there is no historical evidence to back this claim. People who point to FDR forget that he benefitted from a Democratic coalition that included deeply racist Southern states. Others will hail Johnson, disregarding the fact that the tremendous reforms of his Presidency subsequently tore apart the very coalition he and FDR had used to bring about change. So when Sanders supporters talk about "bringing back" a hugely progressive Democratic party today, they fail to realize that the base of support such a comeback depends on simply never existed. The gigantic progressive coalition they think back to included segregationists, and then broke apart as soon as the party backed Civil Rights efforts.
In the end, it seems far more likely that if Sanders stomped his feet and yelled about wanting a mile of progress, he'd be the one getting an inch. By contrast, someone well-versed in political arm-twisting and negotiation, like Secretary Clinton, may ask for just half a mile but get Congress to back most of her demands.
A successful politician is one who can reach across the aisle, work the system, and ultimately unite the country behind a progressive platform. While Hillary could certainly unite a broad coalition of moderate and ultra liberal legislators to back her plans, Sanders would further divide and gridlock an already dysfunctional Congress.
Moreover, Hillary has consistently jumped into the middle of the political arena to actively help construct a path forward. Sanders acted more like a cheerleader, standing outside the ring, fervently praising a cause without contributing more than words and good intentions. Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, and Johnson were change-makers in part because they had Congresses that backed their agendas, but also because they were masters of politics who knew how to whip and rally votes for their plans. With close to 69 times more politician endorsements than Sanders, Hillary shows the promise of becoming a far more successful leader in a country whose laws are written and voted on by the same legislators who overwhelmingly prefer her to Bernie.
The fact is we live in a deeply divided time, in which pragmatic compromising gets us significant--if slow--progress, while stubborn idealism consistently fails. This fact is apparent in Sanders's career. While the Senator may have been consistent about standing by the most progressive ideas, that is virtually all he did: stand. For all his amendments and intense talk of change, he achieved little-to-no progress at all. And while he stood firmly in a corner waving his hands up and down about the injustices he saw in America, it was more pragmatic and moderate leaders who negotiated landmark accomplishments like the Affordable Care Act.
Not even Senator Elizabeth Warren, revered for her progressivism and often used to slam Hillary, signed on to co-sponsor Sanders's introduced bills regarding free college tuition and single-payer healthcare. Yet somehow we should expect him to sweep in a majority of Congressmen and Congresswomen more liberal even than Warren? Should our next President's entire platform really depend on a "political revolution" of such an extreme and unrealistic scale?
There are plenty of reasons to be frustrated with the way things are. But in an America as fissured as today, we shouldn't vote for candidates simply because they promise us the instant gratification of massive change. Democrats are leading a slow but steady fight for progress; and with the Republican party crumbling in utter disarray this election year, one can be hopeful that an (albeit pragmatic) Clinton presidency would bring even greater increments of change than the Obama years. By contrast, throwing our support behind a "political revolution" that seems bent on changing reality by ignoring it is likely to do more damage than good for the progressive movement. In our times, the old saying may be particularly true: slow and steady wins the race.