Recently, Susan Sarandon sparked controversy by openly equivocating on whether or not she would be willing to support Hillary Clinton should she win the nomination over her preferred candidate Bernie Sanders, suggesting that she might even prefer a Trump presidency, hoping that it would galvanize the country into a revolution akin to how the travesty of George W. Bush paved the way for Barack Obama’s electoral viability. This interview has shined new and dangerously stupid light on a supposed phenomenon among Sanders supporters that fits conveniently well within an even stupider narrative that the media and the Hillary camp has been trying to force upon them for quite some time, that there is at least a segment of Bernie supporters, and perhaps a sizable segment, who are so flighty, ego-driven, and enraptured by a cult of personality, that they would stay home or even vote for Trump rather than vote for anyone but Trump.
They’re called Bernie or Busters apparently, and it is almost laughable to hear so many Clinton supporters grouse about it, considering the easiest and most readymade comparison to this nonsense is the PUMA movement of 2008 supposedly started on behalf of their candidate, which they should know more than anyone was just as silly and imaginary then as it is now on the other side. Perhaps there were a few PUMAs who stayed home or even voted for McCain, and perhaps there are a few BOBs (?) who will stay home or vote for Trump, but to suggest that this is something that will ever amount to much at all, let alone sway the election for Trump, is beyond idiotic, to the point of being willfully stupid, knowingly exaggerating a hypothetical political temper tantrum to all at once shame Bernie supporters from engaging in it, while simultaneously condemning them for doing so already.
But let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that it is a thing. If the Bernie Or Bust movement were significant, I would submit that it would still not be analogous to the PUMAs of old, in that it would be a more honorable if still wrongheaded position in today’s context, and I would also argue that its supposed significance is as much if not more of a condemnation of Clinton’s campaign than it is of Bernie Sanders or his supporters. At the end of the day, it comes down to two basic competing assumptions about voting, specifically whether votes are to be earned, or whether or not they are an entitlement sworn by circumstance.
Going back to the Sarandon interview, to condemn her position is to assume that by choosing not to support Hillary Clinton in the general, in seeing no valid reason to vote FOR her and rejecting the Lesser of Two Evils framework suggesting one should be morally compelled to at least vote AGAINST Trump, she is somehow betraying Hillary Clinton, as if Clinton were somehow entitled to her vote without having to earn it. Clearly she hasn’t earned it yet, and if she can’t, than why should Sarandon or anyone who thinks like her vote for someone they clearly dislike just because they dislike the other candidate even more? Extrapolating to the larger electorate, if Hillary loses to Trump because she couldn’t convince enough people to vote for her and not just against the other guy, than what the hell good is she as a candidate or a potential president anyway? If Bernie Or Bust is such a massive thing that it could risk the election for Clinton, than its only because Hillary Clinton is so bad, that even the prospect of Trump isn’t enough to get people to want her to be president, and if she’s THAT bad, than heaven help us.
Again, all hypothetical, as she’s not that bad, and will likely win even if she somehow manages to run the most inept general election campaign in the history of modern politics, because Trump really IS that bad. My point is, the Lesser of Two Evils is a perfectly reasonable and logical argument to make for choosing a president, but we must never forget than when you’re making that argument, you can’t make it a moral imperative. It is by definition a last resort, a necessary evil to prevent a greater, unnecessary one. When put in a no-win situation (whether you personally think Clinton Vs. Trump is one or not), you cannot condemn the person inside it for whatever choice they make, or from refusing to make a choice. It’s easy to look at, say, the Trolly Problem, and say it’s better to switch the train to the track with one person on it rather than stay on the track with five, because your deliberate action will mean less death. But if someone else chooses to stay on the track, reasoning that even though more will die, at least the blood won’t be on their hands because they didn’t make the choice to actively hit anyone, their position is equally valid. Blame the fucker who put the people on the track! Of course, voting for Trump is, to the above analogy, akin to staying on the track with five people and then hitting the gas to run them over faster and harder so as to enhance the tragedy enough to galvanize public support against tying people to train tracks, which does follow a sort of craven, amoral Machiavellian logic, but not one likely to have much mass appeal.
Which brings me to the PUMA comparison. The difference between the PUMAs and the BOBs, both nonsensical, imaginary concepts pulled from the ass of pundits with too much time on their hands, is that to the extent that they were or are now real, there are different motivations between them. The PUMA reaction, such as it was, came from a place of petulance and entitlement as the shocked supporters of a candidate who expected a coronation suddenly realized that they were on the losing end of what should have been a slam dunk victory. There was no nobility in their position, just sour grapes and a crying plea to take their ball and go home. Bernie supporters, whether they plan to vote for Hillary or not in the general, have no such ill-will, because they’ve always been in the underdog position. Theirs is not a futile and petty attempt at blackmail, but rather the natural consequence of so many people entering the political process for the first time to support the first candidate they’ve ever actually had a reason to be passionate about. For these people, the lesser of two evils has never been a good enough justification to actively support what they considered to be a lesser evil, and whether you agree with their judgment, the sheer fact that for once there’s a candidate capable of breaking through their apathy is telling.
The only entitlement they feel is to the legacy of progressivism that even the most mainstream establishment Democrat would have to admit clearly belongs to the movement Sanders has cultivated around him. Whether you think he’s the better choice or not from a tactical standpoint, his is clearly the liberalism of the present and the future, contrasted quite plainly with Clinton’s liberalism of the past. She has evolved to where the voters are, while Bernie’s been here all along, waiting for the voters to catch up to him, and his is the torch that will be carried by Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard and the next ensuing generations who will actually fight and work to make this country and this party better after the Clinton dynasty is finally done triangulating itself into its own sordid legacy. Clinton has had every advantage she could have possibly been afforded in this contest and is still for many simply the Lesser of Two Evils. Bernie started from nothing and got to within an inch of the nomination through the sheer force of people wanting him to win it. The only reason he has struggled is because the stakes of a McCain win in 2008 did not seem quite as dire as a Trump win now, so that when Clinton made literally the exact same electability argument against Obama, a majority of the party still had the moral temerity to choose hope over fear.
If there are any people who don’t feel the need to vote for the next best thing if Bernie loses, it might just be because Bernie is the first candidate they’ve ever had a reason to vote for, and would have simply never supported a candidate had he not compelled them to support him. That you may be critical of their prior apathy or skeptical of their current enthusiasm is perfectly reasonable, but to expect their loyalty when you’ve given them no reason to be loyal is just insulting. In fact, by acquiescing to the centrist establishment’s nearly successful rejection of the clearly more progressive candidate, you’ve given them even less reason to be loyal to the Democratic Party or to ever vote for a Democrat ever again. And that’s your fault, not theirs! You’re the ones who have lacked faith that a silent majority of liberals were out there, just waiting for someone to inspire them with more than just lip service and empty rhetoric. Why should they have any faith you, or in a party that calls itself liberal, but when push comes to shove, elects the less liberal candidate out of fear, especially when the whole point of liberalism is that hope should always overcome fear? Where is that impulse from 2008 to shoot for the moon that was enough to elect our first black president? Is Trump really that scary? Maybe. But that doesn’t mean we should be proud of ourselves for settling for the safer bet (if it even is the safer bet) when we all know that it’s a half measure compared to what we could have had if we’d just had the courage of our convictions.
Maybe if for once the Democratic Party actually stood and stood up proud for something other than the perpetuation of its own existence, more people otherwise inclined to stay unaffiliated might actually want to be a part of it.