There’s a current rec list diary to the effect that “Bernie or Bust is Bonkers”. Well, maybe it’s not so bonkers. Hear me out before you react to that.
Communication requires some kind of shared frame of reference; it follows that the closer you are in perspective to someone, the fewer troubles you have communicating with that person. But there’s one kind of argument that people who are very close to each other are prone to having: talking past each other. This is where two people are arguing because, often without realizing it, they disagree on what the argument should be about.
The reason that people who are particularly close to each other are prone to this kind of argument is that they take it for granted the other person should be on the same page. When a salesman tries to convince a prospect to buy, you seldom see an “arguing past each other” situation develop because everyone agrees upon their roles in the dispute. But you see arguing past each other all the time with spouses because each side assumes the other should be focused on the same issues they’re focused on.
It gets more complicated because people arguing past each other are often unaware of subtext. It’s perfectly clear to outsiders when a couple bickers they’re bringing a lot baggage to the table, but usually not so clear to the participants. You have be exquisitely sensitive to subtext in these situations. You have to ask yourself: How does what I’m saying sound to the other person?
What does a Sanders supporter hear when a Clinton supporter demands to know whether they’ll be supporting Hillary in the general. Most of them, especially older ones like me, hear a request for reassurance that we’re ultimately on the same team. But here’s how I think a lot of people hear that: Can we pivot to the general now so I can start ignoring you?
Is that a hysterical take on the question? Sure. But it’s easy to see other people’s hysteria and miss your own. Take the oft-quoted Wall Street Journal poll, on which the editorial staff of the Journal slapped the headline “Poll: 33% of Sanders Supporters Wouldn't Vote for Clinton”. But here’s how the story itself characterizes the result:
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll indicates one third of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' supporters cannot see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton in November.
The headline is bit of devious Democrat baiting by WSJ editors, and clearly we’ve swallowed that bait because a more accurate way to characterize this result would be that two thirds of Sanders voters see themselves as voting for Clinton if she’s nominated.
What about the remaining one third? Well “cannot see yourself voting for Hillary” could mean three distinct things: (1) You intend to sit this out or vote for someone else; (2) You literally can’t picture yourself voting for Hillary because her getting the nomination isn’t something you imagine happening; or (3) you’re pissed that people are trying to pivot to the general before the primaries are open so you’re not going play along by imagining yourself into that scenario. There is a no doubt in my mind there are some people who fall into each of these categories, but it’s abundantly clear that the great majority of Bernie supporters would support Hillary in the general.
So what are we to make of this using a minority of Sanders supporters as proof of the perfidy of Sanders supporters in general? Is that entirely rational?
“But there aren’t any Clinton supporters saying they wouldn’t vote for Bernie in the general.” I’ve heard that quite a bit here, but it’s a classic misunderstanding of the asymmetry in positions. If Bernie were currently ahead in pledged delegates and superdelegates, #BernieOrBust wouldn’t be a thing and #HillaryOrBust would. And if you can’t see yourself getting behind #HillaryOrBust then remember (a) a majority of Sanders supporters don’t support #BernieOrBust even though we’re actually in that position now and (b) something very much like that happened among Clinton supporters in 2008. This kind of reaction is always going to happen among some of the supporters of the underdog a tough two-way race, and it always puts a burden of diplomacy on the thoughtful, forward-looking people in each faction.
Arguments don’t have to undermine a relationship; they can actually strengthen it but you have to fight fair and it takes time. So I’ll close with words of wisdom from a Hillary supporter:
Clinton supporter Jay Jacobs likened the courtship of Sanders backers to making Thanksgiving dinner. “You can’t cook a turkey too fast by turning up the heat,” he said. “You’ve got to cook it at the right temperature for the right amount of time, and it’ll come out fine — but you’ve got to do a lot of basting along the way.”
That’s true of any argument in any relationship. If you want to strengthen the relationship you’ve got to take the time and effort to do it right. If you demand immediate and unconditional satisfaction for yourself, the relationship breaks down.
So is #BernieOrBust bonkers? Sure, if you think this is about whether Bernie supporters should vote for Hillary in the generals. It’s not so bonkers if you think it is about whether Bernie supporters should support Hillary pivoting to the generals now.