On Tuesday, April 19th, I will be voting in New York’s presidential primary. I will be casting my vote for Hillary Clinton, the only Democrat on the Democratic Party ballot. While there are many excellent reasons to support Clinton’s candidacy, there was one deciding factor as to why I will not be voting for Bernie Sanders: Hypocrisy rubs me the wrong way.
Sanders, an avowed independent, has often spoken unfavorably of the Democratic party and has run against Democratic candidates. In 1986 he ran against liberal Democrat Madeleine Kunin in her bid for a second term as Governor of Vermont. In an interview with Vermont Affairs magazine he said, "The Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt, they have no ideology. Their ideology is opportunism.” Sanders shrugged off concerns that his candidacy could result in a Republican win. He said saw no difference between the two parties: “It is absolutely fair to say you are dealing with Tweedledum and Tweedledee.” Fortunately for Kunin she was reelected, receiving 47% of the vote. (The Republican candidate got 38%. Sanders got 15%.)
Two years later, in a letter to former U.S. Ambassador to Finland Derek Shearer, Sanders wrote, “No, I am not a Democrat and have no intention of becoming one. I am an Independent for Vermont’s sole Congressional seat.”
That same year Sanders admonished Jesse Jackson, whose campaign for President he endorsed, “Jesse believes that serious social change is possible within the Democratic Party. I don’t.” In a 1989 op-ed in the Burlington Free Press, Sanders referred to the Democratic and Republican parties as being “intellectually and morally bankrupt.” And in April 1990, at the Socialist Scholars Conference in New York City, Sanders said, “It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party.”
While those were some of Sanders’ past criticisms of the Democratic Party, his opinion towards that very party he is now seeking the presidential nomination from has not changed. “I am not a Democrat, because the Democratic Party does not represent, and has not for many years, the interests of my constituency, which is primarily working families, middle-class people and low-income people,” Sanders stated in an interview with The Progressive in 2014.
So why is Bernie Sanders now running as a Democratic candidate for president? For the media coverage. And the campaign contributions. “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party,” Sanders told Chuck Todd during MSNBC’s March 14th town hall, adding that Todd “would not have me on his program” if he had run as an independent. “To run as an independent, you need – you could be a billionaire,” he said. “If you’re a billionaire, you can do that. I’m not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.”
Ethic? It’s sheer hypocrisy. And it isn’t the only hypocritical act on the Vermont Senator’s part. He railed against Verizon, accusing the telecommunications giant of “corporate greed,” while joining striking wireline workers in Brooklyn on April 14th. It’s all good and well for Sanders to support the CWA and IBEW unions in their call for negotiating a fair contract. How is it then that the Sanders campaign paid Verizon $68,770 for services, as listed on its FEC disbursement report filed on March 25th? ($10,000 of the total was for the use of the Verizon Theatre in Grand Prairie, Texas, on February 27th.) An ethical leader who is concerned about the issue of wealth and income inequality would call for the boycott of such a “greedy” corporation instead of contributing to its coffers.
During the televised debate on the evening of April 14th, Bernie Sanders accused Hillary Clinton of using a racist term when she referred to young criminals as “superpredators” in a 1996 speech. It was a term originally coined by Princeton political science professor John DiIulio in 1995. Clinton’s speech was in support of the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act, which her husband signed into law. She had already apologized two months ago, saying, “Looking back, I shouldn't have used those words, and I wouldn't use them today.” Sanders voted for that very crime bill, but few hold him accountable for being involved in its passage.
Sanders continues to excoriate Clinton for voting for the Iraq War. But Clinton wasn’t the only legislator who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Democrats Joe Biden, Tom Dacshle, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Diane Feinstein, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller and Chuck Schumer were among the 77 senators who voted yea.
Clinton has long admitted her vote was a mistake.
“This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”
Sanders, however, has never apologized for his two votes endorsing the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. He supported Bill Clinton’s war on Serbia, voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) – granting George W. Bush unlimited authority to wage war against those whom he deemed to be terrorists – backed “Obama’s Libya Debacle,” and supports an expanded U.S. role in the Syrian Civil War.
Bernie Sanders is not the dove he claims to be. He is also no Democrat. He won’t be getting my vote.