I'm looking at the infighting taking place on the liberal side of the battle zone and I'm disappointed. Just tonight, I was looking at the comments section of on The Hill which mentioned Bernie Sanders and his statements that the Democrats need to change. I found myself getting frustrated at the comments section. "Bernie Sanders slandered Clinton. He should never have run in the Democratic party, he's not even a Democrat. He's insensitive to the concerns of people of color and is part of the far left." Clinton supporters, I say this to you: no one is entitled to the Presidency. We are the United States of America, a country built on the principles of rule by the people. This isn't a coronation, this is an election, a competition that calls for debate and challenges. Bernie ran for the Democratic Party because that was the best route to securing prominence. Debating on the issues based on fact is not slandering. Had he run on the independent ticket, you would have yelled that he was dividing the vote. He’d be damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. Nonetheless, he endorsed Hillary Clinton at the convention this past summer. Hillary Clinton did indeed secure enough votes for her to win the nomination. Because of that, shouldn't you be working to bring Bernie Sanders supporters into the fold to back her? Ostracizing Bernie supporters by calling them "basement dwellers" and "sexist" and "insensitive to the concerns of minorities" does not recruit them to your cause. Whether you know it or not, you need the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party to win elections. You cannot win an election alone on the backs of Democrats; you need the support of independents to carry an election. Resorting to identity politics and knee-jerk labeling does not accomplish this. If we are truly the party of diversity, we should realize that ideological purity (which is taking the form of ostracizing progressives) is not the key to winning an election.
Now I'm looking at the die-hard Bernie Sanders supporters. Before you take your pitchforks out against me, recall that I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary election, so I think I’m allowed to have a word or two. You came to this election with the attitude that Clinton was just as bad as Trump and, as a result, chose to sit out the election, vote for a fringe candidate that had zero chance of winning (i.e. Jill Stein), or vote for two candidates that completely opposed everything you stand for (i.e. Donald Trump or Gary Johnson). How's that decision working out for you now that Overlord Cheeto (aka Donald Trump) is in the White House dismantling sensible policy implemented during the Obama years that put us on a good start? In life, we rarely (if ever) get 100% of what we want. Elections are no different. Yes, Clinton was flawed. She did not have all the progressive ideas and positions that you wanted in a candidate. She is, however, much more sensible and much more in line with us than any of the other candidates. I wouldn’t have worried about escalating tensions with North Korea, bombing countries impulsively, or repealing all the environmental and criminal justice reforms that were implemented under President Obama in a Hillary Clinton presidency. Would you rather work with a group of people who align with you on many issues and get at least half or most of what you want or work with a group who is completely opposed to your ideas and get nothing? If you’re intelligent, you’d go with the former choice. You bemoaned Tom Perez getting the DNC nomination with the argument that the establishment still controls the DNC. For the record, Tom Perez was a fine choice for DNC Chair. He had an extensive record of working to investigate and prosecute violations of civil rights during his tenure at the Department of Justice and worked heavily to reverse the economic downturn we were facing. Not only that, he asked Keith Ellison to become the Deputy Vice Chair immediately after securing his position. As I said to the Clinton supporters above: if we are truly the party that prides itself on diversity, ideological purity and an attitude of non-negotiation is counterproductive in achieving unity. In order to change the system, you need to work with the system. Secure positions in government then worry about making change.
I’ll close off by citing an electoral example of unity within a political party and how it lead to a positive outcome. Our neighbors to the north (Canada) is currently under the leadership of Justin Trudeau. In Canada, there were three political factions: the conservatives, the moderate liberals, and the progressive liberals. Whenever the liberal factions were divided (i.e. separate parties), they lost elections to the conservatives. When they unified, they secured power. I’m aware that Parliamentary politics functions differently in comparison to Congressional politics, but the principles of unification can be applied to US elections. In order for liberals to win elections and get the country back on track, we need to be unified. So stop grabbing each other by the throats, swallow your pride, and realize that the other side is not your enemy. The enemy here is Donald Trump and in order to beat him, we need to be cohesive as a unit.