Keywords and Terms: Candidate Bernie Sanders; Candidate
Hillary Clinton; Elizabeth Warren; Martin O’Malley; Presidential Campaigns; Leftist
ideology; Progressive Values; Trans-Pacific Trade Pact; Overhauling Tax Rules
and Regulations; Climate Change Issues; Social Security Expansion; Citizen
United; Older population and working poor; party-level campaigns; Intra-Party
Competition; Wage-Disparity; China; Mexico; and, America’s Economic Security
For
those who likened Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ announcement of his 2016 run
for the White House as a volcanic eruption within the Democratic Party or among
progressives, it may be time to think again. For progressives, it is more like
a call to listen across ideological lines regarding economic and social issues
that continue to divide us. The issues of income inequality, racial opportunity
inequality, climate change, over-burdening taxation regulations, expansive and
expanding gaps in socio-economic indicators, that continue to befoul the
dynamic and bluntly spoken Independent Senator from Vermont, are genuine; and
for all intense and purposes, are reasons why Bernie Sander’s candidacy cannot
be written-off; and, roars up against the establishment candidacy of Secretary Hillary
Clinton.
Moreover,
it is probably in the overall interest of all Americans that Sanders’ candidacy
is calling for the woman in the mirror, the establishment candidate, to reflect
once again. While Sanders’ Candidacy is perceived in some quarters as having
the potential of drawing Hillary Rodham Clinton’s candidacy towards the left,
there are no direct correlation to this inclination; rather, it is an
opportunity for Democrats to look at those issues that seem to be papered over
among progressives, in the national discuss, as we progress towards the 2016
nomination. Many leftist believe, while Republicans do not have answers to many
of these problems, or are refusing to acknowledge them, there is a vacuum, a
paucity, in communication even among progressives regarding the urgency or attention
these problems deserve on the national stage. To some leftists, there is hardly
anything wrong with an insurgent democratic candidacy; and better yet, there is
hardly anything unappreciated of a candidate who believes that social security
must be expanded and taxation of the wealthy is in order, to ameliorate poverty
among the working poor, women and elderly.
Senator
Bernie Sanders’ candidacy for the 2016 Presidential Campaign, launched on
Wednesday, April 29th , in the Capitol, based on a populist income
inequality platform, wants to thwart the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership,
overhaul tax regulations and rules that allow American Companies to invest
overseas, draw attention to Climate Change issues, and address the Citizen
United Ruling from US Supreme Court. A self-described Democratic Socialist, who
believes in standing up for the middle income earners in America, is tired of
American Corporations shifting jobs overseas in order to dodge paying IRS
taxes. Acknowledging that it may take close to a billion dollar to win a
general election, a privilege that his candidacy cannot amass, Senator Sanders
agrees that, it is probably an uphill battle and improbability to launch a
credible national campaign to topple a candidate financed by the enormous
wealth of donors as the Koch Brothers in the Republican Party.
It is
whimsical, if not awkward and cryptic, to assume that a candidacy like that of
Sanders’ may win a general election in America of today; however, for a
candidate who Associated Press reported as saying, he is ensuring that someone
in the race is holding Clinton’s feet to the fire, on those issues that are
important to the left, what are few banters or fights between two heavy weights
in a family. Americans, progressives inclusive, must recognize that fierce
interparty competitiveness would only enhance the chances of the party’s flag
bearer come a national contest, not diminish it. For the candidate, who admonishes
himself for running outside the two-party political system and prevailing over
Democrats and Republicans in Vermont’s Senatorial races, no one must think his
candidacy is inconsequential.
A
reflection on how far an insurgency candidacy like Bernie Sander’s will last,
can be garnered from the experience of Jack Kemp’s or Jean Kirkpatrick’s run
for the Republican nomination in the 1984 White House race. Ronald Reagan was
the assured establishment candidate for the Republican nomination, during the final
balloting exercise however, candidates Jack Kemp and Jean Kirkpatrick still
sustained one vote a piece, while Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush howled away
two thousand two hundred and thirty one votes.
Establishment supporters of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for
2016 probably and tentatively constitute over ninety percent of Democratic
delegates; however, there is room for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or
Martin O’Malley to wiggle one or two ballots at the end of the exercise. Yes,
Hillary Clinton like Ronald Reagan, will still carry the day; however, they
both wouldn't, without a fight from other promising and astute candidates. The
party-level campaign for nomination, is often an opportunity to give a voice to
the voiceless, an opportunity to have democracy at play, where candidates, who
for any other reasons of handicap, are able to make their point and have their
say, in an often cut-throat, winner takes all competition, that is characteristic
of the party nomination process.
For
example, the morning after the party nomination process, the looser often seeks
comfort in the fact that he or she gave it his or her best. There is often some
sense of accomplishment at that point, at least the flag bearer does not see
himself or herself as winning the nomination on a platter of gold. Subtle
rebellion within the party often subside after the nomination process and the
flag bearer wins new converts, who may have wished alternative candidate to be the
flag bearer. Imagine what this could do for pressure groups within the
Democratic Party seeking support for women health initiatives like quality
maternity care, preventive health services, birth control insurance coverage
and an emergency rape kit in all hospitals. If Hillary Clinton is temperate in
supporting these initiatives, so as not to be seen as deferring to women issues
on a national platform, or if she chooses to be more centrist in order to win
national votes, the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or Martin
O’Malley may force her to negotiate on what goes on the party’s national
platform. This is what grassroots democracy is all about.
Insurgent
candidacy forces the party nominee to respect the competition’s ideals, even if
she or he despises the competition that leads to victory. She or he may not
want to be bothered by the theatrics that involve running against other
candidates that may share some of her inherent values within the party;
however, the competition and associated press appearances, newspaper
interviews, talk shows appearances and intra-party debates that are seen on the
television at the individual party level, seem often to embolden the party’s
eventual nominee, and prepare her or him for the national contest against the
opposing national party’s candidate. The usual premonition that intra-party’s
competition bloodies the eventual party nominee, while may be true for some
candidates, it has often prepared others better to withstand the brutal and
challenging inter-party competition on the general election day.
“Bernie-Sanderism’
then, is an act of defiance, a candidacy thumbing its nose at the establishment
candidate, one billed on leftist principles, that the Brooklyn-born Senator
from Vermont, can take home as a badge of honor. The seventy-three year-old, second
term senator can pride himself, even if he loses to Secretary Clinton, and say,
‘You see, my candidacy was built on solid Social Democratic principles one that
puts the American workers, women, the poor and elderly on center-stage to ask
pertinent questions as: 1) Are you on the side of working families who suffer
as a result of disastrous trade agreements that often off-shore American jobs
to China or Mexico? 2) Is there still room for the middle class in this
widening income disparity war? 3) How many labor and tax laws are still
enforceable in America and is the party’s flag bearer ready to see that
enforcement of labor and tax laws are essential to combating the growing income
inequality in America? 4) Will evolving understanding of the impact of Citizen
United Ruling from US Supreme Court help the public see where this is taking our
Democracy? And, 5) are Conceptual uncertainties tarnishing the debate over
America’s Economic Security?
If it
is plausible to argue that Bernie-Sanders’ candidacy will lead to inexorable
change in the platform of the eventual nominee of the Democratic Party, it is
possible to advance the thesis that listening across ideological lines, is essential
for addressing the mammoth issues or problems facing America today. Modest assumption
that the United States Congress is expected to work more cooperatively, once
the race issue is extricated from consideration of the occupant of the White
House, may gain greater credulity, if one buys into the argument that the
present day dysfunction in US Congress may be adduced to the race of the
current occupant of the White House. However,
many progressives know that this is not true, America is a nation of complex incongruences
that continue to evolve and often impacting attitudes and shaping the actual
experience of resolving political, economic and social problems. That is why,
it is important that each of the major political party has contestants vying
for the status of the flag bearer, not just one, pre-ordained candidate, as is
the case with the 2016 Democratic Party.
With
the entry of Senator Bernie Sander into the Democratic Party nomination
process, it is probably safe to conclude that the debate(s) for the party’s
flag bearer position will take a turn for the better. Ideological and Philosophical
issues will be trashed out at the party level, so also, will ideological-philosophical
power-sharing, strengthen the eventual party’s nominee. Shaping and changing
the party’s platform to accommodate plurality of all constituencies, will
assist Democrats to better manage or fight back interruptions from Republican
Party. Can party-level insurgency resolve the old-age question: giving everyone
an equal chance of being heard and represented may ultimately control the
influence of money in party politics? Can
constructive and effective engagement within party, strengthen the party’s
chances in the general elections? These are important questions which the entry
of the Independent Vermont Senator into the Democratic Party Presidential
nomination race, is about to answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment