Negotiated Platforms and Bridge Building in the Democratic Party: Is it too early or is it different out here?

Keywords or Terms: Liberal Democrats; One payer healthcare system; Comprehensive Criminal Justice Reform, Immigration Reform; Income inequality; Negotiations; Reconciliations; Californian Primary; Nevada primary; Bernie Sanders Hillary Clinton; Donald Trump; Rank and File; FBI Probe; Private Email US US Secretary of State; Philadelphia Convention; Denver Convention; and, DNC Chairperson, Debbi Wasserman Schultz

Whether you are a Liberal or ultra-liberal Democrat, the recent negotiation or tentative reconciliation between the Clinton and Sanders camps, may delight you or put you at an askance, what’s next? Is there going to be a rapid whine down of competition between Hillary and Bernie? Is there a flight by night love and unity parterre in the Democratic Party, or what? What will happen to Bernie Sanders convincing and revolutionary campaign for the 2016 White House? Maybe, if you read Chris Megerian and Kurtis Lee of Los Angeles Times reporting with titles as, “Thanks, but no thanks – Hillary Clinton says no to a debate in California” and, “Bernie Sanders says he will be in 'strong position headed into Democratic Convention”, you will be all the more confused? Is there a reason Hillary Clinton is backing out of another debate with Bernie Sanders, hours before the California State Primary? Who is afraid of Bernie and why would Hillary believe her time is better spent campaigning with Californian voters? Could the scathing report from US Inspector General regarding exclusive use of private emails and or server in conducting government business while Hillary was the US Secretary of State, a contributing factor to her refusing to debate Bernie Sanders in the eleventh hour to the Californian primary? Could the quick desire to begin an onslaught campaign fight against the presumptive Republican Nominee by Hillary Clinton an overbearing concern in denying the debate request from the Sanders’ Camp?

Why does Bernie Sanders believe his campaign is in a strong position to influence Super delegates at the July 20^th convention in Philadelphia or was that all hot air, as he proclaimed in East Los Angeles to reporters that, he is in a stronger position to fight for an economy that works; and that five of his supporting delegates have been named to the party’s platform committee by the Democratic National Committee? Hillary Clinton will have six of her supporting delegates and the DNC four of its own chosen delegates as reported by Associated Press. Is the Democratic National Committee seeking harmony by creating a balance in the Democratic Party Platform Committee or is the committee forgetting that the private email server issue scandal can boomerang to an extent that Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the White House collapses and the eventual nominee ends up being Bernie Sanders, for expedience sake? In fact, can the selection of close to a balanced representation on the DNC party’s platform committee a ploy to make Bernie Sanders believe that his opinions and biases will be represented in the final Democratic Party’s platform in the 2016 November contest? If the idea of a balanced platform committee is to create a facade of unity in the Democratic party by DNC Chairperson, Debbi Wasserman Schultz, why then is Bernie Sanders charting a further ultra-liberal agenda on campaigning for themes such as one payer healthcare system, comprehensive criminal justice reform, immigration reform, income inequality, and maybe the most recent one for the Californian audience or voters: legalizing marijuana in California!

All these questions are eye openers to close observers of Democratic Party Presidential Campaign for 2016 White House. Politics is a rather difficult animal and events and news at any moment of any wrong doing, or suspicion of wrong doings, by any aspirant, may cause the aspirant to lose compass and or steam for his or her brand of messaging to the voters. This is probably why Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, jumped on the news from the US Inspector General’s office that former US Secretary of State Clinton's use of private email server in conducting government administration ran afoul of public law; and thus, an indication of her untrustworthiness? And that her refusal to cooperate with the Inspector General or failure to release about four emails on the probe into the US State Department lacked oversight on private email server use in conducting government business, is part of Hillary’s crookedness, as offered by Donald Trump? Fessing up and acknowledging the use of private email was a mistake by the former secretary maybe satisfying to the Clinton’s campaign camp; however, if one understands the gravity of this mistake and implication for national security, one can now appreciate why the FBI is instituting a probe to the whole affair of using private emails or server for conducting government business, especially when one of the Secretary’s handlers or assistants had made caution of the implication of using personal emails for conducting government business. The fact that some of the emails that had transferred through private servers were censored for national security reasons and others withheld for containing top national secret material are enough reasons to know that this is rather an unforgivable mistake; and one that should not happen for someone seeking the highest office in the land.

Demonstrating a level of honesty, transparency and ethics in managing the affairs of government is rather essential when it comes to holding the highest office in the land. Violating government agency policies, especially those that have the potential of impacting the archiving of government documents or operational information, which may end up being sourced under the Freedom of Information Act by the press and public, calls to question Ms. Clinton’s good judgement and respect for tenets of the Office she was holding while with the US State Department. Mouthing there had been a change in rules governing use of emails within a government agency after your exit from office, does not jive with need to default on the side of caution as you handle government administration; nor does it shine a good light on someone aspiring to be guardian of what is true, just and precinct about the office she is seeking. Being the President of the United States, is everything to be defended on the grounds of the utmost respect for doing things that is right in the first place, before being cautioned that one’s past error or effort, is not allowed under government policies and regulations. Being proactive in instances of this nature is the key to success and an essential recipe for being the head of custodian of all US government’s missives.

To a former government agency head, Clinton probably has nothing to lose where the rules were loose and blurry; however, as a presidential aspirant, her error at the US State Department may be unforgivable by some voters or Americans, remote from the events and complaints that led to an FBI probe of a former administrative action of a potential major party presumptive nominee for general elections.  Looking through the rear-view mirror as it used to be on complaints and errors like these, are often informing and sometimes, redeeming; however, in a situation where major polls from NBC/Wall Street Journal and Washington Post/ABC News are putting the competition for the White House oval office, at a neck to neck between the presumptive Republican nominee and probably the presumptive Democratic Party nominee, no one must discountenance the type of damage that the news of erroneous use of private email for conducting government administration may wrought; and none can anticipate all things that may happen in the general election. It also does not give enough solace to people working hard to ensure that the Office of the US Presidency remains in Democratic hands. Neither is it comforting to know that your prefered candidate to replace the outgoing President of the United States, is one person that has been alleged to have broken trust, violated government policy, or made a cautious error in using her private emails to conduct government administration. It is therefore not out of character to question the veracity of having former US Secretary Clinton as the Democratic Party flag bearer in 2016.

The Presumptive Republican Nominee, Donald Trump has been having a negative press since rising to the pedestal of the party’s flag bearer; yet with all the bad press about his propensity to embellish the truth, mistreatment and abuse of women and rather bizarre public policy proposals, he is still able to keep a margin of preference within error, with the NBC News/Wall Street Journal, putting Ms. Clinton’s polling at 46% and Donald Trump’s at 43%. Within this margin of difference and or preference, either of these candidates may end up in the White House. With an adverse press concerning FBI investigation of past judgement or decisions of Ms. Clinton while in office, things may get testy to the extent that she loses the voting in November general elections? Is there a plan B for the Democratic Party? Could Bernie Sander’s ultra-liberal message be the plan B or is this just too much presumptuous in this fluid period of changing polls and margin of error concerning outside polling results for the 2016 campaign for the White House?

Two mistakes are essentially possible under current scenarios. One is the failure by establishment Democrats to understand the radical wind of change that has bemoaned the opposition party – the failure by establishment Republicans to appreciate the level of disaffection with their wing of the party and probably their custody of legislative governance at US Congress - probably led to the choice of an outsider to party politics, Donald Trump, as the party’s flag bearer, in this round of campaign for 2016 White House. The failure to realize that the disenfranchisement of the rank and file within a party may lead to a revolt within the party, ending up toppling the power structure and encouraging wide spread ideological fight that consequently undermines the position of strength of the executives of the party, and challenges future coexistence of party executives and probably establishment causes, against the rank and file choices for the future of the whole party, may end up being a kicker. Either the disaffection with establishment politics by rank and file leads to the entombment of the Republican Party, or the current elitist and somewhat aloof stance of Republican establishment will prevail in 2016 general election (an even if Donald trump loses the general election in November, the Republican party and their executives would still have to go through some soul searching).

The second and equally prevalent mistake is to assume that the disaffection in the Republican party will not come to the Democratic Party. To assume a disassociated link of what is happening within the Republican Party from the happenings in the Democratic Party is probably erroneous or mistaken; with the rise of an ultra-liberal agenda from a 2016 presidential aspirant that has gained huge momentum, that the author of the movement is insisting on taking the fight of party nomination to the floor of the convention in Philadelphia, there is enough reason for establishment Democrats to be concerned that a Republican-like revolt, may come to the Democratic Party. The assumption of ‘not in our house’ trajectory, is an erroneous judgement that can skew the perception and threats of the power of rank and file to undermine the credibility of the establishment Democratic Party before voters and the generality of the American population, just the way it has done in the Republican Party. The misconception is fraught with tragic consequences of national implications; it may imperil the political parties, Democrats, no less the Republicans. One may not await the results of the 2016 general elections to appreciate the misapplication of establishment Democratic party’s awareness of the disjointed or dysfunctional power structure arrangement, that have made the consideration of all the concerns of all members and factions within the party represented in the party’s national platform.

Probable skepticism that a truce will come to the Republican Party and that an accord can be reached or fashioned out between the Sanders and Clinton’s campaign camp in the 2016 Democratic Party, so that some of the rumbling disaffections with the supposedly establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton, will not lead to the failure of her candidacy for the 2016 White House office; and or, erode the power structure within the Democratic Party, the way it has happened in the Republican Party, is a telling consideration and matter that must never be swept under the rug. Chang will come; and, Change is the only thing that is constant in life and politics.

For current contests for nomination within either major American political parties, the word “reconciliation” can serve as an instrument of unity. Where the rank and file of the party consider themselves as the oppressed, the possibility of acting in unity with the establishment is often hard, as the disenfranchised carry grudge(s), that their issues are not attended to, or are excluded in the priority of party’s establishment, therefore creating a disjointed coexistence within the party. There is no such thing as misinterpretation of the purpose and goals of the party: the object of enthusiasm from any quarter of the party, is grounded in the beliefs that concerns from all sectors will be acknowledged and the higher echelon of the party, are fair and responsive to the call to action, to address the ilk’s and or misgivings within the party.

In recent realm, about the last three weeks in the Democratic Party nomination process, there has been some element of frustration acted out in Nevada and California primaries by supporters of Bernie Sanders, based on the notion, truly or untruly, that the establishment is railroading their concerns and is just making effort to see that Ms. Clinton becomes the party’s flag bearer, without considering her strengths, or possible lack-off, against the potential Republican flag bearer, Donald Trump. For supporters of Bernie Sanders, there are reasons why he continues to win delegates in many states, despite the so called huge delegates’ gap with respect to Super-delegates in the Democratic Party nomination arrangement. And with the coming of the possible FBI probe of Ms. Clinton’s private email server use at the US State Department, no one knows where the probe will lead. Thus, it is just too early to call for Bernie Sanders to surrender his ambition for the 2016 White House. The decision of when to call off a campaign must be left to the respective candidate to make, not from any higher up whimsical wishes, or a somewhat colluding arrangement that many rank and file of the party, consider rather shady or distasteful.

If it is true that DNC Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is a respecter of party unity, she must now play a more positive role, as some of the rank and file of the party, majority who are supporters of Bernie Sanders, are already calling to question her role to remain unbiased. Under this atmosphere of doubt of the Chairperson being a unifying force within the party, there is that grudge, that a particular aspirant and his courses are not being treated evenly with the opposing counterpart. The decision to suspend Bernie Sanders’ DNC database access in December, 2015; the violation of joint campaign fund raising agreement; and probable restrictions of Bernie Sanders supporters involvement in plate form writing discussions, have been raised as issues where some of the rank and file perceive that there is some culpability or potential bias of the part of the party’s chairperson. To avoid this perception or probable entrancement from the upper echelon, it is important that the executives as well as big whig establishment, listen to those on the ground, those, who consider themselves as the life of the party; yet probably still disenfranchised or discountenanced by the power that be.