By Matthew Continetti
Saturday, May 21, 2016
A few months ago a Democratic strategist and I were
watching cable news. CNN had a story on the Republican primary fight between
Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Marco Rubio. “The GOP house is on
fire,” the strategist told me. “But on June 7, it will be the Democratic house
that’s burning down.”
Looks like we’re ahead of schedule. Not only is Hillary
Clinton engaged in a two-front war, her left flank is crumbling. She lost
Oregon to Bernie Sanders and barely won Kentucky. Supporters of the democratic
socialist from Vermont wreaked havoc at the Democratic party convention in
Nevada after they did not get their way. Sanders’s condemnation of violence is
insufficient for party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whom the Sanders
campaign accuses of colluding with the Clintons. A Hillary supporter who
recently portrayed Clarence Thomas in an HBO hit job was arrested and charged
with simple battery against two Bernie voters. Dianne Feinstein warns of a
return to the violence of the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
The same media that puffed up Sanders’s image when he
filibustered the partial renewal of the Bush tax cuts in 2010, that treated him
as a lovable oddity for most of 2016, has turned against him. “Bernie Sanders,
Eyeing Convention, Willing to Harm Hillary Clinton in the Homestretch,” bleats
the warning in the New York Times.
“At least five of the nine permit applications to hold demonstrations during
the four-day event have been filed by pro-Sanders forces,” the Wall Street Journal reports. “Civil War
for Democrats?” asks McClatchy.
Fueling the panic is the prospect of victory by the
presumptive Republican nominee. “A fractured Democratic party threatens
Clinton’s chances against Trump,” says the Washington
Post. Liberal commentators who have been suspicious of Sanders’s lunatic
proposals and alarmed at the irrationality of his social media mob are finally
recognizing the senator for what he is: an irritable crank. “Sanders — not just
his supporters, not even just his surrogates, but the candidate himself — has a
problem both in facing reality and in admitting mistakes,” writes Paul Krugman.
“It all comes from the very top,” says Josh Marshall.
Marshall may be more right than he knows. As I read the
coverage of the mess in which Hillary Clinton finds herself, I cannot help
noticing the absence of two significant words: Barack Obama. Does the president
sympathize with and support Hillary Clinton? As far as I know. But he has not
come to her aid in this most important of intraparty conflicts. Recently he
delivered two commencement addresses, one a subtle critique of the radicalism
behind the Sanders campaign, the other a not-so-subtle attack on the nationalism
behind Trump’s. Both speeches were good, are worth reading. But they have the
same force as the thousands of words that the president has leveled at Vladimir
Putin over the years: none.
Here is another civil war in which Barack Obama chooses not
to intervene. If asked why he’s not doing more to support Clinton, he would no
doubt offer the same excuses he makes when confronted with his lassitude
abroad. I can hear him now: Hillary’s an unreliable ally, a freeloader, needs
to fight her own battles. Confronting Sanders is unnecessary — Clinton is just
a few contests away from winning the required number of pledged delegates, this
fire will put itself out, socialism is an outmoded, twentieth-century way of
thinking. Making the most of the bully pulpit would be counterproductive, would
turn Sanders’s voters away. That’s not just my opinion. It’s what the experts
say. If I got involved in the Democratic civil war, why, I’d have to get
involved in the GOP civil war, in the Libertarian party civil war, in the
Constitution party civil war. How would Americans respond? No, it’s either
neutrality in this primary or droning Bernie. And I for one am not willing to
do that.
The same facile thinking, the same false choices, the
same misplaced confidence in inertia and in progressive evolution that governs
President Obama’s diplomacy is evident in his response to the Sanders threat.
Like ISIS, Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, Bernie Sanders is not a problem
the Democrats can wish away. If the last week tells us anything, it is that
Sanders and his diehards do not recognize the legitimacy of a primary system
they believe to be corrupt, are willing — indeed, eager — to undermine a party
funded by Wall Street and supportive of war and hypocritical in its treatment
of working people.
What the Democrats have in Bernie Sanders is not the
bespectacled gadfly they had thought, not a good-natured ideas-driven candidate
running to make a point, but an agent of subversion, a Ralph Nader running
within the party rather than outside it. Ironic the Democrats find themselves
in the same place that the Republicans did in the summer of 2015: having to
deal with an eccentric populist with a cult following and an independent
financial base whose interests do not align with those of the party elite.
Obama, Clinton, Wasserman Schultz must decide whether to capitulate to, coopt,
or confront Sanders. The Clintons never will surrender their last chance to
occupy the White House. The strategy of cooptation, of moving ever left, has
not produced the desired result. Confrontation? Risky — and Democrats do not
like risk. But it may be necessary. And how will Sanders respond? Could the
third-party independent candidate some have been searching for wind up being a
bald grandpa from Brooklyn?
No comments:
Post a Comment