By Noah Rothman
Monday, February 17, 2020
The Internet is not real life. Social media, in
particular, is populated with political content by an unrepresentative sample
of disproportionately energetic political maximalists, most of whom skew far to
the left. When possible, it’s best practice not to look to cyberspace to spot
emerging trends or support preexisting biases.
But sometimes, the Internet insists on its primacy and
ignoring it doesn’t always make it go away. That has been Bernie Sanders’s
unenviable experience over the past week as his prospects for securing the
Democratic Party’s presidential nomination have strengthened.
On Monday morning, former New York City Mayor Mike
Bloomberg’s presidential campaign launched an online ad targeting Bernie’s
excitable online supporters. The spot features Sanders fans at their worst:
calling for the creation of “lists” of Bloomberg’s campaign staffers in the
effort to intimidate them out of working for his candidacy, crafting tombstones
for Joe Biden, mocking Pete Buttigieg’s appearance, and hurling epithets at
just about every Democrat who failed to genuflect at the altar of democratic socialism.
It concludes with the implication that, despite Sanders’s appeals to civility,
the toxic climate around his campaign did not evolve ex nihilo.
Let’s stipulate that Bloomberg is among the worst
ambassadors for this message. If the former mayor’s candidacy is distinguished
by anything beyond his willingness to spend exorbitant sums of his own money to
avoid competing in the early states, where cash advantages can be overcome
through sweat equity and a passionate base of support, it’s Bloomberg’s willingness
to get down into the mud. He has responded to Donald Trump’s personal attacks
in kind. He is dismissive
of the intelligence of whole classes of Americans with whom he does not
identify. He has a habit of denigrating his critics as “extremists,” even when
that extremism is evinced only by his opponents’ unwillingness to sacrifice
civil liberties in a bid to reengineer society along lines envisioned only by
Mike Bloomberg.
Bloomberg’s effort to transform Sanders’s supporters into
a liability may be incongruous with his own behavior, but it’s also a strategic
imperative that has become difficult for any of Sanders’s Democratic opponents
to avoid.
When Nevada’s powerful culinary union circulated
literature to its members opposing Sanders’s plan to functionally nationalize
the health-insurance industry, the institution met with a furious barrage of
insults. The union’s leaders were
called “b*tches,” “evil, entitled a**holes,” “fascist imbeciles” who
deserved to “wallow in poverty and suffering” and who would soon learn that it
was “time for people like me to go after you.” But the union was not
intimidated. “It’s disappointing that Senator Sanders’s supporters have
viciously attacked the Culinary Union and working families in Nevada,” read a
statement released by the organization’s secretary-treasurer Geoconda
Argüello-Kline. A victim of this harassment herself, she placed the blame for
her experience and those of her union’s members squarely on Sanders’s
shoulders.
The Vermont senator was soon compelled to address the
brewing controversy surrounding his most vicious fans. In a statement, he urged
his supporters to avoid “bullying or ugly personal attacks,” but the candidate
softened this unequivocal condemnation in a subsequent appearance on PBS. “I don’t
know who these ‘so-called’ supporters are,” Sanders said. “We’re living in a
strange world on the Internet, and sometimes people attack people in somebody
else’s name. And I’m not so sure, to be honest with you, that they are
necessarily part of our movement.” He again emphasized “the nature of the
Internet,” implying rather clearly that it’s not impossible that his campaign
has been victimized by people pretending to sympathize with Sanders only to
tarnish his reputation by association.
That wasn’t good enough for Joe Biden. “He may not be
responsible for it, but he has some accountability,” the former vice president
told NBC’s Chuck Todd. “You know me well enough to know if any of my supporters
did that, I’d disown them,” he added. “The way they threatened these two women
who are leaders in that Culinary Union. It is outrageous.”
Political analysts are prudently cautious about mistaking
the online environment for the real world. They might be tempted to dismiss
these efforts to make Sanders’s supporters into an election issue, but
boundaries between the online world and this one have been blurred for some
time. “I’m not sure Sanders’s official team has grasped the extent to which
their supporters are impacting voter behavior,” observed the Daily Beast’s Sam
Stein. “Lots of people at Warren and Pete town halls I talked to were weighing
a Sanders vote but said they were turned off by the culture and crowds.”
While Sanders has made rhetorical overtures toward
civility, he’s also surrounded himself with people who cultivate a very
different atmosphere. His campaign has taken on a slate of formal surrogates
who have a conspicuous habit of engaging in anti-Semitic rhetoric and who
reserve the most caustic vitriol for their fellow Democrats—at least, those who
do not display a sufficiently zealous commitment to his “revolution.” That is
the essential nature of any campaign premised on the notion that the biggest
obstacle to realizing a variety of vital policy reforms isn’t their ideological
adversaries but their ostensible friends. Just as Donald Trump’s earliest
supporters sought to overturn unquestioned orthodoxy within the GOP and
questioned the motives of anyone who objected, Sanders has incubated a
revolutionary consciousness within his movement that regards intolerance for
deviationists as a virtue.
There’s nothing unfair about observing this dynamic and
making Sanders answer for it. And so far, Sanders doesn’t have an answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment