Tags
Bernie Sanders, Bernie2016, demdebate, Democratic, Establishment, Feelthebern, Fundraising, Hillary Clinton, Hillary2016, imwithher, Liberal, Moderate, New Hampshire, Progressive, Wall Street
To much fanfare, the candidates vying for the Democratic presidential nomination met recently at the University of New Hampshire in a debate televised by MSNBC and moderated by Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow. I think that Hillary Clinton lost the debate. As in past debates, the former Secretary of State demonstrated her policy acumen, portraying Bernie Sanders as an idealist who would not be able to translate his lofty ideas into reality. In contrast, the independent Vermont Senator, though demonstrating a lack of depth on foreign policy issues, recited his criticisms of Wall Street and corporate influence in American politics while describing Clinton as the Democratic establishment’s standard-bearer and criticizing her fundraising practices.
The candidates spent a fifth of the debate defining what it means to be a “progressive” and “moderate”. Clinton came into the debate touting her progressive record after Sanders, in response to a question about Clinton being progressive, noted: “Some days, yes. Except when she announces that she’s a proud moderate and then I guess she’s not a progressive.” It is interesting that each candidate came into the debate extolling, rather than defending, their liberal positions. I can’t think of a time when Democratic candidates have been brandishing their commitment to liberal ideals as part of a winning campaign strategy. This part of the debate was not only the most entertaining, but I think it was also the most noteworthy.
This vigorous exchange was not necessarily about these specific labels. It was motivated by a growing concern in the Clinton campaign and the Democratic establishment that Sanders’ message is gaining traction at her expense. They believe that Sanders will fracture the party and make it that much harder to unite around a presumptive Clinton presidential run, giving Republicans an opportunity to retake the White House.
This war of words has exposed key differences between both candidates’ worldviews and how they plan to secure enough votes to win the nomination. When Clinton touts herself as “a progressive that gets things done”, she believes that she is a “fighter” that can work within the system to advance a progressive agenda. This is a centrist position not unlike the one favored by her husband and President Obama. Although she believes that more can be done on behalf of working and middle class Americans, Clinton does not think that the country’s economic or political systems need to be restructured. She even argued that she could partner with Republicans and different industries to promote her agenda. Thus, for Clinton change is possible, but it happens incrementally.
In contrast, Sanders maintains that the system has been taken over by the wealthy and only radical change can save American democracy. His message has struck a chord with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, young unaffiliated voters, and independents. His calls for a political revolution seem to be less idealistic, but as more people join and finance his campaign he has been able to dismiss Clinton’s centrist approach and questioned the Democratic establishment’s endorsement of Clinton’s worldview, which his followers do not share.
As an independent senator, who caucuses with Democrats in the US Senate, Sanders demonstrated during the debate that he is not beholden to the interest of the Democratic establishment. In fact, he put on notice the Democratic Party: “if elected [president], not only do I hope to bring forth major changes in national priorities, but let me be frank, I do want to see major changes in the Democratic Party. I want to see working people and young people to come into the party in a way that doesn’t exist now.” During the debate, he hinted at his disdain for Clinton’s centrist agenda and he questioned her judgment and independence. He reminded the audience that while Clinton has more endorsements, he has a bigger support network, boasting the fact that over 3 million Americans have contributed to his insurgent campaign.
What is most problematic to the party and to Clinton’s candidacy is that his rising popularity has helped Sanders become the consciousness of the progressive movement in the United States. This in turn explains why Clinton wanted Sanders to agree that she was a progressive too. When Sanders failed to acknowledge her progressive credentials, she demanded an apology explaining that his mischaracterization of her record was a “very artful smear”.
Her accusations angered the crowd, which loudly booed her, and rattled Sanders. But he never lost his composure and instead of taking the bait and adding fuel to the controversy, he continued pointing out how Wall Street is the cause of America’s most dramatic challenges and highlighted her connections to the financial sector. In hindsight, Clinton’s accusation of foul play was a necessary gamble. By questioning two of his strongest leadership traits, his honesty and authenticity, she tried to paint Sanders as a regular politician ready to say anything to get elected.
Sanders has largely been lauded and criticized for not attacking Clinton. But, he is not above the political fray. Sanders’ subtle attacks have successfully linked her candidacy to the political establishment. He is aware of the voters’ frustration with the political status quo and he has used that anger to build a political movement that demands radical change. In doing so, he has vilified wealthy donors, Wall Street institutions and the Republican establishment. In defending his record from Clinton’s criticisms, he has, by a design or happenstance, personified her candidacy, as a symptom, but not as a cause, of America’s decaying democracy and unjust economy. Thus, for Sanders, and his most ardent supporters, Clinton’s candidature is not the solution to the country’s problems, but a perpetuation of the status quo.
Clinton’s main goal entering this debate was to stop Sanders’ momentum and to position herself in the liberal wing of the party to attract potential Sanders supporters. Her strategy was to get Sanders to apologize for smearing her progressive record, but it backfired. Instead of an apology, he successfully linked her to Wall Street and to the Democratic establishment, while highlighting her moderate agenda, questioning her judgment, and challenging her ability to bring about meaningful social change.
Losing the debate does not mean that Clinton has lost the nomination battle. Many people, including a majority of Democratic leaders, are satisfied with her worldview and more moderate agenda. But, the rising strength of Sanders’ insurgency means another prolonged primary, exposing her record to further scrutiny and complicating her presidential aspirations. Without Sanders’ supporters she cannot win the presidency. Their loyalty to Sanders and his principles will make it that more difficult to get them to support a Clinton candidacy, especially if she tries to destroy his character or corrupt his progressive ideals.