Commentary: Bernie lost -- but the left won
Bernie Sanders probably never had a chance.
Likeable as he is, a woolly old Vermont socialist with a history of publishing outré theories of sexual health was never going to be president. We in the press did our normal thing when caught off guard by an insurgent candidate, dismissing him early on and then overhyping his chances once he started doing well. He wasn't going to be the nominee, but that's not a thing many wanted to say. Weird year, after all.
None of this should, however, detract from the magnitude of his accomplishment. For all the complaints from Clintonworld about Sanders staying in longer than they'd prefer, it's impossible to doubt that he has revitalized the left, which may prove to be one of the most lasting developments from this election. Sanders has lost, but in large part thanks to him, the left is winning.
In a normal year, which is to say, a year without Donald Trump, the fact that a socialist did this well in a presidential contest would be the biggest story of the cycle. It might be worth wondering that the split Trump brought about on the right helped Sanders' rise, that perhaps conservatives were too lost in their own drama to contend with him, target him, ridicule him. Then again, the right has proven so ineffectual at governing its own ranks, it's hard to imagine how they could have helped stop Sanders, or if they even now recognize the threat his movement still poses to their cause. It may be that they had no interest in stopping him -- if he had managed to topple Hillary Clinton, they probably would have relished the idea of a general election campaign against a socialist.
Sanders was an imperfect vehicle for socialism, but he did fill an immensely valuable role for the socialist cause by making a word that was almost exclusively used as a pejorative in the U.S. not just acceptable, but cool. Labels and how they're received and understood are hugely important in American politics - the triumph of Reagan conservatism in the 1980s was hastened to no small degree by GOP strategist Arthur Finklestein's efforts to make "liberal" a dirty word. He killed the brand, and the philosophy behind it suddenly found itself in decline.
- Elizabeth Warren to meet with Hillary Clinton
- Obama's active role for Hillary Clinton is a break from past elections
- America's next president? Some economists already have an answer
Sanders has done the opposite, introducing a whole new generation to the idea of socialism as a viable force, to socialists as mainstream political figures. That, by itself, is an extraordinary victory for the left.
And the timing was perfect, because the left has become perhaps our most vibrant incubator of policy ideas over the last few years. Regardless of where you stand, a lot of the most interesting political writing is now coming from leftists, whether it be on Twitter or small blogs or larger entities like the magazine Jacobin. There's an aesthetic component to all this - it all just feels a lot more romantic than the suit-and-tie liberalism of the Clintons - but it's a mistake to just dismiss this new leftism as a side effect of being young and hip.
The liberal, conservative, and libertarian critiques of our economic system have all seemed a bit wanting in recent years, like ideas that were all formulated late last century and then reheated again and again. Socialism, which is of course quite old, suddenly feels new, or at least easily adaptable to our present economic situation.
Part of this may stem from a certain historical ignorance - confiscatory tax rates sound fun if you've never experienced them, and Marxism seems a lot less lethal now that just about all the communist regimes have perished. Still, it's easy to detect a suspicion even among the centrist, big money-types that traditionally prop up the Democratic Party that, though their candidate will be the nominee this year, they're losing the war of ideas with the Sanders wing. Leftism is still ascendant, and liberalism is in decline.
Speaking broadly, though, there's a weird tick with the new leftists that's unfortunate. The fights that are breaking out there are inordinately vicious and insult-based, a side effect of this popular idea on the left that civil discourse is just a way to silence radicals. There's nothing civil about policies that benefit the rich at the expense of the poor, this thinking goes, so there's nothing really wrong with sustained online harassment campaigns against ideological enemies.
This is a lousy way to bring on converts. Sustained debate may be slow and full of setbacks, but the alternative can be terrifying. Yet there seems to be this widespread notion that the left, which is still a niche movement, can insult its opponents into submission, that if enough liberals are trolled on social media and shouted down over email they'll either wake up and join the revolution or go away. It's a bit like missionaries washing up on a secluded island and telling its inhabitants that they're stupid, awful, consciously evil people who aren't even worth saving. Surely missions like this happened; they were not the more successful ones.
And this brings us back to Sanders. What is he getting for staying in the race? Changing the party platform is a nonsense reason to stick around. Party platforms don't matter. It's doubtful Trump has any idea what's in the GOP platform, and if he did, he'd just ignore most of it anyway.
Wouldn't it be more productive in the long run to show that the left is willing to unite with liberals in order to counter Trump? Already we're seeing reports that some of Bernie's backers are going to support Trump now, which isn't going to endear the more mainstream liberals who still control the Democratic party to the left. Hard as it may be, better for Bernie to get the rest of the left in line.
