Being Frank about Clinton and Sanders

     Former New York representative Barney Frank had some choice words for those of us progressives who are supporting Bernie Sanders for President.    We’re hurting Clinton’s campaign.   We’re playing into the hands of the GOP.    Yadda.   Yadda.   Yadda.   

     On Facebook, where I initially saw this post, I stated that if Bernie really wanted to hurt the Democrats, he would have run as a 3^rd party or independent candidate.    He would do precisely what Donald T-Rump is threatening to do (and considering the ego on the T-Rump, I would not put it past him.)  But he ran as a Democrat, exactly so that he does not play the role of spoiler.  

     Let’s look at Frank’s  sentiments a bit deeper, however.    Since Bernie is running as a Dem for the reason I state above, why would he make such a statement?   For one, Sanders' increasing popularity, in large part because of his populist message and his reputation for backing up his words with deeds, is considered a threat to those that actually own and operate this country – people for whom Hillary shills for.    Thus, in order to maintain her admittedly sizable lead in the polls, she has to pivot to the left, stretching her triangulation skills to their breaking point.   Perhaps she is being forced to write rhetorical checks for which her actions, record, and personal philosophy will not be able to cash – she knows it, the Democratic corporate establishment knows it, and Barney Frank certainly knows it. 

     This episode is but one byproduct of the country creaking back toward the left side of the cultural pendulum.  We begin to see more and more of these outsider vs. insider battles.   The concern I have is whether or not the progressives have enough of a political backstop in order to sufficiently support their candidates on a national level.    Progressives are the outsiders in this equation, and have been throughout much of our nation’s history.   The money does not flow to progressives as it does with the establishment, being backed by businesses who crave stability as opposed to change.   Also, the institutions who formed the progressive base have largely been destroyed or rendered irrelevant – public education, labor unions, etc.  For these reasons, while I’ll continue to support Bernie, I honestly think that he will wind up serving as little more than a delivery person who supplies progressive votes to Hillary.  

     In order to create a more favorable environment for progressives to run and win on a national scale, we need to rebuild the progressive base on the local and state levels.   Seattle knew this – the $15 per hour minimum wage movement picked up quite a bit of steam after they passed their ordinance, led in large part by a new, openly Socialist city council member.   There are other localities who have extensive Progressive traditions, such as Santa Cruz and much of the San Francisco Bay Area, Austin, TX, and others.   But they are comparatively few and far between, largely because the Republicans figured this lesson out decades ago.   Ever since Barry Goldwater was destroyed in the 1964 Presidential Election, there has been a concerted effort to load up city councils, school boards, county commissioner boards, and other local governmental bodies with loyal conservatives – a tactic that lead ultimately to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.  

So what to do?

1.      Run progressive candidates on the state and local levels;

2.      Don’t depend on traditional media outlets to get the message out – rely on independent media, the Web, and good ol’ word of mouth;

3.      Think long term – the Repubs did this, the Progressives will need to do the same;

4.     Accept the fact that some of the changes that Progressives seek may not be realized in our individual lifetimes.   Remember that this isn’t about US as much as it is about OUR KIDS and future generations.   It’s a natural inclination for us to want our kids to have a better shot than we did – it’s only right that we continue holding that mindset.