Tim Wise on Bernie or Bust, elections and harm reduction
From Facebook:
I think there are some misunderstandings about my views on Hillary, Bernie, the Democratic Party and the upcoming election. First, I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton. Nor am I an uncritical supporter of Bernie Sanders. But my politics are much closer to Sanders, obviously (indeed, to his left).
Secondly, I believe elections are harm reduction and the bulk of the work is in the streets, in the neighborhoods, at the worksite, in the classrooms, etc. In other words, electoral politics are NOT the place where our ideology and philosophy and values are likely to be best expressed, ever. This is because we live in a nation that is deeply divided politically and where probably anyone who seeks major national office (or even statewide office in most places) will have to appeal to a broad group of people in order to win, many of whom will not share our beliefs yet (left/progressive/radical, etc). And so at the national level, I believe that one must often choose the least bad option and then do the work to force that person, whomever it may be, to move in a more progressive and left direction. At the local level, where a candidate can really get out and get to know folks one on one, and have time to meet them, talk with them, etc. I think said candidate wouldn't have to compromise as much perhaps, especially in pretty progressive districts/neighborhoods, which is why I think 3rd party politics are best initiated locally rather than nationally.
But all in all, my point is, harm reduction matters. And I get that it sucks to have to do it. But lots of things suck. Having to drive and contribute to fossil fuel emissions sucks. Having to buy things to wear that were likely produced under exploitative conditions, or having to use a computer made in such a fashion sucks. But we make compromises every day, all while still trying to move the needle in the right direction. And in this election, I simply cannot see how folks could decide that risking a Trump presidency was worth it, and thus, they would refuse to vote for Clinton if that's what it comes down to. Yes, I would blame the Democratic Party for giving us that choice, but in the end, blame doesn't really matter. Winning the blame game won't mean much to the nation when the forces Trump represents are emboldened by his win. And they would be. These are people who are already writing to me and saying that when Trump wins, it will be open season -- not just on immigrants and Muslims and LGBT folks and Black Lives Matter, but also on folks like me: antiracists, and especially Jews who many of them view as the "real enemy" to be dealt with. Oh sure, they may be all talk, but you'll excuse me if I'd rather not find out.
At the end of the day, the respective bases of Clinton versus Trump really do matter. Clinton's base, according to polling and survey data appears to be white women over 40 and black folks and some union folks in certain states. There are others, but those are the consistent bases it appears. And Trump's base are white middle aged men, high on racial resentment and who favor authoritarian leaders (again, according to research on them). Those bases of support really are very different in terms of what it would mean to have either of them feeling as though they had won. That they were empowered now, or emboldened by their candidate's victory. I have all the respect in the world for what Sanders has done, and how hard his supporters have fought and are fighting. And I would love to see him be the nominee because yes, I suspect he would do better in the general election. But part of the reason for that (I think) is because more of Bernie's supporters seem unwilling to stop Trump at all costs than Hillary's supporters would be unwilling to do. And ultimately that's on Bernie supporters, myself included, to change, or so it seems.
= new reply since forum marked as read
