Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Home > A Five-Point Plan for Sanders Going Forward
________________________________________
A Five-Point Plan for Sanders Going Forward
By Peter Dreier [1] / The American Prospect [2]
May 25, 2016
When Bernie Sanders announced a year ago that he was running for president,
few of his supporters-and probably not even Sanders himself-expected that he
would actually win. It appeared that Sanders, like his hero Eugene Debs-who
ran for president five times in the early 1900s on the Socialist Party
ticket-was running mainly to inject progressive issues into the national
debate and to help build a movement for radical change.
Debs never captured more than 6 percent of the popular vote (in 1912), but
his campaigns played an important role in shaping Americans' views. In the
1912 presidential race, Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson (the eventually
winner) and Progressive Party candidate Theodore Roosevelt co-opted many of
Debs's ideas. Congress eventually adopted some of the planks of the
Socialist Party's 1912 platform [3], including the minimum wage, child labor
laws, women's suffrage, Social Security, unemployment insurance,
occupational health and safety laws, and the creation of the Labor
Department.
So in "Debsian" terms, Sanders has already won. His attacks on the
"billionaire class" have resonated with the American people. Far more than
Hillary Clinton, he has tapped and channeled Americans' anger over rising
inequality, declining living standards, and the disproportionate political
influence of big business and the super-rich. Although he calls himself a
democratic socialist, Sanders is really championing a new New Deal-an
American version of European social democracy.
And polls reveal that a majority of Americans agree [4] with his policy
agenda for challenging the political and business establishment. One CNN
poll found that 71 percent of Americans-including 84 percent of Democrats,
74 percent of independents and 51 percent of Republicans-believe that our
economic system unfairly favors the wealthy. Another poll by CBS and The New
York Times found that 63 percent of Americans favor increasing taxes on
wealthy Americans and large corporations to help reduce income inequality.
Indeed, poll after poll has also showed that large majorities of Americans
favor a campaign-finance overhaul, stricter Wall Street regulations,
government-mandated paid family leave, and a federal minimum wage increase
to $15 an hour by 2020.
Sanders has pushed Hillary Clinton-a liberal on domestic social issues, a
centrist on taxes and business regulations, a sometime foreign policy hawk,
and a less-than-ardent progressive-to the left. Indeed, the Democrats'
presidential primary has largely been fought on Sanders's terms. His
priorities-increasing the minimum wage, toughening Wall Street regulations,
expanding Medicare and providing free public higher education, combating
unemployment (particularly high among African-Americans), paid family leave,
and ending the nation's dependence on fossil fuels-have dominated the
debates and pushed Clinton to adopt milder versions of his proposals. (In
some areas, such as police racism, our biased criminal justice system, and
mass incarceration, Clinton has taken the lead and Sanders has followed
suit.)
In one year, Sanders has gone from being a relatively invisible senator from
a small state-an outsider in the upper chamber and in mainstream politics,
not even a registered Democrat-to being a political force to be reckoned
with. Along with Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic senator from
Massachusetts, he now leads the Democratic Party's progressive wing.
Nevertheless, in the last few weeks it has become clear that Sanders will
not be the Democratic Party's nominee for president. In states that have
already held primaries, Clinton has gained 12,989,134 (57 percent) of the
votes [5] compared with 9,957,889 votes (43 percent) for Sanders. In the
delegate count [6], Clinton is beating Sanders 1,772 (54 percent) to 1,498
(46 percent). Sanders ran a remarkable campaign, but he's come up short.
Ardent Sanders supporters who still believe that he has a chance to capture
the nomination are simply wrong. Even if Sanders beats Clinton in all the
remaining primaries (Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, California, Montana, New
Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Mexico, and the District of
Columbia), he won't have enough delegates to garner the nomination at the
party's Philadelphia convention. That reality requires Clinton and Sanders
to recognize that they-and their supporters-need one another. It also begs
the question: What should Sanders do? How can he build on his popularity and
success in this year's campaign to further his goal of transforming American
society and politics?
Drawing on the ideas of many people-activists, journalists, scholars, and
others, inside and outside Sanders's camp-I suggest a five-point plan for
Sanders and the Sanderistas. This plan gives the many liberals and
progressives who have "felt the Bern" a road map to ensure that the
74-year-old Vermont socialist with a Brooklyn accent makes the transition
from candidate for president to catalyst for change.
Step One
Between now and the convention, Sanders should fight to the end to get as
many delegates as possible. Voters in the remaining primaries-all of which
save the June 14 Washington, D.C., contest will be held on June 7-have the
right to vote for Sanders or Clinton. Americans deserve to see how much
support Sanders has for his progressive agenda. Moreover, having a
competitive race with a large Democratic turnout is particularly important
in California, which follows an unusual system in which the two candidates
with the most primary votes, regardless of party, advance to the general
election. Democratic registration in California has been surging, so a
strong turnout by Sanders supporters could shut out Republicans from the
run-offs for U.S. Senate and some tight congressional contests, and help
guarantee more Democratic victories in November.
Between now and the June primaries, Sanders should stop criticizing the
Democratic National Committee and Hillary personally and return to focusing
on policy issues. After those primaries, he should negotiate a truce with
Clinton. In exchange for Sanders suspending his campaign and endorsing
Clinton before the Democratic convention, the two Democrats should agree on
a strategy that gives Sanders and his followers a significant voice at the
convention, during the fight against Trump, and in the run-up to the next
Clinton administration.
Step Two
At the convention and through Election Day, Sanders will surely remain on
the public stage. He will certainly get a prime-time speaking role at the
Democratic convention, where he can reiterate his attacks on the nation's
economic and social injustices, attack Trump, and strongly endorse Clinton.
He should also use his leverage to shape the party's platform on issues like
Wall Street reform, the minimum wage, skyrocketing college tuition, and paid
family leave, and insist that Clinton incorporate some of his key policy
ideas into her campaign stump speeches. One sign that Clinton and DNC chair
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz are taking heed of Sanders's
insurgency is the appointment this week of a majority of progressives to the
party's platform committee. They include AFSCME's Paul Booth, former EMILY's
List head Wendy Sherman and Neera Tanden of the Center for American
Progress. Also on the committee are House Democrats Luis Guttierez, of
Illinois, Barbara Lee of California, and Maryland's Elijah Cummings, along
with Ohio State Representative Alicia Reece, all stalwart progressives. They
join Sanders's nominees Cornel West, House Democrat Keith Ellison of
Minnesota, environment activist Bill McKibben, Arab American leader James
Zogby, and Native American White House aide Deborah Parker. (Unfortunately
missing from the committee are any progressive economists.)
Sanders has predicted that the convention could get "messy," explaining that
"that's what democracy is about." But Sanders should discourage his
supporters from disrupting the convention inside and outside the hall. If
his followers want to protest, there are plenty of targets in
Philadelphia-big banks, insurance companies, McDonald's, Walmart
stores-where they can rally against the billionaire class. A prime target
for protesters would be Verizon, where they could join the picket lines of
employees who have been on strike since April.
When the convention is over, Sanders should energetically campaign for
Clinton in key swing states and for progressive Democrats running for
Congress in close races, in order to increase turnout among his supporters.
He should make sure that his key staff members land posts on Clinton's
campaign and those of Democratic candidates in battleground races. These
aides can help mobilize Sanders's volunteers and followers to support
Clinton. Also in this window, Sanders should escalate his attacks on Trump
and remind his supporters of the damage that a Trump presidency would do to
the country and to the progressive agenda.
Step Three
After Election Day, once Clinton has won the White House and the Democrats
have recaptured the Senate, Sanders will be in a strong position to reshape
the agenda of both the Democratic Party and the nation. New York Senator
Charles Schumer, a liberal on social issues but a strong ally of Wall
Street, may well be the Senate's next majority leader. To balance the
party's leadership, Sanders should push for a progressive to replace
Wasserman Schultz as head of the DNC. Strong candidates include such popular
legislators as Senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon (the only Senate member to
endorse Sanders), and Dick Durbin of Illinois, and House members Karen Bass
and Xavier Becerra (both of California), Keith Ellison of Minnesota, and Jan
Schakowsky of Illinois. The party's next chair could also come from the
ranks of such respected political veterans as Democracy Alliance head Gara
LaMarche, Common Cause Director Miles Rapoport, or even billionaire
environmentalist Tom Steyer. (Full disclosure: Rapoport serves on the
Prospect's board.)
Step Four
After January, when the new president and Congress take office, Sanders will
become chair of the powerful Senate Budget Committee-assuming Democrats
retake the upper chamber, as predicted. In that position, Sanders can
influence federal budget, tax, and regulatory policy to advance a
progressive agenda around financial reform, anti-poverty initiatives, health
care, environmental sustainability, affordable housing, Social Security,
labor law reform, workplace safety, paid family leave, and even
campaign-finance reform, immigration reform, and the military budget.
One of his perks in that post will be to fill the committee's staff with
experts from universities and such progressive think tanks as the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, the Center for American Progress, the Economic
Policy Institute, the National Employment Law Project, and the Center for
Economic and Policy Research. He will also be able to hold public
hearings-in Washington, D.C., but also in cities around the country-on a
wide range of issues. Hearings provide opportunities for ordinary Americans
as well as experts to make their voices heard, gain media attention, and
advance a progressive agenda. They can serve as forums that can help support
grass-roots activists.
Sanders could also work with progressive think tanks and activist groups to
create a "shadow cabinet" of experts on the left to parallel Clinton's
cabinet picks. This Sanders circle could issue regular reports on what the
major federal executive agencies could be doing to advance an economic and
social justice agenda, much as the Heritage Foundation's Mandate for
Leadership reports became the blueprint for the Reagan Revolution.
Step Five
Through the 2018 midterm elections and beyond, Sanders can help build the
"grass-roots political revolution" without which, as he has said throughout
his campaign, there is little hope for transformational change. Sanders's
campaign success has been fueled by the many grass-roots insurgencies that
in recent years have challenged the political and economic establishment.
These include Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, Fight for $15, campus
campaigns to divest from fossil fuels and slash student debt, and crusades
for women's health care access, marriage equality, and gun safety. Sanders's
campaign helped give voice to these activists and their issues. They fed his
campaign and were fed by it.
Many progressive politicians have promised to transform their electoral
campaigns into ongoing movement operations, but few have had the patience or
resources to do so. Many of Jesse Jackson's supporters hoped that his
presidential efforts in 1984 and 1988 would evolve into a permanent Rainbow
Coalition of progressive activists, but it didn't happen. After Obama won
his brilliantly executed 2008 campaign-built by an army of seasoned
political and community organizers who trained hundreds of thousands of
volunteers in the art of activism-he created the nonprofit now known as
Organizing for Action (OFA).
Many of the organizers who worked on that campaign went to work for OFA,
hoping to build an infrastructure to keep campaign volunteers involved in
issue battles in between election cycles. But OFA has not lived up to its
early promise, in large part because Obama made it an arm of the DNC in a
bid to build support for his legislative agenda.
Occasionally, however, the candidate and the movement forge ahead beyond the
campaign. After the writer Upton Sinclair narrowly lost his 1934 bid to
become California governor on a radical End Poverty in California (EPIC)
platform, his followers built a statewide movement through EPIC clubs that
revitalized the state's Democratic Party into an effective political
operation over the next several decades. Similarly, Senator Paul Wellstone
of Minnesota, a former political science professor and community organizer,
took seriously his responsibility to turn his electoral support into a broad
statewide progressive movement. After he died in a tragic plane crash in
2002 while running for a third term, his supporters launched several
organizations-including Wellstone Action, the Alliance for a Better
Minnesota, and Minnesotans for a Fair Economy-to mobilize Minnesotans around
issues and help recruit, train, and elect progressives to office.
Ever since Sanders first announced his plan to run for president, many
journalists and activists have looked for signals that he was making plans,
once the election was over, to transform his campaign into that "grass-roots
political revolution" he's been calling for. Not surprisingly, during the
campaign Sanders and his top advisers have focused almost entirely on
winning votes and delegates. But early on, some of his key operatives were
already thinking about the longer term.
Next month, some progressive leaders inside and outside the Sanders campaign
will convene a three-day meeting in Chicago for what they are calling a
People's Summit to strategize about how to build on the Sanders campaign
over the long haul. Neither Sanders nor his aides have agreed on what a
post-campaign operation would look like. But many understand that Sanders is
in a unique position to use his influence and fundraising ability to build
an organization or network to mobilize his supporters that, in the short
term, can push President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress to the left
on key issues like the minimum wage, health-care reform, Supreme Court
nominees, and Wall Street regulation, and, in the longer term, can become an
ongoing force for progressive change.
Can Sanders sustain the momentum of his campaign into the marshy terrain of
movement-building? He has the capacity to raise money from the millions of
people who helped him collect more than $200 million for his campaign. He
has an unprecedentedly large list of volunteers who could form the basis of
an ongoing organization. How many will want to participate in or contribute
to a Sanders-led movement is anybody's guess. How Sanders deploys these
lists, and how he will connect with the many existing progressive
groups-unions, environmental groups, community organizing networks, and
others-is another open question.
Election campaigns have a set of rules, and a predictable beginning, middle,
and end, that helps bring people together for a common goal-electing a
candidate on a particular date. Movements are more complicated. The American
progressive movement is a diverse mosaic with many groups that compete for
attention and funding. They work on many different issues. Some are more
willing than others to participate in coalitions, agree on a common set of
issue priorities, and forge compromises on legislation. Some are reluctant
to endorse candidates or get involved in election campaigns. Many of the
activists affiliated with these groups came together to support Sanders, but
there is no guarantee that they won't go their own ways after Election Day.
As the mayor of Burlington, Vermont, for eight years (1981-89), Sanders
helped build a political coalition [7] that not only adopted progressive
laws and helped build progressive institutions but also stayed in power for
three decades after he left office to run for Congress. In the House and
Senate, however, Sanders been known as more of a gadfly than a
coalition-builder.
But even as a figurehead, Sanders can play an important role in
strengthening the left. Sanders can select a number of key issues and work
closely with unions and other groups that are already working on those
causes. He can be their champion and give them more visibility. He can show
up at their meetings and rallies and support their causes. He can raise
money to support existing local, statewide, and national groups-like
National People's Action, Planned Parenthood, MoveOn, the Center for Popular
Democracy, the Sierra Club, Black Lives Matter, United We Dream, and many
others-that recruit and train people in the skills of citizen activism and
campaign mechanics, and that help elect progressive Democrats to local,
state, and national office.
Going into the 2018 midterm elections, and beyond, Sanders can focus
attention on helping a select group of progressive Democrats win primary
battles and support their campaigns against Republicans running for local
and state offices as well as Congress. In that way, he can help groups build
and train a "farm team" of progressive candidates to run for myriad offices,
laying the groundwork for expanding the progressive caucuses in the House
and Senate.
As part of this inside/outside strategy, Sanders could work with progressive
activist groups and his progressive Senate and House colleagues to identify
a few key legislative priorities to build multi-year campaigns around these
issues. He and his network can convene an annual "Feel the Bern" conference
(and some state-level summits as well) to bring together the many strands of
the progressive movement, highlight their commonalities, celebrate their
victories, showcase their leaders, organizers, and candidates, and identify
the key battles on the horizon.
This five-point plan will likely meet with resistance from some Sanders
supporters who argue passionately that he can still win the Democratic
nomination. Sanders's string of primary wins has made the notion of a
President Sanders begin to seem at least plausible. His favorability ratings
have consistently exceeded Clinton's. He has shown that he can raise
significant sums from millions of small-dollar contributors without relying
on Wall Street, corporate America, and the super-rich to bankroll his
campaign. He has attracted huge crowds and recruited large numbers of
volunteers in blue and red states alike. He has surprised many skeptics with
his knowledge of policy details and his first-rate performances at
Democratic debates.
Indeed, it is remarkable how well Sanders has done despite what he and his
supporters have justifiably called a "rigged" system. His backers are
correct that some of the party's rules-regarding the debate schedule,
super-delegates, and other matters, many of them mishandled by Wasserman
Schultz, the transparently pro-Clinton chair of the Democratic National
Committee-put Sanders at a disadvantage.
Sanders's enthusiasts hope that they can persuade enough super-delegates to
switch their loyalties away from Clinton. Their main argument is that
Sanders has a better chance than Clinton to beat Trump. In a race once
regarded as a coronation for Clinton, recent polls of registered voters show
her in a statistical dead heat against Trump. Sanders, by contrast, who
enjoys much higher favorability ratings than Clinton, bests Trump, 54
percent to 39 percent, in a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll [8].
Of course, Sanders has not yet been subjected to the kind of opposition
media campaign that he would certainly face were he the nominee. Slate's
Michelle Goldberg noted [9] in February that Republicans were already
salivating about how they would excavate the radical speeches and writings
from Sanders's past, seek to discredit him as an unpatriotic Marxist
ideologue, and exploit "his youthful opposition to the CIA and his
anti-military leanings" if he were to win the nomination. Republicans would
not only paint Sanders as an extreme "tax and spend" liberal but also try to
transform him, in the public's imagination, into a supporter of Fidel
Castro, Daniel Ortega, and Mao Tse-tung. This assault may not work with
under-40 voters for whom the Cold War is a distant memory and who associate
socialism with Scandinavia, not Cuba or China. But such attacks could
certainly weaken many undecided voters' support for Sanders.
By contrast, most Americans already know Clinton's vulnerabilities since
she's been in the public arena for decades. This accounts for her low
favorability ratings, but it also somewhat inoculates her from GOP efforts
to further destroy her support. And Clinton is likely to win a surge in
Democratic and independent support once she wins the nomination, just as
Republicans began rallying behind Trump once he became his party's
presumptive nominee.
And the "Sanders or bust" crowd is playing into Trump's hands. Some even say
they won't support or vote for Clinton if she wins the Democratic
nomination, arguing that she and Trump are equally undesirable-two sides of
America's corrupt corporate-dominated political system. The media have
exaggerated the number and ferocity of Sanderistas who hold these views, but
if enough Sanders followers refuse to vote for Clinton, it could help Trump
win in several key battleground states like Colorado, Pennsylvania, Nevada,
and Florida, and possibly hand Trump the White House.
Some Clinton supporters-particularly among pundits and journalists-have also
turned nasty, taking to the blogosphere and talk shows to trash Sanders's
ideas and to attack his most zealous enthusiasts as sexist, racist, and
rude. But Clinton knows she needs Sanders's supporters to win the White
House, which is why she has adopted watered-down versions of Sanders's
agenda and why she has tread lightly in criticizing Sanders-at least
publicly.
Sanders himself recognizes that his primary goal of making America a more
humane and fair society will be made much more difficult if Trump becomes
the nation's president. Despite his differences with Clinton over policy
issues, Sanders-as both a politician and a leader of a social
insurgency-knows that his movement's ability to influence the nation's
political culture and public policy will be much greater with her, rather
than Trump, in the White House.
Electing Clinton will not produce the "political revolution" that Bernie has
been calling for. Indeed, he acknowledged that even if he won the White
House, little would change without a significant grass-roots movement to
mobilize Americans to challenge corporate America's disproportionate
influence on our political life. Sanders's supporters don't want to give up
on his election, but they may end up with something more lasting in the
end-a generation-long movement. The five-point plan is a good place to
start.
Peter Dreier is professor of politics and chair of the Urban & Environmental
Policy Department at Occidental College. His most recent book is "The 100
Greatest Americans of the 20th Century: A Social Justice Hall of Fame"
(Nation Books).
Share on Facebook Share
Share on Twitter Tweet
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [10]
[11]
________________________________________
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/sanders-can-build-progressive-legacy
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/peter-dreier-0
[2] http://www.prospect.org/
[3] http://sageamericanhistory.net/progressive/docs/SocialistPlat1912.htm
[4] http://prospect.org/article/bernie-sanders-too-radical-america
[5]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count
.html
[6] http://demrace.com/
[7]
http://www.thenation.com/article/bernies-burlington-city-sustainable-future/
[8]
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-3-po
ints-new-nbc-n577726
[9]
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/bernie_sand
ers_radical_past_would_haunt_him_in_a_general_election.html
[10] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on A Five-Point Plan for
Sanders Going Forward
[11] http://www.alternet.org/
[12] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Home > A Five-Point Plan for Sanders Going Forward
A Five-Point Plan for Sanders Going Forward
By Peter Dreier [1] / The American Prospect [2]
May 25, 2016
AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to Google+More
AddThis Share optionsShare to Email
When Bernie Sanders announced a year ago that he was running for president,
few of his supporters-and probably not even Sanders himself-expected that he
would actually win. It appeared that Sanders, like his hero Eugene Debs-who
ran for president five times in the early 1900s on the Socialist Party
ticket-was running mainly to inject progressive issues into the national
debate and to help build a movement for radical change.
Debs never captured more than 6 percent of the popular vote (in 1912), but
his campaigns played an important role in shaping Americans' views. In the
1912 presidential race, Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson (the eventually
winner) and Progressive Party candidate Theodore Roosevelt co-opted many of
Debs's ideas. Congress eventually adopted some of the planks of the
Socialist Party's 1912 platform [3], including the minimum wage, child labor
laws, women's suffrage, Social Security, unemployment insurance,
occupational health and safety laws, and the creation of the Labor
Department.
So in "Debsian" terms, Sanders has already won. His attacks on the
"billionaire class" have resonated with the American people. Far more than
Hillary Clinton, he has tapped and channeled Americans' anger over rising
inequality, declining living standards, and the disproportionate political
influence of big business and the super-rich. Although he calls himself a
democratic socialist, Sanders is really championing a new New Deal-an
American version of European social democracy.
And polls reveal that a majority of Americans agree [4] with his policy
agenda for challenging the political and business establishment. One CNN
poll found that 71 percent of Americans-including 84 percent of Democrats,
74 percent of independents and 51 percent of Republicans-believe that our
economic system unfairly favors the wealthy. Another poll by CBS and The New
York Times found that 63 percent of Americans favor increasing taxes on
wealthy Americans and large corporations to help reduce income inequality.
Indeed, poll after poll has also showed that large majorities of Americans
favor a campaign-finance overhaul, stricter Wall Street regulations,
government-mandated paid family leave, and a federal minimum wage increase
to $15 an hour by 2020.
Sanders has pushed Hillary Clinton-a liberal on domestic social issues, a
centrist on taxes and business regulations, a sometime foreign policy hawk,
and a less-than-ardent progressive-to the left. Indeed, the Democrats'
presidential primary has largely been fought on Sanders's terms. His
priorities-increasing the minimum wage, toughening Wall Street regulations,
expanding Medicare and providing free public higher education, combating
unemployment (particularly high among African-Americans), paid family leave,
and ending the nation's dependence on fossil fuels-have dominated the
debates and pushed Clinton to adopt milder versions of his proposals. (In
some areas, such as police racism, our biased criminal justice system, and
mass incarceration, Clinton has taken the lead and Sanders has followed
suit.)
In one year, Sanders has gone from being a relatively invisible senator from
a small state-an outsider in the upper chamber and in mainstream politics,
not even a registered Democrat-to being a political force to be reckoned
with. Along with Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic senator from
Massachusetts, he now leads the Democratic Party's progressive wing.
Nevertheless, in the last few weeks it has become clear that Sanders will
not be the Democratic Party's nominee for president. In states that have
already held primaries, Clinton has gained 12,989,134 (57 percent) of the
votes [5] compared with 9,957,889 votes (43 percent) for Sanders. In the
delegate count [6], Clinton is beating Sanders 1,772 (54 percent) to 1,498
(46 percent). Sanders ran a remarkable campaign, but he's come up short.
Ardent Sanders supporters who still believe that he has a chance to capture
the nomination are simply wrong. Even if Sanders beats Clinton in all the
remaining primaries (Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, California, Montana, New
Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Mexico, and the District of
Columbia), he won't have enough delegates to garner the nomination at the
party's Philadelphia convention. That reality requires Clinton and Sanders
to recognize that they-and their supporters-need one another. It also begs
the question: What should Sanders do? How can he build on his popularity and
success in this year's campaign to further his goal of transforming American
society and politics?
Drawing on the ideas of many people-activists, journalists, scholars, and
others, inside and outside Sanders's camp-I suggest a five-point plan for
Sanders and the Sanderistas. This plan gives the many liberals and
progressives who have "felt the Bern" a road map to ensure that the
74-year-old Vermont socialist with a Brooklyn accent makes the transition
from candidate for president to catalyst for change.
Step One
Between now and the convention, Sanders should fight to the end to get as
many delegates as possible. Voters in the remaining primaries-all of which
save the June 14 Washington, D.C., contest will be held on June 7-have the
right to vote for Sanders or Clinton. Americans deserve to see how much
support Sanders has for his progressive agenda. Moreover, having a
competitive race with a large Democratic turnout is particularly important
in California, which follows an unusual system in which the two candidates
with the most primary votes, regardless of party, advance to the general
election. Democratic registration in California has been surging, so a
strong turnout by Sanders supporters could shut out Republicans from the
run-offs for U.S. Senate and some tight congressional contests, and help
guarantee more Democratic victories in November.
Between now and the June primaries, Sanders should stop criticizing the
Democratic National Committee and Hillary personally and return to focusing
on policy issues. After those primaries, he should negotiate a truce with
Clinton. In exchange for Sanders suspending his campaign and endorsing
Clinton before the Democratic convention, the two Democrats should agree on
a strategy that gives Sanders and his followers a significant voice at the
convention, during the fight against Trump, and in the run-up to the next
Clinton administration.
Step Two
At the convention and through Election Day, Sanders will surely remain on
the public stage. He will certainly get a prime-time speaking role at the
Democratic convention, where he can reiterate his attacks on the nation's
economic and social injustices, attack Trump, and strongly endorse Clinton.
He should also use his leverage to shape the party's platform on issues like
Wall Street reform, the minimum wage, skyrocketing college tuition, and paid
family leave, and insist that Clinton incorporate some of his key policy
ideas into her campaign stump speeches. One sign that Clinton and DNC chair
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz are taking heed of Sanders's
insurgency is the appointment this week of a majority of progressives to the
party's platform committee. They include AFSCME's Paul Booth, former EMILY's
List head Wendy Sherman and Neera Tanden of the Center for American
Progress. Also on the committee are House Democrats Luis Guttierez, of
Illinois, Barbara Lee of California, and Maryland's Elijah Cummings, along
with Ohio State Representative Alicia Reece, all stalwart progressives. They
join Sanders's nominees Cornel West, House Democrat Keith Ellison of
Minnesota, environment activist Bill McKibben, Arab American leader James
Zogby, and Native American White House aide Deborah Parker. (Unfortunately
missing from the committee are any progressive economists.)
Sanders has predicted that the convention could get "messy," explaining that
"that's what democracy is about." But Sanders should discourage his
supporters from disrupting the convention inside and outside the hall. If
his followers want to protest, there are plenty of targets in
Philadelphia-big banks, insurance companies, McDonald's, Walmart
stores-where they can rally against the billionaire class. A prime target
for protesters would be Verizon, where they could join the picket lines of
employees who have been on strike since April.
When the convention is over, Sanders should energetically campaign for
Clinton in key swing states and for progressive Democrats running for
Congress in close races, in order to increase turnout among his supporters.
He should make sure that his key staff members land posts on Clinton's
campaign and those of Democratic candidates in battleground races. These
aides can help mobilize Sanders's volunteers and followers to support
Clinton. Also in this window, Sanders should escalate his attacks on Trump
and remind his supporters of the damage that a Trump presidency would do to
the country and to the progressive agenda.
Step Three
After Election Day, once Clinton has won the White House and the Democrats
have recaptured the Senate, Sanders will be in a strong position to reshape
the agenda of both the Democratic Party and the nation. New York Senator
Charles Schumer, a liberal on social issues but a strong ally of Wall
Street, may well be the Senate's next majority leader. To balance the
party's leadership, Sanders should push for a progressive to replace
Wasserman Schultz as head of the DNC. Strong candidates include such popular
legislators as Senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon (the only Senate member to
endorse Sanders), and Dick Durbin of Illinois, and House members Karen Bass
and Xavier Becerra (both of California), Keith Ellison of Minnesota, and Jan
Schakowsky of Illinois. The party's next chair could also come from the
ranks of such respected political veterans as Democracy Alliance head Gara
LaMarche, Common Cause Director Miles Rapoport, or even billionaire
environmentalist Tom Steyer. (Full disclosure: Rapoport serves on the
Prospect's board.)
Step Four
After January, when the new president and Congress take office, Sanders will
become chair of the powerful Senate Budget Committee-assuming Democrats
retake the upper chamber, as predicted. In that position, Sanders can
influence federal budget, tax, and regulatory policy to advance a
progressive agenda around financial reform, anti-poverty initiatives, health
care, environmental sustainability, affordable housing, Social Security,
labor law reform, workplace safety, paid family leave, and even
campaign-finance reform, immigration reform, and the military budget.
One of his perks in that post will be to fill the committee's staff with
experts from universities and such progressive think tanks as the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, the Center for American Progress, the Economic
Policy Institute, the National Employment Law Project, and the Center for
Economic and Policy Research. He will also be able to hold public
hearings-in Washington, D.C., but also in cities around the country-on a
wide range of issues. Hearings provide opportunities for ordinary Americans
as well as experts to make their voices heard, gain media attention, and
advance a progressive agenda. They can serve as forums that can help support
grass-roots activists.
Sanders could also work with progressive think tanks and activist groups to
create a "shadow cabinet" of experts on the left to parallel Clinton's
cabinet picks. This Sanders circle could issue regular reports on what the
major federal executive agencies could be doing to advance an economic and
social justice agenda, much as the Heritage Foundation's Mandate for
Leadership reports became the blueprint for the Reagan Revolution.
Step Five
Through the 2018 midterm elections and beyond, Sanders can help build the
"grass-roots political revolution" without which, as he has said throughout
his campaign, there is little hope for transformational change. Sanders's
campaign success has been fueled by the many grass-roots insurgencies that
in recent years have challenged the political and economic establishment.
These include Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, Fight for $15, campus
campaigns to divest from fossil fuels and slash student debt, and crusades
for women's health care access, marriage equality, and gun safety. Sanders's
campaign helped give voice to these activists and their issues. They fed his
campaign and were fed by it.
Many progressive politicians have promised to transform their electoral
campaigns into ongoing movement operations, but few have had the patience or
resources to do so. Many of Jesse Jackson's supporters hoped that his
presidential efforts in 1984 and 1988 would evolve into a permanent Rainbow
Coalition of progressive activists, but it didn't happen. After Obama won
his brilliantly executed 2008 campaign-built by an army of seasoned
political and community organizers who trained hundreds of thousands of
volunteers in the art of activism-he created the nonprofit now known as
Organizing for Action (OFA).
Many of the organizers who worked on that campaign went to work for OFA,
hoping to build an infrastructure to keep campaign volunteers involved in
issue battles in between election cycles. But OFA has not lived up to its
early promise, in large part because Obama made it an arm of the DNC in a
bid to build support for his legislative agenda.
Occasionally, however, the candidate and the movement forge ahead beyond the
campaign. After the writer Upton Sinclair narrowly lost his 1934 bid to
become California governor on a radical End Poverty in California (EPIC)
platform, his followers built a statewide movement through EPIC clubs that
revitalized the state's Democratic Party into an effective political
operation over the next several decades. Similarly, Senator Paul Wellstone
of Minnesota, a former political science professor and community organizer,
took seriously his responsibility to turn his electoral support into a broad
statewide progressive movement. After he died in a tragic plane crash in
2002 while running for a third term, his supporters launched several
organizations-including Wellstone Action, the Alliance for a Better
Minnesota, and Minnesotans for a Fair Economy-to mobilize Minnesotans around
issues and help recruit, train, and elect progressives to office.
Ever since Sanders first announced his plan to run for president, many
journalists and activists have looked for signals that he was making plans,
once the election was over, to transform his campaign into that "grass-roots
political revolution" he's been calling for. Not surprisingly, during the
campaign Sanders and his top advisers have focused almost entirely on
winning votes and delegates. But early on, some of his key operatives were
already thinking about the longer term.
Next month, some progressive leaders inside and outside the Sanders campaign
will convene a three-day meeting in Chicago for what they are calling a
People's Summit to strategize about how to build on the Sanders campaign
over the long haul. Neither Sanders nor his aides have agreed on what a
post-campaign operation would look like. But many understand that Sanders is
in a unique position to use his influence and fundraising ability to build
an organization or network to mobilize his supporters that, in the short
term, can push President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress to the left
on key issues like the minimum wage, health-care reform, Supreme Court
nominees, and Wall Street regulation, and, in the longer term, can become an
ongoing force for progressive change.
Can Sanders sustain the momentum of his campaign into the marshy terrain of
movement-building? He has the capacity to raise money from the millions of
people who helped him collect more than $200 million for his campaign. He
has an unprecedentedly large list of volunteers who could form the basis of
an ongoing organization. How many will want to participate in or contribute
to a Sanders-led movement is anybody's guess. How Sanders deploys these
lists, and how he will connect with the many existing progressive
groups-unions, environmental groups, community organizing networks, and
others-is another open question.
Election campaigns have a set of rules, and a predictable beginning, middle,
and end, that helps bring people together for a common goal-electing a
candidate on a particular date. Movements are more complicated. The American
progressive movement is a diverse mosaic with many groups that compete for
attention and funding. They work on many different issues. Some are more
willing than others to participate in coalitions, agree on a common set of
issue priorities, and forge compromises on legislation. Some are reluctant
to endorse candidates or get involved in election campaigns. Many of the
activists affiliated with these groups came together to support Sanders, but
there is no guarantee that they won't go their own ways after Election Day.
As the mayor of Burlington, Vermont, for eight years (1981-89), Sanders
helped build a political coalition [7] that not only adopted progressive
laws and helped build progressive institutions but also stayed in power for
three decades after he left office to run for Congress. In the House and
Senate, however, Sanders been known as more of a gadfly than a
coalition-builder.
But even as a figurehead, Sanders can play an important role in
strengthening the left. Sanders can select a number of key issues and work
closely with unions and other groups that are already working on those
causes. He can be their champion and give them more visibility. He can show
up at their meetings and rallies and support their causes. He can raise
money to support existing local, statewide, and national groups-like
National People's Action, Planned Parenthood, MoveOn, the Center for Popular
Democracy, the Sierra Club, Black Lives Matter, United We Dream, and many
others-that recruit and train people in the skills of citizen activism and
campaign mechanics, and that help elect progressive Democrats to local,
state, and national office.
Going into the 2018 midterm elections, and beyond, Sanders can focus
attention on helping a select group of progressive Democrats win primary
battles and support their campaigns against Republicans running for local
and state offices as well as Congress. In that way, he can help groups build
and train a "farm team" of progressive candidates to run for myriad offices,
laying the groundwork for expanding the progressive caucuses in the House
and Senate.
As part of this inside/outside strategy, Sanders could work with progressive
activist groups and his progressive Senate and House colleagues to identify
a few key legislative priorities to build multi-year campaigns around these
issues. He and his network can convene an annual "Feel the Bern" conference
(and some state-level summits as well) to bring together the many strands of
the progressive movement, highlight their commonalities, celebrate their
victories, showcase their leaders, organizers, and candidates, and identify
the key battles on the horizon.
This five-point plan will likely meet with resistance from some Sanders
supporters who argue passionately that he can still win the Democratic
nomination. Sanders's string of primary wins has made the notion of a
President Sanders begin to seem at least plausible. His favorability ratings
have consistently exceeded Clinton's. He has shown that he can raise
significant sums from millions of small-dollar contributors without relying
on Wall Street, corporate America, and the super-rich to bankroll his
campaign. He has attracted huge crowds and recruited large numbers of
volunteers in blue and red states alike. He has surprised many skeptics with
his knowledge of policy details and his first-rate performances at
Democratic debates.
Indeed, it is remarkable how well Sanders has done despite what he and his
supporters have justifiably called a "rigged" system. His backers are
correct that some of the party's rules-regarding the debate schedule,
super-delegates, and other matters, many of them mishandled by Wasserman
Schultz, the transparently pro-Clinton chair of the Democratic National
Committee-put Sanders at a disadvantage.
Sanders's enthusiasts hope that they can persuade enough super-delegates to
switch their loyalties away from Clinton. Their main argument is that
Sanders has a better chance than Clinton to beat Trump. In a race once
regarded as a coronation for Clinton, recent polls of registered voters show
her in a statistical dead heat against Trump. Sanders, by contrast, who
enjoys much higher favorability ratings than Clinton, bests Trump, 54
percent to 39 percent, in a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll [8].
Of course, Sanders has not yet been subjected to the kind of opposition
media campaign that he would certainly face were he the nominee. Slate's
Michelle Goldberg noted [9] in February that Republicans were already
salivating about how they would excavate the radical speeches and writings
from Sanders's past, seek to discredit him as an unpatriotic Marxist
ideologue, and exploit "his youthful opposition to the CIA and his
anti-military leanings" if he were to win the nomination. Republicans would
not only paint Sanders as an extreme "tax and spend" liberal but also try to
transform him, in the public's imagination, into a supporter of Fidel
Castro, Daniel Ortega, and Mao Tse-tung. This assault may not work with
under-40 voters for whom the Cold War is a distant memory and who associate
socialism with Scandinavia, not Cuba or China. But such attacks could
certainly weaken many undecided voters' support for Sanders.
By contrast, most Americans already know Clinton's vulnerabilities since
she's been in the public arena for decades. This accounts for her low
favorability ratings, but it also somewhat inoculates her from GOP efforts
to further destroy her support. And Clinton is likely to win a surge in
Democratic and independent support once she wins the nomination, just as
Republicans began rallying behind Trump once he became his party's
presumptive nominee.
And the "Sanders or bust" crowd is playing into Trump's hands. Some even say
they won't support or vote for Clinton if she wins the Democratic
nomination, arguing that she and Trump are equally undesirable-two sides of
America's corrupt corporate-dominated political system. The media have
exaggerated the number and ferocity of Sanderistas who hold these views, but
if enough Sanders followers refuse to vote for Clinton, it could help Trump
win in several key battleground states like Colorado, Pennsylvania, Nevada,
and Florida, and possibly hand Trump the White House.
Some Clinton supporters-particularly among pundits and journalists-have also
turned nasty, taking to the blogosphere and talk shows to trash Sanders's
ideas and to attack his most zealous enthusiasts as sexist, racist, and
rude. But Clinton knows she needs Sanders's supporters to win the White
House, which is why she has adopted watered-down versions of Sanders's
agenda and why she has tread lightly in criticizing Sanders-at least
publicly.
Sanders himself recognizes that his primary goal of making America a more
humane and fair society will be made much more difficult if Trump becomes
the nation's president. Despite his differences with Clinton over policy
issues, Sanders-as both a politician and a leader of a social
insurgency-knows that his movement's ability to influence the nation's
political culture and public policy will be much greater with her, rather
than Trump, in the White House.
Electing Clinton will not produce the "political revolution" that Bernie has
been calling for. Indeed, he acknowledged that even if he won the White
House, little would change without a significant grass-roots movement to
mobilize Americans to challenge corporate America's disproportionate
influence on our political life. Sanders's supporters don't want to give up
on his election, but they may end up with something more lasting in the
end-a generation-long movement. The five-point plan is a good place to
start.
Peter Dreier is professor of politics and chair of the Urban & Environmental
Policy Department at Occidental College. His most recent book is "The 100
Greatest Americans of the 20th Century: A Social Justice Hall of Fame"
(Nation Books).
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [10]
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.[11]
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/sanders-can-build-progressive-legacy ;
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/peter-dreier-0
[2] http://www.prospect.org/
[3] http://sageamericanhistory.net/progressive/docs/SocialistPlat1912.htm
[4] http://prospect.org/article/bernie-sanders-too-radical-america
[5]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count
.html
[6] http://demrace.com/
[7]
http://www.thenation.com/article/bernies-burlington-city-sustainable-future/
[8]
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-3-po
ints-new-nbc-n577726
[9]
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/bernie_sand
ers_radical_past_would_haunt_him_in_a_general_election.html
[10] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on A Five-Point Plan for
Sanders Going Forward
[11] http://www.alternet.org/
[12] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
