Culture Watch: Follies and Foibles on the Democratic Campaign Trail

Unfortunately my knowledge of politics hasn’t helped me see through a glass clearly. A few days ago, I was reminded of this when the presence of superdelegates tied the New Hampshire Democratic primary. The possibility of Hillary winning the nomination without a majority of the popular vote turned my view of party politics on its head. I knew that political parties had agendas and bowed to donor class wishes, but I had not conceived of them as institutions that cared more about their own survival than representing their membership. I knew the two party system was kept in place by the Electoral College, but I didn’t realize how much the parties had to lose if the field opened up. Their power over legitimating contestants, their ability to throw their weight behind one candidate by debate scheduling, their use of super delegates, especially among Democrats to maintain party control -- all became clear. The two party system is so interwoven with how American politics works that I am at a loss to see how true structural reform is possible by electoral means.

Such thoughts changed my understanding of endorsements as well. It appears that the reason for the Hillary endorsement by so many politicians has as much to do with keeping the Party (to which they owe their status and power) in the driver’s seat as to the power of the Clinton machine and her personal attributes. Bernie Sanders’ populist campaign threatens to overwhelm the Democratic status quo and undo Bill Clinton’s actions, which moved it to the right. (Following the years of Reagan and Bush, the need to partially undo the legacies of FDR and LBJ was good for the Party if not the American people, as we see now with the Crime Act of 1994 or the repeal of Glass Siegel.) Why else would someone as upstanding as Rep. John Lewis attack Bernie Sanders’ civil rights record in the way he did? Simple: it was an attack on Sanders’ character and credibility.

I do not accept Howard Dean’s dismissive excuse of the Hillary campaign excesses with the remark that much ‘is on the line as the race tightens up’. Values only count under pressure; it is the only time they are tested. It behooves us to uncompromisingly hold both candidates to the values they claim for themselves through their actions, or we must accept that politics are a contact sport not to be trusted. We lose more by espousing the latter rather than the former.

I’ve noticed on MSNBC (tied in many ways to the Democratic Party) surrogates from each campaign are given equal time, and are also included in discussions with NBC pundits. Not only do such conversations provide cover for the agendas of the Party as well as the candidates, they also keep the discussion within acceptable perimeters by always providing partisan points of view. Only once have I seen such surrogate positions dismissed out of hand. Not surprisingly, it was on “Morning Joe” when Howard Dean dismissed the talk of disarray in the Hillary campaign as “just Washington talk” and a former Republican operative-turned- journalist tried to dismiss the power of Sander’s message by suggesting that ‘revolution’ is always an easier sell than reform. Joe Scarborough shot them both down. Then again, he is an avowed conservative with little skin in the game regarding the future of Democratic Party.

I am continually amazed by how intelligent, far-thinking men and women betray their values when they enter the political arena. I have always respected Gloria Steinem for her feminist activism and Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright for her ability to rise so far in a patriarchal world. However, to put their feminism at the service of a political campaign betrays the principles that are central to the struggle; namely respect for the choices women have made to survive and grow in a man’s world. I understand why Hillary cannot stop talking about herself and her credentials given the vicious attacks against her, especially those of when she was First Lady. I also understand why in the current conjuncture, young women are able to believe in the feminist strain of the Sanders’ campaign. To hold up one person as the ‘true’ feminist because she is a woman is to take identity politics to a place that turns it toxic.

Finally, there is the ‘war of the narratives.’ While Democrats congratulate themselves on civility (unlike the Republicans who seem to enjoy knock down fights and battles at the OK corral), the controversies over who is progressive or establishment, who can change the system in the face of Republican opposition -- both important issues -- has resulted in mischaracterizations, and actual falsehoods. Oddly, it has turned Sanders into Obama. Sticking to issues, Sanders refuses to respond personally to Clinton’s mischaracterizations regarding healthcare, guns and compromise. It reminds me of President Obama during his first term when he kept on giving into Republicans to arrive at consensus. It never worked; he learned his lesson. Though Hillary wraps her arms around Obama, it is Sanders who may end paying Obama’s price for his stance.

Jo Tavener is a member of the Editorial Collective. A founder of New York Radical Feminists in the 1960s, she went on to teach film and then critical media and cultural studies at various universities before retiring.

#blog #culturewatch