Bernie or Hillary?

To the surprise of those voters, media people and pundits who weren’t paying attention, the race for the Democratic nomination for US President is shaping up to be a real contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders. For the most part, the American media spent the vast majority of its time paying attention to the circus that is the Republican race, and so they failed to notice the enthusiasm for Sanders, who for months was drawing crowds that outnumbered those going to see the annoying narcissist leading the Republican race, who got the vast majority of the attention on most media. It seems like it was only in the last month or so that the media noticed that Sanders was presenting a serious challenge to Clinton. Now that the primaries have actually started, it is clear that Sanders has a good shot at the nomination. But for those of us who want to see some progress made in making both the US and the world a better place, the question remains: which of the two Democratic candidates is the best choice? I’ve touched on this question a few times in the past, back when Martin O’Malley was still in the race (though always a distant third), but now that it’s crunch time, it’s worth revisiting it in some detail. The truth is, I am still vacillating, and what follows is a rough summary of some of the thoughts that are behind my indecisiveness.

In many ways, Sanders is clearly the most attractive candidate, so it’s not surprising that his support among the most progressive voters has been overwhelmingly stronger than Clinton’s. Sanders has focused on economic inequality and the numerous issues related to it, such as money in politics, out-of-control big banks, tax policies that favor the rich, racial issues, immigration and more. He is openly calling for a political revolution to change America’s course, and considering how far down the road toward becoming a corporate plutocracy the US has gone, I have to agree with him. Clinton, for the most part, gives the impression that she would be content with tinkering with the system, which is unlikely to be sufficient. Sanders’ positions on numerous issues are decidedly more progressive than Clinton’s. While most of what she has said during the campaign on climate change, immigration, the TPP and so forth has been good, Sanders has mostly been better, and Clinton has even made a few really unfortunate remarks, such as her defense of deportations of undocumented immigrants by the Obama administration. Her attacks on Sanders for pushing a single-payer health care system and for acknowledging that in addition to dramatically raising taxes on the rich he may also raise taxes on ordinary Americans (if those taxes can really make it possible for the US to create a Scandinavian-style social support system, then Americans should be happy to pay them). But the main distinction is that Sanders recognizes that radical change is needed in many areas, and for the most part Clinton does not.

So does all the above mean I’m all out for Sanders? Not necessarily. While I have many reasons for liking Sanders better, I also have reasons for preferring Hillary Clinton. Let’s start with the one that is the more obviously superficial: the fact that Hillary is a woman. I do think it’s about time the US elected a female president, and as great as Bernie is, he’s yet another white male. At least when the contest was between Obama and Clinton, we knew that whoever won would be breaking new ground. This wouldn’t be as obviously the case with Sanders, even though he would be the first Jewish president and the first openly socialist president. Those would be great steps forward too, but it wouldn’t have the dramatic impact of electing the first woman to the office. Of course, I can imagine all the Sanders supporters sharpening their penknives, metaphorically speaking, at the above, so let be clear here: if all Hillary had going for her was that she was female, there is no way that I’d even think about supporting her over Sanders. That would be like saying I’d be happy to see someone like Carly Fiorina or Sarah Palin (shudder) as president. Unlike awful candidates like those, Hillary Clinton has a lot to recommend her, and the fact that she's female is merely a bonus.

On the issues, while the positions Clinton has taken are overall not quite as good as those taken by Sanders, she is still for the most part pretty good. Her stances on issues like economic inequality, climate change, election finance reform, social programs, immigration, and education range from acceptable to excellent. On at least one issue, she is actually noticeably better than Sanders: gun control. While Sanders has also spoken out on the need to do something about gun violence, a few of his past votes on the issue are problematic and his attempts to explain them have been in my view inadequate. As at least one commentator pointed out, his argument that he was simply voting in the interests of his constituents contradicts his basic premise that he is all about principles. Even if voting against gun control measures or to shield gun retailers from lawsuits was what his constituents wanted (it seems a bit much to claim it was actually in their interest to vote that way), then in doing so he was acting like other politicians. Of course no one is perfect, and given Bernie’s good stances on other issues and his current positive rhetoric on this one, a few mistakes are hardly enough to disqualify him as a very good candidate. But then the same logic applies to Hillary, and while she might have made a few more bad votes or taken a few more bad positions than Sanders, the difference is not as great as some make it out to be. In fact, Clinton’s record as a Senator was solidly progressive, by most accounts more so than Barack Obama, a point some of her progressive critics seem to ignore or dismiss. While it is true that she has at times tried to position herself as a centrist and some of her statements and actions seem to be driven by political expedience, even Sanders seems to have been guilty of that on guns, and there are many issues where her progressive convictions seem genuine. One example is issues relating to women and children, something she has been deeply involved in since even before her husband first ran for political office. To take one example, while her critics on the left rightly attack the welfare reforms passed under Bill Clinton’s administration, it’s worth noting that by her own account, which I can’t see any reason to doubt, she pushed behind the scenes to ensure that the welfare reform bill included provisions providing Medicare, food stamps and child care, even telling her husband and his staff she would speak out publicly against the bill if it didn’t provide these protections. While the final bill was still too harsh, it is probably that she helped make it less so with her behind the scenes work.

One of Clinton’s greatest strengths is her overall competence and detailed knowledge of many issues. Indeed, some have observed that the main contrast between Sanders and Clinton is one between inspiration and governance, or to put it another way, between a visionary and a manager. Sanders, as his backers point out, certainly has demonstrated ample governing ability, whether as chief executive during his years as mayor or as a successful legislator in his years in Congress. However, his main message as a presidential candidate has been one of inspiration. Clinton, on the other hand, frequently displays a detailed grasp of the issues, including in many cases fairly precise policy proscriptions. On the other hand, she has more difficulty inspiring people than Sanders or, before him, Obama. But while I think it’s great to have a visionary leader who inspires people, it’s at least equally important to have a fantastically capable manager. While I believe that Bernie is likely to prove quite adept at governing, the person who has most clearly given indications of that capability during the campaign is Hillary. She is also one of the most qualified people ever to run for President in terms of her resume. While she hasn’t actually served as a chief executive, she has been a Senator and a Secretary of State, and she spent eight years in the White House getting as close a look at the job as it is possible to have without actually doing it. Of course, while Bernie’s resume might not have quite as much breadth as her, it is also very good; certainly far, far better than any of the likely Republican nominees.

To be clear about things, I must emphasize that I don’t agree with those who claim Sanders is promising moonbeams and unicorns. Most of his proposals, broadly speaking, are quite realistic, if radical to those in the establishment. For instance, it seems that some of the attacks by left-leaning economists (including Paul Krugman, who in general I highly respect) on a study by another economists of how Sanders’ proposals would affect the economy were not based on actual analysis. Likewise, the claim that Sanders’ health care proposals would cost trillions of dollars are extremely misleading, as most of that would simply be moving money to the public sector from the private sector (which has proved very inefficient at distributing health care in the US). However, the qualifier “broadly speaking” is important. I do get the impression that quite a few of Sanders’ ideas are somewhat lacking in detail and may promise more than they can deliver. For instance, it’s not quite enough to say that countries like Denmark manage to provide universal health care and other broad social benefits like universal day care and so the US should to. The problem is that Denmark and most other democratic socialist countries are a lot smaller and more homogenous than the US, which means that it is a much bigger and more difficult task to provide the same benefits in the latter. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried, but it does mean that we have to recognize that it will be immensely difficult and in all probability will take some time. While I personally would be perfectly prepared to have things like my health care radically transformed in a short period of time if I were living in the US, most people instinctively resist radical change, even if it is ultimately in their interests. While I would might prefer to see the radical change Sanders promises, I suspect that Clinton’s approach might actually work better.

One reason a lot of progressives have difficulty with Hillary Clinton is her somewhat hawkish approach to foreign policy. I will admit that I don’t feel quite as strongly about this as many other people do. I agree that her vote on Iraq was a mistake (as she admits herself), as were her other remarks at the time in support of invading Iraq. However, as wrongheaded as it was, that vote alone hardly should be treated as a reason to reject her as a candidate; if I were to reject her for that stupid vote I’d also have to reject Sanders for his vote to give the gun industry immunity from lawsuits. Of course, supporting the Iraq invasion was arguably not Clinton’s only questionable foreign policy decision. In hindsight, intervention in Libya may have been a mistake, though it seems that most people have forgotten that the original impetus for intervening was to stop a potential massacre of opponents and civilians in Benghazi by the Qaddafi regime. The problem is that since Qaddafi was stopped from reaching Benghazi, we don’t know whether such a massacre would have taken place or whether it would have been bad enough to make the current chaos in Libya seem preferable. Since this is unknowable, it’s hard to judge whether the initial intervention was a mistake or not, except to say that I for one would not have wanted to see the West stand by while people were slaughtered in great numbers if it was possible to act to prevent it. Of course later decisions in the course of the intervention, such as escalating it to actively supporting the anti-Qaddafi forces, can and probably should also be criticized, though again it’s hard to know what would have happened if the US had acted differently. In any case, it’s important to keep in mind that the initial US (or rather NATO, as the US played more of a supporting role) intervention took place under completely different circumstances than that in Iraq, and was not made under blatantly false pretenses like the latter was. Ultimately, I share Clinton’s apparent belief that under some circumstances military intervention may be justifiable, though only if we can be fairly sure that it will make things better rather than worse, a difficult thing to ascertain. Perhaps a more disturbing part of Hillary’s record on foreign policy is her acquiescence to the right-wing coup in Honduras, which has directly led to the terrible conditions there today that lead many people, including unaccompanied minors, to flee the country. This makes her comments in support of deportations even harder to excuse. Doing things like touting her friendship for the amoral Henry Kissinger doesn’t help her image as someone who would sacrifice innocents in the name of pragmatism. But then every US leader, including Obama, bears responsibility for at least some cold-hearted foreign policy choices, and I doubt even Sanders could avoid making a few if he is elected. I should also note that another, more specific foreign policy issue for me is which candidate would be more likely to stand up to China over Taiwan, Tibet, and other such issues. As a resident of Taiwan, I’d be reluctant to vote for anyone who seemed likely to stand aside if China began to act more aggressively. Unfortunately, I haven’t heard much specific on this from either Sanders or Clinton, though the latter seems a little more likely to be a reliable ally for my country of residence (in her autobiography, she mentions confronting Chinese President Jiang Zemin over Tibet).

Another big issue for many is Clinton’s ties to Wall Street. I do find these somewhat troubling, though I think we should keep in mind that though Wall Street as a whole may be a negative force in the US, it is far from monolithic. Even institutions like Goldman Sachs that are guilty of all sorts of criminal practices are too big and complex to be absolutely evil or good, just like governments or billionaires as a class are not all bad or all good. To be sure, we certainly don’t need a President who will be actively working to promote the interests of Wall Street over those of ordinary Americans, and I agree with Sanders and Elizabeth Warren that if a bank is too big to fail, then it’s too big to exist. But even Hillary agrees that Wall Street needs to be reined in, and I don’t think the fact that she’s taken some money from them proves that she’s totally in their pocket, just that they think it would be worthwhile to have her ear, in part because she is not totally hostile to them. I saw one comment that in general Wall Street is basically neutral toward Clinton, and I suspect that’s the case in reverse as well. I think if she is elected it will still be possible to push her to fulfill her own comments on the need to put some restraints on the big banks. That said, this is one of the issues that pushes me more towards Sanders, along with Clinton’s ties to other problematic industries and companies, like Monsanto – though at least she has announced that she will not take any more contributions from, for example, the for-profit prison industry.

Then there is the vaguer but still commonly raised issue of Hillary’s trustworthiness. However, I think to a large degree this issue is a creation of the American right wing. During the administration of her husband, Bill Clinton, both of them were relentlessly attacked and accused of all kinds of things. Most of these accusations were completely unfounded, but gradually they managed to create an impression of dishonesty on the part of the Clintons that was not truly deserved. That’s not to say that I think Hillary is the most honest person in the world, or even in politics. I recently read her autobiography, and while it was interesting and informative (her writing is not nearly as good as Obama’s, but it’s readable), it was obvious that she was writing with her political future in mind, as much of it seemed rather cautious and diplomatic (though she didn’t bother to conceal her dislike for people like Newt Gingrich and of course the awful Kenneth Starr). However, I don’t think she is any more or less trustworthy than most politicians, and she’s probably better than a lot of them. I think that this image of her as particularly untrustworthy stems from a combination of the absurdly high level of scrutiny she has been subjected to, some degree of sexism (which helped drive at least some of the scrutiny she got when she first got onto the national stage), and her own lack of the kind of natural charisma that allows people like her husband to get away with minor (or even major) failings with their popularity intact. With the exception of Obama, few people in American politics have had the amount of vitriol aimed at them as has Hillary Clinton, so it is inevitable that some of it has made an impression. Whether that impression is accurate is another question.

In fact, this brings up another issue that has me vacillating between the candidates, and that is the attitudes of some of their supporters. The candidates themselves have been mostly polite to each other, though as the race has heated up the rhetoric has too. But this is even more obvious when one looks at what some of their supporters have been saying. A number of people on Clinton’s side have made ridiculous remarks about Sanders, his positions or his supporters, and every time I hear one it makes me more inclined to support Sanders. But when it comes to grassroots supporters, it is the Sanders supporters who show the greatest hostility toward their candidate’s opponent. Some of them are as bad in their anti-Hillary rants as the right wing. Though of course it isn’t fair to judge anyone by the worst of their supporters, the hostility many Sanders supporters display toward Clinton doesn’t particularly make me want to be on their side, and I find it particularly irresponsible considering that attacks on either candidate could end up hurting them in the general election, which is something we absolutely can’t afford, considering the alternatives. Of course Hillary’s surrogates would do well to remember this too. But it’s among Sanders supporters that I tend to see an unhealthy degree of ideological self-righteousness. While I understand the tendency to treat all the people we profoundly disagree with as either stupid or evil or both, as I am subject to it myself, I think that a certain degree of flexibility, tolerance, and ability to compromise (not with diehard right wing ideologues, perhaps, but with everyone else – and even possibly with them on rare issues) is necessary to make real progress.

I’ll admit that another factor related to the above is my own inclination to play devil’s advocate. Whenever Clinton supporters call Sanders a fringe candidate or claim his proposals are all unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky ideas, that makes me lean towards Sanders. On the other hand, when Sanders supporters attack Clinton as a tool of Wall Street or just an unprincipled person who is only interested in power, that makes me what to support her. Overall, the apparent tendency for people in progressive groups like Move On, the Working People’s Party, and so forth to value the idealistic visions of Sanders over the practical governing skills of Clinton makes me want to throw my support to her, just to balance things out. The truth is, I think both types of approach are equally valuable, and if they could be combined, that’s when we will really see things happen. Commentator Michael Kazin makes a similar point in his part (titled “Both/And”) of a set of short essays by several progressives in the Nation about the definition of “progressive” and how well Clinton and Sanders fit it, stating that in his view Clinton should be considered a liberal, someone who works within the system in a pragmatic manner to create gradual change, whereas Sanders is a leftist, someone pushes for radical change from the outside. When both types work together, progress is most likely to be made (incidentally, some of the comments at the end of the Nation piece are good examples of the purist attitude of some Sanders supporters).

One final consideration in deciding which candidate to support for the Democratic nomination is electability. For a long time, Hillary Clinton supporters have argued that Bernie Sanders is unelectable in a general election – indeed, her campaign is still making the argument that she is the best candidate to put up against the Republicans. Among other things, they say that Sanders, as a self-declared democratic socialist, will be considered too extreme by mainstream voters. On the other hand, some Sanders supporters are arguing the reverse, noting that Sanders does better in polls against likely Republican nominees. This argument has gained impetus as it begins to look more likely that, contrary to the expectations of most pundits and against the will of most of the Republican establishment, a certain loud-mouthed, loud-haired, obnoxious, self-promoting billionaire will win the Republican nomination. Of course I’m referring to Donald Trump, who in the past I’ve tried to avoid mentioning Trump by name because I hate giving him yet more of the attention he so obviously craves [Update: Just after posting this I saw John Oliver's latest show, where he also amusingly talked about trying to ignore Trump, until, like a back mole, he became too big to ignore. I like his suggestion that we "make Donald Drumpf again", so I may start referring to him by his ancestral name in the future, when I have to mention him at all]]. But since chances are good that he will actually be the nominee, we’re probably stuck with him (this isn’t to say that the other Republican candidates are any better – Cruz is if anything worse, and Rubio is a cipher whose positions are only moderate by comparison to the extremism of his opponents, where they aren’t identical). In any case, the argument made by Sanders supporters is that Bernie will do better against Trump than Hillary, or even that he’s the only one who can beat him. While I would prefer to pick my candidates solely on their merits, electability is something that can’t be ignored, especially when the potential consequences of a Republican win (regardless of their nominee) would be dire, not just for the US, but for the whole world.

So which side’s arguments about electability are more credible? To some degree, it is impossible to be sure, as attempting to predict the future is a hazardous business. But my feeling is that both sides make some good points, but both exaggerate the electability of their candidate and the difficulties that the other candidate would face. The assertion that Sanders is too much of a fringe candidate for most Americans doesn’t seem terribly convincing to me, as the things he advocates are actually quite popular, for the most part. This is not to say that he might not be defeated by a smear campaign which succeeded in portraying him as more radical (and dangerous) than he is. It should be impossible for any sensible, reasonably well-informed voter to think Sanders is radical, much less dangerous, in comparison to people with truly insane and dangerous ideas like Trump, Cruz or even Rubio. But unfortunately many voters are neither sensible nor well-informed. Nevertheless, I think Sanders would stand a better than even chance of winning in the general election, and this is even truer if voters are able to get an accurate picture of who he is and what he wants to do.

As for Clinton, the main argument against her electability is that, fairly or not (and as I indicated above, I’d say mostly unfairly), she is considered untrustworthy and dishonest by many, and so her negative numbers are high. A more specific argument is that Trump in particular, with his propensity for throwing out insults and vague accusations, would be the worst kind of opponent for Clinton to face, as she’d have to constantly on the defensive against him, given the number of (perceived) scandals she’s been connected with. Sanders, this argument goes, would be much less vulnerable to this kind of shatter-shot attack, given both a lack of material for Trump to work with and Sanders’ ability to stay focused on his message about economic inequality, an area where Trump is more vulnerable. There is something to this argument. However, it does ignore the possibility that other groups might launch attack ads against Sanders painting him as an extremist. Granted, most of the usual right wing billionaire backers of the Republicans (the ones who would be funding such attacks) don’t like Trump much either, but they may still decide he’s the lesser of two evils, despite Charles Koch’s disingenuous claim that he agrees with Sanders about inequality being a problem. I think Clinton might prove more effective than some of her detractors think in fighting back, particularly since her performance in the debates and the Benghazi hearings shows that she can perform quite well in such situations, and as I observed above, she’s already survived decades of partisan mudslinging. Clinton’s supporters also note that many of the possible things that she will be attacked for are already well known to most voters, and so most people who haven’t already taken against her are unlikely to be swayed by attacks on her. On the other hand, Sanders is still unfamiliar to many people, which means not only that his negatives are low but also that the right wing has more room to create a negative impression. This is also a valid argument, though Clinton could still be hurt by constant attacks, and it’s still hard to say how they’d affect Sanders. Overall, I suspect these positives and negatives for both Sanders and Clinton may balance out, so that both are more or less equally electable, though perhaps Sanders might do a bit better against Trump.

I should also point out that I still don’t think Trump has that much of a chance in the general election. Even among Republicans, his support has mostly hovered at between 30% and 40%, though with the narrowing of the field that may change slightly. A lot of other Republicans, including ordinary people as well as establishment figures, don’t like him, and I find it hard to imagine many non-Republicans voting for him, especially women, Latinos or pretty much any other minority group. Even aside from his awful rhetoric, he has an abrasive, frankly annoying personality. And while appearance is not what matters most, I found his attack on Carly Fiorina's appearance (“Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that?”) to be highly ironic, as I for one find Trump’s own appearance to be somewhat nausea-inducing (Cruz isn’t much better on this front). But while I’m sure many people share my feelings about Trump and would be just as happy as I would if we never had to see or hear of him again, we probably shouldn’t underestimate the stupidity of other people. Though I don’t think that Sanders is likely to be that much stronger against Trump than Clinton, it’s important that neither take Trump too lightly.

In the final analysis, I remain undecided between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. I lean just slightly towards Sanders because I prefer his positions on the majority of issues and I agree with him that the US needs radical change, but I also like her sharpness, competence, and detailed policy positions, qualities that I think are underrated in the style over substance world of modern politics. If Hillary does prevail, I hope it is close enough that she really takes to heart the lesson that Bernie has been teaching: millions of Americans want real, progressive change, and even those who don’t want it will in the end benefit from it. In the next couple of days, following the Super Tuesday primaries, everyone should have a better idea of who is likely to win the Democratic nomination. Perhaps Sanders will pull off an upset by winning most of the delegates, or maybe the two will more or less split them. In that case, I’ll probably stay on the sidelines, though something could sway me in one direction or another. If, on the other hand, Hillary wins big, I will look into how to vote in the Global Presidential Primary that the Democrats hold for Americans abroad from March 1 to March 8, and if I do vote in that situation, I’ll almost certainly vote for Bernie, in order to keep the pressure on Hillary. I’d be quite happy to see her as US President, but I want it to be a progressive Hillary who is willing to take on vested interests. I believe that such a Hillary exists, but she needs the courage to come out to take the place of the more cautious, middle-of-the-road Hillary. A strong progressive movement may give her that courage, but if not, then maybe we’d be better off with Bernie as President. In the end, though, even a centrist, somewhat corporate-friendly Hillary would be vastly preferable to any of the Republican candidates, and all people who claim to be progressive, leftists, liberals, or even socialists should remember that when November comes.