I’m a big fan of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whom I see as the most effective communicator on the left. This weekend she officially endorsed Bernie Sanders.
By endorsing Sanders in order to help build his movement, Ocasio-Cortez is taking seriously the campaign’s motto, “Not me, us.”
“For me, it wasn’t even about helping the senator. It was a moment of clarity for me personally in saying, What role do I want to play?” Ocasio-Cortez told NBC. “And I want to be a part of a mass movement.”
And AOC’s remarks this weekend in support of Sanders are moving and psychologically astute — the toll that inequality and exploitation take on our spirits, much less our bodies and bank accounts. If there’s any Democratic candidate out there who isn’t speaking directly the these concerns, they should hang it up right now and get out of the way.
At the end of his address, he urged audience members to look around and find someone they didn’t know. Then he asked a series of questions designed to promote a sense of unity.
“Are you willing to fight for that person who you don’t even know as much as you’re willing to fight for yourself?” he asked. “Are you willing to fight for young people drowning in student debt even if you are not? Are you willing to fight to ensure that every American has health care as a human right even if you have good health care? Are you willing to fight for frightened immigrant neighbors even if you are native born?”
This is a statement of fundamental decency — the answer to the eternal “And who is my neighbor?”
So I can’t help but be struck by the ongoing contrast between “Not Me, Us”, and the Cult of Bernie, which constitutes a segment of his campaign that simply can’t be ignored, with a repertoire of abrasive behaviors that weaken the ties that bind. Us, Not You.
I’ll stipulate that a candidacy will inevitably have cult-of-personality tendencies. Every campaign has its “stans”, and it’s foolish to hope otherwise. Primaries have ever been the “silly season”, where differences get blown out of proportion in an attempt to create daylight between candidates. (Remember PUMA?)
Movements are bigger than candidacies, since they are about issues that spring from the lived experiences of people. One talks about the feminist, climate, or health care movements; or even a progressive or socialist movement that includes a number of related concerns.
Movements are protean, flexible with tactics. They can be co-opted, for better or worse, but it’s a success when outside actors adopt a movement‘s positions, whether or not they are original “true believers”. Movements take yes for an answer. A candidacy is a tactic of a movement — maybe the best of all. But they’re not synonymous.
Regrettably, Sanders himself has not discouraged this cult of personality. Many of his supporters are prone to language like “we’ll roll over you” and “bend the knee”. It’s not just on social media; the message comes from the top — if not directly from Sanders’ own mouth. His campaign staff and surrogate list is shot full with toxic personalities seemingly as interested in destroying the Democratic Party as in gaining health care for everyone, say: Nina Turner, David Sirota, Nomiki Konst, Briahna Grey, et al. Some of these folks even encouraged voting for the odiously compromised Jill Stein over Hillary Clinton. Stein’s vote total was more than Trump’s margin of victory in several swing states — and as such was one of countless “deciding factors” in 2016.
I don’t share the notion that Bret Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, family separation policy, and other horrors of the Trump years have been an acceptable price to pay for such “integrity”. Those of us who stuck with the Democratic coalition — flawed as it was — view this as a betrayal with enduring consequences. Sanders has surrounded himself not with coalition-builders; but with bridge-burners.
Sorry, but that’s a massive turnoff for anyone not already in the club. And it portends very badly for the scrutiny Sanders would face were he to become a front-runner; or whether he could profitably use the movement if he is indeed elected. A recalcitrant Congress will still exist; and while less cozy than before, it still works on relationships. Who will Bernie surround himself with, if he wins? What advisors, liasons, and surrogates? This group? Really?
I’m resigned to the fact that this will be received as concern trolling by Sanders die-hards, as evidence of my insufficient dedication to good and right things, and inherent neoliberal false consciousness. Well, I can swear up and down that I was a persuadable voter in 2016, right up until the MA primary; that I admire his moral vision, and fully support much of his program. He has succeeded in moving the party to the left. He is sincere and nothing if not consistent. There are a million excellent reasons to vote Bernie; I don’t begrudge them in the least, to AOC nor anyone else.
But the movement at some point is going to have to separate from the cult of Bernie — whether he wins or not. It will have to define itself by a set of policy goals — not even policy mechanics, like a particular vision of “Medicare for All” — but what those mechanisms are supposed to accomplish on behalf of the people. It will have to be tactically flexible. It will build coalitions.
And if Bernie truly wants a “Not Me, Us” movement, he’s going to have to set the tone starting with his own campaign staff — much less the Twitter hordes.
After all, there is another option for bold progressive leadership that doesn’t seem to be here for all the drama.
Christopher says
For me it’s AOC who has attracted a bit of an unhealthy cult following. I agree with her more often than not too, but some Dem activists seem to hold her up as THE barometer of everything that is good and true in the party.
SomervilleTom says
Amen.
I love the energy of AOC, and she is certainly a refreshing voice in Congress.
She is also very new her career. She is 29 years old and has no prior political experience. In my view, AOC is an extraordinarily promising public official with a very bright future. She is not there yet.
She pulls her pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us.
jconway says
I think AOC is shrewder than her critics on the right give her credit for, and greener than her acolytes on the left give her credit for. In my judgment, she is endorsing two sure fire primary losers in Sanders and Markey, but I recognize you go to the dance with the one that brung you. Endorsing either Warren or Kennedy would have been perceived as backstabs, fairly or not. So she gets a pass from me on both, and I suspect most of her base prefers those moves to the ones I would. She made up with Pelosi in a big way and should do great things in the House.
Closer to home, it is notable Pressley has gone out of her way to avoid the allegations of anti-semitism (fair and unfair) that have followed the rest of the Squad and that she is the only one not endorsing Sanders. Pressley is probably even more pragmatic than AOC, and that should serve her well in the long run. Overall, I am happy to see both of these exciting leaders emerge as standard bearers for the Democrats.
Christopher says
I strongly disagree that Markey is a surefire primary loser or that endorsing Warren would have been a stab in the back.
jconway says
I do not disagree regarding an AOC endorsement of Warren, but I am not sure the ride or die Sanders supporters would have viewed it like us. One only needs to look at their reaction to the NY Working Families Party endorsing Warren to see that.
Trickle up says
I think Sanders is in until the end, because that is how he moves things to the left.
Of his followers I cannot speak. Certainly online, every candidate seems to have his or her toxic followers. Some of them might even be real humans.
I do know, personally, the fellow who recently signed on as Bernie’s NH co-chair. He is one of the finest people I have ever met.
By the time the insignificant Mass. primary rolls around, I think it will be clear what to do. In the meantime, don’t get too fat into the weeds with this stuff.
Meanwhile, the empire of mediocrity is preparing to strike back, because, apparently, nothing succeeds like failure.
Charley on the MTA says
Sirota is Sanders’s senior adviser and speechwriter. Grey is his press secretary. Turner spoke at his rally. These aren’t marginal figures to the campaign — they are the campaign.
Trickle up says
I hate to have this difference with you, Charlie, but it really reads like a stretch to me. What are those people doing now? Have you subjected the staffs and followers of the other major campaigns to the same scrutiny?
Political campaigns are disfiguring to nearly everyone who takes a side (as we learn regularly here at BMG) and voting for Stein in ’16 is not a sin (Note: I voted for Clinton with zero compunctions and a great deal of admiration).
Charley on the MTA says
Nope. As stated, I have a pretty high tolerance for primary silliness. It got way out of hand in ‘16; and I can well imagine it happening again.
I’m sorry, I see what I see. I’m not going to pretend otherwise.
jconway says
I didn’t vote for Hillary in the primary either, but she won the nomination fair and square. Won more delegates and more popular votes. Won more voters of color. Blaming the DNC, superdelegate (until they flip flopped and argued superdelegates should endorse their candidate), or corruption for her nomination undermined its legitimacy in the eyes of some Sanders voters.
They engaged in name calling after she won, calling Hillary a war monger or a compromised Wall Street candidate giving cover to Sanders supporters to defect to Trump or support or a third party. I know more than one Sanders supporter who backed Trump over NAFTA or Iraq. I know young Bernie voters who stayed home or voted for Stein. All baseless reasons considering how superficially opposed to those policies he was and how much Hillary’s own candidacy was shaped by the Sanders challenge into a far more progressive campaign.
jotaemei says
Come for the allegedly progressive agenda, stay for the links to right-wing blogs.
Sourcing character attacks to Michael Graham’s posts? That’s one I would not have expected.
No luck at Breitbart?
Charley on the MTA says
Ach, good call. I’ll get a better one on Turner. She is known to have voted for Stein.
Edit: Here’s the link of her pointedly refusing to support HRC. Not helpful.
https://twitter.com/_EthanGrey/status/1098714538118168577?s=20
SomervilleTom says
Elizabeth Warren grows into a more and more formidable candidate every hour of every day. She is totally authentic, good at communicating, and has a powerful message. A famous investor I once worked with was asked what his “trick” was for winning so many negotiations. His answer was “well, being right helps a lot”.
Ms. Warren is right.
The empire of mediocrity is quaking in their boots.
jconway says
I second everything Charley said in his post up thread. Sanders got nearly 50% of the primary vote last time, largely by virtue of being the not-Hillary candidate. His soft supporters like me have moved over to Warren, who is also doing a great job attracting Hillary supporters. I think she can unite the party in a way he or Biden cannot. I was the rare Sanders supporter that was happy with Hillary becoming the nominee throughout the primary, though I did hit back here and elsewhere on what I perceived were unfair attacks.
I think Charley’s criticism here is fair and consistent with his criticism from 2016. A big difference is we have better choices this time around. Ultimately in Warren we get someone with Hillary’s bridge, coalition, and relationship building attributes with the consistently bold progressive vision of Sanders. I cannot think of a single issue where her position is substantially to his right, and can even think of a few where she is to his left. I also cannot think of a scenario where he is a better President than she would be.
Christopher says
Sanders got 43% of the primary vote to Clinton’s 55%, so not that close.
jconway says
It was way closer than anybody expected it to be at the start. That’s my point. He gave her a real run that cycle. He has been perpetually stuck in third for most of this cycle, with a third of his 2016 support. I think that proves he is even less likely to win this time around, His 15% is the hard core ride or die support, and I do hope it ultimately sticks with the nominee. Nominating Warren should make that choice easier for Sanders supporters.
Christopher says
A key reason I think the nominee this time is likely to be Warren is that I think she can be acceptable to most Biden and Sanders supporters. I recall thinking the Sanders-Clinton race was likely to be closer, but whatever.
jconway says
I think she can unite the party like no other candidate can. It’s why while Bernie has my undying affection, Warren has my money and my vote.
centralmassdad says
Tangential question, since I don’t follow this kind of stuff. anti-What makes Jill Stein “odiously compromised”? She’s a Green Party kook– so anti-Semitism? Anti-vaccines?
Christopher says
She’s had her share of being a bit cozy with Russia/Putin.
Charley on the MTA says
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-flynn-putin-n742696
SomervilleTom says
All roads lead to Vladimir Putin.
johntmay says
I was a Sanders supporter in 2016 and as such made a few connections with others on social media. I have to say that some of those connections are ones that I have recently cut off as a result of their attitude towards Warren. I have asked them to keep the discussion limited to what’s good about Sanders, or Warren, but they insisted on going after her recent statement on getting pregnant and losing her job.
I’m also a big supporter of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez understand see her endorsement of Sanders but as a Warren supporter, I have no interest in digging up dirt on Ocasio or Sanders and I will support both in the future.
SomervilleTom says
I’m curious about what there is to “go after” regarding her statement about getting pregnant and losing her job. Do they claim it didn’t happen? Do they defend the dismissal?
This is one of those complaints that I haven’t heard yet. I just can’t imagine somebody objecting to this episode — it happens to women ALL the time (it happened to my daughter in 2018).
johntmay says
They claimed this is a=some story she made up, like the Native American story. They claim that she already stated in the past that she was not qualified for the job and/or wanted to leave anyway.
SomervilleTom says
Sigh. Never mind that she didn’t “make up” the “Native American” story.
It is disappointing that so many people are so eager to believe absolute hogwash.
johntmay says
…..I’ve had to listen to Republicans tell me that “She’s just like the rest, only in it for the money….” and then I remind them that her salary as a aw professor at Harvard was quite a bit more than that of a US Senator…but they don’t seem interested in the facts.
jconway says
I’m getting a little nervous about Tulsi playing the same role Stein did in 2016. Her vow to carry on past her House re-election and frequent Fox appearances are leading me to think she will go third party.
Her 2% is marginal and ineffective in the primary, but could be a difference maker in some states. Hopefully she draws equally from Trump voters, she basically is Trump on foreign policy questions, and apparently impeachment. It would be very helpful of Sanders to call out his former endorser who claims to be a protege.
Trickle up says
What role is that, exactly?
jconway says
That of useful idiot like Henry Wallace before her and a potential third party spoiler.
SomervilleTom says
The GOP has dedicated the last three decades to expelling officials and voters who are interested in the facts.
Fundamental GOP dogma going all the way back to Ronald Reagan is based on lies. The result reminds of today’s Protestant evangelical movement — today’s participants view facts as a “test of faith”. They eagerly and passionately deny them in order to prove to themselves and their fellow cult members that they are true believers.
Any effort to sway these cult members only strengthens their resistance. This is why appealing to Trump voters is a fool’s errand.
We can only hope that enough new voters can be brought into the process to overwhelm the votes of these increasingly desperate Trumpist Collaborators.
doubleman says
Sure, but they are not the same or engaging in the same project. There is a difference, and for many it is not interchangeable. That’s why you see stark differences in their support – one building a younger, multiracial, and working class coalition, and the other more popular with educated, richer liberals.
The “Bernie or Bust” stuff is largely a myth, just like it was in 2016. It’s a good story to punch left though. Notice how we don’t talk about the 18-22% of Hillary primary voters who supported McCain in the general (which is double the number of Sanders voters who switched in 2016). They don’t get blamed or called turncoats or morons because the other guy was a good candidate with a great campaign. Plus, it’s not as much fun to blame centrists as it is to blame lefties. If Warren wins this primary she will get enthusiastic support from almost all Sanders backers. You’re reading into some Twitter fights too much if you believe otherwise.
But why not take it a step further? If Warren wins the primary, choose Sanders as VP. Problem solved. It does a lot more good (for coalitions, electorally, and for policy) than choosing any other likely character like Harris, Booker, or the increasingly odious Mayor Pete – good lord he is awful.
SomervilleTom says
@Why not … choose Sanders as VP:
I don’t think that has much impact. For those administrations where the VP is anything more than ceremonial (George W. Bush, for example), the choice of VP is driven by whatever various candidates bring to an incoming administration. My sense is that candidates who attempt to “balance the ticket” with their VP choice generally don’t see significant benefit in electoral performance. I am curious about whether that intuition is accurate or not. Perhaps the political scientists and historians here can illuminate this question.
I think Bernie Sanders would drive away more votes than he would attract. I’m a piano player, and I’m reminded of an insight that tends to separate really excellent piano players from the crowd. When playing in an ensemble that includes a bass, a good piano player avoids playing a bass line and instead uses their left hand to play accompanying chords in the middle of the keyboard. This is because when the piano is playing bass notes along with a bass player, the result is generally a muddy and discordant mess for the audience.
A piano player who’s strength is the bass lines they play often sounds better solo than with a bass. I think Elizabeth Warren already plays a very strong “bass line” of a progressive appeal to working-class voters. I think adding Bernie Sanders to the ticket is like adding a bass player. I think the result would be a muddy and discordant message.
For the record, Cory Booker is my current choice for the VP nomination on a ticket headed by Elizabeth Warren.
doubleman says
Why does he consistently beat Trump in matchups (and, btw, consistently outperform Warren in those matchups), and has since 2015? Who are the voters he drives away? It seems like the people who hate him most are establishment democrats.
She is not winning their support much yet. She’s also not showing a lot of support from independents and not regular voters (which Sanders is popular with).
It seems that adding a more centrist person to a ticket with Warren adds a more discordant note than adding another strong progressive. But maybe if your concern is assuaging major Democratic donors, then that is the way to go.
SomervilleTom says
@maybe if your concern is assuaging major Democratic donors, then that is the way to go.:
Cheap shots like this hurt your credibility. Rude insults like this exemplify an attitude we saw all too much of in the 2016 campaign. Mr. Sanders drives away voters who are weary of his all-anger-all-the-time shtick. Gratuitous attacks like this drive away voters who come to sites like BMG seeking commentary from progressive Democrats.
Ms. Warren is a better qualified and better received candidate than our 2016 nominee. That nominee absolutely trounced Mr. Sanders in the 2016 primary season.
I stand by my opinion that Cory Booker would add much more political strength to the ticket — especially among urban minority voters in MI, WI, and PA — than Bernie Sanders.
doubleman says
How? If he had a lot of strength here, wouldn’t he be showing that in current primary polls of those states and in those communities? He’s not now.
SomervilleTom says
It would be easier to continue this conversation with you if you walked back your gratuitous slam at me. I’ve made it clear for months now, including in exchanges with you, that Elizabeth Warren is my preferred candidate.
When Ms. Warren is already at the top of the ticket, it seems patently obvious to me that nobody is talking about assuaging major Democratic donors. She’s explicitly rejected their donations for some time now.
jconway says
Head to head matchups are meaningless barometers until we have a nominee. If you correctly assail Biden and his supporters for using them, you cannot use them for your own candidate. I think we should not be voting for a Democratic nominee based on the hypothetical activity of general election voters who have not yet been exposed to the Republican attacks (many of them frankly illegal) that ANY Democratic nominee will have to endure.
Sanders also continues to run into the issue he ran into in 2016. His support among Democrats has considerably dropped. Even if he is our best bet against Trump, only 15-20% of Democrats polled consistently think he is. A big drop off from the 43% of the vote he got in the 2016 primary against Clinton, a nominee who also performed considerably better among Democrats than Sanders. Which is why she won the nomination and he did not. His support has only gone down as the primary has continued.
doubleman says
I partly agree with your statement about head to head matchups. As a true showing of who will win, they are not good, but they seem to be a strong counterargument to the idea that would candidate would “turn off” lots of voters. The other thing is that the head to head for Sanders have been consistent since 2015 and based on Sanders gaining name recognition for his actual ideas. Biden and his ideas have not been actively discussed during that time. I think it’s hard to say that Sanders is riding on name recognition alone.
Totally agree on your point re: the democratic base and Sanders. It’s why I think if he fails to win the nomination he would be the best VP pick for Warren.
His fundraising totals, and especially number of donations and his support among working class people (like how he gets tons of donations from teachers, nurses, and Walmart and Amazon employees) is something that no other candidate could bring to a ticket. But again, maybe it’s better/smarter to pick someone to make donors happy than those people happy.
SomervilleTom says
@maybe it’s better/smarter to pick someone to make donors happy than those people happy.:
You just don’t give up.
Commentary like this is exemplifies why I think Mr. Sanders and his supporters are toxic to our party and ticket.
jconway says
I wouldn’t go that far Tom. I think they have revived the party and refocused it on kitchen table economic issues. I think Charley’s take is the best. Without Sanders, no AOC and no progressive grassroots as forceful as the GOP’s base. Can a President Sanders be effective? That I have my doubts about, hence my support for our candidate instead.
doubleman says
Sure, that’s fine. And I will be clear – I do not care about the Democratic party at all. It is not my party. I think it is largely very bad. It just happens to be a necessary evil in our current system and a much much better option than the other party.
Does Booker appeal to those who don’t care about party? To those who want real change? To those who support ideas like M4A and student loan forgiveness? Can you say with a straight face that he would appeal to those people?
jconway says
Are those issues important to people who didn’t turn out for Clinton? She ran on those ideas too and they didn’t seem to motivate progressives to turn out. Opposing Trump was a much bigger factor in 2018 and stopping the damage Trump did.
I’m sensitive to the criticism that Warren essentially subsidizes those of us who got degrees at the expense of those who did not. I also think she and Sanders should sell that plan as a better stimulus than tax cuts. Otherwise, I don’t see why the vast majority of working class people who didn’t go to college would care about that issue.
doubleman says
Clinton did not run on that at all.
It’s not just those issues but the general idea that the system is working against the working class and only a couple candidates are leaning into the right and necessary fight for those people.
Does anyone in the race has evidence of being able to bring out non-voters and new voters? One does. It was not enough in the 2016 primary (partly because these voters are not party members) and likely won’t be enough in the 2020 primary. But leading (or as part of) a 2020 ticket, there is more evidence that one candidate can bring out marginal voters over a standard Dem more than anyone else.
jconway says
Oh for the record I don’t think Sanders would be less electable than Warren. Frankly, he does better with the demographics we lost to Trump. That’s not just using hypothetical head to heads but looking at geographic distribution of their voters in the 2016 primaries. I just don’t like the idea of two septuagenarians on the ticket.
I’m agnostic on the Veep, As long as it’s someone who can credibly debate Mike Pence, a low bar but one Tim Kaine failed to clear, than we’re fine. Maybe some ticket splitting for youth, geography, or identity makes a difference but the data show it hardly ever does. For all we know President Pence is running for re-election under investigation in a years time and Pelosi pulls a McConnell on filling the VP slot. Then anyone could beat the empty chair.
jconway says
I’ll uprate this with a caveat. I do not think Charley was engaging in punching left with his original post, simply articulating why he supporters Warren over Sanders and the limitations of Sanders brand of movement building vs. the coalition building and policy chops of Warren.
That caveat aside, I agree with you the bigger threat was not Sanders supporters defecting in 2016 or in 2020 but centrists withholding their support from a progressive nominee. There are already active efforts to recruit Clinton or Bloomberg or Michelle Obama since the neoliberal wing of the party is equally terrified of Warren or Sanders. This is why it is critical for supporters of either candidate to support the other staying in the race through the early primaries and encouraging the runner up in the progressive lane to endorse the frontrunner. If Sanders beats my candidate in IA and NH and is our best bet against Biden, he has my support. I hope Sanders supporters see my candidate the same way.
SomervilleTom says
I don’t hear anything new from Sanders since the last time his show was on the air in 2016. Joe Biden’s campaign is even more stale.
If these two are the best we have to offer, then it doesn’t matter what we do because we’ll lose in 2020.
doubleman says
LOLOL. This is really funny Tom. He’s saying the same thing (as he has for 40 years). Maybe it’s stale to you, but the message has dominated the ENTIRE 2020 primary race.
It’s also funny coming from you when you have continually said that THE major problem is income and wealth inequality. If that’s what you care about, I don’t know you can say Sanders’s message is stale.
jconway says
I think it’s silly season when we are bashing Warren or Sanders from the other camp. I really wish this were a ranked choice election so we could rank them instead of only having to vote for one.