Bullied Into Belief


I have a confession to make...

 I'm one of those obnoxious millennials who posts facebook statuses in favor of presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, with hashtags like #FeelTheBern #PoliticalRevolution #BernBabyBern. But while I the majority of my posts in this arena have been about the positive attributes and policies of Bernie, a few have been directed at the record, practices, and actions of his contender in this primary, Hillary Clinton.

 Now before any Hillary supporters reading this gets their leiderhosen all in a bunch, I would like to make very clear that I WILL CERTAINLY VOTE FOR CLINTON IN THE ELECTION SHOULD SHE GET THE NOMINATION. 

 There's no doubt that the republican alternatives are across the board insidious, dangerous, and, in my opinion, wrongheaded ideologues. Even the most seemingly moderate of the bunch, Ohio Governor Jon Kasich, has spearheaded a disgusting legislative attack on women's health centers and planned parenthood centers across his state-- to my mind, not a moderate action by any stretch of the imagination.

 Despite all this, I take issue with the idea that while I am certainly supporting Bernie because of his strong record, vision, honesty, and integrity; I am simultaneously disallowed to be able to voice dissent against the so-called (though by no means certain) "presumptive nominee" of my party. Now, some might say I shouldn't need to call out his competition to support him-- especially in the primary within my own party-- and that is in theory, absolutely true. The most positive way to support a candidate is certainly to emphasize what s/he has to offer, rather than bring down the competition.

 But if I have a fundamental issue with the way a candidate within my own party operates, do I no longer have the right to voice my dissatisfaction? And moreso, if the way the two chief contenders within my own party run their campaigns and invision the future of our democracy differs significantly (some might even say fundamentally), do I not have the right and responsibility as a proud democrat to point it out?

 Well, according to some people, NO, I shouldn't point it out and I should both acknowledge that my candidate is a lost cause and start to rally around the presumptive nominee so that we can make sure to defeat he-who-must-not-be-named (I refuse to write or speak his real name or give him free publicity). I have been fed several versions of this narrative for the past 8 months-- and while I very much respect Hillary supporters and agree with various elements of Hillary's platform-- I refuse to be bullied to support a candidate with whom I have serious issues before the primary is over.

 Now I acknowledge that the bullying happens on both sides, and I even admit that I have been guilty of subtle bullying of Hillary supporters in the past when I wrote something like "Hillary supporters are missing out on the most exciting Presidential candidate of our time" or wrote tongue and cheek recently about certain parishes of my home state of Louisiana that voted majority for Bernie "being more enlightened" than others. While I regret those posts and affirm that it wasn't fair to trivialize people's support of Hillary or consider them "less-than" for doing so; even there, I was speaking out of my honest belief that he is the best choice despite what the powers-that-be would have you think. Elections are always contentious affairs and I acknowledge that occasionally lines are crossed...

 However, I still think it fair to call out a few general responses of some in the Clinton camp as wrongheaded and, furthermore, do not make me want to support Clinton any more than I already do.

 First, there's the loyalty oath: Say, for example, I write something critical of Clinton's practices of taking money from big banks, oil, and pharma; or shutting down rather than engaging in conversation with a Black Lives Matter protester. I then often am confronted with some combination of the message that "she's not the real enemy", "she's likely going to be the nominee", and most centrally "I hope you're going to support her if she gets the nomination!"

 I really believe it is a false narrative that anyone more than a very very small minority of Bernie supporters would not vote for Clinton under any circumstances. Everyone with a progressive mentality, who was otherwise predisposed to take part in the political process, knows that the alternatives are largely unconscionable and WILL VOTE FOR HILLARY if that is what it comes down to. Now that doesn't mean that some people--who have been brought for the first time into the political fold because of Bernie's message--won't vote if Hillary gets the nomination, which is a shame, but not leading to any less political involvement than the prior status quo (which is admittedly poor).

 An extension of this loyalty oath tactic is what I call pulling The Trump Card (I'll use his name this one time since it's for the sake of cleverness): inevitably after they ask you if you will vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination, they will follow with the notion that your criticism is invalid because "the real enemy is Donald Drumpf (sic)." Well, first off, is he? While he has engaged in disgusting race bating, incitement to violence, and espousing immoral immigration policies-- which most certainly have their real-life consequences and need to be denounced--for him, I think, it's all really about getting attention and distracting attention from the real issues in this country. He does this by cultivating people's latent prejudices and fears and making them feel that he is the only one strong enough, successful enough to fix things.

 So if Donald Drumpf uses fear to get followers to believe in him, should Democrats really be using fear of Drumpf's potential election to sway Bernie supporters to Hillary's cause? I am in no way saying these two strategies are equal in their evil, but I nonetheless believe it is wrong and undemocratic to use our fear of a fear-monger to get people to support a given Democratic candidate. Doing so, I think, gives Drumpf undue power and allows him to achieve the kind of fear that has bolstered his presidency. Furthermore, it offers me no reason why Hillary's policies, experience, and record should earn my support and doesn't make me want to vote for Hillary any more than I already do.

 Relying on fear of a Drumpf presidency is not a way to win a campaign. Attacking any criticism of Hillary's practices or record (and not personal character) is not the way to win the hearts and minds of Bernie supporters. While there are things all democrats can agree on policy-wise, there will continue to be fundamental disagreements between supporters of each Democratic candidate in this primary because their individual visions for the future of our democracy are very different.

 So I encourage both Bernie and Hillary supporters to respond to criticisms of your given candidate with positive arguments and with reasons why your candidate is worth supporting-- not to stifle criticism of either of them and use fear to keep people in line with the party.

 Almost as bad as a Drumpf presidency would be a democratic presidency won by absorbing the worst of Drumpf's politics...





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Passing for Jewish" in The American Theatre

If you’ve worked in theatre, ever been to the theatre, or just know a song from Fiddler on the Roof , you probably know that Jews and Theatre go together like matzah balls and chicken soup. It is a rare production that does not happen to boast a few actors, stage managers, designers, and indeed audience members of Jewish heritage. But equally as important, Jewish stories are often part of many theatres’ seasons each year. Plays as varied as The Chosen , Ragtime , The Diary of Anne Frank , The Whipping Man , Driving Miss Daisy , Bad Jews , and yes Fiddler are often staples at theatres both large and small each year—and certainly that is the case here in Chicago. Joshua Harmon’s play Bad Jews has in fact been one of the most produced plays in the US every theatre season since the play premiered in 2012. So, when a theatre company decides to do one of these plays and has to make decisions on hiring actors, directors, or other artists for that production, should the reality of wh...
Read more

Katrina Anniversary SPAM

When you get an email from the President and CEO of a respected publication like The Atlantic —you answer it. Or so I thought... But after flying from Chicago at the crack of dawn to attend The Atlantic ’s “Katrina: 10 Years Later” conference at the Sheraton in New Orleans, I find myself wishing I had labelled the message as spam . I should have recognized the signs: a generic email with only slight attempt at personal touch (“you would add so much to the conversation”), the REGISTER HERE link at the bottom of her digital signature, and the fact that I had no clue where they acquired my information. And yet, I admit, I was a bit struck with the idea that maybe—just maybe —this was a personal email that just had the detached touch of a successful magazine CEO. I thought maybe my work as an artist and a vocal New Orleanian had made me, in some sense, worthy to be invited. But what I found out was that I was just there to fill seats. Which was disappointing considering that...
Read more