Would It Be So Bad If There Were a Growing Rift Within the Democrat Party?

While coverage of the 2016 primary races in both parties has done its best to render the race as a soap opera--a major reason Donald Trump has been in the spotlight so much--a more serious issue seems to be coming to the surface.  Last weeks' exchange between Democrat primary contestants Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton that the other one was "unqualified" to be President, along with Bill Clinton's response to Black-Lives-Matter hecklers, indicate there is a division within the Democrat Party, and that the differences between Sanders and Clinton and their respective supporters is more significant than either camp or the media have let on.

Thus far, the media's efforts to present the primary races as a soap opera have been both predictable and paradoxical.  For every effort to fan the flames of drama during the primary season, the coverage has been predictable--more of Trump's antics--and made something that ought to be inherently exciting and interesting--a Presidential election--seem rather dull.  Even though Sanders has now won seven of the last eight contests, the media have consistently covered the Democrat primary as though Clinton is the inevitable winner and Sanders' campaign as a largely symbolic one featuring a candidate who never had a chance of capturing the nomination.  At the same, the contest between Sanders and Clinton has been described as largely civil, while the Republican contest has been depicted as puerile, as so divisive within the ranks that front-runner Trump will be blocked from the nomination at the Republican Convention in Cleveland this summer.  There has yet to be a diversion from either perspective.

But I have a different take on both primaries, particularly the Democrat primary.  The "Bernie or Bust" movement was one clear sign that people who currently identify with Sanders don't automatically identify with the Democrat Party.  During the debates, Sanders and Clinton have made it a point that no matter their differences, the tone and focus of their debates clearly distinguishes the Democrats from the Republicans.  Both Sanders and Clinton made it a point to follow-up their alleged "unqualified" remarks (Sanders has been criticized for being touchy and defensive about something Clinton apparently didn't say about him) by praising the other and announcing that no matter what, should the other candidate be the nominee, that person would be far superior to whoever comes out of the Republican primary.

One has to ask, though, if such statements are not made in response to what both candidates and their entourage may recognize but not want to verbalize: the differences between Sanders and Clinton are quite significant, and their supporters have considerably less common ground than one might assume.  In other words, efforts by both Sanders and Clinton to debate in a civil manner, and state their support for the other should that person become the nominee, betray a concern that there is greater turmoil within the Democrat Party than either candidate may want to admit.

Sanders supporters are clearly disgusted with the fact their candidate has not been taken seriously as a legit contender for the Presidency, and that the Democrat primary has been rigged from Day One to be a victory march for Clinton, regardless of the truth to that perception.  The "Bernie or Bust" movement reflects a general disgust with the party, the primary, with the Clinton campaign, but most of all, the idea that they are obliged to vote for Clinton in the general election once she (inevitably) claims the nomination.  Actor Susan Sarandon incurred quite a backlash when she made public she wasn't sure if she would vote for Clinton should Sanders lose the nomination.  That backlash, in turn, makes it pretty clear there is a good deal of disgust among Clinton supporters for the Sanders campaign, especially Sanders supporters.  "How dare you say you wouldn't vote for Clinton in November!" the Clinton supporters seem to be saying.  This disgust seems consistent with the depiction of Sanders' message and the mentality of his supporters as childish, unrealistic, and disloyal.  Sanders' supporters have been branded as people who believe in a candidate who can't possibly be President and a platform that is unachievable because, of course, "there is no way to pay for it."  And how dare Sanders supporters jeopardize the Democrats' chances in November by saying if their beloved Bernie doesn't get the nomination, then Trump, or some other Republican can just go ahead and be President.

A number of things have not gone the usual way for the Democrats during this primary.  For one, with a sitting Democrat president, the predictable arrangement would have been for Vice-President Joe Biden to be the presumptive nominee, and the primary would have just been a formality.  But Biden chose not to run, and one gets the feeling that after losing in 2008 to Obama, Clinton has been the party establishment's choice to be the next Democrat to run for President.  Usually the primary of the party already in the White House is a clear-cut choice.  But while the party establishment may want it that way, that is not how it has turned out.

Sanders has given a voice and a face to a growing awareness within the population that super-rich people and corporations control the political agenda in the United States.  Whether or not one agrees with this perception, or with the notion that such big-money influence is a major problem, that is the political trend.  Thus, the Sanders' campaign has amounted to an attack on politics as we know it.  That makes a lot of people more than a little annoyed, apparently.  The displeasure Sanders' existence as a primary candidate has generated probably explains the ridiculous imbalance between the number of states Sanders has won and the number of delegates he receives when he wins a state.  Sanders supporters complain (as the stereotyped version of them would have them do) that even when he wins a state, Clinton gets nearly as many delegates as he does.  Thus the delegate total is not reflective of the will of the voters.  If this imbalance between number of states won and delegate total indeed reveals that the Democrat establishment has made up its mind that Clinton will be the nominee, it is hard not to argue that whatever may distinguish the Democrats from the Republicans, it most certainly isn't that the former is "the party of the people," while the Republicans are the party of the rich and powerful.

Sanders has not made subtlety a cornerstone of his campaign.  He has been quite blunt about the need for campaign finance reform and his stance that the current political system has been corrupted by super-PACs and big-money interests.  Obviously, his supporters feel that currently neither party has either the incentive or the right people at the helm to represent the needs and interests of the non-rich, i. e. the ordinary people.  As the primary contest enters its final months, and with a mathematically decisive primary in New York State a week away, I get the sense that for Bernie supporters the primary season has shifted from the excitement of seeing their candidate do better than expected and stay in contention longer than expected to a sudden frustration and anger that their candidate is nonetheless going to lose and was doomed from the start.  If there is any truth to the perception that the Democrat party was never going to let Sanders win, then no matter how anyone may feel about either candidate, the party is coming apart at the seams.

It isn't the differences between Sanders and Clinton that matter, its the degree of those differences.  And from the standpoint of the candidates' supporters, that degree is significant.  It may be that the era of the Democrat Party appearing to be the party of the people while in reality being a party of the rich has run its course.  For Sanders and his supporters, drawing attention to corruption in the political system and the perception that Clinton is first and foremost a candidate who will protect the interests of that system is not enough.  Sanders supporters want their candidate to be taken seriously and to become the next President.  His candidacy has not been a joke or a "socialist" diatribe against establishment politics just to make the primary more interesting and to make Clinton sweat a little.  Rather, Sanders has delivered the most accurate and lucid message about our country's problems and what must be done to address them in recent memory.  He stands apart not just from Republicans and from Clinton, but Democrat Presidential candidates in previous elections.

If the rift between Sanders and Clinton supporters is as great as it seems, it reflects a disconnect within the Democrat party that was growing long before 2016 and long before Bernie Sanders became a candidate.  For the differences between the two groups to become a national dialogue is long overdue.  The civility between Sanders and Clinton really amounts to a plea for people who may dislike one candidate or the other to keep the Democrat Party propped up.  But if the party in fact does not unite the groups that stand behind the respective candidates, then both its establishment and those who automatically have voted for its candidates in the past will have to decide what direction the future of the party will take.  That will mean deciding that if keeping the Republicans out of the White House will continue to be enough to keep the party united, or if the differences between the two candidates running in its primary and their supporters reflect a population that every day finds itself having less in common with others. The Democrat primary of 2016 may show that the Democrat party can no longer unite the supporters of the two candidates vying for its nomination, people who once had their differences but identified with a common cause.  If that's the case, then the pretense of unity would be far worse than seeing the party fall apart, and then have to reinvent itself.  It's OK for people of different political views still to be friends, but it's not OK if they can't stand one another's politics but feel obliged not to say so and vote to the contrary.