A Message for Hardcore Bernie Stans

There is a strain of liberals and progressives out there who are now demanding that “the Democrats” change because they “keep losing” and because they believe the sure way to stop losing is to do what this strain of progressives thinks should happen. Well, I have one thing to say to these people…

Grow the fuck up. 

I was listening to the radio this morning and one of the guests was telling me “The Democratic Party” needs to be overhauled before 2018, or they Are destined to lose again and lose big. Of course, the guy speaking was a white guy with plenty of money and no common sense. Also, the word “they” is a very important giveaway. Whether or not he is a registered Democrat, he sees “the Democrats” as an entity that is separate from himself or from all liberals and “progressives.” But the essence of his argument is purely childish in nature. He claimed that Bernie Sanders was extremely popular and unless “the Democrats” did everything Bernie wanted, they were destined to lose forever and ever.

What was telling was that the host, who is also a liberal, noted to the guest that Hillary had adopted about 80% of Bernie Sanders’ platform and he seemed surprised by that. That is not surprising. I deal with Bernie Stans every day, still, and they’re not very bright. He also seemed to dismiss the fact that Hillary Clinton received 3 million more votes than Donald Trump, that the Democratic Party gained seats in the House and Senate and that any losses could be attributed to low turnout, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was voter suppression. (Google “Crosscheck” software.) I would also point out that roughly 90% of Bernie Sanders supporters claim they voted for Clinton, which makes him a distinct minority of a distinct minority.

If you are a Bernie Sanders die-hard and you blame “the Democrats” for the specter of Donald Trump becoming president of the United States, you are a supremely clueless individual. I know, you think you’re a political genius because you “found Bernie” and supported him wholeheartedly, but I assure you, you’re kind of a moron. I have never had a problem with Bernie Sanders. I love him and I agree with a lot of what he has to say and I appreciate what he brought to the primaries. However, if you are dumb enough to believe the nomination was somehow “stolen” from him, you are delusional beyond measure. And if you are claiming that “the Democrats” keep losing because of anything “they” are doing, well, I believe you’re overdue for a nap.

Grow the fuck up.

Hillary Cinton won the nomination because of democracy. She received more than 57% of Democratic votes cast. Bernie Sanders virtually only won caucuses, which are the least democratic aspect of the primary process. And most of those he won only because she decided to save her money for the General election. He won very few primaries, except for his “home states” and Michigan and his clock was cleaned in virtually every other state that mattered. Demographically, he only won white liberals. The fact that YOU think he made it close, or only lost because of “Super Delegates” is a hallmark of your delusion. Bernie Stans largely didn’t seem to notice that she reached out to you repeatedly and you bit her hand off, making you more like Republicans than you should be comfortable with.

“The Democrats” supported her wholeheartedly. In fact, so did Bernie. Bernie himself held dozens of rallies for Hillary Clinton (including several in Wisconsin. Ahem); I know, because I went to two he held in Arizona. Know who was missing from those I attended? Hardcore Bernie supporters. “The Democrats” ran ads and supported her every way possible, including raising tons of money for her and down-ticket Democrats as well. “The Democrats” have also been at the forefront of trying to kill voter suppression activities, like “Crosscheck,” the insidious software program that allows Republicans to “purge” voter rolls of as many “the Democrats” as possible. Meanwhile, all over social media, Bernie Stans were sporting hashtags like #NeverHillary and variations of Jill Stein support. So, please, explain to us how your constant demands that your side, who represent perhaps 5% of liberals in this country, has the stones to demand that the other 95% of us, who are actually Democrats, do what you want? How is that not blackmail?

Here’s the deal, Bernie Stans. You are almost all white, mostly male and you have means. If you want Democrats to win, you have a funny way of showing it. YOU don’t get to order the 95% of liberals who are already IN the Democratic Party to do your bidding or else. It’s time to grow up and accept that the reason Democrats lose too often is the “independent” far left “progressives” who are blind to the reality. YOU are the reason Democrats lose and YOU are the reason we now face a Trump presidency.

Like I said, Grow the fuck up. 

45 comments

  1. I agree so much with you. I was depressed after the election. I decided to cut out Progressives who say stupid things. There was one of the Unicorn Progressives who said that Republicans in the Congress will block Trump from doing anything. My question is Why?

    Then in two years progressives will take charge, again why would we progressives “take over,” if the Republicans are blocking him. Are progressives going to say we will block him harder than the GOP. The GOP will block him if he does something like single payer health care. I have very time on this world for people who believe this stuff.

    I am supporting the progressives who I consider realist ( I mean realist by ask for the impossible) I am also supporting Planned Parenthood and other sources including you.with whatever meager resources I have.

    I was laid off in July and in November I got a new job (Thanks Obama)

    Progressives only enemy is the GOP, the Democrats are out timid friends going saying “Do you think are home made parachute will really work?”

    1. This is kind of the problem with many far left liberals. They don’t understand that Montana is almost blue. The only truly red issue there is guns…

  2. Angecan, it’s not that your base facts are entirely wrong, it’s that your interpretation of them is biased and lacks context. Context is important. Of course, Hillary Clinton has “flip-flopped” on gay marriage. She’s 69 years old. Bernie Sanders himself only came out openly in support of gay marriage in 2009. That’s a minor four years before Hillary Clinton. In addition, Bill Clinton was the first presidential candidate I remember openly campaigning on a gay issue—gays in the military. As a bisexual young woman in 1992 who thought it would be kind of a kick to join the army and see what it was really like, I remember it very well. I remember that Clinton tried hard for something better but the best compromise he could push through, even with a majority Democrat congress, was Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. And sure, 20 years later everyone was hating Don’t Ask Don’t Tell really hard. It wasn’t a pretty compromise. But it did allow a lot of queer people to join the military without having to lie and be in jeopardy of fraudulent enlistment in addition to blue discharge. And it additionally allowed all that research about whether or not it had actually harmed military readiness. It was a gateway to the open service we have today, and I’m not convinced we’d have gotten there without it.

    Bernie Sanders voted against DADT. It wasn’t “pure” enough. But utter unwillingness to accept small steps in the right direction if you can’t take the whole leap at once is detrimental to progress. I don’t, not for one second, appreciate that Bernie voted against DADT. His purism was vocally supportive but practically harmful.

    The Clintons get blamed for DOMA, too, but DOMA was veto proof. DOMA passed by 84 votes in a senate with only 53 Republicans. 114 Democrats in the house voted for it in addition to the majority Republicans. Imagine, if you can, being an openly gay marriage politician in a climate where something like DOMA passed the house and senate with veto-proof majorities. Sure, Bernie voted against it. He was from Vermont and could afford to. Democrats who don’t have the luxury of hugely liberal constituents are Democrats who have to be willing to take small steps forward. Losing them in the next election because they voted for something hugely unpopular among their constituents means having them replaced by neanderthals from the GoP who want to take steps in the entirely wrong direction.

    I hear a lot of people who hated Hillary lamenting that Biden chose not to run. That 1994 crime bill that Bill Clinton signed was written by Joe Biden. And Bernie voted for it. Oh, sure, he said it was a compromise to get VAWA passed, but apparently he, too, was willing to perpetuate 100:1 crack vs cocaine sentencing as a “compromise.” His compromises apparently make sense, but Hillary’s are completely unjustified, for some reason. And it’s not like that bill created the sentencing discrepancy. Reagan and his congress created it. The bill just didn’t change it (although it had plenty of issues, and Clinton has apologized for it). The Sentencing Commission recommended to congress that they change the discrepancy in sentencing, and congress refused to even consider any legislation on it that could be put in front of Bill Clinton. It’s rather likely that in that climate, the discrepancy could not be addressed by anyone. We have to support the battles we can win.

    Hillary Clinton was a battle we might have been able to win. Except that so many people with loud voices on the liberal side supported the baggage narratives and the judas vs. satan narratives and the deeply flawed candidate narratives. And post-election, they are still supporting and amplifying those same narratives. For some reason, we didn’t look hard enough for reasons to support her in a positive way. Hillary Clinton wasn’t a knife as opposed to Trump’s gun. No matter what her previous stances on LGBT equality may have been, there was no way she was going to fail to protect and try to advance those rights, now. There was no way she wasn’t going to be a strong pro-choice president. There was no way she wasn’t going to be a strong civil liberties president. There was no way she wasn’t going to keep trying to move in the general right direction on healthcare, welfare, debt-free education, and other New Deal style Democratic issues. Liberals, from the media to the people with blog followings, could have chosen to focus on these positives and helped amplify her actual messages, rather than her baggage. Many loud voices did not. They still are not. I agree that being self-critical is rather an appealing aspect of Democrats, as opposed to Republicans, but we have to be careful that we don’t undermine our ability to win. We can acknowledge baggage without harping on it and amplifying it.

    Sorry for this long comment, Milt.

    1. Your point about marriage equality is well taken (I know Obama has also flip flopped, but my point is he’s not known – as Hillary is — for changing or “evolving” on so many issues). But you focused almost your entire response on this one issue from a long list. I would have been interested in hearing your opinion on others.

      One thing, though: Bernie voted against the Republican bill (a bill within the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act) that wanted to keep the sentencing disparity. I posted a link before and Milt took it down, so to cite my source, please google: “Thomas Frank The Guardian Crime Bill” and you will find the article that links to the document showing how each member of congress voted. (Most Dems, if not all, also voted against the Republican bill trying to reverse the Sentencing Commission’s recommendations.) The information (if you don’t feel like reading the whole article, though it’s on the short side, the info is more towards the end.)

      Also, have you watched Bernie’s stirring speeches against this bill and an earlier version of it? You can find them easily on YouTube. He did eventually vote for it, but his impassioned speeches opposing the policies as well as his explanation as to why he eventually signed it (it wasn’t just the Violence Against Women Act; there was also the assaults weapon ban) inspire me to give him the benefit of the doubt.

      This is not to say I think Bernie is perfect. I recognize he’s pandered to gun owners in the past. In my religious analogy (and I don’t subscribe to any religion) notice I didn’t refer to Bernie as a savior. The analogy was actually borne out of conceiving Trump as the antichrist or Satan. And then, because I used to idolize Bill and Hillary as a teenager, I thought of both as Judases when I learned about the DLC and the New Democrats and their strategy to win back the White Southern vote that had defected to the Republican party. Broke my heart. I also learned about how the Dems deliberately turned their backs on the working class. More about that later, if you want. Turning in.

      Good night! Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

      (Google “Chris Petrella Boston Review Stone Mountain” for more heartache.)

      1. Just FYI, The DLC is dead. The “New Democrats” have never done anything. They tried to triangulate and failed miserably. FFS, even the odious Terry McAuliffe, a DNC leader, has rejected his old guard.

        Democrats have NEVER turned their backs on the working class as a party. EVER. Anyone who says that is LYING. It’s like the “white working class” bullshit that the professional left claims Hillary left behind. That sounds great, but it’s complete bullshit.

        OTOH we have two choices in virtually every election, and one party screws the working class constantly. Can you guess which one? Again, you need to stick to facts, and the above whines about how bad Dems are? There are no facts to support that. None.

        BTW, BILL Clinton was a leading member of the DLC, but he was virtually their only success. Hillary had a chance to revive the DLC both times when she ran for president and refused, so your attempt to lump Bill and Hillary together as if they’re the same shows pretty startling ignorance.

Comments are closed.