“Bernie or Bust” rhetoric proves toxic to election discourse

After gaining significant momentum from his victories in the American West, Senator Ber­nie Sanders continues to gallantly fight Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomi­nation. However, as I’ve written before, Clinton’s nomination appears more and more inevitable after she swept nearly the entire South and gen­erated support from over 450 superdelegates. Though Sanders has successfully imbued the overall Democratic primary with a renewed pro­gressive energy, his failure to generate support from minority communities and older citizens may indeed halt his opportunities for long-term success, despite recent momentum.

My pessimism about his campaign stems more from my lack of faith in the current Democratic hierarchy than in Sanders himself. The Demo­cratic establishment has already asked Sanders to begin toning down his campaign, with Mary­land Senator Barbara Mikulski urging, “It will be almost impossible for Sen. Sanders to catch up. And he should do the math and draw his own conclusions” (Politico, “Democrats to Sanders: Time to wind it down,” 03.21.2016). While it is important to note that these sentiments were expressed before Sanders’s landslide victories in Hawaii, Alaska and Washington, there has been no indication that the establishment is going to change its tune about Sanders anytime soon.

Without the support of those controlling the Party’s agenda and financial resources, I don’t think Sanders will be nominated this July. I think it’s too late in the game for Sanders to redefine political pragmatism. I think it’s too late in the game for Sanders to achieve a mandate and re­verse the endorsements of over 400 superdele­gates.

Hopefully I’m wrong. However, despite my belief that Sanders is the best candidate running right now, a dangerous trend propagated recently within the stalwart wing of the supporter base of Sanders that must be properly critiqued and de­constructed.

While some would-be Democratic voters are bracing for a Clinton nomination, more diehard Sanders supporters have turned to an alternate plan should he have to concede. In response to the purported inevitability of Clinton’s nom­ination, Internet supporters of Sanders have launched a “Bernie or Bust” campaign. The ba­sis of the movement asserts that if Sanders does not get nominated, people will either not vote or turn their support for Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein. Supporters of the campaign have cited “her stance on military intervention in the Middle East, fracking, the minimum wage, Wall Street regulation and campaign finance reform” (Yahoo! Politics, “Some Sanders supporters say it’s ‘Bernie or Bust’ and they will never vote for Hillary Clinton,” 03.26.2016). Within the last few weeks, I have found myself struggling with my position in this very camp.

Grappling with the complex political histo­ry of Hillary Clinton is a tough task for anyone who considers themselves to be a progressive, especially those disillusioned with the current political system and Democratic establishment. Whereas Clinton represents the status quo, Stein has promised the United States a “Green New Deal,” shown unwavering support for move­ments like Black Lives Matter and thoroughly rejected the neoconservative foreign policy that has dominated American relations over the past decade and a half. To invoke Cornel West’s Sanders endorsement, Stein is a long-distance runner in the fight for environmental and social justice, egalitarianism, civil rights and sustainable infra­structure.

While my beliefs resonate strongly with those of Stein’s, particularly her commitment to green social justice and economic equality, a vote for a third party this election cycle amounts to poten­tial complicity in the election of Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. That is something I can’t have on my conscience. That is something no supporter of equality or justice should have on their con­science. If enough left-leaning individuals vote third-party in lieu of voting Democrat, that could lead to significant denting in Clinton’s supporter base, paving the way for a Republican president. The Left needs to, for better or for worse, unite behind whomever earns the Democratic nomi­nation.

I am not against voting for third-party candi­dates, generally speaking. Third parties are an es­sential and healthy part of our democracy. I reject the popular notion that a vote for a third-party candidate is a “wasted vote.” However, there’s simply too much at stake this year to risk it.

Refusing to vote at all if Sanders isn’t nom­inated is equally as toxic. An article that ran in Quartz described the privileged position of Sand­ers supporters who say they will sit out the elec­tion or vote for Stein this November instead of voting for Hillary Clinton. The piece frames the very dangerous and violent reality many groups of people will face should Donald Trump become President of the United States.

The article goes on to detail that, “Trump excuses his followers who attack a homeless Hispanic man on the street…refused to distance himself from the Ku Klux Klan, supports ban­ning Muslims from entering the US, advocates killing the families of terrorists, and is openly sexist. How privileged do you need to be to imag­ine that it’s a good idea to risk the actual lives of vulnerable Americans because you ‘hate’ Clinton so much that you vow to stay home if Sanders doesn’t get the nomination?” (Quartz, “Privilege is what allows Sanders supporters to say they’ll ‘never’ vote for Clinton,” 03.22.2016).

Furthermore, Ted Cruz’s comments about pa­trolling Muslim neighborhoods in the wake of the Brussels attacks and consistently virulent an­ti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric underscores the unfortunate and dismal reality that his presidency would only be marginally better.

Melissa Hillman’s piece serves as an effective exercise in speaking truth to power. For commu­nities of color, queer folk and women, a Trump–or Cruz, for that matter–presidency is a real threat. The “Bernie or Bust” movement ignores the dangers that abandoning Clinton could spell for the most at-risk members of our society.

Moreover, the campaign underestimates how Trump’s lack of political qualifications could di­sastrously undermine the office of the presiden­cy and the ability of the government to properly serve the people it is supposed to represent. Don­ald Trump is a pathological liar whose toxic be­liefs often change within minutes of him dictating them. The absurd and utterly terrifying concept of a Trump presidency could very well become a reality in eight months if liberals and left-leaning moderates don’t back the Democratic nominee.

Hillary Clinton is a flawed candidate. Hillary Clinton is maybe not as liberal or consistent in her views as some would like. Hillary Clinton voted for the War in Iraq. Hillary Clinton has Wall Street ties. Hillary Clinton is relatively mod­erate on many positions that are near and dear to progressives’ hearts.

Hillary Clinton did not offer to pay the legal fees of a supporter who punched a black pro­tester. Hillary Clinton did not speak at the same event as an evangelical pastor who called for the punishment of death for homosexuals. Hillary Clinton did not vow to bring back waterboarding. Hillary Clinton does not spew racist, sexist vitriol on a regular basis just to make headlines.

The perils are too grandiose and pervasive to ignore. I will vote for Hillary Clinton should she earn the Democratic nomination out of fear for the potentially irreversible damage a Trump or Cruz presidency could inflict on our nation. I encourage all who feel similarly to do the same.


  1. Bernie or Bust.


    Those that wish to be bystanders as this nation goes to shit can watch me throw gas on the fire that they refuse to help put out.

    Apparently you don’t mind watching our nation slowly burn, so let’s just speed things up a bit. Let it burn quickly with Trump. It will teach you enablers that a large chunk of us have been pushed to the brink with this perpetual submissive allowance of middle class destruction.

    Let it burn.

  2. I would also Vote for her if she won the nomination if it weren’t for the fact that She, the DNC, and the Media machine that backs her hadn’t run such a dirty campaign for the start! They think so little of us that they had this nomination decided FROM THE GET GO and have done everything in their power to make sure HILLARY would get it. But now their is some push back, we are having our future held hostage and ransomed back to us. “Oh, you can’t let the republicans in; think of the at risk this and repercussions that and blah blah blah”. So do you need us or not? Does our vote matter or not? Honestly, I’m not voting if Bernie doesn’t get it, because he never had a fair chance. I truly want the DNC to feel the weight of their actions. This will be on them; not us.

  3. Plutocrats obviously care less about having more wealth than about controlling the rest of us. What good is money past a certain point? You can only get so much stuff. For the masters, control is the point. If they only cared about wealth, they would see that having a smaller percentage of a much bigger economy would not only mean more wealth for them, but it would mean a more productive, wealthier 99% – with more equal opportunity. Ideally, capitalism should encourage the cream to rise to the top. If most of the establishment democrats could get that and would work to overturn Citizens United and to lessen the power of the Kochs, ALEC, Halliburton, BigPharma, BigOil, et. al., then all players in the game would win.

    But because all establishment dems will do exactly what their masters tell them to do, they will never willingly help to create the rising tide that would lift all ships. They don’t think that way. They would much rather keep us in our pastures so they can amuse themselves at our expense. We are being milked, shorn, and slaughtered–but most of all, we are being manipulated just so they can get their jollies by feeling the concomitant adrenaline rush of power. Our brand of capitalism is not based on freedom. Nor has it ever been based on a free market. It has been twisted to serve the few control freaks who dwell at the top.

    The final point to make is that our suburban friends who might vote for a Joe, Kamala, Corey, Pete, or Beto (or any of their ilk) in the primaries need to understand one thing with crystal clarity: there are enough Bernie or Busters to say with utter certainty, even this early on in the process, that no corporate democrat will be allowed to win in the 2020 general election. Do the math. That element of this dangerous game already is beyond debate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Miscellany News reserves the right to publish or not publish any comment submitted for approval on our website. Factors that could cause a comment to be rejected include, but are not limited to, personal attacks, inappropriate language, statements or points unrelated to the article, and unfounded or baseless claims. Additionally, The Misc reserves the right to reject any comment that exceeds 250 words in length. There is no guarantee that a comment will be published, and one week after the article’s release, it is less likely that your comment will be accepted. Any questions or concerns regarding our comments section can be directed to Misc@vassar.edu.