On Super Tuesday
David Bromwich
On Monday, two ‘moderate’ candidates with a modicum of vote-getting ability, Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg, dropped out of the race and endorsed Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination. It seemed likely that the Democratic National Committee had been at work, consulting with such behind-the-scenes operators as Terry McAuliffe (a heavy-hitting Clinton donor and ex-governor of Virginia) and Rahm Emanuel (Obama’s chief of staff and ex-mayor of Chicago). In the days after Bernie Sanders’s victory in the Nevada primary, they would have put through many phone calls and sealed many promises, and not only to Buttigieg and Klobuchar. The order of the day had become Stop Sanders By Any Means Necessary. The lukewarm interest in Biden had to be screwed up to a pitch of enthusiasm overnight.
It worked. Late on Tuesday evening, everything changed. Of the 14 states in the Super Tuesday primaries, Sanders won California, Colorado, Utah and Vermont. Biden took Alabama, Arkansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. In total votes, Biden now leads Sanders by a proportion of five to four; in the delegate count, his margin is similar. The remaining candidates add up to less than a third of the Sanders haul. As I was revising this paragraph, Bloomberg dropped out of the race, and he too endorsed Biden, leaving only Biden, Sanders and (lagging far behind) Elizabeth Warren to fight it out.
In the space of a week, the Democratic Party went from the strong possibility of a Sanders nomination to the extreme likelihood that Biden will lead the ticket. Both men have done consistently well in conjectural polling against Trump (both leading by 5 per cent or so). The case against Sanders is that he could never survive a full-blown propaganda storm by Republicans that would portray his democratic socialism as identical with support for totalitarian communism. With Biden, the strategy is simpler but untested. Trump will go after his son Hunter’s involvement in the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings. Never mind that in the matter of nepotism, the Trump Organisation is multiple pots calling the kettle black. Biden’s weakness on this point resembles Hillary Clinton’s weakness in 2016. The pay-to-play shadow over the Clinton Foundation and her decision to give expensive talks to Wall Street firms diminished the contrast with Trump. The same will be true of Biden: besides Hunter and Ukraine, there are his career-long relationships with the Delaware-based credit industry and his conservative position in major legislative battles over civil rights. Biden helped to write the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, whose consequences became a deep embarrassment to the Clintons. Still, the numbers of African Americans voting for him on Super Tuesday in the Deep South, in Texas and elsewhere, have put some of these apprehensions to rest.
Sanders won’t be quitting. A possibility remains, therefore, that the Democrats will conduct a ‘brokered convention’. Secondary candidates like Buttigieg and Warren had lately put themselves in the anti-popular posture of endorsing such a proceeding (though there’s been nothing like it since the 1950s): at a brokered convention, a candidate with a solid plurality can be denied the nomination on the first ballot and defeated later by a coalition. If Biden now runs far ahead of Sanders, he may sew it up in advance. On the other hand, his verbal gaffes (announcing himself a candidate for the Senate rather than the presidency; saying ‘I was a Democratic caucus’) and his fabricated or false memories (a non-existent arrest in South Africa for demonstrating against the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela) have exposed a cognitive fragility that some people fear could make him ridiculous by November.
A Biden-Trump contest in 2020 would resemble Clinton-Trump in at least one respect. It would be a case, yet again, of the right wing of the Democratic Party making the conventional choice against the party’s own insurgent energy. But the difference of personalities may matter. Though many (perhaps most) people have felt superior to Biden at some point, he is hard to dislike. ‘One thing he has going for him,’ said a voter who supported Warren but has resigned herself to Biden, ‘is that he is not an angry man. He may lose his temper but anger is not his core motivating force.’ That makes a contrast with Trump, all right.
Could Sanders find a second wind? He has yet to explain with the requisite patience what he means by democratic socialism; and the liberal-corporate media have so relentlessly caricatured him as a person that a second speech may be in order just to tell people who he is. Take a trip to Vermont and you find that no one has a bad word about Bernie. The affection has nothing to do with politics. On the bulletin board of a grocery store in 2016, I saw this sign: ‘Senator Sanders will march in annual cow parade.’ He was arrested once – he didn’t have to imagine it – in a protest for civil rights. He took part in Martin Luther King’s 1963 March on Washington.
This is nothing like the picture one gets from grinning CNN presenters and their pundits, or from the incapable Democratic National Committee. The DNC ruled out a separate debate on climate change – the single issue that most moves thinking persons to regard the Trump presidency as a catastrophe. They likewise excluded Fox News from any role in any of the debates; but why? Fox was going to report on the debates anyway. Why not give their audience the full context? There have been notorious permitted acts of collusion, as with the exchange in the Iowa debate between a moderator and two candidates:
Mod: In 2018, [Senator Sanders], you told [Senator Warren] that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?
Sanders: Well, as a matter of fact, I didn’t say it …
Mod: So Senator Sanders, I do want to be clear here. You’re saying, that you never told Senator Warren that a woman could not win the election.
Sanders: That is correct.
Mod: Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you that a woman could not win the election?
The political diet of the debates so far has been largely confined to the pros and (mostly) cons of Medicare for All, the menace of Vladimir Putin, and general attitudes toward women and persons of colour. They have contained very few questions about America’s wars in the Greater Middle East, close to nothing about climate change, and nothing (outside the narrow ground of the impeachment) about Trump's corruption of the federal departments and agencies. For both the party and the media, treatment of US politics has been channelled into a familiar cultural ‘theming’ of race and gender. The National Public Radio Guide to Super Tuesday dealt entirely with demographic reminders such as ‘A wild card [in California] is black voters’ or ‘Maine is the whitest state to vote on Super Tuesday.’ The Democrats and their media outworks are treating Latinos, African Americans and whites as separate nations. Women are a nation, too – parsed (where useful) as Latino, African American or white.
So the answer to Trump’s divide and conquer comes in the form of these college-certified categories that self-divide and surrender. The only other weapon of note has been an attempted revival of the Cold War. On 23 February, the New York Times led with two anti-Sanders hatchet jobs, targeting him as both a destroyer of the Democratic Party and a possible Russian agent. The paper has even called him the ‘Teflon’ candidate – an epithet originally applied to Ronald Reagan. But the mainstream media and their captive party, the party and its captive media, show no sign of letting up the pressure. A recent leak from a misinterpreted fragment of a report by the Director of National Intelligence became a two-day Red Scare. Was Putin once more gearing up to steal an election? Was Sanders complicit, or was he merely duped? All this while the planet burns.
The truth is that the corporate-liberal media are comfortable with the Trump presidency. They have prospered wonderfully from his entertainment value, even as they staked out a high ground in the anti-Trump ‘resistance’. It will be hard to deny the plausibility of the charge likely to issue soon from the Sanders campaign, namely that ‘the fix is in’; and that, once more, the people are being denied their proper voice – at first through an organised propaganda campaign that was fed into debates as well as news coverage, and at last through public co-ordination by the party establishment to guide Democrats into the one acceptable box.
Comments
An alternative assessment to the author's sneering, fact-free deflections is that Sanders isn't particularly popular in the Democratic party. His talk of a 'movement' is mostly hot air (exit polling suggests that his coalition of young liberals isn't turning out as he claimed they would). Issues around his record (three decades in Congress with almost no legislative achievements to speak of), his health (the next heart attack can't be too far away), his support for brutal 'socialist' dictatorships abroad (Cuban Latinx communities in Florida aren't keen on his admiration for Castro), his angry-old-guy temperament, all of these things are turn-offs for large swathes of the Democratic party (just look at how unpopular he was with working-class African Americans in South Carolina!).
It's easy to claim that Sanders' failures are down to a DNC fix-up job, abetted by a 'corporate-liberal media' that are 'comfortable with the Trump presidency', but there is no evidence of this conspiracist nonsense unless you're wilfully looking for it. Sanders just isn't that popular, and a massive democratic event is starting to demonstrate that. David may not like that, but he'll have to accept it.
And for the record, admiring Cubans' staggering literacy rate, world-renowned health care system, their track record of dealing with hurricanes, and the ability to endure 50 years of being throttled economically by the US, is not the same thing as "support for brutal 'socialist' dictatorships abroad."
Polling for 'popularity' doesn't mean much - most politicians are unpopular, and the question "Do you like this person" is very different to the question "Do you want this person to be our nominee for President". Conflating one with the other is intellectually dishonest, at best.
Having a comparatively large donor base, made up of small donors, also does not necessarily mean popularity. The American electorate is over 150 million people - having a few hundred thousand people pitch in a few dollars is, again, not a good indicator of popularity. To suggest that it is "immense" within the Party suggests you might need to venture outside of your political bubble.
On the 'corporate media' conspiracy, I was literally quoting David's words, which he uses twice in the piece. I'll be clear - I'm not opposed to Bernie Sanders, his message, his policies, or his ability to be the President. I'm clear-eyed about the challenges he faces, though, and he won't surmount them if his supporters persist with a fantasy view of the the world, rather than one based in reality.
The thing is, Sanders hasn't merely admired some of the good things that Cuba has managed to do for its people. And he hasn't limited his support to Cuba. Sanders has supported oppressive regimes in Venezuela, Cuba and other countries, based on their somewhat-nebulous self-proclaimed 'socialist' nature. This is a blind spot for plenty of the more radical Left, both in America, the UK and elsewhere. I wouldn't say that disqualifies him from the Democratic nomination, but it's an issue that needs addressing.
Just as Sanders's supporters love to bring up his Democratic opponents' records on various issues (Biden on civil rights and social security, Bloomberg on being a billionaire Republican etc), it's fair game to analyse Sanders's record too. That's what the right-wing media will do, that's what Trump's campaign will do. Better to deal with those criticisms now, rather than two weeks from polling day.
Tom Weymes
Incidentally, 'All this while the planet burns' would be a fitting title for the entire LRB blog (much better than 'LRB blog').
This is the same rubbish-thinking that I thought was over and done with during my college years in the late Sixties.
In reality, nothing is yet wholly resolved. Polling suggests that both Biden and Sanders have an excellent chance to beat Trump, although the gut sense of the electorate appears to be far less comfortable with the case for Sanders. Nevertheless, Sanders much vaunted “movement” of youthful progressives still seems to have difficulty getting its membership to the polls. Moreover, evidence of large scale crossover of moderate Republicans, sickened by the Trump clown show, to support what they see as a moderate Democratic candidate, is beginning to emerge, particularly as evidenced in the exceptionally high turnout in Northern Virginia and the exit polling there. Beating Trump appears to be the order of the day, as it should be (along with flipping the Senate, a goal that would be ill-served by Sanders at the top of the Democratic ticket).
As for the “corporate-liberal media” as the post would have it: certainly, there has been a no doubt profitable stretch on the late night shows of mocking Trump. But American culture is fecund with targets for such satire – SNL is not in its 45th year for lack of them. And the post’s leap from the success of late night shows in lampooning Trump, to a presumed charge by Sanders that “the fix is in” is the mother of all non sequiturs. Mr Bromwich may be so jaded as to believe that the dreaded “Main Stream Media” is coördinating with the equally dreaded “Democratic Party Establishment” to perpetuate Trump in office so that Stephen Colbert and company can continue to rake in the bucks, But I see no reason why the LRB should foster such delusions.
Number one to defeat Trump?
Isn’t our “democracy” today largely a “plutocracy”? How else to explain the votes Bloomberg still won?
Therefore, sadly, important to get Bloomberg’s funding behind the anti-Trump candidate.
Pity that Sanders who, in contrast to Biden, has so many good ideas, speaks (or should one say rants angrily) only to his disciples and ignores the sensitivities of the others whose votes he needs to win. Understandable, sadly, that he forfeited the backing of the Democrat establishment.
If the corrupt Biden becomes the Trump-opposition candidate, and if (oh if only) he wins, there should be plenty of progressive Democrats in the House to inspire and steer him before his next heart attack. Who will be chosen to run as his V-P?
I do find it interesting that any examination of the machinations of power draw accusations of "conspiracy, conspiracy!" Whether it's Sanders, or Assange, or the CIA, or US foreign interference, it's always this accusation even though the examinations are based on traceable evidence.
It always feels creepy, watching how easy the narrative continues to be massaged so certain groups of people can consent to it once again.
What is heartening is seeing the number of people who are seeing through to the jaws of the machine. I agree, it was unexpected – and heartening – to see it here. Thank you.
Henri
His LRB Blog essay, which issues from the very comfortable bubble he lives in, reeks of the classroom.
Maybe British readers buy his commentary, but this retired American academic, older than Bernie Sanders, does not. Bromwich doesn't know what he's talking about.
The black voters in South Carolina's Democratic primary last week and the Southern voters on Super Tuesday (a preponderance of them black) aren't buying what Bernie Sanders is selling. Nor am I.
Also if he makes some serious error like picking a Republican running mate (as he talked about doing in December), voters will be turned off entirely.
The pitfalls of Biden as a candidate are huge, and if electability is the most important thing in my opinion Biden is the worst pick. Trump will run circles around him, he does not have a large and enthusiastic group of supporters, and really the only thing Biden has going for him is fear of Trump. And frankly, I don't think that single issue is enough to win.
There have been large increases in turnout in several primary states so far, all (except Nevada) for Sanders’ opponents. In Virginia – a swing state that the Democrats simply must win in November – turnout nearly doubled compared to 2016.
Biden beat Sanders by a more than 2-1 margin.
‘‘Wallace had the support of a majority of delegates, as well as the overwhelming majority of Democrats around the nation. In 1944, a Gallup poll found that 65 percent of Democrats supported Wallace as FDR’s running mate, while the relatively unknown Truman earned support from just 2 percent.
‘On Thursday, July 20, the second night of the Democratic National Convention, a huge pro-Wallace demonstration erupted. Senator Claude Pepper of Florida, one of the most liberal members of Congress, tried to fight his way to the podium to put Wallace’s name in nomination—a move that likely would’ve resulted in a stampede of votes. But the chair of the convention, Philadelphia Mayor David Lawrence, suddenly called for a voice vote to adjourn for the day. Despite the clear overwhelming vocal majority of “nays!”, Lawrence gaveled the convention to a close with Senator Pepper just a few feet away from the microphones.
‘By the next day, the all-night efforts of Hannegan, Chicago Mayor Kelly, Bronx County Democratic boss Ed Flynn and others had paid off: Although Wallace led on the first ballot with 429.5 votes (Truman had 319.5), he was significantly short of a majority. By the second ballot, the rush to Truman was on.”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/veepstakes-history-vice-president-fdr-roosevelt-harry-truman-henry-wallace-james-byrnes-1944-democratic-convention-214012
Re 1948 mainstream press:
“In his assault on the South last week, Henry Wallace acted more like an agitator than a presidential candidate.
‘He ostentatiously rode through cities and towns with his Negro secretary in the seat beside him. He chose the homes of Negro supporters for meals and overnight stops.”
TIME, 13th September, 1948
"“Michigan is an enormously important state,” Sanders said ... “The people of Michigan were devastated by trade agreements which I vigorously opposed and Joe Biden supported.”"
Please remember this before you hit "confirm" on that donation to the Sanders campaign.
But the whole debate here is about who is popular with whom and whether the elite is trying to sideline candidates who might not agree with the views of might disagree with the establishment.
That, we are told ,has to be someone from the centre, a pretty empty place at the moment and not full of "moderate" voters all yearning to support any character with no proven experience at handling any of the problems I have mentioned, without any apparent convictions and whose main characteristic is that he is likeable!!
It is also strange that the so called "progressive moderates" consider that the U. S could not afford universal healthcare when it proudly presents itself as the richest nation on earth and all the other OECD countries have some version of such care.
If one were really conspiracy minded one might think that the Republicans have carefully engineered all of this to make the only candidate who could be beaten by Trump in a debate, the nominee. But it is difficult to believe that they are so smart.