Editor’s note: This commentary is by Sue Prent, an artist/writer living in St. Albans who routinely blogs on Green Mountain Daily. She is self-employed by Pink House Studios, and works for Fairewinds Energy Education. She also serves on the board of Vermont Conservation Voters.
[T]he Clintons hold a disproportionate amount of influence in the Democratic Party, but when you look at Bill Clinton’s record as president, there is little to validate the progressive myth in which the current Clinton campaign has attempted to wrap itself.
Why, for instance did the majority of trade unions rush to endorse Hillary when a signature move by the Clinton administration was to begin the surrender of American manufacturing to sweeping globalization forces through the North American Free Trade Agreement?
Why does the myth of Bill Clinton as the first “black” president persist when he expanded incarceration and the death penalty, both of which disproportionately impact the black community?
I could not find any evidence of initiatives by Clinton that specifically benefitted communities of color. In fact, under his administration, legal immigration was drastically slashed and so-called “welfare reform” reinforced the cruelty of the growing income divide.
Shall we talk about his environmental credentials? What there are of them seem to have been accrued at the behest of his vice president, Al Gore. Despite campaign promises to clean up the air, it was dirtier still when he left office, as his priority was always to reinforce growth and business economics. Environmental issues took a rude rear seat to building the profit juggernaut.
I would not now be inclined to hold her husband’s presidency against her if she hadn’t chosen to insert his record into the narrative by allowing him to be her outspoken surrogate.
All the warm and fuzzy feelings that Democrats recall about that time stem primarily from the balanced budget and economic prosperity. These had short-lived benefit for the middle class, as the gradual export of their jobs ultimately left the investor class as primary beneficiaries of any new wealth that was created.
What’s the deal, then, with all the endorsements from civil rights leaders, environmental groups and labor unions that flocked to Hillary Clinton?
Bernie Sanders, whose long, long record on labor, the environment and social responsibility is head and shoulders above that of the Clintons, has gleaned few high-level endorsements from these sectors, whose interests he has always championed. In fact, it was revealed early in the race that most of those endorsements reflected decisions made by management of the organizations, and were often inconsistent with the prevailing opinion of the membership.
When Sanders replied informally to a question about why Planned Parenthood chose to endorse Hillary Clinton, he was vilified for his honest, if incomplete, answer. What he was attempting to cite is the known fact that board members of influential national organizations like Planned Parenthood have given their endorsement to the presumptive nominee simply because they have an organizational need to be on the “winning” side. It sounds cynical and, frankly, it is.
I understand the logic, but it is still extremely disappointing to me. As someone who routinely volunteers, signs petitions and generally supports organizations with progressive agendas, I feel personally disrespected by this kind of calculated endorsement.
I think Hillary Clinton is an extremely capable and experienced person. Hopefully she understands how toxic it would be were she to reflexively return to the center-right. I would not now be inclined to hold her husband’s presidency against her if she hadn’t chosen to insert his record into the narrative by allowing him to be her outspoken surrogate.
It remains to be seen if Sanders can really compete for the opportunity to bring about his revolution without the help of all those established liberal organizations whose agendas he has supported throughout the years.
If, in the end, he cannot, it will represent an opportunity lost for truly progressive change, which is unlikely to come again soon.
