It was a nasty spat on campus that inspired Columbia University political science professor Wallace Stanley Sayre (1905–1972) to note years ago that “the politics of the university are so intense because the stakes are so low.”
So, it turns out, are some politics outside the university, where the temptation to make much of little is complicating the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders.
But it’s an ill wind, as they say, and this latest gust from New York, carries the benefit of offering some insights into the workings and the thinking of some precincts on the left side of the body politic.
That’s the left side, not the left edge. The outfit at the center of this squabble is the Working Families Party. Its policy proposals are neither radical nor socialist nor outlandish. Its goal is “a nation that allows all its people to thrive.”
The WFP was founded in New York in 1998, and while it now has a presence in several other states, most of whatever influence it has is in New York.
Not that the party is all that influential there. Four years ago, it endorsed Sanders in the 2016 New York presidential primary. Hillary Clinton won it going away. The endorsement obviously wasn’t worth all that much.
But it wasn’t worth nothing, either. So last week when the WFP announced that this time it was endorsing Sen. Elizabeth Warren, not Sanders, many Sanders supporters were not pleased.
Their displeasure took two forms. One reaction was angry and polite. The other was angry and not at all polite. In fact, it was angry and vile.
As is often true of the vile, this reaction is not interesting. But it is important, because it could only have happened in the age of social media. Using its various platforms, opponents of the Warren endorsement sent messages to the leaders of the Working Families Party wishing on them early death, disease and suffering. The party’s national director, who is African-American, got messages urging him to return to his “slave masters.” A woman WFP official who has been open about having been raped in the past got a message reading, “We were raped by this process, so I’m happy it happened to you.”
Needless to say none of this came from the Sanders campaign, and certainly none of it came from Bernie Sanders, who rarely attacks his opponents or their supporters. Sanders wouldn’t even condemn the Working Families Party for deserting him. Instead he tweeted that his campaign “condemns racist bullying and harassment of any kind. We are building a multi-racial movement for justice – that’s how we win the White House.”
It’s impossible to know for sure whether these messages in fact come from Sanders supporters. Among the horrors of social media is that anyone can pretend to be anything. It’s not even certain that the messages came from Americans. Or from human beings rather than bots.
The polite reaction of displeasure came from human beings using their real names, but perhaps just as disposed to overreact. The earliest such displeasure came from the editors of Jacobin, an interesting journal that for almost a decade has presented an avowedly socialist, Marxist point of view, and – amazingly – often presented that point of view in clear, concise English.
In reasonably clear English, Jacobin editors Bhaskar Sunkara and Micah Uetricht wrote an article entitled “The Working Families Party has written itself out of history.”
Wow! Written itself out of history?
And how many Americans had heretofore suspected that the Working Families Party was ever part of history?
Besides, suppose Elizabeth Warren becomes president and the WFP reasonably claims some credit. Then it would have written itself right into history.
It isn’t that the Jacobin writers don’t have a legitimate gripe. There really was something strange about the system WFP used to choose its endorsee, and the party’s refusal to disclose that system’s details wins it no prizes for transparency.
But declaring that on the basis of one debatable (and debated) decision, a political organization had “written itself out of history” displays, to put it gently, a remarkable lack of humility.
A lack of humility comparable to the attitude expressed in the foul messages sent to WFP leaders, though to be sure expressed in a far more civilized manner.
In both cases, not only are these folks taking themselves too seriously, they seem resistant to the fact that it was never very likely that Bernie Sanders was going to win the Democratic nomination.
Not that it was impossible. It still isn’t, even though he’s had a bad couple of weeks. Sanders retains a devoted following, a strong donor base, and plenty of money. There is time for his opponents to make mistakes, for him to regain his footing.
But it’s a long shot and it always was. The Jacobin writers said that “Sanders looks like he has every chance of winning the Democratic primary and bringing (his) vision to the White House.”
He has some chance. He never had every chance. Those who won’t recognize this fail to see that he did so well in 2016 not only because he was for a higher minimum wage and universal health care, but also because he was the insurgent, the rebel, the “outsider” (despite being in Congress for 25 years) opposing an unpopular “establishment” front-runner.
He doesn’t have that advantage this time,
One way to lose sight of that fact is to communicate – whether on social media or at the office – only with others who share your views and your outlook. Then you lose perspective.
Just like on campus.
