The Democratic Primary should have little to do with party loyalty

Part of the argument I hear for supporting Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders is that we have to support the true Democrat in the race. It’s Unfortunate that the debate between Hillary and Bernie supporters has become this trivial.

The main proponents of this idea of supporting the true Democrat are Hillary supporters who are essentially trying to make the case that party loyalty is the most important aspect of this primary. As we know, Bernie Sanders has been serving as an independent in the Senate (while caucusing with the Democrats). Invariably, the true democrat argument leans on the false premise that whoever the Democrat is will be the best choice for the country.

Granted none of the Republicans are good choices, but the idea that any Democrat would be a good president is rather sheepish. The fact remains that, while Hillary is a Democrat, Bernie is historically far more progressive, which is the real dynamic we should examine.

While Hillary is no Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, she is still tangled in the corporate election system that any progressive would fight hard to break down. She accepts Super PAC money and she has ties and dealings with Wall Street. While Clinton is a better alternative to Trump or Cruz, one has to admit that this is a rather low standard from which to start.

We as voters should be asking who the true progressive is, not the true Democrat. We should not be so concerned with party loyalty. The Democratic Party is just as culpable in our corporatocracy as the Republican Party. To assume that “any” Democrat would be a great president can only be examined through the vision of what this Democrat wants to accomplish.

We should also understand that Bernie supporters are not fazed by the tactic insult of him not being the “true Democrat.” Bernie is the true progressive, which is all that matters to him and his voters. The last issue we should worry about is who has been the registered Democrat the longest. It should be who will work the hardest at smashing America’s corporate system.

We should be aware that the real progressive is what we should aspire for, and not wrap ourselves in menial debate about who has been the most loyal Democrat. The party affiliation is only as important as the visionary this party would be electing.


  1. Hillary, the “centrist”, cannot unite the country. She can only yield ground to the kleptocracy. She, like most inside-the-beltway thinkers, thinks only in terms of what is practical, what is do-able, and not what is needful.
    She tries to determine which way things are going so she can post herself not-too-far in front and pretend she is a leader.
    She would not be a disaster. But we need radical changes.

    • I remember very well her efforts during the 90’s to transform healthcare delivery in this country. Not reform it, but transform it. The beating she took from Republicans and even many centrist Democrats was absolutely brutal. Brutal. She persevered but there was no way to get past the opposition—which was both disgustingly personal, disgustingly sexist, and disgustingly professional.

      Her plan was, to say the least, needful. But it was doomed by intransigent Republicans to go nowhere and, worse, enabled Republicans to begin their labeling of her—a false labeling that they have continued to beat her with for two decades. It also meant the end of any meaningful effort at healthcare reform—much less healthcare transformation—until Obama was elected.

      Perhaps it was during that battle that she came to understand that thinking practically in terms of “what is do-able” might be a real good idea. Would you rather she spent her time thinking non-practically in terms of “what is not do-able?” Just how long can one beat on a locked door before realizing that nothing has gotten done during all that beating?

      I suspect there is much she would like to do but recognizes the political realities in play would negate the possibility of getting it done. So she does as much as she can. And her accomplishments are many.

      I’d be interested in your justification for saying that Secretary Clinton does not think “in terms…[of] what is needful.” I have observed her and listened to her for 25 years and never thought of her as anyone who would spend much time on things that weren’t “needful.” Believe it or not, even some “practical” and “do-able” things are “needful.”

      Radical changes? Yeah, we need them. But take a long, hard look at the makeup of the House of Representatives, which does appropriations. And think to yourself that it is not going to much change before the 2022 elections. Get back to me as to how those radical changes will make it through that crowd. It will be hard enough to keep them from destroying any gains we’ve made during the Obama years.

      And the last thing we need to get into is ideological purity and the labels that go with it; i.e., moderate, progressive, Democrat, DINO, yada, yada, yada. If we do, we will have learned nothing from the Crazy Caucus and their Banana Boat followers.

      • >>”I’d be interested in your justification for saying that Secretary Clinton does not think ‘in terms…[of] what is needful.’”
        As a politician the first thing that is needful is that she gets elected. To do that she takes the money from Wall Street and big pharma, and if she is elected she has learned to “be reasonable”.
        If we had started fifty years ago to adjust course we would now be in a different situation, but we didn’t.
        The country has become unstable, polarized, divided, and I fear that blood must flow. We must choose between the plutocrats and the socialists, as we once had to choose between slavery and emancipation.

        “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;”

        The choice is clear and we are beyond compromise.

Leave a Comment