I have given myself the luxury of watching the debate unfold in this year’s Democratic Primary without finally making up my mind to actively support either candidate. Four years ago, I contributed to Barack Obama on the day he announced, and I went door to door for him in New Hampshire. This year I sincerely appreciate the attention the Sanders campaign has brought to the issue of growing income inequality because I share Bernie’s belief that it threatens both our economy and our democracy.
That said, I admire the job Hillary Clinton did as Secretary of State. She was loyal to her President, a forceful advocate for our country, a talented diplomat and an effective manager. If in 2008 I did not support her because I thought we could move past the “New Democrat” model, I am faced with none of those misgivings now that she has had more time to establish a political identify clearly her own.
We all approach these decisions looking through the lens of our own experience and for me those glasses are tainted by my own modest involvement in politics and the making of public policy. Many years ago, I served in the State Senate of the great state of Maine. Later in my professional career and I lobbied Congress on behalf of alternative energy, the environment and imposing an excess profit tax on oil companies.
I can still remember those early days in the Maine Senate, when, like every other freshman, I faced an important decision. Was I going to stand alone in an effort to be a beacon for my ideological point of view or was I going to engage where the battle is fought, in the struggle for the center ground? The former requires the courage to stand all alone when others are seeking safety in numbers. The latter necessitate the skill to appreciate the complex motives of your peers and work with them to find common cause which will strengthen the common weal. The former carries the risk of being labeled “irrelevant.” The latter carries the risk of compromising so much you lose your inner compass. Sanders and Cruz are good examples of the former, Joe Biden and Bob Dole the latter. For my part, I cast a few votes when I was close to being alone, but when I did I considered it more a failure to lead than a badge of courage. But that's me and objectively I believe both approaches make an important contribution to shaping public policy as it moves through the legislative process.
As for the executive branch, traditionally voters charged with choosing someone to serve as Head of State and leader of the Executive Branch have instinctively turned to people who have tried to lead from the center. Contrary to some of the things I've seen posted on the internet that was the case with FDR as it was with Lincoln, our two most transformational Presidents.
This reflects the reality that in American politics the action is always in the center. That doesn't mean the center itself does not move. Look at gay rights. But what did it take? One, avid champions advancing a cause, then two, Joe Biden and Obama stepping forward at the right moment and making it a comfortable position for the majority and the official position of the Democratic Party. This is the essence of Hillary’s case: The President must be where the fight is to assure that those pressing for change succeed.
Bernie offers the exciting prospect that we can say goodbye to such antiquated notions. His supporters argue passionately that’s just how the billionaire class want us to think. Instead, Bernie says he's going to lead a revolution by mobilizing his supporters into an army of advocates. Obama himself hoped he could at least make this an adjunct to traditional tools of Presidential leadership. He got the first part. In his campaign he mobilized even more supporters to come to the polls that Bernie has done this year
So why didn't it work for Obama once he became President? It’s not so much the “Billionaire Class” as the “Founding Father” class that held him back. The men who wrote the Constitution didn't want “storming the barricades” to work. In fact, the thing that scared them most was people like Sam Adams and Patrick Henry leading the “mob” against the government and ramrodding dangerous policies through the Congress. So they set the House and Senate against each other in the legislative branch, then gave each of the three branches separate powers and the means to trim the sales of the other two. BY THIS MEANS THEY CREATED A PROCESS THAT WAS AT BEST SLOW AND WHEN STRESSED, SLOWER.
My work for Service Employees Union taught me that when it comes to leading a group of human beings in order to demand change, getting them up for day one of the fight is not the challenge, it’s day 100. And it's not “No” that divides and demoralizes your troops, but “it is maybe if we start again” that takes the wind out of their sails, and “we have a few amendments” which makes it hard to maintain unity. Remember the fight for Obamacare, the biggest advance in our people’s social welfare in more than 40 years. If Obama could have sent up a bill and gotten an up or down vote in 20 days, he could have passed about anything he wanted. But the opponents of change are not fools, so they delayed and amended. And overtime, our side, which started as an army united behind an overarching idea, turned into a debating society where everyone starts thinking they know best how to proceed. Suddenly your own army is more of a handicap than a means to victory. And the day to day story of the fight is filtered through the members of the press, many of whom are always anxious to tell their public that they are smarter than the folks they write about.
In America, passing important legislation is not akin to leading a bombing raid, it’s getting hundreds of people and at least as many power centers to let go of some of their own ideas to unite around one bill that doesn’t reflect anyone’s ideal. That is the way it was with Social Security, Medicare, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is the nature of the beast we inherited and when the process is faced with a clamor to enact really bad bills we are thankful for its difficulties.
In 2008, Obama didn't have a lot of experience in DC, but you could look at his record in the Illinois Senate and see he had the temperament, patience and the determination to find a middle ground. Bernie’s whole history points in a different direction. Compare the number and quality of bills he sponsored and passed to those of Senator Leahy, the other Senator from Vermont, another great liberal. Since Sanders arrived in the Senate he been the principal sponsor on 3 bills that were enacted into law, 1 a significant bill and 2 minor bills such as naming a post office. In the same period, Leahy has been the principal sponsor on 33 which were enacted into law, 20 significant, 13 minor. That said, to Bernie’s credit he has been an unwavering voice for the liberal point of view.
However, in choosing a President we must looking past the boldness of his ideas to the nature of his leadership skills, and that leads me to conclude that the Presidency is not where Mr. Sanders can make his greatest contribution. The trick for Democrats is to nominate Hillary and still create a platform for Bernie to exhort the party to stand up to the hogs on Wall Street and adopt policies to help restore a true middle class and a healthy democratic process free of the taint of dark money.
That said, I admire the job Hillary Clinton did as Secretary of State. She was loyal to her President, a forceful advocate for our country, a talented diplomat and an effective manager. If in 2008 I did not support her because I thought we could move past the “New Democrat” model, I am faced with none of those misgivings now that she has had more time to establish a political identify clearly her own.
We all approach these decisions looking through the lens of our own experience and for me those glasses are tainted by my own modest involvement in politics and the making of public policy. Many years ago, I served in the State Senate of the great state of Maine. Later in my professional career and I lobbied Congress on behalf of alternative energy, the environment and imposing an excess profit tax on oil companies.
I can still remember those early days in the Maine Senate, when, like every other freshman, I faced an important decision. Was I going to stand alone in an effort to be a beacon for my ideological point of view or was I going to engage where the battle is fought, in the struggle for the center ground? The former requires the courage to stand all alone when others are seeking safety in numbers. The latter necessitate the skill to appreciate the complex motives of your peers and work with them to find common cause which will strengthen the common weal. The former carries the risk of being labeled “irrelevant.” The latter carries the risk of compromising so much you lose your inner compass. Sanders and Cruz are good examples of the former, Joe Biden and Bob Dole the latter. For my part, I cast a few votes when I was close to being alone, but when I did I considered it more a failure to lead than a badge of courage. But that's me and objectively I believe both approaches make an important contribution to shaping public policy as it moves through the legislative process.
As for the executive branch, traditionally voters charged with choosing someone to serve as Head of State and leader of the Executive Branch have instinctively turned to people who have tried to lead from the center. Contrary to some of the things I've seen posted on the internet that was the case with FDR as it was with Lincoln, our two most transformational Presidents.
This reflects the reality that in American politics the action is always in the center. That doesn't mean the center itself does not move. Look at gay rights. But what did it take? One, avid champions advancing a cause, then two, Joe Biden and Obama stepping forward at the right moment and making it a comfortable position for the majority and the official position of the Democratic Party. This is the essence of Hillary’s case: The President must be where the fight is to assure that those pressing for change succeed.
Bernie offers the exciting prospect that we can say goodbye to such antiquated notions. His supporters argue passionately that’s just how the billionaire class want us to think. Instead, Bernie says he's going to lead a revolution by mobilizing his supporters into an army of advocates. Obama himself hoped he could at least make this an adjunct to traditional tools of Presidential leadership. He got the first part. In his campaign he mobilized even more supporters to come to the polls that Bernie has done this year
So why didn't it work for Obama once he became President? It’s not so much the “Billionaire Class” as the “Founding Father” class that held him back. The men who wrote the Constitution didn't want “storming the barricades” to work. In fact, the thing that scared them most was people like Sam Adams and Patrick Henry leading the “mob” against the government and ramrodding dangerous policies through the Congress. So they set the House and Senate against each other in the legislative branch, then gave each of the three branches separate powers and the means to trim the sales of the other two. BY THIS MEANS THEY CREATED A PROCESS THAT WAS AT BEST SLOW AND WHEN STRESSED, SLOWER.
My work for Service Employees Union taught me that when it comes to leading a group of human beings in order to demand change, getting them up for day one of the fight is not the challenge, it’s day 100. And it's not “No” that divides and demoralizes your troops, but “it is maybe if we start again” that takes the wind out of their sails, and “we have a few amendments” which makes it hard to maintain unity. Remember the fight for Obamacare, the biggest advance in our people’s social welfare in more than 40 years. If Obama could have sent up a bill and gotten an up or down vote in 20 days, he could have passed about anything he wanted. But the opponents of change are not fools, so they delayed and amended. And overtime, our side, which started as an army united behind an overarching idea, turned into a debating society where everyone starts thinking they know best how to proceed. Suddenly your own army is more of a handicap than a means to victory. And the day to day story of the fight is filtered through the members of the press, many of whom are always anxious to tell their public that they are smarter than the folks they write about.
In America, passing important legislation is not akin to leading a bombing raid, it’s getting hundreds of people and at least as many power centers to let go of some of their own ideas to unite around one bill that doesn’t reflect anyone’s ideal. That is the way it was with Social Security, Medicare, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is the nature of the beast we inherited and when the process is faced with a clamor to enact really bad bills we are thankful for its difficulties.
In 2008, Obama didn't have a lot of experience in DC, but you could look at his record in the Illinois Senate and see he had the temperament, patience and the determination to find a middle ground. Bernie’s whole history points in a different direction. Compare the number and quality of bills he sponsored and passed to those of Senator Leahy, the other Senator from Vermont, another great liberal. Since Sanders arrived in the Senate he been the principal sponsor on 3 bills that were enacted into law, 1 a significant bill and 2 minor bills such as naming a post office. In the same period, Leahy has been the principal sponsor on 33 which were enacted into law, 20 significant, 13 minor. That said, to Bernie’s credit he has been an unwavering voice for the liberal point of view.
However, in choosing a President we must looking past the boldness of his ideas to the nature of his leadership skills, and that leads me to conclude that the Presidency is not where Mr. Sanders can make his greatest contribution. The trick for Democrats is to nominate Hillary and still create a platform for Bernie to exhort the party to stand up to the hogs on Wall Street and adopt policies to help restore a true middle class and a healthy democratic process free of the taint of dark money.