Disclaimer: it is no secret that I am a staunch supporter of Bernie Sanders. Though I don’t agree with him on many issues, aligning more with Green Party and Socialist Party platforms, Sanders combines a left-wing political ideology with a populist message that captures the minds and ears of millions of voters. That being said, I have a great deal of respect for Hillary Clinton and my criticisms of her pertain not to her character, but to her political persona.
Ever since I escaped from the half-baked anarcho-capitalist views I held during my middle school days, I’ve considered myself a leftist. Some might call me a Trotskyist; to others, I’m something of a democratic socialist. Regardless of labels, I’ve always championed three core beliefs in the name of leftism: social justice, economic fairness, and equal opportunity; anyone who considers himself to be a liberal or progressive would agree that these values are necessary.
The American Left — a pastiche of citizens whose political ideologies range from neoliberal to Marxist — agrees on issues such as abortion, race relations, LGBT rights, and gender equality. Despite the many similarities of those who tend to be more progressive, however, the American Left splits on issues such as national security, foreign policy, finance, and criminal justice. These issues will define the Democratic primary elections of 2016 and, in turn, a new chapter of the American Left.
The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee will surely be Hillary Clinton (a liberal Democrat) or Bernie Sanders (a self-described Democratic socialist). Clinton runs on a platform of maintaining the status quo delivered by President Obama, stating at the first debate for the Democratic nomination that the biggest difference between her and the current president is gender. Sanders, on the other hand, promises a “political revolution,” a single-payer healthcare system, and free public college education. Though the two candidates voted the same way 93% of the time during their time as U.S. Senators (Jan. 2007 to Jan. 2009), the 31 times they voted against each other were regarding some of the most crucial issues of the late 2000s: immigration reform, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and bank bailouts.
On the issue of immigration, the two candidates tend to align. Clinton and Sanders both stand for an accessible “path to citizenship” for undocumented immigrants. However, based on his votes as senator, Sanders is seen as taking a more anti-immigration stance that limits expansion of migrant worker programs, defending his vote with the premise these programs unfairly exploit immigrant labor.
On other issues, however, the difference between views held by Clinton and Sanders is more clear. On foreign policy, Clinton has, during both terms as senator and during her tenure as Secretary of State, proved herself to be a liberal hawk, voting yes on the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting invasions of both Libya and Syria. Sanders, describing himself as “not a pacifist,” began his political career as a critic of the Vietnam War. His views, though not as “out-there” as they used to be, lean further left than Clinton’s. Though Bernie supports drone strikes in the Middle East, he has been wary of invasions in Syria as of late, and voted against the Iraq invasion while serving in the House of Representatives — one of very few congressmen to do so. Sanders is by no means an “anti-war” candidate, but his stances on foreign policy are further left than Secretary Clinton’s.
On the domestic front, the candidates have their fair share of differences as well: Clinton supports surveillance programs introduced by George Bush while Sanders condemns them as invasive and unconstitutional; Secretary Clinton wishes to maintain the current state of Social Security while Senator Sanders wishes to expand the program; Clinton supports banning the sale of certain guns while Sanders wants to close specific loopholes. Perhaps the defining difference between the two candidates — one that could define the race and the next phase of the American Left — is their opposing views on an indomitable force: Wall Street. Mrs. Clinton has been accused, though sometimes excessively, of having many close ties to Wall Street. Perhaps this criticism began with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (the Banking Act of 1933) under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1998, shattering the firewall between commercial and investment banking. Clinton has spoken out multiple times against prosecuting Wall Street executives who’ve played a part in the spread of the 2008 recession, and her campaign donations reflect favorably among Wall Street corps, her five biggest donors being as follows: Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, DLA Piper (a law firm focused on banking), JP Morgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley. Senator Sanders, on the other hand, is running a campaign based on tenets shared by the Occupy movement: limiting the influence of big money in government, cutting the immunity granted to banks by the government, and putting a stop to loopholes utilized by banks including those that have risen since the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act. Sanders’ free college plan would hypothetically be paid for by implementing a 0.5% tax on Wall Street transactions. Sanders champions a mantra based in ideals shared by figures from Theodore Roosevelt to Ralph Nader: “If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist.”
Sanders and Clinton have differences that go beyond what is outwardly manifested. Although the two candidates have shared similar views on issues such as race relations, gay marriage, and trade, the subtle differences are crucial. While Sanders has spoken out against mass incarceration practices that target young African-American men, Clinton played a role in her husband’s institution of a 1994 crime bill that increased penalties for non-violent drug crimes, a bill that allegedly targeted black youths unfairly. While Sanders has pushed for recognition of same-sex marriages as the Mayor of Burlington in the ’80s, Secretary Clinton publicly opposed the idea until 2013. While Sanders publicly spoke out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, defaming it as “disastrous“, Clinton pushed the agreement during her tenure as Secretary of State, calling it the “gold standard” of trade deals, only recently speaking out against it.
Of course, it is impossible to ignore that Hillary Clinton will more than likely be the next Democratic nominee and, maybe eventually, our 45th president; the polling data is showing a likely victory for Clinton. Though Sanders is doing well in states Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, and California, his appeal has struggled to secure a spot beyond his base of white, middle-class, liberal, college-educated men. As a result, his standing in places with more diverse populations — particularly in the South — is nowhere near Hillary’s. Nonetheless, Sander’s campaigns — nearly entirely of grassroots ordeal — have generated unprecedented amount of enthusiasm. Even I, a fifteen-year-old high school junior, have worked with more than 300 men and women from ages twelve to eighty-seven coordinating for Sanders’ campaign. Unbelievably, Sanders has shattered individual donation records, reaching one million individual donations during the third quarter of the year. He has captured the attention of Generation Y — a demographic disillusioned by corruption, inconsistency and dishonesty — by explicitly speaking out against politicians who display such traits.
This piece was not written with political agenda; my views are irrelevant as I’m currently torn between two candidates: Jill Stein of the Green Party and Mimi Soltysik of the Socialist Party USA. I recognize that the majority of Americans don’t look outside of the bipartisan system and the chances of a Democratic victory in 2016 are incredibly high. Though I do side with Sanders in this primary election season, there are a multitude of issues — such as his support of funding nations like Israel and Saudi Arabia and his willingness to continue with our drone program — that I don’t agree with at all. And Secretary Clinton has advantages on Sanders; she has more foreign policy experience and appeals to a wider base. No, I write this piece to note that the 2016 Democratic primary elections will mark a new beginning for the mainstream American Left based on a schism that has been long developing between the two main factions of the party. I don’t claim that Sanders has an anti-capitalist nor an anti-imperialist agenda; however, his candidacy — one marked by populist tones, angry rhetoric, and nostalgic themes echoing past figures from Debs to McGovern — appeals to the social democrats of the party: those that look to nations like Sweden and Denmark for examples of how to run an efficient, democratic, social-capitalist government. In contrast, Clinton’s campaign marks the unabashedly centrist wing of the party, standing up for institutions that have defined American capitalism since our nation’s inception: banks, prisons, arms developers, and the like. This primary season is a race between two factions of the Democratic Party. Regardless of who wins the nomination, the split between the progressive wing and neoliberal wing will carry far into the future. Political parties change and evolve frequently; even the differences between the Republican Party of 1956 and the Republican Party of 1986 are immense. Which path will the Democratic Party take at this fork in the road?