With So Much Ammo, Sanders Should Attack Clinton

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is known for being steadfast in his beliefs, and evidently disdain for political mudslinging is a belief he holds onto dearly. In a September interview with former Obama chief advisor David Axelrod, Sanders remarked “Well, it’s my hope that I will never run a negative ad.” Honoring his promise, Sanders has never run a negative ad in any of his runs for public office over decades, a point he is proud of and is giddy to discuss in interviews.

In the polarized political environment of the 21^st century, negative campaigning has become an integral fixture of running for office. Because widespread public distrust for the establishment has characterized this election, allowing political novices Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina to pick up the backing of most of the GOP electorate, Sanders’ refusal to run negative ads very well may play into his hands, backing up his claims to outsider status. It could be argued that Sanders’ refusal to run attack ads has contributed to his success in Vermont politics in past elections, allowing Sanders to serve his state in Congress for the last twenty years. However, politics in the Green Mountain State are not exactly comparable to politics nationally. No self-avowed socialist has stood a real chance in a presidential campaign before.

Perhaps Sen. Sanders has made a miscalculation. Sure, running clean campaigns has worked in his favor in Vermont, but will this strategy win a campaign support nationally? Maybe it would if Sanders had name recognition on his side, but as of now, it is likely that most voters still don’t even know who Sanders is, much less what he stands for. Recognizing this problem, the Sanders campaign has rolled out TV ads in the crucial early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire in recent weeks. This was a wise move, as recent polling indicates that Sanders is leading Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire and trailing her by fewer than 10 points in Iowa. Sanders’ rhetoric in interviews and rallies following the first Democratic debate in October have shown a greater willingness to point out Sanders’ differences in policy positions with Clinton, culminating in jabs bordering on attacks directed at the former Secretary of State during the second Democratic debate.

But why shouldn’t Sanders attack? Sure, he has made his refusal to approve attack ads against adversaries hold some moral ground, and it may be embarrassing if Clinton were to use his prior statements to paint Sanders as a hypocrite, but Sanders has much more to gain from negative campaigning than he has to lose. Let’s examine Sanders’ (plentiful) potential ammunition against Hillary Clinton.

• Before she was first lady to Bill Clinton, Secretary Clinton was a Republican activist. While Bernie Sanders was arrested for conducting a sit-in to protest segregated housing in Chicago public schools, Clinton volunteered for the doomed presidential campaign of Republican candidate Barry Goldwater, a conservative perhaps best remembered for his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

• The public simply does not trust Hillary Clinton. Decades of scandal, recently centered on Clinton’s questionable (and possibly illegal) email practices as Secretary of State and her dubious response to the deadly attack on the American consulate at Benghazi on September 11^th, 2012, have tarnished the notoriously calculating politician’s public image. Roughly 60% of voters say that Clinton is untrustworthy: the worst figure for any presidential candidate. Also, the former Secretary of State is widely perceived as the archetypal insider, which plays to Sen. Sanders’ (and the Republicans’) advantage. Although Sanders famously, and perhaps regrettably, has said that the email scandal is a non-issue, he has already backtracked some on this position, telling the Wall Street Journal that “There’s an investigation going on right now. I did not say, ‘End the investigation.’ That’s silly. … Let the investigation proceed unimpeded.”

• As the ascensions of Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and – to a lesser degree – Carly Fiorina have shown, Americans are tired of politics as usual. Americans want an outsider – someone who has not been tainted by the corruption perceived to be widespread in Washington – to be the next president. Hillary Clinton is the epitome of the insider candidate. Clinton has strong ties to Wall Street, she had served in the senate and State Department for years, she practically controls the Democratic Party, and she has already spent eight years living in the White House. Clinton has received endorsements from scores of congresspeople and a dozen governors while Sanders has the support of a whole two congressmen. At a time when congressional approval ratings are in the single digits, surely Sanders can use Clinton’s ties to one of the most unpopular congresses ever to his advantage.

• Clinton is beholden to corporate interests. As public campaign records show, Sanders was correct to state that Secretary Clinton’s campaign is bought and paid for by the wealthy during the second Democratic debate. As of late September (when the campaigns’ fundraising records were last released), only 20% of contributions to Secretary Clinton’s campaign were from donations below $200. As of July, a full 63% of contributions made to Clinton’s campaign came from donations of $2,700: the maximum allowed per candidate per election. By contrast, 88% of contributions to Sanders’ campaign were from donations below $200 and only 1% of contributions came from donations of $2,700, and these figures do not include donations made to Super PACs working in Clinton’s favor. Unlike nearly every other candidate – including Clinton – Sanders has no Super PACs, as he believes them to be corrupting influences on government. While Clinton has paid lip service to her supposed opposition to the infamous Citizens United Supreme Court decision which allows her to raise millions of dollars from anonymous wealthy donors, Sanders has made his fiery opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision a defining issue of his campaign. Clearly, Hillary Clinton’s campaign is not financed by everyday people, but by the super wealthy.

• When asked who her greatest political enemy is during the first Democratic debate, Clinton assumed a proud smile, happily exclaiming that the pharmaceutical industry is her greatest foe. Unfortunately, the facts show something entirely different. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has received the largest amount of cash from the pharmaceutical industry of any candidate in the 2016 field. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders refused a $2,700 contribution from the CEO who raised a crucial HIV/AIDS drug price 525%, electing to donate the funds to charity instead. Senator Sanders’ universal healthcare plan, BernieCare, as it is now being called, would in part give the government power to negotiate prices with drug manufacturers, a power nearly every other government in the world already has. This would help ensure that an illness would never cause a family financial insolvency. In contrast, Clinton has no plan.

• On social issues, Senator Sanders has always been ahead of the curve. Sanders has been supportive of LGBTQ equality from at least the early ‘70s. Secretary Clinton did not disclose her support for gay marriage until 2013, and for decades before had on several occasions stated that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman. Sanders has a strong record on women’s health issues – possibly the strongest of any presidential candidate ever – as he has voted to reinstate the Violence Against Women Act and has long been a vocal advocate for such causes as fighting for pay equality, guaranteeing at least three months of paid maternity leave, and expanding funding and access to women’s health programs such as those offered by Planned Parenthood. Meanwhile, during her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton secured funds for the Clinton Foundation from the governments of countries with horrendous records on human rights and women’s rights issues, such as Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. Clinton boasts that 60% of her campaign’s financial backers are women, yet Sanders has hundreds of thousands more female supporters than Clinton does. Sure, there may be one woman vying for the Democratic nomination, but she is not the most accomplished feminist in the field.

Should he choose to utilize attack ads in his insurgent campaign against Hillary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders has a lot to work. Hopefully, Sanders will wise up and use all the cards on the table to secure the Democratic nomination to bring about his necessary Political Revolution. Moral grounds can be reinstated after the white house is secured.