With all the name-calling, obsessions with predicting the future, and endless navel gazing that has taken place on this site vis a vis Clinton v. Sanders, terribly few people have bothered to address the most important issue: the presidency is not the monarchy. There seems to be almost no discussion of the other two branches of government and how they would interact with the third, co-equal presidency.
For example, Sanders voters talk about revolution and how plutocrats control the political process. Ok, but then what is the plan for getting around the Congress? If what you say is true, won’t both the democrats and the republicans team up to undermine an attack on the plutocracy they are supposed to be protecting? This is not a snotty question, it is one I really want to have discussed, because even as a Bernie supporter, I am not sure how a Bernie agenda becomes law.
Second, then the problem turns to the court. If Bernie pushes for a revolutionary justice to succeed Scalia, how will he get that nomination past the Senate that is still beholden, under the oft-stated analysis, to the plutocracy? Otherwise, I don’t understand how this works.
For Clinton, the same problem exists in a different way. Whatever else can be said about her, she is a surprisingly weak candidate. Weakness is not a sign of being capable of getting an agenda approved. She will easily be able to be rolled, because she will need to compromise with far-right Republicans constantly in order to get anything done. If the true liberals didn’t support her, wouldn't she turn her back on them in office? And won’t her Supreme Court nominees have to be lean-right in order for them to get past the Republicans, who will still hold the 60 vote ability to stop any nomination for SCOTUS?
Finally, and most important: The only solution to BOTH of these issues is downstream candidates. Who are the revolutionary candidates downstream — for congress, the statehouse, the state legislatures — who can make Bernie’s agenda a reality. I can’t find that information anywhere, at least to the level that makes a difference. How many of Bernie supporters are running for office? (I did in 2012, and lost, but have since been unable to do so again because of personal issues.) In my location, liberals had a majority, but the percentage of registered democrats who showed up to the polls compared to the percentage of registered Republicans made victory nearly impossible. Lots of people sat home, which means out local policies have been much more conservative than they otherwise would have been.
And what are the HRC supporters doing for the downstream candidates to insure that the pressure on her is not from the right, but from the left?
Again, we are not selecting a king or an emperor. People who say “Im not voting unless I get the candidate I want” are dangerously naive about how politics and government actually work. Whatever you think of the presidency, would you really not vote for ANYONE because the ONE candidate you want isn’t there? Would you turn your backs on progressives that can change things from the bottom up? And Clinton folks — are you making any effort to find the candidates that will keep HRC from selling out?
Please discuss without name-calling.