With the Democratic primary process coming to end, and the upcoming convention now looking like a Hillary Clinton coronation, we in the “Bernie or Bust” movement are under increasing pressure to fall in line. Support Clinton, the argument goes, or risk a Donald Trump presidency.

Unfortunately, this argument illustrates the Democratic establishment thinking against which Bernie Sanders’ supporters rebel. My support for the Sanders campaign stems from deeply held agreement with the candidate on issues like the minimum wage, banking reform and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Clinton, despite her efforts to stress policy similarity with Sanders, is either more moderate or less consistent on these issues.

For example, I left the April 14 debate – where Clinton appeared to support both a $12 and a $15 minimum wage – more confused than clear about Clinton’s stance. Her other policy evolutions – same-sex marriage, gun control, Libya – are well known. Add in the unreleased transcripts, and Clinton’s campaign leaves my progressive thirst unquenched.

All of which is why I will not be voting for Clinton in November. This is not because of any loyalty to Sanders. Rather, the positions that have drawn me to Sanders are the same positions that repel me from Clinton.

The mandate to fall in line and vote for the candidate with whom I disagree on so much is an example of the sort of anti-progressive politics that have stoked the flames of revolution in the first place. The expectation to endorse the status quo, and to accept the inevitable, even when the inevitable and the status quo run contrary to one’s beliefs and values, is not progressive; rather, this expectation is conservative.

Votes are not required to go to the likely candidate, but instead ought to go to the preferred candidate. For me, that candidate is and always will be Sanders.

Derek Brown

Windham

Copy the Story Link