Beyond Bernie: The Limits of Electoral Politics

In the circus-like spectacle that is the U.S. Presidential Election the rising popularity of Bernie Sanders has been a welcome surprise. On a platform seeking to address income and wealth inequality, provide universal healthcare and education, and reject the hubris of US militarism, Sanders’s calls for a political revolution are aimed at reinforcing the principles of democracy rather than the will of affluent campaign funders. This has resonated widely amongst a spectrum of voters in a race that was anticipated as the coronation of Hillary Clinton.

But Sanders’s campaign should also serve as a reminder that it requires popular collective action to create lasting social change, not simply campaign donations.

Perhaps what is most striking is the breadth of support Sanders has captivated: from the generally apathetic to those whose politics lie farther left of the Democratic Party.  Credit is due. Not only for presenting an electoral alternative in a structurally-flawed two-party system that has become synonymous with super-delegates and electioneering, but also for financing a campaign without support from corporate donors. 

The thought of a Sanders presidency has been promising. However, it should also remind us that tangible social change rarely comes through electoral politics. Too often we want the heavy lifting done for us. We want to place an individual on the top that will benevolently make the difficult decisions necessary to place people over profit and absolve us of our own agency to realize a more just society. This has been one of the disappointments surrounding the Obama presidency.

While we are often directed towards the legislative legacy of the Civil Rights Movement – the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – it was the grassroots actions of multiracial coalitions of everyday people which inevitably led to a tangible change of hearts and minds, as well as laws and policies. It required youth riding interstate buses in the segregated South, sit-ins to integrate lunch counters and schools, and civil disobedience demanding an end to systemic violence and discrimination. The hard-fought battles that took place in the streets, in courtrooms, and among friends, strangers, and neighbors are a reminder that there are no shortcuts for the hard work necessary to bring about lasting societal transformation. Change rarely comes from the top down.

This important realization is reflected in Sanders’s stump rhetoric through his calls to build a critical mass of grassroots support. But despite the widespread enthusiasm behind him, there are questions regarding his approach on issues of race, criminal justice, and foreign policy. There are also criticisms that his campaign in itself is not suited to bring about the political revolution which he espouses. However, Professor Dr. Cornel West suggests, “He’s a politician that needs a social movement behind him.”

The role of such movements is to create the fertile environment in which real systemic change takes place – with or without the complicity of elected officials. In recent years the Occupy movement, the Fight for $15 minimum wage, and Black Lives Matter have catalyzed public discourse on structural inequality, economic justice, and police accountability. Such movements recognize that their power does not come from representing a singular voting bloc, but from serving as the moral conscience of a nation facing its deepest contradictions.

It is no wonder then that neither Sanders nor Clinton have been able to tap into the most dynamic social movement of the day – Black Lives Matter – which does not trust that meaningful transformation will come through reforms from elected representatives. It instead acknowledges the deeper struggle required to dismantle a larger system of racism and inequality. After all, ballot boxes represent only the narrowest form of democracy.

All of this is not to say that elections don’t matter. They matter significantly for millions in terms of health and housing policies, environmental protections, and international affairs. And this election serves as another reminder that just as the goal of the Sanders’s campaign is not to push the Democratic Party to the left; his campaign itself is not the destination. It is instead a vehicle to achieve the long overdue social change that many hoped for during the Obama years.

What’s required then is diversity of tactics that recognizes elections as only one part of a larger strategy. As Michelle Alexander explains, it is equally important to build a movement that can hold the Democratic Party – a party that has been accused of abandoning its progressive ideals – accountable, along with building viable alternatives at local, state, and national levels. But for this process to be effective there will have to be the day-in and day-out community organizing and difficult conversations with those whom we do not agree.

Because if Sanders is not elected President there will be the forces of either near-fascism or neo-liberalism to fend off.  And if he pulls off the upset and is elected, we should know by now that, the same hard work will be necessary to hold him to his promises and realize the platform he is running on.

Last month, I changed my party affiliation in order to vote for the first time in a Democratic Primary to select the delegates in favor of Sanders’s political revolution. I knocked on doors and made phone calls. In the weeks and months to follow however I know that what is really required is not simply my vote, but a committed engagement to democracy – in all of her participatory venues.