Next week, Tom Perez, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) he leads, will hand all candidates, including Sanders, a piece of paper. It will read that, to run as a candidate in the Democratic Party's presidential primary 2019-2020, one must affirm in writing (1) one is a Democrat, (2) one will accept the Party's nomination, if nominated, (3) one will run as a Democrat in the fall election, and (4) one will serve as a Democrat if elected.
The Vermont State Democratic Party considers Bernie a Democratic Party member. In one of the links to this article, another Politico article which states:
"The Vermont Democratic Party passed a resolution over the weekend supporting Sanders’ move, proclaiming that he could still be considered a member of the party 'for all purposes and entitled to all the rights and privileges that come with such membership at the state and federal level.'"
I get a kick out of that last part, which says Bernie is entitled to all rights and privileges of a party member at the "federal level." Does a State Democratic Party resolution bind the national party with respect to membership? That is a fun one for DNC chair, Tom Perez, to have to consider. A part of me would like to see Bernie say he is a member of the State of Vermont's Democratic Party and leave it vague as to the rest. If Perez wants to make a federal case about it, it would be fun to see him try. Nonetheless, if I was advising Bernie, I would say, Just sign the damn piece of paper and move on. Who needs the vapid noise?
Whenever I hear criticism from Democratic Party members who say, "But Bernie's not even a Democrat!" I laugh, and say, Really? You're really concerned about that? Or do you actually mean to say you disagree with his economic policy positions? If the conversation gets deeper, I sometimes say, Bernie has the heart, soul, and public policy philosophy of FDR and the New Deal as well as LBJ's Great Society. Those are the high points in the often sordid history of the Democratic Party. Then, if I really want to get tough, I ask the person, What part of the Democratic Party's history do you stand with?
Anyway, I do expect Bernie will sign the Randi Weingarten-inspired rule. But this much must be said: The rule and piece of paper have more in common with an anti-Communist loyalty oath than something a mature, outward reaching party should have. I say Randi Weingarten-inspired because Weingarten is a longtime "I'm with her" Clinton supporter who was so excited about the rule change, she posted the rule change to her social media account at the time. Weingarten is the long time president of the American Federation of Teachers, a venerable teachers' union. However, my view of Weingarten is she is a walking, living personification of the failure of union leadership in our nation. She has no vision with respect to developing unions as a social good, and is primarily about protecting her own power, and only incidentally her members. She has none of the moral vision and strength of Rose DeMoro of the nurses union, or Sara Nelson of the flight attendants' union. Weingarten's power position has helped solidify corporate power in our nation, particularly when one looks at the candidates she and her executive board--not her membership, as members don't have a voice for endorsements--have supported over the years. And really, for someone so concerned about who is a Democrat, would someone please ask this horrible person why she and her union leadership supported Republican George Pataki for NY State governor in 2002, over a very good, liberal-minded Democratic Party gubernatorial candidate? If I ever met this cynical, corporate Democrat in a union-garment person, it would take all my strength not to curse her out as a traitor to unions and a traitor to workers across America. When one reads in the initial link how this resolution was required to get to a tepid compromise about limiting the power of so-called "superdelegates," one smells the stink that emanates from the national DNC, over which people like Weingarten currently preside.
So, again, my advice to Bernie: Sign the stupid piece of paper. Move on. Move forward. And, then, think of Ronald Reagan, who fought a bitter primary against Gerald Ford in 1976, lost the primary, and, unlike Bernie with Hillary, only tepidly campaigned for Ford, who then lost to Jimmy Carter. In 1980, Reagan entered a crowded Republican Party primary as the oldest candidate ever to run for president in a major party. Then, Reagan withstood the Establishment Republicans' attacks, including from the Republican National Committee (RNC). For a decent backstory to what I am talking about with Reagan and Ford in 1976, and Reagan's "comeback" in 1980, see, ironically, the hagiographic bio of Reagan from Craig Shirley, pages 8-25. Shirley cites various NY Times pieces, which he claims emanated from the Ford camp, showing how tepidly Reagan supported Ford after Ford's defeat of Reagan in the primaries. Shirley later describes how the Establishment Republicans kept saying in the Carter years how the nation was too "moderate" for the type of policies and positions Reagan was promoting. See: pages 56, 95-97, 103 (the last page cite shows how Reagan refused to work with the RNC in the period leading up to his nomination in 1980). One has to translate most of Shirley's book, but it is well-researched, and worth reviewing the sections I am describing.
