On a school trip to the District of Columbia in 2004, someone asked me if I was a Republican or Democrat. I responded, “Which is President Bush?” It was when I decided I was a Democrat. Overall, I believe Democrats are in the best position to move the U.S. forward — yet I do not believe that this could happen should Bernie Sanders be elected president.
Sanders’ campaign rests on the idea that if we eliminate money from politics, we can actually move on the issues that hurt our society. It’s an idealistic thought — one that he cannot move on alone.
A political revolution cannot happen without support for local races, from congressional, to state legislature, to city council. State and local Democratic parties need the resources to help fund campaigns and cannot rely on grassroots donations at the local level, especially in the post-Citizens United world that has found big money in small towns. That’s where Sanders has fallen short.
Despite breaking records in levels of grassroots donations, he has not built a network to fundraise money for Democrats. Hillary Clinton’s campaign created the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint-fundraising organization between her and 33 state Democratic parties to help fund races down the ticket. Through the fund, she has raised over $27 million that will allow state Democratic parties to take on super PACs and wealthy donors.
Since President Obama took office, Democrats have lost their majority in both houses of Congress. This has rendered Obama unable to pass a significant portion of his agenda. Without executive actions, he would be a lame duck president.
It’s at the state level, too. When Obama was elected, Democrats controlled 29 gubernatorial seats, a majority. It allowed for states to push forward Democratic ideas that helped spur investment and bring the nation back from one of the worst recessions in recent memory.
Currently, in this post-Citizens United world, Democrats control a mere 18 gubernatorial seats and a minority of state legislature seats. Throughout the country, Democratic values are being attacked. Republican-controlled states are cutting funding for Planned Parenthood, refusing to expand access to affordable healthcare and attacking LGBTQ rights.
Many argue that so long as a Democratic president is in office, Americans are safe from this as a whole. Wrong. These governors are the ones who decide whether to expand Democratic policies, like the Affordable Care Act; or, if Sanders were to become president and a Congress were to approve it, free tuition for all.
At the most recent Democratic debate, Sanders said, “I think the future of the Democratic Party is not simply raising money from wealthy campaign contributors.” Yet, raising money is exactly what will ensure the future of the party. His comments eat at exactly what’s wrong with his view of the American government — it’s far too idealistic. Raising money will save the party by allowing it to flip districts and win elections.
The Democratic Party cannot afford to lose more seats if it intends to be a force in the future. The party may win the presidency, but it will begin losing on the things that matter: equal pay, women’s access to healthcare and investments in our future.
I support Clinton for the Democratic nomination for a multitude of reasons, but chief among them is her support of local races. Through this, I believe that Democrats have the best shot of winning back congressional, gubernatorial and local races and truly achieving a progressive agenda in the coming decade.