I have a confession.
Until a few days ago, I was planning to vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary. Then I saw Bernie Sanders speak and it got me thinking. The more I thought, the more I realized that Sanders would be a better candidate and will be receiving my vote. I’d like to explain why.
It’s about the emails but it’s not what you think.
President Obama has now served close to two terms as President of the United States. Despite the concerted efforts of his opponents, his administration has to date been remarkably scandal free. We have not seen the likes of Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinski, or WMDs. In my mind’s eye, I see him thinking about moving into the White House in 2008 and adopting the philosophy of Jackie Robinson as he began playing for the Brooklyn Dodgers. I imagine a scene not unlike the conversation between Robinson and then manager Branch Rickey portrayed in “42” where Rickey tells Robinson that he will face daily racist insults and slights from players and the stands but can never reply in kind. Ever. Obama, his family, and his administration have had to be militantly scrupulous in their actions.
Hillary Clinton has been under concerted attack from many of the same people for decades. Her presidential aspirations have not been particularly secret either. She also has first-hand experience of the lengths to which her foes will go to discredit her. While her choice to maintain an email server and handle classified documents is likely legal, she should have known that its mere existence would be seized upon by her enemies.
Two obvious possibilities come to mind: she did not think that this would be a vulnerability or that it didn’t matter. The first possibility speaks to the existence of a blind spot despite weathering years of attacks. The second to a kind of self-confidence that may well be earned given her ability to weather attacks in the past.
Both of these possibilities however are problematic. Clinton could be the first female President of the United States and will face gender-based scrutiny just as Obama has faced race-based scrutiny both overt and covert. Obama has demonstrated that he takes this seriously through his commitment to serving scrupulously and thereby immunize himself from claims of impropriety. Clinton’s actions do the opposite: they attract such claims. Her willingness to ignore or dismiss such risk is troubling in a candidate for the White House.
It’s a question of propriety.
Sanders labors under a similar burden: the socialist label. He however has turned it into a strength and proudly uses it to confound his political opponents. It enables him to openly engage the public in ostensibly hostile venues like Liberty University, leading to changes of heart. His detractors struggle to find purchase because he embraces and defines their hurled accusations. He uses it as a point of engagement. He respects the voters’ sense of propriety.
That’s the cold, hard truth of the 2016 presidential campaign for candidates. If 2008 and 2012 were about authenticity, this election cycle is about respect. It is about candidate’s respect for voters and their sensibilities. GOP candidates have shown little if any respect for voters outside their core and often disrespect them. Even within their base, many voters feel disrespected. Donald Trump’s success in part comes from the fact that he is willing to respect anyone if they can demonstrate their worthiness. His television persona reinforces this idea. At the same time however, he and much of the rest of the GOP have actively disrespected a variety of minority groups, effectively and systematically burning electoral bridges. The Democrats on the other hand in their non-contentious way tend towards respect, even in disagreement.
My decision to support Sanders over Clinton comes down to feeling respected, personally and as a citizen. Clinton’s email problems are a question of propriety and ultimately respect and Sanders, so far, edges her out.
