������Ƶ

Bernie Sanders’s recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton has left many of his supporters wondering what to do next. For some, the next logical step is to stay at home on election day, vote for some third-party candidate or even to vote for Republican nominee Donald Trump. These voters live by the slogan, “anyone but Hillary,” and, collectively, are known as “Bernie or Busters.”

I must admit that I too once subscribed to this idea of Bernie or Bust; I believed it to be truly logical. Sanders has repeatedly stated that his campaign is not about himself, but about mobilizing the people. His campaign slogan reads, “Not Me, Us.”

Thus, if the campaign is not necessarily about electing the man himself, then it must be centered on his policies to help the people and Sanders’s overarching policy goal is to get money out of politics. The logical sequence is as follows: Sanders’s platform is not about Sanders; Sanders’s platform is about his policy objectives XYZ. If Sanders doesn’t win the nomination, I should stick to XYZ. Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party are the embodiment of the problem Sanders is trying to fix through XYZ. Thus, sticking to XYZ requires rejection of both Clinton and the DNC.

I still believe this logic to be sound, so what could have caused me to change my mind?  It was a shift in my view of what each step in this chain of Bernie or Bust logic truly means. Let’s take it step by step.

“Bernie’s platform is not about Sanders; Sanders’s platform is about his policy objectives XYZ.” Part one is fairly straightforward: Sanders’s platform is a platform of the people. Mobilizing the people and enacting policies for the people are the goals, and at the forefront of these policy objectives is the tapering of the influence that big money has on American politics.

“If Sanders doesn’t win the nomination, I should stick to XYZ.” Sanders has endorsed Hillary, and so the condition in the initial contingency clause has been met.  The second part of the sentence logically follows because Sanders supporters can only be considered as such to the extent that they endorse the senator’s policies. Sanders’s voting record has been remarkably consistent on the issues throughout the years, and so it’s difficult, if not impossible, to separate the man from his beliefs.

My original interpretation of the second part of this sentence was one of strict adherence to XYZ. What I realized was that my form of strict interpretation valued Bernie’s goals in principle more than the actual effectuation of those same goals. In light of this, my amended interpretation is one of strict adherence to the effectuation of Sanders’s platform objectives.

“Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party are the embodiment of the problem Sanders is trying to fix through XYZ.” As stated above, Sanders’s main goal is to fix the problem of big money’s influence on politics, and to be sure, the problem does exist. A recent study by demonstrated just how little power the average citizen has over governmental policy. The study found that the average citizen has near-zero influence over the adoption of any given government policy when pitted against the economic elite and special interest groups.

Contrasted with the latter two groups’ policy adoption rates of 76 percent and 56 percent, respectively, a clear picture of the staggering influence of money in politics becomes readily apparent. Though explicit preferential treatment is difficult to prove — we can’t say for sure that Clinton is engaging in some quid pro quo exchange — ties can be strongly inferred from circumstance.

I was never into politics in the past. This all changed because of one man. I’m sure many Sanders supporters have similar stories.

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts depicted one oft-referenced instance of such a circumstance. In 1998, then-professor Warren wrote an op-ed expressing concern over a bankruptcy bill that she found would make it more difficult for single mothers to collect child support. Clinton, acting as first lady at the time, requested a meeting with Warren to learn the details of the bill. This meeting would ultimately lead to President Bill Clinton’s veto of the bill, which the first lady took direct credit for.

However, just a few years later, the bill came up again, and then-Sen. Clinton voted in favor of the bill. It’s impossible to know what Clinton was truly thinking at the time, but reasoning might find that campaign fundraising is an expensive task, necessitating the exchange of promises between hopeful politicians and economically powerful industries. Again, it’s impossible to directly prove, but it’s quite easy to paint a picture of Clinton engaging in the exact sort of activity that Sanders has fought so ardently against throughout his career.

Political Reality: It’s A Binary Choice

“Sticking to XYZ requires rejection of both Clinton and the DNC.” Because my interpretation of the phrase “sticking to XYZ” has changed, further scrutiny of this step is in order. If the effectuation of Sanders’s platform objectives is the true goal, then strict adherence to this rests quite strictly in the hands of the Democratic Party under Clinton.

How can Clinton even be in my considerations? Though Sanders was able to obtain certain party platform concessions, including support for a debt-free college plan and a public option for health care, as explained above, Sanders’s main goal of getting big money out of politics will quite surely not be realized under a Clinton administration.

The explanation is one of political reality: Either Clinton or Trump will be the next president of the United States. A recent CNN poll, largely reflective of other recent polls, shows no third-party candidate receiving more than 10 percent of the votes of those polled, while Clinton and Trump were at 42 percent and 38 percent, respectively. Though Clinton will likely not make much progress on the front of getting money out of politics, she won’t be dealing blows to this agenda. Trump will.

Following his endorsement of Clinton, Sanders released a message on Facebook. Relevant in part, it reads, “[T]here is no doubt that the election of Donald Trump as president would be a devastating blow to all that we are fighting for. His openly bigoted and pro-billionaire campaign could precipitate … [a] decades-long rightward shift in American politics…”

My amended version reads: “Sticking to XYZ requires the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton.”

This brings me to my final point. I was never into politics in the past. This all changed because of one man. I’m sure many Sanders supporters have similar stories. Whether it is one of renewal following a period of jaded political involvement, or the experience of starting completely new like myself, we are involved today because of Sanders.

Even though Sanders has bowed out, I still dream those dreams of a more egalitarian society that he’s fought for since before I was born. For the sake of those dreams, I’ll follow Sanders’s new objective of defeating Trump. And because of this, I can still proudly say that I am #BernieorBust.