For years I have been teaching my students that intelligence is social. People think more clearly when they are fed, educated, healthy, and secure. Never has this been the case in the United States. And while there are pockets on the face of the planet where these conditions held good, they are the exception, not the rule. By and large, people are hungry, in poor health, poorly educated, and scared. I am a member of a very thin layer of humanity that enjoys all of these goods: food, education, health, and security. But I was hoping that in spite of the hunger, ignorance, sickness, and fear under which most people live; I was hoping that what I have taught for years did not hold.
So what did hold? It is one thing to teach that people judge poorly when their basic needs are not met. It is quite another to reflect critically on the judgments they do make when their needs are not met. It is humbling to know that people like me — well-educated, healthy, filled, and secure — believed that Hillary Clinton was the right candidate. It is humbling because it was so showed poor judgment. We nominated a candidate who, as Thomas Frank stated it so well, was “well-graduated.” We nominated the insider, the team player, the experienced, the thoughtful. And we nominated that candidate with full knowledge that the poorly-educated, sick, hungry, and scared considered her the enemy — and not only because she happened to be a woman (yes, this is a frightfully misogynist crowd), but because she was like us. We are the enemy: the educated, fed, healthy, and secure.
As our Muslim and Hispanic friends are beaten, jailed, humiliated and deported; as our GLBT friends and family members are mocked, harassed, beaten, and subjected to ridicule and exclusion, we need to be absolutely clear: we nominated a candidate who looked and thought like us. As Obamacare is dismantled and climate change legislation is put on ice and as a wall is erected separating us from our friends and neighbors (and as bridges are built welcoming dictators and demagogues), we need to be clear: we nominated a candidate who looked and thought like us. Because we believe — and I have taught — that people who look and think like us show good judgment. In 2016 we showed extraordinarily poor judgment. We nominated a candidate who voters hated as much as they hated us. That was not wise.
That’s the reality test. So how do we move forward? One possible answer is that we reevaluate our judgment on our GLBT friends, climate change, Muslims, Latino/as, police violence, healthcare, and education. We move to where voters evidently are. But another answer could be that next time we nominate a candidate who has displayed marginally greater interest in those who do not look and think like us; and who displays marginally less interest in the well-graduated managerial class.
There is no perfect candidate. But during an election cycle that we had every reason to believe would favor the outsider, the non-player, the rogue, we nominated a candidate who was the consummate insider. That showed extraordinarily poor judgment. We need candidates and we need a movement that are not so transparently friends of Wall Street and the Defense industry. If the Democratic Party cannot field those candidates and cannot be that movement, then we need to create an alternative movement, a clearly Democratic Socialist movement.
Bernie? Are you there?