Most people we might think of as being on the American left don\u2019t generally embrace the idea of \u201cAmerican exceptionalism.\u201d There is one apparent exception to this unexceptional point of view, however, at least in some corners of the American left. That is the notion that in the U.S. \u2014 unlike any other country with a reasonably democratic system \u2014 electoral politics are somehow only an optional part of a serious political movement. The latest expression of this \u201conly in America\u201d point of view comes in response to Senator Bernie Sanders\u2019s declaration of his intention to run in next year\u2019s Democratic Party presidential primaries.<\/p>\n
(Common Dreams<\/a>) -The objections to his candidacy come in at least two variants \u2014 \u201cnot now\u201d and \u201cnever.\u201d The \u201cnever\u201d perspective is articulated by David Swanson in his CounterPunch<\/em> article, \u201cInvest in Activism, Not Bernie Sanders<\/a>.\u201d It\u2019s not that Swanson doesn\u2019t like Sanders. On the contrary, although he allows that he has some disagreements with him \u2014 which he characterizes as \u201cimperfections\u201d on Sanders\u2019s part \u2014 Swanson considers \u201cthe contrast with Clinton … like day to night.\u201d Nevertheless, he pleads, \u201cplease do not give him or Hillary or the wonderful Jill Stein or any other candidate a dime or a moment of your life. Instead, join the movement,\u201d referring to people seeking justice on the streets of Baltimore, trying to abolish nuclear weapons in the halls of the United Nations, and doing any number of other valuable things.<\/p>\n This movement, he reminds us, \u201chas always been the driving force for change.\u201d For instance it \u201cgave women the right to vote\u201d and we should support the efforts of those now \u201cstruggling to create fair elections through steps like automatic registration in Oregon, and pushing legislation to provide free media, match small donors, give each voter a tax credit to contribute.\u201d<\/p>\n But wait, electoral reform is of the utmost importance and yet the presidential election is not? How can this be? Swanson explains that he\u2019s \u201cnot against elections.\u201d In fact he thinks \u201cwe should have one some day,\u201d but \u201cat the presidential level we do not currently have elections. That office is not up for election; it is up for sale.\u201d Well, we get Swanson\u2019s point that big money will have an inordinate impact, but in fact there actually will be<\/em> a presidential election in 2016. Maybe not the kind we\u2019d like, but an actual<\/em> election nonetheless. And despite our voter turnout being generally lackluster by world standards, upwards of 125 million Americans will take part in it.<\/p>\n What we have here is simply a matter of a writer getting carried away with his own rhetoric. Happens all the time \u2014 maybe more so in our editorless blogging era. We\u2019re not supposed to take him literally and yet we are somehow supposed to take him seriously. We on the left may choose to be generous in this regard \u2014 after all, we\u2019ve grown used to this sort of thing \u2014 but the 100 million plus voters are not likely to.<\/p>\n