The problem is an absence of common sense

Dear Editor, Apart from some of his positions, Hillary Clinton’s supporters peddled a curious narrative regarding the Bernie Sanders’ candidacy. First, they argued that Bernie was not a Democrat. Several talking heads and Clinton surrogates repeated this on TV.

How could this be helpful? Who cares that Bernie is not a historical hard-core Democrat? His entire message is ‘progressive’, energising millions of enthusiastic young supporters which Hillary could not. Clintonites saw the trouble Hillary had with young people who were flocking to Bernie, and yet they continued mocking him. Why fight against what he was doing?

Second, there is the thesis that Bernie’s supporters will not vote for Donald Trump. They invoked an orthodoxy similar to the one when Hillary’s supporters came out in support of presidential candidate Barack Obama after losing the 2008 Primary to him. The belief is that Bernie’s people will support Hilary and the party will unite.

Who said so? People are very emotional, and in this case there are perceived policy, strategy and trust differences between Bernie and Hillary. The main point however is that Hillary is no Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders. Hillary does not display their charisma, their mesmerising oratorical delivery, or their convictions, moral clarity and authenticity.

The trouble was evident when Bernie’s supporters mounted protests in Philadelphia (July 25) and were massing for more protests near the site of the 2016 Democratic National Convention (DNC). Bernie’s supporters shouted down Debbie Wassermann-Schultz, Chairman of the Democratic Party; Bernie’s supporters shouted no and booed him too, before the start of the Democratic National Convention, and during a speech in which he called for unity around Hillary’s candidacy; Bernie’s supporters gave a muscular and defiant show of support for Bernie during the first night on the Convention floor.

Relying on the Obama-Clinton 2008 post-Primary détente, Clintonites seem to underestimate the powerful political storm unleashed by Bernie’s political revolution and the Republican opponent Democrats face, and that these are very different from 2008. Forty-three per cent of Democratic progressive primary voters and Bernie’s supporters passionately want him on the ticket.

Compounding their behaviour towards Bernie, Hillary’s campaign operatives were caught red-handed with internal emails disparaging Bernie, including campaign attack methods referring to his Jewish religion. When the plot was exposed a prominent Clinton operative suggested on national TV that the ‘Russians’ hacked and leaked this information.

It is immaterial who leaked what. It is damaging that the Democratic National Committee was exposed, and the exposure inflamed Bernie’s supporters even more. One assumed, given the strong antiClinton sentiments today, that Clintonites would be very sensitive and careful in treating with Bernie and his passionate supporters, whose support is essential for Hillary to win in November 2016.

We recited the above story even though it is imperfectly analogous to certain aspects of behaviour by political operatives involved in the ongoing tussle in the Region Five RDC. Several accounts reported that mainly APNU councillors have provocatively worn African garb, sung hymns and folk songs, and generally disrupted official meetings of the RDC over an apology they demanded from the PPP Chairman.

There are, evidently, different understandings of when it is necessary to acknowledge President Granger. However, something tells us that there are other strong undercurrents, such as hard feelings between PPP and APNU+AFC representatives. Yet, the actions of the APNU+AFC representatives makes little sense and, especially troubling, it will not likely win them any additional nonAPNU+AFC friends or supporters. It also reminds us that, for years, some PNCites talked and acted in the same manner, persisted with flawed candidates and lost one election after another, until obvious common sense reminded them that they can only win an election with non-PNC supporters.

There also appears to be continuing underestimation among some PNCites of the alienating power of the PNC’s enduring negative political record, narrative and image, and the slim hold on power of the APNU+AFC coalition’s narrow majority. Even when one ‘party’ holds a commanding majority among the electorate one would think, and political common sense in a country like Guyana would suggest, that people should be more sensitive, careful and clever.

The desire to win at all costs could result in behaviour that does more harm than good, and the desire to get even, at some point, should be suppressed in favour of the public interest. In both circumstances history may probably attribute the words and actions involved to mistakes, but from appearances an absence of common sense is the problem. Yours faithfully, Ivor Carryl