October 25, 2023 - 10:00am
Once a Left-wing firebrand, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has been pushed back towards the centre of his party by forces largely out of his control — the toll of two failed primary campaigns, the institutional conservatism of the Senate, and the mainstream Democratic Party’s almost unwavering support for Israel. This shift was exemplified when nearly 300 alumni of Sanders’s presidential campaigns urged him to join calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, a demand that parallels a resolution in the House led by progressive members such as Reps. Cori Bush and Rashida Tlaib.
The staffers sent Sanders a letter that read, in part:
While Sanders has previously taken firm stances — like advocating for humanitarian aid in Gaza — his conspicuous silence on formally endorsing a ceasefire has left many puzzled. Is this a sign of the further pacification of the aged warhorse who burst onto the national scene in 2016?
Sanders’s complicated relationship with Israel came to the fore during his 2016 presidential campaign. His description of Israel’s 2014 assault on Gaza as “disproportionate” was met with applause by advocates of Palestinian human rights. However, this moment did not signify a radical departure for Sanders. As far back as 2014, during a Vermont town hall, he faced heckling for not condemning Israel strongly enough. “If you’re asking me, do I have the magical solution, I don’t. That is my answer,” he responded defensively.
The fissures within the progressive movement are further apparent when one examines “the Squad,” a group of House representatives including Bush, Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar. They have been far more vociferous in their criticism of Israel, often to the chagrin of establishment Democrats, but much more in line with traditional Democratic Socialists of America positions on the issue. Omar and Tlaib, who have strong but small racialised constituencies and do not have to campaign statewide as Sanders does, have called for an end to “unconditional” military aid to Israel.
This contrasts sharply with Sanders, who now stands at the edge of what is surely considered acceptable dissent within the Democratic Party — the “socialist” and “contrarian” who nonetheless won’t bring the fight for Palestinian independence to Joe Biden.
His reluctance to align himself completely with the progressive wing on the Israel issue reflects the broader struggle between the radical Left and the establishment. This divide is notable in part because Sanders is the last seemingly genuine grassroots progressive candidate to offer even a glimmer of cross-racial and cross-class coalition building.
Interestingly, the question of Israel seems to serve as a catalyst that brings errant Democrats back into the fold. Consider how many high-profile Sanders supporters, like Leftist comedian Sarah Silverman, were quickly mobilised in support of the Israeli offensive in Gaza. Sanders, once seen as the standard-bearer of progressive values, now highlights the limitations of dissent within the party.
For many Democrats, including President Biden — and nearly every Jewish member of the House of Representatives or Senate regardless of party — support for Israel is unwavering. The President’s recent speech called for additional military aid for Israel, emphasising a unity of purpose that leaves little room for divergent views. This apparent consensus has had an impact even on the more radical voices within the Democratic Party who might have been recruited by Sanders, which has the effect of pulling them into mainstream party orthodoxy.
Sanders’s shift towards the centre reveals a fundamental truth: the landscape of progressive politics is evolving, with less room for radical departures from party norms on certain key issues, especially those related to economics and foreign policy. As the Vermont senator takes a more subdued tone on Israel, it becomes evident that even figures who were once viewed as transformative can be absorbed into the establishment.
This leaves the progressive movement at a crossroads. Fractious and diverse, this coalition of Left-wingers is also fraught with internal contradictions, ones that seem likely to inhibit whatever transformative potential it possesses.
Oliver Bateman is a historian and journalist based in Pittsburgh. He blogs, vlogs, and podcasts at his Substack, Oliver Bateman Does the Work
MoustacheClubUS
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeA worrying trend I’ve noticed lately is that we are always supposed to pick sides, not just on Israel and Gaza, but on almost every societal change or global event. I’m almost tempted to believe that there are powerful interests intent on fomenting civil war and unrest in the hopes of stepping with a ‘solution’.
Team Davos?
Not a peep on the conflict out of the WEF yet. But I can see Klaus grinning while stroking his cat.
So the WEF say nothing and they are still pulling the strings. It’s an international talking shop. Truly silly comment
My view on this is to “follow the money”.
I think most of this polarity is driven by online media, social media, mainstream press and alternative news formats.
All of the above pretty much rely on advertising as the days of popping into the corner shop in the morning to pic up a paper are pretty much over.
To effectively sell to “us” “we” need to be pushed into self selecting groups so that advertising can be targeted towards the group most likely to buy. The better adverts are targeted the higher the response rate and less money is spent on wasted ads, ads that are not seen by any audience likely to buy.
So; I don’t think there is any intent on fomenting civil war (counter productive, not much gets bought in a civil war) and I doubt the Davos crowd have given this a second thought except on how to manipulate people to be even more compliant.
I’d follow the ethnicity
Yes, Bernie is Jewish and some members of his family were killed in the Holocaust. Ya think that might have a bearing on his decision? I’ll take a wild shot in the dark and guess that Sarah Silverman is also Jewish.
No different than pretty much all the Muslim rooting for Hamas
I agree on the idea of trying to align us in order to market to us more effectively, but Bernie is Jewish and some of his ancestors were Holocaust victims.
And, not surprisingly, those “solutions” always seem to benefit them.
When it comes to moral issues, we are always supposed to pick sides. The terrorist attack on Israeli civilians is a moral issue. All decent human beings should take the side of the innocent civilians who were targeted for slaughter simply because they are Jewish. If it is difficult to take their side, then you might be a little bit depraved.
Aargh did not mean to downvote your comment my apologies fumble fingered this morning…
I’m quite capable of feeling sympathy for the victims of that terrorist attack while still condemning Israel’s response that has killed treble that number of civilians already
Why are we supposed to take sides? Can we not condemn both sides for the atrocities committed, not just in this episode but over the last hundred years of disputes over this piece of land.
It’s very hard for most Gentiles, including me, to understand the sense of insecurity that is imbedded in the hearts of the Jews. I grew up among them; most people I’ve ever known are (Reform) Jews, yet it took me years to even begin to see.
So many people, from just about every family I knew, had been horribly murdered in the Holocaust, that the grief never really faded. Most of my friends only had a few older relatives and many of them were half mad. And this was after hundreds, thousands of years of treachery and brutality.
They simply can not trust us. We turned on them too many times. We stood by and did nothing. So the idea of a Jewish homeland, a sanctuary, a defensible place where they could all take shelter became incredibly important.
What Hamas and friends did on Oct 7 is a threat and a nightmare that the rest of us just can’t begin to understand. And the Progressive reaction (“from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”) makes it much worse. What I finally learned over the years is that they were right all along. We can’t be trusted.
So if you want to know what motivates Bernie ask him about his grand parents. And his grand children.
And, please, stop trying to shove every issue into a Left, Right, Center formation. It’s not helpful.
God bless you for your heartfelt words ….
This whole “the progressives are fracturing” argument is over blown. The real explanation is hidden in the 5th paragraph:
The Rule 1 in politics is always do what you need to do to get re-elected. You must remember you are ALWAYS running for re-election. Rule 1A is: you can only be as Progressive as your electorate will tolerate.
Bernie’s just hit his electorate’s tolerable limit.
Sanders refused to endorse the Hamas supporters in the Democratic party. It is that simple. And support for Hamas is being presented as “anti war”.
Good v evil is not a discussion. Torturing, recording children crying in terror, are equivalent to what? Understandable, how? Anger = beheading? Is this the new world order?
Bernie Sanders is Jewish, the horrific Hamas attack must have put him in such a difficult place. Sometimes, identification trumps politics and it’s unfair to call him out on not condemning Israel.
Looks as if America will fracture cleanly along racial lines. Who’d have thought it!
No, no, no. Totally political lines.
Racial??
Diversity is our strength … ?
Test
Bernie Sanders has only ever been anti-war once, on Iraq, 20 years ago.
His “socialism” was b.s. He was a phony from the get go, a garden variety snake oil selling politician feathering his own nest.
I understand that being Jewish may make him moderate on Israel. I wish that being American would have made him moderate about running as a Socialist instead of a Democrat. That was horribly divisive considering America spent decades in a Cold War standing off against socialist countries. I don’t remember Bernie standing up against the defund the police or trans ideology nonsense either. Maybe I missed it.
But I think many Jewish pundits are doing their best to see both sides. Ezra Klein did a good interview in NYT yesterday with Peter Beinart and Spencer Ackerman.
Bernie would have lost the general election in 2016 and 2020, because he had the word “socialist “ next to his name. Also, there is a picture of him in his office ,when he was a mayor, of the Soviet flag. To make matters worse, he spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union. The Republicans would have had a field day with him.
Yet if he was in any other country except the States most of his policies would be considered fairly centrist
If America were only New England then Bernie might make sense.
I agree with Bernie on this issue, but he sold out long ago.
Looking at the headline, why not say ‘self-styled’ progressives.
Perhaps Bernie’s hesitance to make more forceful condemnations of Israel is predicated on Hamas attacking kibbutzes and Bernie having lived in an Israel kibbutz, and briefly in an America commune (before being asked to leave because he wasn’t pulling his weight). Communes (except for the working part) are very much reflective of Bernie’s ideology.
Bernie Sanders: damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Damned even if you don’t give a damn.
“Consider how many high-profile Sanders supporters, like Leftist comedian Sarah Silverman, were quickly mobilised in support of the Israeli offensive in Gaza. Sanders, once seen as the standard-bearer of progressive values, now highlights the limitations of dissent within the party.”
This characterization is so deeply disingenuous. It is actually possible that some progressives have changed their minds about the morality of Palestinian resistance in its current form as a result of Hamas raping and torturing housewives and babies.
There can’t be many people on this site ideologically further from Bernie Sanders than me, but the idea that political responses to Hamas’ action are simply cold electoral calculations is a lazy cynicism that’s completely inadequate as far as political analysis goes.
Is it possible that something could happen to change someone’s mind? Ever? Yes.
Hysterical article. Most people regard Israel-Palestine as sadly more-of-the-same. Why is UnHerd trying to get us all to be morally outraged by the same-old Israel-Palestine standoff that we’ve had for decades?
I’m outraged by what Hamas did. I don’t need Unherd to tell me to be.
I don’t think most people believe it’s more of the same, any more than Americans thought 9/11 was more of any kind of same. I think most people see this for what it is — a new level of evil behavior by Hamas.
In the UK the opinions break down as
10% pro Israel
20% pro Palestinian
20% Don’t know
50% They’re all as bad as each other.
I’m firmly in the 50%
Oh, Billy, go read a book …
Which one? The one about Palestinians killing Israelis, or the one about Israelis killing Palestinians?