Election 2016 Column (Democrat)
April 11, 2016
The next election represents a crossroads in our society. It could determine whether liberal or conservative ideals will prevail in the coming decades.
Modern Republicans constantly struggle with an internal division, illustrated by FiveThirtyEight’s “five ring circus.” Basically, Republican candidates have to try to please moderates, Tea Partiers, evangelicals, libertarians and the establishment. Similarly, the Washington Post divided the Democratic Party into four categories: urban liberals, the agnostic left, God and Government Democrats and DIY Democrats.
However, the internal division of the Democratic Party hasn’t been as severe as the Republican Party’s. Personal insults between our two candidates are a rarity and they had a 93 percent similar voting record in the Senate.
That doesn’t mean we’re all getting along.
It was clear from the start of the primary season that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were the only candidates with a chance, and Clinton has been the obvious frontrunner.
I don’t say that because of my unwavering personal support for Clinton; I say that because she has more delegates, more endorsements and more experience. There’s a fair amount of vitriol between Clinton and Sanders supporters. To many people, Clinton represents the ineffective establishment, while Sanders seems like an outsider.
Sanders has trailed Clinton for most the primary season, and it’s increasingly unlikely that the Democratic nominee will be anyone but Clinton. Many Sanders supports have chosen to stay loyal to their party, but some have decided to support the Green Party nominee, Jill Stein, and others have even joined the ranks of the Trump campaign. Of course, this is their right, but it could also be dangerous.
In a way, our current situation mirrors the 2000 election. Al Gore was the Democratic nominee, but some felt he wasn’t liberal enough and supported the Green Party nominee, Ralph Nader, instead. Some believe that Nader spoiled the election for Gore, and that without Nader on the ballot Gore would have won. This wasn’t the biggest factor in Gore’s loss, but it’s possible that if more Democrats living in swing states had supported Gore he would have been able to secure the electoral vote.
If we want to avoid a repeat of the 2000 election, it’s imperative that Democrats come together and support Clinton. Since the United States has a two party system, staying home or voting for Jill Stein is a great way to ensure the Republican nominee will come out on top. Idealism is nice, but there are times when pragmatism is more important.
This is one of those times. After the recent death of Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court is left with eight justices, with essentially a 4-4 liberal-conservative split.
President Obama has nominated Merrick Garland to replace Scalia; however the Senate has promised to block nominations until January 20, 2017. His successor will potentially have the opportunity to replace Scalia, as well as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 83, and Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy, who are both in their late seventies. Obviously there are quite a few pieces that would have to fall into place, but it’s entirely possible that our next president will be able to appoint four justices.
This could completely change the composition of the Supreme Court, and have a significant impact on future policies. For example, if a Republican president made the nominations, the Court may end up with a 7-2 conservative bias. However, under a Democratic president, the Court could have a 6-3 liberal bias. Of course, a president’s politics don’t guarantee his nominee’s actions. Kennedy was nominated by Ronald Reagan, but he isn’t consistently conservative; he was even the swing vote in the decision that legalized marriage equality across the nation.
Still, the next presidency is incredibly significant. A Clinton or Sanders administration will look wildly different than Trump, Cruz or Kasich, and it’s going to affect our generation for the rest of our lives. Young voters need to seriously consider the impact the next president will have on their lives and decide what’s truly important.