Why Do People Argue Against Bernie Sanders by Pretending to Support Him?

It's a classic sales tactic, used by those who wish to gain credibility with others by initially appearing to share a common belief or position. This often leads them to express support for someone, only to follow it with a qualifier that negates their initial stance. This essay explores the technique and its implications, using the candidacy of Senator Bernie Sanders as a prime example.

Understanding the Technique

This technique can be seen in various contexts, from sales to politics. As C. Wright Mills noted in his work on “On Crackpot Realism: An Homage to C. Wright Mills”, people are more likely to be influenced by someone they perceive as having shared interests or values. This principle is exploited by those who wish to win an argument or gain support for a position by first appearing to support another viewpoint, before quickly refuting it.

A Personal Insight into the 2016 Democratic Primary

My personal experience during the 2016 Democratic primary offers a window into this phenomenon. Initially, I supported Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate. She had the nomination in 2008, and I campaigned for her, preference for her ideals and policy positions over Senator John McCain during that primary. In the 2012 election, I supported President Obama, the subsequent DEM nominee.

This experience illustrates that it is possible to respect and advocate for multiple candidates. It is reasonable to have a first preference while supporting an alternative in the general election. Despite my preference for Clinton, I find both Clinton and Sanders to be excellent candidates. However, the undeniable issues with the primary debates left me seeking other information sources.

The Toxicity of No True Progressive Arguments

My preference for Clinton is not based on blind allegiance but a genuine belief that she better represents my ideals and policy preferences. This is not to diminish Bernie Sanders; I find his policy positions credible and desirable. However, the divisiveness among some of his supporters is concerning.

Recently, a smaller but vocal group of Bernie Sanders supporters has engaged in arguments labeled as “no true progressive” arguments, a phrase that derides those who disagree with extreme positions. These arguments are divisive and often contradictory to what Senator Sanders and his campaign have been stating. This divisiveness is uncomfortable to witness and strikingly similar to the tactics used by the Republican party over the last decade to undermine their own candidates and platforms. It is clear that this type of argumentation is not helpful for the discourse we are currently engaging in.

Respect for the Campaign and the Process

Senator Sanders and Hillary Clinton both conducted their debates and campaigns with an adult yet testy demeanor. While they have their differences, their campaigns respected the views and positions of their opponents, laying a foundation for the eventual nominee to run an effective general election campaign. It is imperative that we continue to respect these campaigns and the decisions made by the candidates.

In conclusion, while I support Secretary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, my respect for Bernie Sanders and his campaign remains strong. We should avoid divisive rhetoric and focus on building a united front against whatever opposition the Republican party can offer. The primary debates have shown that we need to work together and support our candidate unconditionally, without pitting one against the other.

Note: Due to the volume of text, this article has been split into sections for easier reading.