Progressive left rejects Clinton as one of their own

LOS ANGELES — It’s safe to say longtime journalist and University of Southern California clinical professor Robert Scheer is no fan of Hillary Clinton.

He said in a 2015 column that Clinton “has not only been profoundly wrong on the two most pressing issues of our time —economic injustice and the ravages of unbridled militarism — but, what is more significant, seems hopelessly incapable of learning from her dangerous errors in judgment.” He said her 2014 book “Hard Choices” was full of “macho bleatings” from an ex-Goldwater Girl, and that she’s “even less conflicted than her husband in serving the super rich at the expense of the middle class.” And in a piece in January on his crusading website Truthdig, Scheer concludes that both Clintons are without shame.

Yeah, he’s feeling the Bern. In fact, Scheer’s most pointed criticism of the Vermont senator earlier in the campaign was that he wasn’t aggressive enough in targeting Clinton for her family’s efforts to deregulate Wall Street.

So it was no surprise to find Scheer on a panel at last weekend’s Los Angeles Times Festival of Books standing up for Sanders and his efforts to challenge Clinton for the Democratic nomination as well as the soul of the modern Democratic Party.

“We are seeing a resurgence of democracy,” Scheer said. “I reject the idea that this is some kind of inconvenience to the front runner. No, it’s an expression of democracy.”

That’s not an exaggeration. As late as Thursday morning, a Clinton surrogate was telling a cable TV audience that Clinton was winning, in terms of popular votes, pledged delegate voters, super-delegate votes and overall numbers. The implication: Why doesn’t this pest give it a rest, already?! We all know who’s going to win!

Except that nobody told Sanders, who is soldiering on. Scheer predicted that President Obama will be remembered as a successful commander-in-chief, albeit one whose banking-industry appointments failed to match his campaign rhetoric when it came to overseeing Wall Street more aggressively. Sanders, by contrast, has said on the campaign trail (including right here in Las Vegas) that he will not make the same mistake. He vows to fashion the coalition of supporters who are sending him money and cheering at his rallies into a massive pressure group to motivate Congress into passing his priorities.

Author and historian Nancy L. Cohen objected to Scheer’s characterization of Clinton as firmly entrenched in the “establishment,” which has become a campaign trail pejorative on the Democratic side of the nomination fight. The Democratic establishment, Cohen pointed out, is home to all of the country’s progressives, and being a part of it isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But Scheer refused to yield, saying that while women and minorities may be in the establishment, they betray their constituencies by failing to stand up for things such as Wall Street reform.

Undeterred, Cohen pressed ahead to say Clinton was also running on a progressive political platform, “a different progressive platform than Sanders.” Clinton has said repeatedly that she can be counted upon to police Wall Street to ensure the greed and fraud that led to the 2008 financial collapse isn’t repeated, and even boasted that her plan is more comprehensive than Sanders’ ideas.

But Scheer, the liberal skeptic, isn’t buying it. Elect Clinton, he said, and you will have more of the same, while Sanders (whom Scheer says is “really not every radical”) will continually push issues related to income inequality and economic justice to the fore.

“They [the establishment] just don’t give a damn about it,” Scheer said. “In the choice between Margaret Thatcher and Bernie Sanders, I’ll take Bernie Sanders any day of the week.”

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and co-host of the show “PoliticsNOW,” airing at 5:30 p.m. Sundays on 8NewsNow. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at 702-387-5276 or SSebelius@reviewjournal.com.