Bernie Missed His Ship of State

Thanks artist for making this cartoon grabbable. 

I said it at the beginning of the primary mud-wrestle and repeat it here now and then (since I have a talent for being ignored): if Bernie was true of heart about doing his campaign differently … breaking the model … rejecting the established patterns … he would have approached the operations and collaborative far more proactively as a demonstration of his philosophy.

He wouldn't even have had to change his one-tune speech to showcase how his revolutionary ideals could be brought to life -- particularly for a guy with little track record of implementing grandiose offerings. Instead, he used his offering spaces simply to stir anger and disrespect for all things status quo. A visionary for radical re-empowerment could just as easily have called upon entire fields of the artistry and science of advocacy and unrolled tactics that directly exemplify his supposed better ways and means -- something I fundamentally agree needs to happen.

EMPOWERology, as I've dubbed it, is my effort to begin formulating a discussion of just such a creative hybrid of the proven methods of science with the artistry of advocacy )or perhaps the other way around -- the art of sociology and the science of change?). Seen this way, tactical efforts and movers for transformative notions can move out of the laboratory and into the streets for social and political betterment.

But I wax philosophical. What does this mean in real campaign life?

It means that in looking at the vote-catching process, the Constitution doesn't require a certain way to win or which steps to take, other than its minimum personnel expounding of qualifications, and the implied requirement that the one person who garners the votes get the job.

Accordingly, it is perfectly legitimate for a draconian candidate like a Sanders, for example, to have said upfront with a positive tone: "Isn't it awesome, this force of Hillary’s? About how her experience has created a magnificent resource within the first exemplary female candidate?” Then, moving into an action phrase, he could add: “I would love to be the president who unleashes such magic as part of my executive and administrative intentions. She's better than I am on those fronts and as such I promise to you all to fill in the gaps she cannot reach. I think I'd be better in this regard by pairing her strengths with mine -- which center on the passions for really drastic and disruptive changes. My speeches are gonna show you how this will work."

Hillary, on the other hand, might then have been able to join the party of collaborative, affirmative support by saying things like, "This Bernie guy has truly lit a fire under the desires of our young and disaffected. That ability will be an undeniable addition to any presidency, and I would be honored to use his abilities as my right hand of progress.” Her commitment then becomes: “If he wants a great cabinet space, he has it. If he would prefer to be the engine behind implementing what I unleash from my bully pulpit -- maybe as an outside agitator! -- so be that. Either way: judge me on my special capacities to be America's first Madam President and I will nurture the best he and I share as members of the family of progress.”

Ok, silly, dramatic, obviously not conventional; absolutely idealistic. Sweetly affirming, nearly to the point of giving one a sugar rush.

But be that as it may, I offer it as a way of highlighting the way forward for the fired up populous Bernie has relentlessly attracted. It would have been a remarkable differentiation made all the better by a tsunami of fun, praise, and even entertaining winning for both sides.

In the end, one of them would have to take the title and perks. But they could add on a swearing commitment to even more. The Founding Fathers - undoubtedly with the frustration of the Founding Mothers who were probably left out of the conversations -- gave us no collaborative leadership mechanics of this nature. But the best minds ought to have been able to figure this out for themselves while being productively and pragmatically disruptive and without taking their eyes off of any prizes.

Neither Hillary or Bernie really needs the retirement package; nor do they probably care that much for some of the formal designations in the ancient history books that would go to the one who took the glory. Each, however, coulda shoulda woulda benefited without question from being that force for electoral improvement.

Hillary didn't try probably because she knows how to use the existing tools and tactics to her advantage, and it would mean a lot for a woman who we now know will win to give up that gender upgrade of our country’s commandership.

Bernie, on the other hand, would have benefitted enormously and not ended up scrounging to be noticed. Unfortunately, he decided instead to magnify the anger and fire up blame without engaging better ways to change. And in so doing, he missed the boat he could have captained.