“The modern Democratic Party is not the party of progressivism.”

This is a sentiment I have heard for the last few months reflecting the current race for the Democratic nomination between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. To Sanders’s supporters, the Democratic Party is anything but. Accusations of voter rights being violated, calls for prominent Democrats like Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign, and claims of a “rigged political system” have marred the party that is supposed to be the embodiment of fair and inclusive democratic process. What is even more damning is the claim that Democrats represent the Left in name only, with Clinton being referred to as more of a moderate Republican than a Democrat. To the modern left, it takes more than just party membership to earn a vote, it takes principle.

Principle it seems, is something Sanders supporters do not think Clinton has. Clinton has constantly been accused of flip-flopping on many key issues like LGTBQ rights and universal health care, and has been taken to task for her controversial support of the Transatlantic Trade Partnership and NATO. Clinton’s record on gun control has even been called into question, an issue she has championed for the majority of her political career. To the modern leftist, Hillary Clinton is not one of the gang. She is the embodiment of the hawkish uncaring capitalist, the shining beacon of neoliberalism, ready to continue America’s longstanding imperialist traditions. She is unwilling to deconstruct the issues of society relating to capitalism, transphobia and homophobia, racism and xenophobia, and sexism, and is therefore an unfit Democrat. The modern “Democrat” does not want the “status quo” that Hillary promises, they want legitimate change coming from a set of far-left policies. While Hillary may be the face of the Democratic Party, she is not the face of the left.

Enter Bernie Sanders: A populist radical willing to make the dramatic changes desired by the new left. He is a man who has openly discussed the government’s role in reparation to families who have had relatives who were slaves, visits Native American reservations to apologize for our history of abuse, and speaks freely on that dangerous word: SOCIALISM. Comrade Sanders is someone the left can get behind because of his principles, and it is Sanders who has truly shown the disconnection between constituents and their parties. It was not too long ago that Democratic Senator Louise Slaughter joined many other Democrats in signing anti-refugee legislation in Congress, something she was criticized heavily for. If the Democrats were supposed to be the party of anti-racism and anti-xenophobia, why were they feeding into the same fears the other side was? Moments like these and the Sanders campaign have highlighted how parties are often detrimental to the core principles of their movements.

And so, the modern Left finds itself between a rock and a hard place. The rock of course, is their perception of Hillary Clinton. Voting for Clinton is not an option for many who feel that her “liberal” ideals will be detrimental to the people she has promised to assist. The hard place, however, is Donald Trump. If Clinton is a bruised apple, Trump is a festering orange left out in the Florida sun too long. A Trump presidency to the modern left would be disastrous, the rise of a far-right populist reflecting the many xenophobic movements and leaders emerging throughout the Western World. In order to defeat Trump however, the modern left and Sanders supporters (as the two are not the same) will have to cuddle up to Clinton, as the party has made it clear that Sanders will not lead the charge. This dilemma becomes one of principle: Does the modern “Democrat” vote for the candidate they believe in on a third party ticket, possibly costing the US a Trump Presidency, or do they vote for a toxic status quo that is disguised as “Progressive?” Indeed, the Democratic Party often holds Trump up like a ticking time bomb at the dinner table, begging you to eat your vegetables or else.

There are arguments for and against both sides. On one hand, is voting for Clinton the proper thing to do for Black Lives? On the other hand, is Trump better? Is a Clinton Presidency better because of the perceived limited damage to progressivism that her term would cause in comparison to Trump? While we’re at it, does the fact that Clinton is miles more left than Trump actually matter, or is it more of a threshold that neither have passed? What if a 3^rd party could get enough support to actually win, can the progressive vote in good conscience for them, knowing that a 3^rd party split would most likely spell a very orange 4 years? Does voting for Clinton in order to combat the specter of Trump strip you of your progressive label, or does it mean you are willing to ensure that the seeds of a new progressive movement within or outside the Democratic Party can grow on stable ground? Is “buying our time” something the oppressed can do? With limited options, difficult choices, and moral extremes, the modern progressive is faced with the harsh reality of a 2-party system, and becomes a part of the process of losing the idealism of youth. A vote against Trump becomes something that is without celebration for the left, and Sanders, the man who should be the “true face” of a socially progressive Democratic Party is stomped into the dust by a perceived conservative.

Besides nothing short of a miracle, the modern progressive will probably check the Clinton box with a long sigh come November, wondering where it all went wrong. They will soon realize the long fall of the Democratic Party from the Progressivism of yesteryear, and perhaps be rejuvenated in another fight for a party that represents their interests. For now however, there will be anger and confusion, and there will be the Democratic Party.

And so it goes.