Not being a US citizen, I don't have a say in the Democratic nomination for the President of the United States. But as a member of the western world, I have a reasonable stake in who wins.
For a progressive voter in the US, and for anyone interested in culture and politics, the multifaceted dynamic between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton is a complex but important topic worthy of reflection.
Independent senator Sanders, who caucuses with the Democratic Party in the Senate, represents 'the establishment' in the sense that the party's leaders and benefactors are predominantly white men like himself. At the same time, he explicitly pits himself against their interests.
Competing against him for the Democratic nomination is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who symbolises progress through her potential to become the first female president, yet whose loyalty to the 'top end of town' (the banks and corporate giants) stymies progress in areas like economic inequality.
For any feminist, it's hard to view the installation of the first female president as anything but progressive. It's also hard to deny that, generally, Sanders' policies fall far to the left of Clinton's. For the Democratic Party's more progressive cohorts, the choice is not straightforward.
Despite espousing the kind of alleged socialist rhetoric of a level not seen in US politics in years, polls show that Sanders hasn't suffered much for it in his approval ratings. He has made bold statements agitating against the affluent Right, like this one in December:
'The wealthy and large corporations must pay their fair share. As president, I will stop corporations from shifting profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying taxes. I will tax Wall Street speculators who cost millions their jobs, homes, and life savings. I will tell the billionaire class: You can't have it all while kids in this country go hungry.'
Yet even if his views and rhetoric are radical, everything else about Sanders is so within our comfort zones that they become somewhat more palatable. This could be viewed as either a 'pro' or a 'con' for progressive voters — but it's worth considering the bigger picture of why it is the case.
A public person whose very appearance challenges the status quo of white male privilege — like Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama — will find it far harder to challenge the same in what they say and do.
But that's exactly why countries like Australia and the US