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 need such forerunners — so that we get used to the diversity that we experience in our society being reflected in our leaders. That's progress, even when such leadership is lacking in progressive policies.
In a sort of defence of Clinton, it could be argued that leaders who are members of a marginalised group have a need to cling to sources of power within their reach — as compensation for whatever attributes set them at a disadvantage from the outset.
Of course, it's difficult for any progressive to get into power without aligning with powerful groups, whether they be politics-based, class-based, culture-based or gender-based. And Clinton is already disqualified from a club with arguably the most stubborn membership of all — the 'boys club'.
In the wake of President Obama's double-term which broke the 220-year tradition of white male leaders in the US, the installation of another white male president may not feel like progress to all progressives. We're finally in an era where the power, not just the money that comes with it, can be spread around into the hands of traditionally marginalised groups.
Such symbolic leadership is aspirational, reflecting not where we're up to but where we'd like to be.
These are all steps in what can seem an interminably long journey. We may be in an era where the general public can go so far as to accept a different leader — with a different skin colour or set of reproductive organs — but that 'pass' is given on the condition that other things remain unchanged, as we are carried over vast cultural and gender divides.
Perhaps, for a while, the public's trust for these leaders will tenuously depend on them sticking more or less to 'the script'.
All else aside, Clinton becoming president would symbolise a change that no well-intentioned male president could achieve. The difficult-to-swallow reality is that she may need to sing to the tune of 'business as usual' in order to get there.
'President Hillary Clinton' would change the world for many people, with or without the Senate's endorsement; with or without successfully changing any US laws. For women, it would be progress — whether it comes in a form that Sanders legitimises or not.
Megan Graham is a Melbourne based writer.