ISAAC CHOTINER I think in many ways Hillary Clinton is not an ideal candidate to bridge this gap, both because of her troubles speaking to white working-class voters and her closeness to our version of the City of London.

CHRIS HAYES: I also think that I would also say in a way that’s true for Barack Obama but even more so: She’s just a really dyed-in-the-wool institutionalist. That’s not an act. I think there are people who think that’s corrupt, that she’s this corrupt crony person that sits in the nexus of all the nefarious lattice work of elite quid pro quo. I don’t really buy that. I think structurally there’s part of that critique that’s true, just the fact that she has been so close to both the political and economic power in various ways over a long period of time. I think that just personally Hillary Clinton is a hardcore institutionalist who genuinely believes in institutions, believes it is important to make them work as well as possible, thinks that if you put the will and the time and the diligence into them you can make them work and deliver and make the world a better place. I think that is, in certain ways, a belief system that is somewhat out of touch with the moment.

CHOTINER: You mentioned knowing Bernie, and so I was wondering what you think his calculations are right now.

HAYES: I think they’re trying to figure out what to do and I think it’s a hard thing to figure out. People talk all the time about the Hillary and Barack race in 2008. With the exception of the war, which is important, there was not a huge substantive space between them. Not only was there not a huge substantive space, but they were both institutionalists, fundamentally. In this case you have an institutionalist in Hillary Clinton and a genuine insurrectionist in Bernie Sanders who genuinely comes by honestly to every cell of his being his insurrectionism. He thinks that these structures are corrupt, whether it’s the structure of the Democratic Party or the structure of American democracy as we plunge further into plutocracy. That’s not a shtick. That is a deeply help belief, one that is in many senses supported by a huge amount of evidence.

My discussion with David on this point begins at the 1:17 mark which I will recap here.

I question Hayes’ argument regarding institutionalist and insurrectionists. I especially quarrel with his argument that Sanders is a “genuine insurrectionist.” An insurrectionist doesn’t attempt to use institutions, he tries to overturn them. Thus when Sanders runs for the nomination of the institution known as the Democratic Party, he’s not being insurrectionist, he’s being in fact an institutionalist. When he runs to become the President of the United States, that’s not insurrectionism, that’s the height of institutionalism.

Republicans and Democrats are really poles apart on policy, in spite of if all the silly stuff you hear and read. And they grapple election after election to garner control of the institutions that are the vehicles for governing our country.

Consider the Texas pro choice decision issued by the Court yesterday. An institution, the Supreme Court, overturned the populist will of the people of Texas to restrict abortion rights. Here was an elite institution engaging in institutionalism at the expense of “insurrectionism” of a type. But we, Dems and liberals, applaud this decision. Hell, Bernie Sanders applauded it.

Winning the argument, winning the election, winning the control of the institutions of government is, by definition, not “insurrectionist.”

Now to be clear, I have no problem with the rhetoric — revolutionary, transformation, any other word of choice — is standard issue politics. But it is in fact, contra Hayes, a schtick. Like “change.”

Indeed, if you take your rhetoric too seriously, you reach a cul de sac if you don’t win control of the institutions. How can you gain wins, influence people and institutions if the “insurrection” fails?

This is in fact the conundrum Bernie Sanders faces now — how can he stand down from his “insurrection” to consolidate gains in the institutions he wishes to influence? If it is truly insurrection, then it is all or nothing. But if it is just political rhetoric, then you need to give your self a place to retreat. So if Sanders has sold what Hayes describes:

He thinks that these structures are corrupt, whether it’s the structure of the Democratic Party or the structure of American democracy as we plunge further into plutocracy. That’s not a shtick. That is a deeply help belief, one that is in many senses supported by a huge amount of evidence.

If Bernie believes this, then he has no where to land. But contra Hayes, there is in fact a “huge amount of evidence” that Bernie does NOT think that. He has held elective office for 36 years. He has been in Congress for 26 years. He has caucused with Democrats for all of these years. The insurrection sure was slow in coming from Sanders.

And there’s the point. To use the fiery rhetoric of revolution and insurrection is one thing. To actually believe that it is what you really, in its definitional sense, what you want, is an entirely different thing.

Will Bernie endorse? I don't know and I’m not sure it is an important question anymore. Will he actively work against the Democratic nominee and the Democratic Party? Now that is a real and significant question.

In any event, there is more detail in the discussion with David and I urge you to listen if you are interested in this topic.