For undecided voters and Clinton supporters: The pragmatic case for Bernie Sanders

Why I support Bernie Sanders

Dispelling a myth: Bernie, the Pragmatic Idealist

Let me begin by addressing what are, perhaps, the diverging principles which allegedly most divide Clinton’s supporters and Sanders’ advocates: Idealism and pragmatism. Sanders is most commonly held as an idealist, his goals noble but impossible to achieve.

I’d like to dispel that notion. While Sanders is, I believe, a man guided by his principles, a simple look at his record tells us that he is fiercely pragmatic in the fight for their realization. As mayor of Burlington, Sanders revitalized the town, the largest in the state of Vermont, and now the first American city of considerable size to run entirely on renewable electricity. He worked with local businesses to stimulate the town’s economy, created a climate beneficial to small businesses and start-ups, funded programs to help female entrepreneurs get their start, secured permanently affordable housing for the working class, and boosted resident participation in local politics — among many other accomplishments. Though Sanders collaborated extensively with the business class and politicians from every faction in developing the town’s economy and infrastructure, he only championed measures that were beneficial to the general population, and opposed those that weren’t. The impact of his policies is still felt today; and Burlington is now a thriving city with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country — benefits which the residents credit Sanders for (Read, for instance: What Kind of Mayor was Sanders? and As Vermont Official, Sanders ‘got things done’).

During his 25 years as a Congressman in both chambers (16 years in the House of Representatives, 9 years in the Senate), he passed more roll call amendments to laws than anyone else (despite Republican majority in Congress) for which he earned the nickname of “Amendment King”; not to mention 2014’s greatly consequential VA bill, which he sponsored, and on which he worked with Republican Senator and 2008 Presidential Candidate John McCain, being compelled to compromise on a number of points in order to get the bill passed.

All these achievements would have demanded, by their very nature, an ability to negotiate and a willingness to compromise when necessary; abilities which Sanders is often accused of not having. Those accusations are, according to the record, unfounded. Clinton is pragmatic and experienced, of course - but so is Sanders (we’ll look at whether that experience is good or bad in a bit; both records have faults).

Sanders’ “pie-in-the-sky” proposals

But then, we have his current proposals. They are, by all accounts, ambitious; by some, unfeasible. For every pundit that dismisses them as impossible, however, I can point you to another that writes the very opposite (these two links point to articles about Sanders’ healthcare plan, with completely opposing conclusions; here’s a more even assessment of the matter).

Given this, the important question to consider is: As regular voters, with no firm grasp on the intricacies of some of these issues — for most of us are not economists or policy experts, and have no way to properly scrutinize the data upon which pundits make their predictions and base their opinions — who do we listen to, and how do we make a decision on whom to vote?

My answer would be: We have to listen to all credible sources; check the details on all candidates’ proposals to the best of our ability; consider the arguments of supporters on both sides; read up on the press, mainstream and especially independent; and, most importantly, determine the facts in all related matters by any possible means, and reduce the influence of bias as much as possible. After that (unless all doubts are dispelled at this point, which should be unlikely) consider the principle of the proposal’s feasibility: In principle, is it possible?

(Of course, before all these considerations, we must ask ourselves whether the proposals should be carried out at all: which is why I reject Trump as a candidate, and couldn’t care less about the feasibility of what he proposes).

Let’s take Sanders’ single-payer healthcare plan. I’ve read the opinions of equally reputable experts on the matter and plenty of different conclusions between them (see the links above, for example). In an effort to bring all these expert opinions to some sort of consensus, my own estimation is that Sanders’ proposal is feasible, realistic — but optimistic. Let’s look further now, into the principles behind whether it can and should be done; which are, perhaps, what the regular voter can most exactly determine after a research that yields disparaging results.

First, the essential question: Should it be done? I think most of us would agree that healthcare ought to be a right and not a privilege, that everyone ought to have adequate access to medical services.

But in principle, can it be done?

Consider the following: The United States has the world’s largest economy. However, among “developed countries” (by which I mean the E.U. countries, Australia, and a few others), it is one of the very few that doesn’t guarantee healthcare to its citizens; on average, it also spends about twice as much per capita on healthcare as comparable nations, with much worse results.

Just by considering this data (which no one disputes, as far as I can see) you can determine that the system is profoundly flawed; and that it can be fixed, since other countries are doing much better on the matter. The situation is as such not because of some law of nature. Decisions were made, which made things as they stand. The trick is to revert these decisions, and make right ones in their stead; which is going along a course with many obstacles, that I cannot however see how they are impossible to surmise.

We have the means, the power to do it — How is it not possible?

Bernie the Incrementalist

This is not to say that Sanders is sure to reach the full realization of his plans. No one is. To my knowledge, there hasn’t yet been a politician able to fulfill all campaign plans or promises.

But that also doesn’t mean that he won’t accomplish anything. I support Sanders not because he is bound to fulfill all his plans, but because I believe that he would end up close to the achievement of his goals, going much farther altogether than Clinton would in the full realization of hers, which are more timid in general (I’m referring to the policies in which their goals more or less align, but the approaches different).

Sanders would be forced by the current system to be an incrementalist (even as he will work to change parts of that system), which, as the former Mayor of Burlington and the “Amendment King” of Congress, he was, has been, and has the full capacity to be in the future. I also believe that the increments of progress would be larger and more consequential than Clinton’s.

I think of it in the following terms: If a street merchant, willing to bargain, sets the initial price for an item at $500, he might end up selling it at $300 after negotiation. However, if the merchant were to set the same item at $300, the final price would perhaps be $200 after bargaining; the merchant would get less.

Bold ambitions yield big results.

Fundamental considerations for supporting any candidate, in any election

One last point related to the idea of principle - And I am going to incur in the danger of alienating the reader here, but please bear with me, as the following is, in my view, one of the most important considerations when voting, and is applicable to all elections: Proposals are important, but in my opinion not nearly as much as is usually assumed.

What really matters is, on the one hand, the spirit of the plans; and on the other, the candidate’s record. In other words, what is most important is what the candidate has done/where he has taken his or her constituents, and what the candidate wants to do/the direction he or she wants us to head toward.

My support for Sanders over Clinton is firmly based upon these consideration: His record is, in my opinion, better than Clinton’s, though not without its flaws. I also believe the direction he wants to take this country (and consequently, the world) toward, is better for our collective future.

Moreover, I am much more confident about Sanders’ willingness to follow the direction he proposes; whereas with Clinton, because she changes her positions a concerning number of times (not as often as some of Bernie’s supporters make it out, but Clinton’s shifts of opinion can be observed in a number of cases, and are seemingly based upon political expediency) I am not completely sure what she wants, what she will do.

One last point about why I support Sanders, before I move on to discussing the reasons why I am not supporting Clinton in the Primaries. It is about the very idea of democracy, and how it is in risk at current.

At stake: Democracy

A quick prelude about what Democracy is, what it means, and why it is regressing in this country, before I get back to the primaries and how they relate to it:

“Democracy”, from the Greek word demokratia, is a junction of two words: Demos, meaning “people”, and Kratos, meaning “power” or “to rule”. It can be roughly translated as “rule of the people”. Democracy is a system in which the majority of the population has a heavy bearing on decisions, and those decisions are made for the benefit of the general populace.

In the United States we have a form of Democracy called Representative Democracy. The population elects officials to represent them in government, to act on their behalf. It is a limited form of democracy, but, as most argue (correctly, in my opinion), it is the only effective way to govern in a mass society.

Either way, in a democratic system, the people and the common interest ought to have a heavy bearing in decision-making. That is not what we see in the United States today.

A study conducted by two political scientists at Princeton concluded that the average citizen has no discernable influence on government policy, and that decision-making is only marginally affected by public opinion. To quote,

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

What this means is that the bulk of power rests in the hands of the business elite and multinational corporations. The decisions made by politicians are influenced by the lobbying efforts and campaign contributions of the wealthiest of the wealthy — and not by the will of the politician’s constituents.

We know for a fact that these decisions have benefitted one group to the detriment of the other, as wealth inequality has soared during the last 30 years. The rich keep getting richer and gaining more power to influence policy; policy which, in turn, helps them get richer and more powerful.

The poor just keep getting poorer.

We also feel it instinctively; we barely need the data to know. The fact that so many are so angry against the establishment this year is a reaction against these policies. We know that the top 1% holds almost all the power, and the bottom 99% hold almost none — hardly a “rule of the people”.

Here’s where Sanders and Clinton come in.

Why I support Bernie Sanders: Conclusion

One of the most fundamental reasons for my supporting one candidate over the other is this: I believe that Bernie Sanders will mostly act in the interests of the general population; that he will champion and enact policies which benefit the poor and the middle-class as well as the economically marginalized and the institutionally oppressed, and which will guarantee basic rights to the population, which is the government’s job to ensure — healthcare, education, freedom to vote.

Moreover, I believe that he will listen to the common folk and do his utmost to do away with the influence of moneyed interests in government.

I believe this for a very simple reason: The way Bernie Sanders is conducting his campaign. This is often repeated, but the importance of it bears stressing — The man is financing his entire campaign with small donations, averaging $27 a piece. This is absolutely unprecedented.

The importance of this could be further summarized as such: He will listen to the general population, because the general population are literally paying to get him to power. He doesn’t need moneyed interests; he owes them nothing.

Which brings me to Hillary Clinton.

Why I do not support Hillary Clinton

The reasons for my not supporting Clinton are multifold. In this article, I will cover the topics that are most concerning to me: Influence of big money, and Clinton’s record on climate disruption and foreign policy.

Lobbying influence in power circles

Contrary to Bernie Sanders, I believe that Hillary Clinton will mostly act in the interests of an opulent minority. Her record as a politician indicates as much.

While Hillary is a social liberal, having a life-long record of fighting for women’s rights (for which she deserves much praise) and has gradually come to the right side of History in the question of civil liberties (though she took her time to support gay marriage, seemingly changing her opinion when it was politically smart to do so, and — albeit it was a long time ago — she was a staunch supporter of Barry Goldwater, who opposed the civil rights movement, when he ran for President in the 60s), Clinton has generally been what some call “financially conservative”, being generally weak on denouncing corporate interests when needed — often to the detriment of the population.

Contrary to Sanders, Clinton receives much of her campaign funds from Super PACs; much of it coming from the financial sector, and a disturbing amount from lobbyists associated to fossil fuel companies.

I am not saying that Hillary is corrupt and deep in the pocket of corporations. However, you have to consider what these corporations are getting by supporting her: They are getting access. They are getting the privilege of being there. And this has an influence; we can argue about what that influence translates into, but the fact that lobbying influences policy and the politicians who enact it is undeniable (why else would organizations invest billions of dollars on it?).

But let’s, indeed, argue about what that influence translates into. Clinton stated,

“You will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that I ever received”.

And Clinton is right, as far as I know. I don’t think that she changes her positions based on the influence of contributions; but I do think she dilutes them.

Let’s look at her reaction to Wall St.’s reckless behavior, which culminated in the crash of ’08. She was the junior Senator from New York during that time. Clinton had the following to say about it:

I represented Wall Street as a senator from New York, and I went to Wall Street in December of 2007 — before the big crash that we had — and I basically said, ‘Cut it out! Quit foreclosing on homes! Quit engaging in these kinds of speculative behaviors.

The discourse wasn’t as aggressive as Clinton claims, but that’s beside the point for now. Let’s compare her stance on this matter with her reactions to other issues and crises. Consider her known hawkish tendencies on foreign policy and her tough stance on crime in the 90s; her response to Wall St. recklessness, in comparison, is weak, amounting to no more than a slap on the wrist. Her position was diluted.

Since the 2008 crisis, only one person was put in jail for its bringing about, even though it was well established that many of the activities that caused it were criminal. Punishments allotted were limited to a few million-dollar fines, which, however, amount to mere change to the multi-millionaires that were penalized. The political class in general, like Clinton in particular, let the financial sector get away with it easy: with a mere slap on the wrist.

The problem here is, not what Clinton did — but what she didn’t do. Couldn’t she and her colleagues have done more to prevent or mitigate the crisis, and punish those responsible after the fact?

We just went over what Hillary Clinton didn’t do, but perhaps could have done. I want to now go over what she did do — her record, and her experience.

But first, I hope you’ll forgive me for going on a little detour. I want to reflect on how much experience, in itself, really matters.

Political experience & how little it means on its own

One of the most invoked arguments for Clinton is that she is an experienced politician. There is no doubt about that — Clinton served 4 years as Secretary of State in the White House, 8 years as a Congresswoman in the Senate, and 19 years as First Lady of Arkansas and the U.S., from which position she undoubtedly learned a lot about the role she is now fighting to attain.

But we must recognize how little we are saying when we say that Clinton is experienced; how little it means on its own. Consider: Nelson Mandela was an experienced politician — but so was Adolf Hitler.

So experience, on its own, means close to nothing. Instead of considering experience as inherently valuable, we must instead inspect what was done during those years of experience, what right calls were made and what mistakes were made, and whether the candidate learned from these mistakes.

Let’s do just that, and see how Hillary Clinton handled the two issues which personally concern me the most: Climate disruption and foreign policy (specifically in matters of war and peace).

Hillary and Climate Disruption

Climate disruption is the most pressing issue of our time: The survival of our species literally hinges on our ability to reverse its effects.

The path forward is clear: We must drastically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and invest strongly in renewable energies. Though the solution is well known and easily expressed, it is hard to execute, for many obstacles stand in the way. But though the difficulties are numerous, and there may be some unfortunate consequences to the actions that need to be taken, all these pale in comparison with the tremendous stakes at hand. We must act swiftly and aggressively on this matter — a general approach which Senator Sanders advocates.

Unfortunately, the current administration hasn’t been as strong as it could be on the issue. The goals that were agreed upon in the Paris conference last year came well short of what’s needed, scientists say, and the Obama White House has been too willing to make compromises, granting Shell rights for oil extraction off the coast of Alaska, for instance.

Hillary Clinton was a particularly weak link in this administration. As Secretary of State, she advocated fracking around the word, defending the practice as clean fossil fuel extraction, even though its effects are little better or as noxious to the environment as those of other fossil fuels, being particularly devastating to local communities.

For instance, one the effects of fracking is contaminated water. Everyone saw the deplorable situation in Flint, Michigan, and everyone was outraged — and rightfully so; the situation here is similar.

Clinton is not a climate change denier, of course. At the same time, that should mean nothing on its own; if the standards for decency weren’t so skewed by the madness of the Republican party, it would mean nothing. Not being a climate change denier ought to be a given.

The standards for sensible policy as they are, Clinton’s positions are not terrible — But they’re not what we need, by any measure.

Here’s a pretty good and even summary of her stances and overall record on climate change: 8 things you need to know about Hillary and climate change. Please resist the temptation to look only at what’s favorable in that list.

Consider the stakes. We cannot compromise on the future of our species.

Hillary and Foreign Policy

Finally, let’s take a look at foreign policy, which was Clinton’s main responsibility as Secretary of State. Specially, I want to look into matters of war and peace, and cover two examples which particularly concern me.

Libya

The Iraq War vote (which Clinton made as Congresswoman) is often cited. We all know that it was a mistake, so there’s no point discussing it further.

But did Clinton learn from that mistake? Let us consider Libya, now ISIS’ main stronghold outside of Iraq/Syria, and how it got to be so. In 2011, the U.S, England and France bombed the region in support of the rebels fighting long-time ruler Muammar el-Qaddafi. The initial bombing was defended as an effort to prevent Qaddafi’s forces from slaughtering civilians, but the U.S. further escalated the situation afterwards by seemingly channeling arms to rebels, as well as by ignoring appeals for negotiation and Qaddafi’s willingness to renounce power peacefully (this willingness might have not been sincere, and the negotiations might have not amounted to anything; but we’ll never know, because those solutions weren’t tried).

Qaddafi was eventually killed by the rebels, causing a vacuum of power that was filled by militias of various factions — including, eventually, ISIS — and plunging the country into a state of chaos. Much like in Iraq, there was no contingency plan; no thought for what would happen the day after Gaddafi was deposed; and consequently, an apparent lack of care for the local population. The main, fierce champion of this conduct — fighting most everybody else’s instincts, including the President’s — was Hillary Clinton.

Honduras

Let’s look at another grave example, one which is barely talked about — The situation in the Honduras. In 2009, President Manuel Zelaya was ousted from office in a coup, his house raided by the military in the middle of the night. The man was forced out in his pajamas and flown out of the country; after which “democratic” elections were held, in which all major international election observers refused to participate.

The whole world was almost unanimous in condemning the act as a military coup — I say “almost” because the U.S. was an exception. The Obama administration, with Hillary Clinton as its Secretary of State, refused to call the event a “military coup”, as that would legally force the U.S. to suspend financial aid to Honduras. Clinton defended the decision on the argument that cutting aid would help aggravate the situation. Clinton further expands upon the subject in her book “Hard Choices”, in which she describes how she helped rush new elections along:

We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot and give the Honduran people a chance to choose their own future

This passage, and the whole section dedicated to the issue of the Honduras, was since deleted from the paperback version of the book.

Since Selaya was deposed, multinational corporations have been able to set a firmer grounding in the country, exploiting its rich resources — cases include the construction of the Agua Zarca dam on the Gualcarque river, sacred to the Lenca, the land’s indigenous folk; the protest against which led to the savage murder of renowned environmental activist Berta Caceres, who had singled Hillary Clinton out as one of the culprits for the current situation in her country. In addition, incidents of violence and murder skyrocketed since the coup.

The widespread violence in the Honduras is one of the main causes for the mass migration of its population, especially of children, the majority of which showed up in our southern border — triggering a crisis which was made particularly visible in 2014.

These are kids who fled because they fear for their lives. They are children afflicted for no fault of their own —hurting because of an accident of birth, and the intentional conduct of powerful people. They are children suffering the sort of horrors no human being should ever experience — and Clinton had a direct hand in it.

Yet, when these kids showed up at our border, asking for asylum — for they really should be treated as refugees — what was Clinton’s response?

We have to send a clear message. Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay.

This is monstrous to me. It afflicts me to no end, especially coming from someone who champions the rights of women (many of whom are subject to sexual abuse and slavery on the trail from Central America) and children.

My friend — doesn’t that make you angry? Is this the woman you want as president of your country, as ruler of the free world?

Conclusion

To conclude, rather than summarizing what I already wrote, I will list three things that I did not write. I did not write:

• That Sanders is perfect: Far from it — and we should heavily criticize him for his mistakes. Among other things, his decision to vote for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which imposed heavy sanctions on Iraq and resulted in the impoverishment and starvation of the local population, is absolutely reproachable. I also wish he was a much stronger advocate of gun control — a subject in which I prefer Clinton’s stance, though Sanders is not even close to being the extremist some label him as, and actually not as far from Clinton’s position as is portrayed.
• That Sanders will solve everything: Electing Sanders would just be the beginning of the change that needs to happen in this country. We need to go beyond the Presidential election and vote for worthy candidates, adamant about fighting for the interests of the population, in all political positions, from the local to the federal; we must vote in every election.
• That I prefer Trump to Clinton: I do not in any way subscribe to the principles held by the Bernie or Bust crowd. Clinton is, despite her serious flaws, an experienced stateswoman with some qualities I admire — and would be the clear choice, if the alternative is a racist demagogue who says that Mexicans are criminals and rapists.

Though I did not say that Sanders is perfect, I hope I made a compelling enough argument for why he is the right choice in this election. We must be forceful in our efforts against climate change, act to reverse the profound injustice that is wealth inequality in this country, and stop the meddling in the affairs of other nations that has been the foreign policy default of this country for so long. One candidate will put us on that course. The other will not.

You will have an important choice to make on June 7th. I urge you to choose Bernie Sanders.