Bernie’s road paved with good intentions

With Trump effectively sealing the Republican presidential nomination in Indiana, it seems there is no better time to deal with the problem of Sanders. I say problem, not because of what Senator Sanders stands for, he is highly praiseworthy, but rather because of the consequences of his presidency and his platforms were he to be elected . I’ve grappled with the Sanders campaign for months in an attempt to reconcile the rhetoric with the reality on the ground, the promise with what can be achieved with the limitations of the world we live in. I tried (and as dispassionately as one can about such a thing I feel), through countless consultations and discussions with some of his followers, my friends and colleagues and analysis of his speeches and policies to achieve this reconciliation and #feelthebern; but having failed , I pivoted to explain why. This has been difficult for the simple reason that I like Bernie Sanders, I like what he stands for and I like the fact that in a political system that has lost its way he stands shouting from the rooftops pointing out its numerous shortcomings. I like that he has been doing that even when the positions he held were contrary to the values of the very voters he professed to represent. He is principled, he is an ideologue. That is great, even more so in a system that sways with the prevailing winds of money, vested interests and a fickle public. He is unchanging, unmoving. And that there is the problem.

Clinton has overwhelmingly won more votes than Sanders among racial minorities and low-income voters. Not only is Clinton winning the popular vote, she is doing so in the fairest way possible: with a coalition of voters that’s as diverse as the United States.” (John Stoeher: Clinton is beating Sanders )

In a democratic society of any kind, American style capitalist democracy or social democracy or whatever, the chief underlying principle is that of the recognition of multiplicity of views and desires guided by the majority consensus whilst still catering to/acknowledging those in the minority. The machinations of such a system revolve around notions of compromise and consensus building. Something that Sanders (and the now bye-bye Cruz) seem to fail to grasp. Senator Sanders speaks of a revolution, but the question is a revolution by who and for who? A quick analysis of Sanders’ voters compared to Hillary’s highlights that “Clinton earned her delegates with a coalition representative of the demographic changes taking place in the United States. While it is true that Sanders attracted more young voters, and people who normally don’t vote, this alone cannot substantiate the claim that his coalition is the future of the Democratic party. Indeed, if that were the case, then the party’s future is whiter, more affluent and upwardly-mobile than the multiracial coalition it seeks to serve. Clinton has overwhelmingly won more votes than Sanders among racial minorities and low-income voters. Not only is Clinton winning the popular vote, she is doing so in the fairest way possible: with a coalition of voters that’s as diverse as the United States.” (John Stoeher: Clinton is beating Sanders ) So again, whose revolution and for who? Furthermore, ‘political revolution’ does not necessarily mean it is by the majority for the majority. It simply means that it is an overthrow of the establishment. The question after is, what is it being replaced by? And this needs an answer, a detailed one at that because when you remove a system you must have a new system ready as a replacement lest you leave a vacuum for all manner of manipulation and effects to manifest.

Speaking of answers, Senator Sanders is seemingly devoid of them. During the lead up to the New York Primary in an interview with the New York Daily News that has been widely panned he was found wanting; grasping at straws and obfuscating on his signature issue — the breaking of big banks. Ever since he announced his candidature for the Presidency Sen. Sanders has railed against the actions of the banks, which he has called criminal, the lack of prosecution of executives, and the need to break up too-big-too-fail banks. Yet when pressed on details, he had nothing, zip, zilch, zero, nada, blank .

It is a worrisome trend of Sanders and other like-minded progressives whose mantra seems to be ‘elect us and we will figure it out once we are there’ which does a lot of harm to the progressive cause. (I can throw parallels with other recently elected left leaning governments or movements — Podemos of Spain, Syriza of Greece etc.)

But it doesn’t end there. Sanders would like to introduce a single-payer health care system (British/Canadian/German/French? not sure which because he hasn’t said) and make University Education free. Now, you won’t find a single progressive who will argue that those are not admirable goals and many conservatives too, I might add. But we all must ask the question, how are you paying for it? Bernie answers, a 10% one-off surtax on the big corps and increased taxes for the wealthy whilst simultaneously removing premiums/taxes regarding health and insurance for the poor. Sounds great but the math doesn’t add up. It doesn’t even come close. He can’t fund one program, let alone two. This is a simple test which has been failed not just by Bernie but by pretty much every populist left-leaning government that’s got into power the World over. Ask the Zimbabweans, the Venezuelans, the Cubans, the Argentinians, etc. If you can’t answer that question, you’re simply leading your country into a series of deficits and a downward spiral that’s going to not only hurt but negate all the positive effects of your policies. But we have a revolution!

The funny thing is, if he took a page out of Trump’s ‘America First’ playbook he might be on his way to plugging some of those deficits. It’s an odd thing agreeing with something Trump has said, but a broken clock and all that, for his ‘America First’ outlook makes a few solid points. The US currently funds over 70% of NATO’s budget with only Estonia and the US meeting the funding requirements . That expenditure and the proposed $10 billion per year Israeli defence deal could have been contributing funding to Sen. Sanders’ programs. However, being a world leader has costs and so does continuing to be a world leader. Do you wish to compromise your position globally and your allies to rectify domestic issues? Let’s consider those self-same countries that Bernie looks for inspiration (Denmark, Norway etc.) for their welfare programs. They have the US in essence subsidise their defence costs through NATO, freeing them to pay for domestic programs and whatever else. Barring the massive cultural differences that make such a transplant impossible in any case as Hillary quipped “We are not Denmark”; to achieve what he wishes Bernie has to realise he has to change America completely, but not just America; but because of America’s socio-economic position in the world he has to reform the global world order. He cannot act as if America is in isolation which so far he has. As Zachary Levin pointed out “Problem solving requires an honest, accurate understanding of reality and the challenges you face. And Sanders shows no interest whatsoever in acknowledging the complicated nature of our country”. Trump has so far shown a greater understanding of this which is worrying as he has also been championing a bunch of crazy ideas — more nuclear countries anyone?

Going back to Bernie the ideologue and the revolution. It was no off the cuff remark that I made several weeks ago in an assessment of the Republican race when I made a comparison between the Donald and Bernie. They really are born from the same problem, mutually dependent and mutually destructive. Change, true change, is gradual. Wholesale changes meet great opposition; a revolution after all is violent by nature. As it is Obamacare is being challenged aggressively and Bernie wishes to double down and expand it. lol . You Look at the blowback to LBGT rights since the Supreme Court ruling and Roe vs. Wade was made in 1973 and we are still fighting over it. Heck, Bernie says he has been campaigning for LBGT rights since the 70s and that he is a man of the people. In the 70s the people would have told him to jump off a cliff regarding gay marriage. In essence, at times you might be right but you can’t force people (if you’re a man of people) to listen and follow you — you have to wait for them to catch up (or aggressively re-educate). You govern the environment you have now not the one you wish it to be, you lead them towards your end goal but you let them dictate the pace. Any faster and they will fight you unless of course democracy isn’t your cup of tea. This is what Clinton understands and Bernie does not. Looking at comparisons of both Clinton and Sanders positions during this campaign, you see the same ideological underpinnings, but the difference is that Clinton says “slowly, slowly” based on the reality on the ground and that you don’t only govern for the people who think like you and support you but also everyone else who doesn’t. And Sanders who wants it all today and ignores the need to govern for all. As Levin put it “As rightly intentioned as Bernie Sanders might be, his presidency could cause near fatal damage to the progressive cause. Should he bumble his way through Washington with nothing but rhetoric, fantasies, unworkable plans, and impossible promises, he could make a pathetic joke of everything we’re fighting for. The idea of democratic socialism will be solidified in the American consciousness as unworkable and foolish.”

Clinton is flawed, make no mistake about that, but she is by far a better candidate to lead a democracy of the nature of the United States. She might be ideologically left leaning but she understands that compromise is the very essence of governing and diplomacy. There are times when principles mean you cannot budge but there are many more others that for the greater good can wait for another moment. She understands that time favours the left and the inexorable march of time means even those that she compromises today will come to pass tomorrow (or at least you fight the battle anew).

But it’s not just about compromise, it’s also about an ability to change when you’re wrong. Clinton, when shown the error of a position, has shown the ability to admit a wrong and change tack but Bernie, as an ideologue, will go down with a sinking ship. Case in point, the race is all but finished for Sanders yet he insists on running a campaign that not only weakens Hillary and the Democrats (he has hopes to lead) in the General Election but continues to peddle a platform that has clearly been rejected. When Hillary lost to Obama in ’07, she supported him without preconditions but Bernie has already set out a list of demands. Demands, because there is nothing else you can call them. We can argue about Sanders’ attitude to the Democratic Party and his disdain for its processes, his so far lack of fundraising for the Democrats election campaign and the hypocrisy of that , but that would miss the point. He is a man, who says he is a man of the people but refuses to acknowledge what the people have said and would rather screw their general election chances than gracefully accept loss and the rejection of his ideas. That alone makes him unworthy to lead.

8 years ago we were on a similar journey, a contest between two politicians, one young and fresh faced on the national scene and another already grizzled with 2 decades at least of frontline politics. At a time where things were bleak, one spoke of the hope and change we felt we needed. Today, the face is by no means young but just as fresh faced on the national scene, the world is even bleaker and whilst there is no talk of hope, there is talk of change, a revolution. And that makes a world of difference. Well intentioned Bernie may be but as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.