A Berning Desire: Why My Super-Ego Keeps Telling my Id to Cool it on Senator Sanders

Everything I think I know about Bernie Sanders could easily be a lie. Every pounded fist, every finger wagged might be nothing more than a gossamer thread sewn into a lovingly crafted web of deceit. The marketing apparatus that envelopes today’s candidates — all of them — maintains a control of the branding process so tight as to make momentary lapses in on-message rhetoric newsworthy events. I know this, I acknowledge this, and I will proceed in my discussion with this disclaimer framing my thoughts.

That being said…

Relative to his political peers, Bernie Sanders is as pure as the driven snow.

For three decades he campaigned as an independent, judiciously avoiding the back-scratching monkey business that pollutes both sides of the aisle. His political career has been framed in opposition to greed, injustice, and corruption. Time and again, Bernie has demonstrated a willingness to be cast as a curmudgeon in defense of these values, suggeting he is neither a man who prioritizes expedience over ethics, nor a fickle friend with a wide bandwidth for compromise. He voted against the Iraq war — twice — and in 1991 stood alone in the house warning of the death and destruction such an invasion would unleash.

As far as I can damn near tell, Bernie is a dyed-in-the-wool, hard-nosed ideologue who, through sheer earnestness, has won some hard-fought provincial success.

Now, through a very specific confluence of variables (and another generous helping of rumpled earnestness and charming lack of guile) he’s on the national stage, poised to deliver a message more closely attuned to the signals emanating from the outraged, educated, young left than any other candidate in the field.

And yet…

If Bernie intends to live up to being the populist mouthpiece he styles himself to be in his campaign narrative, he will need a second phase in his crusade — one in which he acknowledges the very real distinction between structural racism and income inequality, and stops treating the former as though it’s nested in the latter.

By harping on the billionaire class, Bernie has disingenuously presented economic reforms — tax codes, campaign finance laws, universal healthcare, increased minimum wage — as a panacea for all our social ills. This is simply not true; class-based interventions do not level the playing field, for reasons like the Neighborhood Gap, wherein middle-income black families continue to reside in low-income areas with inadequate access to public services.

Have Cake. Eat It, Too.

Senator Sanders’ ongoing conflation of economic and social issues is what’s causing my super-ego — the voice of conscience in my head — to protest my id’s natural inclination to grab a couple sparklers, drink some champagne, and dance on the Bandwagon of The Bern.

If I ignore the fact that economic reforms are a somewhat counterfeit form of social justice currency, I risk sliding into some pretty slimy territory. Who is to say that for a young, white college graduate, the narrative of a rising tide lifting all boats is anything more than self-interest, beguilingly repackaged as a proletariat “wokeness” that claims interests aligned with those of the truly disenfranchised, but in the end bears fruit only for the progeny of the ruling class?

You can’t have your cake and eat it, too, I’m told. For white (and male) Bernie supporters, it feels like time to either admit that what we’re stoked on is policy rhetoric that directly benefits us, or start expressing some misgivings about how our frank and guileless champion is fudging the truth a bit here in service of casting a wider net of voter appeal. By keeping comparatively mum on “social justice” per se, Sanders is able to sell economic reforms as social ones t0 th0se on the left who desire it, while avoiding endorsement of reforms that explicitly benefit people of color and would risk alienating right-leaning democrats.

This is not a gambit we should tolerate. It needs to be acknowledged, and the Sanders campaign should make a decision to either carry the banner of racial justice forward with pride or concede that systemic racism comes second in their platform to making sure folks of a certain class (folks who will be white, mind you) get a fair shake.

Again, Sanders has never seemed like a opportunist, but if the dogged, principled, and non-duplicitious nature of his politics begins to fray, it becomes a moment for cautious reflection. Sanders strongest asset in the race against Clinton is that he is of and aligned with the people: where does he stand if his sterling integrity — 93% of Democratic Caucus-goers said they consider Bernie honest and trustworthy — drifts into pedestrian territory? It is his distance from the dissembling establishment that gives his special political sauce that tangy zip. Without it, he looks a lot more like a not-so-prolific senator with no foreign policy experience than the apostle of progressive American politics.

This is not the stance of a Good White Guy who’s so Good he can’t bear to see structural inequality, either. It’s more than that.

This issue is a referendum on Sanders’ conviction, and it speaks to his capacity and willingness to stake out embattled territory in all matters. As president he would face an uphill (nigh vertical) battle in the legislature, and if he truly wishes to be an agent of change he will need to demonstrate that “ethics over expediency” is more of a motto than a brand to him.

Yes, I believe Bernie cares about social justice. But if I’m going to extoll his virtues, he can’t be afraid to show it.

So, Senator Sanders, please elaborate a highly visible and substantial position on the corrosive influence of systemic racism as soon as possible. That way, I can be happy about what you have to offer me — without worrying that you and I are both misrepresenting our gain as the gain of Americans beset by injustices more insidious and entrenched than income inequality.

Thanks,

Nick