Sanders and FDR: Hillary is more Roosevelt than Sanders. How can one say this? Hoover and the Republicans of the 1930s were all for trade protection laws that damaged this country immensely. The Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930, pushed through by Hoover, was a disaster for this country. While it was intended to protect American jobs and wages, our foreign trading partners retaliated and we sank into a greater economic depression. Trump and Sanders share this historically dangerous idea that trade tariffs will bring jobs back. Quite the opposite will happen and has happened in the past. Roosevelt was against trade tariffs in his run up to the 1932 election and you should be too.
Special interests: I find this the most bizarre argument of all. At the recent debate, Sanders couldn’t find one Hillary vote in which to prove his point that Clinton is financially drunk under the influence of Wall Street. However, Clinton pointed out that Sanders was/is under the influence of the NRA by voting against the Brady Bill five times. He also chuckled when Clinton brought up Sandy Hook. That didn’t play well for us liberals who take gun issues seriously.
Neo-liberalism: The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 and National Performance Review are hardly neo-liberalism ideas in this author’s version of the term this article puts forth. To be a neo-liberal, in the classic sense of that term of the 1930s, you believed in a modern economy with state intervention. In the 1970s and 80s, the term neoliberalism began to shift towards the opposite notion of just embracing laissez-faire capitalism. However, that’s not what Bill Clinton campaigned for in 1992. Frankly, he campaigned on just the opposite. << Mr. Clinton wants to pull the American economy in the direction of the managed capitalism found in Japan and Western Europe, where governments play a larger role than Washington in shaping industries and markets. And to achieve that transformation, he is offering a bundle of programs, from tax breaks for start-up businesses to a multibillion-dollar agency for commercial research and skills training for all American workers.>> Source: New York Times, April 18, 1992.
Glass-Steagal: Here is a messy topic. It’s not clear the partial repeal of Glass-Steagal had any effect on the crash of 2008. Many of the financial instruments that led to the destruction of the US economy were already present before the repeal of sections 20 and 32 of Glass-Steagal and wouldn’t have been affected if sections 20 and 32 stayed on the books. Plus, many securities firms had not taken advantage of the GLBA’s “financial holding company” powers. In doing so, the new law would have required the security firms to end affiliations with commercial firms by 2009. Plus they’d have to be watched over by the Feds. The debate on this topic is thick, and this article just glosses over it.
Hillary and Wal-Mart: Check this quote: << To be fair, there is some evidence that she managed to make small headway with improving women’s roles within the Wal-Mart organization and advocating for some environmentally-friendly practices, but neither of these issues threatened Wal-Mart’s wallet. >> Of all the statements in this opinion piece, this is the what us Hillary supporters abhore most. The author thinks that the only reform that’s important is to “hit someone’s wallet.” This furthers the “one trick pony” critique of Bernie supporters. Women’s issues and environmental issues are important to the rest of us liberals even if Hillary doesn’t mention it in a book. Sorry. But this quote in the article plays into the huge or “yuge” weakness of Bernie as a candidate.
Bernie has sincerely maintained his integrity for decades: Three short letters for this quote: NRA. It’s easy to be idealistic in a state that’s roughly one-sixth the size of Los Angeles where I live. It’s easy to work in a greatly homogenized world where the only boogie man is the NRA and they like you for your liberal sell out position on guns. Bernie’s rant about special interest is psychological projection at best. He knows he sold out to the gun lobby. Does he really think everybody does too?
Experience: This article mentions nothing about Hillary’s work in education as the “first lady of Arkansas.” I know. My mother lived in Arkansas during the 1980s. She knew I wanted to be a teacher and told me all what this woman named Hillary was doing in her state to provide a universal and rigorous public school footprint in all areas of the state. Illiterates outnumbered college graduates at that time. She’s always known education is the key to upward mobility. As a teacher, I trust she’ll be as real as we can be on this topic.
Bernie is a great guy, but he’s lived on a small stage most of his life, the stage Hillary was present on in the 1980s, a small state with small issues. I’m grateful he’s getting the youth in this country excited about politics. However, he doesn’t have the political expertise to make things happen and articles such as this play to the false, youthful cognitive schema built upon feel-good speeches that land flat in the reality of real politics. Just saying that Hillary is just a fake and has no interest in doing well or connecting with people falls as a flat critique compared to the political history this article ignores. It’s my hope we all sober up soon and realize this: You can have your Bernie economic cake and vote for Hillary too. Just do a little more homework about your candidate.