Don’t tell me Bernie Sanders is unelectable; don’t tell me he’s a protest candidate either

Why I’m not buying into arguments from the center-left trying to discredit the Vermont socialist

My online news feeds have been flooded by a wave of serious sounding op-eds from what I would usually consider mostly trusted sources. John Avignone of Salon writes that he’s had it with naive Sanders supporters. In “I Have Had it with Naive Bernie Sanders Idealists,” he scolds the left wing of the Democratic Party for wanting too much, too fast. “That’s not how the system works,” is basically what we’re being lectured with here. I guess spending the last forty years watching wages remain stagnant while the cost of everything else continues to climb is just how democracy is supposed to move in America.

Over at Politico, Paul Starr is a little softer in tone as he makes his case in “I Get Sanders’ Appeal. But He’s Not a Credible President.” Starr sympathizes with Sanders’s supporters, he really does. But guys, come on, Bernie is just not a real candidate. He’s just so old. And he’s too far removed from the mainstream of, not just the American electorate, but the Democratic Party. Also, something, something, socialism. Also, it’s not a big deal, but did I mention his age? He’s just so old.

I’m not surprised, just disappointed. For every major endorsement that Sanders receives, for every new poll that shows the Vermont socialist eating away at Hillary Clinton’s once formidable lead in Iowa, the Internet responds with a bunch of respectable news outlets featuring serious Democratic commentators holding up theirs hands and saying, “No, guys, no, it’s not going to happen, just stop.”

I get it, to an extent. I mean, this is a primary race, not a giveaway, and it only makes sense that Clinton supporters are doing their best to make a case for their chosen candidate. But I take issue with the condescending tone and lack of substance in the arguments at hand.

Sanders is serious about the issues that face America

We’re being told simultaneously that we don’t understand how the system works and that Bernie Sanders is somehow not a serious candidate for President. Like many young women and men my age, I first found out about Bernie Sanders on Reddit. Before he announced his candidacy, Senator Sanders held several AMAs discussing his philosophy of government and the need for a political revolution to reverse a generation’s worth of growing inequality.

After he threw in his hat, the general response from the professional media was one of amusement. “That’s cute,” was more or less the attitude of journalists and talking heads as they made veiled attempts to hide their smiles while proclaiming his campaign a statistical impossibility. But as the likelihood of a protracted nomination contest appears more and more realistic, the smug dismissals have morphed into bitter reprimands.

Both of the op-eds I mentioned earlier, both published within the past two days, follow a two-pronged approach to discredit Bernie Sanders: first, you attack his credibility. He’s too old. He’s too socialist. He’s not electable. “He’s not serious!” is the gist. The second part plays off the first. Why isn’t he serious? He’s asking for too much. He’ll never get his agenda through Congress. Change happens incrementally. “That’s not how this works!”

“He’s not serious!” obviously isn’t a completely effective tactic, otherwise the serious media wouldn’t have to resort to “That’s not how this works!” But just because they’ve had to ramp up their attacks to “That’s not how this works!” doesn’t mean that they’ve totally abandoned the former. They work in tandem. Bernie Sanders isn’t a serious candidate because he’s not electable. And voters won’t elect an unelectable candidate. Why isn’t he electable? Because he’s not serious. Why? Because he doesn’t get how this whole thing works.

It just goes around and around. Meanwhile, Sanders’s numbers keep going up, generating more and more articles in places like Politico and Salon lending their name and reputation to efforts to tamp down the groundswell of Bernie’s support.

There haven’t been any elections yet, but whether or not any one person is electable is a matter for debate. I would argue that Bernie’s strong grassroots fundraising campaign, his steady rise in the polls, and his overflowing attendance at rallies point to an overwhelming electability. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has a demonstrated history of not being elected President.

Democrats have historically rejected establishment candidates

In fact, by taking a very cursory look through the recent history of Democratic Party, there seems to be a pattern of electing candidates more or less thought of as unelectable. President Obama was certainly a long shot candidate eight years ago. Bill Clinton was a relatively obscure Arkansas governor when he won the nomination in 1992. Before that, an unknown peanut farmer from Georgia beat President Gerald Ford in 1976.

So I think that Sanders’s unelectability isn’t really an issue. You could even make a strong argument that Secretary Clinton is more likely not to be elected, going by the failed candidacies of well-known figures like John Kerry, Al Gore, and yeah, I already mentioned it, but Hillary Clinton in 2008.

Which leaves this whole notion that Sanders doesn’t deserve the nomination because “That’s not how this works!” Is Bernie’s campaign based on unreasonable proposals? I guess it depends on what you’re used to seeing out of politics. Maybe universal health care, free college education, and a fifteen-dollar minimum wage are radical propositions that would face huge challenges in Congress.

Radical right-wing politicians have been pulling the country too far to the right

“To think that a centrist Democratic President is going to enact anything like meaningful change is a delusion. It was a delusion that played itself out when Bill Clinton declared the era of big government to be over. In positioning his administration to the middle, the Republican Party pulled the whole country even further to the right.”

But to argue that Sanders doesn’t deserve the nomination because he’s too far-reaching, that change in America is supposed to happen slowly, gradually, is disingenuous at best. Since the Reagan era, radical change has indeed happened quickly. More money is flowing to the top, ordinary wages have stayed flat, the war machine has continued to grow, institutional racism has become further entrenched, and the inequality gap has widened dramatically.

Asking voters to abandon their support for a popular, progressive candidate because we as the electorate are supposed to settle for a more scaled-back vision of how we’re being told our government should be run — that’s naivety. To think that a centrist Democratic President is going to enact anything like meaningful change is a delusion. It was a delusion that played itself out when Bill Clinton declared the era of big government to be over. In positioning his administration to the middle, the Republican Party pulled the whole country even further to the right. Similarly, President Obama’s early attempts at bipartisanship only emboldened conservatives into a state of further extremism.

And that’s why Bernie’s campaign is important, and that’s why he’s tapped into a movement that’s only growing despite the constant attacks from within the Democratic Party. If the professional media has a case to make for Hillary Clinton, that’s fine. She’s a capable politician who’s spent a lifetime earning experience at the highest levels of government. But let’s have a debate on the merits of the very real issues at hand. Bernie Sanders not a protest candidate, and his supporters are neither naive nor delusional.