I first heard of Bernie Sanders about nine years ago. I don’t remember the context, but I remember my reaction: “Vermont has a socialist senator!?” I was amazed to hear of a man who not only dared to run as a socialist in a country terrified of the word, but succeeded. Doubling down on that, he has succeeded as in independent where so many others have failed. Of course the label signified a set of policy beliefs I strongly support, like real progressive taxation in place of the farce we have now where most of the tax burden is on the upper middle class. But even more importantly, he was using an appropriate name for his beliefs rather than adjusting his professed beliefs to fit the currently popular label. It signified courage and integrity I don’t expect in a politician, combined with enough cunning and competence to succeed in politics and governing anyway. Everything I have learned about him since has substantiated that impression.
The Priority
The most urgent and possibly most difficult problem facing the United States is that of money in politics. A system of dependency where politicians are accountable to donors first makes the problem itself — along with every other problem effecting the American people, peace, and the environment – seem intractable. Rampant cynicism in acceptance of this fact is not the answer; nor is denial. Bernie Sanders started his campaign with a pledge to run on small donations and, incredibly, he is succeeding. This puts him in a unique position to take on the influence of big money, as he is not beholden to it. That means that we can trust him when he says, and he is the only one who really does, that he will take on that fight and make it the top priority.
That brings us to the topic of the political feasibility of his proposals. In the current political environment, any truly progressive proposal is dead on arrival as it is not in the interest of the big money donors. If Bernie is the only candidate who will take on the influence of big money, then he is the only one whose other proposals hold any water. In addition, bold proposals give room for negotiation; timid proposals get negotiated to nothing, or worse.
The Issues
I believe that protecting the environment is one of the primary functions of government. Unlike many Democrats, Bernie Sanders takes environmental protection and climate change seriously. A few tweaks won’t cut it and switching to natural gas obtained by fracking is not helpful.
Bernie Sanders is one of very few to have consistently voted against the USA PATRIOT ACT. Domestic surveillance is a hallmark of a totalitarian state. The willingness to spy on citizens disqualifies all the candidates but Bernie and one now dropped out Republican from being President.
Bernie Sanders is no dove, but he has been more consistently and vocally against military intervention than most politicians. This goes back to the 80s when he protested U.S. meddling in Latin America and before that to the Vietnam War when he was a conscientious objector. When asked where he would make budget cuts he responded with the obvious answer all others are afraid to say: the DoD. Like everything else this goes back to the problem of money in politics. It is absolutely despicable and shameful that the United States conducts its deadly foreign policy based on what will make the military contractors more money. Bernie is the only candidate I trust to make sound foreign policy decisions, and even to change the system so that future policy is more sane.
Trust busting is one of the most powerful tools the government has to curb the natural tendency of corporate capitalism to form monopolies and oligopolies that stifle competition, quarantine wealth in the hands of a few, pose massive risks to the economy as a whole, and wield inordinate political power. Old and new legislation gives the executive branch these tools. I expect Bernie Sanders to use them, at least in the banking sector.
These are just a few of the major issues that I care strongly about. Senator Sanders has a principled platform that I agree with and consistent record on so many other issues, many of which he has helped bring into the forefront of the debate in this race: criminal justice, drug policy, racial justice, healthcare, education, trade. Many of them hark back to the theme of his campaign: having the courage, integrity, and independence to stand up to moneyed interests in large part because they are not the source of his political power. When another candidate parrots these ideas, I have little reason to believe them, even if some are more eloquent.
The Election
The career of Senator Bernie Sanders has been an unlikely one. He has repeatedly won close anti-establishment races as an independent activist, and each time became highly popular in his position. He has managed to build a political career without compromising his principles or being absorbed into the system of corruption. A big part of that, in my mind, has been his minimal participation in the two-party system. In each position, he found ways to be progressive and serve his constituents even as an outsider: in Congress, he did this in part by passing amendments.
Early last year I watched Bernie make the rounds of the liberal TV programs as he deliberated a presidential run as an independent or, for the first time in his career, as a Democrat. As much as I am giddy to see a substantial independent/third party run, I quietly hoped he’d chose the latter at this crucial point. Showing sober judgment and a willingness to make the rare compromise when it is truly necessary, he did.
The culmination of all this – in combination with movements like Occupy, MayDay.us, New Hampshire Rebellion, Black Lives Matter, and Fight for 15 – is that we have a man running for president who is both an experienced politician in one of the highest offices and an honest, principled activist. And once again he is succeeding against all establishment resistance. He is inspiring the disenchanted. His career, this moment, has been 40 years in the making. That is to say: there won’t be another Bernie in 2020. This is truly a unique and historic opportunity, and that is why not only my vote but my voice, time, and money are with Bernie Sanders for President. I hope yours are too.
will lead to many, many more Bernie-Sanders-like Democrats running across all 50 states in the country, so I actually am hopeful we’ll see someone with the same kind of platform, stature independence from the system in 2020.
That said, it is still every bit as important to elect Bernie now. 8 years is a long time for anyone suffering today, or at risk, and we’ll attract a lot more people to run on the Bernie Sanders platform with him in office than with him outside of it.
It’s just that I have long thought Clinton to check all the boxes and feel more strongly about her than anyone else that she has really earned her turn to be President. I know the narrative is that Sanders supporters are the ones with all the passion, but I for one will be absolutely devastated if she does not get this chance. If she weren’t in the race I might be making other considerations, possibly even ideological ones, but we need to get the Warren-wing people in the Congress. Of course I strongly disagree for reasons previously stated that she would actually cause harm to the Americans we care about; that is simply not reality-based.
TANF, trade agreements, mass incarceration, banking deregulation, Iraq… etc. etc. etc.
What about my criticisms aren’t reality based? Which one of those listed above didn’t cause harm to considerable numbers of the American people?
I totally get that the things I’m saying are uncomfortable to hear (these were difficult truths for me to accept as well, a former strong supporter of Hillary ’08) but they are not wrong.
You make it sound like she is engaged in a nefarious plot to destroy the country. Her vote on Iraq is NOT responsible for the horrible way that was conducted, for example. She did not personally shaft a single family out of their mortgage. I tend to favor the trade agreements as mostly greatest good for greatest number (internationally, not just us). They are still, if anything, like reports of Mark Twain’s demise, greatly exaggerated.
No, she is not in a nefarious plot to destroy the country. She is, however, on the side of the millionaires and billionaires, and has supported, pushed for and helped pass or oversee policies that have inflicted great damage to many, in the US and abroad.
You can’t wish that away. It’s on record. It’s happened. It’s the truth.
You seem to think people should be excused because they did not personally do something, even if they enabled the people who did. George W. Bush didn’t personally drop any bombs on anyone, either, but that doesn’t take away the fact that he’s complicit. Everyone who voted for that war, which was clearly based on lies, is also complicit. If a person driving the getaway car discovers someone was killed while the bank was being robbed, they’re still complicit for that murder, as if they had done it themselves.
And so it is, or at least should be, for politicians and their votes, or causes that they help pass. They are responsible for how the war was conducted, even if they weren’t the ones who conducted it, because they gave permission for it to happen in the first place.
And so it is with other legislation. Hillary is complicit in the economic damage inflicted on this country and the world due to deregulation, TANF, etc., because she helped make them happen, and was quite vigorous in those efforts.
I reject the notion that politicians should be excused. You vote for it, you supported it, you own it, however it works out. The politicians are the ones driving the car — helping that legislation get through — they own whatever happens to the country because of it.
Why not only favor trade agreements that actually benefit people, instead of mostly corporations?
If there were flaws, why not demand they be fixed?
These trade agreements don’t help rank and file people in the US, they don’t help rank and file people in Mexico, or so on and so forth. They’re largely deals that hand over power to corporations so corporations no longer have to obey the laws of the land in the countries that they operate in. They help corporations navigate the system in ways that benefit the corporations, but do little, if anything, to help workers.
There are such things as fair trade deals, and trade deals that are mutually beneficial. We haven’t been passing them, though. We’ve been passing the opposite of them.
I don’t believe any sitting President has personally led the troops into battle since the Whiskey Rebellion, but it goes without saying (I thought) that Bush was responsible for the actual prosecution of the Iraq campaign in a way no member of Congress was.
…from NAFTA to TPP and everything in between, we have gotten better deals under Dem Presidents than we probably would have under GOP ones. On NAFTA specifically, we also gained 20 million net jobs during the 90s (which to be clear I don’t credit to NAFTA, but it also didn’t hurt as predicted).
GHWB wrote NAFTA. Clinton passed it. It was all done by the time Clinton got it — if Clinton influenced what was in it, it probably wasn’t much.
Has the world not been spinning without TPP? Who says we need TPP at all? And, TPP ain’t popular with Republicans, either. Heck, Donald Trump is winning the Republican Primary in great part because he’s the only Republican who’s vehemently against it.
TPP was written by the corporations. It’s not good, and we don’t need it. If the President tossed it in the wastebasket and said hell no, it would probably take years before TPP could even get the kind of traction to come up for a vote again. Corporations want it bad, but the rank and file of both parties are very much against it.
Just watch — this will be passed in the lameduck Congress, after the election is over, to minimize the damage, and helped along by a bunch of retiring pols or pols who lost who’ll be looking for well paying jobs as lobbyists for the very companies that will benefit most from TPP.
The only real chance to stop it is to ensure the President-elect is someone who’s vehemently against it and would wage a very, very bloody network-TV war against Congress to stop it, and ensure the vote takes place after the next President is sworn in.
…that Clinton campaigned in 1992 on improving it, and with regard to TPP I believe the current President when he says it’s the most progressive and labor-friendly of the various trade agreements. I also fundamentally believe that goods should move between and among countries with as little hindrance as possible. We’re all one planet and human family after all.
as a reflection of what they want to do, for something that wasn’t distant history, but what he did is actually on record, and it’s a matter of record that he took the NAFTA he was handed and signed it.
And, no, he didn’t “improve” NAFTA.
Clinton did add two small side deals to the table. They did not alter NAFTA in anyway. The side deals did very little at all, especially in the context of history.
Less believing, please. What the President says isn’t gospel. Elizabeth Warren lays everything out on the table, with actual facts.
I think you define the view of trade agreements very well from a progressive standpoint. It’s very altruistic that you would like to raise the standard of living for the poor throughout the world and these trade agreements have begun to do that. I Know someone personally who went to Laredo Tex to train Mexican foreman to run machines which were unbolted from a central mass factory floor and sent over the border (we lost 500 middle class jobs in the process). The Mexicans were appreciative.
For me though trade agreements should always be viewed and approved so that 60% of the benefits take place in this country and 40% help lift others out of poverty. The other countries will still want the agreements because they still want our markets.
Remember the scene from the Titanic, where lifeboats wouldn’t go back for everyone floating in the water because the boats would be overwhelmed and then everyone drowns? Our political and economic foreign policy should always be handled the same way.