In-Line Response to “The Case Against Bernie Sanders”
Until very recently, nobody had any cause to regret Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign. Sanders is earnest and widely liked. He has tugged the terms of the political debate leftward in a way both moderates and left-wingers could appreciate. (Moderate liberals might not agree with Sanders’s ideas, but they can appreciate that his presence changes for the better a political landscape in which support for things like Mitt Romney’s old positions on health care and the environment were defined as hard-core liberalism.) Sanders’s rapid rise, in both early states and national polling, has made him a plausible threat to defeat Hillary Clinton.
A fair assessment, though this sets things up to make the rest of the piece sound a bit like a 25-year member of Congress is coming out of nowhere without putting his ideas in context or being vetted by anyone at all. I would also argue that right to left is the wrong way to look at this. He tugged the terms of the political debate down closer to the people and the problems of our moment. In many cases that moved him left or expressed his left leaning tendencies.
Suddenly, liberals who have used the nominating process to unilaterally vet Clinton, processing every development through its likely impact on her as the inevitable candidate, need to think anew. Do we support Sanders not just in his role as lovable Uncle Bernie, complaining about inequality, but as the actual Democratic nominee for president? My answer to that question is no.
Obviously my answer is yes. But I welcome another view. Also, let’s not diminish inequality to a complaint. It’s probably turning out to be the central theme of our national political conversation.
Sanders’s core argument is that the problems of the American economy require far more drastic remedies than anything the Obama administration has done, or that Clinton proposes to build on.
When we frame a person’s “core argument” it is better to do so without comparing it to other people’s positions. Bernie has a platform and it isn’t purely (or even primarily) a rebuke of Obama or a reaction to Clinton. This is reductive. But for the sake of argument down the line, let’s run with it: Bernie is running against Clinton and by association Obama.
Clinton has put little pressure on Sanders’s fatalistic assessment, but the evidence for it is far weaker than he assumes. Sanders has grudgingly credited what he calls “the modest gains of the Affordable Care Act,” which seems like an exceedingly stingy assessment of a law that has already reduced the number of uninsured Americans by 20 million.
Fair. The ACA aka Obamacare is a win and should be called a win. Single payer is a much bigger win that makes more sense to many people. It will be monumentally difficult to pull off but so are many things that are worth doing.
The Dodd-Frank reforms of the financial industry may not have broken up the big banks, but they have, at the very least, deeply reduced systemic risk.
Here’s a quote from the very article Chait links here:
“This welcome turn of events, announced yesterday by the regulatory body, does not eliminate the need for insistent financial reform activism; instead, it proves its worth. Only outside pressure has pushed regulators toward what were previously seen as unattainable targets. And because there’s so much more to be done, reformers should not close up shop but work even harder.”
Sounds like we need Bernie Sanders because we need somebody who owes nothing to Wall Street to help lead the ongoing international effort to make these improvements permanent, close loopholes, and remain wary for whatever comes up next. Somebody out there is already looking for a way around the rules. That’s the reality of capitalism and it’s fine as long as there are checks on risk and power.
The penalties for being too big to fail exceed the benefits, and, as a result, banks are actually breaking themselves up to avoid being large enough to be regulated as systemic risks.
Size of the banks and the Dow cannot be the only measurement we use when it comes to financial markets and risk. If any American is screwed, swindled, or robbed blind by a financial institution, that’s a bad thing. If any American is out of a home or a job because of speculation or manufactured market fluctuations, we should be talking about this subject. The last crisis and all of the crashes before it proved that banks and other entities of all sizes can collaborate (or collude) to scale risk and stupidity across the system. It doesn’t have to be one big evil bank, it can just be many mediocre banks with a bad people pulling the strings. We need a President who will help protect the economy and average Americans from that risk. By definition, risk is not something we can fully predict or pretend to control. That’s what makes it risk. This is why I believe another economic crisis similar in scope to the one we are just starting to rise out of is inevitable. You call that fatalistic. I call that realistic, especially in light of serious international economic instability. It’s just the rise and fall pattern of our global economy. We’re not pretending Bernie or any other candidate can prevent the fall or cause the rise. Bernie is talking about making sure the public doesn’t have to bail out (or bail in) the gamblers on Wall Street. And they are still gambling -- just read up on the big commercial banks we all use and their exposure to risky derivatives. Goldman has offered the same type of CDO that helped cause the crisis. The list goes on.
It is true that the Great Recession inflicted catastrophic economic damage, and that fiscal policy did too little to alleviate it.
We need a President who applies the lessons learned from that crisis and our failed foreign policy aggressively. That’s Bernie Sanders.
The impression of economic failure hardened into place as the sluggish recovery dragged on for several years. Recently, conditions have improved. Unemployment has dropped, the number of people quitting their job has risen, and — as one would predict would happen when employers start to run short of available workers — average wages have started to climb. Whether the apparent rise in the median wage is the beginning of a sustained increase, or merely a short-lived blip, remains to be seen. At the very least, the conclusion that Obama’s policies have failed to raise living standards for average people is premature. And the progress under Obama refutes Sanders’s corollary point, that meaningful change is impossible without a revolutionary transformation that eliminates corporate power.
This paragraph is internally inconsistent. Chait basically says the change is not meaningful or cannot yet be called meaningful (maybe it’s just a blip?) but that this not meaningful change proves meaningful change is possible. An economic recovery that is part of the normal cycle doesn’t support any point of view or platform, it’s just the tide going back the other way. We do need a revolution that removes money and special interests from politics, and especially from Congress and the White House. This country always needs an authentic, clear-thinking leader – regardless of who comes before or after.
Nor should his proposed remedies be considered self-evidently benign. Evidence has shown that, at low levels, raising the minimum wage does little or nothing to kill jobs. At some point, though, the government could set a minimum wage too high for employers to be willing to pay it for certain jobs. Even liberal labor economists like Alan Krueger, who have supported more modest increases, have blanched at Sanders’s proposal for a $15 minimum wage.
Why don’t we start raising the minimum wage and find out? I’m betting companies will find a way to make it work because they have more room to give than they realize. The American economy should error on the side of the employee, the worker, the middle class.
Sanders’s worldview is not a fantasy. It is a serious critique based on ideas he has developed over many years, and it bears at least some relation to the instincts shared by all liberals. The moral urgency with which Sanders presents his ideas has helped shelter him from necessary internal criticism.
This is the moral urgency Sanders inherits from millions of unemployed people, bright students who can’t afford college, communities who fear their own police force, families who want a better life, and folks who feel like they just don’t count in our system.
Nobody on the left wants to defend Wall Street or downplay the pressure on middle- and working-class Americans. But Sanders's ideas should not be waved through as a more honest or uncorrupted version of the liberal catechism. The despairing vision he paints of contemporary America is oversimplified.
I doubt Sanders seems “despairing” to the people mentioned above. His vision probably seems pretty accurate to them. Maybe it is simple. Our system isn’t fair. Let’s focus on our system now and worry more about foreign policy or the practicality of a particular proposal in a minute.
Even those who do share Sanders’s critique of American politics and endorse his platform, though, should have serious doubts about his nomination. Sanders does bring some assets as a potential nominee — his rumpled style connotes authenticity, and his populist forays against Wall Street have appeal beyond the Democratic base. But his self-identification as a socialist poses an enormous obstacle, as Americans respond to “socialism” with overwhelming negativity. Likewise, his support for higher taxes on the middle class — while substantively sensible — also saddles him with a highly unpopular stance. He also has difficulty addressing issues outside his economic populism wheelhouse. In his opening statement at the debate the day after the Paris attacks, Sanders briefly and vaguely gestured toward the attacks before quickly turning back to his economic themes.
As Americans learn more about what Sanders stands for specifically, the “socialism” label seems to become less and less of a problem. It’s definitely still a deterrent for some people (especially Republicans) but the linked poll clearly indicates that millenials and democrats are comfortable with the term. Bernie can win on a coalition of young people, democrats, unions, liberals, and certain libertarians. Regarding taxing the middle class, everyone wants to be a champion for the middle class but my theory is that the middle class can stick up for itself. We know we are going to get taxed no matter what and we are generally smart enough to seek a good return on that investment. What are we getting back for our tax dollars? A better country? Better healthcare? Better public education? Pretty good deal. We will find out how many people feel that way when the votes come in. Leadership on foreign policy matters, but Bernie isn’t running for the President of Paris. Don’t let fear and grief make the discussion one-dimensional. Everything, including our plan to fight terrorism, starts with a strong economy and a thriving, unified society.
Against these liabilities, Sanders offers the left-wing version of a hoary political fantasy: that a more pure candidate can rally the People into a righteous uprising that would unsettle the conventional laws of politics.
I would just reverse this. The People and their righteous uprisings (BLM, Occupy, etc.) have rallied Bernie. Americans are asking for a pure candidate who can unsettle the conventional laws or politics.
Versions of this have circulated in both parties for years, having notably inspired the disastrous Goldwater and McGovern campaigns.
It’s true that both of those guys lost badly but they lost to incumbents, failing to join the elite group of 5 candidates who have unseated a sitting President.
The Republican Party may well fall for it again this year. Sanders’s version involves the mobilization of a mass grassroots volunteer army that can depose the special interests. “The major political, strategic difference I have with Obama is it’s too late to do anything inside the Beltway,” he toldAndrew Prokop. “You gotta take your case to the American people, mobilize them, and organize them at the grassroots level in a way that we have never done before.” But Obama did organize passionate volunteers on a massive scale — far broader than anything Sanders has done — and tried to keep his volunteers engaged throughout his presidency. Why would Sanders’s grassroots campaign succeed where Obama’s far larger one failed?
This article finds fault with how Sanders would govern. But it also says he is mobilizing a mass volunteer army to get elected. That’s called a campaign. These people will help him depose special interests primarily by sticking around to vote for a better congress and by using their voices to raise a chorus of righteous indignation (much different than the chords struck by Obama). Also it’s possibly too soon to say Obama’s grassroots have failed. We talk about the cultural shifts that have lead to change on social issues (like gay marriage). Is it possible that a President with a positive social message can drive that shift through social media and other channels? Has anyone thought to connect the President’s comments with broader change? I don’t think we can identify or summarize the movements or undercurrents of the zeitgeist from this close up. Maybe Chait can.
Sanders has promised to replace Obamacare with a single-payer plan, without having any remotely plausible prospects for doing so.
People said this about Obamacare. Also, if Sanders gets the ball rolling and it takes another 20 years – it’s still a good thing.
Many advocates of single-payer imagine that only the power of insurance companies stands in their way, but the more imposing obstacles would be reassuring suspicious voters that the change in their insurance (from private to public) would not harm them and — more difficult still — raising the taxes to pay for it.
Agreed. But completely separating employment from healthcare will be one of the best economic stimulus plans in history, spurring startup innovation, job creation, and a more nimble workforce that allocates efficiently. This is the new economy.
As Sarah Kliff details, Vermont had to abandon hopes of creating its own single-payer plan. If Vermont, one of the most liberal states in America, can’t summon the political willpower for single-payer, it is impossible to imagine the country as a whole doing it. Not surprisingly, Sanders's health-care plan uses the kind of magical-realism approach to fiscal policy usually found in Republican budgets, conjuring trillions of dollars in savings without defining their source.
Granted, the plan should be more specific. There are definitely tradeoffs. But if you agree with the big picture vision, trust an experienced legislator to get the details right and trust an executive who inspires the electorate to get the deal done. We need a process for building consensus and educating everyone on the benefits of single payer vs other paths, not a top down approach where a perfect plan is presented for ratification or rejection.
The Sanders campaign represents a revolution of rising expectations. In 2008, the last time Democrats held a contested primary, the prospect of simply taking back the presidency from Republican control was nearly enough to motivate the party’s vote. The potential to enact dramatic change was merely a bonus. After nearly two terms of power, with the prospect of Republican rule now merely hypothetical, Democrats want more.
I would argue that all Americans want “more” if more means better government that adapts to changes and solves problems. And especially if more means more equality, more education, and more protection for the environment. Many groups of Americans want more in ways that don’t have to do with their party affiliation. Black people want more. Working Moms want more. Students and people with student debt want more. Some of these people support Bernie because of his policies, not his party.
The paradox is that the president’s ability to deliver more change is far more limited. The current occupant of the Oval Office and his successor will have a House of Representatives firmly under right-wing rule, making the prospects of important progressive legislation impossible. This hardly renders the presidency impotent, obviously. The end of Obama’s term has shown that a creative president can still drive some change.
This is equally true for all Democratic candidates and (as long as Democrats hold enough Senate seats) pretty true for Republicans too. Sort of not a point at all.
But here is a second irony: Those areas in which a Democratic Executive branch has no power are those in which Sanders demands aggressive action, and the areas in which the Executive branch still has power now are precisely those in which Sanders has the least to say. The president retains full command of foreign affairs; can use executive authority to drive social policy change in areas like criminal justice and gender; and can, at least in theory, staff the judiciary. What the next president won’t accomplish is to increase taxes, expand social programs, or do anything to reduce inequality, given the House Republicans’ fanatically pro-inequality positions across the board. The next Democratic presidential term will be mostly defensive, a bulwark against the enactment of the radical Ryan plan. What little progress liberals can expect will be concentrated in the non-Sanders realm.
This is more specific to Bernie but it reads more like a challenge than a policy critique. Who's being fatalistic now? I say tell that to FDR, LBJ, or any President who clearly impacted domestic policy. The President can (and must?) push congress in the right direction, from a bully pulpit if necessary. He or she can call attention to a variety of issues. Also, don’t confuse a desire to avoid costly wars with the absence of any foreign policy whatsoever. Foreign policy falls in Bernie’s realm. There are also several ways the next President can increase equality through executive action and general leadership over the culture and the conversation. Changing the tax code or expanding existing programs covered by Congress are not the only ways to make change.
So even if you fervently endorse Sanders's policy vision (which, again for the sake of full candor, I do not), he has chosen an unusually poor time to make it the centerpiece of a presidential campaign. It can be rational for a party to move away from the center in order to set itself up for dramatic new policy changes; the risk the Republican Party accepted in 1980 when Ronald Reagan endorsed the radical new doctrine of supply-side economics allowed it to reshape the face of government. But it seems bizarre for Democrats to risk losing the presidency by embracing a politically radical doctrine that stands zero chance of enactment even if they win.
This editorial ends by saying Democrats risk the presidency by putting Sanders forth as their candidate without making very many meaningful comparisons between Clinton and Sanders. It starts with the assumption that Sanders is less electable than Clinton and ends with the same assumption. There’s not much support in the middle and right now primary voters are saying they support Sanders in the polls. That’s not to say Sanders does not have his own challenges or shortcomings as a candidate. All candidates do, including Clinton. But it would take a much longer and more thoughtful article than this to establish that Sanders is indeed unelectable in light of his recent progress.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/case-against-bernie-sanders.html
