The case against Bernie Sanders

[Bonesy]

I've been asked to chill out by people I respect regarding Bernie Sanders in the US politics thread.

I've heard it said that the "horse race" bores many that are otherwise engaged in vibrant debate about general political issues.

I respect the hell out of that, wouldn't still be here after ten years if I didn't, and apologize for the distraction.

So, outside of the US politics thread, here we can discuss the Democratic primary without irritating anyone who doesn't want to.

Also, there's this O'Malley guy.

[mcbigski]

So what's the case against Sanders?

[Bonesy]

I don't know. That's why I'm asking for elucidation.

[sologdin]

rash advance.  reckless haste.  it may be too soon in the US for a proper social democrat.  he'd need to get in on a wave, with other social dems/demo socialists, to have shot at being effective-and we're a bit short on those. if not it'll be him against the current congress, and the teabags won't work with him.  they're more likely to impeach or join a beer hall putsch.

it:s not like he isn't the best of the bunch, but always tactics before principle.  maybe there's enough enthusiasm to carry him in to office with a solid majority legislature.  dunno.  then it will be two thirds of government vs. five surly judges.

[zelticgar]

Not sure about the case against him but one thing that works in favor of him is that Larry David may be forced to return to SNL. That was one of the best bits I've seen in years.

 

 

 

 

[Bonesy]

solo, it's got to start somewhere, somewhen

why not now?

[sologdin]

your point is more than reasonable, becoming a matter of urgency those who may become sanders' greatest beneficiaries.

 

my concern is to protect egalitarian ideas and policy objectives that are centuries in development from further setbacks, such as  resulting from leninist deviations from parliamentary norms caused by reckless haste a century ago.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

I am starting to come around on Bernie thanks to people here. But I'm having trouble getting past a few things. The first being my concerns over his age, he is what, 74? This isn't a knock against his character because he is the only honest person running for president.  This is a concern people had with John McCain and I think it is valid. And with a the current make up of Congress how could he hope to deliver on anything? And I think perhaps his voice is more valuable in the senate.  

[Maithanet]

I am closer to Sanders than Clinton on most policy issues.  But I am really concerned that Sanders would just not be a very effective President.  I don't think he has as many political allies as Clinton or as much experience on the big stage.  I'm worried he'll be another Jimmy Carter - a nice man who I mostly agree with, but who wasn't a particularly good president, and won't get reelected. 

Not to mention that I do think Clinton is more "electable", and the thought of Sanders losing to any of the Republican fear parade is pretty terrifying. 

[Fez]

Biggest case against him is that Republicans are going to hold the House of Representatives. Full stop. And Obama has already done pretty much everything progressive that can be accomplished through executive actions. Which means both Bernie and Hillary's agendas are dead on arrival after they are inaugurated. There are basically three things a Bernie or Hillary presidency would accomplish:

1. Not be a Republican. That's a checkmark for both of them. They'd both be a veto on any major Republican partisan policies.

2. Make Democratic judicial nominations. Again, that's a checkmark for both of them. And its not like Bernie would be able to push courts further left wing than Hillary would. Either its a Republican senate that would only approve the absolute bare minimum of moderate judges (if even that) or a Democratic senate that would privately tell Bernie its only ready to approve standard, mainstream Democrats.

3. Influence foreign policy. And here is where Hillary has a major advantage over Bernie. She's got considerably more experience and knowledge than Bernie does, and he's not shown much inclination to close the gap.

That's why the whole Democratic primary is pointless. It doesn't matter how much Democrats like Bernie's policies or like Hillary's policies. Neither are getting enacted. The next Democratic presidency is entirely a rearguard action, preventing Republicans from tearing down the modern state structure. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Biggest case against him is that Republicans are going to hold the House of Representatives. Full stop. And Obama has already done pretty much everything progressive that can be accomplished through executive actions. Which means both Bernie and Hillary's agendas are dead on arrival after they are inaugurated. There are basically three things a Bernie or Hillary presidency would accomplish:

1. Not be a Republican. That's a checkmark for both of them. They'd both be a veto on any major Republican partisan policies.

2. Make Democratic judicial nominations. Again, that's a checkmark for both of them. And its not like Bernie would be able to push courts further left wing than Hillary would. Either its a Republican senate that would only approve the absolute bare minimum of moderate judges (if even that) or a Democratic senate that would privately tell Bernie its only ready to approve standard, mainstream Democrats.

3. Influence foreign policy. And here is where Hillary has a major advantage over Bernie. She's got considerably more experience and knowledge than Bernie does, and he's not shown much inclination to close the gap.

That's why the whole Democratic primary is pointless. It doesn't matter how much Democrats like Bernie's policies or like Hillary's policies. Neither are getting enacted. The next Democratic presidency is entirely a rearguard action, preventing Republicans from tearing down the modern state structure. 

There is the concern, however, that Hillary Clinton seems to be more hawkish in foreign policy than most Democrats.

[Bonesy]

I humbly suggest that the downticket results of an energized Sanders campaign will greatly affect what the President can or cannot do, whereas a desultory Clinton campaign will not.

[Kelli Fury]

Fez, do you really think any candidate who was pro Iraq war has any advantage on foreign policy? That's terrible judgement (I was 18 at the time and thought wearing purple plaid bondage pants was a great idea, and even I knew the Iraq war was a bad idea) and the wrong decision on the most impactful foreign policy call in the last 25 years. Even if I agreed with her on everything else (I don't), I still wouldn't vote for her based on that. On the biggest foreign policy issue of our lifetimes, Sanders showed better judgement. Good judgement is, in my opinion, the most important criteria for a president. Hillary Clinton, at first pass on almost every issue but healthcare (at which her position now sucks more than it used to), has made what most liberals would consider the wrong call. Since I would expect her to continue to do that, she can't have my vote.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

3. Influence foreign policy. And here is where Hillary has a major advantage over Bernie. She's got considerably more experience and knowledge than Bernie does, and he's not shown much inclination to close the gap.

 

This ignores the significant ideological differences between the two. Clinton is far and away more supportive of military interventions than Sanders, and it ought to matter very much to Democratic primary voters whose policies they prefer in this area, considering the President's wide latitude to make foreign policy decisions. I basically agree that both will have trouble getting anything done domestically, which, for me, is all the more reason not to vote for Clinton and more interventionism.

I also find the claim that Clinton is more knowledgeable in this area dubious- Sanders has had a long career as a Congressman taking stances on foreign policy, and I can see no reason to believe his positions are relatively unconsidered. As to lack of experience, I think Obama has proven that this is not necessarily an issue- he had less experience entering the White House than either Clinton or Sanders has.

[Fez]

On the Iraq War, yeah, in retrospect that was a really bad vote. However, I'm generally willing to give senators a pass on that, considering that they were being straight-up lied to by the Bush administration at a time when no one would've believed something that brazen could happen. If everything the administration was saying had turned out to be true, I think I still would've opposed going into Iraq, but I think its a much closer call and could completely understand someone saying we should do it.

As for being more hawkish, I think that's true. Personally I consider that a feature, not a bug. But disregarding that, I think in the debates and statements both candidates have made, she's shown a much deeper understanding of events outside our borders than Bernie does. Bernie also has the habit of distilling everything down to economic and class factors. I think that's a mistake in domestic policy and an even bigger mistake in foreign policy. 

OAR, and I think Obama's lack of experience has really hurt him in some cases. Most notably in his attempts to contain China and dealing with the various middle eastern crisis. 

Bonesy, the question of which candidate would have better coattails is debatable (personally I think it would be Hillary, not Bernie), but neither is getting the House back. 

[sologdin]

whereas of course GWB and st. ronnie got all the foreign policy experience in state gubernatorial office.

[Fez]

whereas of course GWB and st. ronnie got all the foreign policy experience in state gubernatorial office.

?

Who's saying they made good foreign policy decisions either?

Hillary was Secretary of State. The only comparable recent candidate with similar experience was Kerry, who was chairman of the senate foreign relations committee.

[sologdin]

quite right. 

and no need to get touchy. we can refute the rightwing position even though you aren't articulating it.

[Altherion]

Hillary was Secretary of State. The only comparable recent candidate with similar experience was Kerry, who was chairman of the senate foreign relations committee.

She was indeed Secretary of State, but how is that a point in her favor? Experience is valuable if it demonstrates ability, but hers is very nearly the opposite of that. The "reset" with Russia failed miserably. The withdrawal from Iraq resulted in the rise of the IS. The military intervention in Libya was a disaster (never mind Benghazi, the country is still at war, even if nobody talks about it). Of course, it is difficult to determine how much of this is her policy and how much is Obama's, but I don't see anything here that would indicate her foreign policy as President would be better than that of, say, Sanders.

That said, there is a substantial case against Sanders to be made as well. First, and perhaps most importantly, his economic policies require fundamental revisions to the entire economy which the elites would never agree to. Thus, most of them will never get past Congress and even if he does get a chance to act (this could happen if there was a new severe recession), they will most likely be watered down to the point where they are more likely to do harm than good.

Second, many of his ideas follow the long-standing tradition of extrapolating from the status quo without thinking of how the system will adapt. For example, a college degree currently has some economic value, so let's make public universities tuition-free... ignoring the fact that this value is already decreasing even as things currently stand and introducing many more people with degrees into the system will not help matters. The same goes for his solution of paying for this which is a tax on stock trades. I don't know how the stock market will work around this, but I'm sure that some adjustments will be made to pay less money.

Finally, most of his social policies are the stock Democrat dogma so if you don't like that in Clinton, you will not like it in Sanders either. He showed some promise of more inclusive social policy early in his campaign, but that appears to be over and done with.

[Kalbear]

I humbly suggest that the downticket results of an energized Sanders campaign will greatly affect what the President can or cannot do, whereas a desultory Clinton campaign will not.

Projection wise this isn't likely. Due to gerrymandering there's basically no chance for Democrat victories in the house.