Principled Recklessness: The Danger of Nominating Senator Sanders

My love for politics started with the West Wing. For seven seasons the political drama, set in the White House, modeled a kind of ideal liberal Presidency that has inspired many of the young people now involved in government. 

The show’s run ended well before the Citizens United ruling, and its writers hardly could have foreseen the legal developments that have set the stage for billion dollar election campaigns. But the issue of campaign finance reform was not entirely foreign to the writers, or to the political world they occupied at the time. The campaign finance issue of their day was ’soft money,’ the shows writers addressed it in an exchange between the idealistic and brilliant Sam Seaborn and the campaign manager and realpolitik guru Bruno Gianelli. The two are debating whether to use ‘soft money’ during a difficult re-election campaign. Sam Seaborn insists that the spirit of campaign finance laws should exclude the use of such money, while Bruno can’t imagine not using every legal tool at his disposal to elect the candidate he believes in. 

Sam Seaborn declares, “There’s something to be said for leading by example.”

To which Bruno replies, “Yeah, ‘…it comes right before losing an election.’”

Politico reports that the Koch brothers have committed to spending $889 million dollars on the coming election. They’ll be directing their funds to getting out the vote and targeting their efforts using one of the most advanced voter data systems in history. This in addition to the RNC’s efforts which are by no means insubstantial— they raised and spent over 1 billion dollars during the last election cycle and nearly 700 million during the midterms. And like last time, they won’t just be using these funds to get the republican nominee elected, but to cement an already commanding dominance of Congress and State governments. 

And the GOP has made clear what they want to do if they manage to purchase power at every level of government: Repeal Obamacare, phase out medicare, cut social security, attack the right to choose, defend “religious liberty” against the scourge of gays and lesbians, partner with Netanyahu in aggression against Iran, and a host of other unthinkably dangerous policy choices. 

With so much at stake you would think that anyone serious about confronting this menace on the horizon would seek to go into battle armed as well if not better than the opposition. You would think they would seek every legal means available to build a treasury capable of meeting the Koch’s and the RNC, that they would utilize every opportunity to gather and analyze data in order to allocate their resources most efficiently and effectively. You would think. 

Instead, one candidate, who claims that our nation is approaching a precipice, refuses on principle to arm himself and the party he’s running to represent adequately against this threat. Bernie Sanders has consistently refused to attempt to achieve parity with the GOP by raising money through SuperPACs, he refuses to engage in polling because “he already knows what he thinks.” He refuses to engage the party structure or argue for its success because he see’s it as “ideologically bankrupt.” Each of these refusals, both independently and especially in conjunction, represents a surrender. A reckless disregard for reality, a fecklessness in the face of threat, and a betrayal of the millions who have labored for decades to protect and expand the rights of minorities, the safety net for the elderly, and a great many other policies that the GOP would gleefully reverse if they could. 

Curiously, Senator Sanders recognizes the importance of placing practical concerns over philosophical principles. When asked about Israel’s actions in Gaza he explains their behavior, condemning particular acts of violence, but not Israel’s efforts to defend themselves. He understands that they face mortal danger from rockets and an enemy that wishes them extinguished. When asked about the blockade he expresses his doubts about Hamas, and reasonably expresses understanding for Israel’s tactics.

Make no mistake, we face an ideological enemy in the GOP whose power and zeal is matched with money and data. It’s lovely that Senator Sanders wants to preserve his image as a populist fighter free from the stain of corporate cash… but what good are principles if they lead you to certain defeat? Why can Israel defend itself but the democrats cannot? 

Many will object to the Israel comparison, but it is of no moment. Choose whatever analogy you please. To unilaterally disarm in the face of a threat as significant as the one that the Koch brothers and the GOP are openly presenting is an affront, and we should call it out as such. Too much is on the line to abide naiveté. 

Bernie Sanders Might Not Need Billionaires, But His Agenda Does

Universal Health Care.

Free College for All.

Paid Family Leave.

A Stronger Social Safety Net.

A Trillion Dollars in New Infrastructure. 

As the crowds gather across the nation to hear the patron Saint of democratic socialism preach his gospel of redistribution it’s hard, as a liberal, not to be thrilled. After all, who among us doesn’t want to see a resurgence of the middle class built on a New Deal between our richest citizens and the many of us who are struggling to get by? Can anyone doubt that rising inequality, stagnant wages, and stubborn un- and underemployment evidences the abject failure of trickle down economics and the decades long mantra of “no new taxes” to provide for a general prosperity? 

Senator Sanders is not wrong to point out that for too long the singular object of our government has been to encourage the creation and growth of wealth for the few, giant corporations, banks, and the executives thereof. He casts these beneficiaries of nearly a century of American economic dominance in the global capitalistic order as untouchables, possessed only of self-interest and as having captured the powers-that-be in order to multiply their already substantial treasures. Sanders angrily insists that he doesn’t fight for them, that his interests aren’t in line with theirs but rather with ‘ours.’ Except, if our well being is to be built on a set of policies paid for by taxing wealth… then generating that wealth in the first place must also be a priority. Indeed, for Senator Sanders to do any of what he promises, he’ll have to fight for policies that benefit the very people he claims he doesn’t fight for at all. 

Senator Sanders is careful not to call himself merely a socialist, and his supporters are quick to establish that there is a difference between ‘democratic socialism’ and ‘socialism.’ And there is. Socialism, most simply, is an economic order where the people are the owners of the means of production and where government cooperatively manages the economy… Senator Sanders is not calling for an economic order that resembles any such thing. He is not suggesting we nationalize any industries or have government set prices on goods or determine the distribution of those goods. Instead he defines ‘democratic socialism’ as a set of policy outcomes enabled by a fairer distribution of the fruits of capitalism. So his positions do not fundamentally call into question global capitalism or its negative consequences (which may explain his awkward exchange with Vox’s Ezra Klein on immigration) but instead relies on it. 

In order to pay for his proposed policies Senator Sanders calls for more sensible spending on the military… but the bulk of the revenue we’d need to provide his prescriptions to the people would necessarily derive from increased taxes on wealth, including wealth currently shielded from taxation offshore. But implicit in this arrangement is the proposition that such wealth exists to tax in the first place. So while Senator Sanders insists that he doesn’t care about billionaires or big corporations, without them (and policies that encourage their continued growth and wealth generation) the pool of dollars he proposes we draw upon to pay for his programs dries up. 

To put it another way: imagine a machine that produces rubber duckies in a world where everything runs on rubber duckies. As it spits out these rubber duckies it distributes them across several chutes. Adjust some levers one way or another and you can make the machine spit out more and more duckies. But there’s a problem: the machine doesn’t distribute those duckies evenly across the chutes. Senator Sanders wants to fix the distribution of the duckies, but he doesn’t want the machine to stop producing the duckies we need. He isn’t calling for a fundamental redesign of the machine, merely a re-balancing of its distribution.

If that’s the case then a hypothetical President Sanders will have to make the maintenance of that machine a key part of his administration, which means making the interests of billionaires and big corporations priorities for his administration, since without their wealth (and without that wealth being maintained or made to grow year over year) he won’t be able to provide any of the many costly programs he calls for. It’s worth wondering whether his apparent disdain for such individuals and organizations makes achieving that balance impossible, whether his anger blinds him to the need to keep the reservoir full, whether his project will be doomed, even if he gets the necessary legislation, for a failure to prioritize the very policies that will enable the wealth needed to fund the project in the first place.

Someone needs to ask Senator Sanders how, as President, he would work to help corporations and the billionaires that own them generate the wealth he plans to tax in order to pay for the programs that will support those he claims to care most about.

Why I’m Voting for Hillary, and Not for Sanders

First: The Presidency is more than a set of promises– it’s about the unpredictable, it’s about all the issues we don’t even know are issues yet. The Presidency is about foreign policy, and making decisions under pressure, and about commanding our military presence around the world. Hillary Clinton is by far the most qualified, experienced candidate for President in modern times. That experience should matter to us, it has prepared her to confront one of the most complicated sets of foreign policy challenges any President has confronted in decades.

Second: The Presidency is about legislative action. Hillary Clinton has laboriously built alliances in Washington and across the 50 states. She is ACTUALLY building the infrastructure of a political revolution because she’s laying the groundwork necessary to ACTUALLY get things done. She is doing the work of UNITING the democratic coalition around her policies. And those policies ARE  liberal because SHE is liberal. An independent, non-partisan analysis’ of her records and rhetoric show that she’s got a voting record on par with Elizabeth Warren.

Third: The Presidency is about the future of the party. Whether we like the two party system or not, the democratic party is the organization that stands between us and the GOP. Talk about the billionaire class being in charge! The GOP makes no bones about being owned by their contributors. They have no problem being the party of fossil fuels, or of war, or of the 1%– they embrace it! It will take money and party building to keep the GOP at bay. It will take a strong democratic party to actually achieve campaign finance reform, to successfuly bring about and defend policies that help rebuild the middle class. Has the party system done a great job so far? No. But destroying the one party that, at the very least accepts that we need to do something, as a response to not having done enough results in having nothing done at all.

Fourth: The Presidency is about weathering scandal. The GOP smear machine is a multi-million dollar, multiple media juggernaut. We’ve seen it deployed against Bill, against Obama, and against Hillary… our candidate and eventual President needs to be expert at handling the dirty tricks of the GOP and Hillary knows how. She’s been dealing with it for years and, while not immune, has a higher political tolerance for such attacks because people assume they’re empty.

Fifth: The Presidency is about balancing interests. There used to be a saying, “What’s good for GM is good for the nation.” That was replaced by, “What’s good for GE is good for the nation.” Now the common wisdom is, “What’s good for the middle class is good for the nation.” The truth is, none of those absolutist statements are true. The truth is that we need to balance the interests and needs of many constituencies whose desires are often at cross purposes. Billionaires and corporations are no more ‘the enemy’ of the people as lions are ‘the enemy’ of the gazelle. They are both essential parts of an economic ecosystem that has dominated the globe for almost 100 years. Are there too many lions? Yes. Is that a problem? Yes. Are the gazelles starving? Yes. Is that a problem for the billionaires? Yes.

Both candidates are calling for solutions that are financed by taxes on wealth. Those solutions are non-starters if we don’t also continue to encourage policies that grow the wealth we plan to tax. Thus, being sympathetic to the concerns of corporations and American business is not mutually exclusive with being sympathetic to the concerns of the people. They are inextricably linked. What we lack is balance.

And having laid out my affirmative case for Hillary, permit me a moment to address why I firmly believe supporting Sanders is a mistake.

First and foremost: It seems like people want to vote for Sanders because he says things they agree with. I don’t think that’s enough, and neither does Sanders. He has said repeatedly, “no matter who is elected to be president, that person will not be able to address the enormous problems facing the working families of our country.

They will not be able to succeed because the power of corporate America, the power of Wall Street, the power of campaign donors is so great that no president alone can stand up to them.

That is the truth. People may be uncomfortable about hearing it, but that is the reality. And that is why what this campaign is about is saying loudly and clearly: It is not just about elected Bernie Sanders for president, it is about creating a grassroots political movement in this country.”

Forgive me for not having more faith in the American public, but a vote for Sanders is a vote for the belief that the next four years are going to be four years of nationwide citizen activism so powerful that it will move even recalcitrant GOP Senators and House members to support democratic-socialist policies. That’s not a belief I possess. 

Senator Sanders is saying in NO uncertain terms: I won’t be powerful enough to do the things you want, I will NEED you to be constantly mobilized. I see no evidence that the American people will be. Nor do I see any reason why the conservatives in gerrymandered districts will have reason to be worried even if they were. 

But that aside, there’s good reason to believe that a Sanders’ Presidency could be disastrous for the democratic party and the policies we care about. 

Imagine for a moment a President Sanders, swept into office on a wave of populist discontent. His big missions: tax increases, financial regulation, campaign finance reform. 

Whatever solutions he proposes will be on the far end of the liberal spectrum. Before we even get to inevitable GOP obstruction, we have to confront how he wins the democratic caucus to his causes…

First he’ll have to win them over despite spending a career calling them names from outside the caucus. He has impugned members philosophies, calling them “ideologically bankrupt,” and insulted their morality by suggesting they’ve been bought and sold. 

He’ll have to wage these legislative battles along side the likely democratic leader Chuck Schumer (a conservative democrat) and in the house Nancy Pelosi (an avid Clinton supporter). He’ll be fighting these battles not as a loyal democrat with a deep well of respect, but as an outsider coming in. And worse, an outsider who refuses to fundraise or conduct comprehensive polling… so he won’t be able to offer vulnerable democrats in swing districts political information or financial cover…

For another thing, he will have to compromise on at least some of his views. For a man who makes his name on consistency, such compromises will be high profile and they will be paraded around by his opponents and lamented by his dedicated followers. (Who may, in their disappointment, fall back from the ranks of the grassroots movement he openly admits he will require to get anything done.)

For yet another, democratic members more to the right of his positions (who occupy that space, presumably, because theirs represents a portfolio of views that gets them elected) will worry about monied opponents taking them on. Usually a President soothes those concerns by offering the full support of the DNC, or contact with a bundler or a high dollar donor that will help them weather such a storm… but Sanders has made clear he’s not interested in the money game, eliminating this avenue of persuasion OR setting up another major ‘compromise’ with his principles should he realize the importance of high dollar donors to down ticket races. 

And those are just the challenges he faces in his own back yard.

Meanwhile, on the ground around the nation the Koch’s and their friends will be unleashing millions to prop up local groups opposed to the “Socialist Sanders Plan” or “Sandercare” or whatever this hypothetical Sanders administration rolls out first. They’ll plaster the airwaves with ads against “socialist solutions.” We’ll have a President with absolutely no connection to, or contacts in, the ‘billionaire class’ and no funds and fewer allies to fight or negotiate with them. We’ll have donors threatening to primary vulnerable democrats or heavily fund their republican opposition. 

Who do you think will win those fights? 

Now we’ve got the first socialist President compromising, AND losing nonetheless. After four years of a President who can’t get thing one done, how hard do you think it will be for the GOP to paint a picture for the American people about needing more moderate, reasonable leadership? Leadership they’ll no doubt claim only THEY can provide.

How much damage will be done to the democratic party between the hypothetical beginnings and endings of such a Presidency?

It’s also worth considering what a President Sanders, as a leader of the democratic party, would mean for the party itself… when the party is marching to the tune of a man who doesn’t seem to think the party, or its leadership, or its members have much value. A leader who thinks it’s politically and morally corrupt to raise money from high dollar donors or corporations.

Meanwhile last year the Republican party alone (not including individual candidate funds) raised over 600 million dollars. Outside spending that same year was 530 million. (In 2012 in was 1 billion.)

Destroying a practice is not the same as replacing it with something more just, more in keeping with your goals. When you destroy something, if there is something that CAN take its place, it will. 

A Bernie Sanders victory is not going to suddenly cause all that money to stop flowing to the GOP or to individual democratic candidates. It’s not going to stop powerful interests from trying to exert influence. In fact, without a well-monied, well-organized, unified democratic party the likelihood is that the ‘billionaire class’ is only going to become exponentially more powerful.