This is something I’ve been curious about for a while, and I mean my question literally: “how” as in “what processes and strategies will he take to enact his agenda?” Because one of my main nagging instincts about Sanders is that, if elected, I don’t think he’ll get half, or even a quarter, of what he wants done done — not because he won’t want to, or won’t try, but because I don’t see any sign from him that he can rouse the Congressional and public support he needs, especially in these days of gerrymandering favoring the kind of Republican Congresspeople whose heads explode just thinking about anyone believing the kinds of things he does.
I’m especially curious because as I’ve mentioned before, there are some hardcore supporters who’ll vote for ONLY him, even if that means letting the Republicans they loathe win the White House and enact legislation that’ll tear down the middle class and kill the poor (their beliefs, not mine), because they think the rest of the Democratic party is bought and paid for by the same people as the Republicans. I’d like to know what their (or even the general Sanders’ voter, who doesn’t necessarily hold those views) best case scenario looks like.
Poorly. He is a man with some outstanding ideas… that run contrary to current practice, belief of many and maybe even in a few ways to human nature.
He is a man who is half nice old guy (Jimmy Carter) and half irascible old fart (Ross Perot).
He is tagged with one of the dirtiest words in American politics. (Although after the administration of a guy whose name would slot into any story about a terrorist cell…)
10 out of 10 for potential, but I think he would find himself even more bollixed up by the resistance of the rest of government and a large proportion of the population than Carter. I think it’s a case of someone with whom I agree on many things who would make a truly disastrous President.
How he might flail at the walls with his wet noodles is pretty much irrelevant, I’m afraid.
Name one hardcore Sanders supporter who isn’t going to vote for Hillary in next year.
Anyway, all any president can do is manage their cabinet and appeal to congress. That’s what he would do. He’d probably be as successful at it as Obama, which is not very.
One of the ardent supporters around here who seems to have stopped posting referenced a grand plan to get a progressive wave elected along with him. It’s just a secret plan that he hasn’t shared or started to implement yet.
I distrust one-issue or reform politicians who are going to fix abortion, or gun control, or sigh taxes… and then get elected and are incapable/uninterested in the other 99% of the job and make a flailing mess of things. At best, they become irrelevant, overlooked in their legislative body or whatever.
Sanders seems to have a more comprehensive plan, but as nearly all of it is nudging up against impossible, I think he’d flail, be unable to backtrack or change path, and end up making Carter look like a sure-footed chief executive.
So foreign policy and energy administration can tank if we get free education? (Make any substitutions you like.)
I don’ tink so. That’s precisely my point about one-topic reformers (or complete reformers who are going to be lucky to get even one of their plans adopted): You can’t just ignore or sideline all the other issues, especially the inevitable crises. The rest of the issues won’t just take care of themselves while you fix, say, Big Pharma. To think so is idiocy; to say that’d be just fine with you is… shortsighted.
I don’t see how other issues would be tanked. Are you suggesting that some of his plans might fail if they were implemented or that the Republicans in Congress would not implement some of his ideas and cause some issue to tank?
I’d ask this of Sanders detractors as well. I don’t think there’d be much of a difference between HRC and Sanders if the makeup of Congress does not change.
It’s not like the Congressional Conservatives are going to be any more eager to work with Hilary. But if Congress passes back to the Democrats, at least the next Democratic president won’t have deal with Joe Godhelpus Lieberman.
How’s the deficit? If he succeeds on a high dollar new program like college tuition without getting currently unspecified taxes, or big cuts, in place to pay for it the deficit growth can produce some unpleasant economic side effects.
Social Security is another great example. In the words of the Trustees this year
Doing nothing effectively keeps us driving full speed at the cliff ahead. The recent budget deal avoids big SSDI cuts in 2016 but that’s a piece that needs some more work during the next Presidency. The long term SS and Medicare benefits issue gets worse, requiring more severe changes, if nothing is done for 4-8 years.
I like Sanders and honestly find what he’s doing as far as avoiding negative ads in the primary a welcome breath of fresh air, I wish Clinton would do the same. That said, I think that aspect of her, the will to fight and occasional political visciousness would serve her well as president. Sanders might be too congenial to attack Republicans for holding up, for example, a bill that protects against domestic violence. His White House Correspondence Dinner jokes would be all self-deprecating. But he’ll get some stuff done because its the right thing to do and may be less careful about following the polls than leading it. I don’t fault Obama for waiting a while before coming out in full support of gay marriage, but it would be nice if a President Sanders came out in his first 100 days and simply said they’re going to decriminalize pot and make tuition free and oh, amnesty is not that bad
That was strictly in reply to the sub theme of it being good if he can only get one or two things from his agenda done while ignoring everything else. If that tax change, or an effective compromise, isn’t that one thing the SS system keeps digger itself in to deeper problems.