Also, it’s not unrealistic to believe that a Sanders presidency might suffer crushing electoral defeat when time came around for reelection. By then the Democrats would have had the White House for 12 years, and voters tend to tire of the party in power after 12 years.
But he would only push the Window left if he were successful. If he were perceived as a big failure, then that might make future politicians steer to the right for fear of being labeled another “Bernie Sanders.”
Carter’s presidency, for instance, did not push America left; *it paved the way for Reagan and the Republican right. *
I predict after Trump gets his ass handed to him in 2016, the Republicans will nominate a professional wrestler in 2020. It’s Democrats all the way down from here on.
Why would it be better for a progressive to choose a non-progressive hawk who will ‘competently’ move the country to the right and continue with corporatism over a progressive who may not get things done but will at least try to move it leftwards ?
At least nail your colours to the mast.
Yup. I agree with this.
What matters for progressives is getting the Democrat elected because it’s the president who’s going to pick our next few Supreme Court justices. It doesn’t actually matter which Democrat or how competently they enact their goals. What matters is keeping the Republican out of the White House.
Yeah, I know. The Democrats are not progressives. I know that. It doesn’t matter. The Progressive Party is not a player in this immediate election. Maybe one day, but not at this time. Therefore, this is not the time to go all wobbly over Ralph Nader.
The only nailing that matters is the stake I want nailed through the shriveled lump of coal that is the heart of the Republican party.
Well, there’s a difference: Bernie is a white man. (Well, Jew, technically white, you know . . . at any rate, I didn’t hear much RW anti-Semitism when Lieberman was Gore’s running mate.) And he speaks to concerns even many Tea Partiers actually share – that is at least part of Trump’s appeal to them, his economic populism. A Sanders presidency would not fire up the base-hate in quite the same way.
Yes, yes, all true. But for a different thread. Here, we’re discussing what kind of POTUS Sanders would make.
So’s Hillary. And looking at all the (comparative) striplings and whippersnappers in the Pub field, maybe youth is overrated, at least for these purposes.
He has pictures of all the Congressmen with their boy toys, mistresses and ducks.
:dubious:
I think Sanders will probably not be a very effective President (due to congress) but I think 4 years of a Progressive President will help pull the country away from the right a bit and be good for the country overall.
Yeah, well, Carter was no liberal, let alone a progressive.
You say “would get nothing done” as if that’s a bad thing. Most of what the government does is harmful, so a president who gets nothing done is generally preferable to one who gets a lot done. I don’t like Sanders’ positions, but I’d take him over Hillary or some other mainstream Democrat. Under Obama, I’ve seen thousands of new regulations reducing my freedom on issues ranging from health insurance to food to employment to speech to dishwashers. Bernie Sanders may hate my deodorant, but as long as he doesn’t successfully ban it, why should I care?
Sanders is like a character from This Is Spinal Tap. He’s an idiot, but he’s a sincere idiot. Whatever he says, you can be sure that he means it. Compare that to Hillary, who will always flip-flop if the price is right. I much prefer the Sanders approach.
That has not been true for most of American history.
Jimmy Carter was no liberal? OnTheIssues joins me in strongly disagreeing:
Sanders has no foreign policy experience and no record of getting any agenda accomplished. It would take decades to recover from the backlash. The mid-terms would likely result in veto-proof majorities against him in both houses of Congress. The hard-core Right agenda would accomplish its goal as a result of his Presidency as surely as if a GOP candidate won.
The one good thing would be his impact on the Supremes as judges retire or die.
He’s not all that far left.
There’s nothing this alleged socialist actually wants to nationalize. And real leftists are far from swooning over his foreign policy.
Contrast with Jeremy Corbyn, expected next leader of the British Labour Party, and an actual socialist:
I’m not for Corbyn. Not at all. I’m just saying that he really may be responsible for a substantive Overton shift in his country. But Sanders views are just too close to the Democratic mainstream for this to be likely in his case.
I believe that nationalizing health care would be good.
Leftists of previous generations promised to seize the means of production. Today’s leftists promise free stuff. Free health care. Free college education. Free solar panels and windmills. Free public transportation. They seem to think this will sell better than violently taking away everyone’s property.
Folks have it just about everywhere else.
This reminds me that there is one industry Sanders is in favor of nationalizing. It isn’t health care, but health care insurance. I can’t find any evidence that Sanders wants to outlaw for-profit drug companies, physician groups, or hospitals, let alone nationalize them.
Personally, I think it would be much better to outlaw for-profit hospitals than insurance companies.
I like this better than the Sanders plan: