Oh, Bernie. He has finally descended from the giant hippy reservation that is Vermont to deliver us from the boiling cesspool that is our current political and social situation. I exaggerate, but I will admit that for me, Mr. Sanders has inspired a bit of hope in a realm in which I do not often find hope: politics. He seems to say and do things that speak to our better emotions. He uses words like "love" and "compassion" regularly when cutesy stuff like that loses airtime to words like "winning" and "greatness." He has more individual campaign donors than any American presidential candidate in history. He has a record stretching back to the 60's to back up his campaign goals. He's even got something resembling a sense of humor, which I was beginning to think was against some kind of unwritten rule in our government. So why is he still sort of a long shot? Why is every conservative and non-radical liberal pundit in America anxiously awaiting his campaign's collapse? Is his disheveled appearance and Brooklyn twang really that big of a turn-off? Is his insistence on debating issues and not whose spouse is uglier putting us to sleep? Or does he represent international values that a lot of Americans find offensive because they are not explicit "American" values? The answer, like most things, is more complicated than we'd like to admit. If nothing else, Bernie Sanders is one of the more interesting personalities that "personality politics" has ever conceived, and he has taken the American people to task on their pleas for more peaceful and understanding leadership.
Guns seem to be an issue where Mr. Sanders' position doesn't really connect with any particular group, including his supporters. Despite his liberal credentials, he's consistently refused to hold gun manufacturers accountable for violence perpetrated using their products. I have to agree with him on this. It's a matter of principles, which from what I have seen Mr. Sanders seems to know a thing or two about. If we are to blame gun makers for the terrible things people do with guns, it sets a very vague and easily construed precedent for other manufacturers. Do we blame soft drink companies for making us fat? Do we blame car companies for vehicular homicides? Sounds contrived or far-fetched, maybe even like a veiled attempt to push the NRA's agenda, but it's true. Bernie is from a rural state that takes its guns seriously, and gun control legislation has made virtually no progress there while Bernie has been in office. Yet Vermont has the lowest gun-related homicide rate in the country. I understand perfectly that this is a sensitive, emotional area for a lot of people, and as such hasty decisions are almost justified. But I take issue with the Clinton campaign turning the families of gun violence victims into a political sideshow. While I'm sure these families are participating willingly, they're being used. Saying Bernie is soft on guns and lumping him in with the NRA is a cheap way of sidestepping the principle upon which he bases his opinion. To say that he is pandering to gun owners is silly because (excuse my generalization) most American gun-lovers aren't going to vote for Bernie Sanders regardless of his position on guns. The NRA hates him, regardless of what Mrs. Clinton says. From what I've seen and heard, he feels the problems we've had involving guns is a cultural problem and that guns are a part of that culture, not the center of it. Makes sense to me.
Senators Sanders' take on money in politics is really the shtick of his campaign, and his commitment to keeping it at the top of his agenda has probably turned some people off. It's very easy to that he sounds like a shallow, single-issue candidate because he talks about it the same damn way every time. It seems canned because we've heard it so many times. Or maybe we're just so accustomed to candidates' obsession with making their platform SOUND good instead of actually BEING good that Sanders comes off as bit dry and monotone (and a little bit weird) when he talks about these things. Maybe. I personally appreciate Mr. Sanders commitment to at least putting this part of American politics in the spotlight. Call it my drinking of the liberal kool-aid if you will, but large corporations have a strangle-hold on American politics and the American economy, and it's because we let them. Every time we eat at McDonalds or buy junk from Wal-Mart, we cast a vote that says we're ok with being dependent on the people that run McDonalds and Wal-Mart. The historic amount of grass-roots support Sanders has generated has told me that at the very least a lot of people are opening their ears to a different kind of economic and political dynamic that isn't dependent on short-sighted billionaires who would put every single American in the gutter if they thought it would make them even a little bit richer.
I have to address Bernie's primary opponent on this topic, because of all the pandering junk she spews, her strange relationship with corporate interests and the nonsense that is PACs and superPACs might hit me the hardest. Money corrupts, and this notion that Clinton is somehow insulated from that is campaign spin, period. Case in point: the Glass-Steagall Act was put in place after the stock market crash of 1929 to prevent banks from doing stupid things like blending investment and commercial banking. The act was repealed in 1998, and the banking scams that followed as a result were the principle cause of the housing collapse in 2008. You can look it up. Why hasn't Mrs. Clinton committed to replacing Glass-Steagall, or even admitted that repealing it was kind of a shitty idea? Two possible factors: the campaign contributions she gets from megabanks that profited from it being repealed, or because Mr. Clinton was the one who repealed it when he was president. One makes her look like a traitor to her contributors, the other makes her look like a bad wife. Neither is good enough for me. Again, she seems more concerned with making her platform SOUND good rather than actually making it good.
Many of Mr. Sanders' most devoted supporters have probably damaged his campaign. I think we all know who I'm talking about. White guys about my age or younger who drive mom and dad's new subaru to a party school and wear khaki shorts and collared short-sleeved shirts and backwards hats and colorful sunglasses. Bernie Bros. Just as many look at Donald Trump's campaign and just see his "typical" supporter (I won't go there), plenty of people see Bernie's campaign as a ruse that only appeals to idealistic college freshmen with no real responsibilities. That's how conservative commentators frame him. It pains me to say so, but that's fair. I know plenty of Bernie Bros and Bro-ettes. In fact I probably come off as one from time to time. I'd say a lot of these folks I call peers are, (like Bernie) very well-meaning, but they miss the point of a moral presidential campaign and will vote for him because he comes off as the cool grandpa. Regardless of what they tell you their reasons are, some like him because he'll legalize pot, or because they think the way he uses his hands to talk is funny, or because they think he'll make college free. The moral and ethical gold of what he's trying to bring to the White House gets lost in the crud of his offbeat cultural identity, which is much easier to understand and get behind. Yes, he appeals to the young and restless. But he is urging us towards peace and understanding instead of chest-beating and manipulation, and I find that admirable.
I am not crazy about Mr. Sanders' economic position, even though I believe it would work. What I believe Bernie has been trying to tell all of us with his "top one percent of the top one percent" line is that it's really difficult to fathom the amount of money that is in the hands of a couple hundred people in this country when EVERYONE else sees success as a salary in the $70,000-$100,000 range. There are plenty of economic models that will show you the real disparity of income in the United States. None of them paint a rosy picture for a hard-working person. And the fact that a lot of these top-one-percenters pay a pittance (if anything) in taxes is infuriating, but usually perfectly legal. Will closing tax loopholes just encourage the search for others? Of course. But that isn't a reason to not close them. Will raising taxes significantly on the wealthy take incentive away from being rich? No, not really. It's the scale of money that is a barrier to most peoples' understanding of Bernie's plan. It's staggering. Even at a time when billions of dollars are thrown around in our government like it's god-damned monopoly money, you better believe if a few hundred of the richest people in America payed what the rest of us pay in taxes, that federal deficit everyone's talking about would be a whole lot more manageable, if not gone entirely.
My issue comes, surprisingly, on his principles. Sanders has proposed funding public college education through a tax on risky stock market maneuvers. I don't like that. As a public college student, I don't want ass hole people doing ass hole things with money to be how my education is paid for. It creates a conflict of interests that encourages ass hole things. In essence, public college students would be cheering every time a credit default swap goes down. Judging by how he talks about Wall Street, that's not what Bernie wants. It's not what I want. I agree that if we are to call ourselves a democracy, money should not be a barrier to quality education at any level. I don't pretend to have a better plan than the one Mr. Sanders has put forward, but I think if any of his proposals are ill-concieved, it's this one. It would probably work, at least in the short-term. It's economically feasible and the idea that there isn't enough money to make it work is probably false. But it does not fall under what I would consider a "moral economy," which Senator Sanders and his pal Pope Francis talk so much about.
Of course as a senator who lacks a great deal of foreign policy experience, Mr. Sanders has been questioned quite a bit regarding his readiness in this area. He has consistently voted against the various international clusterfucks we've gotten involved in during his time in the senate, and it's perfectly fair to have concerns about what he will do with the reins of the most powerful military in the world. This is where I think Bernie necessarily breaks from his morals. He says "we must crush ISIS," but Bernie doesn't want to crush ISIS. He doesn't want to smoke a peace pipe with them either. He wants to see the people who are directly affected by ISIS every day (poor, marginalized people in Middle Eastern counties with very weak governments) to be able to defend themselves. Which is what I think is right and what I think should happen. The coalition of nations that he speaks of in the Middle East has much more at stake in that fight, despite republicans' attempts to rationalize their Islamic boogeyman bullshit. But not many people in America (and even fewer in the military) like even the hint that we're having our battles fought for us. They especially don't like seeing a shiny new 14 billion dollar aircraft carrier on the sidelines when it could be sending planes to do cool American stuff in places very, very far away from America. It's a fine line Bernie must walk. He's the doviest of the doves, and most of our legislators are hawks. Will he risk continuing or escalating these conflicts if his military advisors think it's necessary? We as Americans pride ourselves on not really giving a flying what the rest of the world does or says or thinks of us, but Sanders consistently ranks as the favorite among foreigners and American voters abroad. Maybe because they think Bernie will at least think twice before bombing the bejesus out of some remote village or impoverished city neighborhood?
He is a fascinating man. He is a good man. He's not afraid to be ridiculed or criticized for doing what he feels is right. He is committed to peace and sustainability, and his record leads me to believe that he will continue to be. He doesn't comb his hair. For what the office of President of the United States represents, that's enough for my vote. But the question I and quite a few of my peers have faced in this election cycle is: does anyone really care how I vote? The Republican National Committee's position on their primary system becomes more and more fluid as their anti-establishment front runner barrels hair-first into the convention. The Democrats, however, appear to be sticking to their guns (no pun intended). Their system of picking a nominee is tired and undemocratic, and it is designed to push the candidate that the party honchos think will support their agenda, not the one who will lead the country best. Bernie is rocking the boat at a time when the Democratic party doesn't think the boat needs to be rocked. Hillary is the heir apparent to the throne made by Obama, and Bernie is the weird step child trying to steal it. Hillary, to me, is not the antichrist. She's just completely and utterly fake. She'll ride Obama's coattails when it's convenient for her, throw him under the bus when its not, and give canned, shallow, legalistic responses the rest of the time. If we want the rest of the world to take us seriously, Bernie Sanders will be living in the White House this time next year. But therein lies the most American of questions: do we care if the rest of the world takes us seriously? Can it ever take us seriously again when we're letting a reality television star make legitimate waves in our national politics? It'll be tough. Bernie isn't perfect, but he has gone about his senetorial career the right way, he has gone about his campaign the right way, and I'm tempted to believe he will go about his presidency the right way. He isn't perfect, but he has the vision and the audacity to make compassion and equality the axis upon which he and his campaign spin, and that's the kind of leader I can respect and trust.
