Everlong wrote:3. Bernie Sanders. I still like Bernie a lot, but I think he's kind of a pie in the sky candidate, and he's not even the best progressive running right now. He's far too old--he and Biden shouldn't even be running, IMO. However, his progressive views have garnered huge grassroots support and he's done a ton to move the party as a whole quite a bit to the left over the last several years. So I love Bernie for his ideals, but I'm concerned about his age and also with his ability to pull a following in Washington. I think in terms of inspiring loyalty and followers not just in the general public but in congress, Warren and Pete would be significantly better.
I was trying to decide whether or not this was the right place to debate politics, but it's been quiet around here so I guess it couldn't hurt.
I disagree strongly with the idea that Bernie isn't the best progressive running right now. He's to the left of Warren on every major issue, and his proposals are bolder and more far-reaching. He's the only candidate proposing to eliminate all student debt and all medical debt. He's been far less vague on his support for Medicare for All and what it should cover. For example, Warren seems to be advocating for a system whereby mental health cover would only be provided under private insurance. For the most vulnerable in the country, the difference between a Bernie presidency and a Warren presidency could be substantial.
Bernie's also way ahead of her on foreign policy matters. Warren voted for all of Trump's outlandish military budget increases, and when she was questioned on this she really didn't have a good answer. She's not as progressive as Bernie when it comes to speaking out against Israel's human rights violations. And she hasn't shown as much interest in foreign concerns in general, with the exception of trade agreements which she tends to frame as a national issue. Where a candidate stands on foreign policy is of particular importance, because the president is more empowered to make foreign policy decisions without going through congress. It's also important because 'foreign' is where I live.
Also relevant to foreign policy is the climate crisis, and the legislation that Sanders has put out - based on the Green New Deal framework - is so much more ambitious than anything else that's even being hinted at by anyone else in the field. It's a plan that takes the issue seriously and doesn't deal in half-measures. It would make America the world leader on the climate issue.
Finally, I just think Bernie is the candidate who won't be afraid to tackle problems root and branch. Which matters, because the system that he's working in is resistant to change. He put out an agenda to get money out of politics over the last few days which could radically improve the way politics works in America, removing the incentive for the government to work for corporations instead of people. I do like Warren, and I think she's better on the issues than the vast majority of presidential candidates in the modern history of the United States. But to me she feels like a compromise between Bernie and the Democratic establishment. And I don't see any reason to begin the election with a compromise. It's better to keep moving the Overton window to the left.
On Bernie's age, it's not that it doesn't matter, but it's only something I'd take into consideration if I thought there was another candidate that was close to him on the issues. If anything, his age means that this might be the best and only chance the country has of electing a candidate that's this progressive, bold and uncorruptible. On the flip side, we could be hearing Buttigieg's name in the news for the next 50 years. Which I can't say I'm too excited about, at least as of yet.