Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, is running for President and I am happy to offer my relatively meaningless and definitely early endorsement of his candidacy.
Of course, Hillary Clinton is going to win. I’ll cheer alongside her ardent supporters. With an air of inevitability, why would Bernie run? Why support a guaranteed loser?
Aside from having a potentially great theme song, Bernie is a populist and an unabashed democratic socialist. His policies are on the left, but are agreeable to most people outside the context of constant us-versus-them media spin.
Equal pay for women shouldn’t be on the liberal spectrum, it should simply be the norm. Most people, minus elected Republicans in Congress, believe women deserve equal pay. Bernie’s on that.
He wants to invest in rebuilding our infrastructure, which creates jobs and fixes potholes (two things Scrantonians could certainly benefit from). On the Big Banks that led to our economic collapse a few years back, he says, “No single financial institution should have holdings so extensive that its failure could send the world economy into another financial crisis … If an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist.” Simple concept. And logical.
I could spend forever talking about and dissecting policies, but I’ll leave that for later. For now, if you need more information, check out his issues page. You’ll be surprised how much he’s for the average American, unlike roughly every other politician we see. And, unlike a lot of other politicians, he has a demonstrable record of consistency. He isn’t pandering, he just is who he is — and that’s only good for the little guy.
Aside from supporting Bernie ideologically, I’m keen on the fact that his presence in the race forces Hillary to confront a lot of issues and offer opinions of her own that are more in tune with mainstream America. Our elected leaders often don’t represent the interests and beliefs of the electorate, be they Democrats or Republicans. They serve corporate and monied interests. Why? Because it takes money to get into office and money talks. Poverty, it seems, walks.
You’ll notice on Bernie’s splash page, in the lower right hand corner, this: Paid for by Bernie 2016. (Not the billionaires). In fact, Bernie raised $1.5 million in the 24 hours after his announcement. That is more than any other candidate running for President. The average donation was $43.
Having decided not to run for office again, at least for the foreseeable future, it’s easier for me to speak my mind. And that means I can be the ideologue I am without having to look over my shoulder for the Opinion Sanitization Force.
There’s a lot that Bernie stands for and has done that I’ve left out. Research for yourself. But if you want somebody that will change the conversation to issues that matter to regular folks, rather than the billionaires and multi-national corporations that run the country, Bernie is your man.
Hey Tom, glad to see you posting again. I’d say “keep it up”, but I don’t want to jinx anything.
I view Bernie Sanders like many other politicians. While Rafael Cruz panders to the far right, sometimes (well most of the time) Senator Sanders does the same to far left. He’s right about climate change, but he’s also guilty of sound-byte commentary on the equal pay issue, quoting an incorrect 78% statistics. Here’s a very good & quick read on the issue by the not-conservative Pew Research Center that proves my point –
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/
In summary, he’s simply wrong when citing a 78% wage gap. Sloppy and pandering.
I’ll also call him guilty of pandering on the promotion of trade unions as well; “card check”, in place of secret ballots for union elections, is bad policy that opens the door for blatant strong-arm tactics. If a union is right for an organization, then what’s to fear from a secret ballot election? That employees will actually vote their conscience?
Lastly, as for “taking on Wall Street”, well don’t you see just a bit of irony in the U.S. federal government, the ultimate expression of “too big to fail” telling others that they are “too big to fail” and therefore should be broken up? Now conceptually I actually agree that too much power is concentrated in too few financial institutions, but I simply don’t trust the federal government enough to make those decisions. Who gets broken up? Who gets to own the pieces? If anything, “too big to fail” targets are a smoke screen for the federal government’s inability to actually prosecute the bad actors in the last financial crisis. How many big CEOs went to jail after the 2008 collapse? I know, that’s a trick question, in part because greed isn’t really a crime, but then again stupidity isn’t either (and large financial institutions count on the financial illiteracy of Americans).
Anyway, welcome back Tom. It’s going to be an interesting summer.
Regards,
– Steve
I think my favorite part of blogging again is that responses to my posts become posts of their own on your site!
By way of response, all politicians are panderers, by definition.
On equal pay, your link states women make 93 cents on the dollar compared to men. Anything less than equal is wrong. I didn’t see a citation for his 78% figure when I went to his site, but the article you’ve linked to definitely talks about how women have it a little tougher than men do.
I don’t have a problem with “card check” legislation, because current labor law allows for employers (i.e. Walmart and Target) to discourage forming unions and intimidate and punish employees. But more realistically, “card check” is just like a petition — pretty harmless. It’s also odd to say he panders to unions for having a position that favors them, because that would equate to condemning literally everyone who has a position that benefits anyone or anything.
While I’m not a fan of the operation of the federal government, it has the power to regulate and should exercise it. Somebody has to regulate the financial sector. Corporations aren’t going to do it themselves. The government’s ineptitude when it comes to prosecuting the guilty is a symptom of the problem: what politician is going to push for the censure of the very people who lobby them and bankroll their campaigns?
Bernie at least has a record of not being bought. His average donation was $43. Check the Republican candidates. Or Hillary. I’ll take grassroots candidates any day!