What Bernie Sanders Doesn’t Understand About American Politics

[Cali_Democrat]

By Jonathan Chait
January 27, 2016

At the recent Democratic town hall, moderator Chris Cuomo presented Bernie Sanders with what has been a common complaint about his presidential campaign: Sanders’s relentless focus on income inequality, in this campaign and through his career, raises the question of whether he is prepared to address the full spectrum of issues faced by a president. But there is a deeper problem with Sanders’s vision of American politics. It is not just that he has trouble talking about issues other than the redistribution of income; it’s that he has trouble conceptualizing those issues in any other terms. His rigidly economistic frame of mind prevents Sanders from seeing the world as it is.

<...>

Note that Sanders, asked about Republican opposition to his proposals, defined that opposition as “protecting the interest of the wealthy and the powerful.” It is certainly true that fealty to the interests of the rich heavily colors Republican policy. But Sanders is not merely presenting corruption as one factor. It is the entirety of it. Likewise, Sanders has difficulty imagining any reason other than corruption to explain disagreements by fellow Democrats, which he relentlessly attributes to the nefarious influence of corporate wealth. One does not have to dismiss the political power of massed wealth to acknowledge that other things influence the conclusions drawn by Americans who don’t share Sanders’s full diagnosis.

In reality, people have organic reasons to vote Republican. Some of them care more about social issues or foreign policy than economics. Sanders would embrace many concepts — “socialism,” big government in the abstract, and middle-class tax increases — that register badly with the public. People are very reluctant to give up their health insurance, even if it is true that Sanders could give them something better.

What’s more, the interests of the wealthy do not cut as cleanly as Sanders indicates. It’s true that business and the rich tend to oppose parts of his program like higher taxes on the rich, more generous social insurance, and tougher regulation of finance. But the Obama administration’s stimulus encountered intense Republican opposition even though it did not pose a threat to any business interests. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce even endorsed the stimulus, which profited business both directly (by pumping billions into contracts for projects like infrastructure) and indirectly (by goosing public demand for its members’ products). That did not stop 100 percent of House Republicans from opposing it. Nor did the unified opposition of the business lobby dissuade Republicans from holding the debt ceiling hostage in 2011, or persuade them to pass immigration reform in 2013. Sanders currently proposes a massive infrastructure program, which would make lots of money for the construction industry. Clearly, subservience to big business only goes so far in explaining Republican behavior.

Read more:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/what-sanders-doesnt-understand-about-politics.html#

[NurseJackie]

1. His rigidly economistic frame of mind prevents Sanders from seeing the world as it is.

I couldn't agree more!

[Cali_Democrat]

5. Hello Jackie!

This paragraph also nails it:

The depiction of conservatism as a mere cover for greed is a habit Sanders indulges over and over. Donald Trump’s appeal, in Sanders’s telling, has nothing to do with xenophobia or nationalism: “They're angry because they're working longer hours for lower wages, they're angry because their jobs have left this country and gone to China or other low-wage countries, they're angry because they can't afford to send their kids to college so they can't retire with dignity.” Sanders does not explain why this economic security has manifested itself almost entirely among white voters when minorities are suffering the same conditions. He simply assumes Trump has converted economic frustration into a series of pseudo-concerns, and rather than deal with those beliefs, Sanders proposes instead to convert them back into their original form: “I think for his working-class and middle-class supporters, I think we can make the case that if we really want to address the issues that people are concerned about ... we need policies that bring us together that take on the greed of Wall Street, the greed of corporate America, and create a middle class that works for all of us rather than an economy that works just for a few.”

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/what-sanders-doesnt-understand-about-politics.html#

[NurseJackie]

13. You know, I see many similarities between this writer's observations and ...

... another recent post (citing a Washington Post writer) that was alerted on and hidden for some odd reason.

[RobertEarl]

25. This is history

The people with all the power, with the influence and money who support the democratic party right now will leave before they would support a candidate like Sanders.

[SunSeeker]

2. K & R

[dogman]

3. Was he against the Iraq War for economic reasons?

Seems Chait may be suffering from a limited view.

[randys1]

4. I just called out rightwing talking points elsewhere, I will do so here as well

The article goes out of it's way to use this term


redistribution of income;

which means I wont be reading the rest of it

[KittyWampus]

18. LOL! Redistribution of Income/Wealth is a wholly NEUTRAL TERM.

Every society that has ever existed has had a means of redistributing wealth.

Whether it's a Kwakiutl potlatch or a progressive/regressive tax system.

[bowens43]

6. Our daily dose of bullshit

[Ferd Berfel]

9. yep

Oh yea, Bernie doesn't understand any of this......


On DU:
OMG--Live now. Clinton has Iowa rally in a bowling alley. !!!! Less than 150 there. !!!!!

http://www.kcci.com/…/live-video-trump-campaign-ev…/27987300... See More

WHen Bernie has a rally - Sea Change

[Orsino]

7. Chait's naive.

Congressional Republicans didn't oppose the stimulus for any reasons other than ideological. That was money that could have gone to tax cuts.

While it's true that xenophobia is a big part of Trump's appeal, Sanders is right to point out that ecomic insecurity is exactly what demagogues like Trump exploit.

[loyalsister]

29. It's LBJ observation

Trump's rhetoric couldn't be more obvious in playing to that impulse. Give the lowest (poorest?) white man someone to look down on

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." - LBJ

[Orsino]

34. Yep.

Chait, though, seems to have emerged from a seed in the jumble just last week.

[LexVegas]

8. Did he oppose the Brady Bill for economic reasons? nt

[mmonk]

10. What Chait doesn't understand is the people.

[JudyM]

11. Politics is being played on a2-dimensional board, so it needs to be viewed in 2-dimensional terms.

Corruption and over-leveraging by BigBiz is the backdrop for the entire political process.

[cali]

12. Right wing talking points, check. Dishonesty, check

[Nitram]

23. Cali, you sound like a broken record. To you, anyone who points out anything wrong with Bernie..

...must be using right wing talking points, and must be dishonest. Do you really believe that anyone who thinks Clinton is more electable than Sanders are both right wingers and dishonest?

[mindwalker_i]

14. A lot of issues come back to economic problems

The Iraq war was about getting taxpayer money to well-connected corporations. In fact, a lot of foreign "policy" seems to be about getting money to corporations: to keep weapons systems manufacturers going, to cause wars to maintain demand for those systems, etc. Domestic issues often tie back into economics. Police pulling over people and writing 15 tickets to blacks is done to increase revenue.

But in the end, I would rather have Bernie and at least attempting to rectify them. Hillary is all about maintaing the structure.

[SidDithers]

15. DU rec...nt

Sid

[RobertEarl]

27. Here's the truth

The people with all the power, with the influence and money who support the democratic party right now will leave before they would support a candidate like Sanders.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. As usual, Chait nails it.

This should be mandatory reading for anyone considering supporting Sanders.

[DanTex]

17. Really a good article, a lot of insight here. Bernie's big mistake is that, since he sees the world

primarily through the economic lens, he thinks everyone else does as well. It's much more complicated.

[cali]

19. Your comment is tone deaf. You know who sees things primarily

through an economic lens? Virtually everybody struggling. Sadly, that is tens of millions. And Bernie certainly doesn't think everyone thinks as he does.

[DanTex]

21. I'd say you are the one being tone deaf.

Sure, many people see things primarily through an economic lens, but many do not. The religious right doesn't. Discriminated-against groups often don't (and then they get accused, by liberals even, of being "divisive" and playing "identity politics&quot .

Polling has found that Bernie supporters are actually wealthier on average than Clinton supporters. College-educated millenials are a big part of his support. These people aren't actually struggling particularly much, sure maybe some student debt, but definitely not struggling for housing and food.

Bernie's argument is simplistic. He's saying that people are frustrated because they are struggling economically and they see billionares running away with the cash. And then people like Trump convert that frustration into racism, xenophobia, etc. The thing is, if the frustration was really rooted only or mainly in economics, why is it so easily diverted?

As Chait points out, a lot of it is tribalism. A lot of it is cultural.

BTW, what did you mean in your other post when you said it was dishonest and right-wing? I can see disagreeing, but where's the dishonesty and right-wingness?

[Jefferson23]

20. Chait is a self described liberal hawk. lol Talk about an oxymoron.

Republicans are off the rails because they are entirely in the pocket
of special interests..and the last god damn thing we should be doing
is accepting our own going in the same direction.

Where is his case for claiming we can have a functioning
democracy with the level of money through special interests
that exists today?

This man is a bad joke.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

22. Democrats resorting to rightwingspeak

[Nitram]

24. Chait points out exactly the seame weaknesses many of us see in Bernie's world view.

But many of the Bernista comments here just fall back on name-calling rather than considering the merits of Chait's case. "Right wing talking points", "dishonesty", "bullshit", "liberal hawk", "rightwingspeak". If you had the ability to read criticism of Bernie with an open mind, you'd realize that not a single right winger has made this argument:

"...It is certainly true that fealty to the interests of the rich heavily colors Republican policy. But Sanders is not merely presenting corruption as one factor. It is the entirety of it. Likewise, Sanders has difficulty imagining any reason other than corruption to explain disagreements by fellow Democrats, which he relentlessly attributes to the nefarious influence of corporate wealth. One does not have to dismiss the political power of massed wealth to acknowledge that other things influence the conclusions drawn by Americans who don’t share Sanders’s full diagnosis."

[Motown_Johnny]

26. Then explain this:

http://trofire.com/2016/01/27/this-veteran-wrote-a-letter-to-senator-bernie-sanders-thanking-him-for-voting-against-the-iraq-war/

^snip^

Read the Letter This Veteran Wrote to Senator Bernie Sanders About His Vote on Iraq War


“Senator Sanders,


I want to thank you. I want to thank you for exercising sound judgement even when everyone around you was beating the war drums.


See I fought in the streets of Fallujah, Iraq. I saw more blood and death than any 19 year old ever should. The amount of friends I’ve lost to war will likely be surpassed by the amount of friends I’ve since lost to suicide.


I know first hand the moral cost of war. One of the most painful truths that I must go through life with is that I fought in an unjust and unfounded war. While my intentions were good and I fought hard for the men to my left and to my right, and while I thought what I was doing what was right for the people of Iraq- I was wrong.


You knew this. You knew this before we went to war and you fought, and you spoke truth to your peers and though your words largely fell on deaf ears, I am truly heartened to know that I now have a chance to vote for a man who exercised sound and moral judgement when the war drums were beating the loudest.


I have a son. He is only one and a half years old but someday he will be 18 and I fear that if we continue to elect the same establishment politicians, he too will face the same decision that I did, and he too will go off to fight in an endless quagmire and that he too will come home, broken, and never fully returned or worse- never come home at all.


So thank you, Senator Sanders, for being of sound mind and judgement. Thank you for being the only voice in this race that does not want to continue this legacy of warfare. Thank you for being the only voice that is and has been standing up for those of us that fought in these misguided wars. Thank you for giving me hope for a peaceful future.”



Sincerely, A U.S. Marine – 0311 Operation Iraqi Freedom

[RobertEarl]

28. Chait is a whore to the rich

I am not surprised you would post his crap on DU. What is surprising is so many DUers support your posting. Like these:

NurseJackie SunSeeker MeNMyVolt leftofcool Cali_Democrat MoonRiver NCTraveler onehandle SidDithers DanTex DesertRat Nitram cosmicone

The people with all the power, with the influence and money who support the democratic party right now will leave before they would support a candidate like Sanders.

[whatthehey]

30. Meh. Some basic research dispels this

Of course Sanders focuses on economic inequality. Of course he builds his entire campaign around it. It's why he's running. That part is true, but not to the exclusion of all other things, just to the prioritization of all other things lower down on the ladder. Is he right to do this? Dunno, but to most people, most of their problems would be at the very least reduced greatly by a better standing economically. There would still be racism, even against minorities with higher incomes, of course, but give those victims the flexibility and resources that higher incomes bring and they would be more (no not completely, please reflect on the meaning of "more" before you fire off an anecdote) able to both avoid and respoond to racism's impact on them. Same for misogyny, xenophobia et al. It is undeniable that greater wealth brings greater resources for almost all social ills. Again reflect please on the meaning of "greater". Nobody is saying wealth negates bias, it just gives you more options to respond to it.

Every campaign has an overriding arc. Especially dark horse transformational campaigns. What Sanders uses as that arc is of course economic inequiality and lack of opportunity. It's priority 1. But priorities 2-X are there too. He has detailed positions on many others. Quibbles can be made but by my count 13/22 of his "On the Issues" headings are not driven by income redistribution. They are not atypically for primary campaigns general statements of intent for the most part (as are the inequality topics BTW), but they are clear and understandable, and since when do other even GE candidates post bill-ready details?

.Income and Wealth Inequality

It's Time to Make College Tuition Free and Debt Free

Getting Big Money Out of Politics and Restoring Democracy

Creating Decent Paying Jobs

A Living Wage

Combating Climate Change to Save the Planet

A Fair and Humane Immigration Policy

Racial Justice

Fighting for Women's Rights

Fighting for LGBT Equality

Caring for Our Veterans

Medicare For All

Fighting for Disability Rights

Strengthen and Expand Social Security

Fighting to Lower Prescription Drug Prices

Improving the Rural Economy

Reforming Wall Street

Real Family Values

War and Peace

War Should Be the Last Option: Why I Support the Iran Deal

Real Tax Reform Policies that Sen. Sanders Has Proposed

How Bernie pays for his proposals


Looks like he understands the scope of American politics; looks like Chait couldn't be arsed spending 30 seconds on Google checking for that understanding.

[Bernin4U]

31. Bernie: Misunderstanding his way, all the way

to the White House

[Beacool]

32. A well thought out and fair article that will be summarily dismissed by Sanders' supporters.

Sanders has lofty ideals that he has been espousing since he was a young man. The problem is that he views every problem in the U.S. through a very narrow prism and does not divert from that path one iota. Question any of his proposals and he immediately dismisses the doubters by claiming that what's needed is a political revolution. Aspirations are fine and dandy, but like every president has come to find out on his own, reality usually puts a break to those aspirations.

The reality on the ground that he, like all ideologues, refuses to admit is that most of his agenda would be dead upon arrival. The Republican party has the largest majority in the House it's had since the late 1920s. That is not likely to change anytime soon, whether Democrats like it or not.

In this highly polarized country that we live in, calls for political revolution will be as effective as the Occupy Wall Street group was in 2011. Politics is about compromise with the opposite side without renouncing one's principles. That's not Sanders' way.

I neither see Trump nor Sanders being effective presidents if American voters are foolish enough to give the presidency to either one.

[mhatrw]

33. Sure the Republicans are against all sorts of stuff that does not hurt the oligarchs.

That's the range of political theater "debate" that oligarchs allow us.

Sure, many uniformed low information voters like paying too much for their healthcare. That's because the corporate profiteers who have bought both parties have squelched all calls for changing over to a more humane and far more cost effective system since the times of Harry and Louise.

What we have here is yet another corporate media Clinton cheerleader reduced to demanding we vote for Hillary because American voters have been too brainwashed by corporate media to vote in their own economic self-interest.