A few thoughts on the Presidency of Barack Obama

2008 was the first presidential election I remember, if only vaguely. I remember the smear campaign, attacks from both sides and I understood the significance of the moment: America’s first black president. But my observation was made through a lens of juvenile disinterested. I was twelve. Politics meant little to me.

In 2012, at sixteen, I was far more aware of the world around me. I read the news, attempted to engage with it on a meaningful level. Morally, emotionally, and intellectually, I was a rough approximation of the person I am now. The election race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney was, as all presidential elections inevitably are, an international spectacle, and I observed with interest. I watched the debates, researched the candidates. I cringed as this sleazy middle-aged man talked about having folders full of women, a stark contrast to the eloquent, fatherly figure who’d been leading the free world for the past several years.

I’d known Obama’s election was a precedent setting moment, even from a young age. And, I think, on some level, a part of my burgeoning intellectual brain simply felt that Obama’s relatively successful first term, combined with the historical precedent it set and the obvious appeal he had over Romney, was enough of a reason to think America should elect him again in 2012. I viewed politics, American, Canadian, and all others, through a black and white lens. I bought into general ideas, rhetoric promoted by the media, rather than hard facts.

Fast forward another four years, and I’ve come to view Obama through yet another lens, brought about by brutal personal experiences, wide reading and critical thinking, and a few years of university.

In general, my feelings towards the outgoing president are pretty similar to what they were in 2012. I admire the man. I think he is a genuinely good human being, and I respect the trials he faced to reach the Oval Office. I have a greater understanding of the historical context in which he operates, the cause and effect events that resulted in many of today’s problems. I believe he acts in a genuine and measured attempt to make life better for his country and for humanity. I think, in particular, over the second half of this term he has displayed great skill and dexterity when dealing with both domestic and international issues, from issues with health-care reform and racial tension, to the rise of populist nationalism the world over.

I don’t agree with everything Obama has done. I think, sometimes, he’s played the middle-ground a bit too much, attempting to appease both sides of the political spectrum. Sometimes, he’s done otherwise, acted with too little tact and played into the hands of the opposition. He’s failed to form a coherent approach to dealing with the Middle-East. He made empty threats towards the Assad regime in Syria. This, combined with many other factors, most notably his escalation of American drone strikes in the region, has allowed for a rise in anti-American and anti-western sentiment in the region, directly influencing the conditions that gave rise to the Islamic State.

But, ultimately, I think judging the presidency of Barack Obama as anything other than a relative success is somewhat short-sighted and simplistic. The world is changing. American dominance and Western influence is waning. People are shifting to their roots: fundamentalism, populism, and various other “isms.” No president, Republican or Democrat, black or white, has the capacity to stop this change. They can only weather it.

I think Obama has weathered the past eight years well. The President of the United States faces a unique set of challenges that none of us can truly understand. To my mind, Obama has always attempted to tackle these challenges with morality and compassion. Sometimes he has not succeeded. He has made mistakes, as humans do, but he has also enjoyed great successes given the challenges he’s come up against.

I think that Barack Obama is a genuinely good human being. When one compares him to the man who came before him, and the man who will succeed him, it is hard to argue that he is not both intellectually and – at least in one case – morally superior. The contrast has shone through in his presidency.

There is a storm ahead. Frankly, I’m scared shitless for what is to come in the next few years. The world is becoming more hostile, more closed off. In some ways, this is humanity reverting to its default settings after an unprecedented level of prosperity and cooperation. I hope that we, as a species, can find a way past the coming storm, though I am not entirely confident.

I hope Obama remains politically engaged over the coming years, perhaps following a path similar to that Jimmy Carter took after his time in the White House ended. Obama is a politically astute, compassionate, and confident.

We’re going to need people like that going forward.

In the Wake of Tragedy

 Sometimes life throws you a curveball.

Sometimes, the world decides to throw a great big shit in your face.

Obscene? Perhaps. Accurate? Definitely. This past week, the entire world had a massive, spray tan drenched, toupee-wearing shit thrown in its face.

Honestly, it’s taken me this long to actually process the reality of Trump’s victory, and even now I find myself questioning reality. A President Trump is a gut punch to the world. It’s an insult to human dignity. It is, simply put, a travesty.

A vote for Trump was not a vote for any kind of coherent policy. It was not a vote for positive change. It was a vote born of frustration, made by the short sighted, the ignorant, and the downright selfish.

Trump’s election is a tragedy for humanity.

Not all of his supporters are racists, sexists, or homophobes. But most racists, sexists, and homophobes are his supporters.

Those that are not themselves bigots condone, by their actions last Tuesday, every kind of bigotry Trump has promoted. By supporting him, many reasonable and moderate (primarily white) Americans have simply accepted the promotion of so many prejudices that western society has worked to limit over the past century.

Previous presidents have made mistakes. Many have been elected on platforms I wholeheartedly disagree with. Yet I cannot think of an instance in recent history where society has so blatantly, not to mention willingly, taken a step backwards.

It is a tragedy of epic proportions.

As in the wake of all tragedies, it will take time for us to adjust. The initial period is about surviving. This is when the heavy drinking happens, as one denies reality. For me, this past week has been about weathering the shock, as denial slowly moves into acceptance.

For many, this period of shock will last longer than a week. For some, unfortunately, it will be shortly forgotten as their lives move on. For many who are unaffected by this tragedy (and many simply too ignorant of how it will affect them), the period of mourning is simply nonexistent.

I no longer feel shock, or denial. I have moved onto the next stage of dealing with tragedy.

I am angry.

I don’t have many words of optimism. I don’t feel very optimistic myself. I’m sure the anger will fade, but I know that the passion that drives it will not subside into dull acceptance.

This tragedy was unnecessary. Donald Trump was not something that had to happen to the world. His election is an injustice.

We may not be able to change this injustice. But we can survive it. We can make it through to the other side, and we can try to make the world a better place for it.

There is my obligatory attempt at some kind of philosophical “the night is always darkest before the day” bullshit.

The only way things are going to change is if we change them.

I am angry, and I have little patience for people telling me to “accept the result.” One can accept something is going to happen without being happy about it. One can accept reality while acknowledging the absurdity of that reality. One can challenge the bigots of the world while knowing they are trying to extinguish a house fire with a water gun.

Those that tell us to simply “accept” the result are those that condone the injustices Trump stands for. These people are the problem.

To everyone who is affected by this both directly and indirectly, to everyone who hurts for the world and for their fellow human beings, to everyone who feels as heartbroken as I do: try not to give up. As hard is it may be, don’t stoop to their level. Don’t let their apathy overcome you. No matter how many times people roll their eyes at you, ignore you, label you, or disdain for your “political talk,” keep on fighting for what you know is right.

Some people have no choice about the battles they fight; it is up to us who have the luxury of choosing to stand up for those who are not so lucky.

It’s the only way we can even come close to stopping the Trumps of the world.

Why this election matters

I was eight when I first learned about racism. A teacher at our school, a Middle-Eastern man whose name I can’t remember, took all of the boys in my class to one area while the girls were taken separately by another teacher. I never found out why we were separated by gender (or if I did I don’t remember) but the memory has stuck with me to this day.

The teacher spoke plainly, with barely concealed disgust in his voice. He told us that something called “racist language and behavior” had been going on at our school, and that if it did not stop then the police would be contacted. The people involved, he said, knew who they were. He refused to answer the questions put forth by those of us who were left confused, and we were quickly sent back to class.

At the time, I had never heard the word “racist.” But if I had, it would have meant nothing to me. I grew up in an area in the southern UK with a lot of racial diversity. There were many “black” and “brown” kids at my school, and even a few “Asians,” but these distinctions meant little to me. Referring to a peer as black was no different than saying my best friend had brown eyes. As far as I was concerned, good people were good people and bad people were bad people, regardless of the colour of their skin. In my youthful naiveté, I was about as close to proverbially colourblind as one could get.

The teacher’s ultimatum shook me deeply. I went home and asked my mum what the teacher had been referring to, fearful that I might be unwittingly engaging in this behaviour. Mum quickly assuaged my fears, but seemed disturbed by the news that our school had a race issue serious enough that the police would potentially be involved.

She explained to me that some people – cruel, ignorant, petty individuals – liked to find excuses for putting down and hurting others. Unfortunately, these people often used differences in appearance, such as skin colour, as just such an excuse for hurting others. Some people, she said, often white people like us, believed themselves better simply because of the colour of their skin.

“Just like the bullies who call people stupid or fat?” I asked.

“Yes,” Mum said, a sad pride in her eyes. “Just like those bullies.”

This is one of the defining moments of my childhood. The memory remains as powerful as the actual experience. My mother provided a rather simplified definition of racism for my young mind, but, as is often the case, simplicity can be poignant.

Racism, at its core, is not a complex phenomenon. Simply put, it is the act by which petty, ignorant, and insecure people finding an excuse – be that excuse the colour of a person’s skin, their country of origin, or their religion of choice – to relegate others as inferior in their own minds. Racism is just one of countless forms this phenomenon takes.

As I realized at the age of eight, racists are bullies.

Flash forward to 2016, and we are seeing the legitimization of these bullies. This presidential election race has allowed the darkest, cruelest, and pettiest corners of humanity to slink out from their hiding places and find the most dangerous thing one can give a bully: legitimacy.

This election is about more than just Donald Trump. It’s certainly about more than Hillary Clinton and whatever one might think of either candidate’s policies. This election is about the same phenomenon that has allowed for the far right’s rise in Europe, caused riots in Ferguson, Baltimore, and countless other cities, or resulted in seismic geopolitical events such as Brexit.

I think it is too early to define this phenomenon yet. We are living through a moment in history, a turning point precipitated by events like 9/11 and the Great Recession, and this election is merely a piece of a picture we won’t be able to see in its entirety for years to come.

However, it is possible to perceive parts of the picture. Attitudes and moods are clear. People desire change. For many in the United States, this change comes in the form of Donald Trump. He represents an alternative to everything people are frustrated with – everything his competitor stands for. His followers want a revolution, the complete overhaul of a system that seems to have left them behind.

Perhaps such a revolution needs to come. Perhaps we should have allowed Bernie Sanders to carry his own movement forward. Many of his supporters have now turned to Trump, seeing their desire for change as more important than the candidate’s obscene views. These people are so desperate for change that they would be willing to bring it regardless of the costs.

A dam is about to burst. I fear for what is to come, regardless of who sits in the White House come January.

Our world is not a fantasy, yet people seem to view it as such. There seems to be a failure to realize that lasting, widespread change, particularly of the type Trump will bring, cannot happen overnight and without bloodshed. Revolutions come at a human cost, and, indeed, many ultimately fail.

If we allow Trump’s revolution to happen, we legitimize the bullies. Though I am not an American, I include myself in that “we” because tomorrow’s results will ripple throughout the world. Donald Trump represents a discontent that is present across the globe.

I urge people to think about what this election means, what each candidate truly stands for and the kind of people they represent. Every action has consequences, both visible and invisible. Perhaps a President Trump will provide a welcome change in some areas, a man willing to throw out the norms of politics and bring his own change to a broken system. But is it worth all the things he will destroy in order to bring change?

Think of the people he represents. While many of his supporters are reasonable, intelligent people, he also represents the dregs of humanity. It is this minority, the percentage of his supporters who are bullies, those that hear his sickening words and nod in agreement, that will cause the ripples. When people hear their darkest ideas echoed by potentially the most powerful man in the world, those ideas are emboldened and reinforced. Legitimized. Those most extreme in their hatred will inevitably entice the moderate bullies, those simply ignorant and outdate in their mindsets, into extremity, who will in turn induce others.

Donald Trump’s election will be the pebble that causes the landslide.

Such rhetoric might seem extreme, but it is hard to deny its accuracy. When has any other leader so brazenly flaunted the democratic system? When has any other leader openly made comments about rape? When before has a candidate so openly endorsed, and been endorsed by, the worst of humanity, the dictators and extremists of the world?

Donald Trump by himself is not the problem. Does he hate all immigrants? Does he believe women to be inferior? The simple answer is that these things do not matter. The issue is that people believe that he thinks these things. The people who believe these things hear their own convictions echoed in his words.

Whether purposely or through ignorance, Donald Trump empowers the bigots and bullies of the world. He gives weapons to people in schools such as my own, the bullies who use skin colour and other visible distinctions as a mark of superiority.

When I was eight, good teachers stood up for those whose rights were being stepped on. What happens when these people, the people willing to stand up rather than stand idle, are outnumbered by the apathetic? What happens when the apathetic become bigots themselves?

I don’t know what racism went on at my school when I was eight, but I know it was stopped. With Donald Trump as president, it will not be stopped the next time. In countless towns and cities across America and across the world, racism, sexism, and various other cruelties will be allowed to run unchecked, because the most powerful man in the world provides a voice for those that prey upon cruelty.

That is why this election is important. Perhaps our system is broken. Perhaps Hillary Clinton represents that broken system.

But at least in this system we’ve always told the bullies they are bullies.

The Hat Incident: the issue that never should have been

By now I’m sure everyone has heard of the notorious hat incident that occurred on the Mount Royal Campus a few days ago. If you haven’t, it basically went like this: a student (Matt) wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat around campus was confronted by another student (Zoe) for promoting “hate speech.” The two got into a conflict, the argument escalated, and someone placed a video of the incident on Facebook to go viral.

From there, it spiralled rapidly out of control, with coverage on a local, national, and international level. The scale of the conflict has escalated exponentially with the video going viral and anger being stirred up on both sides. The relatively innocuous incident has resulted in bad blood and vicious attacks on both sides. Zoe, in particular, has received a lot of backlash (up to the point of violent threats) for an action she was arguably justified in taking.

The issue being pedalled by the media is the debate about free speech this video prompts. In a supposedly safe space like a university campus, can the slogan of a racist political candidate be called “hate speech?” I’m not going to get bogged down in that argument, as I know smarter people than me are already doing that.

What strikes me as the biggest issue is the polarized reactions to the video. People don’t seem to be considering why each person acted as they did, only how they did it. Little of the media coverage considers the individuals in question beyond the small scope of the video posted.

Zoe’s argument rested on the fact that the hat’s slogan supports the campaign of a sexist, sociopathic narcissist who regularly stokes the fires of racial tension while obliviously inciting violence. Her motivation came from the desire to ensure that the campus is a place in which everyone can feel safe and secure. She was standing up for those who might justifiably feel uncomfortable at the sight of a politician like Trump being promoted.

Zoe’s actions were largely selfless, which is something few people seem to be considering. The creation of safe spaces is an incredibly important endeavour, and all individuals should feel free to express themselves in whatever manner they wish. She is now facing continual backlash for attempting to support this ideal.

But don’t Trump supporters get the same privilege, many would argue?

I don’t know Matt personally, but we are in the same program and have shared some classes. Having seen him both with and without the hat, before and after the incident, I can’t say I have ever seen any indication of prejudices along the lines that Trump espouses. My understanding is that Matt supports Mr. Trump’s economic policies rather than his social ones.

This raises the question: when a politician so actively promotes the marginalization of specific religious and ethnic groups, is it possible to promote that politician without promoting those prejudices?

As this incident illustrates, there are no clear answers.

Because of this, it is all the more important that level heads prevail. People need to think rationally about the incident and try to understand the motivations of both sides: one was standing up for marginalized minorities while the other was idly promoting a candidate with specific policies he supports. Neither of them did anything terribly wrong. Zoe’s confrontational method was not the correct way of addressing the issue, yet the concerns themselves were completely valid. Likewise, it is completely fair for Matt to promote a political candidate he supports, but it was unreasonable of him not to expect some kind of backlash.

These “mistakes” do not define either of these individuals.

Once the media picked up on the story, anger spread like wildfire, with Zoe generally portrayed as the villain. To me, this is a big problem.

While the media is happy to highlight Zoe’s insistence that Matt remove his hat, there seems to be little mention of her background as a leading member of the Students’ Association of Mount Royal University (SAMRU). As a member of SAMRU, it is her job to act as a leader among students and protect the interests of everyone on campus. Naturally, it would be fair for her to take the responsibility of standing up for those who have an issue with the hat in question.

Whether or not the slogan counts as hate speech, people feel uncomfortable at the presence of Matt’s hat. Given Trump’s background, this seems reasonable. Did Zoe go about the right way in bringing up these concerns? No. Was she justified in attempting to address them? Absolutely.

Zoe’s actions came from a good place. Her role as student leader makes her the natural voice for expressing concerns. The fact that she has been continually vilified for doing this is pathetic and ignorant. Zoe is not the villain here any more than Matt is for wearing his hat. Remember Zoe’s background and motivation the next time the media labels her a “bully”, accuses her of “attacking” anyone, or mocks her for being “frightened.”

If you find yourself agreeing with these terms, you are part of the problem.

Consider the fact that without online exposure the incident would have received little to no attention. If any blame is to be placed, it should be placed upon the idiot who decided to post a video of the conflict online. In the digital age such hot topic videos are not ignored, and the cameraman was incredibly irresponsible (if not plain stupid) to think it would go unnoticed. Indeed, the fact that he posted the video on a community page as well as his personal one suggests he was specifically going out of his way to defame Zoe.

Even so, sharing the video could easily have been a simple lapse in judgement. My point is that the amount of controversy this video has caused is unnecessary, and the amount of anger it has stirred up is neither fair nor warranted. Nobody involved should be attacked so viciously for their actions. Relatively minor mistakes have been blown out of proportion, and it sickens me to see the sort of threats and attacks Zoe has received in the wake of this video.

I don’t know Zoe, but I wish I did. I can’t imagine what she’s going through right now. Whatever her actions and whatever opinion people may have about those actions, there is no excuse for the derogatory, threatening, and sexist response the video has received.

I hope Zoe understands that for every asshole on the internet hailing abuse, there are a dozen people who understand that her actions came from the best of places. The world needs more people like her who are willing to stand up for the rights of others.

Bernie Sanders is no saint: he’s a politician who needs to get his head out of his ass

The Sanders camp likes to present Bernie as more than a mere politician; he’s a real human being who cares more about the issues than winning elections. Ostensibly, this is a fairly accurate evaluation. As far as politicians go, he’s always been one of the good guys. His career has been generally fairly progressive and his current rhetoric around Wall Street corruption hits all the right notes. I believe he genuinely wishes to uplift the middle class.

Despite this, one has to understand something. While he’s more genuine than the average career politician, he’s by no means a saint: he is very much a politician. Over the course of the primary season, he has increasingly succumbed to the pitfalls of election campaigns, manipulating facts and doing damage to the very causes he champions.

Those following this blog or my Facebook feed might get the impression that I hate Bernie Sanders. While I have certainly posted a few “Bernie bashing” pieces, I nevertheless admire the man. I admire what he stands for, and how he’s changed the landscape of this election. I appreciate the fact that he has pushed Hillary Clinton to the left and forced her to work for the nomination. On top of that, I think he’s a genuinely decent man who believes in his cause.

That being said, he’s a politician, possessing all the traits necessary to succeed in this role. His career reflects this fact, as much as his supporters like to deny it. As Hillary Clinton has basically now claimed the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders needs to grow up and admit that he’s lost. Likewise, his supporters need to stop treating the man like a saint and recognize that Hillary Clinton is not the devil. To do otherwise is to aid Donald Trump’s campaign.

Those “feeling the Bern” like to point to Bill Clinton’s tough on crime bill as proof of Hillary’s racist incompetence. Few dispute that the 1994 bill was a horrendous piece of legislation that Hillary was wrong to support. That both Bill and Hillary have since stated their regret over the bill does not mean we should simply forget it.

However, what Bernie supporters do like to forget is the fact that Bernie Sanders also voted for the bill.

Can we all take a moment to consider this hypocrisy? Bernie Sanders, Breaker of Chains, Mother of Dragons – wait, I’m getting my posts mixed up – voted in favour of the very bill he and his supporters like to throw in Hillary Clinton’s face. Was he as enthusiastic about it as Clinton? No. For him, it was seemingly more of a grudging concession. In the end, his rationale does not matter. His name is on that bill as much as Hillary Clinton.

Does this mean I think Hillary should be forgiven for supporting the bill, or the ridiculous manner in which she went about it? No, obviously not. But if one is going to point out this specific stain on her political record, one also has to acknowledge that it is just as much a mark against Sanders.

Another issue that the Sanders camp likes to throw out is her reluctance to embrace gay marriage until recently. Hillary Clinton did not publically support of gay marriage until 2013. This was around the time that every other liberal politician jumped on the bandwagon – including Bernie Sanders.

Sanders did not give a definitive support of same-sex marriage up until 2009. Prior to this, he specifically avoided discussing the issue. Despite his championing of the economic underdog, or his involvement in the civil rights movement, when it comes to LGBTQ issues, he’s hardly been a political maverick. One reporter said that “obtaining Congressman Bernie Sanders’ position on the gay marriage issue was like pulling teeth...from a rhinoceros.”

To be sure, Sanders’ record on this issue is more progressive than Hillary’s. He was (slightly) quicker to endorse the legalization of same-sex marriage, and he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which would have limited marriage to being exclusively between a man and a woman. The Act is yet another shameful aspect of Bill Clinton’s legacy, one that Bernie Sanders vehemently opposed.

However, unlike how he is currently attempting to portray it, his opposition was based primarily on pragmatism and contemporary issues. As a supporter of state rights, Sanders feared that the DOMA would undermine the ability of the state to determine their own legislation. Jane Sanders, Bernie’s wife and chief of staff, was quoted at the time as saying “we’re not legislating values.” This seems like an odd statement from a man whose entire campaign has been based on specifically appealing to such values.

All politicians are fickle, altering or masking their opinions to win elections. This is the nature of the game. If Bernie Sanders was not so hypocritically claiming moral superiority, holding himself above the corrupt fray everyday politics, his engagements in this tactic would not be such an issue. He cannot portray himself as a maverick and a radical when he continually engages in the same tactics he criticizes his opponents for.

Bernie’s supporters like to highlight the civil rights records of the two candidates. While Hillary was out campaigning for a segregationist, Bernie was off getting himself arrested while protesting segregation. Is this true? Yes, Hillary Clinton did indeed campaign for Republican Barry Goldwater around the same time that Bernie Sanders was actively engaged in the Chicago civil rights movement.

Unfortunately, this comparison represents another manipulation of how the facts are presented. When she played the role of a “Goldwater Girl,” Hillary Clinton was a sixteen year old living in an incredibly right-wing household; Bernie Sanders was a twenty-two year old university student at the time he got arrested, having grown up in the aftermath of the Holocaust a Jewish household. These differences may not seem like much, but is there a single person out there who claims to have been a fully formed individual at age sixteen, entirely free of the biases of their upbringing? We are all influenced by our surroundings. Family and education are undoubtedly the foremost influences in childhood and young adulthood.

There is an immense difference between being a high school teenager and a university student. In high school, one’s world is relatively insular and contained; university, conversely, is about expanded horizons and self-discovery. Speaking as a second year university student, my understanding of the world is very different from that of three years ago, and it will likely be different again three years from now. I challenge anyone to tell me that they are different.

A more accurate comparison would be where the two candidates were at the same relative age. Four years after campaigning for Barry Goldwater, at the age of twenty, Hillary had denounced the “racist” Republican Party and was a staunch liberal. In 1968, she campaigned for Eugene McCarthy, arguably the Bernie Sanders of his day. At her 1969 university graduation, she gave an ad-libbed speech that directly denounced the University’s chosen “anti-activism” speaker.

When one compares the two candidates in this manner, the difference between them becomes far less prominent. Hillary readily admits that she was not born a Democrat, and it is immature to hold any 68 year old woman – let alone someone with a distinguished career– accountable for the mistakes she made as an adolescent over five decades ago.

Is Hillary Clinton the perfect candidate? No. She has made huge errors, some of which the Sanders camp are very right to point out. I could easily write a long essay on the problems of a Hillary candidacy. Perhaps I will. But if Bernie supporters aren’t going to examine their own candidate with the same scrutiny they demand of Hillary Clinton, their arguments lose credibility.

Bernie Sanders’ campaign has been a disappointment. He has contradicted his own beliefs and held his opponents to hypocritical standards. In the wake of the June 7^th primaries, his chances of victory at the convention are arguably nonexistent, despite his intention to win the support of the party superdelegates (which, one might recall, he previously critiqued Hillary Clinton for).

At this point, by continuing to fight, Bernie Sanders is hurting the people he claims to represent. I doubt he would argue that a Donald Trump presidency would be a disaster, so why does he continue to divide the Democratic Party in a manner that can only benefit Trump?

Bernie Sanders claims to be a man of the people. Well, the people have spoken. He has lost fairly. Arguing otherwise is hypocritical and insulting. He seems unwilling to accept that maybe, just maybe, people have heard his pitch and are unconvinced.

As always, thanks for reading J

Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton and why I’m not “Feeling the Bern”

I’m not an American, yet I believe we should all have a vested interest in the upcoming presidential election. As the political, economic, and cultural hub of the western world, what happens in the United States directly affects what happens throughout the rest of the world.

When I tell people I’m not a supporter of Bernie Sanders, the reactions range from “That old guy? I saw a post on Reddit about him” to “How could you?! You’re a disgrace to the very nature of liberalism!”

Basically, most Canadians either don’t care about the presidential election, or they actively support Bernie Sanders. This is, admittedly, better than supporting Donald Trump, though a small part of me is surprised that there aren’t more Harperites proclaiming their admiration for Trump or Ted Cruz. Seriously. In terms of ideology, their policies aren’t all that different. They only vary in extremes.

I digress. “Why?” people always cry as I tell them I don’t think Bernie Sanders would be an effective president. “He wants to bring free education, put all those Wall Street crooks in jail: he’s going to change things! What’s not to love?”

Americans are understandably wary of Hillary Clinton, given her representation of the political establishment they feel no longer serves them. Bernie Sanders is noble in his quest to reform this establishment and, in a perfect world, he’d make a great president. Ideologically, I certainly align with him as much as Clinton, and I always admire a revolutionary.

Why, then, would a Sanders nomination be a disaster?

Sanders backers like to point out that he has held office far longer than Hillary Clinton in terms of years, which is certainly true. But the positions they held were quite different from one another. Sanders has slowly made his way up the ladder, starting out as mayor of Burlington and eventually making his way to the Senate. Over the last two decades, Hillary Clinton has made a career distinct from her husband. She’s been a Senator and has worked in the White House both as First Lady and as Secretary of State.

Ostensibly, the difference between their careers isn’t too drastic. But if one reads between the lines, the gaps begin to widen. Sanders has spent the better part of four decades championing the poor and working hard to fight the “establishment.” Yet his political record actually shows very little to distinguish him from the average left wing politician. Much of his career has been based on rhetoric, as he has continually marketed himself as a unique entity unaligned with either of the major parties. He continues to use this tactic in his presidential campaign, basing it largely on rousing speeches of his self-styled “socialism.”

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a pragmatist. Where Bernie schmoozes and impassions his voters, Clinton works within the system to bring about effective change. As First Lady and as Secretary of State, she has built working relationships with many world leaders ranging from Angela Merkel to Dilma Rousseff. She’s a tireless feminist and has pushed for women’s rights the world over. She has the name, the reputation, and the skillset to be an effective president on the world stage as well as in Washington.

Is she a natural on camera? No. Her smile sometimes reminds me of a china doll. But is she a practical and effective politician? Yes.

“She’s a member of the establishment,” Bernie lovers say. “She’s everything that people are frustrated with.”

Yes, Hillary Clinton is very much a part of the Democratic establishment. She’s been a member of the party for a long time, and is a name people like to jump to when discussing politicians who fail to serve their interests.

But is this really the case? As I said, Clinton is a pragmatist. She works incrementally with an end goal in mind. It’s all well and good for Bernie Sanders to repeat the same mantra for forty years, but such sweeping statements rarely bring about the permanent change they call for, least of all in an environment as inhospitable as the American politics.

Rhetoric needs to be backed by practicality. Once the desire for change is infused into the public consciousness, practical and realistic leaders are needed to make ideas become realities. In doing this even the most effective politicians can struggle.

Look at Barack Obama. Hopes were high in the wake of his 2008 inauguration, as were his approval ratings. Over the next year or two, both plummeted and are only now beginning to rise again.

Despite being a smart politician, Obama was elected for what he represented. He was the first African American to win the presidency, he was going to fix the problems of the Bush era, and he promised to end the wars in the Middle-East. Since 2009, he helped America weather the Great Recession and has repaired much of the diplomatic damage done by George Bush. In addition, he’s pushed for gun control unlike any of his predecessors, laying the groundwork for someone else to finish the job (though notably not Bernie Sanders). By all reasonable measures, Obama has been a relatively successful president.

Despite this, he continues to face criticism. Why? Because his actual term in office did not live up to the hype of his campaign. The sad reality is that idealism very rarely brings about long term changes, particularly in the court of public opinion. While American liberals are “feeling the Bern” now, it’s hardly likely that their blind passion will continue when faced with day to day politics. As much as we’d like to think otherwise, a President Sanders will inevitably face the same fate as President Obama.

“So what?” people say. “Bernie stands for something bigger than one election.”

Really?

To be sure, his campaign started out that way. A year ago, I could almost feel the Bern tickling at my political inclinations simply for hearing a refreshingly different voice. I could almost begin to believe that Bernie Sanders cared more about his ideals than winning an election. Here was a politician who cared about the issues under discussion rather than the politics of a single campaign.

Sadly, though Bernie supporters continue to insist otherwise, he has not been able to maintain this level of integrity. I don’t blame him. Politics is a nasty business, and it’s easy to resort to attack campaigns when the going gets tough. But what does this say about the kind of president he would be, if he can’t even uphold his main selling point throughout the primary season? If his issue oriented idealism can’t even make it through the road to candidacy, how could he ever hope to maintain it in office?

Nobody is denying that this election has shaken up the routine of American politics. For better or for worse, Bernie Sanders has ignited a fire in many hearts, and the need for change has blasted its way into the public consciousness. Now that the fire is lit, it is time for a seasoned and intelligent pragmatist to use the system for the good of those who are, justifiably, frustrated.

What continues to amaze me is the number of women who are so adamantly against Hillary Clinton. People seem to forget how revolutionary it would be to have a female president. If people want rhetoric, here it is: in a world that continues to be incredibly male dominated, putting a woman in the oval office would be an unprecedented step towards true gender equality.

I have to admire Clinton for largely avoiding this kind of rhetoric. If anyone has “stuck to the issues” in this campaign, it’s been her.

As always, thanks for reading J