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
No comments:
Post a Comment