Mr. Sanders, who has risen sharply in the pre-primary polling to pull up alongside arch-rival Hillary Clinton in Iowa and outstrip her in New Hampshire, has always been something of an enigma, both for his politics and his origins.
The U.S. Senator hails from Vermont, home to numerous frosty delights including the world-famous Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, heavenly ski slopes, and also the least religious population of any American state.
Though his antecedents may be cool, his energetic campaign to take on the runaway machines of rugged American capitalism and fight for the welfare of the middle class has fired up his supporters across the nation and put Ms. Clinton, the Washington insider, on notice.
It is evident from the Democratic debates held so far that Mr. Sanders easily combines a folksy appeal — the likes of what George W. Bush had — with his socialist vision for a more equitable American economy, whether in terms of free tuition at public universities, campaign finance reform, or single-payer health insurance.
An undefined “socialism”
However, it would be wise to not get carried away by what “socialism” means in Mr. Sanders’ paradigm, for if it ever became a reality, it would be a far cry from Vladimir Lenin’s Russia, or even Jyoti Basu’s West Bengal.
Yes, unchecked income inequality has consistently been a target of Mr. Sanders; yet he is hardly what one would describe as a radical leftist, certainly not compared to the Western European notion of that concept.
Mr. Sanders has almost deliberately shied away from offering a clear definition of his socialism, and his remarks so far reflect that he is aware of his audience’s general discomfiture with the term.
“When I use the world socialist — and I know some people aren’t comfortable about it — I’m saying that it is imperative [that we] create a government that works for all and not just the few,” Mr. Sanders said in November 2015.
Yet, earlier this month, the depth of his “socialism” was critiqued in an article by The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates, who condemned Mr. Sanders’s dismissal of the idea that reparations should be paid to the descendants of historic racial injustice in the U.S.
Mr. Coates wrote, “What candidates name themselves is generally believed to be important... Is shy incrementalism really the lesson of this fortuitous outburst of Vermont radicalism?”
Indeed, it is quite possible that when Mr. Sanders announced his candidacy for the presidential nomination, he embraced socialism out of sheer pragmatism, as a label that would emphasis that he was cut from a different cloth of liberalism, and that would thus help him evade the inevitable comparison to Ms. Clinton.
However, this has left him vulnerable to penetrating questions from liberals regarding a range of issues on which his progressive credentials remain unproven.
Take gun control reform, an issue that has seared the conscience of the U.S. in recent years in the wake of a series of devastating shooting rampages at schools, houses of worship and other public spaces. Mr. Sanders came under a volley of criticism from Ms. Clinton early on in the debate season for his decidedly illiberal decision to vote in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed in 2005 and gave broad legal immunity to gunmakers and dealers from demands that they make their products safer or their sales better monitored.
In late January 2016, he backtracked and agreed to co-sponsor a bill that would repeal this very law he voted for, one that the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre described as “the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in 20 years.” As a footnote, Ms. Clinton voted against the law.
On another hard-fought liberal issue, women’s reproductive rights, Mr. Sanders stood on firmer ground for always voting pro-choice in the U.S. Congress, but found himself tested last week when Planned Parenthood, a large, national federation of healthcare agencies catering primarily to women, issued a presidential endorsement of Ms. Clinton.
Mr. Sanders responded to the endorsement by calling non-profit organisations such as Planned Parenthood a “part of the establishment” that he was seeking to challenge, a war cry that puts a premium on being an Obama-esque outsider to the stilted politics of Washington’s Beltway.
Succeeding Obama
Is Mr. Sanders the true inheritor of U.S. President Barack Obama’s mantle of “hope and change?”
While the answer would depend on whom you asked, Mr. Obama appeared to teeter on the brink of revealing his preferred candidate when he met Mr. Sanders at the White House on January 27.
He said in an interview just before that meeting, “Bernie came in with the luxury of being a complete long shot and just letting loose. I think Hillary came in with the both privilege — and burden — of being perceived as the front runner… You’re always looking at the bright, shiny object that people haven’t seen before — that’s a disadvantage to her.”
In some ways, going by his campaign promises, Mr. Sanders is the better man to take the agenda of the Obama years forward, especially if that means filling some gaping holes that emerged during Mr. Obama’s reign.
One example would be going after what Mr. Sanders called the “casino capitalism” of Wall Street banks that resulted in the Great Recession of 2008; another, fulfilling that heretofore unrealized Obama promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba; a third maybe his call to let regional powers play a greater role in the fight against the Islamic State.
Contrarily, Ms. Clinton is the leader who would hold the nation firm to the Democratic Party’s broader agenda of supporting the middle class during tough economic times, protecting the American labour force from foreign competition, strengthening the government’s backing of women’s reproductive rights, and much more.
Face-off with Trump
A critical factor influencing Mr. Sanders’ surging popularity on the eve of the primary elections this week is the rise of Republican renegade and surprise front- runner Donald Trump.
Even as Mr. Trump has systematically denigrated Muslims, Mexicans and women, among others, Democrats close to the political middle, who fear a broader American swing to the right, may seek safe haven in the arms of the Vermont socialist.
However, if we step back from philosophical and policy issues, tactical voting logic favours Ms. Clinton as long as she and Mr. Trump continue to be the overall front runners.
Wavering Democrats may have no choice but to back her when they realise that for their party to mount a credible challenge to Mr. Trump’s far-right track, they must coalesce around the candidate closest to the political centre.
Only a candidate with the broadest appeal across the political spectrum could win over undecided and independent voters when they go toe-to-toe against Mr. Trump.
But even the canniest observers of the U.S. elections will concede that no outcomes, howsoever strongly suggested by opinion polls, can be assumed until the final votes have been tallied.
Mr. Sanders may or may not blaze a path to the White House but in winning even as much support as he has so far, he has tilted the political firmament in this election towards a more humane, less bigoted idiom, and that is welcome.
0 comments:
Post a Comment