The case for Bernie

As the decade approaches its finale in less than two months, the nation begins to intensify its selection process for the next leader of the free world. At least we can hope there will be a new leader. The primary season seems to last forever, but I promise that it is coming to an end, as Iowa will be the first to hold its primary on February 3. It can also be difficult to keep all of the candidates straight. This combination of complexity and longevity makes the average American understandably tired, so I will try to simplify it here, with a bit of analysis added.

Although there are officially 17 individuals running for the Democratic nomination in 2020, only a few are serious contenders. According to RealClearPolitics many polls out now have the unanimous top three: former VP Joe Biden, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and Senator Bernie Sanders. They are usually in this order, but many polls have them so close that it’s difficult to say who has a clear grip on first. For example, Monmouth puts Biden and Warren at 23% with Bernie at 20% (within the margin of error). A much clearer understanding of the race will reveal itself as February 3, the date of Iowa caucuses, approaches.

Now, a quick summary of the noteworthy candidates outside of the top three. Although these candidates stand almost no chance of winning the nomination, they bring forward important conversations. First is Mayor Pete Buttigieg, solidly in fourth place according to many polls, including Monmouth and The Economist. Mayor Pete, as he is known, opened his campaign as one of the more progressive candidates, putting forward his own plan for a medicare public option, and increased access to education. This early standout would be the first openly gay president, though his recent flip-flopping has harmed his hopes. Despite his campaign initially taking a very progressive platform, Buttigieg has since rescinded support for such “far left” policies, as those proposed by Sanders and Warren. Although this policies are still on his official policies page on his campaign’s website, he has recently attacked warren for being radical and calling himself the middle ground, “Sensible” candidate, according to The Washington Post. This is likely due to the fact that the progressive vote is dominated by Warren and Sanders, but it is still a very bad look to change policies so dramatically. He also boasts some of the highest donation totals, despite having few individual donors, according to Opensecrets.org. This is due to massive contributions from corporate interests, specifically in the pharmaceutical industry. The combination of flip-flopping ideals and corrupt interests makes Mayor Pete the biggest disappointment of the primary season. A progressive platform turned status quo by corporate donors will likely lead to the end of his campaign soon.

An interesting conversation brought into the mainstream by this election surrounds Universal Basic Income (UBI), specifically as it is championed by Andrew Yang. According to his campaign website, Yang’s plan, called the Freedom Dividend, seeks to put $1,000 in every American’s pocket monthly, with no strings attached. This idea has been brought up a few times in American history, including support from Ronald Reagan, but this time the American public is listening. The proposal would act as a form of welfare, allowing the poorest citizens a bit more breathing room. The Yang campaign has cited studies of UBI in various regions to demonstrate that this policy effectively decreases poverty and reduces the opportunity gap. For most of us, $1,000 is not that much, but it can make a world of difference. Although Yang and his supporters, affectionately nicknamed the Yang Gang, have made headlines rallying behind slogans such as “Math,” his campaign stands little chance of making it much farther; his best poll, Monmouth has him at just 3% nationwide. This does not, however, mean that it has had no impact. Yang has successfully brought an interesting, progressive policy into mainstream discourse, and I could see him being appointed as the Head of Labor under a Democratic presidency, hopefully bringing even more great ideas.

Besides the interesting conversations and possible cabinet positions revolving around each of these candidates, there is almost no doubt that the candidate will either be Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders. So I will now give my opinions on each of them.

First is Joe Biden, the baby boomer, status quo candidate. It has been suggested by numerous online personalities that Biden could actually challenge Trump in a Republican primary. The fact that this joke can even be made illustrates the problem with a Biden presidency. The former Vice President has run his campaign this far as an extension of Obama’s presidency. His main point for why he should be president is that he has the experience. He never talks about his policies, mostly because his only policy ideas revolve around catering to the 1%, but also because he doesn’t really want to change anything. He is the epitome of Boomer culture. He is the embodiment of “back in my day.” He is a nightmare moderate. A Biden presidency would fail to bring about any change — forget about the radical changes required to curb climate change or wealth inequality. Although Biden is in first in most polls, such as those mentioned previously, I believe he will not, and should not, win the nomination. The status quo is a conservative idea which inherently requires the nation to remain stagnant. I have saved the only two real progressives in the field for last because I believe they are the most important. It is time to forget about Biden, forget about his “electability” as the mainstream media puts it, and focus on desirable change.

One of the two truly progressive candidates is Senator Elizabeth Warren. Warren boasts a similar platform to that of Sanders. She is a supporter of Medicare For All as well as College for All, both of which were proposed by Sanders. These bills, unlike the status quo platform of Biden, are poised to make real change in this country. I have already written about College for All, but all that is really important about both of these bills is that they will effectively decrease the opportunity gap in the United States, reducing racial disparities and hopefully alleviating some cultural prejudice. Basically, these bills achieve what Yang’s Freedom Dividend attempts to, just in a more direct manner. Of course, these policies require large amounts of public funding. This is where Warren has found her success. Her detailed tax plan, laid out by her campaign and created with the help of House superstar: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, calling for a 70% tax on fortunes more than $50 million, has been praised as the solution to the left’s rallying cry: tax the rich. Sanders carries a similar plan with one interesting difference. Sanders tax plan calls for 70% marginal tax rate starting at $20 million dollars. To many, this doesn’t seem like a huge difference, but it will help generate a significantly larger amount of revenue to help pay for these magnificent polices. Overall, Warren is a terrific candidate who would create real change while acting as the first female president this nation has ever seen. However, she does have a large problem: campaign finance. Warren receives large sums of funding from the rich. At first glance, this does not seem like an inherently bad thing, but it is. According to the New York Times, Sanders campaign boasts 320,000 more individual donors than Warren, who is in second. This disproportionate discrepancy points to the fact that Warren has taken money from wealthier communities, creating a slight conflict of interest especially when compared to her progressive counter-part. I would like to reiterate, however, that Warren is still a great candidate. Her campaign finances are a concern, but a small one, she still offers very progressive politics and does not take money from Political Action Committees. Overall she is terrific, but Bernie is slightly more progressive without any problems.

To illustrate the significance of Warren’s campaign finances, let us speak about the next leader of the free world: Bernie Sanders. Sanders has one quote that applies to this issue quite perfectly: “You cannot change the system if you take its money”. This simple statement is remarkably true and meaningful in today’s politics. So many politicians promise systematic change, but so few accomplish it — why is that? It is because of the money. It is very expensive to win an election. This means that oftentimes well-intentioned individuals will accept corporate donations so that they may get into office and create the change they hoped for. However, their donors will not give them money unless the candidates promise to protect the donors’ interests. For example, Warren supports the wonderful Medicare for All bill, but also accepts donations from Big Pharma. When the donors are asked about this apparent conflict of interests they insist that Warren will “change her mind.” (according to a recent CNN interview). It is a seemingly benign statement, but it is the tip of the iceberg that is politics. I predict Warren will not support Medicare for All in the end, because her money will not allow it. She cannot support her own tax plan because of the special interests that she supports. That is not say that she will certainly flip her beliefs, but I would suggest it is better to vote for a candidate who doesn’t have this possibility at all. Bernie, for example, has successfully avoided these problems since his political debut in 1970. The reason to vote for Sanders over anyone else is his consistency. After his first election to congress many years ago Bernie said, “the system doesn’t make the mistake of letting someone like me in very often.”, so when it happens we have to support that individual with everything we can. People are always complaining about lying and cheating in politics, but this does not apply to Senator Sanders. He has been fighting for the working class since the ’70s and has never changed his allegiance. The United States government is meant to be by the people and for the people — Bernie is only candidate who fits this description.