Its All About Power

The differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are becoming apparent.  Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have had some good debates that have clarified their positions on specific issues. I am disregarding O’Malley at this point because, as appealing as he is, he is not seriously in contention right now. In my mind, all three are islands of sanity compared to Trump and Cruz.  I think a lot of Republicans would agree with me on that.   

What we have are two options that are equally worthy of consideration.  Clinton promises to be the more moderate candidate, the one that will preserve continuity with the status quo while continuing to incrementally improve the state of those not currently being served.  On its face, this is a reasonable strategy in a time of great uncertainty.  Some would say it is a mature response that recognizes that change is complex and is best approached incrementally.  She also is clearly well connected and known by all the establishment players.

On the other hand, Sanders offers a clear break with the status quo.  He sees a democracy that has been hijacked by the wealthy.  He seems to be offering  “a chicken in every pot” with promises such as universal health care as a right and tuition-free college.  Pundits readily deride his proposals as extreme and unrealistic.  They see his enthusiastic supporters as naïve.  Mostly, his detractors see him as another fringe candidate that could be very destabilizing if he got the nomination.

Much to the dismay of the pundits and the rest of the “establishment,” the electorate this season is demanding a clear break with the status quo, and it will be destabilizing.  As much as I hate to mention Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in the same sentence, the motives of their supporters are not that different.  Both groups feel that government does not listen to them and see that a political revolution is in order.  While Trump supporters seem to be drawn to the appeal of a “strong man,” Sanders supporters want to wield the power themselves. Even if the moderate candidates prevail, this popular dissatisfaction will not go away.

Has the power in this country been hijacked by the wealthy?  Consider this from an article by Robert Reich:
“A study* published in the fall of 2014 by Princeton professor Martin Gilens and Northwestern’s Benjamin Page reveals the scale of the challenge.  Gilens and Page analyzed 1,799 policy issues in detail, determining the relative influence on them of economic elites, business groups, mass-based interest groups, and average citizens. Their conclusion: ‘The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically nonsignificant impact upon public policy. Instead, lawmakers respond to the moneyed interests – those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns.’” *“Testing Theories of American Politics, Elites, Interests Groups, and Average Citizens.”

This study considered data from 1981 until 2002, before Citizen United, Super Pacs, and Dark Money.  If our influence was near zero before, what could it be now?  

Robert Reich goes on to make a very important point:  “The upcoming election isn’t about detailed policy proposals. It’s about power – whether those who have it will keep it, or whether average Americans will get some as well.”
He goes on to compare Sanders and Clinton with this in mind:  “In my view, [Clinton] is the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have.

But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he’s leading a political movement for change.”

Do Sanders’ proposals resonate with the public?  They are so popular that, in almost all cases, solid majorities of both parties concur.  This is not coincidence; throughout his life he has advanced the proposals that most people of both parties want, i.e., single payer health care (71%), government   renegotiation of drug prices (79%), infrastructure jobs program (71%), debt free college at all public universities (71%), new green deal, millions of clean energy jobs (70%), disclosure of corporate spending on politics/lobbying (91%), public campaign funding (68%).

Obviously, there is more than enough support for all these proposals.  Were they rejected because they were unrealistic and unaffordable?  Many would claim so, but we only need to look at most of the other developed countries, that are not as wealthy as we are, to see the fallacy of this.  There are several reasons we have not pursued these proposals:  they are either too costly or not profitable enough for the wealthy, and they diminish the power of the wealthy to control the distribution of valuable assets.  One thing is for certain:  our interests were not considered.

Maybe these proposals are too ambitious for us?  If President Kennedy said that we should put a man in orbit for a week in ten years, instead of landing on the moon, that would be all that we would have accomplished.  Accomplishing all of these proposals will take time, but if we don’t declare these as our goals, they won’t happen.

So, we need to see that the Sanders’ candidacy is about the transfer of power back to the average citizen.  With that transfer, we are free to pursue the proposals that are clearly popular among the rank and file of both parties.

Comments?  
terry@vashonloop.com