Why Bernie?

I am tired of having to consider voting for the lesser of two evils.  That said, I will be working as hard as I can to convince all of you to get behind Bernie Sanders.  Here are my reasons:

1) We tend to forget about the big crash of 2008.  The original $800 billion bailout, which is over a trillion now, was justified because the banks that got themselves into trouble were too big to fail.  The two factors we have to consider here are that there was egregious criminal behavior for which nobody was held accountable and that no action was taken to break up the-too-big-to-fail banks, which are much bigger now.  Why was this?  Despite the attorney general claiming that getting a conviction would be difficult, no serious attempt was ever even made.  In my view, it is clear that Washington is controlled by Wall Street.  There are corporate shills all through the top administrative positions and practically all our politicians follow orders from the main source of their campaign funds.  There is nothing subtle here:  the financial sector is running the government for their personal profit.  Bernie Sanders is absolutely right to name the culprit and to fight to restore control of the government to the people.  This is not something that has never happened before.  FDR, over and over, expressed his opposition to the aims of the wealthy special interests of his day, and the result was the WPA, the CCC, Social Security, the FDIC, and later (in the same wave), the Gi Bill, truly progressive income tax, and growth of unions.  There are many reasons why the 50’s and 60’s were prosperous, but these factors, if not contributors, did not hamper prosperity.  In the last 30 years, there has been a steady transfer of wealth from the middle to the top .1%.   This is fact. We are battling for control of the country and Bernie is absolutely right to have Wall Street in his crosshairs.

2) Clinton, like Obama and practically everybody else, has accepted a lot of campaign money from the wealthy special interests.  Wall Street spokespersons have even said that they would be fine with a Clinton presidency.  She has drawn a line at how far she will go to reform Wall Street.  Her plans are vague and conditional, and show every sign of being toothless.  Don’t expect any big reforms on her watch.  Sanders, on the other hand, has collected a record amount of cash donations averaging around $35, and NO MONEY FROM WALL STREET.  

3 )  Don’t think that a vote for Clinton will mean a safe transition to another Democratic presidency.  Hatred for Hillary is deep and long standing, maybe even worse than that for Obama.  A lot of hatred for Obama is because he is black, but Hillary will get the same treatment because she is a woman.  A lot of Democrats, like me, are also very unenthusiastic about her.  In 2012, a significant number of the people that felt like Obama let them down did not vote.  Less than 50% of the electorate voted that year.  Hundreds of thousands of those discouraged voters, potentially many millions, have jumped back into the political process because of the obvious sincerity and honesty of Bernie Sanders.  If we can get the nomination for Sanders, those people will vote, and whenever the discouraged voters vote, the Democrats win by a landslide.  Polls already show that the anti-Hillary faction could throw the election to the Republicans.  In most of the polls, Sanders beats the Republican candidates by a much bigger margin than Clinton.

4) One could say that even if Sanders gets elected, he is only one guy and Congress will be the same.  However, if Sanders gets elected, it will be because he has empowered a huge base of people who will have definite hopes and expectations.  Chances are good that the down ballot candidates for Congress will benefit from Sanders on top of the ticket.   That activated electorate would exert pressure on their Congresspersons.  Jim McDermott mentioned years ago that the first task of a newly elected congressperson is to start raising money for the next election.  That promised cash, or threat of lack of it, is what keeps them in line with Wall Street priorities.  If, on the other hand, they see that a successful presidential campaign can be run without accepting any Wall Street money, a lot of congress could be emboldened right away to pass on future Wall Street money and vote their conscience.
I know that we tend to dislike change and are more likely to take the bird in hand rather than the two in the bush.  To fail to get Bernie nominated is a failure of courage and imagination, in my mind, and would not be a great moment in our history.  In that eventuality, I will be reluctant to vote for Clinton even if Bernie supporters encourage her to take a more independent stance from Wall Street.  I’m sure she is basically a good person and wants to do what is best.  The question is, whose priorities will prevail?

Comments?  
terry@vashonloop.com