Bernie Sanders: Likeable, but Electable?

As the hype and hysteria surrounding the first of the Democratic debates comes to a brief standstill, I believe that a moment of reflection is in order. What have we, as the audience members, learned from this debate? Hillary Clinton is a woman running as a woman for women. Bernie Sanders has a complicated relationship with a former lover known as “gun control". Martin O’Malley has solved every major world issue within the 345,687,200,000 square foot area of the state of Maryland. Jim Webb fears the omnipotent powers of China, and Lincoln Chafee relates best to a “block of granite".

Satirical statements aside, many of America’s most dedicated bureaucratic observers have looked forward to this debate for quite some time, with America on the edge of her seat as she watched the political promenade between Underdog Sanders and Frontrunner Clinton unfold. In all fairness, Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee also took part in these debates. However, much of what they said, speaking mostly whenever Sanders and Clinton needed to catch their breath, was often only just enough to reignite the fire between the two headliners.

With Sanders currently holding a solid 23 percent in national polls, a question of considerable merit has arisen. In regards to policies, Sanders has successfully captured the attention of the nation’s more outspoken demographic: citizens who demand immediate retribution for the continuous failings of the national government. He is swiftly moving forward, with a campaign which operates on the promise of prompt and progressive change. While probably capable of obtaining the popular vote from the American people, the real question is whether Bernie Sanders is capable of obtaining the support of the Electoral College and the cooperation of a Republican dominated Congress.

In direct regards to policies, it’s easy to see why so many Americans are captivated by Sanders. Laced in the fabrics of social justice and liberty, Sanders’ policies directly reflect the opinions and expectations of a population trapped within the bonds of economic slavery, whether pertaining to financial, racial, gender or social means. He fights for the dignities of the middle class who has consistently had to suffer for the shortcomings of corporate failures, doomed to repetitively pay for the mistakes of others. He speaks out against blatant and explicit forms of racial discrimination against communities of color, as well as drawing the line between government intervention and government interference when pertaining to the reproductive rights of women. In doing so, he finds great favor with a considerable amount of the American people, and has been able to construct and maintain his following. According to Sanders’ personal campaign website, these policy plans are explicitly explained.

To address income inequality, Sanders proposes larger corporate taxes, enacting a progressive estate tax on monetary gains from inheritances, raising the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour, and putting 13 million Americans back to work through addressing our deteriorating infrastructure. The list is astronomical in both length and implications. Every point of note possesses at least three following sub-points, concerning the actions and legislation he plans to put into place if he is appointed President. As far as implications go, he essentially plans on retconning the entire government system, a goal that, while admirable, is completely out of his league and capacity.

His list carries similar appropriations for other areas of public interest, covering everything from women’s rights (pay equity, protecting the reproductive rights of women, and providing paid maternity leave for new mothers) to racial justice (demilitarizing the nation’s police forces, encouraging police forces to reflect diversity in their officers, and the installation of body cameras). On the quest to address America’s greatest social and economic issues, Sanders has attempted to address every issue possible. This is not to say that he has succeeded, a.k.a. his conflicts with gun control. However, with no real legislative authority when pertaining to pushing these plans and policies forward, and possessing no positive connections with the current Republican party, his plans and expectations for the nation are completely mute. If we, as his audience are to vote in favor of him, we are going to need a little more than superfluous rhetoric to take his movement and his claims seriously. At the end of the day, anyone can say anything that they want in order to appeal to voters, but unless voters have the logistical or political assurance of the success of these plans, they are nothing more than empty words.

As Sanders’ capacity to gain the favor of a Republican-dominated Electoral College next November, many obstacles currently stand in his way. During Tuesday’s debate, Sanders’ position on the Republican party came into light, being introduced and dismissed within a single statement: “The facts are very simple...Republicans win when there is a low voter turnout.” In trying to understand the purpose behind Sanders’ comment, the answer is obvious: Sanders does not believe that the Republican party has anything of value to offer the American people. Their track record over the past several years has not been the cleanest, such as when they tried to have President Obama impeached without any real evidence towards justifying it, or the fact that they currently cannot decide upon respectable candidates to have run as Speaker of the House due to all of their political scandals.

While we can all admit that a great number of issues and calamities introduced through Congress over the past several years can be attributed to absolute stupidity and recklessness on the part of the Republican party, this is not to say that the Democratic party has not had similar instances, such as when they advised Iran not to accept any proposals made by President Obama regarding their nuclear arsenal. In the political system, no one is without fault. The Republican party represents the ideals of a multitude of American people, and while we fight to ensure an America of liberty and freedom for all of its citizens, this freedom is also maintained by allowing those with perspectives that are in opposition to our own to defend their positions until they can no longer do so. I stand with the Democrats, and while I personally despise the two party system altogether, I understand that opposition creates change, and change, when handled appropriately, can create positive progress. When placed within a position of conflict, or opposition, the only way that these conflicts can be settled is through trial and error. We do not always made the right choices, but it is in recognizing our errors that we are able to grow. Downgrading any particular group, especially a group that possesses a political majority in the Congress, makes for a bad first impression in pursuing the position of President, through any means.

If not to make matters worse, Sanders is not a Democrat by choice. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with being an Independent, because there isn’t. The issue stands that as a unit, the Republican party has enough trouble supporting a registered Democratic candidate for the position of President, nonetheless a Democratic candidate who is not actually a Democrat by choice, leaving him with only loose ties to our party system. This makes his stance against the Republican party even worse, as his lack of party ties gives him no real means of reconciliation should he win the nomination. Should Sanders win the nomination, and move on to become America’s next president, he will begin his first year in office at odds with Congress’ majority, the Republicans, and will fail to pass any meaningful legislation through Congress. Not out of disagreement, mind you, but out of spite.

When addressing the Electoral College itself, the matter takes a different turn entirely, as members of the Electoral College will not be decided upon until Election Day. While this makes it impossible to directly pinpoint an example of a member whose current position is not in favor of Sanders, it does allow us to obtain a general sense of what to expect based on the proportions of Democrats and Republicans currently serving in Congress. I also believe it to be incredibly important that Electors, who are nominated by the registered voters who vote for the President and Vice-President of the United States, are not bound by federal law in every state to uphold their promise of influenced nomination, such as during the 1948 election, when Harry S. Truman elector Preston Parks of Tennessee voted for Strom Thurmond, or in the 1960 election, when Nixon elector Henry D. Irwin of Oklahoma voted for Virginia Senator Harry F. Byrd. A more relevant example can be found within the 2000 election, when one of Al Gore's District of Columbia electors, Barbara Lett-Simmons, went against all conventions and cast a blank ballot in protest of the District of Columbia’s lack of congressional representation within the Electoral College itself, as stated in an article from electoral-vote.com. Out of the fifty states, twenty-four of them are not required by law to uphold their promises to vote for the popular candidate within their states, and can therefore change their opinion at any point in time to select any candidate that they so choose.

Despite Sanders’ best attempts to win the support of the American people in order to secure his victory, for both the Democratic ticket and the presidency, he has completely disregarded the necessity to appeal to the upcoming Electoral College, many members of which will be Republicans. As a participant within a government dominated by a two party political system, it is never wise to dismiss any half of the whole, whether you agree with them or disagree with them, as you not only dismiss the political powers of these legislators, but you also dismiss the opinions of the constituents that said legislators represent. With a platform dedicated to ensuring the American people respect and liberty, Sanders currently holds no capacity to gain the favor of the Electoral College, or his claim to the presidency, as his ability to ensure respect and liberty has clearly begun and ended at his progressive supporters.

The image featured in this article was taken by Michael Vadon. The original image can be found here.