Bernie Sanders, as you may know, expressed the desire for the United States to be more like Scandinavia, or specifically the mythical Scandinavia in which health care, parental leave, day care, and university education are all state-funded, or, more specifically, funded by high taxes on the rich, who are not bothered by the taxes and seeming lack of reward for their efforts because they’ve been socialized since toddlerhood to accept it. (Never mind that Social Security benefits have been pared back, and taxes are high for everyone, not just the rich, living standards for the middle class are in general lower than we consider “normal” in the U.S., and their social conformity is fraying as “diversity” increases.*)
(* If you play your cards right, I might source this in a future post.)
But it seems to me that Sanders’ crusade makes more sense in a European context in another way as well: his ultimate aim is not to win the presidency — he knows he has no shot at that. His defense of Clinton with respect to the e-mails at the debate made it clear he doesn’t expect to come out on top; as Charles Krauthammer said, “The nomination contest ended when Sanders said, ‘We’re sick and tired of hearing about the damn emails.’”
Instead, Sanders’ objective seems to be to push Clinton as far to the left as possible, in a bidding contest on who will create the most, and the most generous, new government spending programs — for parental leave, for university tuition, etc.
And he would be highly effective as the leader of a minor party in a place like Germany. Get 5% of the vote as a minimum threshold, and aim for as high a portion of the vote as possible in order to become a junior party in a coalition, and secure a commitment to implement at least some part of the wishlist, as part of the coalition agreement. That’s much more effective than the approach of trying to get your party’s candidate to make promises they may or may not fulfill. It makes particular sense for someone with a specific agenda related only to one issue, e.g., the Greens in Europe.
I’ll be the first to admit that there are pros and cons to the divided system of government we have in the United States, which is fairly rare in the developed world (and I say “fairly rare” rather than “unique” because I’m not researching this at the moment). It is certainly not something we’re used to, to imagine that the party, or coalition of parties, with the majority, can implement its agenda unchecked. But nonetheless there is a certain appeal to this system of negotiation among coalition partners, and its place for minor parties — whether it be a Sanders-led Democratic Socialist Party, or a Cruz-led Conservative Party, don’t you think?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In