Not Bernie

For most of this process, I have maintained that I'm fine with Bernie Sanders, and that I agree with most of his world view. In theory, I do. In reality, I don't want Bernie's revolution. Sure, I think the big banks do some bad things, but the devil is in the details. The details aren't good for Bernie.

First, let's get real about the art of the possible- Presidents don't get to do everything they want, as they wish. Political capital is hard to come by, and even harder to preserve. Congress requires you spend a lot of it in order to pass things. Bernie Sanders has promised to break up the banks, make college education free, raise taxes, and expand Medicare "for all." That is four legislative achievements that are on the level of the Affordable Care Act. That is simply more than is possible for the next President. This is not to mention immigration reform, and other major issues that are already on the next President's agenda when they take office. The over-promise here is clearly setting up their supporters for disappointment.

Even if you want to believe that the "political revolution" will happen, what will happen to Congress? Will the House flip to Democrat this Fall? If not, will Republicans suddenly stop obstructing and give a President Sanders what he wants? Of course not. The Senate won't be 60-40, so things won't move there either. Unless you believe in magic, partisan politics are a factor.

Even if we assume that Bernie Sanders can get done the things that he is proposing, there is the question of what happens next. What about the details? The Washington Post sums it up:

There’s more — lots more — including an exchange over what law, exactly, Wall Street executives broke during the economic collapse and how Sanders would actually prosecute them. But the two passages above give you some idea of how the bulk of the interview went: the Daily News pressing Sanders for specifics and asking him to evaluate the consequences of his proposals, and Sanders, largely, dodging as he sought to scramble back to his talking points.

You could apply this critique across the board on Bernie. What happens to the people who work in the finance and health care industries you want to destroy? Who pays for free college education? How does this all work?

Look, I agree with Bernie's general feelings about Wall Street, about worker wages, and the economy in general. Details happen to matter. Bernie is a legislator, and it showed in this interview. That lack of thought into the aftermath of his political "revolution" is a bit troubling, and would be a huge issue in a Fall election. While Bernie has good polling numbers now, that would change the minute he would be the nominee, as Republicans would seek to fill in the blanks about Bernie's proposals, and would define him. These issues would haunt him through November.

I think nominating this guy would make for political issues this Fall, and he would never be able to actually do the things he says he wants to do. I have substantive issues with Sanders. I do get the appeal though- Bernie Sanders "feels" better for many than Hillary Clinton. He's promising lots of big items, he's appealing to existing beliefs on the economy held by many. Hillary is not promising nearly the same level of change, which kind of makes sense, because she's living in a reality where she might actually have to do it.

I think Paul Krugman basically nails this:

The easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises?

Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big. And the financial reform that President Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems. It could and should be made stronger, but pounding the table about big banks misses the point.

I get it- Bernie feels good. Feeling like you support a "pure" candidate feels better than supporting someone who deals within the system. I don't want the revolution though. I want the pragmatic, qualified Hillary Clinton. I'm tired of the unfair attacks on her, and the assertion that she is corrupt because of fundraising. I guess taking money and support from the gun manufacturers is more "pure." I agree with what Krugman says:

And the timing of the Sanders rant was truly astonishing. Given her large lead in delegates — based largely on the support of African-American voters, who respond to her pragmatism because history tells them to distrust extravagant promises — Mrs. Clinton is the strong favorite for the Democratic nomination.

Is Mr. Sanders positioning himself to join the “Bernie or bust” crowd, walking away if he can’t pull off an extraordinary upset, and possibly helping put Donald Trump or Ted Cruz in the White House? If not, what does he think he’s doing?

The Sanders campaign has brought out a lot of idealism and energy that the progressive movement needs. It has also, however, brought out a streak of petulant self-righteousness among some supporters. Has it brought out that streak in the candidate, too?

I believe it has. It's about time to wrap this up. Hopefully the good people of New York will join us in Pennsylvania (a week after them), and put an end to this charade. I like Bernie Sanders plenty, he's a fine Senator. The U.S. Senate is a fine place for him to be in 2017.