He’s never been pro Democratic Party if you look at his life. The only reason he caucuses with Democrats is so he can go back to Vermont and say he did things. You have to keep in mind that his political hero is not FDR, but Eugene Debs. If he were the old school New Deal Democrat that his apologists claim him to be, he would have been best buddies with Tip O’Neill in the 1970s and 1980s. Not trashing JFK for trashing Castro back in the day.
I have no problem whatsoever with a fellow socialist identifying with Eugene V. Debs. I do have a problem with his current unjustified and highly untimely trashing of the Democratic Party. But no, he doesn't caucus with Democrats to "say he did things"; he does it to actually have an effect on Democratic legislation and Executive action - which he did have.
Two reasons why. #1. We now have two generations of American voters who didn't grow up in the Cold War, thus the word "socialist" is no longer poison in some mainstream political circles now, though it still remain very much a minority political sentiment in the USA. #2. The 2008 Wall Street crash did open the door to some left populism in this country, albeit not nearly as much as in 1929. Those two factors don't happen and he has no national audience, and today he'd struggle to have a Vermont audience.
They don't let him get away with it. They largely support him because of it. The cruelty is the point and is why it's ok that he's a convicted felon and good that he's a rapist, as far as they're concerned.
You're talking about political effectiveness. I have no problem with socialists advocating their positions, regardless of whether they are widely accepted or not. That's not my issue with Bernie and never has been.
I do because the Democratic Party simply does not get away with perceived extremism the way the Republican Party does. That's not changing anytime soon.
Socialists aren't going to shut up. If that means the country turns into a fascist dictatorship, that's the fault of the American people, not the socialists.
Bernie Sanders is NOT a socialist – despite the fact that he professes to be one. Not once have I heard Senator Sanders loudly propose that the state should take over the means of production and distribution.
Sanders is a social democrat. And I wish he would be intellectually honest enough to use that term, instead of "socialist" which is inaccurate as well as toxic in American public discourse.
Social democrats are a type of socialist, but aside from that, my main objection to how Bernie campaigned for president is that he tried to argue that all governmental organizations including the military were socialism but never laid out his vision of the ideal society that's his end goal. It's entirely unclear to me whether a classless society in which the people collectively own the means of production through a democratic government is or is not his ideal and the end goal he'd like to strive towards, and if it is, I'd like to see him explain why he considers that vital.
Back in the day, I favored Bernie over Hillary. Four years later, I was extremely disappointed to realize that Bernie had done nothing to build bridges and enlarge his campaign coalition. Bernie had four years to prepare but did squat!
So glad we elected Joe Biden, who certainly exceeded my expectations. While Bernie has a heart of gold and many worthwhile ideas, I believe he would have been a catastrophe as president. Why? I see little if any evidence that Bernie Sanders knows how to build bridges, nor how to compromise and win legislative support. We would have had four years of his rhetoric from the Oval Office bully pulpit – but few if any accomplishments.
PS. In 2020, I strongly supported Elizabeth Warren for President. That said, imho Warren has been far more impactful than Bernie on Biden’s policies and personnel choices. Kudos to her!
Bernie has collaborated with people far to his right on legislation, so he's definitely capable of compromise, but Biden's ability to get legislation through Congress was unmatched for a Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson and there's no way any other Democrat would have been as successful, and certainly not Bernie.
What he's done since the election certainly is not good, and as a fellow socialist, I'm very angry at him.
He’s never been pro Democratic Party if you look at his life. The only reason he caucuses with Democrats is so he can go back to Vermont and say he did things. You have to keep in mind that his political hero is not FDR, but Eugene Debs. If he were the old school New Deal Democrat that his apologists claim him to be, he would have been best buddies with Tip O’Neill in the 1970s and 1980s. Not trashing JFK for trashing Castro back in the day.
I have no problem whatsoever with a fellow socialist identifying with Eugene V. Debs. I do have a problem with his current unjustified and highly untimely trashing of the Democratic Party. But no, he doesn't caucus with Democrats to "say he did things"; he does it to actually have an effect on Democratic legislation and Executive action - which he did have.
Two reasons why. #1. We now have two generations of American voters who didn't grow up in the Cold War, thus the word "socialist" is no longer poison in some mainstream political circles now, though it still remain very much a minority political sentiment in the USA. #2. The 2008 Wall Street crash did open the door to some left populism in this country, albeit not nearly as much as in 1929. Those two factors don't happen and he has no national audience, and today he'd struggle to have a Vermont audience.
Trump is better at populism.. we should acknowledge that
Never said he wasn't. It's easy to be good at populism when your voters let you get away with "punching down."
They don't let him get away with it. They largely support him because of it. The cruelty is the point and is why it's ok that he's a convicted felon and good that he's a rapist, as far as they're concerned.
You're talking about political effectiveness. I have no problem with socialists advocating their positions, regardless of whether they are widely accepted or not. That's not my issue with Bernie and never has been.
I do because the Democratic Party simply does not get away with perceived extremism the way the Republican Party does. That's not changing anytime soon.
As you said, he's not a Democrat.
It doesn't matter. He caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. Thus the Democratic Party is expected to own his actions.
Socialists aren't going to shut up. If that means the country turns into a fascist dictatorship, that's the fault of the American people, not the socialists.
Bernie Sanders is NOT a socialist – despite the fact that he professes to be one. Not once have I heard Senator Sanders loudly propose that the state should take over the means of production and distribution.
Sanders is a social democrat. And I wish he would be intellectually honest enough to use that term, instead of "socialist" which is inaccurate as well as toxic in American public discourse.
Social democrats are a type of socialist, but aside from that, my main objection to how Bernie campaigned for president is that he tried to argue that all governmental organizations including the military were socialism but never laid out his vision of the ideal society that's his end goal. It's entirely unclear to me whether a classless society in which the people collectively own the means of production through a democratic government is or is not his ideal and the end goal he'd like to strive towards, and if it is, I'd like to see him explain why he considers that vital.
Back in the day, I favored Bernie over Hillary. Four years later, I was extremely disappointed to realize that Bernie had done nothing to build bridges and enlarge his campaign coalition. Bernie had four years to prepare but did squat!
So glad we elected Joe Biden, who certainly exceeded my expectations. While Bernie has a heart of gold and many worthwhile ideas, I believe he would have been a catastrophe as president. Why? I see little if any evidence that Bernie Sanders knows how to build bridges, nor how to compromise and win legislative support. We would have had four years of his rhetoric from the Oval Office bully pulpit – but few if any accomplishments.
PS. In 2020, I strongly supported Elizabeth Warren for President. That said, imho Warren has been far more impactful than Bernie on Biden’s policies and personnel choices. Kudos to her!
Bernie has collaborated with people far to his right on legislation, so he's definitely capable of compromise, but Biden's ability to get legislation through Congress was unmatched for a Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson and there's no way any other Democrat would have been as successful, and certainly not Bernie.
Also, in the 2020 primaries, I favored Inslee, then Warren and then Bernie.