I have listened to Bernie on the Thom Hartman show for years, and agree with, or could accept almost every major position Bernie has advocated. But I do not live in an echo chamber or bubble. My fellow voters, even on the Democratic side have convinced me:
1. They do not share my level of interest in civics and politics.
2. They do not know much about, and have no strong opinion on the traditional liberal world view.
3. They have not investigated, studied or even thought about the domestic policies and appointments of FDR and LBJ, nor do they know about the history of the labor movement, earlier restraints on immigration, segregation and Jim Crow, conservative jurisprudence on the Supreme Court and the struggles of the Warren Court to overcome it, real graduated taxation and regulation of banks, and the transformation of America's economy from agrarian, to manufacturing to its present emphasis on service and consuming what we produce.
4. They repeatedly demonstrate no understanding that the domestic policies and appointments of FDR and LBJ were doctrinal, and could have been a template that, if subsequent presidents had followed and adapted to modern challenges, would have improved their economic stations, quality of life and security. And,
5. They repeatedly vote (or decline to vote at all) based on personality, single (and often irrelevant or trivial) issues, and as a consequence, intentionally allow people like Scott Walker to win a recall election he should have lost, the election of congress people who are proven idiots and/or vote against the voters' interests; they likewise willingly allowed unions to slip from having major influence to promote workers; and worse of all, they gave the NRA, church leaders, war mongers, and multinational companies the governance of the United States wrapped with a bow.
For low knowledge, fair-weather voters, it is not out of the question that Bernie Sanders could get elected, albeit a very long shot. Indeed, if Bernie Sanders starts being treated by the media like a rock star, if the New York Times and other media outlets decide to step up the trashing of H. Clinton, and if by contrast, Sanders is painted as cool and honest, a Mr. Smith goes to Congress miracle is not out of the question. But if that happened, my fellow Democrats will have nominated, and the country would have elected a mythical person created by a combination of the media, and the ignorance of the crowds- not the real human known as "Bernie Sanders". This is important since the real man would not be able to govern. Lets face the facts: the states will still be in the hands of the right wingers, as will congress. My fellow Democrats will do to Bernie Sanders what they always do when they elect candidates who ran on ideology (like Jimmy Carter), which is to abandon the presidential candidate they elected, and this would happen to Bernie Sanders within a few months after the election. Gridlock would get worse since Sanders, would have to honor his mandate based on leftist and Socialist ideology, and he would be obliged to press for programs he could never sell to Congress, or even to a majority of Americans (which would be the huge group covered by polls, not just those who voted).
In other words, the Sanders-soldiers who believe Sanders could govern are akin to the children who think Tinker Bell can enable them to fly by sprinkling fairy dust on them.
Below the fold, are a few more observations.
My zeal is not based on any candidate, it is based on who will provide the best service to the country as President. All of the Republicans who have stepped forward are categorically disqualified. That leaves the Democrats. Joe Biden has started to energize his supporters, but as of this writing, he is too far below the radar as a candidate to take seriously. Other than H. Clinton, no person who is electable and who could govern in the next 4 years has stepped forward. If there is such a candidate, I would consider that person seriously. That leaves me with Hillary Clinton. By comparison to every person who ran since LBJ, I would put H. Clinton in the same upper echelon as Obama, one of America's best presidents in terms of brilliance and having the temperament to resolve the horrible mess he inherited.
I read the blogs and comments of the Sanders supporters and recognize they all have the Tinker Bell disorder since they want perfection and purity from H. Clinton, and think they are getting it from Sanders. Hillary Clinton, under a media-microscope, not surprisingly, turns out to be a human who has obtained success by deploying the tools and weapons that she needed to overcome competitors and detractors. So What? She is asking to be employed as President based on the likely results in the lives and pocketbooks of Americans she claims would flow from the policies she promises to advocate. Those who insist on purity of message and method should sit out all elections and await the Messiah prophesied in the Bible. Mortals who get elected or hired in industry for top positions, and who get things done, have generally demonstrated that purity is not a beneficial trait, or something that characterizes the tools in the tool box they need to achieve the results they promise. While I do not suggest by this that I embrace an ends justify the means philosophy, I do argue that there is a difference between committing a crime on the one hand, and on the other, acting within the law, but not being a nice person; between stacking a deck one the one hand, and on the other, bluffing to win a poker hand; or, between uttering fraudulent statements of fact one the one hand, and on the other, marketing to what people want to believe. No major power could protect its people and help them prosper with out spying, and false positions taken in diplomacy-both of which would be unacceptable in a family. In short, until someone established conduct by H. Clinton that was a felony or malum en se , my view is that I do not know all the facts of the rumors and charges, and I do not have any trusted source of information. Therefore, I am not permitting mere rumors and charges to sway me, and suspect the motives of those publishing them.
Does H. Clinton have ties to big business? I hope so! Here is just one reason why such ties would help the country. We are a country that lives off of its commerce. Our standard of living grows out of the GNP and consumer spending. Businesses are owned by shareholders, the majority of whom are not one per centers. While I may not agree fully with Coolidge “the chief business of the American people is business" the theme of modern America is economic; and to improve the standards for the middle class, the President must have the confidence of, and a relationship with the professionals who run major companies. If business did not trust a particular President, it would simply wait them out until a new President was elected--as business to some extent did with Obama. Could Sanders expect to make deals with business leaders?I think not since deals would be expected by the H. Clinton supporters, but similar horse trading would be a betrayal of the Sanders' election platform.
The bottom line seems to be that Sanders has rightfully and in my opinion, thankfully, started a conversation the country has not had since Nixon took office about income inequality, and social values that stem from the FDR-LBJ template. The chances of Bernie using the next year to make the Democrats I described above smart, and to get them to vote seem as good as any one of us finding Tinker Bell and then flying thanks to fairy dust. But if we suspend disbelief, and posit that Bernie was able to be elected, he would need more than fairy dust to govern the country we live in presently.