In an interview Hillary Clinton gave with Chris Matthews on Tuesday, Clinton said the following: “Ideas that sound good on paper but can’t create results for people are just that, good ideas on paper. I have a track-record of producing results. I know how to do all parts of this job, because we are going to be voting for both a president and a commander-in-chief. And in New Hampshire the two sides to this incredibly difficult job are joined together.” Here is a link to the full interview:
www.msnbc.com/...
The part of the interview I quoted starts at minute 4:41.
With the above quote Clinton suggests that, if she is inaugurated president in 2017, she would be more likely to get good laws and policies enacted than Bernie Sanders would if he is inaugurated president in 2017.
I. Domestic Policy
On domestic policy, perhaps some of the proposals that Clinton has offered to ameliorate certain problems would be more likely to become law in the first four years of her administration than some of the proposals that Sanders has offered to ameliorate the same problems. For instance, her ideas on making prescription drugs more affordable likely would have a better chance of becoming law in the first four years of her administration than Sanders’ proposal of Medicare-for-all. However, other than the good executive orders that she has proposed on gun control (www.nytimes.com/...), immigration (www.msnbc.com/...) and tax avoidance (www.bloomberg.com/...), I can’t think of any proposal that Clinton has offered to address domestic problems that would have better than a 50 percent chance of being enacted—at least as stand-alone legislation—during the first four years of her administration. Republicans still likely would control the U.S. House for the first four years of her administration. In addition, there still (unfortunately) will be the filibuster in the U.S. Senate, and I question whether—for any of her domestic proposals that I can think of—she could get the 60 votes in the Senate that she would need for cloture. For example, she has said that, as president, she would propose legislation that would require health insurance plans to charge no more than $250 per month on covered out-of-pocket prescription drug costs. She has also said that she would propose legislation that would require health insurance plans to provide patients three sick visits per year prior to the patients having met their deductibles, and that she would provide a tax credit of up to $5,000 per family for excessive out-of-pocket health care costs. Here is a link:
www.hillaryclinton.com/...
But how likely is it that she could get any of these proposals passed? At least as stand-alone legislation, it seems unlikely to me. The Republican-controlled congress probably would block them. However, perhaps some of her health care proposals, all of which are modest, are likely ones that Republicans would accept in exchange for reasonable concessions. In comparison, there is little realistic chance that a Republican-controlled congress would accept Sanders’ Medicare-for-all plan in the first four years of his presidency. In addition, perhaps Clinton is more willing than Sanders to make deals that are, overall, for the best. For instance, my understanding is that she made reasonable concessions in order to help get the Children’s Health Insurance Program enacted. Perhaps Clinton could get congress to vote for her ideas on health care in exchange for her voting for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Although I am not an expert in trade, I favor the TPP.
However, during his political career, Sanders has also shown a willingness to agree to less than ideal deals when those deals were the best ones possible. Consider, for instance, the bill that he brokered in the senate on veterans’ issues. Also, when he was in the U.S. House, he was able to get a number of good amendments added to legislation that eventually passed. Here is a link:
www.alternet.org/...
Finally, Sanders seems like a reasonable person to me. Just in the way he talks. He seems like someone who wouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good—or the better. At least that was the reputation he established as mayor of Burlington, Vermont.
Also, perhaps Clinton would be more likely to get something passed by a Republican congress because she would be willing to trade away more and get back less in return. But then we would have to worry that she would have given away too much and received back too little.
So, it’s questionable to me that, in terms of domestic legislation that would have to pass congress, Clinton would be more likely to get good things accomplished during the first four years of her presidency than Sanders would.
Nevertheless, perhaps Congress will become Democratic at some point during the eight years of the next president’s administration, which would increase the likelihood of Clinton’s ideas becoming law. But if Congress becomes Democratic during that period, then Sanders also would have a chance of getting some of his ideas enacted. And, overall, his platform is better than Clinton’s. For instance, Medicare should be available to every U.S. citizen, not just people 65 and older.
As for executive orders, Sanders favors the same ones that Clinton does on gun control (www.politicususa.com/...) and orders that are at least as good, if not better, on immigration (www.chicagoreader.com/...) and tax avoidance (www.bloomberg.com/...). For instance, on immigration, Clinton, according to her website, has proposed to “Defend President Obama’s executive actions to provide deportation relief for DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful residents, and extend those actions to additional persons with sympathetic cases if Congress refuses to act (emphasis added).” In comparison, Sanders has pledged that, as president, he would expand President Obama’s executive order on immigration to allow any undocumented immigrant who has lived in the U.S. for at least five years to stay in the country without fear of being deported. So, Sanders’ proposal on an executive order for immigration is better than Clinton’s. It would protect more people from being unfairly deported. Moreover, perhaps Sanders’ better proposals on executive orders suggest that he would use this executive tool more justly than Clinton would.
II. Foreign Policy
On foreign policy, the next U.S. president will have significant latitude during his or her first four years in office. In fact, in my view, the U.S. president currently has too much latitude in conducting foreign policy, especially in using military force. But that’s the way it is now. And, on foreign policy, I have as much confidence in Sanders as I do in Clinton. Although she has more experience in foreign policy and seems to know more about international issues, his record and platform are, overall, better than hers. For instance, he voted against the Persian Gulf War and the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. He also, at least for the time being, opposes enforcing a no-fly zone in Syria. Although I am not an expert on enforcing no-fly zones, those who are knowledgeable on the subject have suggested that it would not be a good idea for the U.S. to try to enforce one in Syria now. According to a 2013 New York Times article, “Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave a slide-show presentation in the Situation Room in early 2012 that helped take any military option off the table. Imposing a no-fly zone, he said, would require as many as 70,000 American servicemen to dismantle Syria’s sophisticated antiaircraft system and then impose a 24-hour watch over the country.”
Here is a link:
www.nytimes.com/...
And that was written before Russia entered the war in September 2015, which makes the situation even more complex.
Sanders also seems more willing to reduce defense spending and increase spending on foreign aid, and he may be more willing to try to resolve conflicts non-militarily.
III. Why I Support Sanders
So, why do I support Sanders for president? First, by supporting him, I am supporting a better platform than the one Clinton is offering. For instance, his idea to make public college free seems far better than her idea of making college more affordable for some people. And if I support him, maybe the good parts of his platform have a better chance of getting implemented in the U.S. sooner—in the midterm rather than later—in the long term. Second, although Sanders and Clinton seem to be equally likely to be solid president, he is more likely to be an outstanding president. By arguing for—and in some cases implementing—his ideas, he would have a greater chance of making the world and country more just. He could move the bar, at least of our political discourse and maybe also our political culture and political system. To quote Clinton’s favorite president Abraham Lincoln, “The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall our selves, and then we shall save our country.”
Too many of Clinton’s proposals assume conventional answers to our “stormy present.” Sanders is rising to the occasion of the new challenges that cannot be met with the “dogmas” of the not so quiet present. With his critique of an economic inequality that is massively undermining our democracy, he is urging us to “disenthrall” ourselves from conventional wisdom, “think anew” and “act anew.” Then perhaps we can “save our country” from the rule of the few over the many. Short term effectiveness is too often the ally of business as usual.