Anyway, the whole Bernie-Warren thing is just as much a case of celebrity worship as wanting Oprah as the president. It’s grabbing popular big names that any even vaguely leftist American recognizes, and projecting that as a solution. The almost messianic cult of personality that people online seem to have for Sanders makes me inherently suspicious of the young American leftists’ actual political chops and willingness to get involved in the grunt work of governing, with the inevitable compromises.
None of this surprises me anymore. The fact that human history is riddled with aristocracies or oligarchies in general means any proper democratic society is very exceptional if it lasts even a century. It’s inevitable the US and other liberal democracies would devolve back to some kind of aristocracy since people are so easily fooled into supporting them (not to mention that capitalism can only survive so long in a functioning democracy).
It’s why I fear seeing folks cling to Bernie Sanders so dearly. He’s a nice enough politician but he’s still just a politician and more so he’s just one person. It’s better to build a coalition with the same desire to replace capitalism than it is to copy what those on the right are doing with their worship of celebrity. Down with idols and ‘leaders’ is all I’m saying.
This is why I think Sanders will not run in 2020. He knows he’s too old and 2016 was his last/only shot at such a position. From what I can see, he’s trying to endorse candidates in the same vein as him (nominally left on economic and social issues). It’s those candidates and activists who will be his legacy. Building a movement is far more lasting than being President.
Or, you know, it could have to do with policies that people actually want to see enacted. The assumption that their supporters are uninformed about policy is as self-righteous and dismissive as the term “leftist”.
His age is one of the primary reasons I’d like to see him on the VP ticket. However, his endurance during the campaign and beyond has removed any real concern on my part. I’m 40 and definitely wouldn’t have been able to pull that off.
I say again: he’ll be 87 by January 2029, ten years older than Reagan was when he left office. Past performance notwithstanding, it’s an extremely small subset of humanity who makes it to 87 without facing significant physical and cognitive decline, and a smaller subset still who could maintain their health while working one of the most demanding jobs in the world.
I hope Bernie stays healthy and sharp for decades to come but I’d rather not bet the well-being of our country on it.
I understand the sentiment, but a billionaire US president would have his/her fingers in too deeply in too many financial pies to be clearly separated from (i.e., in order to effectively avoid conflicts of interests).
It’s dismissive (IMO) because it ascribes a broadly-drawn polarity and “otherness” to people who have very clear policy positions. I never hear that term employed as self-description of one’s position, but I hear it all the time from the right wing propaganda machine.
We do have a succession plan that has worked perfectly well numerous times over the past century. Our government was designed to not fall into disarray if someone kicks it.
I would honestly be fine if he didn’t even run so long as someone else just as competent and humane did. Warren seems to fit that bill perfectly.
It’s not just a matter of if he survives to 87, it’s a matter of likely physical and cognitive decline. Have you ever had to have “the talk” with an elderly relative about whether it might be time to give up the car keys? It’s not a fun or easy situation.
“In general, a mixed economy is characterized by the predominance of
private ownership of the means of production and markets for allocating
resources. Profit-seeking enterprise and the accumulation of capital
remain the fundamental driving force behind economic activity, while
markets are subject to varying degrees of regulatory control.”
Which sounds like the USA. An economy can accurately be described as “capitalist” without being “pure” capitalism (to a committed communist, even the most left-leaning European social democracies are still “capitalist.”) Unless the definition of “leftist” coincides perfectly with “communist” then there’s plenty of room on the left for a spectrum of economic and social policy.
My point: excluding someone on the left from the definition of “leftist” because they’re more to the right than yourself may not be No True Scotsman territory, but it’s pretty close.
By the standards of both international norms and US opinion polls, the centre lies slightly to the right of the Berniecrats. Almost all of the establishment Democrats are somewhat right of centre.
Bernie doesn’t represent the far left; he represents the moderate mainstream. If he moved one inch to the right he’d be a capitalist social democrat.
The actual socialist left is around about where the DSA is; the genuinely radical left think of the DSA as hopelessly naive centrists.
I’d probably be somewhere on the left edge of the DSA.
