It's not easy being a Bernie Sanders supporter. All the time I hear people say, "I agree with what he says, but..." They tend to ignore the fact that Bernie Sanders is drawing bigger crowds than any candidate in either party. The main reason is that most people agree with what he's saying. When I go line by line and issue by issue in Sanders' platform I get total agreement not only from my liberal friends, but a lot of centrist friends as well. His ideas are not all that radical, and most people agree with them. So what's the knock? He can't win.
It's hard to predict the future, but this attitude seems like an attempt to do so. My first response is to say that, I disagree. I think he can win. He has consistently closed the gap between himself and Hillary Clinton. He continues to draw bigger crowds than any candidate and he's raising money from more people. Not more money, mind you, but from more people. Given that you already agree with his platform, why not take a positive view?
Now, let's assume that his likelihood of winning is slim, then I would make a different argument. The issue ceases to be about "can vs. can't" and becomes about "must." To illustrate the distinction, I want you to consider the life of the abolitionist, Frederick Douglas. I'm sure that he concluded many times that any given moment a particular effort might fail, but at no point did he give up the fight? Why? Because it was never about whether the eradication of slavery could happen, and it was always about that it must happen.
When we turn the issue from can/can't to must, it changes the stakes considerably. If you had asked me ten years ago whether marriage equality could happen, I would have probably said that I had no idea. But I knew for certain that it must happen, and I'm sure that millions of others felt the same way, because that is how change is made. It doesn't come about because people get lucky and things go their way. It comes about because people make it their mission to make it happen.
At what point in our democracy did it become okay to malign candidates for espousing views that we ourselves hold? What is so wrong with the concept of truly representative democracy? There is a large group of people who seem to think that we need candidates who treat us like children, who use coded language that only people in the know can crack, and who always seem to have a "superior" approach to what we, the people, want. "Trust us," the candidates tell us, "We know best. There's a good reason you're not going to get what you want." They're right. There is a good reason. We've put our trust in candidates who do not reflect our convictions and our values, but instead have opted for candidates who simply wear the blue uniform. Anything in blue is better than anything in red, right?
Here's the thing: there is a majority of people in this country who want what you want, and there are candidates who reflect those values to their very core, and they are not interested in placating powerful interests, because they genuinely believe that a politician's job is to safeguard our democracy against powerful private interests- candidates like Bernie Sanders. America used to be more liberal, so of course, it's possible. But even if the possibility seems unlikely, it's not about can or can't it's about must. We must elect a president who reflects we, the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment