Outsider appeal
Sanders knows how to both win and govern
The strongest case against Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with his electability or his democratic socialist identification, but rather with the disconnect between his political demands and a gridlocked political environment.
Of course, this concern has nothing to do with his chances against President Donald Trump. A lot of good would be accomplished simply by removing the president and his party from the Oval Office. Not only would right-wing judicial and agency appointments be replaced by progressive ones, but Mr. Sanders would be able to pursue action on a host of issues — from climate change to criminal justice — through executive orders. He’d also be able to chart a new course for American foreign policy, keeping us out of unpopular wars and whittling down our sprawling imperial presence.
But legislative failure and administrative incompetence in Washington would hurt Democratic re-election chances in 2024 and candidates at every level. It’s here that Mr. Sanders’ record as a public servant is instructive.
When Mr. Sanders first came to prominence in Vermont, the state was relatively conservative. Burlington, in particular, was dominated by a few major families and a bipartisan political machine. Failed policies and constrained city finances led Mr. Sanders’ predecessor as mayor, Gordon Paquette, to push austerity, cutting public services and the salaries of municipal employees.
After his surprise mayoral election, Mr. Sanders found himself stymied by his city council and powerful business interests. He moved forward by rallying activists, forging new coalitions and slowly expanding his base by improving the delivery of public services and communicating honestly with his constituencies.
Matthew Yglesias, of Vox, has described Mr. Sanders’ time in both Burlington and Washington as periods of savvy organizing, pragmatism and success. But it’s worth emphasizing that Mr. Sanders did not engage in compromise for the sake of compromise. He pursued alliances to serve his base, and his actions managed not just to deliver material gains, but to help reshape politics in Vermont.
In Washington, Mr. Sanders’ coalition-building meant teaming up with liberal representatives (and occasionally cutting deals with conservatives) and voting for imperfect legislation, but at the same time using his platform to evangelize for his longer-term vision. Mr. Sanders wouldn’t have maintained his reputation as a principled outsider if his effectiveness wasn’t married to this ideological stubbornness.
In 2009, when then-President Barack Obama met one of his left-wing supporters, The Nation publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel, he reminded her that “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” With a commanding electoral mandate, the president must have felt confident that he had a formula for success. But under his watch, the Democrats lost 13 governorships and a whopping 816 state legislative seats.
The same figures who steered the party under Mr. Obama also assured us that Hillary Clinton was closer to the “median voter” and thus more electable than either Mr. Sanders or Mr. Trump.
Maybe it’s time we stopped pretending that Mr. Obama and his associates know how best to win elections in the United States.
Mr. Sanders is an anti-establishment figure, and one with a decadeslong history on the left, but his policy commitments are not outside the new American mainstream. If he can galvanize the same “moderate” irregular voters who have been drawn to him in the past, he won’t just beat Mr. Trump, he’ll set the stage for a long-term political realignment — the political revolution he calls for.
Mr. Sanders is a rebel, but he’s one who people know and trust. In other words, he’s the perfect candidate for 2020.