Sanders is jeopardizing the future of socialism
As recently as five years ago, the notion of socialism entering the American political consciousness in any serious manner would have been seen — probably correctly — as insane. Decades of conservative ascendancy, Fox News’ weaponization of McCarthyite politics, and heightened concerns about global security led the American people directly into the hands of rightwing plutocrats promising a future of limited government and safety against threats of terrorism and unrest.
The branding of socialism in America was so tarnished that the word was all but expunged from the left, in favor of moderate or liberal. But those liberals proved wholly ineffective both in policy-making and campaigning. They only helped their disenchanted constituencies by filling their coffers during inconsequential terms in office.
Only in a climate like today’s — with concentration camps on the border, brinkmanship in international relations and global governmental corruption — could dissatisfaction on the left boil over, thrusting socialism back into the spotlight. Many attribute socialism’s nascent acceptance to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose galvanizing efforts in campaigning for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination via grassroots activation took the nation by storm. Branding himself a “democratic socialist” and calling for systemic changes to the nation’s economy, he achieved remarkable success in the face of an establishment Democratic base that overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton.
To an 18-year old socialist like myself, this was impressive. Though Sanders himself has a rather unimpressive record — almost the consummate voter of the Democratic party line — it was pleasing to see Americans embrace new ways to approach problems. Why not push establishment figures like Clinton (and those in the future) toward the left, toward issues that concern the vast majority of the country? Sanders might give American socialism the platform it needs to reestablish itself.
But Sanders is jeopardizing this achievement, and his ambition could nullify all progress made so far.
The senator is misaligned with political realities. In debates — the calmer aftermath of his boisterous rallies — he shows himself to be ill-equipped to carry the torch. Some of this he has little control over — an old white man doesn’t reflect the demographics the party is seeking to attract.
But much of it is his fault.
In an age in which the gun issue carries increasing significance, Sanders flounders on the debate stage, with inconsistent positions that satisfy almost no one. He has shown remarkable progress with his legislative activism on foreign policy, taking a lead role in the attempted use of the War Powers Act in 2018 to halt U.S. support for the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen. Unfortunately, like much of his legislative history, this proved ineffective when the resolution was vetoed by the president. Sanders’ lambasting of the president’s foreign policy can only go so far in disguising a lack of adeptness.
The key reason why Sanders cannot lead the charge for socialism is his inability to concern himself with the human quality of politics. When asked about a slew of topics during debates or town halls, he attempts to quell some of the concerns of the American people, but he refuses to address many of the issues on their own. He routinely brings every issue back to one of reforming the economic system.
His critique is accurate, but his ideas fall upon deaf ears when he cannot show the necessary empathy for racial issues, immigration issues, and other policy-making concerns felt by many Americans. The chaos of today’s America necessitates systemic economic reforms, but that will gain no traction if people don’t believe that all their concerns are being heard.
Sanders has been of service in carving out a new respectability for socialism in America, but he is not the man that socialism needs today. Sanders should be content with the role he’s played and not become like others who cling onto ambitions until they believe the world can’t get along without them.
The second-to-last thing the left needs is a reactionary who would serve only as ammunition for the opposition. The last thing the left needs would be for the opposition’s objections to be on target.
John Daniels Hicks is an 18-year-old Canadian-American Connecticut resident and graduate of Westhill High School in Stamford. He plans to study political science at McGill University in the fall.
The Courant invites writers younger than 30 to write essays of about 650 words containing strong views. Please email your submission to freshtalk@courant.com, with your full name, hometown, daytime phone number, age and occupation (or your school’s name and your level in school).