LET us suppose for a moment that, by some miracle, Bernie Sanders makes it into the White House. How much of his broadly commendable agenda would he be able to translate into concrete policies?
Among other things, Sanders is keen to double the minimum wage, institute universal healthcare, and make higher education free. These proposals are not exactly outlandish even within the capitalist context. After all, among economies construed as fully developed, the American variety is about the only one where the provision of medical care is not guaranteed to more or less everyone. And several European countries have thus far been disinclined to introduce a user-pays model for university education.
One can hardly overlook what happened, though, when Barack Obama sought to somewhat broaden the healthcare safety net. Deplorably, he even permitted stalwarts of the hugely profitable health insurance industry to write the new rules. It was nonetheless lambasted as socialistic by his mainly Republican opponents, some of whom dreamt up fantasies about ‘death panels’ deciding who deserved to live.
A Sanders presidency can represent a transformation.
A death panel of sorts was operating in yesterday’s first election-year primary in New Hampshire, and the political graveyard was expected to claim several of the contenders on the Republican side. The confederacy of dunces will be whittled down, as of today, to a more manageable number. That helps to explain why Marco Rubio was a particular target in last week’s Republican presidential debate, after coming third in the Iowa caucus.
The broad impression is that neither the utterly wacky Donald Trump, the frontrunner so far, nor Ted Cruz, the Tea Party evangelist who defied opinion polls by trumping his chief adversary in Iowa, will make it to the finish line. Hence, the third place that Rubio claimed in Iowa is paramount. Anyone who fails to measure up in New Hampshire will come under pressure to bow out. Several contenders are expected to comply. Expect their identities to be revealed shortly.
Rubio is being hailed by some conservatives as the man most likely to repeat Obama’s 2008 triumph after Trump and Cruz magically drop away, even though neither of them is terribly far from him in ideological terms. And, of course, they may not. But third place in New Hampshire could count for a lot, which is why the likes of Chris Christie and Jeb Bush have lately been focusing their fire on Rubio rather than the top two contenders.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is clearly shaken by the fact that Sanders came incredibly close to thwarting her in Iowa, which surprised both of them. In her previous presidential run eight years ago, Clinton shed a few tears after being upset in Iowa by an upstart called Obama, and went on to score a win in New Hampshire. This time her aim in what is already a two-horse race is to secure a less-than-double-digit defeat in that state.
Despite her setbacks, Clinton remains the favoured contender for the Democratic crown, not least because the party hierarchy and, more significantly, the other vested interests that play a crucial role in deciding who runs America remain devoted to her candidacy, especially if the alternative is Sanders — but quite possibly even in opposition to Trump or Cruz.
And although she may indeed be construed as a ‘progressive’ in comparison with the latter two, in other respects it would be just as viable to view the former first lady and secretary of state as a neo-conservative as well as a neo-liberal. Citing a war criminal such as Henry Kissinger as an approving mentor does not stand her in particularly good stead as a safe pair of hands where foreign policy is concerned, particularly in view of her enthusiastic approval for every disastrous American intervention abroad in recent decades.
Sanders has been castigated for his vagueness in respect of foreign policy, but his lack of abrasiveness on that front would likely be an improvement even on Obama’s record — and it’s certainly a far cry from the kind of policies and actions Trump or Cruz would be inclined to undertake.
This year has been described as a dangerous moment for America, not least because the consequences of the ‘insurgency’ represented by considerably more viable ‘mavericks’ than Sarah Palin seem uncertain to all manner of pundits.
A Sanders presidency holds out the hope of representing a transformational moment of sorts, even though his worthy principles would inevitably encounter monumental setbacks. Any of the alternatives would, at best, reinforce the status quo or represent retrogression.
His remarkable popularity among younger voters reflects enthusiasm for his refreshing tendency to speak his mind instead of delivering spin-doctored sound bites, offering a vision sharply at variance with the bitter and twisted views that emanate from the Republican side as well as Clinton’s attachment to the status quo. He’s an unlikely winner, but it may be unwise to completely write him off just yet.
Published in Dawn, February 10th, 2016
