Robert Reich. (photo: Richard Morgenstein)
ix Responses to Bernie Skeptics:
- “He’d never beat Trump or Cruz in a general election.”
Wrong. According to the latest polls, Bernie is the strongest Democratic
candidate in the general election, defeating both Donald Trump and Ted
Cruz in hypothetical matchups. (The latest Real Clear Politics averages
of all polls shows Bernie beating Trump by a larger margin than Hillary
beats Trump, and Bernie beating Cruz while Hillary loses to Cruz.)
- “He couldn’t get any of his ideas implemented because Congress would
reject them.”
If both house of Congress remain in Republican hands, no Democrat will
be able to get much legislation through Congress, and will have to rely
instead on executive orders and regulations. But there’s a higher
likelihood of kicking Republicans out if Bernie’s “political revolution”
continues to surge around America, bringing with it millions of young
people and other voters, and keeping them politically engaged.
- “America would never elect a socialist.”
P-l-e-a-s-e. America’s most successful and beloved government programs are social insurance – Social Security and Medicare. A highway is a shared social expenditure, as is the military and public parks and schools. The problem is we now have excessive socialism for the rich (bailouts of Wall Street, subsidies for Big Ag and Big Pharma, monopolization by cable companies and giant health insurers, giant tax-deductible CEO pay packages) – all of which Bernie wants to end or prevent. - “His single-payer healthcare proposal would cost so much it would require raising taxes on the middle class.”
This is a duplicitous argument. Single-payer systems in other rich nations have proven cheaper than private for-profit health insurers because they don’t spend huge sums on advertising, marketing, executive pay, and billing. So even if the Sanders single-payer plan did require some higher taxes, Americans would come out way ahead because they’d save far more than that on health insurance. - “His plan for paying for college with a tax on Wall Street trades would mean colleges would run by government rules.”
Baloney. Three-quarters of college students today already attend public universities financed largely by state governments, and they’re not run by government rules. The real problem is too many young people still can’t afford a college education. The move toward free public higher education that began in the 1950s with the G.I. Bill and extended into the 1960s came to an abrupt stop in the 1980s. We must restart it. - “He’s too old.”
Untrue. He’s in great health. Have you seen how agile and forceful he is as he campaigns around the country? These days, 70s are the new 60s. (He’s younger than four of the nine Supreme Court justices.) In any event, the issue isn't age; it's having the right values. FDR was paralyzed and JFK had Crohn's disease, but they were great presidents because they stood forcefully for the right things.
What do you think?
+104
#
2016-01-16 16:07
Thanks so much, Dr.
Reich for your supportive article. Thankfully the media have stopped
talking of Clinton as she is if she is the shoo-in candidate. Finally he
is getting the serious notice he deserves from media and politicians
alike. I have been concerned about his health and stamina; no one enters
the presidency anymore without aging noticeably. So thanks for no. 6.
I've said in another blog that I think the Reps. will try to make
serious hay of his socialist title. You say in no. 3 that the rich have
excessive socialism, which is true. We'll see how the Reps. use this
socialist moniker against him.
+25
#
2016-01-17 01:53
Hear, hear on every count, especially including the (well-deserved) compliment to Mr. Reich.
+109
#
2016-01-16 17:17
You might add, he is firm and tough but he has a sense of humor, is humane, and compassionate.
I think he would make a great President.
I think he would make a great President.
+79
#
2016-01-16 22:25
Thank you, Robert
Reich, for calling out some of the most common erroneous beliefs about
Bernie's electability and policy proposals. It is reassuring to realize
there are sane voices in the media that are seeing things clearly and
honestly. Bernie is likely the best national candidate I have known in
my 68 years of life. I believe he is a test of the American people: will
we realize the opportunity we have been offered, or will we--through
force of habit and negativity--be dragged back into the mire of
corruption that America has become?
+2
#
2016-01-17 08:39
Yes- thank you
Robert!! I am sure that as a former Clinton cabinet member, you are
under considerable pressure to support Hillary. Thank you for bringing
up relevant points in support of Bernie!
And about the age- issue - Trump is 69 and Hillary 68. Not a huge difference.
And about the age- issue - Trump is 69 and Hillary 68. Not a huge difference.
-55
#
2016-01-16 23:12
There is, like,
absolutely no evidence whatsoever that, like, young Americans will,
like, do anything but exchange narcissistic selfies while, like,
driving, once the primary or general election is over. There is NOTHING
out there like the Civil Rights Movement or the anti-war movement.
People who can't be bothered to vote in midterm elections aren't going
to, like, make a Revolution. I wish it were otherwise.
+54
#
2016-01-16 23:30
Dear "Shades" you like are like clueless about what like is like going on here.
This is a political revolution since most Americans are sick and tired of the corrupt and rigged system that has taken over our government. Bernie gives us a real choice, not a pick between the lesser of two evils of two candidates one a Republican and the other a Republican pretending to be a Democrat but still beholden to Wall Street and the Military Industrial complex.
GO BERNIE!!!!!
This is a political revolution since most Americans are sick and tired of the corrupt and rigged system that has taken over our government. Bernie gives us a real choice, not a pick between the lesser of two evils of two candidates one a Republican and the other a Republican pretending to be a Democrat but still beholden to Wall Street and the Military Industrial complex.
GO BERNIE!!!!!
-13
#
2016-01-17 01:52
Shades is "clueless"?
Maybe if you took half a second you might realize that your
condescension towards your fellow Democrats who have concerns about the
realities of your so-called "revolution" is itself clueless.
If nothing else, do you folks think you can win either the nomination or the election without Democrats who don't exactly see things your way?
Be careful how you respond to those in your own party who disagree with you. You may find you can't win without us. Just as we can't win without you.
So stop sounding like intolerant conservatives when someone disagrees with you.
If nothing else, do you folks think you can win either the nomination or the election without Democrats who don't exactly see things your way?
Be careful how you respond to those in your own party who disagree with you. You may find you can't win without us. Just as we can't win without you.
So stop sounding like intolerant conservatives when someone disagrees with you.
-22
#
2016-01-17 01:29
There's an old
political saying that goes something like, if your plan is "We'll win
because we'll turn out all these people who don't usually vote", you'll
lose.
Dr. Reich's responses are simplistic and ignore political reality. For example, where the polls are in January doesn't matter. Howard Dean was ahead at this point in the cycle in 2008.
Also, national polls don't matter. POTUS is elected state by state through the electoral college. How many of the Obama coalition states would Sen. Sanders hold, and could he carry Ohio and Florida?
Are we prepared to squander all of the gains we've made in the last 8 years if we lose the presidency in 2016? Are we prepared to lose the SCOTUS for a generation? To see a woman's right to choose taken away?
The stakes are the highest they've ever been. Do we want to risk everything on a senator from a tiny northeastern state who wasn't even a member of the Democratic Party until recently?
Two words: George McGovern.
Dr. Reich's responses are simplistic and ignore political reality. For example, where the polls are in January doesn't matter. Howard Dean was ahead at this point in the cycle in 2008.
Also, national polls don't matter. POTUS is elected state by state through the electoral college. How many of the Obama coalition states would Sen. Sanders hold, and could he carry Ohio and Florida?
Are we prepared to squander all of the gains we've made in the last 8 years if we lose the presidency in 2016? Are we prepared to lose the SCOTUS for a generation? To see a woman's right to choose taken away?
The stakes are the highest they've ever been. Do we want to risk everything on a senator from a tiny northeastern state who wasn't even a member of the Democratic Party until recently?
Two words: George McGovern.
+22
#
2016-01-17 02:11
"All of the gains we've made in the last 8 years"?
What planet are you from? More appropriately, in what gated compound do you live? Where on Wall Street do you work? In what country club do you celebrate these "gains"? And do you even care what your "gains" have stolen from the rest of us?
What planet are you from? More appropriately, in what gated compound do you live? Where on Wall Street do you work? In what country club do you celebrate these "gains"? And do you even care what your "gains" have stolen from the rest of us?
+2
#
2016-01-17 08:26
NRESQ - I realize you are highly concerned about the SCOTUS nominations, and rightly so.
However -
1) There is no more "Obama coalition". Repub. swept Congress the last couple of elections
2) On what are you basing your assumption that HRC is definitely going to win in a general election? HRC has a quite high negative number nationally in terms of how people view her. I am extremely concerned about how this could effect a general election, with many independents simply voting against her rather than for someone.
3) Bernie is not Howard Dean. There will be no crazy scream like the one that undid Dean. Bernie knows how to carry himself with dignity.
4) Bernie is not George McGovern, and this is not 1972. McGovern was opposed by union leaders, who, at the time, opposed his anti-Vietnam war stance. Bernie is assembling a wide coalition of supporters and endorsements. McGovern also suffered from the "scandal" surrounding Eagleton, his VP choice, when it was revealed Eagleton had received electro-shock therapy for depression (which he had not told the campaign).
However -
1) There is no more "Obama coalition". Repub. swept Congress the last couple of elections
2) On what are you basing your assumption that HRC is definitely going to win in a general election? HRC has a quite high negative number nationally in terms of how people view her. I am extremely concerned about how this could effect a general election, with many independents simply voting against her rather than for someone.
3) Bernie is not Howard Dean. There will be no crazy scream like the one that undid Dean. Bernie knows how to carry himself with dignity.
4) Bernie is not George McGovern, and this is not 1972. McGovern was opposed by union leaders, who, at the time, opposed his anti-Vietnam war stance. Bernie is assembling a wide coalition of supporters and endorsements. McGovern also suffered from the "scandal" surrounding Eagleton, his VP choice, when it was revealed Eagleton had received electro-shock therapy for depression (which he had not told the campaign).
+3
#
2016-01-17 08:28
"Two words: George McGovern."
Predictions are pointless at this stage, no matter how much people get off on making them.
A more interesting thought is, do you want your thinking to be governed by fear instead of love? George McGovern (for whom I actively campaigned and voted) was ahead of his time. Since then the public has "evolved" enough to elect a black man President, twice. Who's to say how else we may have developed?
Predictions are pointless at this stage, no matter how much people get off on making them.
A more interesting thought is, do you want your thinking to be governed by fear instead of love? George McGovern (for whom I actively campaigned and voted) was ahead of his time. Since then the public has "evolved" enough to elect a black man President, twice. Who's to say how else we may have developed?
0
#
2016-01-17 08:09
The Civil Rights
Movement and anti-war movements had to start somewhere. This is a
beginning, a stronger and better beginning than we have seen in decades.
I agree that our complacent, materialistic culture has corrupted both
young and old, but the issues of racial justice, student loans and jobs
might just be gritty enough to radicalize some formerly self absorbed
youth.
+2
#
2016-01-17 08:47
Shades, I've read
quite a few similar posts from you- I'm wondering about your motives.
Are you a Hillary supporter? Then please share your thoughts as to why.
Are you specifically antiBernie? Again, please say why. Are you against
all young people for some reason? Your tone is so dismissive of them -
yes they don't talk, interact or even participate in a revolution they
way young people did in the 60's, but that doesn't mean we should
discount them in my opinion. Scary as it may be, this election is riding
on them so I'm doing my part to interact, register, and educate this
age group to support Bernie. What are you doing?
+37
#
2016-01-16 23:29
I wish I had this
list of articulate responses printed as handout for one retiree I met
today on my sub-zero stump for Bernie in South Minneapolis. He was so
disillusioned with the let-down of the past 8 years that he was
considering not voting for the first time in his life.
I sympathized with him: I had hoped for more change, too, but because I have teenagers, I can't afford to give up or, worse, go cynical. Feeling challenged, he roused himself to run down some objections presented here.
His most strenuous objection was number two above: the established interests have taken such complete hold that it is futile to even hope. "Even if Bernie were to be elected, how would he get any of his good ideas implemented given such entrenched interests?"
"Revolution" got a tired laugh. The conversation ended. The door closed. Again, sub-zero at the bone.
Judging from my view from the stoop, things are worse now--lots worse--than I have ever seen. Yes, a five-year, recession-induc ed divorce has left me adrift in more ways than one. But the brief glimpse through doors into the struggles people are currently facing is a sure cure for self-pity. Many are losing heart, losing their courage for destiny.
I sympathized with him: I had hoped for more change, too, but because I have teenagers, I can't afford to give up or, worse, go cynical. Feeling challenged, he roused himself to run down some objections presented here.
His most strenuous objection was number two above: the established interests have taken such complete hold that it is futile to even hope. "Even if Bernie were to be elected, how would he get any of his good ideas implemented given such entrenched interests?"
"Revolution" got a tired laugh. The conversation ended. The door closed. Again, sub-zero at the bone.
Judging from my view from the stoop, things are worse now--lots worse--than I have ever seen. Yes, a five-year, recession-induc ed divorce has left me adrift in more ways than one. But the brief glimpse through doors into the struggles people are currently facing is a sure cure for self-pity. Many are losing heart, losing their courage for destiny.
+17
#
2016-01-17 01:50
The emotional state
of the nation is the equivalent of the financial condition reported in
another story on this edition of RSN: "...56 percent of Americans said
they have less than $1,000...Nearly a quarter (24.8 percent) have less
than $100 to their name."
In a year denied a Social Security COLA, and with the Washington state Democrats' abolition of the low-income telephone subsidy and their savage cuts in food stamps and Medicare subsidies, I have $155 less this year than last. Thus I am in the "less than $100" category -- where I will probably remain for the rest of my life.
And I expect no better. The decades since 22 November 1963, and most especially the last eight years, have shown me the true evil of capitalism, of capitalist governance and of those who rule this murderous nation whose constitution I once vowed to defend with my life but whose flag I will never again willingly salute.
So I understand and empathize with the despair and bitterness of which vicnada writes. It is the despair Mr. Reich described in point 2; it is my own despair; its is the despair of my elderly and disabled neighbors; it is the despair that will keep many of us -- hitherto the most likely voters -- from voting in November; and it is a despair for which there may be no antidote.
Why vote if -- no matter for whom you vote -- all you get is genocidal austerity?
Nevertheless I will vote for Sanders -- for sometimes even a merely symbolic victory will spark a revolution.
In a year denied a Social Security COLA, and with the Washington state Democrats' abolition of the low-income telephone subsidy and their savage cuts in food stamps and Medicare subsidies, I have $155 less this year than last. Thus I am in the "less than $100" category -- where I will probably remain for the rest of my life.
And I expect no better. The decades since 22 November 1963, and most especially the last eight years, have shown me the true evil of capitalism, of capitalist governance and of those who rule this murderous nation whose constitution I once vowed to defend with my life but whose flag I will never again willingly salute.
So I understand and empathize with the despair and bitterness of which vicnada writes. It is the despair Mr. Reich described in point 2; it is my own despair; its is the despair of my elderly and disabled neighbors; it is the despair that will keep many of us -- hitherto the most likely voters -- from voting in November; and it is a despair for which there may be no antidote.
Why vote if -- no matter for whom you vote -- all you get is genocidal austerity?
Nevertheless I will vote for Sanders -- for sometimes even a merely symbolic victory will spark a revolution.
