By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This article argues that Bernie Sanders would have been a more effective president than either Donald Trump or Joe Biden. Sanders’ policy positions, focusing on issues like affordable prescription drugs and addressing wealth inequality, resonate with a broad range of Americans and offer a path forward for both Democrats and Republicans. His popularity, particularly among young voters, contrasts sharply with the declining approval ratings of the Democratic Party. The author suggests that adopting some of Sanders’ strategies and appealing to working-class voters are crucial for the Democrats’ success in upcoming elections. Ultimately, the piece posits that Sanders’ approach offers a more effective means of addressing pressing economic and political issues.
Read the original article here
America chose wrong. Sanders would have been a better president than Trump or Biden. This isn’t simply a matter of nostalgia or a preference for a particular political ideology; it’s a considered assessment based on the stark realities of the past few years and a deeper understanding of the political landscape. The alternative outcomes, while speculative, paint a picture of a potentially more progressive and less divisive nation.
The core argument rests on the fundamental belief that Sanders possessed a genuine commitment to improving the lives of ordinary Americans, a commitment arguably lacking in both of his successors. His focus on issues like healthcare for all, combating climate change, and addressing economic inequality resonates with a significant portion of the population who felt unheard and underserved by the prevailing political discourse. This focus, coupled with his willingness to challenge established power structures, sets him apart from the more centrist approaches of both Trump and Biden.
The counterargument often centers on Sanders’ electability, a concern repeatedly voiced during both his presidential campaigns. Many argued that his “socialist” label would alienate moderate voters and ultimately doom his chances. However, this perspective underestimates the level of discontent and disillusionment simmering beneath the surface of American politics. The massive turnout at his rallies and the passionate support he garnered demonstrated a clear appetite for his progressive agenda, a fact often overlooked in favor of traditional political calculations. In fact, it’s highly likely that a more robust ground game and investment in media engagement could have expanded his reach beyond his core supporters. His ability to engage in a direct and emotionally resonant way with those left behind by the economic changes was a powerful force ignored at the detriment of progressive change.
A key criticism leveled against a potential Sanders presidency focuses on his ability to navigate the complexities of Congress. The assertion is made that a deeply partisan and hostile Congress would effectively neutralize his agenda, rendering any attempt at meaningful policy change fruitless. While this is certainly a valid concern, it’s important to note that neither Biden nor Trump faced a uniformly compliant Congress. Both presidents faced significant hurdles in passing their legislative priorities. The difference lies in the priorities themselves. Biden and Trump’s agendas often prioritized the interests of corporate lobbyists and powerful factions; while Sanders’ agenda focused on systemic change that benefits the overwhelming majority. The differences in what was prioritized would have led to very different outcomes.
Furthermore, the argument against Sanders’ electability often neglects the fundamental power imbalance inherent in American politics. The influence of money in politics has distorted the political process, making it increasingly difficult for candidates who challenge the status quo to gain traction. Sanders’ willingness to confront this systemic issue – a point often lost in discussions about his electability – is precisely what makes his potential presidency so compelling. He offers a refreshing contrast to the conventional wisdom that dictates that politicians must play nice with the powerful to achieve any success. The assumption that the powerful would have maintained a status quo power structure, ignoring the needs of the majority is not only disingenuous but also ignores the potential to change the political calculus.
Finally, the “what ifs” of a Sanders presidency are undeniable and compelling. One can imagine a vastly different landscape, one where the focus is on addressing the root causes of inequality and societal ills, instead of merely managing symptoms. This isn’t to claim he would have been a perfect president or that his policies would have been universally embraced; rather, it acknowledges that his unique approach and unwavering commitment to his core principles could have had a profound and positive impact on the nation. This is the central point: that despite the many obstacles, the promise of a more just and equitable America under Sanders outweighs the perceived risks.
In conclusion, the assertion that America chose wrong in not electing Sanders is not a mere counterfactual exercise. It stems from a genuine belief that his presidency, while challenging, held the potential to shift the country’s trajectory towards a more just and equitable future. While the path might have been rocky, the destination was worth fighting for, even against the resistance of a partisan Congress. The results would have been worth the effort.