Bernie Sanders Would Make A Good President

Allow me to organize my arguments in favour of a Sanders presidency around these three broad points: a) qualifications, b) character, and c) vision. In the first point, I will cite his experience and his judgement; in the second, I will discuss his honesty, sincerity, and trustworthiness and argue that he is surely the most honourable statesman of our time; and in the third, I will go in depth as to the merits of Social Democracy, the projected successes of his domestic policies, and his judgement in foreign affairs. QUALIFICATIONS Bernard Sanders was born in Brooklyn on 8 September, 1941. He graduated from the University of Chicago and served on the faculty of Harvard. He ran in ‘72 and ‘74 unsuccessfully for the Senate, but as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, from ‘81 to ‘89, he stood up for certain communities’ rights, which would have been political suicide at the time. He was elected to the House from Vermont’s at-large district in ‘90 and served until ‘07, the year he took the oath of United States senator from Vermont. He chaired the Committee on Veterans Affairs in the 113th Congress [1]. Of all current presidential candidates (including the ones who left the race), Senator Sanders has by far the most experience in elected office. Now, the most important question is not of qualification but of judgement. That leads me to my second point. CHARACTER Other than recent shifts on gun safety measures, the senator is very consistent and never flip-flops. Dave Gram of Reformer.com writes, “During Sanders' near decade as mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, during his eight terms holding Vermont's lone House seat and during his near decade in the Senate, the message has stayed the same: The rich are absconding with an immorally large part of the country's wealth, and ordinary people have been getting the short end of the stick. Clinton has gone from opposing same-sex marriage rights to supporting them. Howard Dean, the last Vermont presidential candidate, was a centrist governor who became a liberal representing the ‘Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,’ when he saw the left flank open in the 2004 primary campaign.Sanders, now 73, favored gay marriage rights before it became fashionable in Democratic circles. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in the mid-1990s signed by Clinton's husband, President Bill Clinton’” [2]. You can disagree with a man’s policies, but it is unfounded—and untrue—to call him just another politician benefiting off of the work and contributions of people and corporations, to say he is dishonest and does not care about the issues or the general populace. I would argue that part of being a “good” president or leader is not just about policies but also about character. Andrew Jackson did not only commit genocide of thousands of natives—he was, simply put, a stuck-up, aristocratic, power-hungry prick. Say Jimmy Carter’s presidency was a bit lackluster—do not attack his character. Credibility is also crucial, which is one of the main reasons I brought all of this up. Someone who has told the truth time and again and truly invested himself emotionally into these issues will be more likely to be truthful as to substance and policy. On to the main argument, now: VISION Senator Sanders has been very open about his vision for the country, which is one of Social Democracy. Essentially, a system of Capitalism plus a strong social-safety net; essentially, elements and aspects and the general goal of Socialism achieved through democratic means. I happen to be writing a book about Social Democracy (titled The Human Birthright of the Social Democracy) right now, and I have done my research and solidified my philosophies, thus I feel comfortable discussing the topic. Let us first enumerate and analyze the senator’s specific agenda: Single-payer healthcare for all Tuition-free college for all A fifteen-dollar minimum wage Decriminalizing marijuana Lowering incarceration rate, demilitarizing police A logical, compassionate foreign policy Overturn Citizens United and restore democratic power to the people Back out of transnational trade deals These are the pillars of the society the senator envisions. There are many more details, and these I will go into later. To be clear with my opponent and viewers, single-payer is a system of healthcare lacking private insurance companies and in which government pays all medical fees. I would like to point to Canada as an example. Bruce Robinson writes, “Our current system is based on the power of the insurance industry to stifle any challenges from alternatives. They advocate a competitive environment where they set the rules. These rules give us health care at a very high cost with unusually high profits going to the health care industry and massive salaries going to the associated executives. In contrast, the single payer system that Canada has used for the last 25 years has drastically simplified their administration costs. For instance, it takes more people to administer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts that it does to administer the entire health care system of Canada. Before Canada implemented their national health program, their health costs were the same portion of their economy as in the U.S. After they implemented their program, their costs stabilized at 9% while U.S. costs have increased to 14%. They spend one tenth of what U.S. health care providers spend on overhead” [3]. Canada, by the way, is the prime example of Social Democracy at its best. Incompetent comparisons to the USSR or Cuba drive me mad. Because of character limits, I urge everyone to look at the third source I posted. It provides a clear outline of the Canadian single-payer system. Do not take government’s word for it that a fifteen-dollar minimum wage can be afforded. How about tech giants themselves? Marc Benioff, CEO and founder of Salesforce.com, in response to CNN, says, “I love that, and I think we should do that for the whole country. That's one way to bring everybody up" [4]. I admit to not being an economics expert, but I do know this: All policies may have unintended consequences. Just look at the repeal of Glass-Steagall, leading directly to the 2008 financial crisis. Oops, I guess. But the senator also proposes renewing and improving our infrastructure, which he projects to create some 13 million jobs. “Benioff's minimum wage call is part of a broader argument he's making: The old business school mantra that shareholder returns are paramount is outdated. ‘The most important thing that matters is the stakeholder return. You have many different stakeholders. Each one has to be taken care of. You need to rise them all up,’ he said.” People here, from my experience, cry, “Socialist! Communist! Oh, big government!” when they do not even understand the policies at hand. Maternal leave has been passed in almost every developed nation, and we are one of the only ones that has not passed it. These outrageous college tuition prices, our quality of healthcare… For a country that prides itself in “freedom,” is this not lackluster? Is this not proof of the failure of Western Capitalism? According to Discovery News, the top ten happiest countries are Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Austria, Iceland, and Australia [5]. Now tell me, please, how is it that there is so much gun violence and so much national pride here, such faith in “freedom,” and we are not even in the top ten of happiest nations? We have good reason to be unhappy, for my opponent’s brand of Capitalism, for the Republican Party’s brand of Capitalism, is utterly destructive. My opponent discusses free trade. I too would like to make this a piece of my argument, so please do not count this as a rebuttal or conduct violation. I will not tackle his points but rather make my own. In the MSNBC Democratic debate on 4 February, Senator Sanders said, ”I do not believe in unfettered free trade. I believe in fair trade which works for the middle class and working families, not just large multinational corporations. I was on the picket line in opposition to NAFTA. We heard people tell us how many jobs would be created. I didn't believe that for a second because I understood what the function of NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China, and the TPP is: it's to say to American workers, hey, you are now competing against people in Vietnam who make 56 cents an hour minimum wage. This is an area where [Hillary Clinton] and I have disagreements” [6].[My argument is fairly long, so please allow me to post the rest into the comments.]