Can a self-proclaimed socialist win the moderates and independents necessary to beat President Trump? Bernie Sanders’s supporters seem to think so. Indeed, some have even taken to calling Sanders “the unity candidate.”
Sanders’s sweeping victory in Nevada, combined with his win in New Hampshire and his tie in Iowa with Pete Buttigieg, proves that his campaign has built a grassroots coalition of young and minority voters. But Sanders is still a controversial pick, even among Democratic voters eager to see Trump defeated. Nevada’s largest union, for example, openly opposed Sanders ahead of the caucus, arguing that his radical “Medicare for all” proposal would hurt union workers more than it would help them.
And many more Democrats, most of whom happen to fall under Sanders’s “establishment” label, are in fits at the idea of a Sanders/Trump cage match. Longtime Democratic strategist James Carville declared this weekend that those who argue Sanders will “galvanize sleepy parts of the electorate” are political “fool[s].” Others have rightly pointed out that Sanders might hate the establishment, but his 30-year congressional career has yielded few results compared to other Democrats willing to work within the system.
These are important concerns, and Sanders’s base should address them rather than casually dismiss them as outdated complaints oozing from politicos who fear change. Because the fact is, there are plenty of people in this country who fear the change Sanders is proposing.
His policies are arguably the most radical of any presidential candidate — from “Medicare for all,” to an outright ban on fracking, to wealth and corporate taxes. Sanders won’t moderate these positions, which means the Nevada Culinary Union’s opposition to Sanders is just the beginning of the backlash he will face.
Culturally, too, Sanders’s positions are far to the left of most Democratic voters. He has made it clear that pro-life Democrats have no place in the party, unless they come to support open-ended access to abortion, that is. And on religion, Sanders has demonstrated unacceptable hostility toward Christianity and its values. While grilling a Trump appointee in a Senate confirmation hearing three years ago, Sanders declared that a federal employee who preaches and practices Christian teachings is “really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.”
It is true that the number of religious voters is dwindling in the United States, so it’s unlikely Sanders will lose a significant electoral advantage by openly rejecting them. Still, in doing so, Sanders sends the message that these voters don’t matter, and that he has no interest in winning them over. Yet, we’re supposed to believe Sanders is “the unity candidate”?
Of course, when Sanders’s supporters refer to him as the Great Unifier, they’re not talking about his ability to bring cultural leftists, moderates, and conservatives together. They’re instead speaking about Sanders’s ability, as the Democratic Party’s nominee, to unite embedded establishment types and outsider leftists who share the same goal: defeating Trump.
But simply declaring that Sanders is a unifying candidate does not make him one. Questions of his electability still remain, as do concerns about his antagonism toward “future former Republican” voters, to quote Buttigieg.
The truth is that Sanders isn’t interested in unity, and neither are his supporters. They want revolution, and they’ll do whatever it takes to see it happen. Sanders is, at least, honest about his intentions. He’s never pretended to be anything other than what he is: a socialist who believes it’s time for U.S. governance to change, and the electorate along with it.
So, let’s put the rhetorical falsehoods aside. Sanders is not the unity candidate. He is not the bridge between two worlds. If anything, he’s a symptom of today’s polarization, just like Trump. This seems obvious to everyone except for Sanders’s fiercest defenders, who are so ensconced in their own liberal worldview that they’ve forgotten how to win an election.
