The differences between former Vice President Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are many, and they are often framed in terms of ideology. Biden fancies himself a centrist; Sanders, a visionary.
But they agree on the problem, Biden insisted during Sunday’s Democratic debate, which is President Trump and how to beat him. “We disagree on the details of how we do it,” Biden said, “but we don’t disagree on the principle.”
Biden makes a good point. Policy can be debated and changed, as long as there is some sort of broader consensus regarding the problem that must be fixed. The 2016 election is an example of what can happen when this consensus is never reached and, even worse, when the problem is never identified. Unable to recognize the American public’s discontent, the Republican Party left a political vacuum, and into its place stepped Trump, a reality television star and billionaire who won the White House by doing what the GOP could not: declaring that there was indeed a problem with American life and elite governance.
Biden and Sanders certainly agree that what happened in 2016 must never be repeated and that Trump must never be reelected. But their policy-related disagreements might not be as simple as Biden suggested.
Strong leadership requires consistency, according to Sanders, who, to his credit, has advocated for the exact same policies throughout his entire political career. Biden has been anything but consistent, Sanders argued during Sunday’s debate: Biden supported the Iraq War; now he opposes it. He voted against the legalization of gay marriage; now he stands with the gay and transgender community. Biden voted for the Hyde Amendment in the past; now he vows (sometimes) to overturn it. Biden supported and voted for the 2005 law that cracked down on personal bankruptcies; now he claims to oppose it.
“The difference here is I’ve always been consistent,” Sanders declared. “That’s what leadership is all about: It’s having to take the unpopular vote. We can argue about the merits of the bills. It takes courage sometimes to vote, to do the right thing.”
Biden defended his past positions and his present evolution. On the Hyde Amendment, Biden argued he had no choice but to vote for it because it was “locked in other bills” that Democrats needed passed. The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse and Prevention and Consumer Protection Act was going to pass whether Biden voted for it or not, Biden said, so he tried to “make it better.” Now he supports many of the policies he would have opposed as a senator years ago, because as the Democratic Party has moved to the left, Biden has, too.
Biden’s willingness to change might seem spineless to Sanders and his socialist supporters. But it shows that Biden understands how politics works. Governance requires compromise — something in which Sanders and his revolution have no interest. Sanders has never cared for politicking, and he never will. He was unwilling even to renounce his past praise of Fidel Castro, which might well have cost him the Democratic nomination. Doing so would have ruined his brand.
But politicking is a must, whether Sanders likes it or not. Just ask Trump. For all his rants about the establishment and the deep state, very little has changed in Washington since Trump first took office. The bureaucracy still governs itself, Congress is still locked in a political stalemate, and the only real reform has taken place in the judiciary.
If elected, Sanders would find himself in the exact same position. His inflexible principles would not survive a Republican-controlled Senate and a conservative Supreme Court, and without compromise, he would accomplish very little.
This isn’t to say Sanders would be an unsuccessful president. But his success would be different than a President Biden’s success. Sanders would dramatically change the ideological nature of the Democratic Party and normalize socialism. Biden would focus on policy, and he’d probably get things done.
This is a fundamental difference. Biden and Sanders don’t just disagree on the details, as Biden would like to think; they disagree on whether details matter at all. And that makes this election all the more consequential because it could determine the Democratic Party’s political approach for years to come.
