Biden should have disavowed Bernie instead

Biden will never be liberal enough to energize the new base of Democratic voters enthused by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders, and that is why he is the nominee. Democratic voters wanted to defeat Trump, not start a revolution to remake the country. Sanders was twice unable to attract moderate anti-Trump voters. In order to win in November, Biden must appeal to swing voters who despaired an election between Sanders and Trump. If he truly wanted to campaign on a theme of returning to normalcy, Biden should have rejected the extreme left in his own party.

Now that he has secured the nomination, this is when Biden should be moving to the middle to compete for the blue-collar workers Trump converted to his cause four years ago. This is the time to appeal to swing voters, not preach to the base. Yet, Biden is doing the opposite. He is adopting watered-down versions of Bernie’s policies. Where Bernie advocated for “Medicare for all” and “free” college tuition, Biden is now proposing to lower the Medicare age to 60 and expand tuition debt forgiveness programs. Biden will never be pure enough for Bernie’s most enthusiastic supporters, and every step he takes away from the middle is a step closer to Trump winning a second term.

Biden should have instead disavowed Sanders, just as he criticizes Trump, as representing a political extreme and not mainstream America. Conventional wisdom teaches that Biden, as the gracious victor, should paper over his differences with Sanders — but in this case, conventional wisdom is wrong.

Hillary Clinton tried that four years ago and could never move far enough to the left to appease Bernie’s strongest supporters. Biden could have demonstrated strength and shown that he is more than the last man standing in front of Trump’s reelection, but rather made the positive case for his own election.

Biden should have instead heeded James Carville’s warning and insist their party not be taken over by Sanders and “the Squad.” Carville rightfully warns Democrats about the danger of becoming an “ideological cult” and the imperative to reject Sanders’s far-left policies to build a majority coalition. Put aside Sanders voters, who will vote for anyone to defeat Trump and others insisting on ideological purity; Biden cannot lose the former or win the latter. It would have been worth risking the remainder to attract those moderates who have benefited from Trump’s economic policies but may have tired of his behavior.

Rather than relying on nostalgia alone, Biden should have made a proactive case for the future of his party and the nation. He should have made it clear there is no room in the Democratic Party for Sanders’s radical ideas, and that the party will continue to stand strongly with Israel and for fiscal responsibility. He should have explicitly said the party will be led in the future by young leaders such as Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris, not Ocasio-Cortez and members of her Squad.

Biden should have disavowed Sanders, without attacking him personally. He should have noted Bernie is sincere and honorable, but his ideas are dangerous. Biden should compete for Bernie’s voters, as should Trump, but he should have taken Bernie seriously and agreed that the “independent” senator from Vermont does not belong in the Democratic Party.

Candidates routinely put aside policy differences and personal barbs for their party’s greater good. The same competitor, who was pilloried as inept, is lauded as a potential Cabinet member. Biden benefited from timely endorsements from Amy Klobuchar and Buttigieg, and everyone conveniently forgot Biden and Klobuchar attacking Pete’s inexperience. Why shouldn’t Joe and Bernie have their “Kumbaya” moment?

Bernie spent decades insisting he is not a Democrat, labeling the party corrupt, and leading a self-proclaimed revolution. Democrats have not paid him the compliment of believing him and forming a “Never Bernie” movement. After every intemperate tweet, the media hound Republicans to declare themselves “Never Trumpers.” They see conservative judges and tax cuts as today’s 30 pieces of silver, and confidently proclaim history will do what voters refuse and deliver just punishment. While Trump offends through temperament, Bernie’s radical departures from the mainstream are based in policy and thus far more dangerous.

First, Sanders praises brutal socialist regimes, reserving his criticisms for America and her allies. As a gubernatorial candidate in 1972, he condemned America’s involvement in the Vietnam War “as almost as bad as what Hitler did.” As a mayor in the 1980s, during the Cold War, he defended Latin American dictators. He traveled to Nicaragua to help Ortega’s Sandinistas celebrate their socialist revolution. Returning home, he refused to criticize the regime’s suspension of civil rights, instead criticizing Abraham Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War. He honeymooned in the Soviet Union and praised their health system for being free, even as he unironically acknowledged America’s lead in medical technology.

He said John F. Kennedy’s “hatred for the Cuban revolution” left Bernie “physically nauseated.” Bernie recently reiterated his praise for Castro’s literacy and health programs, ignoring the indoctrination, executions, and decline in relative living standards. He refused to label Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro a dictator, and, along with Ocasio-Cortez, labeled Bolivia’s Evo Morales’s resignation after a rigged election a “coup.”

While Bernie downplays the abuses of his fellow socialists, he is happy to criticize those with market economies. While Rep. Ilhan Omar said groups such as AIPAC “push for allegiance to a foreign country” and tweeted “it’s all about the Benjamins,” Bernie condemned AIPAC for providing a platform “for leaders who express bigotry,” and called Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu a “reactionary racist.”

Second, Sanders proposes trillions in spending, while he and Ocasio-Cortez encourage a radical theory de-emphasizing deficits. He would double the federal government’s cost, increase the government’s share of the economy by 20%, enact the largest tax increase since World War II, and still not pay for his spending. These unrealistic promises raise his supporters’ expectations, guaranteeing they will be disillusioned by even the most progressive Democrat and persist in a perpetual state of grievance. Modern Monetary Theory frees politicians from making hard choices necessary to governing, and thus renders compromise harder.

Obama promised to offset new spending and appointed a deficit reduction commission; even Elizabeth Warren detailed how she would pay for Medicare for All. Though neither party has lived up to its rhetoric, both have felt restrained by and recognized the dangers of the nation’s growing debt.

Third, Sanders promotes a larger role for government in the direct creation of jobs and provision of services. Democrats target government subsidies to the poor, who use them to buy privately provided services including housing, food, higher education, and healthcare. Sanders wants to eliminate the health insurance industry and have government pay for everyone’s tuition, child care, and healthcare. Reversing decades of bipartisan support for Medicaid and Medicare plans that compete to control costs and improve quality, “Medicare for all” employs a one-size-fits-all approach and shifts power from consumers to government bureaucrats. The “Green New Deal” takes a top-down approach to restructure the economy and eliminate thousands of well-paying energy jobs. Sanders proposes the government directly own and operate renewable electricity production. Though neither will be popular with small-government conservatives, there is a difference between carbon taxes, cap and trade, and renewable energy standard policies and drastically reducing the role of private utilities.

Sanders never finds time to praise the market’s role in creating wealth, spreading innovation, and empowering individuals. Biden should have made the Democratic case that markets needs tighter regulation, but are better than alternative systems. He should have argued for redistributive tax policies and higher wages, but also lauded the successful entrepreneurs whose innovations and insights have benefited millions. He should have argued government’s role is to oversee the private sector, not supplant it, and spend scarce dollars on protecting the vulnerable, not replacing private spending with taxpayer dollars.

Democrats did not have to abandon decades-old principles. Democrats could have stood proudly with free-market democracies and called out the moral shortcomings of repressive socialist regimes. Democrats could have accepted responsibility for paying for welfare spending through tax increases and spending cuts. Democrats could have used subsidies and regulations to harness the efficiency of the private sector to accomplish their environmental and other goals.

Democrats did not need to embrace socialism to differentiate themselves from Republicans or attempt to reclaim working-class voters. Democrats could have continued debating Republicans about when and how to intervene abroad, the size and role of government, and the balance between growth and redistribution. Putting Bernie and his fellow travelers in charge of the party makes it easier for Republicans to win, but the elevation of such radical ideas is dangerous. Biden’s explicit rebuke of Bernie’s policies would have been good for the nation.

Many Republicans were convinced Sanders would have been the easiest Democrat to beat in November, but Biden’s embrace of some of his radical ideas makes it easier for Trump to make the case Joe is the wrong choice for president. It took a socialist like Bernie Sanders to make the Obama-Biden years look reasonable in comparison, but Trump will have plenty of evidence to remind voters just how liberal and incompetent Washington was when Biden was last in charge.

Bobby Jindal (@BobbyJindal) was governor of Louisiana from 2008-2016. He ran for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.