Why Conservatives and Moderates might Prefer a Socialist President

[Trakar]

Why Conservatives and Moderates might Prefer a Socialist President to returning Hillary to the White House: What are the chances that a Sander’s Administration could be productive with the existing congressional demographics?
I keep reading about the turnout makeup at Sander’s events. While the size of the crowds he attracts are impressive, this is magnified by national polling which suggests that nearly half the potential electorate still do not recognize or know anything about “Bernie Sanders.” Another interesting dynamic seems to be a fairly sizable group of self-identifying independents, conservatives, and moderates who are showing up, engaging, and generally coming away thoughtful and impressed with both Bernie and his policy proposals.
I’m sure that most who go to such events, are self-selected to get caught up in the atmosphere of political rallies and not hard-core policy wonks ideologically committed to antithetical policy positions. I’m not sure that all/any of these enthusiasm junkies will translate into votes for Sanders in 6+ months, yet alone 15+ months, from now. One difference between Sanders and the current White House occupant, is that Sanders has a three decade history of work and relationships in both houses of congress (He isn’t a noob, one term Senator). I read a recent piece in the National Journal: “Bernie Sanders Is a Loud, Stubborn Socialist. Republicans Like Him Anyway.” - http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016...ocialist-republicans-like-him-anyway-20150727

…Sanders is constantly ribbing Republicans in his trademark condescending Brooklyn-accented tone. He offers up legislation that's so far to the left that it couldn't get a vote even under Majority Leader Harry Reid. He's the curmudgeon in the Senate Democratic conference, rarely satisfied with how far his leadership will go to pursue progressive policies, and not afraid to vote 'nay' when his leaders come up short. And none of his Senate colleagues, on either side of the aisle, think he could ever be elected president of the United States; most of them even believe he shouldn't be.
But rather than earning the frustration and ire of his peers in the vein of other Senate hard-liners such as Sen. Ted Cruz, Sanders has managed to be respected—even liked—by much of the chamber, according to members on both sides of the aisle…
Sanders also has been able to work well with his colleagues. He's passed bipartisan legislation and forged strong relationships with members of both parties in nearly 25 years on Capitol Hill. But most of all, members say, even when Sanders is ideologically an outlier, he lets others know where he stands. He's not the type to suddenly stab a colleague in the back. And that's earned him respect both on and off the Hill…

Hillary, whether she actually deserves it or not, is perceived to be a hyper-partisan polarizing political figure. Sanders may be a socialist, but conservatives have been calling the last four presidents (two of them closeted) socialists anyway, so what big difference? is it that this socialist owns the label? Most people admire and respect such open-ness, because once we deal with the labels, then we can consider the properties and effects of such policies and whether or not they will likely produce the results we want them to produce.
This article reminds me, with lines like these:

…But even Republican members who balk at those ideological pushes say that when Sanders sees something that needs to get done, he's more than willing to do what it takes to get there…
Wicker added, of the final VA deal: "Obviously, he agreed to some things that in a vacuum would have been abhorrent to him—choice, going outside the system with a voucher. … And of course what Senator Sanders got in return was more VA facilities, which in and of itself [is] not a bad result for anybody."…
…"Clearly if you want to get anything done, you have to work with members of Congress and you have to work with members of both political parties," Sanders said. "I have done that and as president, I certainly would do that. But that's kind of what you have to do—no ifs, buts or maybes."
Asked about his personal relationships with other members, Sanders presented his typical gruffness. "Do I have a personal relationships? Well of course I do; I've known some of these people for 20, 30 years. So of course I do. … If the question is, do I have good friends who are in the United States Senate, then yes. I do."

…that Sanders may not just like to be able to work with and through congress, he actually might be able craft or influence legislation that might pass to law, rather than perpetuating the dysfunctional governance perceptions of most of the electorate.

 

[dudalb]

Wishful thinking like this makes me nostalsgic for the Early Days of the Ron Paul campaign back in 2008. And I suspect the Sanders campaign will end in the same way.

 

[Trakar]

post moved to more appropriate thread for discussion

ANd I find the essay that our #1 Bernie fan here posted about how modierates and conservatives might like a Socialist President to be a good example of political theory totally uncontaminated by reality.

Given the choice between running against Hillary's money and political machinery alone, I'm sure that the RNC would prefer not to have her win the Dem nomination, regardless of how much such a run would pump up their extremist base.

A lot of the love for Bernie is based in the "Lost Tribe" theory of American Politics;That there is a vast pool of Hard Left...or Hard Right..voters that will come out if a party nominates a candidate that will attract them . THis theory has been tried and has failed time and tme again...most noticibly with Goldwater in 1964 and McGovern in 1972,and by dozens of Third Party candidates since then.

I haven't heard any of that in any of the speeches or events I've witnessed so far. While there do seem to be a lot more politically moderate and fiscally conservative attendees at the Sanders rallies than I would have expected, I really haven't seen a lot of potential new voters outside of the university events. nor have I heard of any expectation for them to make up a large segment of the expected 2016 electoral turnout. I know that Bernie wants more Americans to be involved in their governance and selecting their representatives, but so far the plan is more oriented to making sure that existing voter populations are registered and able to vote rather than going out and finding new voting populations.

Political Blinders are invovled here:It's always harder to see that kooky ideas (Free College Education for everyone) are kooky when they are on your side of the political spectrum then on the opposite side.

This is probably more a personal understanding of an issue than "political blinders." I've advocated for free education (Pre-K to PhD) my entire life, but I would be interested in why you feel that this is a "kooky" policy

 

[Travis]

Sweden and Germany seem to be doing quite well with free university. It is giving them a vast educated worker pool with no student debt.

 

[Childlike Empress]

It's early on. And while it should be clear already to everybody at this point that this is class war (if even Warren Buffett admits and doesn't like it), it will get clearer every day, and the non-moronic "conservatives" might understand who if anybody represents their interest. Not the guy with the wig, and of course not the witch. And the Texas farmers might realize that they have a lot in common with the California teachers if it is explained to them well. And vice versa, which might require even more effort.

Robert Anton Wilson (عليه السلام) once illustrated this with the virtual foundation of the Guns & Dope Party. Motto: "If you'll tolerate my hobbies, I'll tolerate yours."

Well, one can dream. With Sanders it unfortunately seems like he is the reverse Ron Paul. Pretty spot on on domestic politics but complicit on the criminal machinations of the Empire.

 

[Random]

Given the choice between running against Hillary's money and political machinery alone, I'm sure that the RNC would prefer not to have her win the Dem nomination, regardless of how much such a run would pump up their extremist base.

The RNC might prefer to run against Sanders (I think it would be bad for them myself), but the oligarchs who pay the RNC would vastly prefer Clinton.

The last thing Wall Street wants is the Democratic Presidential nominee standing up in front of millions of Americans and saying things like "We need to break the influence of big money on politics!" or "If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist!" Far better to have the usual dross of unresolvable social issues like abortion, immigration reform, drug legalization, blah, blah, blah...

You can still have the appearance of democracy even if neither candidate brings up the fact that they are both working for Wall Street.