We live in difficult times. The shift toward right-wing “neoliberal” economics over the past 40 years has decimated social safety nets and resulted in a massive redistribution of wealth away from working- and middle-class people to the very richest in society. The average US worker is 4 times as productive as they were in 1973 while the average wage has fallen slightly. Youth are drowning in unprecedented amounts of debt and are entering a precarious, insecure job market. On top of financial troubles, the potential for ecological disaster looms as little progress is being made to reduce carbon emissions. Oh, and white nationalists are back.
But despite all this, I think it’s a time of hope. Because until only recently, we lived in the same neoliberal hellworld only with minimal, disorganized resistance, and no apparent way out. But in the past several years progressive and left-wing forces have reappeared after a several-decade hiatus. On top of grassroots movements that have challenged capitalism, patriarchy, and white supremacy, such as Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, a new wave of feminism, and the anti-austerity protests in Europe, electoral options for the left have opened up as well. New faces and new ideas have sprung forward and proposed drastic changes to the economic, political, and environmental status quo. In the US, the international capitol of anti-communist hysteria, we actually have several politicians that call themselves “socialists” now: something unimaginable just a short time ago. 
A smoldering carcass of Earth where the rich have migrated to space in luxury pods doesn’t seem like the only possible future anymore.
An egalitarian, compassionate, environmentally-friendly future is possible, but only if this moment is seized decisively and quickly by the left. We need drastic changes, and we needed them yesterday. Today, more than ever in history, there is tremendous urgency to advance the most bold, uncompromising leftist agenda possible. The 2020 election could be the best opportunity we’ll have to do that in a long time. While Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders both have policies that are to the left of the average Democrat, this article will argue that Bernie Sanders’ record, statements, and actions indicate he has a more progressive, far-reaching agenda, is more likely to make the most of the opportunity left-wing politics has in 2020. While Warren would surely implement more positive reforms than other more moderate Democratic candidates, Bernie’s reforms would open a whole new chapter in both American, and likely global, politics.
Policies
Let’s get the boring stuff out of the way first: the actual differences between the policies of the Sanders and Warren campaigns. We’ll get into some funner stuff soon, like their guiding political philosophies, support bases, and genuineness (or lack thereof).
Healthcare
In 2017, Bernie wrote a bill to end private healthcare insurance, create a single-payer healthcare system, and eliminate all deductibles, co-pays, and premiums. He called it “Medicare for All” and achieved 118 consponsors in the House of Representatives and 14 in the Senate, including Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Elizabeth Warren. But the bill has run into trouble. Not because co-sponsors are dropping out, but because some of its co-sponsors– namely, the ones that are now running for president– are now backing away from key provisions of the bill or trying to change the definition of “Medicare-for-All” to mean something other than a detailed, clear-cut plan to establish universal single-payer healthcare and end all out of pocket expenses. What seemed like a plan with broad backing now runs the risk of being co-opted, watered-down, and de-fanged by certain politicians.
Unfortunately, Warren is one of them. Harris, Booker and Gillibrand all released plans substantially different from MFA as part of their presidential platforms. Warren has broadly stated she’s in line with Bernie on Medicare-for-All, but has distanced herself from a full commitment to single-payer and has evaded questions on the details of her plan. Following a debate, she told CBS that that in addition to Medicare-for-All, she “support[s] a lot of plans– other things that people have come up with,” confusing many observers. Recently, she called Medicare-for-All a “framework”– which provoked a stark rejoinder from a Sanders campaign advisor: “#MedicareForAll isn’t a framework. It’s a 100-page bill. There have been 2 white papers released on how to finance it & a 200-page study from UMass showing our financing options.” Indeed, the term had always referred to a single-payer system, as was the case as early as 2003 when representative John Conyers introduced the term. Other iterations have as well, including Bernie’s. As commentators across the political spectrum have noted, it’s not entirely clear exactly what Warren wants to do when it comes to healthcare. Warren’s distance is more troubling considering historically she hasn’t prioritized single-payer, but has focused on “expanding Obamacare,” a common talking indistinguishable from moderate Democrats like Joe Biden. During her 2012 run for Senate, she meticulously avoided committing to a universal healthcare program. Lastly, beyond just the healthcare system itself, Bernie has announced he plans to eliminate all medical debt. Warren hasn’t yet indicated interest in doing so.
Green New Deal
I’m sure I don’t need to tell anyone reading this that environmental policy is a huge deal. Scientists at the UN made headlines saying we have 12 years to dramatically alter the foundations of civilization before its virtually certain that the negative effects of climate change will disrupt hundreds of millions of peoples lives (in that same report, they said emissions reductions will need to start “much sooner” than 12 years from now). So holy shit we really better go with the biggest, most extensive climate plan possible if we want to save our civilization, right? Bernie’s Green New Deal invests $16 trillion in green energy and phasing out fossil fuels, with the hopes of creating 20 million green jobs. Warren’s plan puts $3 trillion down for the transition to green energy. Politico noted “Warren not only puts far less money on the table, but she also believes the profit motive can help protect the climate.” As this headline from a socialist maganize will tell you, climate advocates are unanimous: Bernie’s Green New Deal is best. The director of the Sunrise Movement, which popularized the term “Green New Deal” hailed Bernie’s plan as the “biggest and boldest and most ambitious.” Senior staff member at Food & Water Watch said about Bernie’s plan: “it’s scope and ambition dwarf all other proposals.” Long-time climate action advocate Naomi Klein praised Bernie for being the only candidate whose climate policy is “not limited to [US] borders” as it sets aside $200 billion for global climate fund. Bernie’s plan is also the only to mention a fracking ban. More broadly, Bernie’s plan has prompted Greenpeace to increase his record grade to an “A+”. Warren, Cory Booker, and Tom Steyer trail him in second with an “A-”.
Education
Both candidates want to make college tuition-free. Warren wants to eliminate all student debt for more than 75% of people that have it, and cancel some portion of debt for 95% of people that have it. Bernie wants to eliminate all student debt for everyone that has it. The 25% of people that will not see all their debt cancelled under Warren’s plan are those making between $100,000-250,000, which at least progressively shifts the burden of debt away from the most financially insecure, but still doesn’t eliminate debt burdens entirely.
Some in the Warren-sympathetic camp have criticized Bernie’s universal debt relief program for eliminating debt for upper middle-class individuals who “don’t really need it,” in addition to lower-income families. This is a somewhat ironic point considering Bernie’s plan is paid for through taxes on Wall Street speculation, meaning the plan is fundamentally a money transfer from multi-millionaires and private firms to working families of all income levels. Not to mention that allowing any amount of debt to exist simply benefits no one other than the banks that have provided the loans. Bernie’s plan is founded on the principle that charging anyone for education is itself unjust and the historic mistake of having done so in the past should be rectified– exactly the same principle he holds towards healthcare.
Wealth tax
A consequence of neoliberalism has been the mass redistribution of wealth from working- and middle-class people to rich people. It’s time for us to start taxing rich people a lot. Warren proposed a 2% wealth tax on those with $50 million and 3% on billionaires, Bernie’s wealth tax begins at a lower $32 million, and progressively increases to 8% for those with over $10 billion. His plan raises $4.3 trillion over a decade. Warren’s raises $2.75 trillion over the same time period. Bernie’s wealth tax is more aggressive and raises more to be distributed to social programs.
Foreign policy
I’ll be frank: I care a lot about foreign policy, and I think all Americans should pay way more attention to it. The US is the sole world superpower and decisions made in Washington DC have massive implications for the lives of quite literally billions of people across the world. That Americans view a candidate’s foreign policy as simply an afterthought to their domestic policies is a symptom of being a resident of the world empire. Ya know all those conflicts and wars you hear about in Syria, Ukraine, Iraq, Yemen, etc.? The US has the power to dramatically shape the way these conflicts progress, in good ways or bad, and in almost all cases is already deeply involved, but Americans don’t know or care about them simply because… well, we are residents of the world empire. Bernie not only has a less militaristic and aggressive foreign policy than Warren, but demonstrates a keen awareness and interest in international affairs that is unmatched by nearly any other US politician. For residents of a country that has claimed millions of lives in imperialist wars, we’re well overdue to start caring about people outside our borders.
Bernie sees his own progressive movement as embedded within a larger international context. He’s virtually the only candidate that’s spoken at all about the rise of the international far-right and the need for progressive forces to unite and coordinate to provide an attractive counterweight. He even wrote an op-ed about it, and has associated with Yanis Varoufakis’ bold attempt to launch such a front in DiEM25. He’s also not afraid to directly name his international political enemies, and directly condemned Brazil’s far-right president Jair Bolsonaro and his “corporate cronies.” His efforts to sow international ties have not gone unnoticed. The United Kingdom’s leftist firebrand Jeremy Corbyn and him have several times exchanged kind words for one another. Indigenous Bolivian president Evo Morales, along with progressive party leaders in Spain, Germany, and Canada, all have extended solidarity to him.
Now while I do not believe Bernie Sanders will end American imperialism outright, his record indicates he’s less hawkish than Warren, and this is a good thing for the people of the world. Warren supported a 2017 sanctions package on Iran, Russia, and North Korea, despite warnings of Obama-era Secretary of State John Kerry. Bernie voted no. Warren supports sanctions on Venezuela, a nation already enduring a steep economic crisis. Bernie does not. Many have theorized that the purpose of sanctions is to make life so unbearable for ordinary people throught the denial of basic goods that they revolt against the government, even if people die en masse. Some estimated that 1990s sanctions on Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. A study including world-renowned economist Jeffery Sachs estimated that recent US sanctions, the ones Warren backed, have killed 40,000 Venezuelans through denial of basic goods. There is a pretty widespread understanding that Iranians are dying due to sanctions-induced medical shortages that Warren supported as well. Have I mentioned how horrible it is that Americans view foreign policy as merely an afterthought?
Warren twice voted for an increase in Trump’s military budget. When asked about these votes by a journalist, she simply said she believes we should “cut the military budget” which ironically begs the exact question the reporter asked, which is why she would vote twice to increase it if she believes that. Not to mention that the increase was considered “massive,” was to be overseen by the most unstable, insane president in modern times, Donald Trump, and was much more than the amount Trump even requested. Bernie voted no on both spending increases.
Historically, Warren has been far more supportive of Israel than Bernie has, though she’s become more nuanced recently. A politician’s orientation toward Israel, in my opinion, is a wonderful litmus test for their commitment to international justice. In any sane world, Israel would be an international pariah. Human rights organizations have assailled Israel for torturing Palestinian children (you read that correctly). Israel is in constant violation of decades-old UN resolutions, has impleneted different laws for different ethnicities in a fashion reminiscent of apartheid South Africa, kills thousands of Palestinian civilians with impunity, and its practice of demolishing Palestinian homes to make way for Israeli settlers is a textbook example of settler colonialism. During the 2014 Israeli assault on Gaza, Warren adopted identical talking points of the right-wing Israeli administration, blaming Palestinian militant groups for Palestinian civilian casualties, declared her steadfast support for Israel, and condemned Palestinian militant groups for targetting Israeli civilians. Israeli killed roughly 1,500 Palestinians civilians during that war, Palestinian groups killed 6 Israeli civilians. Bernie, on the other hand, was one of the only congresspersons to call the Israeli response disproportionate, and condemned Israel for its assault on hospitals, schools, and other civilian infrastructure. Warren has also been a longtime friend of the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC. A former executive director of AIPAC praised her “strong voting record on Israel.” Bernie has recently turned up the heat on the Israeli government, going so far as to aptly label it “racist,” provoking a negative reaction from AIPAC. Remarkably, Bernie has said he would leverage US aid to Israel to compel it toward more humane policies. In his words, “I would sit down with Israel and say, look … if you want military aid from the United States, you’re going to have to treat the Palestinian people and that region with respect.” Such a stance is a stark, progressive departure from the long-standing US policy of unconditionally dumping billions of dollars into Israel’s military regardless of the human rights cost.
Workplace Democracy
One cool thing about Bernie Sanders is that his outlook on empowering the working-class is so unique in American politics that he’s introduced a couple policies that most Americans didn’t even know were possible. What if I told you that if you get hired at a large corporation, you automatically hold shares in that company and are thereby partly it’s owner? That means that on top of your salary, you directly get a slice of profits that you and your fellow workers helped create, rather than the boss hoarding all of it and buying himself another yacht. That’s what Bernie is proposing: all businesses with more than $100 million in revenue must make 20% of the business employee owned. The plan is expected to affect 56 million workers, who will on average receive an annual $5,000 dividend payment. Warren isn’t proposing anything of the sort.
A disclaimer about personal characteristics
The policies discussed above have only scratched the surface of the many plans the two are proposing, but were chosen to demonstrate that Sanders and Warren are by no means “equally” progressive.
I believe policies are by far the most important thing to look at when deciding a candidate. I often assume this is just a given for everyone following an election, but often I’m reminded that many voters look at things like a candidate’s “vibe,” “charisma,” “identities,” and “personality.” Bernie has received his share of criticism for being “gruff” and many progressives hesitate to back yet another white male candidate for president, so I’ll briefly engage with this issue.
It is not uncommon throughout history for powerful interests to accept or even endorse leaders that have appealing personal characteristics specifically to avoid having to actually make any fundamental changes. Obama, as the first Black US president, was expected by many to improve the lives of people of color, but instead contributed to the militarization of police, oversaw the deportation of more than 3 million immigrants, and engaged in new, unnecessary wars on Global South countries. His policies and ideology contributed to keeping white supremacy structurally intact domestically and internationally. In some cases, individuals from oppressed groups outwardly admit they have no interest in lifting up their community. Margaret Thatcher was the first woman prime minister in the UK, but is today widely acknowledged as having done nothing for women’s rights. She even criticized British women for leaving their houses and getting jobs. In the cases of Obama and Thatcher, their charm and/or identity served as a stand-in for actual change, and may have created the faulty impression that concrete changes had occurred, despite few if any individuals from their own marginalized demographic experiencing real gains. Charisma, identities, and personalities don’t have any relationship with whether or not a candidate will actually improve people’s lives, and it’s part of a (neo-)liberal understanding of power to assume they do.
The point is simple enough: marginalized communities would be better served by focusing on the policy changes candidates are proposing rather than the identities of the candidates themselves. So, when thinking about anything other than a candidate’s policies and ideology, it’s appropriate to do so with a sound theory of power. Power is reflected in economic, political, and social structures, and how they affect the lives of millions of people. Electing “charismatic leaders” or achieving “diversity in high places,” can be positive in their own way under some circumstances, but by themselves do nothing to actually adjust, and certainly not revolutionize, hard systems of power.
Bernie wrote an op-ed on this topic dissecting how economic problems are connected to race, saying “It is my view that any presidential candidate who claims to believe that Black lives matter has to take on the institutions that have continually exploited black lives;” namely, by taxing corporations a lot and spending the money on improving living standards for Black communities. Indeed, to divorce capitalism, wealth inequality, or environmental issues from race and gender inequality is to lack awareness of the most direct and material ways sexism and racism actually affect people’s lives. Racial minorities face health risks at greater rates than whites, hold a greater proportion of medical debt, and are more likely to be uninsured. Single-payer healthcare and ending medical debt are therefore anti-racist policies that combat some of the most pronounced racial disparities in financial and physical well-being. Nearly two-thirds of people on minimum wage are women. Raising the minimum wage is a feminist policy. While white men hold an average of $19,500 in student debt, women of color hold and average of $30,000. Cancelling student debt is an intersectional policy. The effects of climate change are expected to most affect Pacific islands and other non-Western countries. Diverting $200 billion to foreign efforts to tackle climate change is a plan for justice for the Global South. Inequalities “intersect.” So when Bernie supporters say he is the “most progressive candidate,” we necessarily are talking about more than just one form of inequality.
Campaign finance: Warren’s disingenuousness on display
Throughout the primary, Warren has proudly proclaimed that she is rejecting corporate donations to her campaign. For her to make this pledge now means she must have very recently had some revelation about the corrupt nature of high-dollar funding, given that she conducted fundraising tours to court rich donors during both of her previous Senate races. She apparently did not feel corporate money was unethical as early as last year. As a New York Times article noted about her 2020 rejection of big money: “Admirers and activists praised her stand — but few noted the fact that she had built a financial cushion by pocketing big checks the years before.” She also transferred $10 million from her previous campaigns to her presidential campaign, “a portion of which was raised from the same donor class she is now running against.” Bernie, too, transferred $10 million from past campaigns, but “unlike Ms. Warren, he had eschewed high-dollar fund-raisers in past races.” Lastly, Warren has admitted that her big-donor ban is only limited to the primary, and she would accept corporate PAC money in the general election. A former wealthy surrogate for Warren penned an op-ed lambasting her as a “hypocrite” for going so far to appear opposed to big money.
Personally, I believe the very nature of money in politics obviously advantages rich people, political elite, and private corporations in leveraging power over working people. But at the end of the day campaign finance is just another component of capitalism which in countless ways is meticulously designed to maintain the rule of rich people over politics and society at large. Bernie’s pledge to completely reject all forms of big money combats a key component of that capitalist superstructure. Warren’s rejection of some big money sometimes not only does little to actually undermine the plutocracy that is American government, but appears to be “politically calculated,” as well as limited, in a way she knows will garner her a veneer of authenticity for this specific campaign.
This is of course not to mention that before saying you “will accept” money from corporations or other rich people, you must believe they actually want to donate to you; and before they donate to you, they must believe their interests will be represented by the candidate they’re donating to. While there are some disappointed grumblings on Wall Street that Warren could lead the Democratic ticket, other corporate interests seem less worried. She already has three billionaire donors in this primary so far (wouldn’t you know it, Bernie is the only major candidate with zero), and despite her short career in office, she has a total of 30 billionaire donors. Bernie has had zero over a much longer career. Despite an anecdotal jab at Warren from Mark Zuckerberg, big tech is also “ready to back” Warren’s candidacy. Meanwhile, Bernie has endured a united chorus of fierce vilification from billionaires and moneyed interests, and released an “anti-endorsements” list to brag about it. Of course, I’m not saying big business loves Warren, I’m simply saying they see Warren is an unfortunate compromise to the more radical Bernie, who they’re terrified of.
But this shouldn’t come as much of a surprise given Sanders’ and Warren’s overall orientations toward economics broadly. Both speak with disdain for Wall Street greed, but Warren’s priorities have emphasized breaking up giant conglomerates that have caused capitalism to stop functioning “properly,” rather than massively overhauling the distribution of wealth in society to benefit working people in a permanent way. One article favorably labeled Warren’s tax policies “pre-distribution,” which “mostly entails regulatory reforms rather than big spending items, like free college or job guarantees.” Trust-breaking and other laws aimed to regulate or “de-monopolize” markets are not inherently anti-capitalist, but rather function under the premise that capitalism is inherently good and market competition is desirable. Warren calls herself a “capitalist to her bones,” and even switched from being Republican to Democrat in part because she believed Democrats “supported markets better.” She stood up and applauded Trump when he said “America will never be a socialist country.” She doesn’t imagine a new economy, but one in which capitalism has been “saved.” She’s also been actively courting the Democratic establishment, essentially reassuring them she’s a team player and probably to more clearly distance herself from her more radical counterparts such as Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Support bases and political philosophies
In a televised interview on August 1st, 2019, Bernie said “I’m going to run the Presidency differently than anyone else. I’m not only going to be Commander in Chief. I am going to be Organizer in Chief.” One author said this was “one of the most important things Bernie Sanders has ever said” and I completely agree. It cuts straight to a core tenet of his philosophy. He believes that “real change never takes place from the top on down, but always from the bottom on up” (the first words he spoke in his 2020 launch video). As was the case in 2016, Bernie has emphasized time and time again that a core tenet of his presidency will be mobilizing mass movements alongside his own efforts to push through progressive policy. While Warren has made a couple allusions to “grassroots” support of her policy reforms during her potential presidency, Bernie’s philosophy of change has more explicitly and consistently revolved around mobilizing working-class people to fight for their own rights. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez emphasized this in explaining why she endorsed Bernie: “For me, it wasn’t even about helping [Senator Sanders], it was a moment of clarity for personally in saying, what role do I want to play? And I want to be a part of a mass movement.”
Bernie understands how difficult his reforms will be for the establishment to swallow, and has complemented his radical agenda with a radical understanding of social change. The theory rests on the belief that if there’s enough popular pressure on any given ruling establishment, the old guard often accept reforms they don’t enthusiastically agree with. This is how we got numerous labor rights we enjoy today. It’s how desegregation happened. And it’s probably how many more changes will occur in the future. It’s why many politicians, such as Hillary Clinton, somehow “realized” their former opposition to gay marriage was wrong. It’s why Harris and Booker momentarily co-sponsored Medicare for All. Bernie prioritizes shifting the overton window as a means to force through substantive reform and centers the working-class as the agent of change.
Bernie Sanders is far more likely to receive donations from members of working-class occupations.
Typically I don’t think “who” supports a candidate necessarily means their ideas are right or wrong, but I think Bernie and Warren’s ideologies are reflected in their bases: polls indicate Warren’s base is overwhelmingly white, educated, higher-income, and “very interested” in politics. Bernie’s support base is more proportionally racially diverse, is politically unplugged, and is more young and working-class than any other candidate. Donor data reflects this as well. For instance, 58% of donors that work in fast food donated to Bernie. Andrew Yang, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizbaeth Warren had 9%, 7%, and 6%, respectively. Bernie draws similarly large majorities of donor support from virtually all other working-class occupations. When you look at more professional occupations, such as lawyers, Bernie comes in with only 11.5% of donations, and is led by Buttigieg with 18% and Warren with 15%. Bernie is the only major candidate to see his donations steeply decrease as donor wealth increases [source here]. Warren, Biden, O’Rourke, Harris, and Buttigeig see the opposite trend: they are more likely to get donations from wealthier individuals. After Buttigieg, Warren has the second steepest trendline in the direction of wealthy donors. There’s an undeniable demographic divide between Bernie and Warren, one that I believe fundamentally revolves around class culture– and this divide is not really between Bernie and Warren, but between Bernie and every other candidate.
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate whose support among donors decreases as occupational income increases.
So how can two progressive candidates get support from totally different bases? In my opinion, Warren represents a suburban, professional-managerial class brand of progressivism. She is perceived by her followers as a happy, technocratic, articulate politician that can pursue change while remaining firm but un-offensive to her political enemies. These traits, in my view, are more attractive to economically comfortable voters whose livelihoods don’t depend much on the person in power, and who very recently were supporters of other candidates like Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg during their momentary spikes in polls. Many Warren backers probably support her for her left-leaning ideology, but a majority do not. Her supporters aren’t new to political engagement, but for the first several months of the campaign have excitedly jumped from candidate to candidate, and for the moment perceive her to be the most lively, intelligent and dynamic. This is not to say that they won’t stay with her, but to say that the professional-managerial class sees politics mostly as a personal favorability contest rather than a policy contest. If this wasn’t the case, what reason would they have to support candidates as policy-dry as Buttigieg and Harris to begin with?
Conversely, I think Bernie represents an aggressive, revolutionary, working-class progressivism. Not surprisingly, many high-profile pundits have portrayed his style as “curmudgeonly,” “pushy,” and have assailed him for “not smiling much” (talk about seeing elections as a personality contest). However, he’s perceived by his followers to be genuine, principled, and most importantly, subversive. Rather than trying to appear comprising or behaving “professionally”, he takes pride in the fact that his presidency will disrupt the political status quo in many ways. For these reasons, he attracts people that are disillusioned with the monotony of politics under late capitalism (i.e., young and poor people) and are angry with a political establishment that has done nothing for decades to reverse the neoliberal hollowing out of the working class. This is not to say all Bernie supporters are well-versed on all his policies, but that to his supporters, he represents an antidote to a latent phenomenon, which, whether they identify it as such or not, are ultimately real, material problems. For Warren, the variable which predicts support for her appears to be something else entirely.
[For a history of the professional-managerial class in the US and how it has come to support Warren, click here]
A Warren presidency
It should go without saying that I think Warren will be a better president than Harris or Buttigieg or Biden. But I also think we would see Elizabeth Warren’s half-hearted, passive, politically calculated, or incomplete “commitments” to bold ideas such as rejecting corporate money, peaceful foreign policy, and supporting Medicare for All reflected in her actual policymaking as president. In the worst case, (such as her supposed desire to reduce military spending and her actual votes to increase it) we may see her policies on some progressive issues turn out to be completely opposite to what she had claimed they would be. Why should we expect anything else? If she backs away from big, structural change as a candidate, we should expect her to do the same in office. In a world without Bernie, I would support Warren hands down. But there’s no reason to risk a Warren presidency when she’s bee inconsistently committed to progressive ideas over a short 7 years in office, especially when there’s a candidate that has been committed to the same policies for his entire 40-year political career.
Conclusion
My view of Warren nor Bernie is black and white. I think a potential positive of the Warren campaign is that she’s introduced some moderate, suburban Democrat voters that were formerly Buttigieg, Harris, and Hillary supporters and now comprise much of Warren’s base to more ambitious ideas and hopefully this leaves a permanent impact on their worldview. I also think that Bernie has many policies on which he could be better (read: policies he should be even more left-wing on) or moments of tone-deafness on certain issues. But all politicians have had both of these things, including Warren. I’ve written this operating on the assumption that, for progressives, the one question that is so crucial it towers over all others is: which candidate has policies that will ultimately go benefit the most amount of people? Because that’s the whole point of being “progressive:” you make progress, you create a more humane society, and you improve people’s lives. And being “more progressive” simply means your policies will do that more than those of others.
Perhaps this was inevitable as Warren rose in polls, but the readily apparent truth that Bernie is the more progressive of the two is becoming more controversial by the day, despite the fact that Warren still hasn’t “outflanked” Bernie to the left on virtually any policy. No matter who you support in the primary, acknowledging this shouldn’t be difficult. For the entirety of both of their careers, Bernie was widely considered the more leftist of the two candidates. Only now that they’re running against each other have Warren-sympathetic pundits suddenly felt the urge to question that long-standing consensus. I also feel it’s a disservice to the magnitude of his campaign to simply say “Bernie is the most progressive candidate running in 2020,” because he’s more. He’s a once in a lifetime opportunity. I mean, he’s proposing worker ownership of companies, a federal jobs guarantee, and has pledged to be an activist president. In the US, I’m not entirely sure we’ll ever have a chance to get this many good things this quickly ever again.
I started this paper talking about the economic and ecological damage done by neoliberalism. But one under-appreciated consequence of neoliberalism is how our interpretation of the left-right political spectrum has been dragged significantly to the right. Formerly right-wing economic policies, such as bailing out big banks (as Obama did), are now considered somewhat unremarkable and centrist, while heavy taxes on the rich, which used to be popular even among Republicans, are now considered “progressive” and “leftist.” In a world untouched by the ravages of neoliberalism, Bernie may simply be a center-leftist, of which there would be many like him, and Warren would be the unremarkable centrist that progressives wouldn’t even consider supporting. So why allow ourselves to see politics through the lens that our right-wing historical moment has provided for us? Why not do the most we possibly can to support politics that contribute to re-calibrating the political spectrum toward progressive ideas? Not only for the sake of living standards for working people and saving our species from extinction, but to correct our damaged moral compass. For now, our best bet is Bernie.
COMMUNISTFTW 