Meeting Objections #2: Bernie Won't Get Anything Done

Continuing my humble offerings to Bernie supporters who don't want to let the usual Establishment objections go by, here is the longer form of a short case for why he would do better than Hillary or, for that matter, President Obama.

The suggestion that a hostile Congress would prevent Bernie from passing any of the legislation he proposes is plausible, in the short term, but it ignores history.

Beyond the exercise of executive powers, which are available to any chief executive, a President has two basic ways of dealing with a hostile Congress.

First, the President can negotiate with the leaders of the House and Senate.

Second, the President can rouse a might wave of public opinion to persuade, or frighten, Congress to do the right thing – however reluctantly.  

Let’s take these one at a time:

Option A:  Negotiating with Congress

Negotiating with Congress is mainly a matter of experience.  You have to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em, know when to walk away … you know the song. 

If you want the best candidate to negotiate with Congress, you might be thinking Trump, but I assume no one reading this blog will long entertain that thought.  Assuming you want someone who’ll negotiate for the right sort of policies, it’s either Hillary or Bernie.

So let's examine their backgrounds.

Hillary Clinton has impressive experience dealing with Congress.  As First Lady, she led her husband’s negotiations with Congress for a major reform of our health care laws.  She failed, but without doubt she learned a lot in the process.  Then, for eight years – from 2001 to 2009 – she was a member of the Senate.  No doubt she learned a lot there, too.

And there’s no question that, as Secretary of State, she did a lot of high-level negotiating – though mostly with foreign leaders, not with Congress.

But – and no one seems to remember this – Bernie Sanders has been a member of the Senate for slightly longer than Hillary – nine years.

And before that, he spent sixteen years in the House.

And before that, he served four terms as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont.

That’s a ton of negotiating experience.  So why does everyone insist that Hillary has the edge in this area?  And why are we willing to let this go, without an argument?

Option B:  Rallying Public Opinion

The big difference between the candidates lies in their ability to rouse massive public opinion to support their agendas.

Teddy Roosevelt called this presidential power “the bully pulpit” – in those days, the adjective “bully” meant “excellent” – and he used it fully.  So did his cousin, Franklin Roosevelt.

A President who can connect with the people, and who takes the time to rally them to support his policies, can often force the powers-that-be to back down.

That’s why the Establishment fears Bernie (and Trump, for that matter), but seems comfortable with Hillary.

If a future President Clinton sits down at a table with the leaders of the Congress, she will walk in with a half-dozen aides.  She’ll speak their language and drive a hard bargain.  She’s very smart, and incredibly well-informed.  She’s a policy wonk – like President Obama.  She'll have all the details at her mental fingertips.

But when President Sanders sits down, he will, figuratively speaking, walk in with more than a few aides.  He’ll also bring millions of people with him. 

For the past seven years, many who voted for President Obama have been frustrated by his reluctance to use his best gifts – his ability to speak and educate – to rally support behind good causes.

This failure will probably go down in history as his legacy.  He’s a great public speaker, a natural teacher – but he has dealt with those who oppose him in isolation.

When he sat down at the negotiating table, he was alone.  He never really invited the people to come with him.

And that's where Bernie comes in.  He not only has the ability to rally the people, he's made that the core of his message.  It's not just about him.  It's about us.  

There’s no question Bernie has the experience and ability – and, more important, the will – to rally ordinary people to put pressure on Congress (and even the Supreme Court) to fix a corrupt system.  

So it comes down to whom you’d prefer to negotiate for you – Hillary, more or less on her own, flanked by a half-dozen aides - or Bernie, backed by millions of aroused Americans.

My thinking is, we've tried the very-smart-detail-oriented-president-flanked-by-aides approach for seven years.  I think it's time we tried the tribune-of-the-people approach for a while.