I like most of Bernie’s domestic policy ideas, but he has a terrible record on actually listening to marginalized communities and his foreign policy in 2016 was really not great. I can’t remember exactly why I just remember feeling a distinct sense of despair as my scrappy VT senator went way out of his comfort zone.
2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates: Do They Have Policies? What Are Their Policies? Let's Find Out!
Do you have any particular citations for either of these? I’m not pushing back, I am just curious if you felt there were particularly mishandled items for the latter or what his record is in VT on the former.
I only know the Sanders I read in the preambles to early-2010s books and I see online, and there’s a certain amount where I don’t know anything about him (really) but know a lot about the optics of his candidacy. The latter of which makes it easy to dismiss legitimate criticism by lumping it in with the centrist circus of Never Sanders.
The Sanders hate machine is ramping up in earnest ahead of his official announcement, and its already exhausting the amount of hate this dude gets for doing in a few months what countless neoliberal democrat duds couldn’t do for decades (not that they really cared to I guess), which is to actually energize progressives and bring leftist thought into the American public consciousness in a big way, something a lot of us who always held those ideals dear already take completely for granted.
Almost all the knocks I see against him talk about how he doesn’t care enough about marginalized communities and isn’t this champion of the people we think, all while he campaigned tirelessly for Medicare for all, an actual increase of 15 for the minimum wage (while many of his colleagues hesitantly pushed for 10), etc., all things that would have a hugely positive impact on the most vulnerable parts of our population. The same people who trash him and blame him for where we are are literally trying to trick people into thinking progressive change is a complete pipe dream, and that our best bet is backing another milquetoast moderate like warren or Harris who will vaguely talk about how “uhh yes healthcare is good I think” all while they just completely forsake the working class at every single step.
Criticisms against him are absolutely valid and I don’t discount them, but so much of it seems to come across as bad faith arguments from liberals who just seem to have lost all hope for us. I don’t mean to rant and I still believe that people should absolutely vote as left as possible regardless of who makes it, but I implore everyone to be vigilant against the wave of leftist bashing you’re going to see in the coming months that will try to sway you and nitpick actual progressive candidates and viewpoints and make people like Warren and Harris (an unlikeable moderate and a cop with an abysmal track record of injustice) seem like they’ll do more for us in the long term.
I have a whole lot of gripes with his foreign policy (even though I will also say he is miles better than any other major candidate for president not only in my life, but in my parents as well) so I will agree with you there, but I don’t see him not “actually listening to marginalized communities” like you claim. Who did he not listen to?
I think Sanders has hired a foreign policy team this time around hasn’t he? I think, as a dispassionate foreign observer, that he really is the best of a probable bad bunch. Much like Corbyn. I can see it being a straight fight between him and Harris with a possible compromise of Warren who at least has some good, if tepid, ideas.
I don’t know for sure about that, but I hope if that is the case, his team is mostly if not totally no one from the DC think tank arena on the team. They’d give him shit foreign policy advice.
What didn’t you like about his foreign policy?
It seemed to me that he wanted to scale back America’s global presence, while staying allies. It was weird hearing him and Trump BOTH talking about removing military bases from spaces around China. Of course, Trump didn’t actually DO anything that was interesting about his foreign policy statements during his campaign. I’m sure Bernie would have actually made some moves there.
“The goal is not for the United States to dominate the world,” Sanders said. “Nor, on the other hand, is our goal to withdraw from the international community and shirk our responsibilities under the banner of ‘America First.’ Our goal should be global engagement based on partnership, rather than dominance. This is better for our security, better for global stability and better for facilitating the international cooperation necessary to meet shared challenges.”
That sounds pretty good to me. I think he was even against the secretiveness of those big international deals that people want to know more about.
He’s better than anyone in Washington currently. I wish he would more strongly stand behind the Maduro government and explain that the economic sanctions the US has imposed on them is the reason for their current unrest. I think his anti-interventionist idea is good; it just doesn’t go far enough.
Venezuelans I’ve talked to kind of hate how many western leftists are backing Maduro because he’s actually kind of a terrible president, simply because Maduro isn’t the other guy. Like, Maduro is willing to establish an actual dictatorship to hold on to power while people have been starving under his rule in mass.
Pretty much the entire political situation there is a complete shitshow. Backing Maduro because of the ideals of leftist ideology while also ignoring his actions and failures as president isn’t really the solution to any of this. Like, US fuckery is a factor in what’s gone down in Venezuela, but it isn’t the defining, major factor. Venezuela’s problems are far far worse than US intervention, the political corruption down there is home grown.
What I’m hearing is that mango throwing is a viable strategy for ending the housing crisis
Yeah, the “Maduro is good actually” take is bizarre to me. We can interrogate US imperialism and applaud the actions of countries when they try to oppose it without aligning ourselves with leaders who’ve taken the anti-capitalist route to authoritarianism.
counterpoint: there is never a time for the US to intervene in any country
If they ask us to, it’s maybe okay sometimes
edit: I mean like literally ask, in writing preferably.
Maduro is an authoritarian, anyone who says he’s good actually is ignoring… basically everything about him. He lost control of the legislature in an election and in response, he stacked his supreme court with 13 new judges then basically made a second congress made up of his family and supporters.
Stares at the USA guess it’s time to bomb them too
Edit: sorry “”"“humanitarian intervention”"""
Maduro is bad. US imperialism is worse.
the american political class should honestly universally just shut up about venezuela, as much as anything because weighing in on the situation in almost any direction is ultimately only going to serve as cover for the eventual invasion which the oil hawks are agitating for
like it seems there are broadly two sides in the mainstream political imagination: “maduro is bad and we must stage a coup” and “maduro is bad but we should think carefully about openly staging a coup” and both ultimately start with Maduro Is Bad and end with a coup
the best thing america could do would be stop all the sanctions and leave them alone for once
yeah like it’s totally okay to not take sides in the politics of other countries and the fact that people expect our national representatives to have “stances” on this is honestly fucked up
I think it actually is important for US politicians to have a stance on Venezuela for as long as our country has sanctions in place against them.
That said, “We should stop the sanctions and stop interfering with their government” is a solid opinion and one not enough US politicians seem to have. I definitely don’t need US politicians to choose between “Support coup” and "Support Maduro.
Seeing a lot of the discourse here has been disheartening , I thought waypoint was Ostensibly to the left and seeing all of the discussion surrounding Venezuela being framed in a vaccuum, analysis bereft of consideration of the actions which lead to the situation in Venezuela being what it is is what allows US and western imperialism to flourish.
Just look at the cabal of devils Trump has put together to take point on Venezuela. John Bolton. The change d’affairs. These people are evil and there’s no two ways about it , that alone should set alarm bells ringing.
But even ignoring that, Venezuela doesn’t exist in a vaccuum, and the US and its allies has been inflicting misery on the people there, this is not controversial it’s the opinion of reporters at the UN. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/former-un-rapporteur-us-sanctions-against-venezuela-causing-economic-and-humanitarian-crisis-900603.html
The British government literally held gold hostage that was to be used as a security to buy food!! You cant pour petrol all over somewhere and then be surprised when it catches alight. Leading with well Maduro is bad so this action is justified is just imperialism pure and simple. Maduro is ostensibly in charge but he is not the master of the entire situation and yet he is the sole problem according to the discourse round here, and the solution is of course military action.
The US isn’t a good actor and intervention is always bad
It’s felt weirdly centrist in this thread in particular tbh