Frank Bruni Discusses Bernie Sanders' Candidacy

Bernie Sanders In Sherwood Forest

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2016/02/bernie-sanders-in-sherwood-forest.html

Wednesday, April 10, 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/FrankBruni »

If you missed the previous newsletter, you can read it here.

Bernie Sanders. John Locher/Associated Press   Frank Bruni Opinion Columnist Biden and more Biden. Buttigieg upon Buttigieg. Before that, a bevy of Beto (what’s with a certain consonant in Democratic politics now?), and prior to that, a cornucopia of Kamala and a whole lotta Liz. But another B isn’t getting a magnitude of attention commensurate with his pace-setting fundraising ($18.2 million in the first six weeks of his campaign) and the size and stamina of his fan base. I speak of Bernie, who has a good chance of winning the presidential nomination of a party to which he doesn’t even belong. That warrants much more discussion — from Democratic leaders and voters and from the media — than it’s getting. “Despite his position at No. 2 in the polls, many seem to be ignoring him altogether,” wrote T.A. Frank, correctly, on Vanity Fair’s The Hive website last week. Only Joe Biden bests Bernie Sanders in most surveys. “But be not fooled,” Frank continued. “Sanders is still the most probable Democratic nominee, like him or not.” I’d change that last phrase to “want him or not.” Do we? He has significant flaws in the abstract. He has special flaws in relation to Donald Trump, whose defeat is goal No. 1 in the 2020 election. Actually, it’s goals No. 2 and No. 3 as well. As things stand already, America will need years to climb out of the Trump trench in terms of international relations, minority disenfranchisement, a conservative stacking of courts and sheer indecency. I shudder to imagine the damage and the recovery period after two terms of Trump. And moving the country toward greater economic fairness, a sturdier social safety net and more inclusive politics can’t happen unless and until Trump is a bad White House memory. So yes, let’s debate the merits and plausibility of various options for improving health care and expanding coverage, in part to gauge different candidates’ common sense and seriousness of mind. But first things first. Let’s prioritize victory in the general election and promote whoever is the best bet for that. I have grave doubts that Sanders fits the bill, but I can absolutely envision him winning the nomination. As Frank noted, his lack of freshness as a presidential candidate could help him, insomuch as “what you lose in sparkle you gain in seasoning and, just as important, name recognition.” Sanders sticks to his scripts, avoiding gaffes, as remarkably as Biden strays from his. Last week Biden swerved in record time from a quasi-apology over unnerving some women with physical contact to making light of the whole situation. Even if you believe, as I do, that his conduct was neither a scandal nor nullifying, his levity isn’t prudent strategy — and it reflects political shortcomings that I and others have pointed out before. That leaves Sanders, 77, well positioned. But as The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank wondered in a column last week, should the Democratic party fight one “angry old white guy with crazy hair, New York accent and flair for demagoguery” with another angry old white guy with some of the same qualities? Along those lines, I’d add: Do Democrats want to surrender the opportunity for contrast that they could get by choosing a more youthful candidate with a brighter disposition and a more healing touch? In 2016, Sanders forged a strong connection with young Democrats, but can he stir the requisite excitement among women and minorities in the party and unify the entire Democratic coalition, from left to center? Across the expanse of a general election, can he round out his economic message so that he rounds out his base? Too often he comes across as a broken record stuck on the same refrain. What’s already knowable is that most of the Democratic candidates who turned House districts from red to blue in 2018, giving the party control of one chamber of Congress, were not associated with Sanders and his movement. They were less strident than that. Doesn’t that say something relevant and important about the leanings of American voters who reside in precincts other than Twitter? Moreover, Trump’s campaign against Sanders is pre-formulated and succinct: socialist, socialist, socialist. That the charge isn’t entirely accurate doesn’t mean it won’t be effective, especially if Trump gets lucky with his timing and his job numbers and the stock market, and is able to say to voters: For all the doomsday predictions about me, I haven’t wrecked the economy or started any wars, so am I really more of a risk than my opponent? To answer that question, voters will look hard at the opponent. In that all-important context, who should he or she be?