Bernie Sanders Will Never Get the Revolution He Wants

Also, is California a stronghold of traditional family values?

By
27

I think three things at the same time. First, no one should discount Bernie’s chance to win the Democratic nomination, or the presidency. Second, even if Bernie wins, he won’t get his revolution. And third, we should still be concerned about Bernie’s potential effect on the country. In other news,, a new study highlights an interesting fact about progressive California. Is it the family values state? Today’s French Press:

  1. The real Bernie Sanders problem.

  1. Blue California: radical politics, traditional values.

The polarizing rage of a frustrated revolutionary.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
27
By
Comments (27)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Ann G

    Progressives in CA are evangelizing the keys to familial success by encouraging programs and policies that support individuals and families. Success breeds success, so they set out to create some success in the lives of those who may not have a lot of it.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    cheerio

    My family is pretty liberal (we are democrats) and also, by your definition- also conservative? I don't know that having a solid marriage and staying together is necessarily a conservative value, I mean, we made vows in front of God and family. My sister as well has been married over 27 years. We are middle class, live in the suburbs. Maybe it is more generational? Both my husband and I are of Gen X and we survived parents who divorced - sometimes more than once. We never wanted to do that, particularly after having a child (who tends to transform from a priority to an obligation in divorce and remarriage situations). We are not church-goers. However, we are also not hedonists. I think we all have more in common than many think and have similar goals. There are just some topics that I believe are easy to use to manipulate us into entrenched dichotomy to benefit certain individuals or groups. Ask yourselves where is the power and the money going? Who is on the losing end? Bernie Sanders appeals because he states plainly that people should matter first. He goes beyond Trump's "America First" because he does not differentiate between those Americans that vote for him and those that do not (as to who is a "real American"). I don't plan to vote for Bernie in the primaries but if he wins, I will vote for him in the general. Interestingly, he was my pick in the primaries in 2016. However most of us are centrist and wish to avoid political vertigo. We would like our democratic institutions restored, and boring government. I also wish some civic-minded billionaire would buy Twitter and bury it under eight feet of concrete-- now that is philanthropic.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Trapkoch

    Couple things, sir - first, thanks for the recommendation of The Morning Show. I read your post back when it was first published, and my wife and I finished it last night. Before watching the flashback episode I re-read your post. Your "review" (if you will) was on my mind as I watched the whole series, and made it that much better to watch, that episode particularly. (The ending of the series was a bit contrived in my opinion, but that's a nit-pick.)

    Secondly, speaking to the piece about California - I live in San Francisco, the heart of American liberalism, as it were, and one thing that has struck me since moving there just over three years ago is how many "just folks" live in the city, especially in the Sunset District, where I live. I see it a lot in Mass on Sundays - including families that my wife (native San Franciscan) has known since she was old enough to know people, corralling four or five kids into pews and shushing them. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a Catholic church in the area.

    And it isn't just religious - the vast majority of people are just living. And in very informal polling of my household and in-laws, most people roll their eyes at the super-progressive government (while also wearing it as a bizarre badge of honor when confronted by outsiders about it - "I may criticize my house, sir, but you may not!" It's a weird dynamic to witness. As another commenter below states, it's more Libertarian than anything, I think.)

    And everyone - EVERYONE - is completely flummoxed by how expensive it is to live here. Rather than decrying the city council's latest resolution to declare dogs equal to children (apologies to Jonah) or covering up murals in schools because they showed a dead Native American, they're more outraged at a tax against building owners with vacant businesses (whilst doing absolutely nothing to remove red tape preventing opening a new store), or blocking construction of apartments by trying to declare the *laundromat* currently on the lot a historical landmark. Or blocking development of housing units because they won't offer enough for low-income renters, as if "adding zero" is a solution.

    Declare it against the law to call the person who has a dog an "owner" - but at least make it so we can find a place (larger than a hat box) to live that doesn't cost us 60% of our take-home pay.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      I'm confused by being "flummoxed" about how expensive it is: you live there, right? So you are able to afford it somehow, right? And nobody is stopping you from moving out, right?

      In the long run the only way prices can be that high is that people there make a lot of money. The top three companies in the Bay Area (for starters) are worth $3T in market cap (~$.5 million per person) and while absolute salaries don't correspond, you can make the case that income available for housing does get in the ballpark of those prices.

      No doubt the zoning laws and BS you are describing make things less pleasant there, but people sure are still paying top dollar for it, and they sure seem to have the money to do so...

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Trapkoch

        Well, everything is relative obviously. But what I’m saying isn’t exactly only my opinion, I’m not just pulling this out of thin air. Yes, I can afford it, and yes, Bay Area salaries are higher than the norm, by far, and by necessity.

        The median household income in the Bay Area in 2017 was just a hair over $96k, compared to the national average of $61k. Pretty sweet, right? We make 1.5X the national average to work here!

        Now let’s look at the median housing prices (Q2 2019 data here):
        Bay Area: $1.7MM
        U.S. overall: $280k

        And as a believer in market economies, I agree with you in principle that nobody is forcing me to live here. But I like my job a lot, my wife’s family is here, and there are plenty of other reasons to love the area. I’m not even speaking so much for myself here - I’m well-compensated, as is my wife, and we can indeed afford to live here. But there are many that aren’t in the same position. Not everyone here is a tech millionaire with a yacht. And when you think of how many tech millionaires there are, the $.5M per person figure you quoted is meaningless.

        Lest you think I’m angling for something like $15 minimum wage, that certainly isn’t it. I’m speaking ,ore to the zoning BS you alluded to - onerous regulation, NIMBYism (the number of limousine liberals here would make your head spin), etc.

        Lastly, and this is more of a nitpick (and an anecdotal one at that), when I moved here from Vegas I sold my house for $270k. It was 1750 sq ft on a 1/4 acre lot. That house in this area would go for $2.5MM - I’d bet my life on it. Again, markets are markets, I get it. But it’s hard to wrap my brain around spending over a million on a fixer-upper with half the square footage, where I can listen to what my next-door neighbor is watching on television.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          My point about the value of the top three companies there was just an example of how insanely vast the wealth is there that was created by the high-tech industry. I get that not everybody is an early Google employee, but it's important to point out that salaries are only part of the story when the stock market is throwing off that much wealth. Anecdotally I know a lot of people who got their down payments from their company's stock options. The numbers would indicate that happens a LOT. (And probably if the markets tanked housing prices there would drop a lot too).

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Trapkoch

            Yep, true enough - I received stocks as part of my EOY bonus (nothing like early investor numbers or anything), and when I clench my teeth and buy a house, those options will play a significant part of my down payment. My ESPP participation will make up an even more significant portion, further illuminating your point.

            I'll leave it there, before I start sounding like a Democrat by saying "yes, but think of the teachers!!!" :-)

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      David French

      Thank you for the comment on housing prices. This strikes me as one of the most pressing issues in coastal urban America today. As one writer described it, the incredible prices create a de facto "gated community" effect, that walls out all but the wealthiest or those who are willing to live in small, cramped places (often single people, just starting out.) I can see how a young person could look at that situation and despair of owning a place large enough to start a family.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Trapkoch

        Precisely. And I was born and raised in Montana, and even though I haven't lived there in over 25 years now, the lack of space is definitely something I am still not used to. I don't think I ever will be!

        Luckily, I like my wife. :-)

        Collapse
  4. Jeffrey Gegler

    I really do not believe Sanders has much of a chance. Caveat: I was wrong about Trump in 2015-2016, so take it with a mountain of salt.

    The problem with Washington insiders and political writers even outside the beltway like you, David, is they often base their premises on their level of interest in politics. You follow this daily, as do I. However, we are the few. Most of America is not subscribing to The Dispatch. They may know who Bernie is based on the 2016 primaries but few actually paid attention. I’d put it at somewhere south of 20% who know much about him other than being a “Socialist.”

    As the general election candidate, he will get much more attention. Video of him saying that standing in food lines is a “good thing” will scare away Ohio and other toss up states. Obama had the same problem but was always willing to deny it and play the centrist. Bernie will not be able to get away with it. His fatal flaws are that he is honest regarding his intentions and lacks Obama’s charisma.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      David French

      You're exactly right about the knowledge gap, and I try to keep it in mind as I write. We also learned in 2016 that people cast votes against opponents as much or more than they truly cast votes for their candidates. In 2020 we may learn a lot about the extent to which 2016 was about rejecting Hillary Clinton rather than endorsing Donald Trump. If the Democrats nominate Bernie, they could repeat the mistake of nominating a candidate who is easy to reject. At the same time, if the public is determined to toss Trump, Bernie may well win -- and mistake his victory as an endorsement for his agenda rather than primarily a repudiation of his opponent.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    A Bernie victory to campus communists (as in, real, live, "nationalize the means of production" communists) will be akin to Trump's victory for the KKK. Lip service will be paid and they will think they have their guy, but in the end they will divorce him just like Richard Spencer did.

    Besides our system of government, I would also point to the power of the stock market and gas prices. These things have been going great and any disruption of that will mean crushing defeat for whomever is in power regardless of their popularity otherwise. Trump's approval would fall into the 20s or lower if the economy tanked: suddenly his base would take him seriously *and* literally.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Analytic Converter

    As a democrat in a solidly red state, I won't vote for Bernie Sanders. Do I think he'd be a better president than Trump? Yes (it's a low bar). Do I think he'd actually enact (vs. advocate for) more policies I prefer and fewer I dislike? Also yes. But I don't want him moving the Overton window more than he already has, becoming the face of the Democratic party, etc. It's probably a losing battle given how progressive most of the younger dems are, but still.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      On Fox News they regularly call things like raising taxes on rich people or expanding Medicare "socialism". In that context you shouldn't be too surprised more people call themselves "socialists" but it probably mostly has nothing to do with nationalizing industries or central control of prices and whatnot.

      My own take is that young people want Switzerland or Holland, not Cuba...

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        David French

        Pat, that's a good comment. Lots of folks don't know what socialism is. And the use of the word as a weapon on the right leads some people to believe that even relatively modest increases in government represent "socialism." Not true. Big government is not the same thing as socialism. Otherwise, we'd have long been deemed a socialist nation!

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Jason

          Good points here Pat, David, and Tam, this is shaping up to be a good community. However, even with the Switzerland/Holland examples, we should take that much more seriously than we do. The normalization of social democracy over the past few years in the mainstream media will cause problems later. We have to reject that normalization, and make clear the distinctions between our democratic republic, and the economic egalitarian theology of social democracy. A competing form of government is now out there in the popular imagination.

          (yes I'm an alarmist)

          The era of populism we've entered - well earned by the way - could result in other alterations to our Constitutional system like the new deal between citizen and state that has so warped the public conception of government's role the past hundred years or so.

          David's main point in this piece is spot on, though I can also see more room for concern: when someone talks political revolution, we should take them at their word. It may be that his explicit plan is to sidestep our basic institutional constraints, to use national "direct action" in new (or really old) ways to shape the public debate and create pressure points.

          I'm no longer willing to be surprised by radical turns, our mistake is to underestimate the wellspring of radicalism and our own institutional fidelity as citizens (see current President).

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            From my vantage point social democracy was "normalized" in about 1950, at least in terms of real, tangible policy.

            And I daresay Mr. French's point--and it was certainly my point--is that there most certainly is *not* a "competing form of government" out there when the actual debate is between various shades of our current system.

            Again, there is ZERO talk of a centrally-planned economy, government takeover of industries*, and so on. Not by Bernie, not by anybody serious. (* Except for health insurance, but that takeover started in the 1930s and has muddled along ever since).

            Bernie's talk of "revolution" is just campaign rhetoric.

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Analytic Converter

        I hope you're right, but a starling number of my acquaintances and friends are ready (at least in jokes and memes) to kill the landlords, eat the rich, and so on.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          Kids are like that a lot. They turn establishment when they get older.

          Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    CynthiaW

    "It’s fair to ask why these culturally traditionalist political progressives do not more loudly preach what they practice."

    It isn't only that they don't advocate for traditional morality, but that they seek to destroy anyone who does advocate for traditional morality. If you're a person of note in politics, culture, or business, and you take a public stand such as, "Fornication is wrong," or "A man cannot change into a woman," you will be in a lot of trouble.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Paul Reichardt

      There is a difference between the Online Left and in-the-flesh bougie blue-state liberals (even the ones who adopt the virtual personas of the former when strapping on their social media battle-helmets). When we interact with people assuming the worst about them we often behave in such a manner as to validate the worst they assumed about us, and vice versa.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        CynthiaW

        If saying, "Fornication is wrong," or "A man cannot change into a woman," is an "attack," then ... that's very interesting. If a significant percentage of, say, corporate employees in large coastal cities believe it's okay to believe and say these things (one of which is a moral statement believed by a huge swath of humanity today and an even larger percentage 50 years ago, and the other of which is a verifiable, scientific fact), where are they when coworkers are losing their jobs?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Paul Reichardt

          Cynthia:
          I agree with you that one should be able to express such viewpoints without it being perceived as an attack, but there are historical reasons for people having that reflex to assume otherwise and why there no longer seems to be a cultural space for what used to be mainstream views, fairly or unfairly. In California, at least, I think it has a lot to do with 2008’s Prop 8 (which passed, remember, despite the hope-and-changey fervor of the time) and the subsequent backlash against its proponents, who later threw their support behind such marriage-sanctifying people as Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump.

          As for California corporate culture, I work in an older Silicon Valley tech firm where most of the engineers tend to be more libertarian than progressive, but its largely generational (I’m a 44yo GenXer). The heady entrepreneurial-minded start-up tech culture of the “dot-com” late-90’s has ceded to the more corporate-collectivist tech culture of the late-00’s when the big dogs ate up all the tiny seat-of-the-pants start-ups.

          Understand that the “Big Tech” software-based companies have almost a cult-like dedication to a nebulous “cultural fit” in their hiring practices and have the luxury of choosing from among the smartest STEM-majors from top-tier universities from all over the world. So there’s a natural not necessarily intentional ideological selectivity going on and most employees aren’t necessarily even from California. Plus they tend to be young, have no financial or career worries of significance, and don’t yet have kids, spouses, or Palo Alto mortgages. So even by Bay Area standards, your Facebook culture, for example, is heavily skewed.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            CynthiaW

            Thank you, Paul, that is very informative. It's interesting that our cultural spaces in the U.S. can be as tiny as linguistic spaces in isolated areas of India, Asia, or South America. Philosophically, people on opposite sides of a mountain may have unintelligible languages.

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        David French

        That's a good insight. Left and right are far less unified internally than Twitter would imply, even on the proper approach to cultural issues -- but there is definitely a rally around the flag effect when attacked from outside. The loudest voices tend to define movements, and the loudest voices are not necessarily truly representative.

        Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Ray Salemi

    California might also demonstrate that progressive social values are also quite libertarian, live and let live in the broad sense. Speaking for myself, I see no need to proselytize my traditional life choices to others through politics.

    I don't believe government should not be choosing sides. For example, I believe any two people should be able to get a government document saying they are married, regardless of their church's position on the matter.

    How is this anything but a classically liberal position?

    This story might also suggest that traditional values are linked to wealth. It makes a big difference if one parent can afford to stay home rather than have a case where both parents are working two jobs and constantly juggling their kids.

    In that case, helping people economically and financially (with family leave, for example) is a strong traditional values position.

    Collapse