Bernie Sanders: An Ideology not a Candidate

10/13 Democratic Presidential Debate

When Sanders trots on stage of the first Democratic Presidential Debate on CNN, his suit that is a tad too big, his hair that balds of experience, and his slouch that reminiscences of your grandfather immediately elicit sympathy. Suitably, Bernie’s stances equally attract: his stubbornness against accepting PAC money. And his ideals to reform Wall Street, bring back the middle class, provide free college tuition, and bring social justice to all… Unfortunately, Bernie is not qualified to be president; he has no understanding of foreign affairs and his progressive ideas are impractical.

The first wave of heat turns to foreign relations. Hilary takes charge, commanding the stage with her experience. Bernie however is a novice. Regarding American troops in Syria, Bernie opposes, citing the usage of coalitions to address crisis under his belief that the United States should not get involved in unilateral action. Sadly, foreign disputes are not that easy to resolve; a committee is a tool not a solution. Hilary dives in, proposing to use leverage to get Russia to the negotiating table regarding Syria. While Clinton’s proposal is arguably vague, hers at least has semblance of policy. What exactly would Sanders do with his coalitions? We don’t know. And frankly it appears neither does he.

What is more alarming about Sanders is his avoidance of questions on issues he doesn’t understand. On addressing the greatest security threat under the topic of foreign relations, Chafee cites chaos in the Middle East; O’Malley cites the nuclear threat; Clinton cites the nuclear threat; and Web cites long-term relations with China. But the great progressive Bernie Sanders, what does he cite? Climate change. Against the cheers and howls of the audience, I winced;  I would’ve appreciated that Sanders at least respected the question. As commander in chief, foreign affairs matter a lot. And a president that is 50% unqualified seriously alarms me.

On social reforms, Bernie regains his charm. On the question regarding if black lives mattered, Bernie turned to the injustice of Sandra Bland’s death, the need to combat institutional racism and issue reforms in criminal justice systems. Regarding the wage gap, despite already having interjected his views in various unrelated topics prior, Sanders passionately urged the return of the middle class. He notes the obvious, that we need to create millions of jobs. But how? By raising the minimum wage to $15, building infrastructure, reforming “disaster trade policies”, and providing free public college tuition. Ironically not a single proposal creates jobs. While building infrastructure and reforming “disaster trade policies” sound appealing, neither is concrete enough to carry. And while raising the minimum wage and providing free college tuition certainly elicit cheers, Bernie has no solid explanation for how.

From where would Sanders get his dough? Reform Wall Street! Tax Wall Street and use the money to pay for free college tuition!!! It sounds simple. And ironically, that’s exactly what it is: simple and naïve. O’Malley immediately rebuts Sanders, pointing out that the casino mega bank gambling and the commercial banking sectors are different: to propose Wall Street taxation as the all-encompassing solution shows ignorance towards the financial sector. Clinton proposes to break up the big banks: the shadow banking that participates in speculative behavior. However, when the mic returns to Sanders, he resorts to rhetoric, bellowing that the United States is engaging in greedy and reckless behavior, fraud as a business model destroys, and congress doesn’t regulate Wall Street: Wall Street regulates congress. Rhetoric works well with easy listeners; ranting is liberating and it’s easy to agree on problems. But did Sanders propose any concrete solution? Not at all. Ironically, by pointing out that congress doesn’t regulate Wall Street as a rebuttal against Clinton, Sanders refutes himself. By admitting that congress has no control over the institution he’s proposing as funding for his free tuition college plan, Sanders renders his platform of social change a fluke.

Naturally, Anderson Cooper addresses the impracticality of Sander’s platform, asking Sanders if he is willing to risk our nation’s financial stability for his personal beliefs. To my disgust, Sanders pulled out his rhetoric card once again, dodging the question entirely for an irrelevant rant about how it is wrong for the middle class to bail out Wall Street. Humorously, Sanders answered Cooper’s question. The indirect answer is yes: Sander’s progressive socialism, while idealistic, will fatally drain our economy. All in all, Sander’s performance at the debate was disappointing. While the merits of Sanders are indisputable – he pushed serious contenders like Clinton to address issues like Wall Street reform – he is not qualified to be president. Sanders as commander in chief is geopolitical suicide. Sanders as president in general is financial disaster.