There's an American tradition of lying to children and telling them if they behave, they'll be rewarded with toys from Santa Claus on Christmas. There are a variety of explanations as the origins of this mythological figure. But at this point he's entrenched in American culture and finding out that Santa Claus is fictional is a rite of passage for most children in the USA.
Hypothetically, telling children they will be rewarded for good behavior could make them do better in school, less likely to commit crime and more likely to do their chores. But in 2019 1 in 4 Americans expected to go into debt to pay for the holidays and more than half (52%) of Americans said they would skip holiday gift giving if they could.
So perhaps the belief in Santa Claus causes more pessimism than optimism. Children will eventually learn that their gifts cost money and that somebody had to work to provide those gifts.
But that's not inevitable - there are charities which distribute toys and practical items to underprivileged children. Voters could demand that the Federal government guarantees every child a gift for Christmas. It's interesting that the Senior Senator of the State of Vermont, Bernard "Bernie" Sanders hasn't proposed any such plan. He's proposed Medicare for All, College for All, a "Green" New Deal, Expansion of Social Security, Housing for All, High Speed Internet For All, Legalizing Marijuana as well as twenty other plans.
I suppose if he succeeded in implementing all of the plans on his website, children wouldn't be upset if they didn't get a toy on Christmas - even though they might be confused that a man who looks so much like Santa Claus has priorities other than giving them toys.
Some think that the DNC acted like a Grinch and prevented Senator Sanders from becoming President. There's some truth to their claims the Chair of Hillary Clinton's 2016 Presidential Campaign, John Podesta had his email hacked which revealed that Democratic National Committee Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall suggested characterizing Senator Sanders as an atheist to ensure he lost the Democratic Primaries in Kentucky and West Virginia.
That evidence, along with other facts has led many Sanders supporters to suggest that the DNC 'rigged' the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.
Aside from the evidence from Wikileaks - there are other anomalies in Hillary Clinton's 2016 Democratic Primary Victory. An analysis of the voices and speech during Presidential debates shows that the candidate with a deeper voice usually wins. And there's evidence showing that the taller candidate wins Presidential Elections 2/3rds of the time. So how could the 5 ft 5 in woman (women usually have less deep voices than men) defeat the either 5 ft 10 in or 6 ft 0 in at his tallest baritone voiced Bernard Sanders?
Why would any voter choose to support an establishment candidate who has been in Washington DC for decades? Perhaps it's because of her experience or the fact that her husband was President. But Hillary Clinton did receive 3,708,294 more votes (12.1 more percentage points) and 977 (out of 4707) more delegates than Senator Sanders. Maybe if voters knew the contents of the Podesta emails, they would have voted differently.
But the email sent criticizing Sanders' atheism was sent in at 2016-05-05 when there were only 1094 delegates and twelve primaries left (three of these primaries were in Guam, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico - regions which do not cast electoral votes in the general election). Senator Sanders would need a Christmas Miracle to catch up to Secretary Clinton - even if you exclude the superdelegates.
So even though the DNC acted improperly - there's not much of a case to be made that Sanders had a chance of winning in 2016. Yet the 'rigged' narrative persists, perhaps because so called 'Bernie Bros' have harassed reporters critical of Sanders.
But you can hardly blame voters for not having a nuanced understanding of the allocation of delegates during a long campaign where most of the media attention was focused on Donald Trump's extreme statements. Additionally American student's test scores in mathematics are worse than those of children in many other comparable countries
Sanders wants to cancel $1.6 trillion in student loans (and has many other generous plans for future students) yet nothing on his plan for K-12 education costs nearly that much. It's almost like he cares more about educating people who might vote for him than the 15.4% of students who drop out of high school or those who graduate unprepared or not wanting to go to college. Of course Vermont has the 10th highest high school graduation rate in the USA so maybe Bernie just isn't aware of how people outside Vermont live.
Sanders has deflected criticisms of self-characterization as a Democratic Socialist by pointing to the success of Scandinavian countries (though he's inaccurate in his characterization of those countries). Additionally Norway's demographics are relatively similar to Vermont's, but those demographics are substantially different from the rest of the United States.
It was after his heart attack that I began to seriously question whether Bernie Sanders was leading a cult of personality. Do we really want to put somebody who believes it's a good idea for a 78 years old who recently had a heart attack in charge of a medical program which could cost $32 trillion over ten years? Bernie Sanders only significant original legislation is a VA healthcare bill which preceded a major scandal.
I'm doubtful that Sanders most dedicated supporters will ever support a traditional Democratic Part Candidate. The Russian Internet Research Agency targeted Sanders supporters and discouraged them from voting for Hillary Clinton. President Trump tweeted "They are rigging the election again against Bernie Sanders, just like last time, only even more obviously."
At present Senator Sanders is considered by many to be the front runner. It's not quite clear to me what his supporters are thinking. Do they want to try to replace one populist outsider with another? He has a big vision of reducing inequality but in 2016 far he received $134,669,942 in small donations and more recent reports show teacher was the most common profession of donors, and Starbucks, Amazon, and Walmart were the most common employers of donors.
So far the Sanders campaigns have transferred money from the poor and middle class to media companies with limited transperency (who obviously transferred some of that money to TV networks and facebook - the same big businesses Sanders criticizes). And he spent more than Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic Primary He wasn't able to effectively transfer his supporters' financial contributions into convincing more people to support him.
Things could be different in 2020 - he could receive even more money from poor and middle class people and lose in the general election. Or he could win and fail to implement his policies. Or his policies might not work as well as his supporters hope and lead to a worse economy and more inequality.
So I urge Sanders supporters to consider the possibility that grandiose promises made by somebody with a weak track record and a short life expectancy can easily backfire.
Or else they may be giving Donald Trump a very Merry Christmas in 2020.
(header image from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/23/rush-limbaugh-sanders-16t-climate-change-plan-more/)
Posts
