Thursday, March 17, 2016

A Thought on Bernie Sanders’ Rhetorical Strategy

The Sanders campaign has combined what ought to be mainstream liberalism and rhetorical radicalism.  Consider—you don’t have to go all the way to Denmark; Canada already has single payer healthcare and free higher education.  This is not a program from out in the ozone somewhere; it’s perfectly normal welfare state capitalism.  He dresses it up, however, in language about revolution and upheaval, even using the daring s-word.  This has shown a lot of appeal to young voters but may also intimidate others who might support him, and it would probably be a handicap in a general election against a truly radical, destabilizing Republican.  You would want to call attention to the risk posed by a Trump or a Cruz by presenting yourself as a safer choice.

Why not do it the other way around?  Push the policies further to the left by proposing changes to corporate governance and more far-reaching reform of labor law (for instance), while speaking in soothing language about “updating” the economy, improving performance, evidence-based approaches, etc.?  I think the more ideologically attuned portion of his base would value stronger substance, while the less fire-breathing posture (sorry about the mixed metaphor) would assuage the worries of those less inclined to take a giant leap.

I realize it’s way too late for this, and it goes against Bernie’s personality type, but perhaps it can be given more thought next time around.

4 comments:

Peter said...

I think Sanders did as well as he did because he rhetorically "Went Big."

It's also because it's what he believes. He's authentic which is what the younger and more liberal voters appreciate. He's not your typical politician who tailors their rhetorical strategy in order to gain the most votes.

To be successful Sanders does need a "revolution" in citizen participation in order to win the House and push Democrats to the left.

He sees mainstream (corporate/centrist/moderate/Third Way) Democrats as part of the problem. He's not going to win over those who are afraid of his "fire breathing" posture. He needs more young people and workers to participate in order to overcome the resistance of more timid citizens.

Establishment politics isn't going to be enough to prevent Global Warming or a Piketty death-spiral of inequality.

I think a politician who was pushing a more radical agenda than Sanders and was less fire breathing would be crushed by the establishment unless he was backed by massive popular support.

ProGrowthLiberal said...

"Push the policies further to the left by proposing changes to corporate governance and more far-reaching reform of labor law (for instance), while speaking in soothing language about “updating” the economy, improving performance, evidence-based approaches, etc.?"

Some progressives were (and may still be) hoping that Bernie would push Hillary in adopting the above. Her rhetoric fits but will her policy proposals live up if she becomes President?

Sandwichman said...

As Anatol Rapoport said of the game theorists:

“...the cognitive assumptions of the strategists are neither revealed truths nor self-evident facts. They are rather derivatives of a power-oriented value system, which sharply delimits the cognitive horizon of its adherents. It is high time we stopped identifying narrowness of vision with ‘realism.’ It is high time to stop calculating long enough to think awhile, perhaps even to listen to the voice of our conscience.”

Jack said...

"Her rhetoric fits but will her policy proposals live up if she becomes President?"
That is the disconnect that many progressives seem to understand about Clinton, but have trouble identifying. It's less a matter of what her policy proposals will be, but more to the point that her long political life gives little evidence that her current rhetoric is reality based. I would think that a great many people are wondering who is Hillary Clinton. Is she the person currently campaigning for the Presidency or the individual who shared an ideology with her husband that was in too many ways injurious to the working class and always seemed to be a dyed in the wool hawk. Of course there is the other issue of her some how managing to gather together an enormous amount of personal wealth over a very short period of time. To say nothing of her daughter's riding high on the family's wagon. But maybe that's what appeals to the American voter. We seem to be headed once again to a choice between the lesser of evils.