Why Not Bernie?

#218: He's Brash, Quick, Powerful
.........................

I admit, I've been hard on Senator Sanders.  And while I don't retract anything I've said, I do admire a force that moves the conversation towards the sensible.  So, here's a toast to the burner, himself.

Take his recent statements about the US military.  Essentially, we're spending way too much, and lining the pockets of defense industry big wigs to boot.  I agree 100% with those sentiments.

I think the best approach politically, though, is to have a combined good cop/bad cop message, with  Bernie and Co. moving the conversation, and the actual presidential candidate aiming for what's really at stake: the Senate.  Winning a senate seat in Iowa, for example, will require a calming, assuring manner that doesn't feed the fears stoked by Republicans, but instead emphasizes inherent advantages like Who do you trust with health care?, Who looks out for the little guy?,  Who'll do something about Climate Change?, and Who bases policy on expert opinion, rather than greed?

Since these messages will win, absent too much fear-mongering, Bernie would be most effective in the senate, keeping the conversation progressive.

And what can we expect from the Senate, the traditional bottleneck to progressivism? As I've described before (link), senators need not do away with the filibuster (a 60-vote super-majority required for all legislation), but simply create an exception:
   Step 1: Create expert panels on various topics: the Climate Crisis, Voting, Nutrition, Bio-Diversity, Defense, Reproductive Health, Drug Policy, Education Funding, etc.
   Step 2: Hold hearings where senators are advised on a particular issue.
   Step 3: Allow legislation, informed by said hearings, and endorsed by the relevant experts, to pass with a 51-vote majority.
This preserves the filibuster, but allows informed, progressive legislation.  And, it emphasizes the enormous gulf between knowledge-based, and a mob-based politics.

Because Senator Sanders represents a challenge to how we think, I have a challenge for him: How would he reconcile the needs of a deserving people, who've set up a remarkably democratic, egalitarian, non-sexist, environmentally-informed government (and have been the backbone in defeating ISIS) with his lighter foot-print overseas foreign policy thrust?  The Rojava peoples (mainly Kurds, but also including others) now host huge detention camps containing captured ISIS men, women and children.

Could the answer be that we focus on optimism, and encourage the good, rather than fear, which highlights the bad?