Hey Sush! I don't think every student's views are based on idealism. That is how the media portrays. Again this is based on opinion not asserting anything for facts here. But studies show we had our most booming economic times during the progressive era. An era as Chosmky said, where both republicans and democrats alike use to staunch defenders of the new deal. Again the media will never mention this because their out to portray Bernie Sanders as someone scary. I had this discussion with my public policy Proffesor today.
The media says Bernie Sander agenda is unrealistic. What their is missing is that many of the positions Bernie has proposed were actually a REALITY during the progressive era. For an example, public universities were once close to free, in Cali at least ,back when we spent less money on nation building around the world, less many on building our army which is already larger than next 52 counteries combined and less money of putting young ppl behind bars for non-violent crimes. Tax rates for the top use to be high even under republican presidents once. Fair distribution of wealth was a reality. I wont call it redistribution. Because much of it has gone middle class up, by overworking them and underpaying. And the single-payer we actually have more ppl on medicar than many counteries. It is what FDR and many other democrats tried to achieve themselves. But again the media never mentions this.
Again I am not someone heavily burdened by student loan debt. My parents are paying mine for me. But if we once at a rate were everyone with potential could study than why not???
We can make one argument that economy became more global in today time. Especially after the first Clinton administration decided to included China into the global economy back in the 90s. But than again Sweden is also living in a global economy it has matched US in terms of economic growth.
I know Clinton says the inequality gap closed somewhat under him. But I'm sure even he knows it was not nearly as close as much it was back in progressive and New Deal era.
I know no one beats Hillary in terms of knowledge on foreign policy. But like the article I posted earlier stated the approach matters more. A realist approach could have worked better. An Jeffrey Sachs has stated that a realist approach was not one Hillary imbibed as sec of state.
My peers can prob do a much better job defending their decision than me. Especially some of my TAs. But I feel it's a lot more than the idealism that the media portrays it to be.
Again none of these claims is indisputable ppl can agree to disagree. And their is a valid question on how is he going to get it done even with so many youngsters mobilizing around him when so many ppl have moved to the right? But I don't think just because something isn't easy you shouldn't try. Which is why I am pround of him from running outside the establishment. When his chances of winning seem minimal. Even Nate Silver had Hillary leading Nevada now.
And I from Massachusetts. He is leading some poles here too.
Edited by grumpydwarf - 9 years ago
Cricket
Anupamaa
1k