I am not a "Bernie bro," yet

The holier-than-thou Hillary Clinton supporters who continue to rail against those Bernie Sanders supporters who have professed that they will not vote for Clinton under any circumstances, including the general election in November, are only strengthening the resolve of Sanders supporters and may, ironically, end up recruiting more "Bernie or Bust" diehards. This has a lot less to do with what Clinton-backers have to say about Sanders, and a lot more to do with what they are insinuating about those who are "feeling the Bern."

People do not take kindly to being insulted, and that is exactly what many of Clinton's supporters and the Democratic National Committee are doing to those who are supporting Bernie Sanders, even if unintentionally. Those advocating for Clinton may think they are harmlessly reminding the Sanders camp that the real focus needs to be on defeating the Republican party nominee in November, and the sooner everyone is on board with the same candidate and platform, the better. What I suspect Bernie's supporters are hearing is that "you silly, young, naive folks need to fall in line and get with the program."

This is the same kind of crap that I remember hearing in my late twenties, even thirties, after I had dropped out of college. When people would offer the advice that I should "go back and finish your degree," what I heard was: "You have no right to succeed unless you do it the traditional way that I and everyone else has had to!" So, when you ask us Sanders supporters to "please, recognize we must triumph over Republicans at all cost," what we hear is: "You are delusional to believe anything Sanders is feeding you, that there is any alternative whatsoever to Elephant versus Ass, no way we are ever going to achieve those 'pie in the sky' dreams of universal healthcare, livable wage, and everything else Sanders stands for." Well, baloney. "But that's not what we are saying," you claim. Doesn't matter. That is what we are hearing, and perception equals reality, especially in politics.

My impressions of this brand of Clinton supporter are probably equally flawed and overly-generalized. Here is my take, obviously exaggerated to make a point: Well, you must be perfectly happy with the status quo, then. You must be happy being a low- to mid-level employee in a multi-national corporation where you get a respectable wage, health insurance, a 401K, etc. Maybe you think that your membership in the Audubon Society is enough to guarantee that legislation adverse to the environment can be kept to a minimum. Maybe supporting the local homeless shelter is a sufficient means of mitigating the profound, institutionalized oppression of the poor. Get it, yet?

There is no perfect candidate, certainly. No argument there, but unless the Clinton backers start understanding the emotions and real-life struggles that Sanders supporters have at the heart of their very being, you really risk permanently alienating even more potential Clinton supporters should she win the party nomination. I am frankly astonished that Sanders is not winning every demographic. I am middle-aged, and I support Sanders because, in the immortal words of Peter Finch's character in Network, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" Sanders has catalyzed this sentiment better than any previous candidate in my politically-aware lifetime.

I have this image of Bernie leaving his house for work every morning, and above the inside door frame is a sign that reads: "In case of emergency, run for President." Seriously, if he is running for the highest office, it says to me that things are even worse than we citizens imagine, and this may be our very last chance to change things. But, hey, if you still prefer "the Devil you know," you have the right to vote for other candidates. Keep up the condescending rhetoric, though, and you won't just lose potential political allies, you'll start losing personal friends.

Bernie Sanders and the Debt Class

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has made the central issue of his campaign the idea that our government has abandoned its responsibilities to the middle class. I would go a step farther and argue that we don't have a "middle class" at all. What we have is a "debt class" masquerading as a middle class. Debt has become an acceptable concept for politicians and ordinary citizens alike, and actively encouraged by financial institutions that reap huge profits at our collective expense. We're propped up as local, state, and federal governments, and family budgets. We are not solvent in the least.

Not only are we encouraged to borrow, we are punished for saving money by horrendously low interest rates. I still cannot understand why there cannot be separate interest rates for borrowing and saving, but that is the current situation and it is intolerable. One should earn more than (less than) pennies on the dollar for their personal or family emergency fund.

How do we accomplish changes to the status quo? Goals must be set in both legislation and personal consumer choices. We need to resist the temptation to borrow, to "keep up with the Jones'" lifestyle. Service, sharing, and generosity should be our personal governing concepts, not the accumulation of material wealth. We can do that without a government mandate. Those admirable ideals can, however, be enhanced by policies that reward those behaviors, and reward work rather than inherited wealth and corporate excess.

One of the quickest roads to bankruptcy in the U.S.A. is a health catastrophe. When even one hospital visit can put your bank account in arrears, and/or force you to beg on GoFundMe, we have a societal issue. So, addressing healthcare is paramount to turning around the personal debt crisis. A single-payer system ("Medicare for All"), as Sanders advocates, would be a great next step for the Affordable Care Act.

Student loans are another source of debt, and if we could at least make an effort at reducing college costs, if not making higher education free as many other developed nations have, then that would put many people on a more level playing field. When you consider the current minimum wage against cost of living and student debt, it is a wonder any young person can afford housing and a car, let alone a family.

Raising the minimum wage to at least fifteen dollars an hour is doable, with tax credits for small businesses. We should be actively encouraging more small businesses, so reward them as employers and entrepreneurs, and do not demand them to play by the same rules as multinational corporations.

Collect taxes from corporations currently avoiding taxation. End bailouts, subsidies, and other forms of corporate welfare. The revenue from this alone would likely reduce some individual tax rates, as well as reducing the federal deficit.

Meanwhile, we have to take some personal responsibility. We should start saving in spite of the poor returns at the present time. Cut up the credit cards. Flee big banks and put our money in accounts at credit unions where customers come first and there are no shareholders. Stop patronizing payday loan and rent-to-own enterprises that prey on our desire for instant cash or merchandise. Live frugally for ourselves, generously for others. Demand that the media stop obsessing over the wealthy.

What was it Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. said? Something about "the content of their character." He was denouncing racism, but I suspect that today he would add that we shouldn't be judging the self-worth of others by the content of their bank accounts, either. That should most definitely not be the measure of any man (or woman) today.

Ok, so maybe we can do some of this. What would be the result? Were I a gambling man, I would bet that you would see some or all of the following result from increased wages, reduced debt, and overall fiscal responsibility: Alcoholism and drug abuse would decrease because of decreased stress from debt and poverty. Theft, illegal gambling, and related crimes would decrease with rising income. Frivolous litigation would decrease because currently lawsuits are viewed in part as a way to make up for low wage income. Employment would increase because one person wouldn't need three jobs to make ends meet. Dependence on welfare programs would begin declining. Volunteerism would increase because people would have more time free from wage-earning.

Bernie Sanders has, unfortunately, failed to articulate these connections between wealth disparity and the negative behaviors that result from it, let alone the potential benefits of reforming income inequality. Still, he is endorsed by virtually every economist in the land. We have at hand an unprecedented opportunity to begin reversing trends that, left to continue, will be the ruin of our society. I urge you only to think very carefully about both your vote at the booth, and how you vote with your hard-earned dollars in the marketplace.