My head wants a pragmatic leader capable of taking charge in cases of foreign relations and national security. This president would be enough of a centrist to accomplish some things I want for this country while making concessions in other areas, allowing for bipartisan reform with serviceable congressional relationships.
My heart hurts for the victims of the welfare gap, born into a persistent social class system designed to profit off of their collective labor and talents. My heart also wants a charismatic leader who governs with transparency and has the ability to draw out more of the >40 percent of the electorate who didn’t vote in 2012.
So which do you trust? The empathetic side led by a growing concern over social issues or the pragmatic centrist who may be able to actually push legislation through? Why do they two have to be mutually exclusive?
It’s been said that Bernie Sanders is the best thing to happen to the Clinton campaign. His far left rhetoric is forcing Hillary to adjust in ways inconceivable a year ago. And while Sanders is still a consensus 10 points behind Clinton, 10 percent of the party is undecided – leaving the candidates virtually neck and neck. This sort of competition is driving Clinton to call upon her dedicated voter blocs, like blacks and older women,while altering her positions just enough to appeal to the far left. Meanwhile Sanders is drawing in groups that don’t trust Clinton into the progressive fold and conversation.
My prediction is one of disappointment. Like many outspoken millennials, I would like Sanders to be elected on a surface level. But I know this shouldn’t happen. The last time the party elected a charismatic leader that united and inspired the electorate, he had a hard time getting legislation through a conservative Congress. I’d rather nominate a centrist whose ideas are enough to provide incremental change to the nation through congressional legislation. Somebody who has learned while failing under a microscope, like Hillary Clinton.
Bernie Sanders is necessary for this country, says my heart. His sharp rhetoric aimed at the systematic inequality our capitalist system breeds is telling. His brand of “radicalism” is needed to advance a conversation and shape the ideals of a nation. However, I believe that change is best served in smaller bite-sized portions. Sanders is the nominee this country needs but doesn’t deserve.
I voted for Hillary because she has faced adversity and lost the public’s trust. Because she isn’t great with seeming genuine or appealing to the youth. Because she’s had to claw back from national humiliation served by her husband. Hillary knows foreign relations better than any other candidate in either party and has the most high level experience aside from Sanders, who excels with domestic policy but is otherwise lacking.
So I guess my head won.