The Differences Between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders
Image courtesy of realclearpolitics.com
By NIKHIL PANDE ‘21
In recent years, a new wing of the Democratic party has emerged: the progressives. In the 2020 Democratic primaries, the policies and ideals of this electorate, populated in large part by millennials and youth ages 18 to 35, are represented by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. To the naked eye, these two candidates seem almost identical in their policy proposals. However, there remain key differences that will help the progressive wing decide who gets the progressive nod towards the nomination.
Firstly, Warren and Sanders disagree on the method to ultimately implement a system of universal health care. Sanders believes he can pass Medicare for All through Congress right off the bat, whereas Warren has proposed a three-year public option to adapt the markets before the transition to single payer healthcare. Secondly, the failure of Sanders to mobilize the progressives in 2016 leaves a poor aftertaste for Democrats, especially because of his impact on the ultimate result of the 2016 general election. Finally, economic theory differs between Sanders, who is a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, and Warren, who supports a well-regulated capitalist economy.
One of the centerpieces of the progressive platform is its plan to institute a government-run universal healthcare system, or in Washington terms, Medicare for All. But the plans of the two candidates to get this promise implemented differ dramatically. Sanders believes Congress will pass a plan to abolish the multi-trillion dollar healthcare industry and fund government-run healthcare for 350 million Americans within his first 100 days. This proposal demands not only full support from Democrats, but also a few Republican votes if the Republicans hold the majority through 2020; neither of these promises of support is probable in the short term. However, Senator Warren has a comprehensive transition plan for America—a temporary 3-year public option, similar to Obamacare—as a way to move the economy away from the grasp of corporate health insurance executives while allowing due time for Congress to agree.
Although many believe that Sanders gave voice to the millions of sidelined progressives that emerged during the decades of rule by Democratic and Republican establishments, he also may have contributed to the election of Donald Trump. Many cite his inability to unite the party after his loss in the 2016 primary as a reason why Clinton failed to win key states such as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, especially because of the overwhelming youth vote that has become progressive. In 2008 and somewhat in 2012, Barack Obama’s ability to capture the youth vote guided him to the Oval Office, while Hillary Clinton’s failure to do the same prevented her from winning. But it wasn’t simply a failure by Hillary Clinton; in fact, it was the level to which Bernie’s campaign, and consequently America’s millennials, wanted a rebuke of the Democratic establishment.
One of the fundamental points behind Bernie Sanders’ campaign is economic justice, a belief that our capitalist society has failed by delivering more and more money to the top 1% and less and less to the working class. Sanders’ solution is simple: establish a system of democratic socialism, wherein the government operates in democracy but the economy operates in socialism. He believes that capitalism, a concept that has cultivated America to its current power, has failed us. Elizabeth Warren, however, doesn’t believe in a full jettison of our capitalist society; if we can regulate those who have taken extreme advantage of the system—the Wall Street executives, for one—we can rebuild our economy that better functions for the bottom 99% of America.
With Massachusetts Democrats voting on Super Tuesday in their primary, progressive voters must draw a distinction between the two frontrunners in this state. Despite the unity of Sanders and Warren in representing the progressive wing of the party throughout most of the election cycle, their specific proposals and characteristics diverge slightly, and these differences may help progressives decide which candidate to consolidate behind. Three distinctions stand out: their health care plans, their level of cooperation with the Democratic base, and their fundamental economic beliefs. At the end of the day, however, for the Democrats to maximize their capacity to beat President Trump, these progressives must find commonality with the moderate wing and choose one person, someone who can unify the party, to throw into the ring come November.