GAMADES: Sanders’ impassioned rhetoric can’t run the country

I have a love/hate relationship with political discourse on Facebook. It’s my guilty pleasure. It doesn’t matter if it’s half-baked propaganda or relevant commentary. I check it all out. Sometimes I even comment. I can’t help myself. And normally I wouldn’t bother making note of something I saw on my newsfeed, but I was overwhelmed with the barrage of arguments over who won the Oct. 13 Democratic debate, which are still popping up even almost a week later.

I can’t count how many outraged statuses I’ve seen about the results of the unscientific surveys given after the debate. These surveys, which you could refresh and take again, proclaimed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (a candidate whose main audience is eager, Internet-savvy millennials) the winner, despite most news media calling former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton the victor (It’s worth noting she regained her lead in New Hampshire after this debate.)

I’ve seen people range in tone from complaining about the corporate media to insinuating those surveys were the immediate equivalent of the Electoral College. One person proclaimed Sanders the winner because he was “raw and unscripted,” and Clinton was too “polished.”

If you ask me, “raw and unscripted” is how you try to advertise professional wrestling, not a presidential campaign. Which is still kind of my point: even if you try to broadcast yourself as “unscripted,” it’s rehearsed. Put some lotion on your Bern and do a reality check with me.

While part of Sanders’ “gruff but socially conscious uncle” image may be based in truth, presidential campaigns are carefully orchestrated. And when some Bernie 2016 staff member started seeing Tumblr users Photoshopping flower crowns onto his head, he or she knew exactly what audience they were playing to.

Campaigns are designed to project certain qualities, and it’s dangerous to forget that. It is naive to believe Bernie Sanders is running because he is an altruistic savior who wants to fix us in our hour of need. Sanders differs from other politicians in some respects, and perhaps he is more genuine than many, but he’s still a politician.

Many of Sanders’ supporters appear to believe he has been the most consistent human being on the planet in regards to social issues. While Sanders has always been liberal, he is not without some faulty areas: his shaky stance on gun control, his insistence that he has always been vehemently in favor of LGBT rights despite opposing against gay marriage as recently as 2006 and his adding a racial justice platform to his website only after being interrupted by Black Lives Matter protestors at a rally. There could be worse errors, but it’s frustrating to see supporters not only ignore these missteps, but fervently make excuses for them to keep Sanders’ “spotless” social justice vibe alive.

I’m glad Sanders has gotten part of our generation excited about politics. However, there’s a difference between getting excited about a candidate and putting on such thick blinders that you’ll openly accept potentially dangerous pitfalls but also insist he’s still the best candidate because he’s so “real.” I saw someone insist that Sanders, as theoretical President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, wouldn’t have to know that much about foreign policy as long as he had a strong Secretary of State — the same sentence mentioned Sanders’ “congeniality.”

Sanders can offer up grandiose, big picture ideas that would be wonderful in theory. The thing is, if Sanders were somehow elected by a country that has an inbred fear of socialism, he’d most likely be working with a Republican dominated Congress until at least 2020. He’s proposing federal spending of roughly $18 trillion in the next ten years, and while his goals are noble, that plan coming to fruition is just about impossible.

Sanders has represented Vermont his entire political career: a state that is 95 percent white and is the 2nd least populous state in the U.S., which has voted Democrat since 1992. While in Congress, although he was pretty successful at getting his bills to the floor, he passed three into law: two regarding veterans’ affairs, and one that renamed a post office. Only 9 percent of the 69 bills he introduced had bipartisan support. To say he could bully pulpit his way into getting things passed leaves me wondering what precedent we have to believe that is possible.

Sanders represents idealism. He’s a great legislator, good speaker and great cooperator — he holds all characteristics of a good senator. But idealistic shouldn’t be the defining characteristic of the President of the United States. Saying things are bad and he’s going to fix them can excite a crowd, but if he doesn’t say how he’s realistically going to fix them, impassioned rhetoric is not going to do us any good.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this column stated that Sanders voted against gay marriage in 2006. He did not vote against gay marriage, but he did oppose it, according to Slate.