I have been asked why I as a democratic socialist oppose Bernie Sanders's democratic socialist candidacy. I have, over the years, pre-answered this question, but of course it is acutely relevant now and I cannot expect that all readers will recall my reasoning. So I'll take a moment to review.
Yes, ideologically I am a democratic socialist. Virtually all of us are to some extent, in that virtually all of us support some measure of redistributionism so that sociopolitically lethal, capitalistic concentrations of wealth are contained (we have done quite the piss-poor job of this) and so that the lesser advantaged have greater opportunities and an enhanced quality of life (at this we have done a better job, even if income inequality haunts as perniciously as it did in the Jazz and Gilded Ages). Indeed I find democratic socialism ideologically irrefutable in its human decency, its sublime aspirations, and its general historical success.
Yet whatever democratic socialism (as it's traditionally defined) we have achieved in the United States has come pragmatically and, above all, incrementally. The other night I heard a young Sanders supporter defending her candidate's notional "political revolution": Social Security, black civil rights and female suffrage, she argued, had all come about in a kind of lightning-strike way, as could Bernie's revolution in single-payer and the like. Hers was a profoundly counterfactual history. Social Security was, originally, a limited, racially discriminatory safety net; the civil rights movement was far, far more than a 1960s affair (and it's still in progress); and women's struggle for the vote spanned decades. Bad history may make for splendid propaganda; as a foundation for realistic advancements, however, it stinks.
Thus politically — not ideologically, just politically — I throw in with the pragmatic side. Idealists dream and pragmatists accomplish. Idealists are indispensable, yet in America's non-revolutionary and rather conservative political system, it's the pragmatists who take those dreams and make something from them — bit by incremental bit. This reality is, I know, a disagreeable one to eager idealists. I sympathize, but I also live in the real world. We cannot "have it all" through sheer force of will and idealistic mobilization, as the young Sanders supporter maintained the other night. The electoral numbers just don't add up.
Neither would a blitzkrieged democratic socialism at the top of the Democratic ticket be idealistically advisable, for with it would come massive blowback. Propelling a much fuller socialism before its time would only retard socialism's natural growth. That, more than anything, it what disturbs me about Sanders's national "revolution." It is not only hopelessly idealistic; it is vastly premature. In 10, 20 years or 30, as the younger, somewhat socialistically friendly American generation ages into a more formidable electoral force, then some of what Sanders is selling could be politically possible. For now, the socialist "movement" is too weak, and there's nothing more politically self-destructive than launching an offense before sufficient force is assembled. Leaden failures breed monumental disillusionment.
To retain one's idealism is a noble thing; to practice pragmatism in the grinding pursuit of achievable idealism is a public service — less noble, perhaps, but of real and practical benefit. And all the above, simply put, is why I as a democratic socialist oppose the democratic socialist's presidential candidacy.