L
ast year, I voted for Sen. Bernie
Sanders in the Michigan
primary. I was also one of
the nearly 7 million small-dollar
contributors that fueled the Bern.
However, his actions in recent months
have had me asking: what’s up with
Bernie Sanders?
I
supported
Sanders because
I liked that he
ran without the
backing of a billionaire-funded super
PAC and his platform was rife with
ideas and policies that I could get
behind, like aggressively addressing
climate change, making peace with
Iran and Medicare for all.
I cast my vote for Sanders in the
March primary and when he won
Michigan (despite FiveThirtyEight
putting the odds at around 99:1 for
Clinton) I was justifiably excited.
However, as it became clear that Hillary
Clinton would be the Democratic
nominee I accepted it, like any
supporter of a losing candidate should
and moved on to fully supporting her.
Then, after the Dems were utterly
smashed in November 2016, in a time
where the left needed unity and a
coherent plan for the elections to come
in 2018 and in 2020, Sen. Sanders began
acting, well, strange.
First,
Sanders
repeatedly
antagonized new DNC Chair Tom
Perez — who bested Sanders pick in
Rep. Keith Ellison for the role — during
their joint “Come Together and Fight
Back Tour” across several red and
purple states. I can understand why he
has not joined the Democratic Party,
the leadership was not exactly fair to
him in the primaries, but he should
have at least honored the intentions
of the tour instead of inflaming the
troublesome divide among the left that
he played a significant role in creating.
He has also endorsed and
stumped for a string of candidates
across the country, each of which
has lost despite help from America’s
most popular politician.
So all this has me scratching my
head. If Bernie Sanders is going to try
for the Democratic nomination and
the presidency again then why is he not
focused on helping Democrats win?
I concede that the 2018 midterms
are 13 months away. However, Sen.
Sanders has yet to indicate any
interest in helping Democrats save
the few that he finds ideologically pure.
That needs to change.
Looking at his major endorsements
since Ellison, a pattern emerges: the
candidates he has endorsed were either
running in deep red constituencies,
such as Montana at large and Kansas’
4th Congressional District, or in areas
where Clinton won handedly in the
primaries, like Virginia and California.
It’s not hard to see what Sanders
is
trying
to
accomplish:
He
wants to prove that his brand of
progressivism can win both in areas
that went heavily for Trump and in
traditional Democratic strongholds.
Meanwhile,
there
are
critical,
winnable elections that Sen. Sanders
could actually make a significant
impact in. Instead of going all in for
Ben Jealous in Maryland (a reliably
blue state that backed Clinton in
the primaries), Sanders should turn
his eye to Michigan, a state that he
won in the primary but that Trump
won (by a slim margin). Here he
could play a pivotal role in retaining
Democratic control of a Senate seat
and take back a governorship from
the Republican Party.
It does not stop in Michigan either.
Five other states voted the ways
Michigan did in 2016 and will have
Democrats up for reelection in the
Senate. The Republicans need to win
eight seats in 2018 to gain a filibuster-
proof majority. Sanders could have a
significant impact in six of those races.
The math does not get any simpler.
If Sanders wants to push for
Medicare for all and a $15 federal
minimum wage then he needs
allies. While being an outsider is
part of his brand, he is going to
eventually have to make peace with
the
Democratic
establishment.
Helping reelect Sen. Stabenow and
putting a Democratic governor in
Lansing would go a long way towards
achieving that needed peace.
For any potential 2020 Democratic
nominee, supporting Democrats, both
incumbent and challengers, makes a lot
of political sense. They get to put their
name out across the country, collect
key allies and be seen as a leader in the
party. In fact, two of Sanders’ potential
primary opponents, Sens. Cory Booker
and Kamala Harris, are already
fundraising for vulnerable incumbents.
So what’s up with Bernie Sanders?
He has both hinted at and refused
to deny his plans on seeking the
Democratic Party’s nomination to take
on President Trump in 2020. However,
he has done little to deserve it.
Sanders’
callous
disregard
for
helping
Democrats
win
in
the
midterms, even if it is over a year away,
needs to change or the very future to
believe in that he campaigned on risks
death, especially if Republicans gain
their Senate supermajority.
I hope to see Bernie Sanders come
to states like mine and help Democrats
in Michigan and elsewhere win critical
elections. Otherwise, he can count me
out in 2020.
Ali Safawi is a rising junior in the
School of Public Health
5
OPINION
Thursday, July 27, 2017
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
What’s up with Bernie Sanders?
it in its never-ending mission to cut
costs, Wal-Mart also nearly dictates
the business of its own suppliers.
The company is often the majority of
sales for many of its manufacturers,
grocers and other suppliers and
therefore enforces its ideologies
within the walls of businesses not
their own. From pushing facilities
and staff to altering products to
make them cheaper and eventually
forcing
companies
to
move
manufacturing
to
cheaper,
less
regulated overseas locations — Wal-
Mart operates outside of the natural
market forces.
And what this all culminates in is
a radically different economy. Wal-
Mart, truthfully, is not a pleasant
store to shop in. It is often crowded,
a bit chaotic and sparse on both
space and decoration. But again, it
offers the lowest prices. Wal-Mart
plays directly into our American
consumer psychology, tempting us
with the opportunity to save money.
We save money and, in the
process, empty the vibrant and
unique storefronts of downtowns
interlaced
with
family-run
restaurants
and
markets
and
instead
build
warehouse-sized
shopping emporiums on acres of
blacktop parking lots with tacky
chain restaurants where the starved
and bland masses can consume
thousand-calorie meals.
We
further
destroy
the
manufacturing
jobs
of
this
country. We allow businesses to
be outsourced overseas. We buy
products with no care for source and
urging — only price. And whether
or not you personally even shop
at Wal-Mart, this $485 billion-a-
year company dominates the retail
economy we are all a part of.
But Wal-Mart is not evil, it did not
set out to destroy local economies or
alter consumer buying habits. It has
just capitalized on our obsession
with money.
— Michael Mordarski can be
reached at mmordars@umich.edu.
MICHAEL
MORDARSKI
Always low prices
T
he small towns of northern
Michigan that dot the coast
of the Great Lakes offer some
escape
from
the chaotic and
hyperconnected
world we live in.
The majority of
Michiganders
who grew up in the more-populated
southern part of the state understand
the peaceful and nostalgic nature
of what “up north” is. Every small,
coastal community has its own
personality; brief visits to towns
like Petoskey, Traverse City, Alpena
and Harbor Springs offer their own
unique experiences.
And part of those experiences
are the stores and markets that
seem almost extinct to people
from cities — such as small family-
owned furniture stores, hardware
outlets and supermarkets. Nearly a
decade ago, this region of the state
was almost completely free from
the intrusions of the massive chain
stores that are so much a part of
suburban life. The local economy
was dominated by these small
businesses where employees worked
in more enjoyable environments,
specialists knew all about their
products and uniqueness to every
town and city was seen in the proud
storefront windows of downtown
shops.
But eventually, the secluded and
small-town atmospheres grew to
large enough sizes that a specific
retailing corporation took notice of
possible new markets.
Wal-Mart — the supercenter
retailer touting the lowest prices (no
matter the cost). The retailing giant
that claims both titles of largest
private employer in the world and
largest company by revenue.
The arrival of a new Wal-Mart
induced a transformation of these
small towns of northern Michigan
— and over the past decade, these
transformations have served as
examples of the so-called “Wal-
Mart
effect”
that
has
spread
throughout the country. This term,
established
by
journalist
Julie
Morris, was then expertly described
in Charles Fishman’s book, “The
Wal-Mart
Effect.”
He
explains
how the company drastically alters
local economies with their stores.
Wages become depressed, other
retailers are forced to close and the
shopping experience for a consumer
is radically changed on all levels.
The
effect
begins
with
the
construction
of
the
massive
warehouse that is often larger
than 100,000 square feet. This
monstrosity of a building is situated
just a short drive from the heart
of the city, being built remarkably
fast and marketed to the local
population the entire time. Upon
completion, the draw of the entire
institution that has led Wal-Mart
to such incredible success begins
siphoning consumers from other
businesses — Wal-Mart’s “always
low prices.”
Wal-Mart’s driving ideology since
its founding by Sam Walton in 1962
has been to offer the lowest price to
consumers. That ideology still holds
today, and yet this simple, successful
and almost innocent ideology has
had serious consequences that are
easily identifiable in the towns
which these stores arrive.
For when a Wal-Mart arrives, it
immediately begins driving local
prices down, competing with other
retailers. We as consumers are
complicit in this act because Wal-
Mart offers to us an opportunity
we cannot pass over — saving
money, getting a deal, paying less.
Consumers are attracted to the
remarkably low prices offered by
Wal-Mart and cease to buy from
other retailers. Why pay more for a
piece of furniture from some local
family store when Wal-Mart offers it
for less? Why pay more for clothing or
groceries or toys or nearly anything
for that matter? Consumers cannot
pass up the opportunity to pay less,
and in the process local business
slowly die off.
Pushing cost cutting measures
to new heights, Wal-Mart’s profit
margin
has
always
existed
as
remarkably
lower
than
other
competitors, yet in the end, the
company
succeeds
because
it
drives competition out of business.
In addition to the small local
businesses, other department stores
and retailers such as Sears, JCPenny
and Kmart have been unable to
compete with Wal-Mart’s almost
ruthless corporate mission. “The
lowest price” may seem like an
innocent and simple ideology for a
company — yet when that company
makes $485 billion dollars a year in
revenue, the effects are astounding.
As Charles Fishman writes in
“The Wal-Mart Effect,” the company
“is increasingly beyond the control
of market forces that capitalism
relies on to enforce fair play. Wal-
Mart isn’t subject to the market
forces because it is creating them.”
Shaping the retail market around
ALI SAFAWI