In my many roles as an engineer, I am often told that to truly understand something is to be able to speak its essence in 30 seconds or less. This doesn't mean that you expect all of your knowledge to be passed off with a handful of words, but that you've gained sufficient mastery to describe the problem you intend to attack succinctly. Armed with this crystalized insight, you have a powerful coordinating tool as well as a litmus test for your preferred solutions. My thesis advisor in particular pushed his students to achieve this "moment of clarity" in all their works.
So the moment of clarity with Bernie and Hillary? Their respective campaigns are the Technocrat vs. the Revolutionary. The Technocrat's pitch is to run the current system competently and fairly for everyone. The Revolutionary declares that this is impossible because the system (or some critical part) is inherently broken and its preservation merely perpetuates injustice.
The moment of clarity came during the recent debate and a major Clinton-Sanders exchange. Secretary Clinton told us that she would be steadfast in policing the large banks, both official and "shadow," with an impeccable plan supported by an expert economist who is well-respected by liberals. Senator Sanders’ tactic: "Wall Street's business model is fraud." He went on to describe how our only solution was to make each entity small enough so that its power was greatly diminished. The question is whether the bad outcomes of the current financial system are a bug or a feature? I think each candidate is clear as to his or her answer in this exchange.
If you look at the discourse on the Great Orange Satan, a lot of it is in parallel.
Clinton supporters highlight her great experience and sophistication. I also believe, like them, that she is a very strong woman and knows how to fight for her beliefs. I even believe that she has empathy for the "little guy" and is sincere in her desire to raise middle-class incomes. Her plans have a great number of knobs and levers she and her team intend to pull to get better outcomes. Some better education plans here, tax credits there, carefully designed trade deals on the side. But these are all tools that presume a healthy foundation on which to build the required regulatory and incentive-based apparatus to get desired outcomes. This apparatus will have good research and theory behind it. This contrasts her Republican opponent (whoever that will be) in that she believes in science, expert advice, data-driven outcomes, and the power of the Enlightenment in understanding and improving our world. Finally, she sees that the great social problem of our time is not our economic system's roots, but that so many women and minorities have been locked out of its upper or even middle echelons.
Sanders supporters will instead point to the inherent corruption in the system. Clinton's expert advisors are instead two-faced shills. They are experts, but use their advantaged positions to not only provide effective advice but also advice that will generate selfish side effects. Wall Street is so thoroughly corrupt that it should not be allowed to taint the process of governance even with advice. Money is seen everywhere as polluting sound policy in educational reform, trade policy, our war-declaring and -making machines, and especially political campaigning. The corruption cannot be compromised with; it must be uprooted and defeated. And to truck with even the appearance of this corruption (see Sanders' crowd funded campaign) is to tempt its taint.
Even in criticisms, this dynamic plays.
Clinton supporters point to Sanders' inferior resume and lack of time spent in building up connections to minority communities. He is described as quixotic and unpolished in his principles. They point to his youth and academic base as dreamers and purists that never seem to put in the hard work for canvassing or even showing up to vote for their candidate.
Sanders' supporters meanwhile will criticize Clinton as a member of the system dedicated to filling its potholes. Most of the sneering in this direction is a belief that Clinton's election as President would find her instantly embedded in the Washington Consensus economically and the Drone War empire militarily. The system would remain broken albeit with a little safety foam applied here and there that will genuinely help a few people but leave fundamental injustice in place.
Now, to reveal my preference for Sen. Sanders. As a white male with a doctorate in engineering, I unfortunately fit the stereotypical profile of a supporter. But I try to offer this piece as a persuasive as well as an expository one. Why do I think this will work? Because of the magnitude of change many on this site want to see.
My own temperament leans to the Technocratic. I want impeccable intellectual prowess in my candidate. I get frustrated watching Bernie fail twice to highlight in debate the existential crisis of Black Lives Matter: no matter how well-off economically blacks are in this country they still face a scary default social role of Criminal. I hate watching him flub the rationale for dovish foreign policy on national stage. But he is still a candidate without embarrassing personal problems (John Edwards) or a little too much love for the aliens-and-crystals crowd (Dennis Kucinich). He is the most serious of the not Very Serious I've seen.
Meanwhile, my own Technocratic analysis is that power is far too highly skewed to those that would use it in a selfish and harmful way. The financial sector is bleeding our real economy dry. Cell phones and consumer goods are high-quality and cheap while our social products (education, health care, social support) are far too hard to acquire and often far inferior to the industrialized world. Too much of our economy relies on perpetual war to keep it humming. Further I believe that the most powerful interests in this country have a strong desire to keep things this way. A confrontation is inevitable if we want the state of affairs to change. I've spent a lot of my spare time recently trying to figure out what to do about this. Especially in the face of the fact that many of these organizations possess immense opinion-manipulation machines in the hands of talented professionals. They also have the benefit of being able to leverage racial or social resentments as a disruptor to any emerging solidarity (see the hippie-punching degradation of Occupy Wall Street).
I believe a large majority of readers on this site would agree with the characterizations in that last paragraph. It's a set that Sanders would agree with wholeheartedly, and Clinton would probably agree with in principle. The big difference between the two is in how deep we must cut to get at the disease. That is where I much more strongly agree with Sanders' diagnosis.
Senator Bernie Sanders is only a part of that answer to the issues I've laid out above but he's the easiest part to identify right now.
My final hope in this diary is to keep the community united as it makes this decision. Ultimately this is a strategic, not an existential, decision. We have the same goals, just a different order in which to achieve them. So let's keep it civil and keep on the lookout for trolls.