Last week, more than 15 million people watched five old, white politicians discuss a flurry of ideas that would take this country backward.
If you think I’m referring to the most recent Republican debate, you are wrong. Instead, it was the “forward”- thinking Democratic Party that fielded a stage lacking diversity. In reality, only three of these candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Gov. Martin O’Malley, D-Maryland, stand a shot to be their party’s nominee, and even O’Malley would be quite a stretch at this point.
These three spent the whole debate trying to out-flank each other by promising how much free “stuff” they could give to Americans if they were elected. The ideas presented in the debate are indicative of the failed, flawed policies of the Democratic Party and would not be beneficial to improving the economy or moving America forward.
Surprisingly, Clinton out-performed expectations. She had a terrible summer; newspapers full of headlines about her private email server, her ever-falling poll numbers against Sanders and her realization that the public questions her “trustworthiness.” I’m no fan of Mrs. Clinton but I’ll give her credit for appearing relaxed and confident in her answers. In many ways, she was almost robotic in her steady and clearly well-rehearsed responses. She was not flustered.
But she was engaged in the “socialism arms race” that seems to have taken the face of the Democratic Party where each candidate seems to be competing for how much free stuff they can promise the American people.
She definitely gave self-proclaimed socialist Sanders a run for his money in that category, as both promised free college and health care, among a list of others.
These certainly sound like wonderful things to promise; that is, until it comes time to pay for them.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R–Florida, said it best in his review of the debate that these candidates’ “answer to every problem in America is a government program and a tax increase.”
Sanders discussed his plans for a political “revolution,” one that’s estimated to increase the federal budget to more than $18 trillion, nearly six times the current massive amount. The tax-and-spend policies of the Obama administration have held our country back over the past six years and have us approaching insurmountable debts.
Like former Gov. Jeb Bush, R-Florida, said, “doubling down [on President Barack Obama’s failures] is not the right way to go.”
O’Malley made a good point in his opening statement when he said, “We need new leadership,” but the new leadership our country needs is exactly the opposite of the progressive agenda he laid out during the debate.
O’Malley brought to the table policies that echoed the progressive agenda of the Obama administration, showing signs of more of the same “lead from behind” policies that have taken our country backward over the last six years.
“Who is this guy?” was the question many viewers asked when candidates former Gov. Lincoln Chafee, D-Rhode Island, and former Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, spoke, an understandable question for casual viewers, as neither candidate has picked up much traction in their campaigns.
Chafee’s biggest selling point was a subtle jab at a fellow candidate on stage when he stated in his opening statement that he has “no scandals.”
Maybe the most common line from the debate, especially from Clinton, was, “I would’ve gone farther than President Obama,” on issue after issue proving what was already a forgone conclusion heading into last Tuesday night: It was a race to the left.
Our country does not need to continue on this backward path that so many of us are tired of. It’s time for a fresh, positive and conservative leader to take our country forward.
Alex Walker is a junior majoring in economics and Charlie Hoffmann is a senior majoring in economics and strategic communication.
