TOW #21 "The Bernie Sanders Revolution" by The NY Times Editorial Board

In this article, the NY Times Editorial Staff accesses the validity in Bernie Sander's most frequently used word in his campaigning, "revolution." The Times Editorial staff argues that Sanders will not be able to actually induce a revolution, but rather an evolution at best. As a very big Sanders supporter, I can definitely think of some examples that would argue against this particular take on the situation. Sanders has a great deal of experience and has made some enormous strides towards progress during the fifty plus years that he has played an active role in politics. He also has a large, passionate group of supporters willing to do whatever it takes to implement his bold ideas. However, I think I have to agree with the Editorial Staff overall in that I do think Sanders will be able to create a great deal of change, just not necessarily in an immediate sense. A revolution is usually defined as a dramatic 180 degree turn which results in a change in direction of sorts. I think that while a change is inevitable, and a new direction for American would surely occur if he became President, it would take a lot of time and effort for his ideas to be implemented. Even though it would be really helpful to have such a liberal person overseeing the executive branch of government, there would still be some major disputes with the other various branches of government. A really strong example that the author provides regarding how we fulfill the author’s vision today is some of the setbacks that Barak Obama faced during his presidency. Although he certainly had many great ideas and programs, many of these plans were put on pause by the Senate, preventing him from being able to implement, them. He uses many figures that outline the percent of the House and Senate that are republican, in addition to drawing statements from websites who campaign for and against Sanders. This contributes to the argument in that it seems much more logical, and gives a more well-rounded take on the situation. If I were to rewrite this argument, I would want to add even more of these sources earlier on. Considering how strongly this argument makes its claim, it is most likely safe to say that the author does not believe any president could make a revolution happen overnight. I think we can assume that Trump is no more likely to "make America great again," than Sander is to spark a revolution.