I have decided whom I am voting for in the Democratic primary, and I might as well share the information on the off chance that an undecided voter might find my arguments convincing. I respect both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders a good deal. I admire Hillary Clinton for being a strong woman in what is still largely a male domain. She fought to provide health care for all Americans back when doing so was even more controversial than it was when Obama did it. She is experienced, knowledgable, and competent. She has a good stage presence and is easy to envision in the role of president. I would certainly vote for her over any of the candidates the Republicans are offering.
But I am voting for Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders is a progressive stalwart. He has championed civil rights, opposed needless wars, fought for working people, and worked for broader prosperity rather than the further enrichment of a few. Sanders is a democratic socialist, which more people are realizing is very different from being a Soviet-style communist. Conservative critics struggle to convincingly justify their opposition to universal social protections such as health care and paid sick leave, and opportunities such as the ability to go to college without facing overwhelming work and debt obligations. What democratic socialism boils down to is minimizing the influence of social class on a person's ability to enjoy full economic opportunity.
Nor am I impressed with the accusation that Sanders wants to make everything free. For one thing, Sanders is not proposing to give people everything they could ever want; all he seeks to do is remove financial barriers to success and provide people with the basics they need to have a chance. People will still have to study and work hard. Besides which, Sanders does not pretend that everything will be free; he has acknowledged that tax increases will be necessary, and not only for the very rich. Yes, things like education and health care have to be paid for, but they should be paid for with taxes, which are levied based on ability to pay, rather than out-of-pocket fees, which require poorer people to pay a larger share of their income.
It is important to be realistic, of course. The United States is a more conservative nation than the countries of Scandinavia, and even nations such as the United Kingdom and France. The full enactment of Sanders' democratic socialist policies is probably impractical here, and Sanders as president of a relatively conservative country, rather than a senator from a very liberal state, will probably recognize this through compromise if not overt concession. Sanders' plans are very costly, indeed. We must consider deficits and the national debt, and there is a limit to how much revenue we can collect by raising taxes. Realistically, it is probably necessary for people to bear some of the cost of health care and higher education out of pocket, but Sanders is apt to push hard for that cost to be lowered for those who have little to spare. Clinton would do so, too, but perhaps not to the same extent. I actually am sympathetic to Clinton's proposal to provide debt-free college conditioned on part-time work; perhaps Sanders could work with Congress to implement a plan of that sort, if he cannot achieve fully-funded tuition for all students.
Sanders and Clinton also differ on policy regarding large financial institutions. Here, too, I endorse Sanders despite finding Clinton's policy more practical. Here, too, I suspect that Sanders will realize, in office, that the problems presented by big banks and corporate greed must be dealt with in a sophisticated way. Sanders, to a greater degree than Clinton, understands the pernicious effect of stratospheric wealth among a few--the utter recklessness, callousness, detachment, and sheer inhumanity that it seems to nurture in some--and that is part of why I support Sanders despite some practical reservations.
On foreign policy, it is Sanders whom I trust to keep the United States out of unnecessary wars. When Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq, Sanders wisely voted against authorization, even when many major Democrats were falling in line with the Republican administration. Military action is sometimes justified, as Sanders acknowledged in voting for the war in Afghanistan; but progressives like Sanders are more cautious than centrists like Clinton about using force. Especially when contemplating a war that will result in massive loss of American lives, the government should be far more cautious than it historically has been.
I must address the issue of Clinton's error in judgment regarding her emails. At times her weak and evasive attempts to justify herself have been more troubling than the initial wrongdoing. While many of the attacks on Hillary Clinton's ethics over the years have been unfounded, some have been valid. This is part of what makes Sanders a more attractive candidate. There has been a remarkable lack of scandal on Sanders' part; virtually all of the criticism directed his way has been properly issue-based, and that is what we should hope to see in a presidential contest. A general election contest involving Hillary Clinton would be less substantive and more personal.
Many other issues demand attention, not all of which I can address here. I think the reasons that I have identified provide ample support for a vote for Sanders.