The usually sensible Matthew Yglesias argues that Bernie would not be a disaster as the Democratic nominee or as president, because: he typically runs ahead of the nominee in Vermont; he was a largely pragmatic and successful mayor of Burlington; he can’t get the “revolution” through the system even if he wins the election; and he would have to rely on Obama holdovers to staff his administration. Is Yglesias right?
As far as he goes, yes, but he ignores the negative impacts of Bernie’s foreign policy, which is the other side of a Trumpian coin. Sanders promises to preach for left-wing values abroad without actually doing anything serious to restrain our adversaries or promote our interests. In practice, that probably means campaigning openly for Corbyn in the UK, acquiescing to Maduro in Venezuela, complaining about elected nationalist thugs in the EU and South America without taking any concrete action to dispose of them, and giving Xi and Putin the freedom to dominate their respective spheres of influence. That, my friends, would just be a disaster of a different sort; he would alienate our remaining friends and accomplish nothing.
Also, to make an obvious point, Vermont is hardly representative of America as a whole. It is closer to Switzerland than Oklahoma. Using Bernie’s performance there as a guide to anything is a clear mistake.