I’m basing this note on two assumptions, not based on polling, but formed as a result of watching American politics for over 50 years.
First, Bernie Sanders can win the Democratic nomination for President.
Second, if he is labeled simply as a socialist, he would lose the general election by perhaps McGovernesque proportions.
For Sanders to win, he and his supporters need to get out in front of this definitional battle.
As to the first point: The rise of Senator Sanders in the polls reflects his advocacy of policies and programs supported by a large number of young and progressive voters who have been longing for such a voice. Support for Sanders is not necessarily a rejection of Hillary Clinton, who has a long history of urging protections for women, minorities, and segments of society left behind in the American economic system. While there are many people who distrust or disagree with Secretary Clinton, the far greater percentage would support her if she is the Democratic nominee. They just prefer Sanders.
As to the second point: The country will not elect a “socialist” as President. I place that word in quotes because how it is defined will be crucial to Sanders’ success. Under classic notions of that term, a socialist advocates collective or government ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. The American people will not elect a person with those beliefs as President. The fear-mongering fed by the right-wing press and abetted by mainstream media would create so much doubt that a large chunk of the middle of the American electorate would turn away. This is especially true if the Republicans nominate someone viewed as being more moderate (I know, that is a laughable term to describe any of the Republicans candidates.) The way that George McGovern was portrayed resulted in his losing 49 states. While Sanders would not lose that many states, his chances of winning would be limited.
That is why it is important for Sanders and his supporters to get out in front of this definitional battle now. While Sanders has described himself as a socialist, the traditional definition of that term is not what Sanders means. Here’s how he described it to Democracy Now http://www.democracynow.org/...
Well, I think it means the government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right of citizenship, all of our people have healthcare; that as a right, all of our kids, regardless of income, have quality childcare, are able to go to college without going deeply into debt; that it means we do not allow large corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment; that we create a government in which it is not dominated by big money interest. I mean, to me, it means democracy, frankly. That’s all it means. And we are living in an increasingly undemocratic society in which decisions are made by people who have huge sums of money. And that’s the goal that we have to achieve.
Steve Winkler of The Guardian further recognized that today’s concept of Socialism is a far cry from the old Marxist formulation
http://www.theguardian.com/... :
Socialism in 21st century America is a government that exists to serve the common people, the working people, the middle class, not an arm of the richest and most powerful segment of society. It’s a government that creates and nurtures policies that promote the best possible conditions for every citizen to have a healthy, prosperous, peaceful and productive life.
A close reading of Sanders' positions (and the reason he has gained such support) shows that his views, while progressive, are well within the mainstream of American political thought. He is not advocating an overthrow of the American economic structure, but rather returning to the idea that corporations should be regulated so they do not harm workers or the environment. That’s not “socialism” – that’s democracy - and that is the message that must be conveyed.