Written by Robert Douglas   

In the 1980 election cycle, I worked for a politically active labor union. As resident propagandist, my first campaign assignment was to make a case for why Sen. Ted Kennedy would be a better Democratic nominee than incumbent President Jimmy Carter. When that didn’t work out, I was asked to make a case for why Carter was a better choice than Repubican nominee Ronald Reagan. When the election was over, I was asked to make a case for giving the former Screen Actors’ Guild president a chance.

So it’s supposed to go in a democracy.

When your first choice goes down, you rally around your party’s ultimate nominee. And when the other party wins, you look for ways to lose graciously and move on toward a shared goal of building a More Perfect Union. It’s a lovely model in theory. But in practice it no longer works — if, indeed, it ever did.

The notion that partisans ever agree to suspend their differences to work together for the common good is a myth. The best we can expect is for the losing side to acquiesce until it can re-seize power. It’s a process. And if the zigs to the right and zags to the left stay on a parallel upward trajectory, everyone can benefit everyone — although not necessarily to the same extent nor at the same time. But when a zig goes too far and there is no zag to counterbalance it, instability results.

Which brings the 1980 election cycle full cycle to the current one where Bernie Sanders is trying to mount a counterrevolution to remedy the excesses wrought by the Reagan Revolution. A revolution that popularized the notions that cutting taxes for the wealthy, easing regulation of the businesses they own and vilifying programs that help their inferiors are key to enduring American prosperity for all.

Never mind that policies based on these notions have resulted in record poverty, chronically unbalanced federal budgets and a steady stream of good-paying American jobs going abroad; all the candidates vying to become this year’s Republican nominee for president pay homage to Reagan as their inspiration.

Rather than acknowledge the role he had in zigging too far and accepting the need to ease up to keep the country on an even keel, they all seen intent on doubling down on everything Reagan. Whether it’s a case of cognitive dissonance or just plain tone deafness, it is fueling Sanders’ counter-revolutionary campaign and resonating with many foot soldiers on the losing side of the Reagan Revolution.

While the Democratic Party Establishment and corporate media may be befuddled by his success in both the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire primary, President Obama seems to get the appeal of Sanders’ message. Recently he told a Politico writer:

“Bernie has tapped into a running thread in Democratic politics that says: Why are we still constrained by the terms of the debate that were set by Ronald Reagan 30 years ago? You know, why is it that we should be scared to challenge conventional wisdom and talk bluntly about inequality and, you know, be full-throated in our progressivism?”

Will Bernie’s zagging be enough to rebalance the zigging that Reagan set in motion? I’m prepared to make a case that it could.

But if that doesn’t work out, don’t look for me to make a case for giving the benefit of the doubt to any disciple of Reagan.

——————————-

Robert Douglas is a former union official and former business editor for The Palm Beach Post and Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel. You can contact him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , like him on RBDMedia.com on Facebook or follow him at RBDMediaDotCom on Twitter.​