Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have had different records on economic policy over the years, and their well-versed proxies consider that division. But new research on the outcome over what transpired in the 2016 general elections shows that there is not much disagreement regarding economic policy amid rank and file democrats. Clinton's supporters were happy with the American political structure, the United States of America, and the direction within it for people like them. In contrast, Sander's supporters were not, and Clinton's diverse leftward ploy on policy failed to address that gap. The crucial issue here is that there is an unclear distinction between the two backers on economic policy issues. Both Sanders and Clinton’s voters are very concerned about economic inequality and are supportive of the government’s involvement in the liberal situation on moral issues and the economy as well. However, mild differences are detectable on other matters.
Despite the concentration of Sanders backers towards immigrants, gender roles, and African Americans, Clinton's campaigns concentrate on identity politics themes. In contrast, Sanders' campaign focuses on the welfare state, but Clinton's supporters are more concentrated on the importance of Medicare and social security. In regards to foreign policy, Clinton has had the upper hand than Sanders considering that for four years, she was a Secretary of State. Nonetheless, Sanders has not been influential in foreign policy. Critically, there is an overrun between both candidates concerning all these topics.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Bernie Sanders' reason for running was so that he could deal with a long list of hardships in the United States, which included inadequate child care, healthcare, wealth inequality, student debt, voter suppression, regressive tax system, gun violence, and immigration. He mentioned Donald Trump to be a sexist, pathological liar, a xenophobe, a fraud, a racist, and someone who is leading us in a dictatorial direction while undermining American democracy. Different from nearly all his democratic presidential rivals, foreign policy was one of the issues that Sanders mentioned in his announcement video. He said that America does not need multinational corporations, but rather, it needs trade policies that mirror worker’s interests far from multinational corporations. He rallied for a foreign policy whose focal point is human rights, diplomacy, democracy, and world peace. The United States ought to guide the world in enhancing corporation in the war against militarism, global wealth inequality, authoritarianism, and climate change. Flatbush, Brooklyn, was Sander's home since his childhood. He lived in a lower-middle-class environment, and his father was a Jewish immigrant. His father came from a Polish background, being a paint sales representative while his mother was a homemaker from Russia. Most of his father's family died during the Holocaust. This made him realize at a tender age the significance of the election, seeing that the 1932 election ended up in the death of fifty million people across the world.
Sanders’ passion has never included foreign policy. He has barely funded foreign policy bills on Capitol Hill for almost three decades. Generally, he has been avoiding issues on foreign policy. His campaign website lacked the foreign policy section for five months after he announced his candidacy. He struggled to address his stand while addressing foreign policy. A group of democrats signed a letter condemning his lack of knowledge and interest in essential national security issues and foreign policy. This resulted in him getting a full-time foreign policy advisor in 2017. Later, he gave two speeches defining how a developing foreign policy would turn out to be. Both statements were short on applied specifics and long on generalities. In his speeches, he stressed that America's goal was not dominating the world nor pull out from the International community but for global commitment based on partnership in preference of dominance. This was to be better for global stability, security, and aiding the international cooperation needed to address shared challenges.
While Clinton supports Obamacare by emphasizing its affordability, she condemns Sanders' health care plan suggesting that it would outdo other health care programs. Sanders assures that the Medicare-for-all is meant to provide healthcare for every child, man, and woman as a right. Several critics stated that Clinton's attack on Sanders' single-payer healthcare program was subtle as Sanders' alternative was suitable for anyone who misplaced their coverage. Clinton maintained that the affordable health care in place by then was still adequate, and having to replace it with another alternative and starting over would push the country into a contentious debate. Sanders reacted by stating that no plan is going to be torn down; instead, a Medicare-for-all system is going to run concurrently with affordable health care. By this, Sander contended that Clinton’s argument was inaccurate. After all, sanders himself helped in writing the Affordable Care Act. Donald Trump promised to reduce prescription drug costs in an aim to repeal Obama care. Even though he has not pulled through in nullifying the Affordable Care Act, he has weakened it significantly. Trump partially attained a campaign pledge calling for health care providers to state their prices for services offered. This would allow consumers to have value for money, as the competition would also bring costs down.
According to the general election polls, voters, especially whites who are working-class, trusted Donald trump in handling the economy more than Hillary Clinton manages. Campaign officials stated that they have heard from outside advisers and donors that Clinton needs to simplify her economic message. Clinton’s plan constitutes a very realistic approach to the economic policy and the challenges faced by Americans, but occurrences have made it hard for Clinton to rely on what was her most straightforward pitch. A call to get back to Clinton's economics, a balanced budget, and her husband's administration on trade policies in the 1990s aided in fueling an economic blare which was then preceded by sharply rising inequality and stagnation in working-class wages. The explanation she offers as to why incomes from the middle-class currently remain lower compared to while her husband was in the office, including technology, globalization, and poor choices made by policymakers and business leaders. Clinton justifies the case that her complex solutions are the best way to address the difficulties in contrast with Trump’s simplicity. Arguably, no subject represents the pressure overlaying Clinton’s economic plan more than trade. After losing the Michigan primary to Sanders who had reunited voters against catastrophic trade deals, donors coerced the campaign to embrace the Senator’s more reasonable message on trade in line with senior campaign officials. They merely wanted her to announce that trade was draining American jobs.
Sandler is among Trump’s fiercest foreign policy critic but shares his contempt for America’s trade policy. Similar to Trump, Sanders is firmly against the Trans-Pacific Partnership and supports Trump’s conclusion to oppose it. Sanders says he is glad that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is buried and forgotten since America has had a sequence of trade deals for the past thirty years, costing the citizens of America millions of decent jobs, which has taken American workers wages down. Sanders refuses to agree that the Trans-Pacific Partnership can be salvaged and under no condition should American think of rejoining it under his administration. Similarly, Sanders has both criticized and supported Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum. He was comfortable with effecting stiff sanctions on countries like Russia, China, Vietnam, and South Korea to avert them from illegally discarding aluminum and steel in the U.S. and the world, and he agrees he would also use tariffs as a work out tool. However, he opposed applying tariffs on imports of aluminum and steel from the European Union and Canada, calling the policy reckless and haphazard, which would initiate a trade war with the European Union and Canada. He justifies that the European Union and Canada are engaging in a fair and genuine trade where workers earn a living with excellent benefits.
In conclusion, both Clinton and Sanders agreed to join hands to beat Trump as both of them do not entirely approve of Trump's ways in decision and policy-making in regards to the economic, foreign policy, and health state of America. They both have common interests like reducing college costs for students, raising wages for working-class, and eliminating concealed money in politics. However, Clinton’s declaration talked about "unifying the party," but Sanders made no hint in reply to the "u" word.
