Idealist Visionaries Make Terrible Presidents, Right?

Bernie Sanders is idealistic, impractical, and naïve. His ideas are visionary pipe dreams. He’s unelectable. And even if he won the primary and managed to defeat the republican nominee, president Sanders wouldn’t be able to “get things done.”

Sound familiar? These were also Hillary Clinton’s central arguments against Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential primary. If you recall, then-senator Obama had far less executive, political, and foreign policy experience than Sanders (who has served as a civil rights organizer, mayor, representative, and senator).

In 2008, Clinton tried her best to convince primary voters that a senator spinning fairy tales and hoping for big changes would be a terrible, ineffective, and even dangerous president. Eight years later in her second presidential campaign, Clinton is reprising this same argument against Sanders.

To determine whether Clinton’s prediction of an ineffectual Sanders presidency holds water, it’s worth examining the accuracy of her 2008 prediction for a disastrous Obama presidency.

Clinton’s 2008 predictions would be vindicated if Obama’s term was indeed a complete failure in her opinion. Instead, Clinton reveres Obama’s “outstanding record” and asserts that she alone can protect and extend his remarkable legacy. It seems the last eight years have disproved her assertion that a visionary senator with big dreams cannot be elected and “get things done” (i.e. keep the country safe, improve the economy, and expand healthcare).

Of course, in the heat of a primary campaign politicians often make fantastic claims in the pursuit of electoral victory. So perhaps we should disregard Clinton’s previously dire forecasts about an Obama presidency as merely tough primary politics. Perhaps she didn’t truly believe the harsh characterizations and fearful predictions she made about a naïve senator Obama, it was simply a strategy Clinton pushed to win over voters. If that’s the case, we can view her present arguments against Sanders – that he is naïve, ineffectual, and unelectable – as simply a repeat strategy to persuade primary voters.

Rather than cast a vote based on unsupported political prognostications, it is likely more useful to look closely at the history of each candidate to determine what the future might bring. We can also look to the history of our country, as we have elected many visionary presidential candidates (some with relatively limited experience) during equally if not more tumultuous political climates: Lincoln, Roosevelt (Teddy and Franklin), Kennedy, and anyone else you consider a visionary president who dreamed of big changes and accomplished some of them.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with presidential candidates who are well-organized and seek incremental changes, but Obama’s presidency has shown that candidates who hope for huge changes can actually make good presidents and get things done, even if not all of their dreams come true. As opposed to a liability, having big dreams and seemingly impossible goals has proven to be an asset in the fight for meaningful progress throughout the history of the United States.