“Sanders is not a socialist. He is a “democratic socialist.” That one word makes for a world of difference. Sanders favors private ownership and markets, but with rules that protect little people from abuses and uncertainties.
 
Survey after poll after focus group shows that substantial majorities of Republicans support much of the Sanders economic plan. Many of those Republicans currently support Donald Trump, with his vague promises to stick it to the rich, improve the lot of working class Americans and protect Social Security.
 
So what are those Americans who support Sanders’ policies but not Sanders missing? Why don’t they understand the huge differences between socialism and democratic socialism?
 
One issue is the disconnect between what politicians promise and what they could deliver. Sanders would need to win in a sweep election that gave Democrats strong majorities in Congress to get his policies enacted into law.
 
But there’s a deeper issue with how we engage with our elections. You don’t have to be a Sanders supporter to recognize that America’s political reporters are good at covering the horse race, but terrible at explaining policies of the candidates.
 
One reason for that flaw is that viewers, and the voters among them, often want personality rather than substance. While there are insightful articles about policy proposals, they don’t resonate. Think about a song so it plays in your mind. Now try to recall anything written by a music critic. Same problem with politics: We recall the rhyme; the reason, not so much.
 
Compounding this is the terrible job our education system does teaching young people about economic and political philosophies, to distinguish between the -isms. I’ve learned that you can have a more informed conversation about politics and economics with the average waiter or petty merchant in Europe or Canada than with the executive sitting next to you on a domestic flight.
 
So let’s go back to square one and explain what Sanders is and is not.”