Sanders' circle fixates on heirs instead of global commerce
By Bram de Vries · Reporting from Amsterdam ·
The American progressive left has mistaken a charismatic figure—a brand, if you will—for an enduring economic model.
The Illusion of Inherited Momentum
The American progressive left has mistaken a charismatic figure—a brand, if you will—for an enduring economic model. What we are witnessing is not the natural succession of political capital; it is merely another round of highly subsidized internal corporate restructuring. From the reports circulating on yahoo.com to the analysis in politicalwire.com, the narrative suggests that Bernie Sanders’ circle has a clear heir. They point fingers at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—the supposed "heir," as one anonymous source claimed on x.com—or they champion Ro Khanna's perceived ability to build a broader coalition. But let us be blunt: this entire spectacle is an exercise in political performativity, built on the fallacy that sheer ideological purity can replace robust economic policy or actual market dynamism. The progressive movement consistently confuses moral outrage with viable business strategy, and it’s profoundly costly.
When Reform Becomes Regulatory Overreach
The core mechanism of this leadership battle—the constant need to redefine "progressivism" in response to perceived systemic failure—is nothing new. It echoes the Progressive Era (1890s–1920s), a period where reformers, concerned with trusts and monopolies, sought sweeping solutions for rapid industrialization. The shared mechanism is clear: an overwhelming belief that complex social problems require massive, centralized governmental intervention to correct market failures. But look closely at the outcome. Instead of creating stable growth, this constant push for systemic reform—whether it’s banning data centers, as Sanders did, or advocating for sweeping labor mandates—only creates regulatory drag. It slows down the enterprise and taxes the very dynamism that lifted the continent out of rubble.
The progressive playbook is always to identify a perceived failure (a "trust," an "oligarchy") and then demand a massive state solution. This historical precedent shows us that while reform is necessary, the impulse toward total governmental control—the desire to regulate everything from energy policy to political labeling—is inherently counterproductive. It suffocates the entrepreneurial spirit.
The Cost of Ideological Purity
The current jockeying between AOC and Khanna, with Abdul El-Sayed also surging in polls (as reported by yahoo.com), is simply a high-stakes auction for who can best sell the most radical version of the status quo. Ro Khanna’s allies suggest he has the chance to appeal beyond the base, while others argue that "AOC cares so much about her colleagues" that she represents the only true brand strength. Yet, what does this all boil down to? A political inability to accept a simple exchange: less state intervention for more private capital investment.
The progressive movement consistently fails to grasp that economic growth is not achieved by passing joint legislation on AI moratoriums or staging rallies in Michigan; it is achieved by making the rules of trade clearer and reducing friction at the border, whether that border is international or merely bureaucratic. The focus must shift from who gets the endorsement—from Sanders’ circle to the next candidate—to how we actually make things move.
The path forward demands a radical re-evaluation: abandoning the habit of treating every market challenge as a crisis requiring state seizure. Prosperity has always been earned in markets, not in directives. The only viable successor to this cycle of ideological panic is a return to pragmatic, growth-oriented governance that respects the engine of global commerce.