[He] ran on a platform that included:
- creating a Works Progress Administration-style program to rebuild America's infrastructure and provide jobs to all Americans,
- reprioritizing the War on Drugs to focus less on mandatory minimum sentences for drug users (which he views as racially biased) and more on harsher punishments for money-laundering bankers and others who are part of the "supply" end of "supply and demand"
- reversing Reaganomics-inspired tax cuts for the richest ten percent of Americans and using the money to finance social welfare programs
- supporting family farmers by reviving many of Roosevelt's New Deal-era farm programs
- creating a single-payer system of universal health care
- ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment
- increasing federal funding for lower-level public education and providing free community college to all
- applying stricter enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and
- supporting the formation of a Palestinian state.
... Way I see it, in a better world, a candidate running on a platform like this would have a place within the mainstream of politics, and an opportunity of scoring, say, a third of at least the Democratic primary vote.
In a better world, I wouldnt catch myself cringing at some of these planks even though I actually agree with them, just because I've been so much conditioned to think of them as sure vote-losers and bait for the opposition, that a kind of self-censorship kicks in abruptly.
In short, in a world that hadnt shifted drastically to the right over the past, say, twenty years.