“All of the books in the world contain no more information than is broadcast as video in a single large American city in a single year. Not all [information] has equal value.” - Carl Sagan

As I write this piece, the political scene in our country is shifting. Even the way modern voters think of politicians and the rhetoric that they produce is changing. And the evidence has been personified by one candidate: Bernie Sanders. Yet, truth is, the media is convincing you that Bernie is unelectable, Hillary Clinton is telling you that the inexperienced Bernie is promising more than he can deliver, and her supporters hold to the idea that the Average Joe who worships Bernie is significantly misinformed.

This last argument, which comes from the people rather than professionals with a microphone, is the closest to the truth. Many of us, from the “Bernie Believer” to the uninitiated, are misinformed when it comes to the surging Senator Sanders. Many of us think he is gaining because of his internet fandom. We have convinced ourselves that, like Obama before him, youthful energy, middle class excitement, and “Change We Can Believe In” are at the heart of his popularity.

Those are the easy answers. However, to really understand why Bernie resonates with the modern American voter and why it matters, we have to get serious. We have to do more than idealize the most liberal candidate, we have to dig deeper than the “billionaire class can’t have it all”, and we have to want more than a new face to push the same policies. In order to understand why Bernie Sanders could be our next president, we have to do what the average meme or pop article reader fears most: we have to think about our history.

Why, you ask? Because to comprehend this moment in American history, we need to go back to the beginning, when America’s status quo was established. We have to ask, why do we have bipartisan gridlock? What gave the wealthy so much wealth? And, God help us, why can’t we find an honest candidate to run for president?!!

When I say “go back to the beginning”, I mean way back. To the time when Washington was president, during which a debate between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson laid the foundation of our nation's economy and political divisions. And on our journey to the present, we should say hello to Franklin Delano Roosevelt and even acknowledge his 16 year fight against a media machine supported by the super wealthy. So let’s not waste any more time.

“Men are rather reasoning than reasonable animals, for the most part governed by the impulse of passion.” - Alexander Hamilton

Washington took the presidency and by doing so he accepted an enormous responsibility. As the young nation’s first chief executive, he was acutely aware that every step he took would forge a path for those to follow. And after the ratification of a hotly debated constitution, the nation was anxious to see if the new system would work fairly.

His first major decision as president was to appoint a cabinet. Washington knew that his decision would be among the most critical of his entire administration. Rather than select a group of like minded leaders focused on a unified vision of national prosperity, Washington wanted to balance his cabinet with elite from the industrious north and the agrarian south.

So Washington made Hamilton his Treasurer and Jefferson his Secretary of State. In The Jefferson Rule, David Sehat suggests that Washington’s reasoning in doing this was naive, “Washington assumed that any fair minded gentleman politician would arrive at basically the same place as any other fair minded politician”. This false hope was short lived as a disagreement soon erupted between Hamilton and Jefferson on an urgent economic matter, whether to establish a central banking system and assume state (and indirectly individual) debts.

While Hamilton confidently maintained that such a system would both increase the federal government's powerbut and allow for private loans to foster new business and industry, Jefferson panicked, claiming such a system would favor the businessmen in New England instead of the southern plantation owners. After hearing both sides of the debate, Washington sided with Hamilton and a national bank was created. But a public, political battle, which would shape more than 200 years of American politics was only brewing.

In reaction to this loss, Jefferson organized a smear campaign against Hamilton and his supporters. He and the party he formed began to publish “with fervent zeal” in any paper they could access, claiming “that the true principles of government were fixed and known to all.” With this rhetoric, he popularized his party’s platform, which was founded on the idea that states were free to exercise policy making not directly set by the federal government.

The campaign was well received, the public wanted to believe in a “national unanimity” that would allow the people to “recover true sight.” Jefferson’s party soon celebrated a public victory that was unilateral, promoting ideas of “partisanship, political organization, and systematic opposition” while still maintaining his rhetorical dedication to the “true principles of the past”. His immediate success essentially placed a single party in control of politics for a period of time, as Jefferson intended to establish a lasting legacy. So, while the “powerful and centralized institutional control” that Hamiltonian economics created was here to stay, the debate over a central banking system actually resulted in seeds of the party politics and ideological rigidity we see today.

Why was Washington so wrong? And, how was Jefferson’s brand of party politics so successful? The answer is simple: People are fallible. We make mistakes, try as we might to avoid them, it happens nearly everyday. We tend to accept opinions that we already agree with, even when evidence stacks against us. We shake our heads at unknown candidates that don’t seem to fit the ideal we expect from a politician, and we vehemently defend our preference. I

n our world, the tendency to miss errors once we have made them hurts us more than our propensity towards error in the first place. Our fallibility, our humanity one might say, is the basis of bias and often who and what we choose to support. So, when a politician tells you that one way is the only way, some people, even if well educated and upstanding, are going to believe them. And, if you already believe it’s true, why not embrace it as the one and only “true principle”. I mean, that’s what Jefferson wanted, right?

“Power over a man's subsistence is power over his will.” - Alexander Hamilton

David Sehat's central claim is that evoking the Founding Fathers and a fictional era of American idealism and principles for political purposes, what he calls "Founder's talk", "degrades debate. It encourages intellectual dishonesty...Discussion of policy becomes ideological combat.” I mean, let’s be honest, the Founding Fathers were elite landowners, turned rebels, who finally became politicians.

That's not my first choice of analyst when I am asked who should inform our policy in the modern world. One example Sehat gives of the danger and power of ideological politics focuses on the media war waged in the wake of the Great Depression, when FDR faced off against a conglomerate of super wealthy businessmen and bank owners.

Many years pass between Hamilton's installation of a central bank and FDR's election, and while the landscape of economics had changed dramatically, there was no doubt that the federal banking system fostered centralized power and growth. American cities and ports were (and in some respects still are) among the most industrious in the world, our land was fertile, and we had a seemingly endless reservoir of resources with which to manifest our destiny. There is no doubt that Hamiltonian economics fosters economic growth, but the original purpose of the system, meant to foster domestic business and fund innovation, was hijacked by the wealthiest in our nation.

Instead of going to individuals, currency printed by the Federal Reserve goes to private banks to meet public demand, and these funds started to disproportionately benefit individuals and corporations who already had capital. The laws intended to regulate our economy increasingly benefited corporations as well. Central banking practices resulted in an era of American imperialism and wealthy magnates, who built railroads, accessed resources, and monopolized markets.
One might say it has yet to end...While the immediate effect of this money production is inflation of the currency, the long term consequence of is that every individual must work and produce value so as to overtake this implied debt. Simply put, the more money the Federal Reserve prints, the more state or public debt is assumed. Unfortunately, the reality of this debt, and the realities of central banking practice, can sometimes cause markets to fluctuate dramatically.

This was the case when a banking crisis preceded the Great Depression and the FDR administration. "Many people verged on starvation as their jobs vanished, their money ran out, and their homes were taken by banks or landlords." Sounds familiar right? After an optimistic and purposeful campaign, FDR's first move as president was to address the banks. Then, FDR signed into law executive orders which would bring much needed work and relief to those in grave conditions. It was called the New Deal. By in large the policies were successful, however many overstepped the established limits of executive power and a public campaign launched by a wealthy group (named “The League”) led the supreme court to overturn much of the New Deal. But not before he had done much to improve conditions spread across the country. It helped make our infrastructure what it is today.

What we might want to recognize is that the rich and powerful were perpetuating a story that the New Deal sullied the memories of the Founding Father and did so knowing that they were misusing their history. This was not for the benefit of a nation in crisis, but to calm the anxieties of the panicking economic magnates. While FDR campaigned for a second term with the message that, “Ours must be a truth telling and falsehood exposing campaign that will get into every home”, the League fed America what it wanted, long lost principles.

In terms of tapering the money’s perpetual control of politics in this country, the moment we find ourselves today is critical. Since FDR’s popular 16 year “reign”, America has again slowly given influence to corporate interest. We are in the wake of our own recession, in which greed and utter lack of responsibility took the homes, jobs, and lives of Americans. We face a political system which allows SuperPacs to choose candidates for us, protected by Citizens United.

And while it may seem ironic that I quote Hamilton, the man who started the central bank, in support of Bernie Sanders, a man who wants to break our biggest banks, I believe it’s fitting. Hamilton wanted a strong central government; we have that, the strongest military in the world, and no threats to our territory. But like Bernie, Hamilton, who keep in mind began live as an orphan in the Caribbean, envisioned this power used to benefit the people of the nation. Hamilton wanted to enhance the power of the executive branch to be capable of addressing emergencies and human conditions, the intention of FDR and Sanders follow that spirit.

The current state of our economic power, that Hamilton put in motion, would be beyond his wildest dreams. And yet, with this power we have a great responsibility. In 1936, FDR said “the constitution is meant to meet and to fit the amazing physical, economic, and social requirements that confront us in this modern generation”. That sentiment is as poignant today as it was then. We need a candidate who will look past rhetoric and politics by actively addressing the very serious challenges America faces. And to not forget the recession that shook us to the core.

Bernie and Hamilton have more in common than one might think. What we don’t often realize is that Hamilton wanted his system to benefit the small business owner. Small loans were meant to stimulate new industry and taxes on imports were designed to protect domestic craftsmen. Since, Hamiltonian economics has evolved into a system in which those with assets stand to profit most. So when Hillary Clinton suggests that she will be tough on banks and yet receives 700,000 from Morgan Chase, you should either laugh, or as get as concerned as Bernie himself does, and then consider putting your trust in Sanders and O’Malley. Rather than blow smoke and wrap yourself in other people's policies, Sanders wants to make change.

To be honest, part of my inspiration for this article comes from my little sister, a bright Bernie supporter who introduced me to the popular Broadway musical “Hamilton” during our winter break. In a closing song, One Last Time, Washington says goodbye to the American people, quoting a historically accurate final address.

“Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors...I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.”

He warns his successors to practice foreign neutrality and avoid partisan fighting. He repurposes scripture singing “everyone should live under their own vine, and fig tree, and no will make them afraid, they’ll be safe in the nation we made.” This vision for America reveals just how clearly true principle politics has failed us. We have lost sight of what this country could be and the actions we must take, apparently blinded by politics, media coverage, and what seems reasonable. This nation was established to be a place where every citizen should, as a right, have access to security and ample opportunity. We must now set out to extend our nation's considerable wealth and power, Hamilton’s 300 year old legacy, to those who can’t afford higher education, healthcare, and financial advisors.

Bernie isn’t the best choice for president because he won’t make any mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. Bernie isn’t even the best candidate because he has the most consistent voting record. Anyone can and should acknowledge when they are wrong. And he isn’t the best choice for president because he offers the most change. No. Bernie is the best choice for president because he represents a shift in our thinking as an educated voting base; he’s the right choice because there is no “best” choice at all. The best choice is action.

But if Bernie will make mistakes, how exactly is he different? He will certainly move away from "true principle" politics. He has shown over 30 years of commitment to economic opportunity for all. Great. What will he do though? (That Hillary R. Clinton won't?)

Bernie will curb the incredible greed, corruption, and scientific resistance that ails "Big Pharma" by taking excess profits and returning them to the American people.

Bernie will introduce true common sense health care, taking down private insurance companies and moving excessive profits back to the people in the form of better access and cost efficiency.

Bernie will strictly limit speculation and fraud in big banking, and break the largest conglomerates in order to reduce the national risk they pose as the most significant portion of our total GDP. As Bernie has often said, "If they are too big to fail, they are too big to exist." When successful, he will ensure that corporations pay their share of taxes for the prosperity and protection they are allowed.

Bernie will also rebalance federal spending by favoring domestic issues over the Pentagon and its military industrial complex. Hillary won't even recognize our military spending as a potential issue.

Bernie will comprehensively address campaign finance reform, arguably our most pressing issue at this moment in history. He has pledged to only appoint Supreme Court Justices who will overturn Citizen's United.

Bernie represents a new era for American politics, one in which we turn away from manufactured “true principles” and demand more from our government and representatives. In support of Senator Sanders, we will no longer vote for the tactical but disingenuous leader, we can choose purposeful and immediate action. The Information Era will be filled with complex domestic and foreign challenges. We need to ensure that the precedent we set for our leaders will be an honest one, unbeholden to the interests of the powerful few. And while we (Bernie Believers) may not always be able to explain our support clearly, you better believe we know it’s important. And now others see it too.

So next time you see a Bernie meme, take a second to consider what we could accomplish. Next time you hear the media endorse Hillary be critical of its intentions. For a moment, think about what a Sanders-Warren ticket might mean for the nation as we rebuild the middle class (honestly it appears to be an eventuality that she would endorse him, though I will not link my source). In terms of democratic candidates, realize that 2016 is about more than who is electable, whatever that means, it is about why we elect a candidate at all. Regardless of history, if Bernie takes South Carolina after New Hampshire and Iowa, this race will be over before it starts.