"In a Real Way, the Past 50 Years Have Been a Novel Experiment in Multiracial Welfare Democracy"

"Writing for the Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates critiqued Sanders' response for betraying a selective radicalism. 'Sanders is a lot of things, many of them good. But he is not the candidate of moderation and unification, so much as the candidate of partisanship and radicalism,' writes Coates. 'Unfortunately, Sanders's radicalism has failed in the ancient fight against white supremacy.'

"In turn, this sparked a litany of reactions and critiques, all focused on the politics of reparations. The strongest response, from Daniel Denvir at Salon, sidesteps the question of Congress to focus on the claim that reparations 'would be very divisive.' For Denvir, this is key: 'Sanders might not be a moderate but he is keenly interested in unifying voters,' he writes. Contrary to Coates' analysis, Sanders is a uniter, with a plan to unify the public around an expansive agenda of economic radicalism. And while reparations might make sense, pursuing them could irreparably damage the Sanders-led 'political revolution' that requires support from white Americans who reject reparations.

"Put differently, Sanders is a radical politician, and as such, he's keenly aware of the contours of his coalition."

Jamelle Bouie in Slate explains that Bernie Sanders is "running—along with American liberalism—against those forces that reject the multiracial welfare democracy as a project."

And Jonathan Chait in New York contends that Sanders is overpromising what he could deliver.