I’m quite certain that a younger me would be enthusiastically hopping on the Bernie Sanders for President train. While I’m happy to see him on the campaign trail and I agree with many of his positions, I just can’t get behind him 100% like I’m sure I would have back in my college years. Perhaps I have grown old and cynical, but my ideals of what a government should aim to accomplish have not changed drastically, it is just that my opinion on the best way to achieve those goals has shifted.

The President of the United States is the leader of the largest economy on earth and the commander in chief of the world’s biggest military. I would prefer a candidate that is able to work with people from various backgrounds and with differing interests to a candidate that seems like he would just lecture everyone and call them greedy. His approach works well as a small state senator and fringe candidate, but I don’t think it would make him an effective president. I also think his overall economic approach is noble, but at times misguided.

If economics was a zero sum game, as it seems Bernie Sanders portrays it at times, any financial gains in one area would be offset by losses elsewhere. The amount of global wealth would remain constant, and it would make sense to try to distribute wealth evenly. In reality, wealth can be created and it can be destroyed. Economic policies that encourage the creation of wealth in a fair, generally open but properly regulated market will tend to improve everyone’s quality of life, policies that lead to the destruction of wealth will bring the quality of life down. “Trade benefits both parties” is a basic economic principle. In reality, sometimes you get screwed on a transaction, but in the aggregate, if both sides are transparent and neither side lacks information, both parties will only engage in transactions that they feel are beneficial. After those trades occur, each side should feel better off. Policies that facilitate trade will tend to ultimately make all sides better off, isolationist policies tend to bring down those who refuse to accept the inevitability of globalization. There do not seem to be any terms for global trade deals that would be realistic and acceptable to Mr. Sanders, despite the fact that most analysts conclude that such deals would increase the GDP of all nations involved.

His opposition to the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) shows a near sighted economic policy that is willing to stifle innovation and hamper long term prosperity in order to ensure that no American loses a factory job. We are all global citizens and jobs will move across borders as economies evolve. Individual job loss can be devastating and we should do what we can to help the unemployed live comfortably while they gain the necessary skills to find a new job. But it is not good for society to keep inefficient and unprofitable industries afloat when those resources could be better allocated. There is already legislation in place that will economically support Americans who lose their jobs due to the. The argument that this trade deal will cost jobs ignores the fact that there is extra support in place for those whose jobs are lost due to the deal. It also minimizes the extra business and jobs that will be created from the deal. Activists claim the deal would spell doom but their numbers don’t always make sense to me. Economists feel the deal would bring more financial prosperity to all parties and they rely on advanced statistics and a more sophisticated historical examination.

Senator Sanders often seems to talk of large corporations and billionaires as if they are a single entity that corrupts all government with a unified set of goals and interests. There is no doubt that big companies and wealthy individuals have an oversized amount of power, but it is naive to think they all share the same values and have the same goals. The general perception is that the big money donors all favor Republicans, but last election, liberal billionaires outpaced conservative billionaires in political donations. In America, money talks, but at least in America, we are generally free to make as much money as our talents, intellect and work ethic will allow and we are generally free to spend that money on any cause we deem worthy. Our primary aim should be to ensure that even the poorest have food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare and that opportunity is open to all, regardless of race, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion or economic status. Plenty of companies and business owners agree with these goals and we shouldn’t automatically assume that because they strive to be as profitable as possible they can’t be positive contributors to society.

Bernie has signaled a desire to raise taxes on large corporations despite the fact that the US has the highest corporate tax rate of any developed economy and it is the only major nation that taxes earnings made outside its own borders. It is our high tax rates and borderless tax policy that encourages companies to lobby hard for tax credits, take advantage of loopholes and keep hordes of cash abroad to prevent foreign earnings from being taxed twice. A higher tax rate would push more corporations to move their headquarters abroad and reduce America’s overall tax base. A more sensible solution would be to lower our corporate tax rate to align with other developed countries, eliminate our borderless taxation policy, and close any loopholes that allow profitable companies to lower or eliminate their tax bill. This would be the best way to maintain current levels of tax revenue and bring the billions of dollars parked overseas back to America. It is also a realistic solution that could gain bipartisan support if properly executed.

It is easy to get cheers by vilifying large companies, but I would prefer an approach that as much as possible works with corporations. Profits should not be placed above human dignity, but profitability should not be viewed as evil either. Profitable corporations can employ thousands of people, pay millions in taxes, and invest in the things that drive long-term economic prosperity like infrastructure and research and development. I understand that companies need regulations. Some would like to dump more pollutants into the environment and treat their employees as poorly as possible. But there are also large companies that are expanding vacation, sick and maternity/paternity leave while looking for cleaner sources of energy and pressuring local jurisdictions to improve their policies with regards to discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. It is not bad for the government to enact policies that help businesses make money as long is it also ensures that those businesses are not mistreating their employees or abusing the environment.

Unfortunately, I do not have much faith in Bernie’s ability to negotiate any type of compromise necessary to get important things done. If he is to accomplish his goals, he will have to do so unilaterally. The President of the United States of America is a powerful person, but not so powerful that he or she can push through a personal agenda without allies or broad support. I know first hand how badly Barack Obama wants to personally barge into my home and take away my guns, but thankfully, the NRA keeps his powers in check and fights for my right to openly carry firearms in houses of worship and family restaurants.

I also disagree with Mr. Sanders on expanded military action against the Islamic State. He has said, “I’m sitting here wondering where Saudi Arabia is, where Kuwait is, where Qatar is?” There is no doubt that other countries should do more, but so should the US. Just because other countries are not as active as he would like them to be does not mean that the largest military in the world should be passive in the fight against the most aggressively viscous threat to peace and human dignity on the globe. The Islamic State openly supports slavery, doesn’t respect women and persecutes people that do not share their religious beliefs. It has also been expanding territorially and has an estimated annual budget of over a billion dollars with over eight hundred million dollars in assets. The Islamic State should be on the top of the list of evil billion dollar organizations that need to be taken down. It does not make sense for the leader of a nation that values freedom and human rights and spends more on its military than the next seven nations combined should ask why others aren’t doing more. I do not want a commander in chief who simply hopes that other nations will take the lead.

America is war weary and we are right to be. But the situation with the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq today is much different than the previous debacle in Iraq. When we invaded Iraq, the country was relatively stable and other NATO nations opposed military action. Today, Syria is in disarray with deaths numbering in the six figures and millions of people displaced from their homes. The Syrian government has used chemical weapons on its own people. The Islamic State continues to brutalize innocent people and destroy rare cultural artifacts. There is a broad and diverse group of nations that are willing to use their own military force to bring down ISIS. The world agrees that ISIS needs to be stopped. There is no stability to disrupt; there are only chaos and daily atrocities. One of the strongest arguments against military operations is that they often make things worse; in this case I don’t think that is possible.

I don’t aim to be a harsh critic of Bernie. I think he is the most likeable and relatable candidate out there. I want him to continue his campaign, promote his views and participate in meaningful debates. His voice and style are refreshing and his views need to be heard. His advocacy for a universal healthcare system that does not rely on employer contributions is more compassionate, more in line with other wealthy nations and better for businesses than our current healthcare system or proposals from other candidates. He speaks honestly and gives direct, thoughtful responses to questions. I wish we had more candidates like him. Maybe I am trying a little too hard to convince my younger self that there are valid reasons not to vote for the only candidate that seems to have a soul, but I just don’t think I want Bernie Sanders to be our next president.