Editor,

I have been following with interest the recent “viewpoint” columns on the presidential election and subsequent letters favoring or opposing the various candidates.

Elizabeth George, who began the discussion with her viewpoint about why she won’t vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders, has made what I believe to be false assumptions about both the character of Sanders and the nature of how social change comes about. She feels that Sanders is “not being honest” because he is not describing the steps required to bring about the kind of radical change he advocates. George also believes this kind of change comes about in only three ways: war, civil disobedience or political party domination, “none of which is quick and none of which is pretty.”

I believe that the reality of how change occurs is far more complex. Some years ago, I had the opportunity to study social change with leaders in the civil rights, anti-war, and anti-nuclear movements; from this study emerged a roadmap of change that contains eight phases, all the way from “business as usual” to “implementation of alternatives.” Although civil disobedience turns out to be important, it is by no means the only way to bring about change, nor is it a guarantee of success on its own. But when civil disobedience is nonviolent, carried out with dignity and a sense of purpose, it is a powerful tool to raise public awareness — one among many.

Bernie Sanders is well acquainted with the mechanics of how social movements bring about change. His imprecision is not due to a lack of experience. Nor is it due to an underestimation of what will be required. I believe it is due to his — or anyone’s — inability to predict exactly how events will unfold. Social movements are dynamic interplays between populace and power holders. The destination is not assured, it is not a reason not to embark.

Sen. Sanders doesn’t promise “quick” or “pretty.” I suspect he knows it will take decades to remake our system. I suspect he knows that much depends on the outcome of congressional elections and the decisions of the Supreme Court with regard to the role of campaign financing. I suspect he is placing his faith, and his bets, for progressive social change on the inventiveness and commitment of we, the people.

And I, in return, am betting on Bernie.

DIANNA MACLEOD

Langley