The Day, in its endorsement of Hillary Clinton in the upcoming Democratic presidential primary, appeals to those who believe that incrementalism and centrist politics are the only realistic way forward for our country and for the Democratic Party. I strongly disagree.

This incrementalist perspective ignores the current economic and environmental realities facing the nation, and neglects to point out that this very approach by the Clintons in the 1990s led to most of the problems that we wrestle with today.

The Clinton administration’s trade deals led to millions of American jobs going overseas. The Clinton administration’s deregulation of Wall Street directly led to banks becoming “too big to fail” and the market meltdown of 2008. This is no surprise, considering the Clinton 1996 re-election campaign was largely funded by Wall Street, as were Hillary Clinton’s 2000 and 2006 Senate races. Hillary Clinton has since earned millions in speaking fees from Wall Street firms and is again running her presidential campaign based on large Wall Street contributions and large corporate “Super PACs”.

Under the Clintons, corporations got big tax breaks and tax loopholes while minimum wages remained low. This is not surprising considering Hillary Clinton served on the board of Walmart and, even now, resists the call for a national minimum wage of $15 an hour.

The Day editors point out that there was an economic upswing in the late 1990s. This is partly true in that the 1990s upswing benefited some in our economy, particularly the wealthiest top 1 percent. However, this upswing proved to be an artificial economic bubble that burst dramatically in 2008, after the failed policies of the Clintons were accelerated by the disastrous administration of George W. Bush.

The Day is correct that these policies led to political success for the Clintons personally. The Clintons did win elections, but their victories came at the expense of middle class and working families all across our country. Why on earth would working people want this sad history to be repeated?

As we almost daily receive climate data that shows we are running out of time to address the great threat of climate change, can we afford to take an “incremental approach” to developing green technologies and ending our dependence on fossil fuels?

When the top 0.1 percent of the population owns as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, can we take an “incremental approach” to raising wages, adjusting trade deals and providing adequate medical care to workers?

In the wake of Supreme Court cases, like Citizens United, that have defined corporations as people and allowed them to spend limitless sums on political campaigns, can we afford to take an “incremental approach” to reigning in corporate power?

The Day notes that all political leaders need to compromise in order to get anything accomplished. The Day fails to note, however, that Sen. Bernie Sanders has done just that in his time in Congress. He passed meaningful legislation with his Republican colleagues for our veterans, and he compromised, and voted for, the Affordable Care Act even while pushing for a single-payer “Medicare for all” system.

The Day is incorrect in assessing that the choice in this primary is between a realistic compromiser, Hillary Clinton, and a “dreamer,” Bernie Sanders. The choice is between a corporate politician who will sound just progressive enough to get elected, and a principled leader who has consistently fought for the interests of working families for over 40 years.

Either of these candidates will have to compromise in the end to achieve success, but for the vast majority of working people in this country, the choice is clear.

To rectify the gross income inequality in our country, to break the control corporations have over our democracy, and to address the threat of climate change while we still can; we need to vote for Bernie Sanders.

Daryl Finizio is a former mayor of New London and an organizer for the Sanders campaign in southeastern Connecticut.