Earlier this year, I changed my personal stance on the Scottish independence referendum of September, 2014. To everyone but myself, this is not notable — the votes have been cast and I am neither a Scottish citizen nor a resident of Scotland who might be affected by the result. It might even seem strange that I, as an American, would still be giving any thought at all to the referendum so long after it happened. Our national infatuation with it ended promptly on September 19th, once all the votes had been tallied and the decision was handed down. Nonetheless, the referendum and my evolving opinions regarding it are still fresh in my mind, especially when I think about the possibility of Bernie Sanders as my next president.

I was studying abroad in Edinburgh during the referendum, and as you might expect it was the talk of the town. It would have been very difficult for me or anyone else living in Scotland not to form an opinion, even if they didn't personally have a stake in the vote. At the time, my opinion was comfortably in line with the Better Together campaign, the ‘No’ side.

The way I saw it, there was just too much that could go wrong. English businesses were threatening to leave Scotland and the new country would not be able to use the pound, rendering its financial future somewhat insecure. Its standing with the European Union would also be dubious at best, and there would inevitably be substantial administrative challenges facing the government of a newly independent Scotland. I was also skeptical of the SNP’s apparent contentment to wager a fair amount on oil revenues. All of these factors, taken together, were enough to convince me that cold hard pragmatism had to carry the day.

Despite my certainty, I did not rest happily with my conclusions. Scotland is a country with a rich, oft ignored history that has felt the boot heel of oppression more than a few times. The idea of an independent Scotland was no doubt romantic and righteous, in my opinion — but that’s all it was. It wasn't realistic, it wasn't likely, and therefore it wasn't possible.

I was not alone in my feelings. Many of my Scottish classmates shared my line of reasoning, and they would indeed go on to vote ‘No’ in the referendum. Others disagreed, forgoing realism in favor of the romantic. They voted ‘Yes’ and were defeated. They were defeated particularly handily in Edinburgh, which sided with ‘No’ by a wide margin. In the end, the idyllic solution was eschewed in favor of the sensible one.

The morning after the vote was surprisingly quiet, I remember. The atmosphere was one of satisfaction, rather than celebration. The SNP (Scottish National Party) accepted the defeat with grace and that was that — or so I thought.

Of course, I still recalled the referendum from time to time, as it usually came up during the course of my conversations with friends and family about my time in Scotland. Even so, I never really gave it any more substantive thought, at least not until I saw an interview with one of my favorite musicians, who also happens to be Scottish.

Scott Hutchison is the main songwriter and lead singer for Frightened Rabbit, and he’s also the man who changed my mind about the referendum. He discussed the vote (skip to minute 26 for that conversation) and his stance on it on KEXP, a (fantastic) Seattle radio station, while he was there promoting his solo work. “The ‘No’ campaign,” he said, “was just based on fear, like ‘Oh, it might not work!’” He then asks, “Is that really the attitude you want to take?”

Well, Scott Hutchison, no. It’s not the attitude I want to take. This may seem like a simple concept to some, but it was one that I nevertheless overlooked in my haste to reach the ‘sensible’ conclusion about the Scottish referendum. It is indeed true that Scotland’s political and economic future would have been uncertain in the event of a ‘Yes’ majority. But is is also true that there’s no real evidence to suggest that it would have necessarily gone poorly; there exists only the fear that it might have. An ideal was compromised to retain stability, and that is a sad thing.

If I am an idealist, as I do in some sense believe I am, I’m a practical one. I’m probably not the first person people would think of when they think of optimists and I’m not one to jump aboard doomed Utopian bandwagons. If you told me that you wanted to be on Mars by this time next year and asked for a monetary donation to that effect I would rightfully call you a lunatic and send you on your way. But, it has become clear to me, that’s not what the Scottish referendum was. It wasn't a fantastical pipe dream and it wasn't an unworkable solution. It was a challenge, an undertaking, something that could have yielded great rewards had it been given a chance to succeed. Instead, because of a mindset held back by a fear of boldness and bayed by timidity in the face of uncertainty, it never came to be.

If by now you still can’t see how this connects to Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential bid, this should help you understand: When the senator announced his candidacy my gut reaction was the same as my initial reaction to the idea of Scottish independence. “What a nice idea. Wouldn't it be great if this happened? Too bad it’s not possible.” This time, though, I made certain that mentality didn't stick around. This time, fear is not going to be the deciding factor in how I cast my vote.

Many of my friends and family have told me that they like Bernie, they really do, but they don’t think he has a chance of winning the general election. Even if he beats Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, they say, his views are too far to the left to woo enough of the rest of the country. He’s too much of a long shot. When I hear those claims, I hear fear and I hear compromise and I won’t have it. If anything’s going to keep Bernie from winning, it’s that kind of talk.

And, unlike the Scottish referendum, we can actually say with certainty that Bernie Sanders can win over a majority of the American population; we can say with certainty that success is possible. How? Because polling has already shown that most Americans agree with Bernie on most issues. His ideals have real weight behind them, if only people could bring themselves to really stand up for what they believe in. If you’re still unsure about where you stand, take this quiz to find out. You might be surprised to find that you agree with Bernie Sanders, too. And when you do find that out, don’t let yourself be cowed by fear.

American politics has become a deeply cynical arena. A lot of people have given up on the idea that real change can happen. But take it from me, that attitude won’t get you anywhere. I might not be the most starry-eyed of idealists, but I say with conviction that I simply cannot allow myself to do anything but vote for the only political candidate I have been genuinely excited about in my lifetime. I am far from alone in this, and increasingly large numbers of people feel the same way (See questions 90–92). This is possible. This is probable. So if you want a real progressive in office, one with a lifetime of work to back up his words, or if you just took that quiz and are right now finding out that you have more in common with Bernie Sanders than you thought, then don’t compromise — not this time.