Professional Documents
Culture Documents
But Sanders' political appeal is based on much more than the thrill of an antiestablishment insurgent or some unexpected love affair of millennials with a
Brooklyn socialist. Part of what has given Sanders his strength is how
mainstream many of his standard political arguments are. If one listens to what
he has been saying, it is possible to see that Sanders is not that radical at all. In
many respects, his campaign directly addresses fundamental concerns that a
wide range of Americans have about their future.
Corrupt political system
The best known issue in Sanders' arsenal is the claim that there is too much
money in politics. The government is constantly unable to respond to the
concerns of many Americans, not because the parties don't like each other or
because the mainstream media creates a destructive environment, but because
big interest groups and lobbyists have disproportionate power in Washington as
a result of their donations. In their landmark book, "Winner Take All Politics," the
political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson provided a powerful account
of how the growth of corporate lobbies in the 1970s produced changes in public
policy that greatly worsened inequality.
Americans tune in when Sanders says that "It is the tragic reality that for the last
40 years the great middle class of our country -- once the envy of the world -has been disappearing." His campaign, Sanders argues, is about "creating an
economy that works for all, and not just the 1 %."
Sanders promises that as president he would double down on programs that
benefit the middle class. He would fight for government policies that create
incentives for job growth here in the United States and programs that help to
elevate the economic health of working Americans, including progressive tax
policies and a robust public works program to build the nation's infrastructure
while giving people work. He has proposed raising the minimum wage to $15 an
hour.
This is not radical at all. Republicans are also playing on these anxieties in the
electorate, albeit with an agenda that has little room for government. Though
Clinton has also attempted to tackle these concerns, her ties to controversial
free trade policies and her being enmeshed in a campaign finance system that
privileges wealthier Americans hurts her efforts. The record of President Bill
Clinton in the 1990s, whose White House pushed his party toward market
oriented policies and courted big business, looms large over her rhetoric.
While Bill Clinton did preside over an era of significant economic growth,
the divide between the rich and poor accelerated in the 1990s. Americans in the
lowest income brackets struggled. As Michelle Alexander argued in The Nation,
For too long, the conventional wisdom has argued mistakenly that Americans
reject government. We are children of Ronald Reagan, they say, seeing
government as a problem not the solution. Many Democrats have agreed and
have worked hard to push the party to the center. Bill Clinton famously said in
1996 that the era of big government was over. But the Sanders campaign is on
to something. Polls have consistently shown that Americans like government
much more than the pundits suspect.
When asked generally about government, Americans can be negative. But
when asked about specific programs like Social Security or the minimum wage
they jump with approval. If you listen to Sanders' speeches they often include a
long list of things that government has and continues to do well. Though
conservatives will argue this is radical, in many states, including red states, polls
show something different.
The long tail of Iraq
Even on foreign policy, Sanders makes arguments that really resonate in the
Democratic Party. Most important there is Iraq. Nothing looms larger in recent
years that the decision to go into Iraq. For many Democrats, and Republicans
as well, the war launched by the Bush administration was one of the most
disastrous decisions of recent decades -- and we're still dealing with the
consequences in the Middle East: 51% of Americans, according to Pew, still
view the decision to go to war as a mistake. The numbers are down from 2014,
but still a majority.
In 2008, Clinton learned that many Democrats were as angry with members of
their own party who went along with this decision as they were with the
administration. Barack Obama made this a theme. On this issue -- while in
Congress -- Sanders decided at the most difficult moment to vote against the
war. This decision will have considerable appeal when discussions turn to
foreign policy, an area Hillary Clinton has believed to be one of her strengths.
This is not just the left, but a large portion of the electorate who see this as a
fundamental turning point, and mistake, after 9/11.
None of this is to say that Clinton can't mount a vigorous and effective
comeback. Nor is it to say that many elements of Sanders' record, including his
work with socialist organizations won't be a huge stumbling block in more
conservative states.
But a strategy that simply relies on dismissing Sanders as left of center or
quixotic won't work. His arguments don't match this image, and his ideas will
continue to excite many Democratic voters.
To come back, Clinton will need to develop a more coherent and more
compelling set of ideas that she can call her own.
Presidential campaigns are about inspiration.
Julian Zelizer
Presidential campaigns are about inspiration. Americans understand the limits
of what a president can do and the problems of our gridlocked political system,
but they want to hear from candidates who are going to at least try to push for
big changes from the start. A campaign based on the promise of fighting and
"getting things done" will continue to have trouble against a campaign about a
set of powerful ideas, a "political revolution," that makes sense to large portions
of the American electorate.