The Year the Rules Were Broken
Art credits to Lily Yang!
April 20, 2016
The Republicans had devised a seamless succession with Jeb Bush. The Democrats had planned for an inevitable win with Hillary Clinton. But for both parties, everything went wrong in the year of 2016. Jeb Bush spent $150 million and ended up losing handily to Donald Trump [1], and Clinton now suffers from a headache due to Bernie Sanders.
Riding upon a wave of discontent, Trump and Sanders, both very different in their policies and mannerisms, have ended up peddling the same anti-establishment narrative. Now, Trump remains the favorite and Sanders continues to jab at Clinton, scoring and causing a recent upset in Michigan. All of this prompts the question of why this happened and whether the hated “Washington Politician” really harms America as much as those two claim.
But since the Republicans face an internal class war, this discussion remains more relevant for them than for the Democrats, so we’ll tackle them first.
“Trump’s supporters,” Sikata Sengupta ‘18 explains, “are the angriest, most pessimistic and frightened people in America.”
These voters tend to mistrust political institutions, even the Republican candidates they vote for, who they identify as pathetic sellouts. Despite the lack of specificity, truth, or reason, these voters have overwhelmingly defected to Donald “tell it like it is” Trump.
Ms. Kuscenko, an Honors American Literature teacher, ties his success with his rhetoric, which “engages a certain cross-section of America through his word-choice and tone more so than other turn-of-the-century politicians.”
This strategy of promoting tone over policy has been received well by the group of angry voters. They are tired of political-correctness and submission. After years of silence, they reached the breaking point. Then came a man not afraid to stand up to the “PC police.” A man who insults women, minorities, religions and gets away with it. Because to his supporters, he does not lie or cower like a politician, or apologize. And they adore him for it. His success does not explain an anomaly, but rather longstanding problems within the Republican Party.
After 2012, when Mitt Romney lost an election he probably should have won, the best and brightest of the GOP convened to figure out why they lost to Obama. Their conclusion: they did not appeal to Latinos enough, a key growing demographic group. Since then, Republicans have sponsored bills for a pathway to citizenship, some of which politicians like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush spearheaded.
But after committing to that route, their historic white voter base felt neglected. The Washington Post reports in December that 53% of Republicans, if given the choice of either mass deportations or a path to citizenship, would choose the former. Among Trump supporters, the figure is 67% [3]. They do not want illegal immigrants threatening their jobs or changing society. Trump exploited these grievances to his benefit.
The GOP has also advocated for other proposals that have directly hurt its base. One such example is the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, negotiated by President Obama and supported by the Republican elite. This is the same deal that Trump spurns, claiming it destroys middle class and blue-collar jobs while favoring big-business [4]. For many who have faced unemployment due to globalization and free trade, his message resonates powerfully.
Characterized as a demagogue by some, Trump also exploits the fears of many Americans. He said he would “bomb the crap” out of ISIS and bring back “a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” He promotes a Muslim ban, which most Republican politicians condemn; however, Vox finds that 30% of ordinary Republicans believe the government should outlaw Islam [5]. Trump’s base regards him as the only vanguard against sea of Muslim terrorists, a view which, especially in the age of terrorism, has helped Trump immensely.
When looking at Trump, there can be no doubt that he would make an awful president – but would the establishment fare better? Trump as a president produces chills down the spines of many for good reason: his policies contain unrealistic and downright hateful elements. In fact, the party elites are so scared that they dispatched Mitt Romney to flat-out condemn him for 30 minutes. But as a symbol, Trump brings a destructive yet necessary shock to the Republican Party.
For so long, the establishment has lied to, ignored, and frustrated their base. The disconnect needs to stop. Ironically enough, Trump himself horrendously lies on a day to day basis and benefits from it. This may force the establishment to finally mend the detachment that has destroyed their party. Washington politicians like Kasich certainly scare me less than Trump. But right now, the GOP deals with an inevitable self-correcting event. And that event, like it or not, is Donald J. Trump.
Ignoring Bernie Sanders’ recent upset win in Michigan, Hillary Clinton chuckled that “just when I think the Republicans can’t get any worse, they always surprise me.” Yet for the entire year, Clinton has had to face even more surprises from Bernie Sanders.
Like Trump, Sanders has created a populist campaign branded with a pledge to defeat corrupt politicians who confide in special interest groups. Unlike Trump, his campaign does not meander into demagogic territory; he does not favor mass deportations, nor refuses to disavow the KKK, nor proclaims that Islam hates Americans. His focus remains on economics and corrupt politics.
Arnav Gupta ’19 characterizes that “Sanders’ main arguments vilify inequality and the complacency of the super-rich while pursuing a socially liberal agenda.” He has attacked Clinton for her ties to Wall Street, like when Goldman Sachs paid her $250,000 for one speech [6]. He has also rejected any Super PAC, raising an astonishing $42 million in 2016 in small donations from a dedicated group of young liberals [7].
Mirroring Trump, Sanders has characterized free trade deals as sellouts to corporate cronies that destroy the middle-class. Placing, like Trump, message before specific policy, Sanders has soared. His campaign garners far more inspiration than Clinton’s. According to Real Clear Politics, Sanders started off at 2% support, but now has 40% [7]. He has seriously challenged Clinton, winning most Northern and white states in the primaries.
However, the Democratic Party hates Bernie Sanders. They feel his anti-establishment narrative has alienated the Democratic Party from many of its voters. In fact, in December, they excluded him from the Democratic National Convention database, prompting outrage. Also, the matter of socialist tendencies scares opportunistic Democrats even more. As it stands, only 12 party members have backed him, compared to 360 for Clinton [8]. Still, the Democrats’ campaign to defeat Sanders maintains civility, unlike the Republicans’ crusade against Trump.
In the Democratic Party, a career politician (in this case Clinton) also bodes better than Sanders, simply because he is too unrealistic. He certainly means well and cares deeply for the country, but he advocates socialism, an unpopular policy that cannot work in America. The Wall Street Journal notes that even if he convinces Congress to tax the rich (which remains extremely improbable), his free healthcare and education policies would cost $18 trillion [9].
Clinton has capitalized on Sanders’ lack of foresight to brand herself as “a progressive who gets things done,” which has strengthened her appeal. The Democrats, for the time being, do not have a huge disconnect problem like the Republicans. But with Bernie’s crowds swelling with more impassioned and frustrated liberals, the Democratic establishment could find itself in the same chokehold as its Republican counterpart.
Whether in the Republican or Democratic Party, many question the future of government as the old political order lies shaken. However, especially in The Year the Rules Were Broken, the criteria for choosing a president should not be who insults others the most, or who pledges too much. The office of the presidency should not be taken lightly. Rationality and reason should still prevail over demagoguery and empty promises.
References
