2015 and 2016 have definitely not been the years of political elegance or any form of political correctness. Recently John Boehner called Ted Cruz “Lucifer in the flesh” and Trump proclaimed “”The only thing she’s got going is the fact that she’s a woman,” in regards to Hillary Clinton. A Sanders […]
2015 and 2016 have definitely not been the years of political elegance or any form of political correctness. Recently John Boehner called Ted Cruz “Lucifer in the flesh” and Trump proclaimed “”The only thing she’s got going is the fact that she’s a woman,” in regards to Hillary Clinton. A Sanders surrogate named Paul Song came out to allude to Hillary Clinton and others as “corporate Democratic whores” and Trump alluded to the paralyzed political columnist Charles Krauthammer by stating “Then I get called by a guy who can’t buy a pair of pants, I get called names?” Yet despite brash and outright offensive critiques, two polar opposite candidates are gaining traction with the frustrated American populous. One is a billionaire who distrusts the establishment in his own party and the other being the longest serving independent in Congressional history who rallies against the billionaire class on a daily basis. Yet these two polar opposites have somehow seized the limelight and energized previously disenfranchised citizens who have garnered little attention to their situation from Washington. Two individuals of opposite sides of the political spectrum have rallied around a plethora of similar messages, with different details. So how have these individuals garnered so much support? This can be answered in one simple word, frustration.
In the last 25-30 years the American economy has seen a swift increase in worker productivity and technological advancement. Yet the common American has felt left out of progress, with an economic ceiling blocking them from socio-economic advancement.The recent jobs report from the BLS show an increase of 215,000 employed Americans as the economy rests at full employment. Full employment being the most efficient utilization of resources without becoming inflationary, not meaning every American individual having a job. Since 2008 the American economy has made great strides as the Obama administration has created 14.4 million jobs along with 73 months of undisturbed private sector job growth, an economic record. The labor force participation rate has inched its way upward as of recent and in comparison to how other nations have handled vast financial crisis such as 2008 and 1929, the “United States has performed better than any large economy on Earth in modern history” in regards to economic recovery from the deepest recessions. According to the March jobs report, wages grew 2.3% this year which beat expectations. The deficit (not the national debt), is 1 trillion dollars lower than when Obama stepped into office and the deficit has been cut by 3/4th on average according to Andrew Ross Sorkin from the New York Times. However, average household income is still $4,000 less than at the end of the Clinton administration. According to the Center For American Progress, trickle-down economics has stagnated wages as average real hourly earnings fell at an annual rate of .1% between 1981 and when Clinton took office. In contrast, the Clinton administration was the last era of vast wage growth as average hourly earnings grew by 0.9 percent per year until Clinton left office. As seen in 2008, wages do naturally fall in recession as labor markets become more competitive as millions flock for job opportunities. However, while wages have risen as of late due to a recovered economy, the struggle is still felt by millions of middle class Americans. Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are playing on this middle class frustration in order to garner populist support. Both insult these stagnate incomes and critique establishment economics which have left millions of Americans economically insecure. Sanders rallies around an Emmanuel Saenz study which shows the top 1% taking home on average 91% of pretax income. Sanders sees this as a result of a corrupt campaign finance system and the U.S. government being in bed with the wealthy elite as corporations pay ”starvation wages”. Sanders also blames income inequality on the decimation of unions in the American private sector workforce. Trump blames the United States campaign finance system and also attributes wage stagnation to an influx of undocumented immigrants working for lower wages, thus resulting in a race to the bottom. Both Sanders and Trump create a protectionist sentiment in regards to trade, seeing economic trade deals as drivers of American unemployment and a race to the bottom. Sanders and Trump both seize on the manufacturing sector as 2.7 million jobs have been lost to China, 2.1 million in the manufacturing sector according to U.S. News. Trump and Sanders see the Chinese as corrupt currency manipulators and wage manipulators who devalue their currency and lower wages below market value dishonestly which has increased the U.S. trade deficit. While the two candidates fail to address the key economic benefits and gain laid upon the U.S. as a result of the WTO, CAFTA, NAFTA, and possibly the TPP, they still reiterate the same talking point of a middle class under siege. This message has resulted in huge American populist protectionism, which is economically uncompetitive and would stunt U.S. economic health, but sits well with a frustrated middle class. Both candidates have banked on American frustration regarding unemployment and wage stagnation as income inequality has increased, which sits well with the typical middle class American blue collar worker.
Donald Trump recently exclaimed in response to the RNC that “The system is corrupt.” and “What they’re trying to do is subvert the movement with crooked shenanigans.” Trump stated this soon after Cruz swept Colorado’s 37 delegates due to the state not holding a popular vote. After the DNC withheld crucial voter date from Bernie Sanders, the Sanders campaign followed through with a lawsuit. Sanders has even publicly proclaimed “Very little is going to be done to transform our economy… unless we end a corrupt campaign finance system which is undermining American democracy.” Both candidates have seized the opportunity to cast critiques on the many loopholes in our campaign finance system. Buckley v. Valeo put stark limits on direct campaign contributions yet allowed for candidates to put in unlimited sums of personal money into their own campaigns. In Citizens United v. FEC, the United States District Court of D.C. had its decision reversed by the United States Supreme Court which has allowed for Super PAC’s to raise money and spend unlimited independent expenditures as long as the spending was “independent” of candidates. PAC’s however have a $5,000 campaign contribution limit or can give a capped $15,000 to any national party committee according to OpenSecrets.org. While Super PAC’s may not have direct contact with candidates, these Super PAC’s can run ads and campaign in favor of a certain candidate or may critique other candidates as long as direct contact is not made with an official campaign. Both Trump and Sander’s understand that in return for helping candidates in elections, these interest groups earn favor and receive legislative, executive, and judicial gifts from those who they helped get elected. This is best seen in a recent report that states, for every dollar a top 50 corporation pays in taxes, they receive $27 back in corporate welfare. Every dollar a top 50 corporation uses for lobbying results in $130 in tax breaks and credits and $4,000 in corporate welfare. Bernie Sanders has called this “crony capitalism” or “socialism for the rich.” Donald Trump has been seen as an “anti-corporate candidate”, even if his actions as a real estate mogul speak differently. In response, the Sanders campaign has ran a grass roots campaign for the people and raised $44 million in March, thus leading to a total of near $109 million in the first quarter of this year. The Sanders campaign has touted its average annual campaign contribution of $27 and has criticized Clinton’s fundraising methods of Wall Street donations and a recent campaign fundraiser for Clinton by George Clooney which had tickets cost around $33,400 at minimum and $353,400 at maximum. In response, Sanders supporters stood outside Clinton’s motorcade and threw dollar bills at the moving vehicle in protest. Sanders has rallied around the idea that individuals such as the Koch Brothers have access to legislators unlike the American common man. Donald Trump has also reached into his own pocket and accepted small campaign donations in protest of campaign finance corruption. Trump has spent $17.8 million of his own money on his campaign which makes up the majority of the $26 million he has brought in. Trump has chastised his fellow party member’s connection to big money interest and has become a wild card in regards to campaign finance reform. Both the Brooklyn made Senator and the Manhattan real estate mogul have banked off American frustration with the political process and have promised to return democracy to the common American populous.
Donald Trump has continuously promised to “Make America Great Again” and Sanders has promised to “Revitalize the American Middle Class”. Both individuals in the end have promised to rebuild America. For instance both individuals see our crumbling infrastructure as a disgrace. Bernie Sanders has promised to invest $1 trillion dollars in roads, bridges, water, and rail systems which he states could uphold 13.5 million new middle class jobs. On September 3rd of 2015, Donald Trump echoed this sentiment by stating “We have infrastructure that we have to fix, we have bridges and roads and tunnels and everything’s falling apart.” Both candidates have expressed sentiment for rebuilding America from the inside out. Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have promised not to cut or eliminate Social Security or Medicare, both programs supported by millions of Americans. Sanders has criticized the war in Iraq along with Trump despite Trump typically being more hawkish than Sanders. Trump has flip flopped on past foreign policy ideas, yet as of recent has stuck to his core message of rebuilding the U.S. military.
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both have stark contrast yet share a variety of core concepts they wish to achieve if ever elected into the highest rank in the land. Both candidates do have many differences in regards to immigration, taxes, and other key policy areas. Yet both these individuals do share the basic core economic and political critique of the past 30 to 40 years. The candidates have united a movement in Middle Class America centered on frustration. Increasing economic inequality, stagnant wages, and limited prosperity have been key issues addressed in both campaigns along with political corruption. Donald Trump has played on the fear of social change and socio economic hysteria while Sanders has utilized the critique of the wealthiest Americans and “crony capitalism.” While both candidates have different reasoning for these issues, the message can be felt by the common American. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have both in their own ways created two political movements of angry constituents who wish to return America to greatness and shared prosperity. While both candidates play on similar concepts irritating the common American, the reasoning behind the issues at hand are open to millions of Americans own philosophical interpretation. The fact of the matter is, the American populous is frustrated and in response have shifted their political leanings further right and further left in order to disrupt the current political order they deem unfit to govern.
Written by Dylan Lofton a centrist Democrat
dyllofton 