“There are insurgent movements to the right and the left that are very populist, very charged with emotion. They’ve come out of people’s anger—they feel that the system isn’t responding to their needs.” Tony Blair Former British Labor Prime Minister.
The rise of the “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders on the left and the TV reality show business man–Donald Trump–on the right–in the 2016 American elections has rekindled interests in the nature of democracy, its bearers and social forces, its meaning, scope, and value for our common humanity.
And the rare convergence between the social bases and supporters (in the recent open Democratic Party West Virginia primaries, Donald Trump Republican Party voters went all out to vote for socialist Bernie Sanders against Hillary Clinton!)–of the two politicians, their inclination towards what some commentators call “hyper-democracy” – a practice which basically calls to question democratic institutions-parties, judicial system, parliaments etc designed to cultivate, nurture and build democracy-the fact that both represent these tendencies in similar and sometimes different ways has created a paradox which is worthy of study both -locally within America and globally outside America.
To begin with, the insurgent trend that shows many points of convergence between a left leaning -Bernie Sanders and a right wing with fascist temperament-Donald Trump-has a historical context. That context includes the history of (economic, political, race, ethnic, cultural, gender) inclusion and exclusion of democracy globally and nationally in America and elsewhere, history of global migration, and the increased demographic changes in western societies which hitherto were not only less diverse but were insular (western societies are not the only insular societies, other societies-Asian, Middle East/Islamic/Arab, Jewish, African, Latino/Hispanic societies are similarly insular and can be more intolerant in varying degrees) and are still in many cases reluctant to accept the diversity the demographic changes have brought.
For example, the fact that a Muslim emerged as the Mayor of London, UK- in the west-at a time Mr. Donald Trump’s racist supremacist views, xenophobia, bigotry, sexism made him the flag bearer of the American Republican Party in the 2016 elections is a testimony to the inevitable way multi-cultural, multi-national issues and demographic shifts shape elections.
Therefore these new trends invite us to examine closely some of the probable reasons for the rise of what the former British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair called insurgent movements (both left wing progressive and right wing conservative) in western democracies and the strange similarities in their social bases and followers.
In explaining this phenomenon, Mr. Blair correctly noted that the continuous rise of wealth stratification in the U.S. and through out Europe makes the middle class to feel underrepresented by government. Now the question is if the middle class feels under-represented, then it would be worse for the working class. The feeling of exclusion by two main social classes in society should ordinarily portend great danger for any polity.
The consequence of this feeling of under-representation is a combination of well “targeted” and also sometimes “mis-directed” anger. In the case of the progressive camp such misdirected anger naively mistakes the primary opponent and foe that must be defeated in an election year, for a fellow democrat. That primary foe is Mr. Donald Trump and his party-the Republican Party. Yet a misdirected anger by Mr. Bernie Sanders and his campaign team have wrongly assumed a fellow democrat (that is if Bernie Sanders genuinely believes that he is a member of the Democratic Party) Hillary Clinton as the main foe.
So even while Mr. Blair may be right in his appeal to continuous class stratification in America and Europe to explain Sanders’ and Trump’s insurgency, but given the increasingly demographic shift, multi-racial/ethnic nature of the American society and history of the race, gender and ethnicity of those who were historically included, denied and excluded in American democracy, it is extremely limiting and therefore unacceptable to limit the important issue of exclusion solely to class exclusion. On the campaign trail, Bernie Sanders and his campaign team also make the same mistake of limiting problem of exclusion and inequality to class and economic wage inequality. Sanders’ campaign team’s pandering to race and gender for purely electoral purposes came too late and therefore appear more as an attempt to win votes rather than a deep well entrenched and genuine multi-narrative and multi-theme vision of social exclusion and inequality.
Perhaps because as a socialist, Sanders campaign wrongly believes that a resolution of class exclusion and wage inequality automatically resolves race and gender exclusion and inequality, hence race and gender exclusion did not focus as independent and primary issues in Sanders’ campaign. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate in the 2016 American elections that has not made this grave mistake. Her campaign makes the multiple (economic, race, gender) and structural nature of class, race and gender exclusion her primary focus-thus correctly expanding the scope of the complex problem of social exclusions and social and economic inequality and their negative impact on the American polity.
Hence, it is significant that as insurgent as Sanders and Trump campaigns are and as progressive as Bernie Sanders is, Sanders’ and Trump’s main bases are white voters-they have little base among non-white voters. And contrary to Bernie Sanders’ socialist team and analysts who appeal to white class anger to explain Sanders and Trump, just as there are white middle and working classes; there are African American, Latino, Asian, Jewish and other non-white middle and working classes. So if white working and middle classes feel excluded and are attracted to Sanders and Trump equity demands that we ask why black, Latino, Asian and other non-white middle and working classes are not attracted to Sanders and Trump?
This is why it is strange that when some analysts explain the rise of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump and locate that rise in the feeling of exclusion of white middle and working classes from the polity, and how these voting blocs feel that the system is “broken” they simply forget working and middle classes who are women, African American, Latino, Asian, Jewish who are not attracted to Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. For these analysts who use the anger of white working and middle class men to explain the rise of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, voters who are women, African Americans, Latino, Asians and Jewish are simply invisible! This is the classic and usual case of how some races and ethnic groups and gender are invisible or made invisible in history.
In their narratives, it is obvious that Sanders’ team is telling half of the story when they spin the difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as “the divide about old people versus young people”. Yes, and it is true that most of Bernie Sanders’s supporters are youths-the millennial- but if Bernie Sanders performed (as he did) poorly among women, men and young people who are African Americans, Asians, Latinos, then this spin is not only immodest, arrogant and wrongheaded it is a self-serving spin.
The true divide between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is that Hillary Clinton has a coalition and political will and agency of African Americans-in their broad demographic sweep, Caucasian-Americans- in their broad demographic sweep, Asian Americans in their broad demographic sweep, Latinos in their broad demographic sweep, Jewish-Americans and women – in their broad demographic sweep behind her, while Bernie Sanders has the will of white working and middle class men behind him. There is a clear demographic divide here and this ought to be acknowledged and addressed in the interest of the Democratic Party and progressive politics beyond the political calculations of politicians-both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
So, in this regard, the pertinent question is if class is the issue, are there no working and middle classes among African-Americans, other peoples of African descent, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans, other non-white Americans etc? Are these non-white voting blocs not therefore suffering double exclusion (and sometime triple if they are women)-as members of the middle and working class and as an ethnic/racial/gender group? Are double and triple exclusions not more intense and damaging than a single layer class exclusion? And why have Sanders and Trump not able to attract these non-white voting groups?
Given Hillary Clinton’s multi-racial coalition, are Bernie Sanders’ “socialist” white working and middle class male (who are claiming they will vote for their presumably ideological opposite- rightwing conservative Donald Trump)- resisting Hillary Clinton’s multi-racial and gender coalition? To put the question starkly and bluntly, how can I as an un-repentant progressive consistently trust a “socialist” (Bernie Sanders’ socialist camp) camp, and their white male working and middle class “socialist” supporters who will be ready to vote for the ideological opponent of progressive ideas –Donald Trump- a right wing demagogue with a fascist temperament? This may make Bernie Sanders’ “socialist” team uncomfortable but this is a question they have to answer since they have self-defined as “socialists” and their body language is “what I cannot have I destroy”.
This is why Mr. Sanders’ claim that he is the better progressive to take on Donald Trump should be taken with a pinch of salt. I think Mr. Sanders and his “socialist” team needs to start to begin to learn some lessons in modesty and humility.
Mr. Sanders has never been tested by the right wing in the complex American electoral presidential politics, yet he claims he is the better candidate to take on the right wing candidate Donald Trump! For a candidate like Bernie Sanders whose default mode is not unity within the progressive camp, a claim to be the better candidate to take on the right wing flies in the face of real bourgeois politics of which building coalition and unity is its bedrock for success at the polls. Hence, Sanders’ claim is as untenable as it is self serving and egoistic. The rule of thumb in the sly, unpredictable, murky and stealthy nature of electoral politics is that when your ideological opponent prefers you, praises you, then you are the easier to be beaten. This is why today; Bernie Sanders is a darling of the Republican Party and the rightwing demagogue Donald Trump.
However, it is when the rightwing fireworks start, and Senator Sanders can stand the right wing heat and public negative scrutiny, that is when Sanders’ claim that he is the better candidate to take on Donald Trump can make sense. On the contrary, the American right wing and Republican Party have for two decades thrown everything including every zinc in the kitchen at Hillary Clinton, yet she is still standing. That should tell any right thinking progressive something about the electoral worth of Hillary Clinton and her ability to withstand the worst of right wing Republican propaganda against progressive politics and candidates.
Finally, the reason Mr. Trump the candidate of the right wing conservative Republican Party is popular among white male voters and loses among women, minority non-white voters is obvious. Mr. Trump tapped into the anger of the white middle and working classes and built his campaign in the Republican Party primaries around hate, bigotry, xenophobia, white supremacy, racism, anti-immigration, and sexism. That this worked for him in the primaries shows the danger of negative anger of some citizens and residents against their fellow citizens and residents as a campaign platform in a national election of diverse citizenry. This is because a campaign based on fear, bigotry, xenophobia, racism and hate as Donald Trump campaign is, is a recipe for the rise of at least a fascist temperament or potential of turning the so-called insurgent movement into a full blown fascist one down the road when needed.
While today you may not have a full blown classical fascist movement (as we know it) in Mr. Trump’s rise, however the seeds are there. Donald Trump, an intellectually and socially deficient demagogue who is ignorant of many issues that shape the modern world and who plays on the anger and mass ignorance of his mass audience in mass rallies and who works his audience to intense hate, xenophobia, bigotry anger and frenzy is surely a fascist in the making.
Mr. Bernie Sanders is a different kettle of fish. A “democratic socialist” his social base and supporters are not different from those of the right wing –Mr. Trump because Sanders campaign is class driven. For the traditional Marxist politician the primary issue is class, and they often fail to privilege how race has been historically excluded in that class politics, and how racism, sexism and gender oppression in many concrete and historical situations loom large over class. This does not take anything away from the fine progressive nature of socialist and Marxist politics.
But for traditional Marxist and “democratic socialist” politicians a resolution of the class problem is a resolution of the race and gender problem. Sadly, given our human experiences nothing can be further from the truth. Given the structural nature of extant racism and sexism, actual human experiences do not support the claim that resolving the economic and class problems resolve the race and gender problem. True, a resolution of economic and class contradiction is an enabler for a resolution of other exclusions and inequality-race, gender etc-but a resolution of class contradiction does not automatically resolve these exclusions and inequaity-race, gender etc. This is a lesson traditional Marxist politicians often miss. This is a lesson Sanders and his socialist campaign team missed badly in the 2016 American campaign and elections.
The point here is that analysts who focus on explaining why white working and middle classes seem to gravitate towards two white men –Sanders and Trump-who belong to different ideologies may be missing the usual invisible factors in American polity. Those invisible factors are race and gender. To make the point more poignantly and practically these analysts need to ask for the public records of work of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders among non-white American population and among women. To fail to do this is again to fall into the trap of the usual veil in American public life where minorities are constructed and made invisible in society and to power.
And this concerns Bernie Sanders, the more serious candidate and not the demagogue Donald Trump. Revolutionary slogans and rhetoric’s are fine and elegant as motivations. However what is required is entrenchment, consistent and honest past works among minority voters. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump do not have this record. Hillary Clinton has these records of work and entrenchment outside election cycles with minorities, which explains why they support her. This factor ought to be an inseparable part of the analysis if we will not make the mistake of making women, important non-white population-African American, Asian American, Latinos, Jewish to be invisible to power and in our society.
So, while Donald Trump has lost the non-white voters, Bernie Sanders struggles with this voting group because of the limited and narrow nature of their politics. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate whose support cuts across all the voting blocs-class, ethnicity, gender and religion for she makes the challenges in the intersection of race, gender, ethnicity and class –breaking the barriers-her main campaign theme.
While their campaigns continue to shape the system for different reasons, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are increasingly showing the limited nature of anger as campaign ideology because as Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister warned, “anger and answers are two different things, and ultimately we need answers.”
Here Tony Blair is right because when Bernie Sanders the left leaning insurgent candidate in the American primaries who had raged against the Big Banks was asked point blank how he would handle the banks, he quibbled he had no answer! There is a big difference in interpretation and working your interpretation into policies.
Philosophers indeed have interpreted the world what remains is for us to change it. It will be dangerous to work the anger of the working class into campaigns without a clear path for change. Such ambiguity works more in favor of extremely dangerous right wing parties and candidates like Donald Trump.
This is why Secretary Clinton-the more likely candidate of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party must listen to the issues Bernie Sanders and his platforms have raised and democratically adopt them. It is also the reason all progressives ought to close ranks by now behind Secretary Hillary Clinton who is known as a policy wonk and who will be able to work progressive and left leaning interpretations and solutions into policies for the benefit of American middle and working classes and the world at large beyond America. All progressives both in the United States of America and all over the world have important work to do.
The right wing demagogue with fascist temperament–Donald Trump-must be stopped. Massing and rallying behind Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton is the first call of historic duty to achieve this. When the bell tolls for humanity anywhere in the world, it tolls for you, it tolls for me, it tolls for everyone, and it tolls for every progressive.
Adeolu Ademoyo aaa54@cornell.edu Africana Studies and Research Center, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
