The Rise of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump
Editorial Note: This article was submitted before Super Tuesday.
The Democratic Presidential Primary is shaping up to be one of the most chaotic in recent memory. 29 candidates threw their hats into the ring, creating the most competitive primary in US history. This list, with candidates ages 38-89, contained seven visible minorities, six non-Christians, two billionaires, one member of the LGTBQ community, and even someone who endorsed Trump in 2016!
Ten debates and four states later, we are left with a field of six candidates- though from the looks of it, the race has come down between Senator Bernie Sanders and former Vice-President Joe Biden. However, no clear leader has emerged as while Biden is leading the popular vote (29.4% v 24.4%), Sanders is leading the pledged delegate count (37.4% vs 36.1%). While only 3.9% of the delegates have been awarded, the competitive nature of the race is expected to continue with FiveThirtyEight.com expecting a 65% chance that there will be a contested convention, something not seen since the modern presidential primary system was created in 1972.
The rise of Sanders, as well as President Trump, is a direct response to increased dissatisfaction of the neoliberal socio-economic framework that has been dominating western politics since the early 1990s. Starting with the likes of Bill Clinton, left-leaning politicians have abandoned economic left-wing policies. Instead, they became left-wing solely on social issues with an abandonment of the issues facing the working class. There are multiple policies which represent this, but the one most directly related to the 2016 election of Trump is that on trade. Trade agreements make it easier for multinational corporations to shift jobs overseas. They foster a “race to the bottom” of countries on wages, labour regulations, environmental regulations, and tax policy. Trade Agreements also enacted Investor-State Dispute Panels, which are a system of privatized pseudo-courts which allow foreign companies to sue governments for enacting policies, such as environmental regulations, which reduce their expected profits.
For the average voter though, the upshot of all of this was that they lost their well-paying, union manufacturing jobs and, due to lack of employment, their communities. The decline of local manufacturing made it no longer possible for someone with only a high school diploma to earn enough to support themselves, let alone a family. They would have turned to social assistance, except the 1990s were also an era when social assistance and other government services were cut in order to fund the tax breaks that were given in the 1980s by Ronald Reagan to the ultra-rich. Meanwhile, as governments have cut taxes at the top, they have focused on raising revenue via highly-regressive consumption taxes, payroll taxes, and user fees. These taxes and fees are, as a percent of income, higher on the working poor than they are on the middle class and have a negligible impact on the corporate elite.
The cumulative effects of these policies, which continued in the 2000s and 2010s, have been an increase in wealth inequality and a decline in standard of living. Currently in the US, the 3 richest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the country. Meanwhile, as their wealth has increased, they have been paying less and less in taxes. Under President Eisenhower (1953-61), the top marginal tax rate was 92-93% on incomes exceeding $4,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) and 20-32% of US government revenues came from corporate income taxes. Currently, the top marginal tax rate is only 37% and 30% of government revenue comes from regressive payroll taxes, while only 10% come from corporate taxes. And of course, due to avoidance schemes which the government has been turning a blind eye to, companies like Amazon and GE pay no taxes.
Pre-Regan top tax rates created a system of shared prosperity. People still had an incentive to produce wealth, but there simultaneously existed an obligation to society. Distribution was more equitable, with corporate executives making 20 times the pay of the median worker rather than the 500 times they currently do. Governments had more tax revenue to properly fund public services such as affordable post-secondary education or much-needed infrastructure. This system of shared prosperity was reflected in people’s day-to-day lives as well. In the 1950s and 60s, one person with a high school diploma working 40 hours a week could support a spouse and multiple kids in a reasonably sized house with a decent commute and a solid retirement plan. Now, one needs multiple degrees, is expected to work 60+ hours a week, and both parents are required to work full-time. The increase in regressive payroll and sales taxes coupled with the reduction in government services have further squeezed the working population. We are working more and producing more wealth than ever before (productivity has quadrupled since the 1970s). There is no reason we should be accepting a decline in standard of living.
Of course, there were a lot of problems in that time and I am in no way calling for a return to racial segregation or traditional gender roles. However, since then, our economic system has regressed and resulted in a situation where we are working harder and longer than generations past for a lower standard of living. Meanwhile, the ultra-rich who live on the labour of others have more wealth than ever before and pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than anyone else, including the working poor.
So, as people, especially people in swing states, were losing their manufacturing jobs and seeing their standard of living decline, the Democratic party establishment was ignoring their issues. Rather than going after these problems, the Democratic Party (and most “left wing” neoliberal parties) was focused on dividing people onto racial and gender lines. Rather than combatting ever-increasing pay gap between executives and everyone else, the neoliberal parties were focused on ensuring that 50% of corporate executives are women and 10% are visible minorities. This might be nice for visible minorities and women who are already in the top 0.1%, but does nothing for the, say, 23% of African Americans living in poverty. No doubt there are real problems regarding racial justice and gender equality. However, the way to address those issues is to actually solve them instead of engaging in broad stroke remarks about privilege and oppression. White men have the highest suicide rate of any group in the US- that is hardly what I would call a group which is uniformly privileged.
Enter Donald Trump, a skilled salesman who was able to take advantage of the grievances of the white working class and exploit them. The only way for the Democrats to win is to nominate Bernie Sanders, a candidate who for more than 40 years has consistently spoken for the working and middle class and against the increasing concentration of wealth and the declining standard of living. Unlike Trump, Sanders has well-formulated policies to reduce the concentration of wealth and bring back 1950s-60s ideals of shared prosperity without the racism, sexism, and homophobia of the era. Senator Sanders’ policies to bring back well-paying union jobs, ensure that the corporate elite pay their fair share of taxes, and invest in high quality public service are what America needs. As for us Canadians, we need to stop being complacent as we are facing the same issues and need a leader with similar policies.