Left-wing politicians are in electoral retreat across most of the western world. The one exception is the US. At 15 per cent in the Democratic polls, Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont, is riding higher than any US socialist since Eugene Debs ran for the White House a century ago.
The fact that Sanders has very little chance of unseating Hillary Clinton is beside the point. His popularity is dragging her leftward. If he flames out, other left-wingers, such as Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland who entered the race last week, are ready to pick up the baton. Elizabeth Warren, the populist Massachusetts senator, will continue to prod Hillary from outside the field. The more Hillary adopts their language, the harder it will be for her to reclaim the centre ground next year. Yet, she is only following the crowd. A surprisingly large chunk of Democrats are happy to break the US taboo against socialism.
To most students of US politics, the phrase American socialism is an oxymoron — like clean coal or the Bolivian navy. A century ago, Werner Sombart, a German scholar, asked: “Why is there no socialism in America?” It was a question that confounded Marxists. As the most advanced capitalistic society, the US was most ripe for a proletarian revolution, according to their teleology.
Yet, the US refused to live up to its role. Europe’s finest intellectuals would have done better to have listened to the Irish immigrant in 1893 who, on landing at Boston docks, proclaimed: “If there’s a government here, I’m agin it.” They might also have read the first three words of the US Constitution: “We the people”. For all the crimes committed against Native and black Americans, the US republic came into being without an aristocracy or feudal serfdom. It was born a middle class country with equality of opportunity as its creed. That made it a radically different place to the old world it had left behind.
Such differences are no longer obvious. No one, including Sanders, is talking about nationalising chunks of the US economy. Yet, his policies are radical by American standards. He wants a single-payer health care system, along the lines of Canada, or the United Kingdom. He would abolish tuition fees for in-state higher education. He would drive big money out of US politics, redistribute income, mandate paid holidays and increase social security benefits. He would also break up the “too big to fail” Wall Street banks. “Are we prepared to take on the enormous political and economic power of the billionaire class,” asks Sanders, “or do we continue to slide into ... oligarchy?”
A highly energised minority of Democrats are responding to his message. Sanders raised $1.5 million (Dh5.51 million) from small donors within 24 hours of his launch in early May. Although Sanders is trailing far behind Hillary, his support exceeds that of almost any candidate in the Republican field. Is it a temporary protest vote? Or should Hillary’s donors start to worry?
The answer to the first question will come when Democrats hold their first presidential debate. As a plain talker with an authentic personality, the septuagenarian Sanders could strike an unflattering contrast to Hillary. Because Hillary is so strongly associated with dynasty and wealth — the Clintons earned more than $25 million in speaking fees since the beginning of 2014 — she will feel all the more need to appropriate Sanders’s rhetoric. But that will risk making her seem even less authentic. A majority of the US public already says they find Hillary untrustworthy. Sanders will not become the 45th president of the US, but he can fatally wound Hillary’s chances. So, too, could Warren.
The answer to the second question is yes — Sanders is no flash in the pan. Socialism found no audience in the US because most Americans felt they were middle class. High rates of social mobility gave most people the sense that their society was exceptional — and rightly so. As Richard Hofstadter, the US historian, said: “It has been our fate as a nation not to have ideologies but to be one.”
That is now in question. As recently as 2008, 63 per cent of Americans identified as upper middle or middle class. That has fallen to 51 per cent. Meanwhile, the share of Americans who self-identify as “working and lower class”, according to Gallup, has risen from 35 per cent to 48 per cent since 2008. Perhaps fittingly, the share of Americans who identify as upper class is 1 per cent. That number has not changed. But the belief that they are rigging the system is now mainstream.
To be clear, I am not forecasting a red dawn in the US. It is hard to imagine even a small portion of Sanders’s agenda being enacted. But the rise of the Democratic left is every bit as real as the Tea Party’s surge among Republicans. Until recently, political scientists talked of “asymmetric polarisation” - meaning Republicans were moving more to the right than Democrats were moving left. Now Democrats are catching up. Meanwhile, more and more Americans profess intolerance for other people’s political beliefs. Elections are generally won in the centre. But it is smaller than it used to be. By US traditions, next year’s election is likely to present an unusually stark clash of ideologies. Whatever else he does from here, Mr Sanders has already ensured that.
— Financial Times