So much of political analysis in the mainstream sense is comparison and analogy. This candidate is like these previous candidates, and this candidate for whom no memorable matching candidate who anyone remembers can be found is like this character from a movie. If all else fails, it's like baseball. To say that it's not always the most useful method of analysis is an understatement.
When trying to think of a historical antecedent for the Trump campaign – not that I would not relish the opportunity to never have to think or talk about it again – my first thought was to go overseas where far-right nationalist parties are well-established in most multiparty systems. They are a catch basin for xenophobes, racists, reactionaries, and all manner of dolts broadly defined. In the modern world the closest thing to Trump is a guy like J-M Le Pen in France: blatantly discriminatory, unapologetic, and obsessed with Strength and juvenile dick-waving macho image projection. In the United States the only modern equivalent would be Sarah Palin. Even AM Talk Radio sycophants are more intellectually curious than Trump's people. They have arguments, albeit stupid ones often based on incorrect versions of reality and motivated thinking. A Trump crowd is just a bunch of primates pounding their chests and flinging shit at the slightly different chimps from across the river.
The other one I've thought about a lot is Bernie Sanders. People like Hillary Clinton – mainstream middle-of-road types who are weathervanes to indicate the direction of public opinion and campaign donations – are a dime per dozen. Sanders, due to his age and overall lack of looking the part, is not something we see every election cycle. I still think Elizabeth Warren must be kicking herself, as she declined to run believing that an opportunity would not present itself with Clinton around. She was incorrect. She'd have Sanders' base but with considerably more strength as a candidate on paper.
The most obvious comparison for Sanders would take us back to the Progressive Era in the U.S., someone on the order of Robert LaFollette. Eugene V. Debs doesn't work, as the mold of labor radicals from that era has been broken. We just don't make them like that anymore. Personally I think the best comparison for Sanders comes from overseas, and from the country whose domestic politics and population are most similar to the U.S. – Australia. Sanders strikes me as an American version of Gough Whitlam.
You'd be hard pressed to find a lot of Americans who can identify that name (pronounced "Goff") but Whitlam was a left-wing PM from the Nixon-Ford years who was unapologetic and full-speed about bringing Australia into the modern world. Prior to 1970, Australia was a backwater. It was the Mississippi of the former British Empire. The White Australia Policy was in effect until almost 1970 and the country was in danger of sliding into the class of global pariahs like Apartheid South Africa. Whitlam was elected in 1972 and was out on his ass (after the fabulously interesting 1975 Constitutional Crisis, which is a story for another day) in less than four years. He was widely reviled after leaving office but in time the country has come to understand how much he did to make it the place it is today. He ended all racially discriminatory policies and made the first steps toward ending the Men's Club nature of Australian politics. He granted aboriginal land tenure. He abolished capital punishment. He championed the Aussie version of the TVA, bringing services to remote areas. He legalized birth control and no-fault divorce. He introduced equal pay legislation for women. He granted independence to colonial vestiges like Papua New Guinea. He established free medical care and college tuition (the latter since rolled back). He ended unconditionally Australian involvement in Vietnam. He quadrupled arts funding. He recognized China under Mao before anyone else.
It wasn't all sunshine and roses. Even his admirers, myself included, recognize that there were some blind spots in his ability to understand economic policy and that he foolishly tried to placate voters by cutting taxes while spending grandly on social and economic programs. But his attitude as their elected leader was, "I will do what is right and you will appreciate it later. Not now, but later." At the advanced age of 75, I think Sanders would be a similar president. Honestly, what can someone at that age care about what the public thinks in the short term? If elected Sanders would be loathed with an intensity that would make Obama look like America's most beloved citizen by comparison. But everything about his ideology has that, "You will thank me later" feeling to it. He has a long view, which is why he seems so different. Everyone else in politics has adapted the business world philosophy of doing what will yield the most dazzling results from quarter to quarter, or at least attempting to do so.
Whitlam paid a heavy political price for his approach. A huge mountain of a man, his philosophy was to charge like a bull and make as much forward progress as possible before inevitably being dragged down. He failed to revive the Australian economy, but every Western economy was in total shambles during the era of the Oil Embargo and the hangover from Vietnam. Short term thinkers complain "Gas is too expensive!" and blame the people in power. People who can take a longer view appreciate changes that will pay dividends over several decades, not in next week's paycheck.
That's what I think is appealing about Sanders, and my affinity for Whitlam might lead me to project a little. Bernie certainly isn't the imposing, commanding figure that Whitlam was in his prime. However, he seems difficult to rattle and entirely focused on the future: 10, 20, 50 years from now. Everyone else sounds petty, small, narrowly focused, and shortsighted in comparison. That's the sign of someone who belongs in a leadership position. I've given up hope that anyone is going to get elected and turn this country around in time for me to reap any of the benefits. Leading a country isn't about that, though. Yes, everyone wants the trains to run tomorrow but that simply is the day-to-day business of making government function. It's not a goal, an agenda, or a plan. Age is often cited as a key argument against Sanders, but frankly I see some very real benefits to being 75 and entering the White House. There's something to be said for being too old to give a shit what Mitch McConnell wants or what Fox & Friends say anymore, after all.
tenacitus says:
If I remember correctly he was the Australian PM that the American government wanted to see removed because of his policies about nuclear weapons an Australia's involvement with the cold war. If memory serves Gough went through something similar to Britain's first labour government with the Zinoview letter.
Talisker says:
Another good comparison for Trump would be Vladimir Zhirinovsky in Russia. He occupies a similar far-right nationalist niche, but is more willing to promote crazy and inconsistent ideas just for the hell of it. JM Le Pen is loathsome, but he was a somewhat more serious politician with consistent (albeit hateful) policies. (JM Le Pen has now retired and handed over the reins to his equally loathsome daughter.)
An interesting comparison for Bernie is Jeremy Corbyn, who became leader of the UK Labour Party in 2015. There are some obvious similarities: Scruffy personal style, relatively old, long-serving members of Congress/Parliament, on the far left of their respective parties, rose to prominence out of grassroots frustration with the party establishment.
IMO the key difference is that Bernie has carefully thought about how he wants to reform the US government, and has coherent ideas he has been developing for decades. Corbyn is fundamentally a protester; he's against all kinds of things, especially nuclear weapons and war in any form, but it's much more difficult to work out what he's for.
Another difference is that AIUI Bernie has pretty good relations with other Democrats in Congress, whereas Corbyn is remote from and distrusted by most of his fellow Labour MPs (a serious problem in Britain's parliamentary system).
One last thing: Say what you will about her, Hillary does not appear to give a shit what the Republicans in Congress think. See her performance at the Benghazi hearings for an example. She and Bernie have that much in common.
Talisker says:
Ed, you're my age. I personally hope to be around for another 50 years (into my late 80s) or longer. A lot can happen in that length of time.
Tim H. says:
Good points, but the .01%, like Verucca Salt, want it NOW.
Xynzee says:
The only problem I have with the Bern is that, unlike Gough, he will be effectively isolated. Parliamentary politics is voting for a party or a coalition of parties that form the government. Therefore Gough had a parliamentary majority in the Lower House to get his policies through. In his second term—Aus terms are three years—there was either a shift in the make up at the election or he'd alienated enough of the Senate (the check on the govt) for them to block supply—not pass his budget—which lead to a Double Dissolution and required a new election. There's much debate if the Governor General jumped the gun in declaring a DD instead of allowing Gough the opportunity to hash it out with the Senate to get his budget through. But I digress, and should let eau and/or Glen H tell the tale.
My point is; Bernie will certainly not have the backing of the House, and unless there's a major shakeup of the Senate, will be unable to beat a "filibuster'. I doubt given the quality of politicians in America that even if there was a 62% Dem majority in the Senate that he'd get much through them. He's threatening too many of their vacation homes by wanting to rollback C. Unt'd.
Effectively, he might as well just go fishing for the next four years after passing an executive order that ALL legislation is to be printed on paper that has been pre-printed with a veto on it, and only ring him if something goes **BOOM!!**
HoosierPoli says:
Xynzee: That's not really a criticism that stops with Bernie, unless we expect Hillary Clinton to embark on some serious bipartisanship, in which case god help us all.
DiTurno says:
Why would Elizabeth Warren be kicking herself? Bernie's clearing the ground, and at some point she can go even further. I think she's a much better politician than Bernie (not that he's bad), and she's definitely more charismatic.
negative 1 says:
IMHO you can see the difference in Bernie in the criticisms in his policy. There are real, substantive questions about the costs/fundings of his universal college and healthcare plans, and a real, substantive answer in his supporters belief that if you wait for every plan to be flawless before doing something you will be paralyzed by inaction. The unfairness is where is that question being asked in the 'permanent war all the time' of the entire GOP field (because we all know wars are free) or the questions about how the f&*k any of Hillary's policies are actually going to change a goddamn thing about any of the economic issues the Democratic party seems to actually care about. I'm all for the press asking candidates tough policy questions that actually help advance a discussion; I just think it seems to be asked a little bit more of one than the others.
John Danley says:
I'm starting to fully appreciate what George Carlin was talking about.
dantespal says:
We're all too old to give a shit what Mitch McConnell thinks.
Chicagojon says:
I'm going to have to re-read this many times to digest, but I always viewed Sanders as Ron Paul with a different message.
With apologies to those feeling the Bern — I think it will end the same for Sanders as it does for all of the R. Pauls. Good message, lots of supporters, no question that some (if not many or nearly all) of their ideas and principles would be better than the status quo, but in the end the system won't allow someone so far outside the system.
Greg says:
So R Pauls have ideas that would be better than the status quo? I think you came to the wrong place to make such a glib statement. It MAY BE that a few isolated ideas from them make sense, but most of their ideas are horribly, horribly wrong and you should go back and do some reviewing of R Paul senior's views on race and the gold standard, and junior's thoughts ("evolved" though they may have become) on the civil rights act, then come back and see if you still think "good"
David says:
Ed, you got to get your facts straight. Australia was actually quite late (1972) in recognizing the Peoples Republic of China. At least 90 countries recognized the PRC before Australia (excluding the Soviet republics), includind India, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland and Sweden in 1950. Canada recognized the PRC in 1970.
Anubis Bard says:
A Sanders presidency would be an utter fiasco. Since that's the best case scenario that I can see these days, he's got my vote.
Skipper says:
Chicagojoan said the magic word: The System
Candidates and politicians are marginally important. The most important thing is The System. Politicians who don't conform to the wishes of The System — on the things that are core issues of The System — simply don't survive.
This was all presented quite clearly and compellingly in a book by Charles Reich in the mid-'90s — Opposing the System. Reich was the author of the acclaimed "Greening of America." Unfortunately, the book on The System came out in the midst of the tech boom when the stock market was going crazy, everyone was going to be a billionaire by tomorrow, and people were quitting their jobs to become day traders. So, the book was largely ignored. However, everything he said in it has come to pass.
The best analogy I can think of is something I heard from someone much smarter than I am — unfortunately I can't remember who it was.
Think of The System as a big, wide, powerful river. On the river is a boat (that's us) and there's a captain (president? whoever). The river (The System) is powerful and is sweeping the boat along.
The captain is limited in what he can do. He can steer to the right. He can steer to the left. He can (vainly) try to steer upstream. He can flash the lights as furiously as he wants and he can toot the whistle. He can crash us on the rocks.
But in the end, the river will go — and take the boat — where the river wants to go. Those of us on the boat — even the captain — can only hope that there aren't some giant falls ahead, because the river doesn't care about the boat — just as The System doesn't care about us.
Pete Gaughan says:
I'm in the publishing business, so I spend way too much time with 'comparables' (every book proposal has to be like something else: "it's _Tipping Point_ meets _Infinite Jest_!!" and similiar nonsense).
But I've thought of Trump as a mashup of Le Pen and Ross Perot. A nonpolitician who claims his business experience as the reason anyone should listen to him, with Le Pen's evil views.
Talisker: "Bernie has carefully thought about how he wants to reform the US government". Eh?? Sanders does a *lot* of hand-waving at details, and at the fact that nothing he wants will ever get through Congress.
Scout says:
I'm voting for Bernie in the primaries, but at this point, I don't care which one of them wins the nomination as long as they also win the Presidency. Neither Bernie OR Hillary will get any agenda passed with the Congress we have, but they will at least be able to continue to veto the inevitable continued Obamacare repeals, choose decent SCOTUS nominees and shoot down any attempts to backslide on abortion and gay rights. I wish people would just dial it back a notch; I'm already tired of this election season.
Mo says:
Kinda hoping the Dems waks up and run Hillary/Sanders.
Mo says:
"wake up," of course.
Mistergizmo says:
What? No mention of Jimmy Carter here? When I think of long views, I often think of him. So many of the things he warned about, and tried to reverse, have come true.
waldoh says:
I still think Elizabeth Warren must be kicking herself, as she declined to run believing that an opportunity would not present itself with Clinton around. She was incorrect. She'd have Sanders' base but with considerably more strength as a candidate on paper.
Seeing that this article was on long term thinking I'm surprised that you can't see her strategy; Vice President this time, President the next.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/06/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-wall-street/78363344/
Sanders strikes me as an American version of Gough Whitlam.
I absolutely agree, but Bernie is more experienced, more politically savvy, much more grounded in economic reality and tougher – much, much tougher. You don't weather, survive and succeed in American politics without a steel spine and iron constitution. That he has managed to do it and keep his morality, spirituality and good character intact while surrounded by one of the most venal, soulless and insidiously corrupt political atmospheres is nothing short of astounding.
http://feel-the-bern.com
Brendan says:
Bringing the Sanders comp back home, I see more than a little bit of Henry Wallace in him, both in his politics and his approach.
Xynzee says:
@Hoosier: HRC will run some nice bread and circuses—defend Obamacare^ and nominate a left of centre judge*—but those will be to distract from her handouts to Wall Street and her other financiers.
So expect the TPP to go through faster than Fox can blame Obama for something.
^Of course she'll defend the ACA, as it's free handovers to Wall Street and insurance companies.
*Given the fever in the Krazy Klown Kar that is in the GOP, Scalia would be considered a liberal, so left of centre in relation to what?
Jestbill says:
HRC: What happened to "It Takes a Village?" Her early background was not about trade or finance.
What happened to all the work done on healthcare before the system was ready for it?
Was she Secretary of State or not?
The hold-overs from Republican administrations will be retiring after playing dog-in-the-manger with Obama. Replacing them will require knowledge, experience and guile.
Of the two sane people running, one has power in the system–people who owe them and therefore a slim chance to achieve a few more half-loaves ala Obama.
Sanders makes great speeches.
The other will be treated worse than either Obama or Carter.
Talisker says:
@Pete Gaughan: Fair point. But Sanders has some clear overall goals, and he is comfortable with the subtle details of policy — you don't get to be ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee otherwise. When it comes to specifics, Corbyn makes Sanders look like FDR.
Helios Yeah says:
Here's how I see the campaign finance thing. They've both agreed in last night's debate that the existing campaign finance system is antiquated and insufficient. Without being an expert, I take this to mean that the public system doesn't provide enough money to the candidate to be competitive in today's highly expensive campaigns.
So, both Hillary and Bernie are stuck depending on private fundraising. Bernie, being a bright shiny new candidate, not rich himself, and willing to deliver a fiery populist message even though this message will probably doom him if he somehow makes it to the general election is thereby setting himself up to receive an outpouring of affectionate donations from a large number of high-information lefty-lovin' small donors.
Hillary, on the other hand, being not shiny and new, being rich herself, and being careful to deliver a message that will not doom her with moderate and conservative Democrats (of which there are many believe it or not) has no chance in hell of receiving much money from high-information small donors. So she is forced to accept donations from big donors. This thereby feeds into Bernie's message that she is corrupt. Proof of said corruption is presumably forthcoming someday. Still waiting.
FMguru says:
The best Trump analogue is probably Berlusconi. Rich, vulgar, flamboyant, coming from outside the system to shake things up, advocating vague yet muscular nationalist (bordering on fascist) policy – it's a solid match. Both also have a thing for the public company of escorts and "models".
A lot of Trump's appeal mirrors Ross Perot's political persona from the 1990s – the government is broken, politicians are corrupt, the whole country is sliding into a ditch, someone needs to come in from outside the system and fix all the problems, and who better than a successful businessman who can and will crack some heads together and get things done?
Bernie is pretty sui generis, at least for the US. You have to go back to the Progressive era of a century-plus ago to find a match for him.