To an Australian, the American aversion to such terms as 'small-'l'-liberal' and 'socialist', strike us as more of a paranoid American mindset than cogent political analysis. After all, if it is Godwin's Law that it's only a matter of time before somebody eventually trots out Hitler in an internet argument, it seems equally true that in any discussion about socialism, it isn't long before an American trots out Stalin. They both make excellent arguments in a reductio ad absurdum of fascism and communism but it's not necessarily meaningful.
American elections are a difficult thing to watch. So much of the world depends on how America votes, and in many ways the most depressing thing is to see America vote in conservatives who push the discourse so far to the right that it hardly makes any sense to those who are outside America. Now, there is no reason why we should have influence on American politics, after all it a separate sovereign nation - except for the problem that what America does, impacts so much on us. If it were possible, interested parties outside America should be allowed to vote for American governments exactly because of the degree they impact on the world.
As such, a candidate like Bernie Sanders actually gets a lot of support outside of America, where socialism is not a dirty word but a sensible middle-of-the-road policy framework. There are many aspects to this gap, but mostly because both the Republicans and Democrats function as two wings of the same right wing party, it is hard to get any kind of centrist voice heard in American politics without the opprobrium heaped upon such a position. Much to his credit, Bernie Sanders has remained true to the centre of the spectrum of ideas for as long as we can remember.
Just so you can understand how skewed American politics is, here is Political Compass' take on the candidates this year:
Then there's Bernie Sanders, who is no only a little bit left of Centre, but dead bang on the line between Authoritarian and Libertarian impulses. Most importantly, he's the only candidate who is reasonably close to the middle of the board. Yes, by world standards, Bernie Sanders is a reasonable man who is at the middle of the discourse for both Left and Right as well as Authority of the State and Liberty of the Individual Citizen.
And this is why people outside of America pin so much hope on a Bernie Sanders Presidency. For once, just once in living memory, the President of the United States might be somebody who has a very balanced view of the world.
Just so you know, here's a quick comparison of where he might stand in relation to other famous politicians:
In that chart, Bernie has shifted somewhat to the south towards Libertarian-hood, but he's mostly close to the middle.The point remains, he maybe the closest to the middle, even in this historic context. Certainly, the world could do with an American President who better reflected the middle of the world's ideation on politics than the continued parade of rightwing authoritarians. It's worth bearing in mind that no matter how awful the mudslinging gets, politics is the battle for the middle ground. If the middle ground of the American electorate has shifted significantly towards the middle of the Political Compass board, then it is entirely possible Bernie Sanders is going to go all the way.
A Quick Note On The Clinton Candidacy
Back in 2008, Hillary Clinton was the candidate of destiny. Her problem was the she ran into a greater candidate of destiny. Since then Hillary Clinton has been preparing for this very run to win back the ground but there are mitigating factors against her candidacy.
One major problem for Hillary Clinton is that she carries with her the legacy of Bill Clinton's presidency. Now, Bill Clinton's presidency was marked by a huge transition to a Baby Boomer President in 1992. If there ever was a Presidency mired in the lost opportunity for the Baby Boomer
generation to deliver on its promise, then it was the Clinton Presidency. And there is no reason whatsoever to believe that a Hillary Clinton Presidency would in any way be less disappointing than the Bill Clinton presidency; and this picture has not changed since 2008.
And there are many people who resent the dynastic whiff of the Clinton run.
Then there are the demographics. Since Bill Clinton, through George W. Bush and now Barrack Obama, we've seen 24years of Baby Boomer leadership in US politics. Given the field of candidates this year, it is unlikely that there will be a generation change - that is to say, I don't see Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz getting up. If any one of Sanders, Clinton and Trump wins, it will be at least another 4 years of Baby Boomer leadership.
Yet, the problem with this demographic is that its retreat is already beginning to show. If you add Gen-X and Gen-Y voters, they outnumber the Baby Boomers and older set. If a majority of them are turning on to Bernie Sanders, it is going to be awfully difficult for Hillary Clinton to wrest the Democratic nomination from Sanders. In fact, it's going to beard for any of the Republicans to beat a candidate that appeals so strongly to both Gen-X and Gen-Y. If anything, the results in Iowa and New Hampshire signals a major shifting the American electorate itself, and there is a good chance that even more so than with the 2008 election, the 2016 Presidential election is going to smash the old demographic models.
The worst problem of all might be that she doesn't really stand for anything other than a dynastic run at the Presidency, and it's not exactly something she has addressed or can address. Bill Clinton keeps telling us she's a great candidate. She may well be if she had a framework or ideological context to her candidacy that was as vibrantly memorable as Sanders' position. If there is a unique selling proposition to Hillary Clinton, it might be that she's a woman. But I doubt the electorate is going to buy that.
No comments:
Post a Comment