In mid-September George Bush Senior reportedly committed to vote for Hillary Clinton. Bush’s intention is further evidence that this year’s presidential race transcends established party lines and could indeed reshape the Red-Blue divide.
Less than a year ago, political pundits laughed at the idea of Donald Trump, Politics’ Ronald McDonald, being on the GOP’s presidential ticket this fall. Today, the unthinkable has become very real: Trump is one electoral victory away from being sworn into «the most powerful office in the world». As we witness presidential debates becoming sites for real-life twitter feuds rather than elaborate policy discussion, much of the world asks itself: How did we get to this? Regardless of who wins, the Trump phenomenon will not simply vanish after November 8 – we ought to look beyond this election. The last 18 months have seen the rise of candidates, who represent those who feel unrepresented: most prominently Trump, but also Bernie Sanders. Trump and Sanders are not just stray bullets; they are symptoms of a system in which the two established parties have for the large part become evermore complacent and disconnected with their bases.
Money talks
American politics is a money game. Political scientists estimate that the cost of making a serious run at a seat on Capitol Hill lies in the hundred thousands for the House and in the millions for Senate. Thus, in order to become a politician in Washington, one must either have enough spare change, rich friends or a political agenda that appeals to potent donors. The most significant donations stem from so-called Political Action Committees (PACs), made up of corporations and labor unions. For a long time PAC contributions were legally capped at figures in the ten thousands. In the wake of the 2010-midterms however a new form of PAC emerged. So-called Super PACs significantly altered campaign financing, after the Supreme Court had ruled that restrictions on contributions and funding did not apply to them. In 2016 Super PACs have so far raised more than $1 billion and made contributions just short of $700 million (442 million Rep / 190 million Dem). Now, it is unfair and inaccurate to say that all PACs serve business interests and do not reflect the concerns of everyday voters. Nonetheless, ever-closer ties between politics and powerful interest groups distort democracy. The current state of disconnection arises when donors’ interests become more important than those of the electorate and politicians seeking re-election spend more time with their patrons than with their constituency.
Recession Hangover
The story of the first half of the 2010s is that the economy is growing again. After the Great Recession in 2009, unemployment in the US has gradually decreased and is now below 5 percent for the first time since 2008. Although the economic pie is growing again, not everyone seems to get his or her slice of it. Whilst nominal wages might be growing at a moderate rate of 3 percent, real wages for most middle- and low-income earners have hardly grown at all and in certain cases even decreased due to inflation and higher costs of living. What this leads to is a middle-class squeeze, meaning that many people can no longer afford a middle-class lifestyle. Real wage stagnation, at best, is not exclusive the post-recession era; PPP-adjusted median household income in the U.S. reached its all-time high in 1999 and has lagged behind ever since. However, after the repercussions of the recession, many John and Jane Does now demand their fair share of an economy they helped rebuild. Be it out of partisan gridlock, the influence of money or sheer negligence, the established parties have failed to noticeably improve living conditions for many Americans. This causes disillusionment and ultimately culminates in anger against the political establishment. This is where characters like Trump and Sanders come into play.
Reshaping the political landscape?
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are two men, worlds apart in political terms, but surprisingly similar when it comes to the reason for their political ascent. People are angry with the state of politics; they feel that their concerns are not taken seriously in Washington. Political outsiders like Sanders and Trump position themselves as alternatives to the political establishment and vow to address the worries of the unrepresented. So, whilst Trump and Sanders offer very different solutions to John and Jane’s problems the more important question beyond 2016 is: Will their legacy permanently reshape the political landscape of America? It is unlikely that the U.S. party system will ever consist of more than two relevant parties. America’s winner-takes-all electoral rules make it very difficult for upcoming parties to gain a foot-hold in Washington. Duverger’s Law stipulates that, «the simple majority single-ballot system favors the two party system» and the case of America’s history certainly proves it right. This is not to say that the U.S. has never experienced tectonic shifts in its party composition and their alignments. The emergence of a new party, however, has always preconditioned the disappearance of an old one, which last happened when the Republicans superseded the Whig party in the 1850s. After Lincoln, the parties have stayed the same in name, but have repeatedly shifted their voter alignments. At various times, major socio-historical developments have redrawn America’s red-and-blue map, be it reconstruction after the Civil War, the Great Depression and New Deal or the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s.
Demography is Politics
Growing racial tensions, recession after-pains and major demographic changes – America is experiencing turbulent times. Whilst Whites see their privileged position in society threatened and African-Americans take the streets to fight systematic racism, the Hispanic minority is growing at a much higher rate than any other demographic. Projections estimate that by 2050 every forth American will be of Hispanic descent, whereas Anglo-Whites will make up less than 50 percent of the population. In terms of political alignments, this spells trouble for Republicans, as Non-Whites typically vote Democrat. Barring surprises in party agendas, minority loyalties seem quite fixed. There is, however, another voter group for which party loyalties are not set in stone: the white working class. This demographic could very well decide elections in the coming years and the scramble for its votes is the real contest in American politics. In order to get them, the parties must rediscover their bond with the small man. Considering the Tea Party Movement, Bernie Sanders and Trump, grassroots could become (and arguably already are) the name of the game. The highest concentration of blue-collar workers can be found in the Rust Belt. Many states in the Rust Belt are swing states, most notably Ohio and Pennsylvania. Whereas this year’s election alone will certainly not be enough to alter American politics at its core, it could very well be the trigger for a development, which, conditioned by tectonic shifts in society, could lead to a permanent reshaping of America’s political map.
Illustration zvg