By Travis Van Oosbree

We have all heard it, maybe you have thought it, I have definitely said it: “Trump is the worst President in American History.” I make no secret of the fact that I do not support President Trump, but whenever I hear this claim it raises a number of questions for me. First of all, how do you possibly quantify whether a President is good or bad? Good according to who? Bad according to who? Secondly, while Trump may be a schmuck on a personal level, as far as his policies and actions as a president go, I do not have an encyclopedic knowledge of every presidential policy and the ensuing consequences so I really can’t judge how his travel ban, the separation of migrant families at the border, or his response to Neo-Nazi rallies stack up when compared to past presidential decision making. Lastly, we can judge every other president based on the lasting effects of their presidency. Without the benefit of hindsight, how can we assess the success or failure of his time in office through an equal lens? The honest answer is we can’t, but I’m going to try.

First I had to establish a baseline for what the president is supposed to do. According to Whitehouse.gov “The President is both the head of state and head of government of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces…is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress…appoints the heads of more than 50 independent federal commissions, such as the Federal Reserve Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as federal judges, ambassadors, and other federal offices”[1] The site goes on to list a number of powers that the president has and ways he can exercise his powers, but as far as Whitehouse.gov is concerned, that’s all the president has to do. As long as Trump sits at his desk with the name plate that reads “Head of State/Head of Government/Commander-in-Chief,” fills the vacant positions at the heads of federal commissions, and makes sure that law and order is being followed, he is doing the duty of the president. The mandate to execute and enforce laws caught my eye though. Numerous times the actions taken by this president have been challenged in court. In a Washington Post article most recently updated in April of 2019, the Trump administration had more than 70 policies overturned by federal courts.[2] This would indicate to me that the administration is attempting to operate outside of the constraints of the law and therefore not executing or enforcing the laws created by Congress. There’s one mark against Trump.

Whitehouse.gov’s definition of the role of the president seemed a little thin to me, so I looked for another source. In an American Government textbook, published by Pearson Education, under the heading “The President’s Job Description” they list his roles as, Chief of state, Chief executive, Chief administrator, Chief diplomat, Commander in chief, Chief legislator, Chief of party, and Chief citizen. Chief citizen has me worried. Pearson elaborates that “the President should represent all of the people of the United States. Citizens expect the President to work for their interests and provide moral leadership.”[3] I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that Donald Trump is a faithful representative of all Americans and if he is the moral leadership that Americans are looking to, we’re all in trouble.

So, if it can be concluded that Trump is not in fact fulfilling his duty as President, that’s bad, but how bad is he when compared to other disgraced presidents? A quick google search of “worst presidents in American history” brings up 182,000,000 hits. Of those, the answers are pretty consistent. Although they vary slightly in their ranks depending on the report, Warren Harding, Andrew Johnson, and James Buchanan lead the pack for the title of America’s worst president.

Warren Harding was an unprepared and inept leader. He freely admitted, “I am not fit for this office and should never have been here.”[4]  He left the newspaper business to pursue politics and after winning a few elections in Ohio, was picked by the Republican Party as their presidential nominee for the 1921 presidential election. Once in office he was “an unrestrained womanizer,” and “busied himself with golf, poker, and his mistress.”[5] His administration was mired in corruption. He died two years into his term and no irrevocable damage was done to the office of the president, the government or America as a whole, but he is remembered as one of the least competent presidents in history. Does any of that sound like Trump? Business man turned politician, womanizer, more interested in golf than running the country, associates with criminals, crooks and scoundrels, scandal ridden and corrupt executive branch. If Trump is as bad as Harding surely he is one of the worst presidents in history.

Let’s take a look at why Andrew Johnson is considered one of the worst presidents in history. Johnson was elevated to the office of the president after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. In the fierce political battles fought at the conclusion of the civil war regarding the direction and scope of reconstruction, Johnson was found to be entirely out foxed by Southern law makers and displayed “an astonishing indifference toward the plight of the newly freed African-Americans.” With his veto power he struck down the renewal of the Freedman’s Bureau as well as the first civil rights bill, and he opposed the passage of the 14th Amendment.[6] Unhappy with the state of the reconstruction efforts in the South, Congress attempted to limit his executive power; a struggle that ultimately ended with him becoming the first president to be impeached. Again, the parallels to the 45^th president are striking. Trump took office after an historically significant, yet polarizing president and proceeded to undo all of the social progress achieved over the previous eight years. Trump’s indifference and resentment of the lowest classes mirror Johnson’s and a battle with Congress over presidential power which led to impeachment.

Finally let’s see why James Buchanan is almost unanimously considered the worst president in history. Buchanan is remembered as the president who ushered in the Civil War. Although he believed the institution of slavery to be an “indefensible evil” he did nothing to combat the practice. He supported the Kansas-Nebraska Act and endorsed the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision in his inaugural address.[7] Most damaging to his reputation though, was his lack of action in stemming the tide of secessionist senators who had decided to withdraw from the Union. Buchanan saw himself as powerless to act against the Southern states until the situation erupted into civil war upon Lincoln’s election. While many criticize Buchanan for having been ineffectual in preventing the level of division amongst countrymen which led to the civil war, Trump has openly encouraged division amongst Americans. His popularity stems from his mockery of his opposition and when Russia intentionally sowed division between the parties with their social media blitz in 2016, he encouraged them and sought their help in his 2020 campaign. Trump is not like Buchanan in that Buchanan was faced with political division and he did nothing. When Trump sees the country splitting in two, he drives the wedge deeper.

So Trump is as unfit and corrupt as Harding, as insensitive as Johnson, and as divisive as Buchanan, does that make him the worst president in history? My heart says yes, but as a historian I have to say it’s too early to tell. We cannot say what the long term ramifications of the Trump administration will be. Three years into Buchanan’s presidency the Civil War had not yet broken out. It is only through the benefit of hindsight that we can know that the events which happened during his time in office would result in the bloodiest war in American history. I’m not saying that I think Trump is going to do something in the next six months that will redeem his presidency, but I can’t say that we know all of the facts right now and that we can fairly judge his time in office against those which we have been able to study for a century or more. Don Levy, director of the Siena College Research Institute, which conducts surveys ranking past presidents, claims, “The rule of thumb that we have…is that it probably takes 50 years for history to settle in.”[8] So, in 2070 ask me again if Trump is the worst president in American history.

---

[1] The White House. “Our Government: The Executive Branch.” Accessed April 17, 2020. https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/the-executive-branch/

[2] Barbash, Fred, Deanna Paul, Brittany Renee Mayes and Danielle Rindler. “The Trump Administration Policies the Courts Have Ruled Against.” The Washington Post, April 26, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-overruled/

[3] Pearson Education. “The President’s Job Description.” Accessed April 17, 2020. https://assets.pearsonschool.com/asset_mgr/legacy/200938/section1_jobdescription_26523_1.pdf

[4] Tolson, Jay. “Worst Presidents: Warren Harding (1921-1923).” US News and World Report, Updated November 6, 2019. https://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/the-worst-presidents/articles/2014/12/17/worst-presidents-warren-harding-1921-1923

[5] Ibid

[6] Tolson, Jay. “Worst Presidents: Andrew Johnson (1865-1869).” US News and World Report, Updated November 6, 2019. https://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/the-worst-presidents/articles/2014/12/17/worst-presidents- andrew-johnson-1865-1869

[7] Tolson, Jay. “Worst Presidents: James Buchanan (1857-1861).” US News and World Report, Updated November 6, 2019. https://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/the-worst-presidents/articles/2014/12/17/worst-presidents- james-buchanan-1857-1861

[8] US News Staff. “Where Would Donald Trump Land on a List of Worst Presidents?” US News and World Report, Updated November 6, 2019. https://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/the-worst-presidents/articles/where-would-donald-trump-land-on-a-list-of-worst-presidents

By Edin Candic

Now where the hell did the tide turn to this time…

            “Mr. Sanders is not and has never been a liar. His remarkable consistency over time, his notorious bluntness and his open disdain for sycophantic politics are all simply manifestations of that one critical fact. It made him an awkward fit for Washington, and it built him a movement”(Bruenig 2020). Well here we are again… 2020 stuck in somewhat of a mess world wide. Chaos has broken out worldwide and a modern plague ravages the world, yet our Presidential race continues, but for the People’s candidate, Brooklyn- born Bernie Sanders has announced he is suspending his campaign. Some people I’m unfortunately surrounded with at work said it was inevitable from the jump that Joe Biden was bringing home the Democratic Division Trophy, I asked,” How? How was it inevitable?” They said that his young voters just wouldn’t show up, one said “All bark no bite!” Are you serious? Are “we” the young movement to blame for his downfall again? As a lady waiting for her package at my job asked, “Well where did the actual tide turn? I asked a good question. Four years ago Bernie came out the gates hot, but never had a strong presidential campaign like this one. In 2016 his funding, his movement, just about everything was weak, but he came back in 2020 with such fire that it took the young movement by storm. It breaks my heart to see that yet again a door to change has closed for the time being. I say, #FREEBERNIE, because I came into the neighborhood the day of and my neighbor from his porch holding a beer says, “Now what young life? What’s the plan for this Presidential Campaign now?” Bernie wanted to ban the Three Strike Law and end solitary confinement. He wanted to give voice back to felons so they too could step out and vote. For the students he aimed to put a cap on student loan interest and increase pay for public school teachers.

Did we, the “young life” play a role in the Berne Sanders defeat, or was it the large fast spreading COVID-19 that kept voters indoors and voting less. As a young teenager, I feel like COVID-19 enabled teenagers to be lazier than ever before, but is that truly to blame for the suspension of his campaign? Some say Bernie failed to reach the minority and failed to reach the African American voters, one quote states, “Biden won 64 percent of the African American votes cast in the South Carolina primary, compared to the 14 percent of black votes carried by his chief rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders”(Bolton 2020). I too believe that every time these crucial times for our country come around we tend to hang on one excuse and blame the whole “game” to that one point, but there’s no doubt about it we had to do better and we should continue to do better throughout the rest of the Election.

“Mr. Sanders hopes to push his rival even further, declaring that he is staying on the ballot in upcoming contests to collect delegates in hopes of influencing the party platform at the convention. But he also promised that Democrats would enter the fall campaign “standing united”(Lerer 2020).

There’s no telling where the country will stand once this lockdown is lifted and we’re able to go outside again, but one thing is for sure the Presidential Election is happening and will continue to happen throughout November of this year. What I hope to see is the People and the one’s I call the “Young Life” continue to look forward and continue to open up doors for any kind of change. I advise that we, the young movement, continue to push boundaries and to challenge those who attempt to destroy the beauty in whatever’s left of this crumbling cookie. As I continue to walk through my neighborhood and I see the older man mentioned earlier, I yell out to him “#FREEBERNIE”. Our movement will never have another Bernie, but our movement does not end here, “The Struggle Continues”, but with every new battle a stronger leader will ALWAYS rise.

Bolton, Alexander. “Senators See Tide Turning toward Biden After Big Win.” The Hill, 3 Mar. 2020, thehill.com/homenews/senate/485611-senators-see-tide-turning-toward-biden-after-big-win. 

“Politics.” The New York Times, The New York Times, www.nytimes.com/section/politics?campaign_id=56&emc=edit_cn_20200408&instance_id=17488&nl=on-politics-with-lisa-lerer®i_id=108714663&segment_id=24381&te=1&user_id=63045bae49624acf2483c8bf624c5d91.

Bruenig, Elizabeth. “Bernie Sanders Was Right.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 8 Apr. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/opinion/bernie-sanders-campaign.html?auth=login-email&login=email.

“Bernie Sanders: Where He Stands.” U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, www.usnews.com/elections/bernie-sanders.

By George Hunt

No doubt every article you have read over the past month has started out saying something along the lines of “these are unprecedented times” and for good reason, these indeed are unprecedented times. Not only are we facing a worldwide pandemic, a possible economic depression on the horizon, and self-isolation measures, but this is happening amid a political climate that is also rather unprecedented. Political polarization is at an all-time high in America with some political analysts saying that we have never been this divided since the civil war. It is a topic being discussed everywhere in the political world, you have likely heard the conversations on your favorite podcasts or seen the literature such as Vox editor at large, Ezra Klein’s new book, Why We’re Polarized. In this time of both divisive antagonism and fear of non-human threats, how are we as citizens reacting?

We have all seen the videos and read the stories of absurd and deplorable actions being committed by people around the world such as fist fights over shopping carts, hoarding enough toilet paper to supply an army, stealing grocery deliveries from people’s front porches, and racial discrimination against Asians rising quickly. Don’t be dismayed though! Even though crises bring out the worst in some people, rest easy knowing that they are the minority. History shows us that in times of crisis people tend to put aside differences and come together in solidarity. When the attack on the World Trade Center occurred on September 11, 2001, Americans everywhere put aside their differences and came together as citizens of the same nation, countless volunteers arose to provide aid to victims, family members, and service workers who were affected by the tragedy. In an article on ideas.ted.com, Rutger Bregman brings to light the over 700 case studies done by the University of Delaware’s Disaster Research Center since 1963 showing that in times of disaster, it is more normal for a majority of people to be calm and help one another. He notes that the results are the same in every case, “’Whatever the extent of the looting,’ one sociologist notes, ‘it always pales in significance to the widespread altruism that leads to free and massive giving and sharing of goods and services.”’[1] History seems to show us that in almost every crisis, citizens band together in solidarity to help one another.

My question following this idea of being brought together by disaster is how does this affect our political climate? As I mentioned above, we live in a time of extreme political polarization that seems to have seeped into every aspect of our lives, it has gotten to a point where at times it feels impossible to get along with people who don’t share your political views. Looking back to 9/11, Gallup’s Presidential Job Approval Center[2] shows George W. Bush’s approval rating skyrocketing from 51% to 90% immediately following the World Trade Center attacks. This is what political scientists refer to as a “rally around the flag effect,” where people, in the face of danger, put their hope and faith in the leaders even if they never approved of them before. We can see similar rally around the flag effects at the dawn of the World Wars. Despite this enormous boost in approval for Bush, it steadily declined over the remainder of his first term and by the end of his second, his approval ratings were in the mid-30’s.

When looking at his overall job in office and the trends of his approval ratings, it seems that President Bush was able to narrowly win his second term in 2004 still riding on the fumes of support following his quick, decisive reaction to the attack on American soil. As time wore on, the rally around the flag effect wore off and people became disillusioned when faced with a POTUS who largely blundered every decision he made in office. Because of the dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, it was no surprise when Obama won the White House in 2008, citizens are usually more than ready for a change of pace after one party fails to deliver. In looking at our current election cycle, many political scientists have been convinced that despite his massive unpopularity, Trump is likely to win the 2020 general election because Democrats can’t stop bickering and work together.

With the Coronavirus pandemic, Trump’s approval ratings have risen to the highest they’ve ever been (which to be fair is still only 49%), and we are seeing another, albeit smaller, rally around the flag effect take place. Citizens, many of whom still do not like Trump at all, are beginning to look to him more to get us out of this health and financial crisis. In the current polls, Biden is leading over Trump but not by much,[3] will the current crisis and rally around the flag effect be enough to securely give Trump a second term? Or will Democrats be able to put aside their differences in a combined effort to vote him out? I do not have an answer but am very interested in seeing how it plays out. Many factors can and will contribute to the election in November, for now let’s all just see what happens, wash your hands, stay six feet apart from each other, and practice a little humanity and solidarity and help one another in any way we can.

---

[1] Rutgers Bregman, “Disasters and Crises Bring Out the Best in Us,” Ideas.TED.com, Mar. 20, 2020, https://ideas.ted.com/disasters-and-crises-bring-out-the-best-in-us/

[2] https://news.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx

[3] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

Bregman, Rutger. “Disasters and Crises Bring Out the Best in Us.” ideas.ted.com. March 20, 2020. https://ideas.ted.com/disasters-and-crises-bring-out-the-best-in-us/.

Gallup Presidential Job Approval Center. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx. General Election 2020 Polls. RealClearPolitics. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls.

By Mario Casillas Jr.

It has been the one governmental program that has been the target of reform for the past forty years. Elected officials who are both members of the Democratic and Republican parties have at one point in their political careers either through written legislation or through speeches on the floor of either chamber of Congress have advocated for reforming this program. This governmental program is Social Security. A social safety net program that has existed for almost a century and it is tasked with ensuring that citizens who at the end of their working life, would enjoy economic sustainability.

It is important to understand that reform does not imply making the program more efficient and sustainable. Words are refurbished in order to lessen or even conceal the true goals of the legislation. What is clear and disturbing that the examples that I provide to “reform” Social Security came from Democrats. In a twist of irony Republicans were the most reluctant to overhauling Social Security. Republican lawmakers are not suddenly advocating for Social Security as governmental program. Former Republican president George W. Bush proposed privatizing SS. Rep. Paul Ryan (R)Wisconsin was another lawmaker hell bent on drastic reductions to SS benefits.

First, I am going to decipher the word reform as it is used in the Social Security debate. Reform is simply a term used by elected officials to mask the purpose of this debate which inherently is to either cut, raise the eligibility age and/or privatizing SS. This is important because casual observers of politics will be less likely to object to hearing the word reform as opposed to hearing the word cut.

In the last Democratic Presidential Debate, Senator Bernie Sanders (I)Vermont- placed former Vice President’s Joe Biden-record on Social Security in the forefront. It was an awkward moment for Biden considering his record on advocating and proposing reforming or in this case cutting SS is public knowledge in the era of YouTube.

During the Reagan Administration there was a major shift in spending priorities at the federal level. Those priorities included reducing and/or even cutting social welfare programs and increasing defense spending. One can make the argument that increasing the defense budget was crucial amid the Cold War during the 1980’s. Here is where I make the argument that efforts to cut/reform Social Security are bipartisan. “In the midst, of the debate Biden teamed up with Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley to call for a freeze on federal spending, and insisted on including Social Security in that freeze, even as the Reagan administration fought to protect the program from cuts”¹ It is important to note that the Democrat is adamant about freezing funding SS, more so than the conservative icon Ronald Reagan.

A quarter of century later as the third year of the Obama administration was in full swing. It was the summer of 2011 and there was tension in Washington as a government shutdown loomed. It was the era of the Tea Party movement and increased austerity measures. Once again as in the mid 1980’s Social Security was once again in the crosshairs. The debate around reform this time hinged on whether Congress would be able to meet its fiscal obligations. Negotiations were at a standstill, and this was to be a who blinks first ordeal. In the end it was confidence and trust in Congress and Obama that blinked first. Protection of SS was the epitome of Democrats, but there they were willing to undermine a pillar of their political ethos. For what? “Just a year into Obama’s presidency, the White House began to pivot away from fiscal stimulus and towards austerity.”² Once again it is important to note that the Democrat was the one who placed the sword on the back SS and made it walk the plank. “And the Obama administration-rather than fight the narrative of out-of-control debt tooth and nail-chose to accommodate it.”²

This was not an endorsement of a candidate. Social Security has been up to this day one the three successful government programs. We could debate its solvency; however Social Security is an issue that forms an important component of the Democratic party’s political platform. In the historical sense I wanted to highlight past efforts in cutting Social Security, however as I created this post it was clear that efforts to “reform” it is bipartisan. More disturbing is that these efforts were made by iconic Democratic figures, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Grim, Ryan. “Fact Check: Joe Biden has Advocated Cutting Social Security for 40 Years.” The Intercept. January 13, 2020. https://theintercept.com/2020/01/13/biden-cuts-social-security

Marans, Danie, Delaney, Arthur, Grim, Ryan. “Barack Obama Once Proposed Cutting Social Security. Here’s What Changed His Mind.” HuffPost. June 8, 2016. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/barack-obama-grand-bargain-social-security-expansion_n_5751f92de4b0eb20fa0e0142

By Karla Vega

These are strange times we are living in. Confined to our homes, we do not have much of a choice but to wait and see how our government chooses to move forward. For some, the quarantine is peaceful, as they reside at home with their families, and life goes on as normally as it can. Weekly stops at the grocery store and quiet, solitary walks around the town are no problem. For others, these simple quotidian things are not possible because of the threats posed by racism.

Recently, some conservative politicians have been calling the global pandemic COVID-19 by names that create stigmatism aimed at Asians and Asian-Americans. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called COVID-19 the “Wuhan Virus”, and Republican Senator, Tom Cotton, has used that same term often when speaking in the Senate (Rogers). In a tweet, California Representative Kevin McCarthy used the term “the Chinese coronavirus” (Rogers). Trump has called COVID-19 the “Chinese Virus” multiple times when addressing the nation, not caring for the negative effects that it is creating, or the consequences that the American people face because of it (Cave and May). Surely the President should know better than to call a virus by an unofficial name that creates discrimination, shouldn’t he? Despite the World Health Organization’s attempts to create a name for the virus that does not create a stigmatism for those that come from the place of origin of the virus (Rogers), some continue to use names that sow the seeds of fear.

This is not the first time that Asian-Americans have faced the consequences of being a scapegoat. If we think back to the era of World War II, Japanese-Americans were forced to suffer despite not having played any part in the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Misplaced nationwide panic created discrimination that altered the lives of thousands of Japanese-Americans. Now, Asian-Americans are also facing discrimination due to panic that has been instilled into the people of this country. Part of the reason that Asian-Americans have been made into scapegoats is Trump’s refusal to acknowledge that he did not move forward to protect the American people from the virus during its early stages (Cave and May). In order to shift the negative attention from himself, Trump has redirected the attention to China. New York Times writers, Damien Cave and Tiffany May, sum up Trump’s actions of deflection by writing,“despite warnings that he is encouraging xenophobia, Mr.Trump has repeatedly used the term ‘Chinese Virus’ in what critics see as an effort to distance himself from the problem.”

The repercussions of the language that Trump and other politicians use are obvious in the lives of Asian Americans across the country. Recently many Asian-Americans have said that they are afraid to “go grocery shopping, to travel alone on subways or buses, to let their children go outside” (Tavernise and Oppel Jr.). Innocent people are being harassed as they try to deal with the new lifestyle that everyone around the world is trying to come to terms with. It’s understandable that people are scared, because life as we all know it has changed significantly, but we should not lash out at one another in fear. Asian-Americans are being followed and harassed on the streets, and made to feel unsafe in their own cities. One Chinese-American woman in San Francisco reported that she was followed by a man who shouted at busses, telling them to run her over (Tavernise and Oppel Jr.). The attacks range from verbal to physical, with multiple reports of assault across the country, and with no care for age. A child was assaulted at school for being Asian, as his peers accused him of carrying the virus, and a father was attacked in front of his young son (Tavernise and Oppel Jr.). Even Asian-American doctors who are fighting to treat COVID-19 patients and to find a cure for the disease are facing racial discrimination. The head of the emergency department of a Manhattan Hospital, Dr. Edward Chew, has reported a shift in the behavior of those around him, as some people “cover their nose and mouth with their shirts when they are near him” (Tavernise and Oppel Jr.). In these trying times, nobody should have to fear catching the virus, and much less fear getting harassed and assaulted for something they are not responsible for.

We’re all responsible for keeping one another safe, whether it’s from disease or from racially charged assault and harassment. During this time of fear, we have to remember that we are all fighting it together, and that we cannot cure this disease on our own. Remember to look out for your Asian-American neighbors, and be the person that they can look to for kindness. Stay safe.

Cave, Damien, and Tiffany May. “World Feared China Over Coronavirus. Now the Tables Are Turned.” New York Times, March 20, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/world/asia/coronavirus-china-united-states.html.

Rogers, Katie. “Politicians’ Use of ‘Wuhan Virus’ Starts a Debate Health Experts Wanted to Avoid.” New York Times, March 10, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/us/politics/wuhan-virus.html?searchResultPosition=8.

Tavernise, Sabrina, and Richard A. Oppel Jr. “Spit on, Yelled At, Attacked: Chinese-Americans Fear for Their Safety.” New York Times, March 23, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/us/chinese-coronavirus-racist-attacks.html.

By Ryan Marrufo

As somebody who does not really pay attention to what happens in the political world. I found it fairly strange to see Joe Biden come back in the 2020 Democratic Primary. I only find it strange myself because the last time I had heard of Joe Biden was when he was Obama’s Vice President, and having my only source for the primaries being social media, it was interesting to see the rise of Joe Biden. I find looking towards social media for news on the election to be one of the better ways to gather up public opinion, as I do not really trust those surveys that are taken. From what I remember reading, people who did not support Biden and had represented Sanders, they bring up most of Biden’s shortcomings as a politician and how his entire election is based off of the fact that he was Obama’s Vice President. I also see the people who support Biden and what they have to say about the people who support Bernie Sanders. Using Bernie’s shortcomings as a politician as well, along with grouping his cause to be apart of some “communist agenda”. I find Joe Biden’s rise up the Democratic Party to be very fascinating, and its mainly due to who were the front runners (or the people I heard about the most going into the 2020 primaries) were. That being Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang, and with two of them out of the race due to dropping their campaigns I thought that Sanders would have a easy nomination in the Democratic party. In an opinion piece, by Michelle Cottle she writes about the up and coming of Joe Biden within the context of the 2020 election, as well as some of his shortcomings in his campaign. From reading this and other articles about this, I think I can safely say that Joe Biden’s spike in popularity comes from him being the main candidate that is seen as moderate. Where Mr. Sanders is seen as more of a radical, and has had his campaign revolving around the idea of it being a socialist movement be called a communist one and made out to be a campaign that is meant to be hurting people in the long run. There are a couple of things that Cottle brings up that can bee seen as a hindrance to his campaign overall. With one of the main themes between some of these points that he does not know how to answer certain questions properly. That theme goes for two of her points, which was whenever Biden is asked questions about the Burisma Investigations in which he was apart of and was accused of corruptive behavior when dealing with Ukraine. Whenever asked questions about it, to quote it from Cottle’s article “He looked not only unsteady but cornered.”, it looks to be as if though he has not figured out how to counter these kind of hard hitting questions about himself. Cottle also briefly mentions how he is the same when discussing his family. I can also draw the conclusion that he can not counter argue very well, just from watching the debate between Sanders and Biden. Biden retaliations were always countered by Sanders and instead of arguing back, Biden would instead try to change the subject to something different such as when he accused Sanders of having nine super PACs but was quickly thrown of when Sanders asked him to name them. After that Biden tried to change the subject by dismissing Sanders asking to name his super PACs. These next two, I believe go hand in hand, and that is the fact that Biden is a loose cannon and has a tendency to go off topic. To briefly touch the off topic nature of Biden, it can also be seen as a positive for his campaign due to it making him sound more like he is more of an authentic speaker as oppose to one that is more condenscending sounding. To also touch on the topic of him being a loose cannon, there was a issue that had happened recently where Biden was in Detroit, and had told an autoworker that he was “full of shit” when talking about Biden supposedly wanting to put an end to the second amendment. Within the same exchange there was also threats from Biden to fight the man and as well talking about the guns that he owns and mistakenly calling the AR-15 rifle the AR-14, amidst the yelling. I think that it is safe to say that without the other two candidates, Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang, dropping out, the moderate Democrat flocked to the Biden Movement. That is also most likely due to people not wanting to associate themselves with a campaign that is centered around socialism (and from what I can guess from peoples opinions online), have been told to believe is an evil thing to have in a government.

Cottle, Michelle. “The Resurrection of Joe Biden.” The New York Times. The New York Times, March 7, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/06/opinion/joe-biden-2020-primary.html?searchResultPosition=1.

“Joe Biden Threatens Detroit Autoworker, Calls Him ‘Full of Sh**” in Argument over Guns.” Democracy Now! Independent Global News, March 11, 2020. https://www.democracynow.org/2020/3/11/headlines/joe_biden_threatens_detroit_autoworker_calls_him_full_of_sh_in_argument_over_guns.

By Greg Brueck

A recent feature article in the online publication Politico highlights Donald Trump’s strategy to win the key state of Minnesota, which he lost in 2016 by a mere 45,000 votes. The state’s so-called “Iron Range” has based its economy on iron mining since the mid-1800s. Changes in recent decades – iron deposits running low, the steel industry shifting its methods and moving overseas – have left the Iron Range with a shrinking economy, a declining population, and limited hopes for the future.

That changed, for some, in recent years with the discovery of massive deposits of nickel and copper in the region, key materials for modern technologies like cell phones and batteries for electric vehicles. Environmental groups have objected and, so far, blocked projects to mine the metals, however, citing the risk of toxic, acidic waste to the area’s lakes and streams. The Iron Range sits at the edge of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, a million-acre region of undeveloped lakes and forests that reaches to the Canadian border. Statewide Democrats, with their main base of support in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, have opposed plans for new mining, and Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Michael Bloomberg all promised to stop development of nickel and copper mines in the area. Joe Biden hasn’t yet taken a position.

The standoff has opened a political door for Donald Trump, who supports the new mining ventures and has also gained the attention of local mining interests by imposing high tariffs on foreign steel. “The Iron Range is back in business,” he declared in a speech in October. One result of these political alignments has been a shift in the politics of union miners, a traditionally Democratic constituency that is now trending toward Trump and the Republicans. Chris Johnson, the president of United Steelworkers Local 2705 supports nickel mining, but remains loyal to the Democratic Party. He is having a harder and harder time convincing his rank and file members to stand with him, though, and estimates 75 percent of his membership supports Trump.

What’s happening in the Iron Range is emblematic not just of recent political polarization, but of trends in economic and cultural polarization that have developed in the country over the past several decades. As cities have embraced an information and service economy and grown and prospered as a result, rural areas reliant on extractive industries have fallen further and further behind. Americans consume more material goods than ever, but with the development of efficient global supply chains the raw materials for those goods can be mined and processed anywhere in the world, especially in places with lower wages and fewer environmental regulations than the United States.

Politically, then, environmental protection has become a wedge issue that both parties use to their advantage without truly grappling with issues of global sustainability. It wasn’t always this way in American politics. In the years after World War II, when the environmental costs of rapid industrialization were just coming into focus, protecting the environment for future generations was a bipartisan issue. In 1964, for instance, Congress passed the landmark Wilderness Act, which was among the earliest of a new generation of laws expanding the federal government’s responsibilities for environmental oversight. It established the National Wilderness Preservation System, a new category of protection for federal lands that barred most forms of development and the use of motorized vehicles from designated areas and, equally important, established a ten-year public review process for protecting more such federally owned lands as wilderness in the future. The plan aimed, its sponsors declared, to “secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.” The argument in favor of the legislation, thus, was that protecting public lands was in the national interest. It was an argument that earned wide bipartisan support – the bill passed in the Senate by a vote of 73-12 and in the House of Representatives by 373-1. Part of the reason for the bill’s success was its proponents’ modest goals. Initially, the wilderness system created by the law only comprised about 2-3 percent of the federal government’s total landholding in the West, and these were primarily lands that were not valued for timber, minerals, or other economic uses.

That bipartisanship began to erode, though, as the ambitions for environmental protection grew. The Wilderness Act was so popular, and its backers were so good at organizing grassroots support for environmental protection, that its scope expanded over time. Between 1964 and 1978, Congress added 134 wilderness areas to the system of protection and, at the behest of activist citizens, often protected more land than federal land agencies recommended. While these expansions continued to gain bipartisan support, they were driven by Democrats and they reflected a traditional liberal confidence (that goes back at least to the New Deal of the 1930s) in the federal government’s ability to act in the common interest of all citizens. This idea, in the context of environmentalism, was so popular amongst the public that Richard Nixon, as a Republican president, considered it a political imperative to make environmental issues a centerpiece of his administration’s first-term domestic agenda. He established the Environmental Protection Agency and signed into law a wide range of federal environmental measures, including additional wilderness legislation, the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, all of which either vested new powers in, or expanded the responsibilities of, the federal government for addressing environmental issues. Nixon deserves some credit for these, but again, it was primarily Democrats in Congress and their backers in the environmental movement who provided the momentum for this legislation. And this liberal faith in the government both laid the groundwork for the modern environmental regulatory state and provoked the environmental opposition, especially in the West.

What is the significance of this history? Even as Democrats and activists scored victories in environmental protection, they began long-term processes of polarization that have divided Americans and threaten, in places like the Iron Range, to reverse those victories. To protect their political future as well as the natural environment, Democrats must think bigger and more systematically about the challenges that face us all.

Adam Behsudi, “Minnesota on the Edge: ‘I’ve Voted My Whole Life. It’s Getting Tougher’”, www.politico.com, March 22, 2020.

James Morton Turner, “‘The Specter of Environmentalism’: Wilderness, Environmental Politics, and the Evolution of the New Right.” The Journal of American History 96:1 (Jun 2009), pp. 123-148.

By George Hunt

As I sat and watched the March 15, Democratic Presidential debate on CNN between Senator Bernie Sanders and Vice President Joseph Biden, I couldn’t help but start to make some comparisons to the 1972 Presidential Election debates between Senator George McGovern and Vice President Hubert Humphrey. And no, I don’t just mean because one is a senator and the other is a former vice president.

In thinking about the background of each of these men there are a couple similarities that I cannot help but seeing in their campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination. Let’s take a look at Hubert Humphrey really quick. He was elected as Senator of Minnesota in 1948, the first Democrat to be elected to the Senate in that state since 1901. In the early days of his senatorial career he was a fiery and fierce proponent of civil rights and other cutting-edge liberal ideas. Over the years, under the guidance of Lyndon B. Johnson, he calmed down a bit and became a run of the mill moderate Democrat. In fact, “By the mid-1950s, Humphrey had moved into the ranks of the Senate’s ‘Inner Club.’”[1] When Lyndon B. Johnson took the office of President following the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963, he went his first two years in office without a Vice President, but that void needed to be filled. His protégé Humphrey threw his hat in the race for the position and in 1965, he won. During his time as Vice President, he continued his trend of continuous moderation of his views, for example, he started off opposing the war in Vietnam but eventually became a public supporter of the conflict even if his private views were still against it. He did what it took to have the party’s support behind him. It comes as no surprise then that when he ran for a second time for President in 1972 (following a failed attempt in 1968), he was the party favorite and was all but guaranteed the nomination.

Now let us turn our attention to his opponent in the 1972 race, George McGovern. McGovern, a WWII veteran, was elected to the Senate in 1962 and again in 1968 by which time, he had become a leading figure in opposing the Vietnam War.[2] In 1972, McGovern decided to make a bid for the presidency. In the debates between McGovern and Humphrey, most of their time was taken up discussing the war in Vietnam, the two men were decisively against each other in their plans for the future of the conflict. Unlike Humphrey, he did not have the support of the Democratic Party seeing as he was too liberal, and the party elites feared he was too radical and wouldn’t be electable. However, his anti-war stance and strong support for minorities within the party gained him a lot of support and he was able to grab the Democratic nomination through a grassroots campaign. Despite his surprise success in the primaries, he was unable to unite the Democratic party as a whole and the party’s fears were confirmed, he lost the election to Richard Nixon.

Does any of this sound familiar to you? Let’s take a look at Joe Biden. In 1972, the same year of the race between Humphrey and McGovern, Joe Biden was elected to the Senate in the state of Delaware at age 29, making him the fifth youngest senator in the nation’s history. Biden served in the senate as a moderate Democrat until 2007, working with both Democrats and Republicans on things such as relations with the Soviet Union, expansion of NATO, and other areas of foreign policy. His moderate views are well displayed in his strong opposition to the Gulf War and Iraq War and then his support of stricter crime laws. After a second unsuccessful run for president in 2007, he joined Senator Obama’s ticket as Vice President, they won against Senator McCain in 2008. He served as Vice President for two terms with President Obama and served as a behind the scenes advisor as well as played an important role in working on foreign policy. Now in 2020, Biden is currently leading in delegate count in the presidential election. Many consider him to be the most electable option on the Democratic ticket due to his moderate politics and calming personality. In my political science classes, professors have been pointing out that, like Humphrey in 1972, Biden appears to be the Democratic party’s first choice.

The other main candidate being considered for the Democratic nomination in 2020 is Senator Bernie Sanders. Sanders was elected to the Senate in New Hampshire in 2007 and has for most of his political career not affiliated with any party but has described himself as democratic socialist. Like him or hate him, Senator Sanders is one of the most consistent politicians I have ever seen. Throughout his career, he has been a strong advocate for socialized programs such as universal healthcare, free education, and the opposition of tax cuts that benefit wealthy individuals and corporations in favor for boosting welfare funding to help disadvantaged citizens. He has been against every major U.S. foreign conflict since Vietnam and is a strong supporter of switching to renewable energy, fighting climate change, and providing aid to veterans. In 2016, Sanders ran a grassroots campaign and gained support, especially among the youth of America, who are ready to see real, and possibly revolutionary change. Despite gaining much attention, he lost the nomination to Hillary Clinton who was seen to be the party favorite. Now in 2020, Bernie seems like he could be the favorite of the people, primarily the youth in America. Despite what Biden said in the recent debate, I think many Americans actually do want a revolution of sorts. Like McGovern, Sanders is picking up the support of the more radical and liberal Democrats who are ready for change.

In both the 1972 and 2020 elections, we see a moderate party Democrat going head to head with a far more radical, liberal opponent. Granted, Bernie Sanders is much more leftist and radical than even McGovern was, however, I still feel there is a similar correlation with the support of the youth who are hungry for change. McGovern managed to steal the nomination from the party favorite, will Sanders be able to pull off the same feat against Biden? Only time will tell. One important similarity I feel is necessary to point out in concluding, is the Republican side of these battles. In 1972, both candidates agreed that the most important thing was stopping the reelection of President Nixon, however due to the strong division the Democrats had over these two candidates, they were unable to come together and defeat him in the general election. Today, every Democratic candidate, including Biden and Sanders, has acknowledged that they share a common goal of preventing another four years of President Donald Trump. In order to achieve that, the party will have to come together to rally around its eventual nominee, no matter who that is. Arguments about who is more electable aside, the greatest concern Democrats should have at the moment, is seeing a repeat of 1972. This has been a divisive campaign, and Biden supporters strongly dislike Sanders, and Sanders supporters strongly dislike Biden. At this point, who wins the nomination is not as consequential in my opinion. I am more curious to see if the party can put aside its differences and rally together around a candidate to accomplish the goal of defeating President Trump or if they will remain so divided that they end up sabotaging their chances and lose once again.

---

[1] U.S. Senate: Hubert H. Humphrey, 38^th Vice President, Senate.gov. https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff/vice-president/VP_Hubert_Humphrey.htm

[2] Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica, George McGovern, EncyclopaediaBritannia.com https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-McGovern.

Works Cited

Biography.com Editors. “Joe Biden Biography.” The Biography.com Website. A&E Television Networks, April 2, 2014. https://www.biography.com/political-figure/joe-biden.

CNN Debate March 15

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “George McGovern.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., October 17, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-McGovern.

Hains, Tim. “Biden And Sanders Debate: Political Revolution vs. Improving the System.” RealClear Politics.  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/03/15/biden_and_sanders_debate_politcal_revolution_vs_improving_the_system.html.

“Hubert H. Humphrey, 38th Vice President (1965-1969).” United States Senate.  https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff/vice-president/VP_Hubert_Humphrey.htm.

McNamee, Gregory Lewis. “Bernie Sanders.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica inc., March 16, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Bernie-Sanders.

Turner, Wallace. “McGovern and Humphrey Clash on War and Relief.” The New York Times. May 29, 1972. https://www.nytimes.com/1972/05/29/archives/mcgovern-and-humphrey-clash-on-war-and-relief-rivals-in-debate.html.

Transcript of “Face the Nation” May 28, 1972. Minnesota Historical Society. http://www2.mnhs.org/library/findaids/00442/pdfa/00442-03499.pdf.

Wagner, John and Felicia Sonmez. “Election highlights: Ohio judge rejects governor’s efforts to postpone Tuesday’s vote; Biden wins Washington primary.” The Washington Post. March 16, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/15/democratic-debate/.

By Ryan Marrufo

If there was one thing that I have been hearing about on Twitter about the Democratic Primaries, it is that there has been the act of voter suppression at many of the polls. I have been seeing this uproar as of late from people in college and that of minority communities. This sentiment can also be seen in the news as of late as well. With one weird act as of recent being a law that was passed by Florida where they would make it so that voters would have to pay fines and fees associated with their convictions before being able to vote (Ross). This was supposed to work alongside with another law where Florida had banned people who have been convicted of felonies from the participation of voting. With this law still in place it made it so that about ten percent of people within Florida were unable to vote (Ross). This law was left over from a time in which Jim-Crow was still active, and was removed in 2018 (Ross). The law that was mentioned before, saw resistance from groups such as the ACLU, the NAACP, the Educational Fund, and the Fair Elections Center, filing a suit against Florida for racism due to black voters being more likely to have felony convictions than that of white voters thus having to pay more (Ross). Within the hearings, after hearing the arguments from both sides, the judge went on to say that it was a “punishment for poverty.” (Ross). After looking online for an answer on the case, I came across an article that states that Florida as of right now has ruled in favor of the poll tax which will make it harder for people of lower incomes and who has a committed felony on their record to vote in the upcoming election (Higgins). There is also another issue that was fairly recent, and that was super Tuesday for both California and Texas. Both California and Texas are both described as having hour long lines at many of the polling stations across each state (Wines). There was also many complaints coming from that of voting-rights groups where they state that officials were looking to reduce the turnout for ‘political reasons’ (Wines). For example, there was a University located in Southern Texas that is a historically black school. The lines to vote on their college campus were reported to have been at least seven hours long to just cast a ballot. According to Michael Wines, a man who had written for the New York Times, it was reported that critics had complained about the delays amounting to voter suppression, at the hands of the Republican party. There is also history of the Republicans trying to minimize the Democratic vote in Texas (Wines). But what if it was not voter suppression but instead it was something else that had made the people of California and Texas wait so long to vote. For Texas, at least a huge reason for the long lines was the fact that there were so many people that had showed up to vote and were undecided. Not to mention all of the glitches that had occured with the voting process. Along with not being able to negotiate between the Democratic and Republican party, on where to have their polling locations be. So to remedy that problem the amount of voting machines was split fifty-fifty between each party, and with there being a heavier turnout of Democratic voters compared to that of the Republican ones thus leading to the lines for the Democratic primaries being hours long (Wines). For California, the big reason for the big lines and long wait times was supposedly due to the new voting system that was put into place in which by itself had created up to four hours of delays across the state (Wines). The new voting system also made it so that these polling centers had to open up later due to having to give the volunteers working the polls the proper training in order to use them. With that in mind though, I still go on Twitter to see what people are thinking about the primaries. I still see people talking about the act of voter suppression, and I mainly saw it happen with the primary voting in Michigan where candidate Bernie Sanders had lost to Joe Biden. I remember reading all of these people call out that what was happening in Michigan to be voter suppression, and even Bernie Sanders himself was implying that it was happening as well. Although I can see where they are coming from, with long lines lasting hours to vote and it seemingly being in areas with a high population of younger people and minority groups. It is a little suspicious. 

Higgins, Eoin. “It’s 2020 and Florida’s Supreme Court Just Ruled in Favor of a Poll Tax.” Common Dreams, January 16, 2020. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/16/its-2020-and-floridas-supreme-court-just-ruled-favor-poll-tax.

Ross, Janell. “’Tidal Wave of Voter Suppression’ Washes over States, Lawyer Says.” NBCNews.com. NBCUniversal News Group, February 5, 2020. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/presidential-voting-season-tidal-wave-voter-suppression-washing-over-multiple-n1128041.

Wines, Michael. “Why Did It Take So Long to Vote in Texas and California?” The New York Times. The New York Times, March 5, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/us/california-texas-voting-lines.html?searchResultPosition=8.

By Greg Brueck

Watching the Democratic Party nominating process unfold over the past few months, and in particular watching Bernie Sanders’ rise to the front of the race, made me remember a book I taught in my first quarter as a lecturer at Cal State East Bay. Michael Kazin’s A Godly Hero is a deeply researched biography of William Jennings Bryan, the charismatic and fiery Nebraskan orator who became the Democratic Party’s nominee for the presidency in 1896. In some respects, it reads as a field guide to our current political world.

On the surface, at least, Bryan and Sanders seem to be cut from the same cloth. Bryan represented an insurgent wing of the Democratic Party, and sought to unseat the party bosses he and his predominantly western and southern constituency scorned as conservative and irredeemably corrupted by corporate interests. His famous “Cross of Gold” speech at the Democratic Convention in Chicago (“we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold”) brought conventioneers to their feet in rapturous applause. Congress had recommitted the nation to the gold standard, which limited the amount of money in circulation to that which could be backed with gold, in 1873. To farmers and workingmen far from the financial centers of the East, the gold standard, by making money scarce, looked like a conspiracy to concentrate wealth in the accounts of their creditors, industrialists, and even the Bank of England. Sanders, likewise, rails against a “billionaire class” and a “corrupt political system” that robs ordinary people of fundamental rights and the ability to share in the nation’s prosperity. The clarity of his message and the quality of his ground game (Bryan, too, was a master political tactician), has earned him a following that tends to see Democratic Party leadership as hopelessly compromised by connections to corporate America.

In the cases of both men, their respective parties responded to their rise with a range of reactions from suspicion to predictions of disaster. After his momentous speech, it still took five rounds of voting before Bryan secured the nomination. Even those who shared his political values, like John Altgeld, the pro-labor governor of Illinois, expressed skepticism. “It takes more than speeches to win real victories,” he told his friend and ally Clarence Darrow. The conservatives in the midst of losing their grip on power, like supporters of the incumbent president, Democrat Grover Cleveland, declared Bryan a fanatic and a socialist. Sanders, meanwhile, wears the “Democratic Socialist” label proudly but has faced accusations of naïve affinities for autocratic left-wing regimes, not to mention being labeled a communist by Mike Bloomberg in one debate. Upon winning the South Carolina primary this past weekend, former Vice President Joe Biden declared in television interviews, “People aren’t looking for a revolution, they’re looking for results.”

Finally, for supporters of both men, such attacks only increase(d) their commitment. Bryan was renowned for a magnetism in his public speaking that, in Kazin’s words, “lifted him above the ranks of the typical Gilded Age politician whose florid words smacked of artifice and insincerity.” Today, nobody seriously questions the purity of Sanders’ ideological commitments.

There are some differences between the two men. If he had won the general election in 1896, Bryan would have been the nation’s youngest president; if Sanders wins in 2020 he will be the oldest. Bryan was famous for his “sonorous and melodious” voice; Sanders’ brand includes consistently delivering speeches in a gruff shout. Those circumstantial and stylistic differences aside, I thought, someone should compare the political influence of these two figures in their respective eras. It turns out, Michael Kazin already has, arguing in this New York Times piece that Sanders, no less than Bryan before him, has succeeded in “transforming the ideology and program of a major party.” Bryan shifted the Democratic Party of his day onto a path that would lead to the Progressive reforms of the turn of the century and the New Deal liberalism of the 1930s. Between his years in the Senate, his 2016 campaign for president, and his 2020 effort, Sanders has almost single-handedly lifted policy goals like a dramatically higher minimum wage, higher taxes on the wealthy (especially Wall Street), and universal healthcare into the realm of Democratic Party orthodoxy.

I wonder, though, if the comparison between Bryan and Sanders is a bit too pat. Bryan was a true and life-long believer in the cause of revolutionizing the role of the federal government, transforming it from a servant of corporations and the wealthy into a servant of farmers and wage earners. He drew inspiration and followers, meanwhile, from an arguably even more revolutionary movement organized as the Populist Party. In that party’s Omaha Platform of 1892, when they ran their own candidate for the presidency, the Populists made several demands, including a “subtreasury” system to provide government loans to farmers, a federal takeover of the railroad system, the coinage of silver to loosen the money supply and put cash in the pockets of farmers, the direct election of U.S. senators, and an initiative system to allow for a more direct form of democracy. As noted above, much of what the Populists and Bryan called for came to pass, in one form or another, in later waves of Progressive and New Deal reforms. According to the historian Charles Postel, however, the Populists, who joined with the Democrats to nominate Bryan in 1896, never realized their full vision. They dreamed of true political power in the hands of a unified farmer-labor coalition, what they often called a “confederation of industrial orders.” What they often got instead was top-down regulatory reforms aimed less at redistributing political and social power and more at increasing the efficiency of agriculture and integrating working-class Americans into corporate-dominated political and economic systems. Bryan lost his presidential bid in 1896, going down to defeat at the hands of the Republican William McKinley, whose campaign convinced northeastern urban industrial workers their interests were more closely aligned with those of their employers than with those of farmers, miners, and residents of small western towns. Bryan would lose another bid for the presidency in 1900, and a final one in 1908.

Is Sanders trying to pull off a social, political, and economic revolution of the type Bryan attempted? Surely, he speaks of revolution, and of his broad coalition of working people, including racial and ethnic minorities, who demand a system that works for them instead of the top one percent. His website highlights the major issues of his campaign, including a “Medicare for All,” single-payer healthcare system; a “Green New Deal” to create a 100% renewable energy system; tuition and debt-free public colleges, universities, and trade schools; immigration reform; and reinvigorated and better-protected labor unions. If he accomplishes even some of these goals, he will have had a transformative effect on the federal government, dramatically increasing its scope and power. Nevertheless, he will be building upon waves of reform accomplished in the twentieth century, reform that has done much to improve the lives of ordinary Americans but has done little to slow the expansion of corporate power over the economy and the government. Does Sanders’ vision include shifting the levers of power such that workers and Americans of ordinary means come to truly control the political, social, and economic order under which they live, or is it aimed at liberalizing the existing order, making it more accommodating without upending its foundations? If it’s the latter, does he have a better shot at winning than Bryan did?

Kazin, Michael. A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan. New York: Anchor Books, 2007.

Postel, Charles. The Populist Vision. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.