Purple America

Jonn Elledge meets the people behind the "Rednecks for Obama" banner, showing that America is a purp

So a girl walks through midtown New York wearing an Obama t-shirt. And a middle aged guy standing outside a bar yells at her, "He's going to lose!"

"I hope not," she replies.

And he yells back, "Vote white, vote white!"

...scared, yet?

This story is a reminder that, for all the talk of red states and blue states, the US simply isn't that simple. There are frustrated Democrats in the inner cities of the south, low-tax Republicans in California - and a few racists at the centre of American liberalism.

And, deep in the interior, there are self-described rednecks campaigning for higher taxes and bigger government. Tony Viessman, for instance, reckons one of the biggest challenges facing America today is creating a healthcare system that actually provides everyone with healthcare. "I'm not worried about socialized anything," he says in a Missouri drawl, "just so long as it's fair."

Viessman and his friend Les Spencer hit the headlines last summer when they started hanging out at Democratic events holding a banner reading 'Rednecks for Obama'. (The Senator, knowing a good photo-op when he sees one, ran 60 yards in the rain to get a picture with them.) They say they were inspired to do it by Obama's intelligence and way with people, as well as his stance on the war.

But what's really motivated them is their disgust with the last eight years of Republican government. During our brief conversation, they find time to express their fury with the Wall Street bail out, the failure to plan for the occupation of Iraq, and the obsession with wedge issues such as abortion. "Bush is the worst president we've had in a long time," says Spencer. "He's taken a lot of the pressure off Hoover."

And middle America, they say, has nothing to fear from Barack Obama. "People say that if you vote Democratic you're gonna lose your guns," says Spencer. "But Obama's gonna support the Second Amendment, there's no doubt about it." Viessman agrees. "There's a few dummies that'll vote because of colour, but we've come a long way in the last fifty years."

These two have attracted a lot of attention, because people don't expect to hear such sentiments from self-described 'rednecks'. But it shouldn't be surprising. Polls show that even in the reddest of red states, Alabama, a third of the electorate will still go for Obama. In liberal Massachusetts, meanwhile, 36% are backing McCain.

In fact, the whole red/blue state paradigm is an invention of the last decade. Bill Clinton won huge swathes of the south; ten years earlier, Ronald Reagan won the liberal strongholds of the north east and west coast.

In the last few days, Barack Obama has extended his campaign to new states such as Montana, North Dakota and even McCain's own Arizona. If he were to do well there, it'd mean the US was a lot more purple than anyone has given it credit for.

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

Getty
Show Hide image

Bernie Sanders is America’s most popular politician – and he’s coming after Donald Trump

Sanders, unlike Clinton, had a clear and coherent vision. As of now, he is the best hope the Democrats have of retaking the White House in 2020.

“I like Bernie Sanders,” my four-year-old niece in Texas said to me last month. “Why isn’t he president?” More than six months on from the defeat of Hillary Clinton, it’s a question that countless frustrated progressives across the United States continue to ask aloud.

Remember that the election of Donald Trump was not the only political earthquake to shake the US establishment last year. A 74-year-old, self-declared socialist and independent senator from the tiny state of Vermont, in a crumpled suit and with a shock of Einsteinian white hair, came close to vanquishing the Clinton machine and winning the Democratic presidential nomination. Sanders began the campaign as the rank outsider, mocked by the former Obama strategist David Axelrod as the candidate with whom Democratic voters might “flirt” and have a “fling” before settling down with Clinton. By the end of the campaign he had won 13 million votes and 23 states, and raised more than $200m.

In this dystopian age of Trump, it is remarkable that Sanders is now by far the most popular politician in the US – and this in a country where “socialist” has long been a dirty word. Increasing numbers of Americans seem nevertheless to “feel the Bern”. As such, Sanders supporters cannot help but ask the big counterfactual question of our time: would Trump be the president today if he had faced Bernie rather than Hillary in the election? Throughout the campaign, polls showed him crushing Trump in a head-to-head match-up. In a poll on the eve of the election, Sanders trumped Trump by 12 percentage points.

Democratic voters were told repeatedly that Clinton was more “electable” – but had they opted for Sanders as their candidate, there would have been none of the backlash over her emails, Benghazi, Bill, her Iraq War vote, or her Goldman Sachs speeches. So did the Democrats, in effect, gift the presidency to the Republican Party by picking the divisive and establishment-friendly Clinton over Sanders the economic populist?

I can’t prove it but I suspect that Sanders would have beaten Trump – although, to be fair to the much-maligned Clinton, she, too, beat Trump by nearly three million votes. Also, one-on-one polls showing Sanders ahead of Trump in a hypothetical match-up fail to tell us how the independent senator’s support would have held up against a barrage of vicious Republican attack ads during a general election campaign.

Then there is the matter of race. Clinton, despite deep support in African-American and Latino communities, was unable to mobilise Barack Obama’s multiracial coalition. Sanders would have done even worse than she did among minority voters. Trump voters, meanwhile, were motivated less by economic anxiety (as plenty on the left, including Sanders, wrongly claim) than – according to most academic studies, opinion polls and the latest data from the American National Election Studies – by racial resentment and an anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim animus. Sanders, who at a recent rally in Boston defended Trump voters from accusations of bigotry and racism, would probably have struggled as much as Clinton did to respond to this “whitelash”.

Nevertheless, Sanders, unlike Clinton, had a clear and coherent vision and I would argue that, as of now, he is the best hope the Democrats have of retaking the White House in 2020. His support for greater Wall Street regulation, debt-free college tuition, universal health care and a higher minimum wage is not only morally correct and economically sound but also hugely popular with voters across the political spectrum.

The Democrats have a mountain to climb. They have to find a way to enthuse their diverse, demoralised base while winning back white voters who are concerned much more by issues of race and identity than by jobs or wages. A recent poll found that the party had lower approval ratings than both Trump and the Republicans as a whole.

Yet press reports suggest that at least 22 Democrats are thinking about running for president in 2020. This is madness. Few are serious contenders – thanks to the dominance of the Clinton machine in recent years, the party doesn’t have a deep bench. There is no new generation of rising stars.

The only two people who could plausibly prevent Sanders from winning the nomination next time round are the former vice-president Joe Biden and the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren. The good news is that all three of these Democratic contenders are, to varying degrees, economic populists, willing to stand up passionately for “the little guy”. The bad news is that the Democratic base may fantasise about a young, dynamic Justin Trudeau or Emman­uel Macron of their own but, come the 2020 election, Sanders will be 79, Biden 77 and Warren 71. (Then again, they’ll be up against a sitting Republican president who will be 74, behaves as if he has dementia and refuses to release his medical records.)

Bizarrely, that election campaign has already begun. On 1 May, Trump released his first official campaign ad for re-election, 1,282 days before the next presidential vote. Biden visited New Hampshire last month to give a speech, while Warren is on a national tour to promote her new bestselling book, This Fight Is Our Fight.

Sanders, however – riding high in the polls, and with his vast database of contacts from the 2016 race as well as a clear, popular and long-standing critique of a US political and economic system “rigged” in favour of “the billionaire class” – is the man to beat. And rightly so. Sanders understands that the Democrats have to change, and change fast. “There are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo,” he said in March. “They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats.”

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

This article first appeared in the 18 May 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Age of Lies

0800 7318496