Getty
Show Hide image

How Bernie Sanders uses rhetoric to make Americans support left-wing ideas

The Democratic candidate has deftly moved the debate to the left.

One major achievement of the Bernie Sanders campaign in the US has been to build support for left-wing policies that only months ago would have seemed beyond the pale.

In a relatively conservative country like America, still bound by the legacy of the Cold War and a deep hostility to “big government”, shifting the Overton Window to make room for socialised healthcare, free higher education and “breaking up the banks” is quite a feat. Already the terms of debate can be seen to have shifted, from the speeches of Hillary Clinton to televised call-in programmes, to the letters page of the New York Times.

Key to Sanders's success has been his use of language to make social democratic ideas attractive to a mass audience. Speaking in clear prose of the kind advocated by Orwell in Politics and the English Language, Sanders argues from first principles, choosing simple imagery and real-world examples over the more poetic, (but less specific), style of Barack Obama.

This technique has been very effective for conservatives, from Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to David Cameron, who use terms like “balanced books” and “wealth-creators” to present free market ideas as the purest common sense. (The most enduring example is probably Thatcher’s likening government finances to the budget of a family or household.)

Sanders, by contrast, employs this method to turn the political consensus on its head. Instead of taking for granted that social provisions are too expensive, he reminds listeners that America is the “wealthiest country in the world” and asks why “every major industrialised nation” manages to provide a sturdier safety net for its citizens. Even the most patriotic American is unlikely to feel proud about this kind of “exceptionalism”.

In one of his more brilliant flourishes, Sanders argues that a “transfer of wealth” or redistribution has in fact already taken place, only with money moving from the middle and working-class to “the top one per cent”. Sticking with this dialectical style, he asserts that bankers on Wall Street, having been bailed out by the public after the financial crash, should return the favour in the form of a tax on speculation.

Much of his style of argument involves this appeal to justice, resembling a sort of Jewish barterer, mid-haggle, who turns to onlookers at the market and asks, “Isn't that a fair offer?”, “Doesn’t this seem reasonable?”. Whereas a demagogue like Donald Trump promises to appoint “smart people” to get a “better deal”, Sanders lays out his arguments in public view, so voters are already in on the negotiations. This neatly reflects the fundamentally elitist approach of the one as compared with the democratic instincts of the other.

Sanders honed his ability to offer policy in a quick and memorable way over years of running as a long-shot candidate, (as described in his 1997 memoir Outsider in the House, republished for this election), when pith and “message discipline” were crucial. This also accounts for his occasional trips into hyperbole.

But his use of tight expressions like “rigged economy”, “crumbling infrastructure” and “broken criminal justice system” bring to mind huge social problems in seconds, as well as implying what to do about them: If something is “crumbling”, you rebuild it. If something is “broken”, you fix it, and so on.

This “dirty fingernails” rhetoric not only evokes America’s once powerful labour movement and the collective spirit of the New Deal, but draws a direct line from ordinary citizens to the workings of government, and empowers them, (not in the empty feel-good sense, but in a concrete way), by suggesting they can exert control over the forces which govern their lives.

The clarity with which Sanders speaks perfectly complements his natural decency and honesty, which might be the essence of his appeal. Similarly, his dry and ironic use of humour implies a respect for the intelligence of his audience – a novel trait in a politician. 

Finally, in repeatedly telling the story of his campaign, from “fringe candidate” to winning primaries and caucuses funded only by small donations, he identifies his supporters with his own underdog struggle against the powerful.

This idea of a long difficult journey points to a secret harmony in the Dictionary of Bernspeak. Sanders is able to tap into the rhetorical tradition of the civil rights movement, a saccharine version of which most Americans – especially the young, who form a large part of his support – have been taught from infancy.  It was this equalitarian movement which inspired Sanders as a student activist in the 1960s, and from which, as a lay preacher of the gospel of social justice, his candidacy draws its rhetorical strength.

At the very least, the Sanders campaign proves you can get people’s attention without shouting about Mexicans and walls.

Getty
Show Hide image

Our union backed Brexit, but that doesn't mean scrapping freedom of movement

We can only improve the lives of our members, like those planning stike action at McDonalds, through solidarity.

The campaign to defend and extend free movement – highlighted by the launch of the Labour Campaign for Free Movement this month – is being seen in some circles as a back door strategy to re-run the EU referendum. If that was truly the case, then I don't think Unions like mine (the BFAWU) would be involved, especially as we campaigned to leave the EU ourselves.

In stark contrast to the rhetoric used by many sections of the Leave campaign, our argument wasn’t driven by fear and paranoia about migrant workers. A good number of the BFAWU’s membership is made up of workers not just from the EU, but from all corners of the world. They make a positive contribution to the industry that we represent. These people make a far larger and important contribution to our society and our communities than the wealthy Brexiteers, who sought to do nothing other than de-humanise them, cheered along by a rabid, right-wing press. 

Those who are calling for end to freedom of movement fail to realise that it’s people, rather than land and borders that makes the world we live in. Division works only in the interest of those that want to hold power, control, influence and wealth. Unfortunately, despite a rich history in terms of where division leads us, a good chunk of the UK population still falls for it. We believe that those who live and work here or in other countries should have their skills recognised and enjoy the same rights as those born in that country, including the democratic right to vote. 

Workers born outside of the UK contribute more than £328 million to the UK economy every day. Our NHS depends on their labour in order to keep it running; the leisure and hospitality industries depend on them in order to function; the food industry (including farming to a degree) is often propped up by their work.

The real architects of our misery and hardship reside in Westminster. It is they who introduced legislation designed to allow bosses to act with impunity and pay poverty wages. The only way we can really improve our lives is not as some would have you believe, by blaming other poor workers from other countries, it is through standing together in solidarity. By organising and combining that we become stronger as our fabulous members are showing through their decision to ballot for strike action in McDonalds.

Our members in McDonalds are both born in the UK and outside the UK, and where the bosses have separated groups of workers by pitting certain nationalities against each other, the workers organised have stood together and fought to win change for all, even organising themed social events to welcome each other in the face of the bosses ‘attempts to create divisions in the workplace.

Our union has held the long term view that we should have a planned economy with an ability to own and control the means of production. Our members saw the EU as a gravy train, working in the interests of wealthy elites and industrial scale tax avoidance. They felt that leaving the EU would give the UK the best opportunity to renationalise our key industries and begin a programme of manufacturing on a scale that would allow us to be self-sufficient and independent while enjoying solid trading relationships with other countries. Obviously, a key component in terms of facilitating this is continued freedom of movement.

Many of our members come from communities that voted to leave the EU. They are a reflection of real life that the movers and shakers in both the Leave and Remain campaigns took for granted. We weren’t surprised by the outcome of the EU referendum; after decades of politicians heaping blame on the EU for everything from the shape of fruit to personal hardship, what else could we possibly expect? However, we cannot allow migrant labour to remain as a political football to give succour to the prejudices of the uninformed. Given the same rights and freedoms as UK citizens, foreign workers have the ability to ensure that the UK actually makes a success of Brexit, one that benefits the many, rather than the few.

Ian Hodon is President of the Bakers and Allied Food Workers Union and founding signatory of the Labour Campaign for Free Movement.