America’s revolt against the political elite is the storm before the calm

America’s revolt against the political elite is the storm before the calm:

“a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing”- Thomas Jefferson on Shays’ Rebellion, 1786

But more worrying is Jefferson’s oft-repeated quotation: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

The established political system in America is in shock, and it does not look as if this firestorm is likely to burn itself out anytime soon. But it is the storm before the calm. As Thomas Jefferson said, Shays’ armed rebellion of 1786 against heavier taxes levied to pay rich merchants’ war loans, “ a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing,” for a republic. It brings to the surface the simmering frustrations of the people which forces governments to act. 

This has happened before in the late 1890s with social reform after the outbreak of violent Populism, in the 1930s with the New Deal during the Great Depression, and in the 1960s with civil rights legislation. Hence, there is little reason to suppose that the political order is not flexible enough to weather this Trump storm and come out stronger, more representative and resilient – a newly-realigned order more reflective of the state of the nation today – an increasingly unequal society with fewer opportunities to achieve the American dream. 

The symptoms of an unravelling and unsustainable order, being played out in both the GOP and Democratic primaries, demand that the correction that should have occurred after the Iraq War and especially following the 2008 financial crisis happens under the watch of the next president, regardless of party in office. So intense is the feeling of violent anger on the right, but also idealism on the left, that the corporate-domination of American politics is under the spotlight more intensely than at any time since the early 1970s.

But let’s first get back to Thomas Jefferson: Jefferson noted that a democratic government like America’s, “has a great deal of good in it…. It has its evils, too, the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject…I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people, which have produced them…. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”

Therein lies the secret of American government and why the current political crisis will most likely pass even if it wrecks careers and political parties in its wake. Yet, a society riled as the American is at present would do well to fear what Jefferson commented a year later about Shays’ uprising: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” With around 300 million private firearms in America, owned by anywhere between 40% and 50% of the population, and Donald Trump’s rallies becoming increasingly raucous and aggressive as protests against his attacks on Muslims, Mexicans and other minorities mount, the danger of escalating violence hangs in the air. Should Hillary Clinton and Trump slug out the contest for the White House, the degree of polarisation could well lead to serious outbreaks of violence and general ugliness.  

Ironically, a Trump-Sanders contest might bring forth a more interesting political struggle – for the hearts and minds of those who’ve missed out on the American dream and blame globalisation, the outsourcing of American jobs, and the takeover of life and politics by big corporations. The real schism is hardly between black and white or Mexicans or Muslims but between the super-wealthy and the majority of Americans. Trump’s base, his hard core support is white non-college educated working class whites who reject conservative small government or cuts to welfare and who want heavier taxes on the rich and big business. Their ethno-centrism prevents them from joining the Sanders people. Sanders is the only real “class” candidate who stands for working people, while Clinton wins among blacks, and whites with incomes over 200K pa, losing among young people by wide margins.

Sanders faces a fundamental structural problem – his lack of a strong political machine or movement nurtured over time and which reaches from the pinnacles of national politics down to the local ward. Clinton has the Democratic party machine with and behind her, in her very DNA, and raises millions of dollars for local senatorial and congressional races. She has a history with black voters that Sanders cannot even dream of.

Sanders knows this, of course, and is glad of the endorsement of Democracy for America, a million-strong group backing progressive candidates in mainly local races around the United States. Such backing means local campaigners knocking on doors, putting up posters, bumper stickers and making Sanders visible everywhere and not just on national TV. But even so, this is unlikely to be enough to provide significant political backing in congress to President Sanders. He will not be able to govern.

More likely is a strong showing for Sanders in a closely-fought contest which allows Sanders to make progressive demands on the Clinton campaign in the run up to November – on healthcare, college tuition fees, heavier taxes on the rich, protection of social security and pensions. And a dampener on higher military spending. In those conditions, a victorious Clinton would find it difficult openly to deliver the White House to Wall Street. There is such contempt for corporate-fuelled politics that Sanders might harness the movement to demand more from Clinton than she is currently promising.

It appears, at least superficially, that a great political realignment has begun in the U.S., but unless it changes the orientation of the dominant parties, the change will not endure. Trump’s demolition of the Republican party is continuing apace and impacting his principal opponent – Ted Cruz, a ‘frenemy’ of the GOP establishment. Ironically, Sanders may be strengthening the Democratic party by hoovering up major discontent and pulling Clinton to the left. But his pledged delegate count, regardless of the final outcome of the nomination contest, is likely to be so high that he could rightfully demand Clinton’s presidential election platform is further to the left than she would prefer to be given her indebtedness to corporate donors. 

The core economic message to Americans from Trump and Sanders is that the economic system is failing most Americans, increasing corporate wealth, income and wealth inequality, and polarising society and politics. The votes for Sanders and Trump are really screams against a political establishment that has been taken over by corporations, corporate mentalities and agendas – lower taxes, more state subsidies for the rich, outsourcing of well paid jobs through globalisation to low-wage societies. It is a delayed-reaction demand for a recalibration of the system after a long neo-liberal, free-markets-know-it-all-party. That ideological dominance is now under severe strain. Markets do not correct themselves, politics do. The whirlwind of hate, resentment and, it must be said, idealism, has turned on its progenitors.

It’s the storm before the calm of which Thomas Jefferson would have approved, refreshing the tree of liberty, the health of government, and the happiness of the people.