If you are of a vigorous disposition and enjoy the crisp New
Hampshire air, you can try the “Presidential Traverse”, a 19-mile saunter across
the Presidential Range. Up and down you
go, from North to South, Mounts Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Monroe, Eisenhower,
and Pierce.
I said, “vigorous disposition” because this is no walk in
the park. “STOP” reads a sign from the
Forest Service, “THE AREA AHEAD HAS THE WORST WEATHER IN AMERICA. MANY HAVE
DIED THERE FROM EXPOSURE, EVEN IN THE SUMMER. TURN BACK NOW IF THE
WEATHER IS BAD.”
Eight potentially viable candidates (actually, eight
hopefully potentially viable candidates) marched into the state to test their
resilience. Here is what we learned: Donald
Trump has the vitality of a rhinoceros. Ted Cruz walked the entire distance without
once stopping to look at the view. John
Kasich took so many pictures his Instamatic ran out of film. Jeb Bush made it—Barbara commandeered a Right
to Rise Helicopter and Jeb skydived, with his Dad, to the finish. Marco Rubio
was so sure there would be a chorus celebrating his accomplishments that he
wanted to do it twice. Chris Christie gave it a shot, for a peak or two, then channeled
his inner Napoleon, and left the Grande Armée of his ambitions on the frozen
tundra to return to Paris (or New Jersey). Hillary surprised absolutely no one—she donned
a high-tech pants suit, told Bill to stay out of trouble, and tweeted selfies. She finished late, but she finished. And Bernie—Bernie not only warmed up by
shooting hoops, but led an entire posse of Millennials, Sound of Music style,
over the Alps.
How does Bernie do it? How does 74-year-old Democratic
Socialist manage to attract not only blue collar New Hampshire workers but an
astonishing 83% of voters aged 18-29.
The number is so unreal it looks like an election from an old Warsaw
Pact nation.
Is it Hillary? Unquestionably, she can be uninspiring. And, a lot of the press doesn’t particularly
like her—even the mainstream and liberal press that is supposedly in the tank. Hillary is the anti-Bill, a walking, talking
command and control center for other’s schadenfreude. No margin is big enough,
no explanation full enough, no speech emotive enough for her to escape
criticism.
But, for all that, in a lot of ways, their dislike of her
obscures a larger issue—and it’s a larger issue for just about every
conventional candidate, Democratic or Republican. A 7/1 margin isn’t about Hillary
Clinton. It’s not even about Bernie
Sanders. It speaks to something that is
not being addressed.
I got a small window into this last summer when I had the
exquisite pleasure of stomping around Florence for a few hours with my teenaged
daughter. In insane heat (100 degrees might look prettier when seeing the Arno
as opposed to the East River, but it’s still insane) she wanted to talk about
two things that really motivated her—the arts (she’s a musician) and politics
(The Force is strong with this one.) I’m
not doing justice to her arguments by synthesizing them this way, but let me
give it a shot. Bernie Sanders
interested her because he talked about things that were meaningful to
her—economic inequality, a society built on mutual respect, education (and the
cost of it) and public support for the arts.
My daughter is very practical—she knows that the road ahead
for her and her friends and future colleagues is a difficult one. Classical music, and particularly opera, has
a limited audience, growing older each year.
She knows it is largely supported by a comparatively few wealthy donors,
and she appreciated what they were doing.
But, the entire model struck her as fundamentally
unreasonable—In Europe, cultural heritage—art, architecture, music, is
cherished and prioritized. In America it’s
the first thing that’s cut from any budget, and often lampooned. Tuition and associated fees are astronomical,
and burden students with often-unsustainable debt payments that will drag on
them for decades. Conventional politics,
and conventional politicians, were just offering more of the same.
She had another point to make—that not only do different
generations have different priorities, but when something like the arts are
presented to a younger generation by people old enough to be their
grandparents, they lose relevance. The
way to inspire participation is peer to peer.
It was this last observation that has been rattling around
in my head since then. How does peer-to-peer translate to a
74-year-old who looks like he could have emerged from a Disney movie? Perhaps because Bernie Sanders is personally empowering
in a way that Hillary Clinton, or any of the other candidates, just isn’t.
There are basically three voting blocks in this election, and Bernie is speaking to each in his own way.
The first are people of the status quo--not just the wealthy, but also a lot of middle-class people, who, in
the post-World War II era, were part of an economy that generated stable jobs,
pensions, and security. They also found relative stability and comfort in their
neighborhoods, their cultures, and their beliefs. These folk have a tremendous interest in sustaining it. Bernie's views, like his accent, grate on them.
The second is from working and middle class people who are
on a downward slope. Their present job is not as good as the one their last
one. Their neighborhoods are in
transition. They are anxious about both
the present and the future. They want to retrieve what was lost. These people are looking for help. Some may hear in Bernie hope, others an attack on what they have left.
The last is from the Millennials. They have no memory of a brighter past
because they never experienced it. And little
interest in sustaining the status quo, because what they see in front of them
is an entirely different, and far less promising future where the economic elites
continue to reap a disproportionate share, and they are paying to support entitlement
programs that they never expect to be able to participate in. And, all these decisions are being made by
others, without input from them. Bernie is not just speaking to them, he is listening.
What the 2016 election is largely about is reconciling the
stresses between these three tectonic blocks.
That means that the basic chemistry of conventional politics is starting
to change, and the struggle is over which side gains the upper hand. Trump obviously has a complex appeal to both
some of the status quo voters, and the downward slope types. He’s going to clean the stables, win the “ethnic”
culture war, and “Make America Great.” But look at the rest of the candidates—Hillary,
Jeb, Rubio, and Kasich, even Cruz, all are delivering essentially the same
message—give them the keys, and they can drive the car better than Obama. They differ on speed, on direction, on the
relative awfulness of the President, but it’s still the same basic idea. Put them in charge, they will manage the
status quo, sprinkle a few extra favors in one direction or another, and things
will improve.
That just doesn’t work for millennials. They want a place at the table. They want to be engaged. Some of them, like my daughter, even want to
be evangelists with their peers and those even younger. Bernie
isn’t just a warrior for them—he’s a warrior with them.
I still don’t think Bernie is realistic, I don’t agree with
many of his economic proposals, and I don’t think he is electable. But I read David Brooks this morning, “Livin’
Bernie Sanders’s Danish Dream” and a few things came to mind: how
(unintentionally) arrogant and condescending he comes off and how sure he is
that what he attained is available to anyone with the desire, the effort, and
the right moral framework. Brooks doesn’t mean any harm. He’s just the adult in
the room, telling the kids how it’s going to be, what’s best for them.
David Brooks may be a man of the past—or even one of the
present. I think he, and the status quo,
takes this round.
Bernie Sanders, all 74 cantankerous years of him, could be
the man of the future. To paraphrase
Martin Luther King, he may have gone to the mountaintop.
Michael Liss (Moderate Moderator)
Please join us on Twitter.
