Professor Richard Wolff, in the CounterPunch article: American History and the 2020 Election, demonstrates that Donald Trump landing in the White House was the result of working class people’s disgust with the fact that both parties have abandoned their economic viability.

The US working class was shocked three times in quick succession. First, the promise of rising standards of living was now definitively broken: wages were flat, debt levels had reached unsustainable levels, and families and households were exhausted. The postponed reality of an American Dream fading out of reach began to sink in. Second, the working class watched Republicans and Democrats falling over one another in and after 2008 to give big finance and big business every possible taxing, spending and regulatory support, mostly at taxpayer expense. Concerns about deficits, long a staple of conservatives, disappeared. The idea of boosting the economy from below disappeared as well. Everything was trickle down economics no matter how little trickled (millions of “underwater” homeowners were promised help that never arrived). The final blow came when, after trillions had been spent to revive a near-dead capitalist class, the “problem of rising deficits” was rediscovered to rationalize an austerity program for the masses. The three shocks proved too much for large sections of the US working class. They expected little from Republicans, but felt betrayed by the Democrats. The Democrats could and should have stopped it; but the Party was too weak or too embedded in the neoliberal status quo to be of any use. The entire “Washington” apparatus — both parties — were jointly responsible. Working class anger against them spilled over to the media that protected them by taking their lip services seriously rather than exposing and condemning their betrayals.

Krystal Ball, commentator for The Hill, shows in this clip how voters contrast Elizabeth Warren with Bernie Sanders. Her qualitative methodology sampled nearly 3,000 Twitter followers’ responses about how they felt the two candidates’ differed. She used the following tweet as a powerful representation of how many voters perceive the difference.

Warren vs. Sanders

Sanders wants to put the power in the hands of the people. He wants the people to determine their own fate as opposed to leaving the current leaders at the helm and trusting them to make the needed changes. In current polling, voter demographics may possibly explain this contrast between the way Sanders supporters and Warren supporters view their respective leadership attributes.

“According to recent polling data from Morning Consult (one of the best, most reputable along with Pew and Quinnipiac) regarding Democratic primary voter support: * Voters earning less than $50,000 (Sanders — 22%; Warren — 12%) * Voters without college degrees (Sanders — 22%; Warren — 10%) * Voters with college degrees (Sanders — 16%; Warren — 15%) * Voters with postgraduate degrees (Sanders — 12%; Warren — 19%) Just from these numbers one clear fact jumps out: Sanders supporters are less wealthy and less privileged on the whole. Looking specifically at income and education, two key indicators of class orientation and access to social mobility, it’s clear which candidate is supported by the poor and working class. Moreover, because access to education is directly correlated to wealth and privilege, these numbers reflect a broader political tendency among those most economically marginalized, seeing Sanders, not Warren, as the voice of the poor in America.”

French economist, Thomas Piketty author of the bestselling 2013 book: Capital in the Twenty-First Century also wrote the paper, “Brahmin Left vs. Merchant Right: Rising Inequality & the Changing Structure of Political Conflict,” which analyzes approximately 70 years of post-election surveys from Britain, the United States, and France. Piketty posits that in the current political climate, the only way to unite poor and poorly educated voters (who 70 years or more ago would typically have voted only for leftist political parties) is to rally them around the idea that they are voting against the interests of the wealthy few and in favor of the interests of the working class, generally. In other words, the battle lines are now drawn almost completely based on economic class and on little else.

Add to this the “War On Youth” described by Henry A. Giroux, where young people, especially poor youth of color, are increasingly disenfranchised; and the differences between Bernie Sanders and any other Democratic presidential hopefuls are increasingly apparent.

“As the United States increasingly models its schools after prisons and subjects children to a criminal legal system marked by severe class and racial inequities, it becomes clear that such children are no longer viewed as a social investment but as suspects. Under a neoliberal regime in which some children are treated as criminals and increasingly deprived of decent health care, education, food and housing, it has become clear that the United States has both failed its children and democracy itself.”

Only Sanders speaks to this problem in a way that voters can perceive as substantive and not merely more of the lip-service that both political parties have served up over the last 70 years. Sanders speaks directly to young people without being condescending or patronizing and his poll results demonstrate clearly that they trust him far more than they trust any other presidential candidate. In Sanders’ own words:

“Young people are facing an unusual moment in American history, and that is not only the issue of climate change; it is not only racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, religious bigotry. It is the reality that your generation will for the first time in modern history have a lower standard of living than their parents.”

Will these demographics turn out for Sanders when it counts, in the Primaries and Caucuses? In a Daily Beast article, Sanders again differentiates himself from the field:

On Saturday [4–27–19], the campaign launched a nationwide organizing program with nearly 5,000 house parties in every state throughout the country, demonstrating a show of force for his volunteer network and an opportunity to mobilize supporters in a primary contest that could remain close through the early voting states and beyond. “If we’re going to defeat Donald Trump, we’re going to need a massive grassroots effort and that’s what today is about,” Sanders told The Daily Beast in an interview on Saturday. “Our job is to significantly increase our citizen participation and we think the agenda that we are fighting for, an agenda that works for all of us and not just the one percent is an agenda that can bring millions of people together to transform our economic and political life.” In addition to the house parties, which Sanders spent part of the day calling into, the campaign also launched a new app called BERN which will be crucial to their strategy going forward. It allows for volunteers themselves to log conversations with voters, friends and family for the purpose of ensuring voter registration and getting Sanders’ supporters to participate in primaries and caucuses within their states.

Bernie’s Appeal to Black Voters

Dr. Cornel West speaks to this issue:

“The future of American democracy depends on our response to the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. And that legacy is not just about defending civil rights; it’s also about fighting to fix our rigged economy, which yields grotesque wealth inequality; our narcissistic culture, which unleashes obscene greed; our market-driven media, which thrives on xenophobic entertainment; and our militaristic prowess, which promotes hawkish policies around the world. The fundamental aim of black voters — and any voters with a deep moral concern for our public interest and common good — should be to put a smile on Martin’s face from the grave.”

“ . . . it is Sanders who has championed that legacy [of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.] in word and in deed for 50 years. This election is not a mere campaign; it is a crusade to resurrect democracy — King-style — in our time. In 2016, Sanders is the one leading that crusade.”

In the following clip from Black Coffee, Senator Sanders is asked about his lack of support from black voters in South Carolina and other southern states. He acknowledges his campaign’s inability to get the word out soon enough and with a powerful enough message. He explains that the organizational structure this time is far ahead of where it was last time. He goes on to explain that his policy initiatives to deal with economic justice affect disproportionately (in a good way) the African-American community because black families currently suffer far more economic injustice than other groups. His Health Care for All, his fight for $15 federal minimum wage, health care for all, free public college, student loan forgiveness, and so forth will help black communities more than any other segment of the population.

I agree that Sanders needs to do a better job of getting the word out. But I also believe that he has been set up by political commentators who seek to perpetuate the myth that he is out of touch with black voters. He also has bumped into Black Caucus leaders who often seem to favor the DNC status quo rather than political insurgents. David Dayen has asked (fairly):

“Does the Congressional Black Caucus faithfully represent the best interests of the community at large, or instead, the corporate interests that fund it?”

Until Sanders gets a fair shake from political and media elites, including those with minority status who have found their way into the establishment power structure, he may continue to struggle until the word can get out past the blockade put in place by the powerful forces that fear his message. If you agree, you can do your part by broadly sharing on social media alternative messages such as the one this article presents.

Bernie or Bust/Bernie or Trump in Swing States

An elephant in the room, at least when speaking to traditional Democrats, is the number of Sanders supporters, especially in swing states, who will vote directly for Donald Trump if Bernie Sanders is not nominated by the DNC.

Add to this number (about 12% in the 2016 election) those who will stay home or vote third party and you are faced with the statistical certainty that there is no other candidate polling above single digits who can possibly mount a serious challenge to Donald Trump.

Many mainline Democrats say that they will vote “blue no matter who” even though they may be on the wrong side — ideologically speaking — of Piketty’s class struggle and would otherwise prefer a neo-liberal candidate (in Wolff’s terminology).

Added to all of the other components of the 2020 U.S. political amalgam, this tribalistic tendency to see anyone who is running as a Democrat as better than Donald Trump adds even more fuel to the fire. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Beto O’Rourke, and even Elizabeth Warren are not perceived by working class voters to be on their side. This contest will be decided by voters’ conclusions as to who will be most able and willing to right the economic wrongs of the last 70 years. If the mainline Democrats who care more about “victory” than ideology can see the writing on the wall in time, they may be able to shift their support before, rather than after, the primary process. Either way, there is but one conclusion that can reasonably be drawn:

Only Bernie Sanders can defeat Donald Tump.