The Sanders Republicans?

by Irene Daniel

In 1980 Ronald Reagan won the Presidential election with a coalition of many different interest groups, including Evangelicals and proponents of small government. Another group that was influential in Reagan's victory were Democrats who had grown disillusioned with their own party -- the Reagan Democrats.

In that election cycle Democrats were bitterly divided over the liberal Ted Kennedy faction of the party and the Jimmy Carter supporters. I heard many a Democrat say at that time, "I didn't leave my party, my party left me."

Like 2016, 1980 was a year in which Americans of every stripe were disillusioned with their leadership for a number of reasons. There was a collective sense of being adrift; not acceptable for a nation that boasts of besting all others. Whether or not, our sense of superiority is real or imagined, most American citizens feel lucky and take pride in that citizenship. And they feel that something is amiss in the universe without it. Reagan called out to our sense of bravado as the new patriotism.

Sanders is calling to a new and enlightened sense of what it means to be American. He challenges us to evolve, not devolve, in the manner in which we face our many challenges. This is liken to a mass evolution of the Spirit of humanity, which is not limited to any particular nation, ideology or religion, in which many of us would like to participate in a meaningful and searching dialogue as an avenue for problem-solving. The wide-scale manipulation of information, filled with untruths, half-truths, insults and name-calling, is becoming more and more apparent to a lot of us, and we want something different in our social communication skills, and especially those of our leadership.

Of all the presidential candidates, in either party, Sanders is one the least vitriolic, especially when speaking specifically of other candidates. He has also drawn huge crowds, essentially tied Secretary Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucus, has a huge lead going into the New Hampshire primary and raised more money than Clinton last month.

Does this mean he will win the nomination? In this Year of the Monkey, as was 1980 and 1968, it's impossible to know for sure what might happen. However, if he is the Democratic nominee, he may appeal to independents and moderate Republicans much more than either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump; who together garner over 50% of the Republican vote at this time.

Should Marco Rubio be the Republican nominee, this could change, but I doubt that it would. As in 2012, whoever the Republican nominee turns out to be, he will have to pivot back to the center after communicating red-meat conservatism in the primary race, in order to have a chance against the Democratic rival. The GOP has been unsuccessful in this attempt in previous election cycles; and the electorate is only getting younger, browner and more female. This heavy lift is getting heavier with each election.

Should Sanders be the Democratic nominee, he would be much better positioned to communicate a more middle-of-the-road message, in spite of the fact that he has been painted by even liberal media as un-electable and "too far out there." If he is effective, he will be able to demonstrate that the kind of "socialism" he is talking about is something we already have, and that other advanced countries employ in ways that offer more opportunities to their citizens. Neither Hillary Clinton, nor any of the GOP candidates can, or want to, offer that sense of a commonwealth; in which all contribute and all are cared for. For Sanders is the only candidate who not only rails against corporate greed, but refuses their money as a matter of principle.

We pay more attention to the desires of those who pay us. This tenet is not about Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives. It is about our own humanity and our instinct for survival. It is very difficult to not be swayed by money. Not impossible, but difficult. Sanders is the only candidate who will not be tempted with corporate greed because he is not allowing himself that temptation. In fact this is the one area in which he is much more vitriolic in calling out special interests, lobbying and campaign financing than anyone else.

Wealth inequality of the magnitude we are experiencing has much more to do with policies that favor the wealthy, than it has do with personal responsibility, skill, training, talent or hard work. Most of us feel ripped-off somehow. This is the anger to which Donald Trump also appeals. However, many Republicans, especially moderates, are still way too uncomfortable with Trump's divisive rhetoric and know that this does not bode well for their party with the changing demographics of, again, the younger, browner and more female electorate.

And Bernie already has support among some Republicans, mostly moderates who are pining away for the likes of Ike; who would undoubtedly be too liberal for the 2016 Republican party. They even have their own facebook page, with nearly 3000 likes and over 1000 shares. That may not seem like much right now, but we're just getting started in this race.

Perhaps in this Year of the Monkey, it will be the Sanders Republicans who make the difference. Then it will be the Sanders Revolution that pivots us in a new direction.

Still, anything can happen. Watch this space.


                                                                   Copyright 2016, Irene Daniel, all rights reserved.