Nathaniel Bodnar ’21
Staff Writer
Common Dreams
In 2009, the American Tea Party movement arose after the great recession. The movement was spawned as a response to the massive spending and corporate bailouts that occurred during the recession. One of the Tea Party’s primary concerns was the massive debt America had been accruing. The movement primaried some incumbent Republicans and brought in a new wave of Republican politicians. In addition, the movement had significant financing from the Libertarian Koch brothers. The Tea Party movement spawned and reinvigorated student movements like Students for Liberty, Young America’s Foundation, and Young Americans for Liberty. Moreover, the Tea Party movement had the support of policy organizations like Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks and was led by Republican politicians Marco Rubio (R-FL), Sarah Palin (R-AK), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Ron Paul (R-TX), Tim Scott (R-SC), Joe Walsh (R-IL), and Justin Amash (I-MI).
Many people thought, and to some degree hoped, that the Tea Party movement was an ideological movement, but some on the left thought the movement was driven by a racist hatred of Obama. I think that it was neither, the movement had an ideological core and had a few racist members in the fringe. Ultimately, the movement’s ideology failed for the same reason Bernie Sanders’ progressive movement will fail. The movement was catalyzed by a sincere ideology, but attracted a larger number of anti-establishment supporters.
The Tea Party was, in part, an opposition movement against the Republican establishment and the national establishment. The Trump movement is no different, but its anti-establishment tendencies have been turned up to 11. Anything Trump does to oppose the establishment is positive, including his non-politically correct rhetoric. Trump also succeeded because it was thought that “establishment conservatism” had failed. This was the exact point in one of the strongest pre-election arguments for Trump. In The Flight 93 Election, Michael Anton argued that establishment conservatism was just slowing down the pace of progressivism. The establishment could not stop progressivism in its tracks, only Trump could.
I think the Sanders movement also has a large anti-establishment component. This is epitomized by the fact that Senator Sanders represents Vermont as an Independent, not a Democrat. He has no loyalty to the party; he was only using it as a platform for his ideas. Bernie Sanders and his most fervent supporters have openly been critical of the “establishment” and claimed the process was “rigged” against him. His movement is clearly not entirely ideological. If it was, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) would have performed better. She was an establishment Democrat who often represented the same general policies that Bernie Sanders did, and she had plans to back them. She strongly believed in the central planning abilities of the state, and she represents the strongest version of the argument for Socialism and central planning. She is the type of intellectual opponent that conservative intellectuals like F.A. Hayek and Micheal Oakeshott aimed their arguments at, not the populist socialism of Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders’ movement may also have overestimated their strength after 2016. The campaign did do well and threaten Hillary Clinton, but I think the 2020 primaries have shown that Bernie’s success was in large part due to Hillary Clinton. Bernie received many votes that were more “against Hillary” than “for Bernie.” In many states this election cycle, Bernie did not receive as many votes as he did last time, and this is likely because many people who previously voted for him did not actually like him very much, he was just the best available option. His progressive wing has taken election defeats elsewhere. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez endorsed a slate of candidates for Democratic House and Senate primaries and most of them lost, and in many cases struggled. The major exception is that she was able to unseat one of the last pro-life Democrats.
The future of Bernie Sanders’ progressive movement is uncertain. Like the Tea Party movement, it has an ideological basis but is largely fueled by anti-establishment characters. Many young liberals and progressives will be shaped by Sanders’ movement, as many young conservatives were shaped by the Tea Party movement. Progressives have certainly influenced the policy positions of the Democratic party, but there is no certainty that those policy positions will stand the test of time. It is likely that Sanders’ movement will have the same fate as the Tea Party movement. It will become an outspoken minority that is largely ignored and criticized by the rest of the party when they attempt to stand up for the issues that they believe in. Just ask Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) or former Republican Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI) what happens when they stand up for their principles. That is the future that awaits Bernie Sanders’ progressive movement.
