Recently at an MSNBC town hall, moderator Mika Brzezinski asked Donald Trump to identify the unnamed candidate she would go on to describe. She portrayed that candidate as a “political outsider…populist, believes everyone in the country should have healthcare…[and is not] beholden to any Super PAC.” Trump — with his usual bravado — assumed that Brzezinski was describing himself. He was slightly taken aback when Brzezinski revealed the candidate to be Bernie Sanders.
The frequency with which these two candidates are compared would likely astound the average voter; Republican frontrunners are usually thoroughly dissimilar from self-proclaimed democratic socialists, yet the narrative of the two as alike exists and persists. By referencing the candidates’ similar appeals to voters frustrated with the government, their opposition to money in politics, and even some overlap in policy positions, media outlets like The Washington Post, The Atlantic, and Reason have all noted that Trump and Sanders are more alike than they appear.
Upon closer inspection, however, this media narrative fails to pass muster. While nebulous labels like “populist” or support for ideas like universal health care can be construed broadly enough to cursorily encompass both candidates, Trump and Sanders have such disparate political views and messages that acting as if the two are similar is disingenuous. For example, one easy label the media usually applies to Trump and Sanders is that of an outsider. On the most basic level, this descriptor makes sense. Trump has never held public office and is therefore an outsider in Washington, and Sanders is an Independent and does not associate himself with the Democratic elite. But, as is often the case, the comparison falls apart the more closely it is analyzed.
Donald Trump truly is an outsider to politics. With his background as a business mogul and reality TV personality, Trump would easily be the least politically experienced president in history. Aside from his brief exploration of a presidential run in 2000, Trump’s involvement in politics has consisted solely of public statements and campaign contributions. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has been a public servant for over 35 years. He was elected four times as mayor of Burlington, VT in the 1980s and has served in Congress — first as a representative and currently as a senator — since 1990. Although he is not a typical politician, Sanders is well steeped in Beltway culture and is no stranger to political life. His perceived outsider status derives from his policy positions that are often more liberal than many other Democrats’, but this difference is one of degree, not kind. Trump is actually a political outsider; Sanders is just a different brand of politician.
Trump and Sanders are worlds apart on practically every policy issue — unless they are compared with vague platitudes on certain topics that bear little resemblance to actual policy positions. Trump’s and Sanders’ views bear only a tenuous relationship at best even if they can be made to seem similar.
On health care, both candidates have stated their desire for all Americans to have health care, but that is an idea, not a policy. Sanders has proposed a Medicare-For-All system of single-payer health care, under which all US citizens have health insurance. Trump, after months of campaigning on vague promises of universal health care, recently released his official health care plan. In it, he vows to repeal Obamacare, allow health insurance to be sold across state lines, and give control of Medicaid to the states. These decentralized, market-based reforms contrast starkly with Sanders’ government-oriented changes.
Sanders and Trump also agree that big money plays too big a role in politics. Sanders has made campaign finance reform a central part of his platform; he proposes overturning Citizens United via constitutional amendment, publicly financing elections, and increasing disclosure. In theory, Trump’s campaign finance views overlap slightly with Sanders’, as Trump has expressed disdain for Super PACs and railed against other candidates for being puppets of big money. In practice, Trump would be unlikely to genuinely stick to these views. In the first Republican debate, he boasted of his prior donations to politicians and the impact they had. Admittedly, he brought that up to show how available politicians are for purchase, but he clearly has no moral aversion to money influencing the political process.
Even Trump’s supposedly self-funded campaign expresses a financing method thoroughly at odds with Sanders’ campaign finance ideal. Although Trump often asserts that his campaign is self-funded, the reality is more muddled. Trump has raised $7.5 million from individual campaign contributions, and his website even has a “donate” tab. Furthermore, the vast majority of the money he has given to his campaign is in the form of loans, not contributions, perhaps exhibiting a wariness to risk his own fortune. As a matter of principle, Sanders wants reform to mitigate the impact of billionaires on elections; Trump wants reform because his immense wealth puts him in a position to safely call for it.
Much of the narrative identifying similarities between the two candidates deals with how they appeal to voters, purporting that they both tap into the anger and frustration the electorate displays towards the current political system. Partly because of this appeal to anger, the label of “populist” has been applied to both candidates. But thinking that the same aspects of populism — a term generally dealing with giving power to everyday people and not an elite group — are espoused by each campaign is a mistake. Trump and Sanders share a populist distaste for the so-called ‘establishment’ or ‘elite.’ In contrast, though, Sanders’ proposals, like increased Wall Street regulation, are designed to shift economic power to the middle and working classes whereas Trump’s platform is mainly about stoking the ire of voters towards perceived incompetence in Washington and building a sense of blame towards those who have supposedly prevented America from being great again. Although on the surface both Trump and Sanders are supported by voters who are fed up with government, implying that their supporters are discontented in the same way is a perfunctory assumption. Even if the two are fighting for some of the same voters, their messages fundamentally differ.
Sanders regularly criticizes what he sees as an economy rigged for the wealthy. He chastises the “political establishment” for its toleration of and role in vast inequality and is running on a platform aimed at helping the lower and middle classes. His supporters, many of whom are angry about their economic conditions, seem to agree with Sanders that government can be used as a benevolent force. His message is a positive one, built on the idea that citizens working together with government can help improve people’s lives and alleviate the frustrating feeling that this country only works for the wealthy.
Trump’s supporters are also angry, but in a fundamentally different way. Trump appeals to the idea that ‘other’ people are causing problems. Even when he ramps up his divisive rhetoric — whether that be about building a wall or banning Muslim immigrants — his supporters seem to become even more devoted to his candidacy. They are angry about their economic status as well, but many of Trump’s ideas are more about blaming certain groups and less about actually helping the afflicted. Trump wants his supporters to be angry — about job-stealing immigrants, a corrupt government, or restrictive political correctness. By painting his campaign as an “us vs. them” ordeal, Trump relies on an anger that keeps his supporters feeling marginalized, as if everyone else will screw them over. For them, now is the time to stand up and fight back against all the forces that are holding them down.
The ways that Sanders and Trump frame their campaigns bear little practical resemblance. Anger is not all the same, and believing that all people frustrated with government think the same problems are the root of the evil is simplistic and cursory. Sanders tries to cure anger with solutions; Trump tries to stoke anger with scapegoats. Sanders pledged not to run a negative campaign; Trump has insulted every candidate in the race. To imply that they are tapping into the same indignation is to not appreciate how various voters see change.
To be clear, the effort to compare Sanders and Trump is not entirely harmful. There are similar threads that underlie both campaigns, and the media has a responsibility to present voters with candidate comparisons. Voters ultimately decide for themselves which candidate best represents their values, so the more information available for consumption, the better. Even so, the accuracy of the journalism leaves something to be desired; rather than lumping the two candidates together, the media could do a better job by providing nuanced analysis that notes the fundamental differences as well as the apparent similarities between them.
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are both distinctive presidential candidates, but that connection does not mean that they should be seen as alike. Even though both apple trees and saguaros technically bear fruit, implying that the two are analogous is dubious at best. No legitimately comprehensive comparison can be made between two people who differ so greatly on the role of government, the importance of togetherness, and the nature of leadership. In separate interviews, Barbara Walters asked each candidate what one word they would like to be remembered by as president. Trump unhesitatingly said “victory.” Sanders, after a moment of contemplation, said “compassion.” That by itself demonstrates just how incomparable Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump truly are.
The problem in AZ goes way beyond insufficient polling places. Many, many newly registered democrats (that is, independents and republicans who switched for this primary, and new voters) were unable to vote, even after waiting for hours. They were issued provisional ballots (until those ran out too), and told that their votes would not be counted. This one isn’t about the GOP disenfranchising voters, it’s about the DNC cheating for Hillary. Lets hope the Northeast states can show the nation how to have an election by ensuring easy access to voting so people do not have to wait in line for hours to vote.