The fervor for outsiders
It first occurred to me in 1996, an ancient time when Democrats could get elected to Congress in Arkansas.
In the 2nd District, a young Mark Stodola, a state Democratic Party activist who had come up through the Young Democrats, got into a Democratic primary runoff with a Marine and doctor with a law degree named Vic Snyder.
Snyder was a transplanted Oregonian who had sprung from a modest mid-Little Rock neighborhood to get elected to the state Senate. He championed ethics regulation, advocated getting rid of the state sodomy law, and led efforts to repeal the inoperative state constitutional amendment calling for racial segregation, because it was an ugly stain.
Snyder defeated Stodola. And a little thought bubble appeared over my head. It said, “Hmmm. The party guy lost. The independent-principle guy won.”
That is not to say Stodola had no principle. Of course, he had principle. Little Rock could have done much worse for a mayor all those years.
But it is to say he was a creature of party-system politics—they call it the establishment— and Snyder was more a creature of personally independent politics. They call it an outsider.
The difference between two fine candidates was the fervor of support.
Now, in 2020, we have Central Arkansas 1996 on a nationally exponential, steroid-injected basis.
I’m not saying Stodola is Joe Biden and Marco Rubio and that Snyder is Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. I don’t know their current presidential preferences. That’s not the point.
The point is that the little bubble that appeared over my head then is a supernova now. Political independence and outsiderism dwarf party regularity.
The result is an American politics turned on its head.
Party regulars complain that Trump wasn’t a real Republican and Sanders isn’t a real Democrat. They apparently regard their political parties as private clubs not interested in all those millions of nonmembers.
Trump took over the Republican Party in 2016. He did so with a personally independent politics that around 30 to 35 percent of Republican primary voters—enough to win pluralities in large candidate fields—saw as refreshingly different. They perhaps saw it even as … this is hard to type … principle.
This was a defining moment: In an early debate in 2016, a moderator asked for a raised hand from any Republican presidential candidates not willing to commit to support the eventual nominee no matter who it turned out to be.
The large curiously coiffed creature in the middle of a dozen or so candidates singularly held his hand raised. And I laughed out loud. I saw Trump as the literal standout. It occurred to me he could well win the nomination of the party he was conspicuous in.
Then, later, Trump talked of Fox’s Megyn Kelly bleeding “from her wherever,” and I knew he couldn’t.
I was in tune with the trend of party outsiders taking over parties. But I was not yet corrupted by the trend that said you could be personally disgusting and yet become president.
Now, before our very eyes, a semi-socialist independent, Sanders, is taking over the wreckage of the national Democratic Party. He is doing it by connecting with 30 to 35 percent of primary voters who are inspired by his eschewing party and special-interest donors. They embrace his unabashed little-guy policies in health care, education, environment, child care and immigration.
They love that he doesn’t hesitate with answers. It seems to them he shouts what he believes and believes what he shouts. When Hillary Clinton says nobody likes him, they say good for him.
Like Trump’s 30 to 35 percent, Sanders’ solid share will win as long as establishment-oriented regulars addicted to tired formulae stay in the race to serve their pride, pursue their outside chances, cancel each other out and champion the politics of tactics rather than people.
Theirs is the politics that says Bernie can’t win in November so go with them because they’ll finesse their way around some of these seemingly principled things Bernie keeps talking about.
And the Berniacs say, “Yeah, like Presidents Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.”
The Democratic presidential nomination could be secured effectively by March 4. The party may look up that morning to see that a raging socialism-oriented independent has enough delegate pledges to produce a solid plurality that the party will be hostage to, as the GOP found itself to Trump.
How might the clash of independent titans—this pairing of 35 percent fervor against 35 percent fervor—turn out in November?
It’ll probably come down to fear as usual. I’m guessing that swing voters, influenced by the usual negative advertising, will decide they fear the personality disorder they’ve survived less than the socialist they haven’t experienced.
But then, I was certain Trump couldn’t win the general election last time. Maybe Bernie will surprise me this time.