Is President Obama responsible for the Democrats turn to the left?
By Will Barber Taylor
The Democratic Party is currently undergoing somewhat of a difficult period. As the 2020 election approaches, they are bracing themselves for potential defeat. This is not to say that Donald Trump is certain to win; far from it. Yet there is perhaps also a sense of hesitancy, a feeling that the worst must also be prepared for.
Too few Democrats predicted Trump’s 2016 win, if it can be called a win. The electoral college created by the Founding Fathers to prevent “undesirables” becoming leader of the United States ensured that a woman who had won the popular vote by three million could not enter the White House. It is in the sense of devastation that the Democratic Party has slowly begun to swing towards the left.
The term “the left” is, of course, so fluid that it can mean different things in different countries. The concept of the left in Britain is often starkly different from that in America, in the same way it is different in France. Yet the idea of political parties going in a leftward direction seems universal; the Labour Party in Britain has for nearly the last decade been moving away from The Third Way politics of the Blair years. Though it has taken longer, the Democratic Party seems to be doing something similar and moving away from the legacy of the Clinton era New Democrats and the Obamaites of the 00s and 10s.
This was seen starkly in the 2016 election itself when Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, stood in the Democratic primaries against Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton was viewed as a product of the establishment — she was after all a former First Lady, Senator and had been Secretary of State during Obama’s first term and for part of his second. This was not helped when, at the convention, Super Delegates gave Clinton the necessary support to become the nominee, despite these Super Delegates coming from states that had voted for Sanders.
The sense of betrayal was palpable and one which affected that year’s Presidential elections. Supporters of Sanders said they would either not vote or support Donald Trump as a means of attacking the Democratic establishment. Clinton’s eventual loss seemed to indicate, at least to those on the left of the Democratic party, that they had been right all along, and their aim now was to take over the party and remould it in their own image.
Senator Sanders has since declared his candidature for the Democratic nomination and is currently running for the Presidency. Sanders is still a popular figure amongst party members and supporters and whether he will be able to capture the nomination is up for speculation. Yet Sanders second run shows how the Democrats have changed since 2016; at the beginning of the race for the 2016 nomination Sanders was at best a wild card. For 2020 he is seen as one of the front runners.
With figures like Sanders and recently elected Representatives Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Ilhan Omar becoming more central to the modern Democratic Party, what is it that has caused the Democrats to make a shift towards the left? Is it part of a general trend which has seen various European political parties become more left leaning? Is it a result of the 2016 Presidential election and the failure of the Democratic establishment to win against as divisive a figure as Donald Trump? Or is it, in fact because of the previous President, Barack Obama?
Barack Obama’s election in 2008 was a watershed moment for the United States. At a moment when the Republican Party had become weakened by the Iraq War and been consumed by the greatest financial crisis since the 1930s, Obama represented a new beginning for the US as well as the Democratic Party. Obama’s election marked the first time in twelve years since the Democrats had gained the White House and eight after the nail biting 2000 election between George W Bush and Al Gore.
His election was heralded by Michael Moore in his film Capitalism: A Love Story as the beginning of a new era — that Obama would end the cycle of what Moore saw as destructive capitalism and lead America towards a new and engaged future, one where earning money was not seen as the sole purpose of someone’s life. Of course, it was not to be and the heralding of Obama as some sort of a saviour was always going to end in tears.
The hope that President Obama inspired was not simply constructive but also, strangely, destructive. The pedestal that so many Americans put him on would never last and as his Presidency progressed there was a sense of internal disappointment from the left. That he was, after all, not an outsider but rather an insider that had simply convinced them otherwise. Did he nationalise the banks as many of the left had thought he would? No he didn’t, somewhat to the surprise even of the banking executives at the time. Did he end US involvement in other countries and close Guantanamo? No, Guantanamo Bay is still in full operation and the US became involved in several international conflicts under Obama, most significantly in Syria where the President’s drone strikes were criticised as causing massive civilian causalities.
Obama certainly may have been the first Democrat since Bill Clinton to win the White House but as his Presidency went on many of those supporters of his who thought he would change America in the way they wanted began to reconsider. Slowly, the Democratic party’s membership began to feel as if they could no longer simply stay silent and not challenge the elite of the party.
As many left-wing Democrats began to become annoyed at the direction of the party, the Republicans were in a state of crisis. The loss of the 2008 Presidential election proved to scar the mentality of the GOP. The Republican ticket of John McCain failed for several reasons but perhaps its greatest and unintentional success was to make the politics of Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin mainstream.
Suddenly, Palin’s ultra conservative ideas seemed less wacky; after all how could a major party have a Vice Presidential candidate who’s beliefs were odd? The legitimacy that Palin’s role in 2008 election gave to many hard-right Republicans allowed the proliferation of her ideas amongst the party’s base. Though McCain was looked upon as a sensible moderate who would be able to unite the hawkish Bush supporting wing of the Republican Party with its softer and more centre leaning wing, he was unable to do this. His failure was thus judged as an indictment of the Republican elite.
When Obama won a second term in 2012 against the similarly establishment Mitt Romney — whose liberal legislation as Governor of Massachusetts was seen as proof he was a communist by the ultra conservatives, the stage was set for 2016. The base of the Republican Party’s aim for 2016 was to find someone who reflected them and was not part of the party elite. And so, they alighted on Donald Trump.
But between 2008 and 2016, the right of the Republican Party was not silent. Instead they organised pressure groups, the most famous being The Tea Party, which stood against Republicans in seats across America, threatening more liberal Republicans by standing candidates against them and proving to be a powerful electoral force. The actions of The Tea Party were to force softer Republicans to adopt more hard-line Conservative positions on abortion, LGBT rights, the death penalty and many more important issues. The Tea Party’s aim to transform the Republican Party worked and like the effect UKIP had on the Conservative Party in the UK, forcing it further to the right and eventually capitulating to an In/Out Referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the EU, it ensured that the Tea Party got what it wanted.
The activities of the Tea Party were not unnoticed by Democrats. It was clear that the Tea Party was achieving what many left wing Democrats had hoped would happen once Obama become President — a fully radical transformation of America that would see a change in how America looked after its people, dealt with the rest of the world and used its power internally and externally. Yet Obama was not making the kind of changes that were predicted by left wing Democrats.
Obama Care was seen as a step in the right direction but fell short of the type of universal healthcare that many had expected and hoped for from Obama’s Presidency. It soon became apparent that the only way for the change that left-wing Democrats wanted and could be brought to fruition would be for them to take over the party. And this is what they’ve been doing.
The 2016 election was the turning point for this and the moment when both the Democrats and the Republican bases became enflamed and decided to make decisive changes to their party. Whilst the Democratic elite were able to retain the nomination for President and ensure that Hillary Clinton became the nominee, the senior members of the GOP looked on in despair as their party became engulfed by Trumpism.
Whilst he was decried by both the Democrats and a great deal of the world, Trump was able to capture the Republican Party and eventually the Presidency by reflecting the views of millions of Americans, the same Americans who had avidly supported Sarah Palin and been incensed by the progressive agenda of President Obama.
It was in this toxic mix of hate and fury that it became clear what left-wing Democrats had to do — they had to campaign to take over the party by mirroring the tactics of the Tea Party in order to achieve their goal. By standing against establishment Democrats they could ensure that, even if Senator Sanders did not become their nominee in 2020, they would still hold the levers of power in the party. This grassroots change is documented both in Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 11/9 and in Rachel Lears Knock Down The House and is demonstrates that, whilst the anguish many Democrats feel about the direction America is taking is directed against their Republican, a great deal is also aimed at their Democratic colleagues.
Whilst the success of left-wing Democrats in taking over their party and turning it towards the left is mixed, the impact it has had on the public consciences has been marked. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, perhaps this movement’s poster woman is now one of the Democrats most recognisable figures and her impact on public life, whether it be Fox News attempts to paint her as the Devil or the positive reception from younger voters is one that should be appreciated. Similarly, both Senator Sanders and close left rival Senator Elizabeth Warren are beginning to make ground against former Vice President Joe Biden in their respective runs for the White House. Whether they will be able to beat Biden on the convention floor or even in the individual state primaries is still open for debate.
So, can we conclusively say that President Obama is responsible for the shift of the Democratic Party to the left? Obama’s failure to live up to the image projected on to him by left wing Democrats is understandable but not unsurprising; many Presidents have faced a similar fate. Yet, his seeming failure, in their eyes, coincided with a reinvigorated and renewed hard right Republican Party who pressed home their advantage.
The failure of establishment Democrats to win the 2016 Presidential Election marked, in the eyes of many left-wing Democrats, the final failure of the Obama era — to ensure continued Democratic dominance of the White House.
Barack Obama achieved many things during his time as President but it is perhaps surprising to think that, given this was never his intention, fortune ensured that he not only made significant changes to American health care but that he also changed the Democratic Party by failing to live up to the ideal projected upon him by its membership and guaranteed its shift to the left.
