Among the believers: On the American campaign trail

“Muslims? Is she talking about grandma?” her four-year-old daughter asked Kelda York. “Yes,” Ms. York replied, “Grandma and other Muslims.”

What aroused the child’s curiosity was Democratic presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton’s call to “hold our Muslim friends close to the rest of the society”. Ms. York’s mother had converted to Islam two decades ago. “My mother started reading about Islam when my father went to Iraq as a solider in 1992 and converted,” Ms. York said. She brought both her daughters to Ms. Clinton’s rally. “I want them to grow up proud and confident,” she said.

In defense of diversity
Ms. Clinton is facing an uphill task in New Hampshire that will choose between her and Bernie Sanders, Senator from the neighborliness State of Vermont who commands significant influence in the State. Ms. Clinton was advised by many to skip the contest in New Hampshire altogether and focus on States where her presence is more formidable. “I could not have done that. So I am here,” she told a crowd of around 500 on Wednesday night. Carefully seated in the camera frame, right behind Ms. Clinton, were girls with Islamic scarves, blacks, whites, browns and Latinos; transgender people and women’s activists milled around. “Fighting for us,” their placards said, as they swayed to Rachel Platten’s Fight Song, a 2015 song released as a single that sold two million copies in the U.S. “Can you hear my voice this time?, This is my fight song, Take back my life song, Prove I’m alright song,” the song goes.

But waiting for Ms. Clinton’s arrival earlier in the evening, 20-year-old Miranda Monaghan was holding her placard down. “I have not decided yet,” she said. “I am not so sure she believes in all this,” the undergraduate student said, as Ms. Clinton explained how she and Mr. Sanders were in agreement on reining in the Wall Street and ensuring health care for all. Ms. Monaghan found Mr. Sanders more suitable for the job.

At Ms. Clinton’s rally, hours after Barack Obama made his first visit as President to a U.S. mosque, American diversity was being celebrated. On Tuesday evening, at Republican front runner Donald Trump’s rally some miles away, it was a different atmosphere. Mr. Trump, battered in the Iowa caucuses the previous night, was playing defensive and explaining his second place as a big victory. Ann Coulter, an immensely influential conservative commentator and author, outlined the agenda, speaking before Mr. Trump’s arrival on the stage. If anyone speaks clearer than Mr. Trump this season, it must be Ms. Coulter. Not that Mr. Trump’s philosophy needs explanation.

“Trump announced his candidacy talking about Mexican rapists. We are not supposed to say this, we can talk about American rape culture, but not about Mexicans raping. There is a whole list of politically incorrect things that one is not supposed to say... Donald Trump seems to be going through each one of them… one by one, he is going to use each one of them by the end of this campaign,” Ms. Coulter explained the virtues of her candidate. And she can’t wait to see Mr. Trump in the White House. “Can you imagine that?” she asks, and helps them imagine.

“The director of immigration will come and tell President Trump, ‘we have admitted 1.5 million Muslims since 9/11. Ninety per cent of them go on welfare immediately and some percentage of them kill Americans. Should we keep admitting a million Muslims every ten years?”’

“No… No,” the crowd replies.

“Yes, that is exactly what President Trump will say.”

Director of Immigration comes back again, “Should we keep replacing Americans with Mexicans, Somalis and Pakistanis?’’

“No… No… No.”

By this time, Trump supporters must have been looking for some Mexicans or Muslims inside the venue. “Please don’t react if anyone protests. Those who want to protest may protest outside,” a particularly law-abiding organizer announces before Mr. Trump takes the stage. At a previous rally in New Hampshire, Trump supporters beat up protesters.

“We have a movement. It is a people’s movement,” Mr. Trump declared. He then goes on to talk about the dangers that lurk around — “three people were killed by illegal immigrants” in unspecified places and climate change is a hoax Mr. Obama is playing. In a moment of gender sensitivity, Mr. Trump also points out to a woman who, he says, could be carrying a gun to places such as this gathering to prevent terror attacks. “This man, that man, and yes, we must have a woman too… you here.”

Judie Brown, a 65-year-old lady at the Trump meeting, is worried primarily about the economy and fears that her social security pension may be affected. In a measured tone, she explains the economic stress that the middle class is feeling. Does she agree with what she just heard about Muslims? “I was trying to avoid that topic. You know, I think they are unable to integrate into the society.” Does she support a ban on Muslims entering the country? “I support a ban on immigration altogether. Not only for Muslims,” she said, continuing to measure her words. And she had not finalised her choice in the primary — the other option she is considering is Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida.

As Mr. Trump signs autographs and poses for photographs, Adele can be heard in the background: “You’re gonna wish you never had met me… And I’m gonna make your head burn, Think of me in the depths of your despair….” Playing this Adele song in recent rallies is the latest controversy that Mr. Trump has courted. A spokesperson of the singer has said the candidate is using it without permission.

The rise of Rubio
Ms. Coulter ridiculed Mr. Rubio as the “Cuban kid who likes his high heels” but he is making it tough for Republican front runners Mr. Trump and Texas Senator Ted Cruz. After finishing a close third behind Mr. Trump in Iowa, Mr. Rubio is moving gradually to the center, projecting the image of a ‘compassionate conservative’, and is attracting more and more Republicans towards him. A compassionate conservative is what many others in the fray also want to be seen as — Jeb Bush, John Kasich and to a lesser extent Chris Christie have sought to build the same image. But Mr. Rubio’s advantage is that he is more charismatic and has managed the expectations better than others. He seems increasingly the choice of people such as Ms. Brown, and that indeed that is his pitch at a morning gathering on Thursday.

Mr. Rubio says he favors a compassionate criminal justice system that considers drug addicts as victims rather than criminals; a social security mechanism that will keep the elderly secure. He goes on to explain how, as a teenager, he got involved in a drunken brawl and almost landed in jail. “That would have ended my life. We have people who get caught for minor offences and get sucked into the justice system without any possibility of escape. Poor people, mostly black, are forced to plead guilty because they don’t have money to pay lawyers,” Mr. Rubio’s compassionate agenda in response to convenient questions goes on and on. But Mr. Rubio considers Mr. Obama’s mosque visit a ploy to “divide Americans”. “It gives an impression that Muslims are discriminated against in America. We have to address all these issues without dividing Americans based on gender, race, or class,” he says. He does not mention religious divisions, though his speech had numerous references to his own Christian faith. “Obama wants to change America. I want to restore America,” he says.

A few miles away and two hours later on Thursday, Mr. Cruz’s political speech sounds more like a bad Sunday sermon. Forty-year-old James Mosher, who was at the previous Trump rally too, has a question for Mr. Cruz — why doesn’t he get the support of “good people” such as Ms. Coulter? But still, he declares his support for Mr. Cruz. “Trump wrote a book called The Art of the Deal, it should be called The Art of the Con,” he explains later. “He has married thrice.” “Because of my faith in Jesus,” he cites his reason for supporting Mr. Cruz. Mr. Cruz says he is leading America to a “revolution”. “We are bringing power back to ‘we, the people’.” Revolution for him is a recognition of Judeo-Christian values that he thinks Mr. Obama has undermined.

Oldest man, biggest dreams
But the prospect of a more this-worldly revolution is inspiring the Bernie Sanders’s camp that a merchandise vendor described as a “bunch of broke college kids”. But that is not exactly true. John Baronowski, a 70-year-old man sitting behind Mr. Sanders, is on his feet numerous times through Mr. Sanders’s one-hour speech, just before his debate with Ms. Clinton on Thursday night. “The planet craves for him. Mankind needs him,” Mr. Baronowski says. There are people of all ages — some 500 of them — in the room.

The oldest man in the fray, 74-year-old Sanders is inspiring the biggest dreams. “How many of you have student loans?” Mr. Sanders asks. Numerous hands go up, many of those people in their fifties. “Your only crime is that you wanted education. We need to have free college education in this country,” he says. “We will pay for this by taxing Wall Street speculation.” A long list of welfare measures, all to be funded by more taxes on corporate America and by breaking the unfair practices of insurance and drug companies, cheer up the audience. “We need to dream big.” A dose of humour helps too. “Republicans like families. Particularly the wealthy families,” he says.

Can he deliver on all these promises? His supporters are divided. “All progress depends on the unreasonable man,” a state Senator quoted George Bernard Shaw while introducing Mr. Sanders. “If minimum wage is raised to 15 dollars an hour, my employer will shut shop,” Ms. Monaghan, who has a part-time job that pays 10 dollars an hour, says. Renee Bolduc, 17-year-old high school student, says: “Unless we try, how will we know?”

Playing in the background is John Lennon’s 1971 song, Power to the People. “You say we want a revolution, We better get on right away; Well, you get on your feet, And enter the street.”

Read More

The gale called Bernie Sanders

When a breath of fresh air shows signs of acquiring gale-force proportions, a nation sits up and pays attention. Thus it is with the U.S.’s only Democratic Socialist contender in this year’s race to the Oval Office, Bernard ‘Bernie’ Sanders.

Mr. Sanders, who has risen sharply in the pre-primary polling to pull up alongside arch-rival Hillary Clinton in Iowa and outstrip her in New Hampshire, has always been something of an enigma, both for his politics and his origins.

The U.S. Senator hails from Vermont, home to numerous frosty delights including the world-famous Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, heavenly ski slopes, and also the least religious population of any American state.

Though his antecedents may be cool, his energetic campaign to take on the runaway machines of rugged American capitalism and fight for the welfare of the middle class has fired up his supporters across the nation and put Ms. Clinton, the Washington insider, on notice.

It is evident from the Democratic debates held so far that Mr. Sanders easily combines a folksy appeal — the likes of what George W. Bush had — with his socialist vision for a more equitable American economy, whether in terms of free tuition at public universities, campaign finance reform, or single-payer health insurance.

An undefined “socialism”
However, it would be wise to not get carried away by what “socialism” means in Mr. Sanders’ paradigm, for if it ever became a reality, it would be a far cry from Vladimir Lenin’s Russia, or even Jyoti Basu’s West Bengal.

Yes, unchecked income inequality has consistently been a target of Mr. Sanders; yet he is hardly what one would describe as a radical leftist, certainly not compared to the Western European notion of that concept.

Mr. Sanders has almost deliberately shied away from offering a clear definition of his socialism, and his remarks so far reflect that he is aware of his audience’s general discomfiture with the term.

“When I use the world socialist — and I know some people aren’t comfortable about it — I’m saying that it is imperative [that we] create a government that works for all and not just the few,” Mr. Sanders said in November 2015.

Yet, earlier this month, the depth of his “socialism” was critiqued in an article by The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates, who condemned Mr. Sanders’s dismissal of the idea that reparations should be paid to the descendants of historic racial injustice in the U.S.

Mr. Coates wrote, “What candidates name themselves is generally believed to be important... Is shy incrementalism really the lesson of this fortuitous outburst of Vermont radicalism?”

Indeed, it is quite possible that when Mr. Sanders announced his candidacy for the presidential nomination, he embraced socialism out of sheer pragmatism, as a label that would emphasise that he was cut from a different cloth of liberalism, and that would thus help him evade the inevitable comparison to Ms. Clinton.

However, this has left him vulnerable to penetrating questions from liberals regarding a range of issues on which his progressive credentials remain unproven.

Take gun control reform, an issue that has seared the conscience of the U.S. in recent years in the wake of a series of devastating shooting rampages at schools, houses of worship and other public spaces. Mr. Sanders came under a volley of criticism from Ms. Clinton early on in the debate season for his decidedly illiberal decision to vote in favour of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed in 2005 and gave broad legal immunity to gunmakers and dealers from demands that they make their products safer or their sales better monitored.

In late January 2016, he backtracked and agreed to co-sponsor a bill that would repeal this very law he voted for, one that the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre described as “the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in 20 years.” As a footnote, Ms. Clinton voted against the law.

On another hard-fought liberal issue, women’s reproductive rights, Mr. Sanders stood on firmer ground for always voting pro-choice in the U.S. Congress, but found himself tested last week when Planned Parenthood, a large, national federation of healthcare agencies catering primarily to women, issued a presidential endorsement of Ms. Clinton.

Mr. Sanders responded to the endorsement by calling non-profit organisations such as Planned Parenthood a “part of the establishment” that he was seeking to challenge, a war cry that puts a premium on being an Obama-esque outsider to the stilted politics of Washington’s Beltway.

Succeeding Obama
Is Mr. Sanders the true inheritor of U.S. President Barack Obama’s mantle of “hope and change?”

While the answer would depend on whom you asked, Mr. Obama appeared to teeter on the brink of revealing his preferred candidate when he met Mr. Sanders at the White House on January 27.

He said in an interview just before that meeting, “Bernie came in with the luxury of being a complete long shot and just letting loose. I think Hillary came in with the both privilege — and burden — of being perceived as the front runner… You’re always looking at the bright, shiny object that people haven’t seen before — that’s a disadvantage to her.”

In some ways, going by his campaign promises, Mr. Sanders is the better man to take the agenda of the Obama years forward, especially if that means filling some gaping holes that emerged during Mr. Obama’s reign.

One example would be going after what Mr. Sanders called the “casino capitalism” of Wall Street banks that resulted in the Great Recession of 2008; another, fulfilling that heretofore unrealised Obama promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba; a third maybe his call to let regional powers play a greater role in the fight against the Islamic State.

Contrarily, Ms. Clinton is the leader who would hold the nation firm to the Democratic Party’s broader agenda of supporting the middle class during tough economic times, protecting the American labour force from foreign competition, strengthening the government’s backing of women’s reproductive rights, and much more.

Face-off with Trump
A critical factor influencing Mr. Sanders’ surging popularity on the eve of the primary elections this week is the rise of Republican renegade and surprise front- runner Donald Trump.

Even as Mr. Trump has systematically denigrated Muslims, Mexicans and women, among others, Democrats close to the political middle, who fear a broader American swing to the right, may seek safe haven in the arms of the Vermont socialist.

However, if we step back from philosophical and policy issues, tactical voting logic favours Ms. Clinton as long as she and Mr. Trump continue to be the overall front runners.

Wavering Democrats may have no choice but to back her when they realise that for their party to mount a credible challenge to Mr. Trump’s far-right track, they must coalesce around the candidate closest to the political centre.

Only a candidate with the broadest appeal across the political spectrum could win over undecided and independent voters when they go toe-to-toe against Mr. Trump.

But even the canniest observers of the U.S. elections will concede that no outcomes, howsoever strongly suggested by opinion polls, can be assumed until the final votes have been tallied.

Mr. Sanders may or may not blaze a path to the White House but in winning even as much support as he has so far, he has tilted the political firmament in this election towards a more humane, less bigoted idiom, and that is welcome.

Read More

The gale called Bernie Sanders

When a breath of fresh air shows signs of acquiring gale-force proportions, a nation sits up and pays attention. Thus it is with the U.S.’s only Democratic Socialist contender in this year’s race to the Oval Office, Bernard ‘Bernie’ Sanders.

Mr. Sanders, who has risen sharply in the pre-primary polling to pull up alongside arch-rival Hillary Clinton in Iowa and outstrip her in New Hampshire, has always been something of an enigma, both for his politics and his origins.

The U.S. Senator hails from Vermont, home to numerous frosty delights including the world-famous Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, heavenly ski slopes, and also the least religious population of any American state.

Though his antecedents may be cool, his energetic campaign to take on the runaway machines of rugged American capitalism and fight for the welfare of the middle class has fired up his supporters across the nation and put Ms. Clinton, the Washington insider, on notice.

It is evident from the Democratic debates held so far that Mr. Sanders easily combines a folksy appeal — the likes of what George W. Bush had — with his socialist vision for a more equitable American economy, whether in terms of free tuition at public universities, campaign finance reform, or single-payer health insurance.

An undefined “socialism”
However, it would be wise to not get carried away by what “socialism” means in Mr. Sanders’ paradigm, for if it ever became a reality, it would be a far cry from Vladimir Lenin’s Russia, or even Jyoti Basu’s West Bengal.

Yes, unchecked income inequality has consistently been a target of Mr. Sanders; yet he is hardly what one would describe as a radical leftist, certainly not compared to the Western European notion of that concept.

Mr. Sanders has almost deliberately shied away from offering a clear definition of his socialism, and his remarks so far reflect that he is aware of his audience’s general discomfiture with the term.

“When I use the world socialist — and I know some people aren’t comfortable about it — I’m saying that it is imperative [that we] create a government that works for all and not just the few,” Mr. Sanders said in November 2015.

Yet, earlier this month, the depth of his “socialism” was critiqued in an article by The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates, who condemned Mr. Sanders’s dismissal of the idea that reparations should be paid to the descendants of historic racial injustice in the U.S.

Mr. Coates wrote, “What candidates name themselves is generally believed to be important... Is shy incrementalism really the lesson of this fortuitous outburst of Vermont radicalism?”

Indeed, it is quite possible that when Mr. Sanders announced his candidacy for the presidential nomination, he embraced socialism out of sheer pragmatism, as a label that would emphasis that he was cut from a different cloth of liberalism, and that would thus help him evade the inevitable comparison to Ms. Clinton.

However, this has left him vulnerable to penetrating questions from liberals regarding a range of issues on which his progressive credentials remain unproven.

Take gun control reform, an issue that has seared the conscience of the U.S. in recent years in the wake of a series of devastating shooting rampages at schools, houses of worship and other public spaces. Mr. Sanders came under a volley of criticism from Ms. Clinton early on in the debate season for his decidedly illiberal decision to vote in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed in 2005 and gave broad legal immunity to gunmakers and dealers from demands that they make their products safer or their sales better monitored.

In late January 2016, he backtracked and agreed to co-sponsor a bill that would repeal this very law he voted for, one that the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre described as “the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in 20 years.” As a footnote, Ms. Clinton voted against the law.

On another hard-fought liberal issue, women’s reproductive rights, Mr. Sanders stood on firmer ground for always voting pro-choice in the U.S. Congress, but found himself tested last week when Planned Parenthood, a large, national federation of healthcare agencies catering primarily to women, issued a presidential endorsement of Ms. Clinton.

Mr. Sanders responded to the endorsement by calling non-profit organisations such as Planned Parenthood a “part of the establishment” that he was seeking to challenge, a war cry that puts a premium on being an Obama-esque outsider to the stilted politics of Washington’s Beltway.

Succeeding Obama
Is Mr. Sanders the true inheritor of U.S. President Barack Obama’s mantle of “hope and change?”

While the answer would depend on whom you asked, Mr. Obama appeared to teeter on the brink of revealing his preferred candidate when he met Mr. Sanders at the White House on January 27.

He said in an interview just before that meeting, “Bernie came in with the luxury of being a complete long shot and just letting loose. I think Hillary came in with the both privilege — and burden — of being perceived as the front runner… You’re always looking at the bright, shiny object that people haven’t seen before — that’s a disadvantage to her.”

In some ways, going by his campaign promises, Mr. Sanders is the better man to take the agenda of the Obama years forward, especially if that means filling some gaping holes that emerged during Mr. Obama’s reign.

One example would be going after what Mr. Sanders called the “casino capitalism” of Wall Street banks that resulted in the Great Recession of 2008; another, fulfilling that heretofore unrealized Obama promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba; a third maybe his call to let regional powers play a greater role in the fight against the Islamic State.

Contrarily, Ms. Clinton is the leader who would hold the nation firm to the Democratic Party’s broader agenda of supporting the middle class during tough economic times, protecting the American labour force from foreign competition, strengthening the government’s backing of women’s reproductive rights, and much more.

Face-off with Trump
A critical factor influencing Mr. Sanders’ surging popularity on the eve of the primary elections this week is the rise of Republican renegade and surprise front- runner Donald Trump.

Even as Mr. Trump has systematically denigrated Muslims, Mexicans and women, among others, Democrats close to the political middle, who fear a broader American swing to the right, may seek safe haven in the arms of the Vermont socialist.

However, if we step back from philosophical and policy issues, tactical voting logic favours Ms. Clinton as long as she and Mr. Trump continue to be the overall front runners.

Wavering Democrats may have no choice but to back her when they realise that for their party to mount a credible challenge to Mr. Trump’s far-right track, they must coalesce around the candidate closest to the political centre.

Only a candidate with the broadest appeal across the political spectrum could win over undecided and independent voters when they go toe-to-toe against Mr. Trump.

But even the canniest observers of the U.S. elections will concede that no outcomes, howsoever strongly suggested by opinion polls, can be assumed until the final votes have been tallied.

Mr. Sanders may or may not blaze a path to the White House but in winning even as much support as he has so far, he has tilted the political firmament in this election towards a more humane, less bigoted idiom, and that is welcome.

Read More