Road to Super Tuesday: The US Presidential Primaries have so far been a tale of outsiders rocking the establishment

Texas, with the most delegates, will be the key battleground come Super Tuesday. Photograph: Texas State Capitol in Austin from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

Tuesday 1st of March marks a key moment in the long and winding US Presidential election. So-called Super Tuesday will see more than ten states, including key state Texas, declare their choices for Democratic and Republican candidates for the Presidency (Weiland, 2016).

Going into Super Tuesday, the primaries for both parties are much closer than previously predicted. The tight races are largely thanks to their being contested by the outsider candidates Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, who are upsetting prior expectations and putting the old two-party system to the sword.

The 2016 US Presidential race was supposed to be a straight race between two clear favourites - one from each party. From amongst the Democrats there was Hillary Clinton, while from the Republicans there was Jeb Bush.

Hillary was a former First Lady, as wife of Bill, and in her own right Secretary of State and a long time Senator. Jeb is the son of one President and the Brother of another, with executive experience as Governor of Florida. The rest appeared to be a formality.

Contrary to first impressions, however, the supporters of neither party where in the mood for a coronation. There were, from the first, insurgent candidacies, but they were paid little heed and given long odds.

Commentary watching the Republican nomination race, in particular, found something between fascination and amusement in how long the list of candidates for the GOP nomination was becoming (Gabbatt, 2015). Where analysis fell on the respective lists in depth, some where given more credibility than others.

Early runner Scott Walker was one such candidate. The Governor of Wisconsin has a controversial record that has proven popular with fiscal conservatives in the GOP (Pilkington & Sullivan, 2015) - including spending cuts and confrontations with unions.

Walker's run for the Republican Party nomination certainly made a lot of sense. As one part of a Wisconsin trio, along with GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan and GOP Party Chairman Reince Priebus, that are trying to set the agenda for the modern Republican Party (Balz, 2011; Healy & Martin; 2015).

The Democrat's version was Martin O'Malley - who was famously the inspiration for the Baltimore-based TV show The Wire. O'Malley entered as the third runner alongside, and 'moderate' alternative to, democratic socialist Sanders and the scandal mired Clinton, clearly hoping to be seen as someone more acceptable to a broader middle ground of voters (Tabor, 2015).

However, all bets were upset by Trump and Sanders.

There is little to be said about Donald Trump from a progressive view, other than to note the apparent popularity of his brand of being offensive to people from almost every demographic group.

Bernie Sanders started the Democratic race with isolated support in only a few Northeastern states and lay nearly 60 points behind Clinton (Daily Kos, 2015). Yet by the Nevada caucus the Vermont Senator was just 5 points adrift (Lewis et al, 2016).

Yet both outside runners still face barriers beyond the Democratic-Republican establishment itself.

Trump's divisive message has kept him stuck in the mid 30s in the percentage polls - although in Nevada on Saturday he did break the 40% barrier (The Guardian, 2016). Meanwhile the more 'mainstream' candidates have together pulled in over 50% over numerous polls.

Coming from almost the opposite direction, Sanders has struggled to get his message out beyond his core of young and working class voters. South Carolina showed this with abundant clarity as Hillary Clinton won 74% of the vote and overwhelmingly with voters who were not white (Walsh, 2016). Clinton, backed overwhelming by the party elite, has campaigned smartly and is so far holding back the rising popular tide.

Regardless of the barriers in their way, the outsiders have none-the-less shaken up the establishment.

This is demonstrated most clearly in the Republican race where mainstream favourite Jeb Bush's campaign ended in complete failure in South Carolina (BBC, 2016), when he dropped out with little to show for millions in fundraising. Marco Rubio, the next to be annointed by the GOP mainstream, inherits a deficit to Trump that it will take huge momentum to overhaul (Stokols & Palmer, 2016).

Super Tuesday will give the first major indications of whether the insurgent candidacies will have the momentum to topple their respective party establishments. Even if the party elite see off the challengers, there doesn't seem to be a positive outcome likely for them.

At best for the Democratic-Republican establishment, it will likely see off a strong opposition run only to be fatally undermined. As seen elsewhere, like in France, the mainstream will limp on hounded by outside forces that sense weakness and opportunity. At worst, the two-party system that has governed the US will not have been broken apart, but rather hacked and hijacked.

Basic Income is the first step to a more fair, just and free society, where all can enjoy the benefits of technological progress without the fear of dispossession and poverty

Thousands of protesters march the streets surrounding the Conservative Party Conference in support of trade unionists, and against austerity, in Manchester, 4 October 2015.

The basic income took a huge step towards being a reality in the UK last Tuesday night when John McDonnell mentioned that the Labour Party where considering a basic income policy (Sheffield, 2016). During a speech, at the latest stop on his New Economics tour (Sheffield, 2016{2}), in which McDonnell spoke of Labour's commitment to a more decentralised and democratic economy, the Shadow Chancellor acknowledged the interest Labour had taken in the policy - heretofore, only advocated for by the Greens (Wintour, 2015).

The basic income will be one step towards making society more fair, the economy more just, and giving individuals more liberty. Right now, with the European business community readjusting to technology, as well as competition from businesses employing workers for virtually no pay in other parts of the world, a defined shift towards fairness, justice and liberty is needed.

Certain principles, like the value of work in exchange for the means to live, continue to be imposed despite the possibility of a secure job, that pays a fair wage for a fair day's work, threatening to disappear (Foster, 2016). Zero-hours contracts are taking security away from the most vulnerable, eating into their lives in ways that leave them filled with stress and anxiety (Fleming, 2016).

Right now the advances in technology are very much in the favour of business and those in positions of established wealth, enriching some few while most see their livelihoods taken away and their lives made more precarious. There seems to be a coalition, one part fearing for workers and the other an elite fearing a form of socialism that eat into their status, that takes the rather unflattering opinion that this third industrial revolution should be avoided for fear of "mass unemployment and psychological aimlessness" (Mason, 2016).

Discussing the earlier and more famous industrial revolution, which saw the rise of the machines in Europe, Oscar Wilde argued that it was not a matter of the emergence of the technology itself that was the problem, but rather the way it was being controlled (Wilde, 1891).

"Up to the present, man has been, to a certain extent, the slave of machinery, and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to starve. This, however, is, of course, the result of our property system and our system of competition. One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving. The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, which is of much more importance, a great deal more than he really wants. Were that machine the property of all, every one would benefit by it. It would be an immense advantage to the community."

To avoid this kind of dispossession, may mean accepting that it is time to reconsider social values relating to work (Srnicek et al, 2016), and to contemplate the possibility of a post-work society - where all could benefit from the technological automation of our age (Mason, 2016). That shift would begin with reductions in the length of the working day, embracing job sharing and introducing the basic income. In all, loosening the connections between work and the right to life.

British Liberals in the 1920s argued (Yellow Book, 1928), under the strong influence of David Lloyd George and John Maynard Keynes, that the aim of "political and economic action", wasn't to perfect or perpetuate machines and social orders, but so that individuals "may have life, and that they might have it more abundantly". Their methods were popular share-ownership and progressive taxation - in essence, cooperation.

Rising public interest in the Basic Income presents a chance to pursue those aims in earnest. Along with more economic cooperation and a better work-life balance, it is possible to use these ideas to build a more humane economy. An economy that is fair and just, that protects and promotes liberty, within which progress will be wired in to the general benefit.

Labour need to start winning battles on the airwaves if their anti-austerity policies are going to win on the ground

At some point John McDonnell has to turn his academic focussed New Economics tour into well publicised campaign events, for audiences both live in the flesh and live online, if his counter-narrative is going to take hold. Photograph: John McDonnell MP with Grow Heathrow in London in 2012, by Jonathan Goldberg/Transition Heathrow (License) (Cropped)

Yesterday evening, Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell made the latest stop on his New Economics tour at the London School of Economics (Kirton, 2016). As with previous events, the audience was packed out to hear his arguments, not just against austerity but for an alternative.

The first New Economics tour stop saw Mariana Mazzucato argue, at the Royal Society, for a smarter state (Mazzucato, 2016) - defending the state as an often abused innovator that takes the risks that the private sector won't, but which shares little of the rewards. The second saw several speakers tackle how technology will affect work in the future (Srnicek et al, 2016).

At the LSE event, McDonnell spoke directly against austerity as an ideologically motivated policy - as a choice made by Conservative politicians in pursuit of a their own political goals (Kirton, 2016). The Labour Shadow Chancellor said that his priorities were to put democracy and decentralisation at the heart of his economic approach (Sheffield, 2016) - and positive statements that Labour were giving serious consideration to backing a basic income (Sheffield, 2016{2}).

What has been missing, however, is promotion. Beyond those in the loop or paying close attention, there has been little pomp and ceremony to draw attention to the Shadow Chancellor's efforts. In the face of apparent media hostility to the Corbyn-McDonnell project, the low key approach might well be understandable.

The trouble is that these are precisely the battles that Ed Miliband lost as Labour leader. Labour lost control of their own message, of their own identity, and left it to others to define them.

Economics has been the outstanding issue. The key to getting Labour back in power, according to many commentators both internal and external over the last six years (Umunna, 2015; Eaton, 2015), is to rebuild Labour's reputation as an effective and reliable manager of the economy - to regain their economic credibility. The Shadow Chancellor himself has acknowledged that reality (The Herald Scotland, 2016).

John McDonnell's idea of bringing on the world's most famous, rockstar, anti-austerity economists as advisors was a bold move. Taking them on tour to make their arguments, to build a counter-narrative in opposition to austerity, was bolder still. But the low key, low profile, approach can only reach so far.

Right now, the Corbyn-McDonnell team is fighting battles within small circles of onlookers. Scrapping for party policy positions, introducing an alternative narrative by increments to interested and sympathetic audiences at cosy events. Yet, sooner or later, the boots of campaigners will have to hit the ground and bring them face to face with the voters who live far outside of those circles.

The Corbyn-McDonnell team have shown that, within their own party, they have a pitch that appeals to a broad cross-section of society - from young to old, from poor to wealthy (Sayers, 2016). As with Bernie Sanders in the United States, there is the potential for a winning coalition. But that won't automatically translate into public sympathy.

To reach those people, New Economics will have to start winning battles on the airwaves. Promotional ideas like the New Economics tour will have to be prepared to put a spotlight on its rockstars, promote them and get them playing to bigger crowds - crowds that are maybe more sceptical and who need the grand ideas distilled and condensed.

John McDonnell and his advisors are presenting a compelling vision of a very different, more humane, economy and society - not least in their acknowledgement of the basic income. The next step is to turn up the volume and stop conceding control over the airwaves.

Return of Charles Kennedy's proposal of a penny on tax for education signals worries that more needs to be done on inequality

The late Charles Kennedy, whose practical policies have returned to the table for consideration in Scotland. Photograph: Charles Kennedy speaking at the Friday Rally at the Scottish Liberal Democrats Spring Conference, 2015 from James Gourley/Liberal Democrats (License) (Cropped)

One of the more worrying statistics of the moment is that generational inequality is rising, as the doors that allow social mobility are closing (Inman, 2016). One particularly telling factor is that home ownership has become a distant and fading dream for young people, as modest incomes are no longer enough to get started (Elliott & Osborne, 2016).

So far, George Osborne's efforts have been aimed at finding ways around tackling the key problems: making larger and cheaper loans available, turning rents into deposits and selling off social housing cheaply to tenants. All of these moves are attempts to stimulate the private sector and take care of the middle class - largely at the expense of those worse off. What they don't do is fix the core problems, like a lack of supply that drives rents and prices through the roof.

But Osborne's austere laissez faire isn't going to close the inequality gap. For schools, for example, the place where inequalities first begin to take their substantial toll - whose teachers and administrators are buried under mounting stress that is driving employees away (Harris, 2016) - a place to start would seem to be a simple, practical acceptance: more money is needed. Yet with austerity ascendant, that will be a difficult thing for this government to accept.

Under the present conditions, its really no surprise that the late Charles Kennedy's penny on tax policy has seen a resurgence. Kennedy proposed, as Ashdown did before him, to add one penny in the pound to income tax - an increase of 1% in search of £3bn in additional funds - to support extra spending on education (BBC, 2001; Marr, 2001; Taylor, 2016).

The same policy has now turned up in Scotland. Will Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, announced the return of this policy to the Lib Dem's platform at the end of January (Carrell, 2016) - only to be upstaged a week later by the Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale's adoption of the same policy (ITV, 2016).

Under Kennedy, this was seen as a bold, but practical measure at a time when the economy was improving dramatically. Under Kennedy's successor Nick Clegg, the emerging financial crisis led to these ideas being translated into 'fairness'. Clegg's, now much missed, red lines in government involved sharing the burden  (Parkinson, 2012) - refusing to have cuts impact on the poorest without the equivalent be expected of the richest.

Amongst the things Clegg fought for was increased spending for the early years at school (Ahmed, 2015), hoping to close gaps so that children might grow up with the skills necessary to seize opportunities on their own merits. During that time, Conservative supremacy and lust for cuts was barely restrained by the Coalition. Now it doesn't seem to be restrained at all.

All in it together, to protect the next generation from crippling public debt, seems to have become the means to disenfranchise the next generation - denying young people public services and affordable housing. Meanwhile, the wealthy are doing just fine (Inman, 2016).

And yet, austerity has laid bare and made finally visible in the UK the true extent of the financial crisis - from which the UK was largely sheltered by the government funded public sector. From homelessness at the extreme, to the now common shortages of affordable homes, the public may now finally - thanks to austerity - be realising the full weight of the burden falling on them.

In those conditions, the re-emergence of policy's like Kennedy's penny on tax is not surprising. A general outcry for more the government to do more cannot be far away. While that, of course, doesn't necessarily always have to mean constant high levels of public spending on fully nationalised services. But more has to be done.

Mariana Mazzucato, economist and one Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell's anti-austerity economic advisors, has argued that the private sector is a weak innovator that is loathe to take risks. Quoting Keynes, she argues that most innovation - the opening of new economic spaces - is done best by government (Mazzucato, 2013) - in the form of a smarter state.

Inequality has many facets that need to be tackled. Education needs more support. Housing needs to be more widely available and cheaper. Young people need to see more opportunities in more fields. None of these things can be achieved without some additional government funding at some stage. Public bodies have the ability, and the right, to act: to open up new economies, to create new opportunities where there are now none, and to invest in new futures.

 

Breakthroughs in all of these areas would lead to new economic growth and wider spread shares of the spoils. A penny on tax for education is a modest, practical start. A small, subtle, rejection of the austerity doctrine. But it is one small solution, for just one part of a huge and interlinked problem of inequality that the government cannot for much longer simply trim around the edges.

Jeremy Hunt is playing dangerously with escalation in dispute with Doctors over future of NHS as he imposes contracts

Junior doctors and supporters gathered outside the Manchester Royal Infirmary on 10th February, during the latest 24 hour junior doctors strike.

After months of wrangling, Jeremy Hunt has decided to impose contracts on junior doctors (Tran & Campbell, 2016). Hunt's decision came just an hour after the second major strike by Junior doctors, where strikers walked out for 24 hours in protest against extension of hours across the weekend (Triggle, 2016).

Negotiations have been ongoing for months, but had broken down on Tuesday after what Hunt, the Conservative Health Secretary, called his 'final offer' had been rejected (Campbell, 2016). Accusations were also flying that all parties had agreed an alternative deal in principle, only for Hunt to veto it (Stone, 2016).

Imposing the contract could easily further inflame an already controversial situation. Public opinion has been firmly on the side of the junior doctors strikes (Stone, 2016{2}), with Hunt being seen as personally culpable for the ongoing action called by the BMA - the British Medical Association, the doctor's trade union.

What Hunt may be counting on is that, in the initial phase, doctor's will have little choice but to put up and begrudgingly acquiesce. Then, to simply let the matter to blow over with time - gambling on the public having a short memory.

Yet the move could instead lead to escalation. So far the strikes have been 24 hours in duration and left emergency care intact. This move by the Health Secretary could push the opposition to longer strikes, with Healthcare provision reduced to a minimum, other medical professions walking in solidarity and larger public protests.

There have also been reports that the numbers of medical trainees have been dropping and that trained medical professionals have been moving abroad (El Sheika, 2016; Johnson, 2016). The BMA has been using these facts during the negotiations as leverage - and warning of a further exodus if unsafe conditions are extended.

However Hunt's move has called out doctors, expecting them to grumble but ultimately comply. Or may be for them to move into the private sector. There have been doubts about Hunt's commitment to a public, tax-funded NHS - the Health Secretary was a contributor to a book calling for a privatised health market in the UK (Stone, 2016{3}; El Gingihy, 2015).

The general feeling amongst Conservatives seems to be favourable towards a long term future of private sector solutions to social security. Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith won some agreement from Prime Minister David Cameron for the idea of, in essence, privatising sick pay and unemployment benefits by forcing people to pay into savings accounts or to buy social insurance as cover (Mason, 2015).

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has risked escalation with his latest move. The BMA says it will consider all options to continue the fight, against changes it believes to be dangerous to public health (Triggle, 2016{2}). Who blinks first matters. Most outcomes could likely be considered a win of some sort for the Conservatives - which shows the cleverness of the game they're playing.

But the game they're playing gambles with social security, the safety net that ensures the common good. In this big moment in the future of the NHS, the Conservatives are showing a ruthless side by pitting the NHS's future against the interests of medical professionals. Its a reckless game in pursuit of prices and profits, but which ignores value - and the fundamental social justice of universal public healthcare.

As the Conservative Welfare Bill goes to an activist House of Lords, progressives need to speak out for the alternatives

The House of Lords has become an ironically activist body in opposition to the Conservative majority in the Commons that is trying to substantially restructure social security in Britain.

On Tuesday the Conservative government's Welfare Reform and Work Bill returns to the Lords for its third reading. The bill is a key part of the Conservative pursuit of their roundly inspecific manifesto promise of billions in 'welfare savings' - including attempts to scrap child poverty measures, to introduce a total Household Benefits Cap, to freeze benefits and to restrict Child Tax Credits (Treloar, 2015).

In Autumn, the Chancellor dodged public criticism by dropping plans to make cuts to Tax Credits, aided by a gamble on positive economic forecasts (ITV, 2015). Yet, as was recorded at the time, this was only a matter of delaying the inevitable (Kuenssberg, 2015; Eaton, 2015). The intention was still, in time, to phase out Tax Credits and fold them into the Universal Credit.

Now its again the turn of the Universal Credit to face cuts (BBC, 2016). The Institute for Fiscal Studies has stressed that changes will leave many of the poorest people thousands of pounds worse off. Once more the burden of paying down the deficit and debt has been shifted around, disguised, and then left upon the poorest, on those who are struggling the most.

If other opposition has been quiet - with the Labour Party in its pre-Corbyn interim under Harriet Harman abstained in the bill's early phases (Guttenplan, 2015) - it may only be because the political system renders them powerless.

Its true that the government has already been defeated in an ironically activist House of Lords over its welfare plans on both Tax Credits (Morris & Grice, 2015) and the attempt to scrap Child Poverty measures (Mason, 2016; Mortimer, 2016) - with Liberal Democrats who in particular seem determined, weak though their mandate has now become, to use their, problematic but still considerable, presence in the House of Lords to oppose the cuts in Parliament. Yet with a Conservative Commons majority, any opposition could eventually be overcome.

One the biggest criticisms of the Conservative majority is that it has sought to balance the books without sufficient concern for the human cost in the present (Sikka, 2015; Boffey, 2014). The focus of the Conservative government on 'making work pay' has mostly been an exercise in relativism - making work seem relatively more profitable by punishing, hassling and impoverishing those in need of welfare.

For progressives there is a responsibility to look to other ways that do not accept the casualties of the present as an inevitable tragedy and to speak out, especially at a time when the most vulnerable are losing their voice by falling off electoral registration lists and so being under-represented (Mason, 2016{2}). At present, the most exciting alternative is the Basic Income.

On trial in the Netherlands and Finland (Perry, 2015; Unkuri, 2015), the Basic Income is a form of universal welfare, provided to all citizens unconditionally. It acts as a level of subsistence support that is always available, aiming to alleviate all citizens from the fear of falling into, and the desperation of being in, poverty.

On a practical level, it would replace most in-work benefits. From the personal income tax allowance - which might be seen to fulfil a similar role through a tax discount, only provided on the condition that you work for a wage, at a cost of an estimated £86bn - to tax credits and the jobseekers allowance - costing £30bn and £3bn, respectively.

The ongoing economic struggle continues to disproportionately hurt the most vulnerable. Austerity has little to offer them, depending more upon negative liberty, the removal of limitations, than positive liberty, providing a leg up to opportunities.

Laissez faire is not enough. Visibly rising homelessness and the need for food banks is not good enough. A civilised society should be able and prepared to take care of the most vulnerable. Progressives have to be prepared to look for and propose solutions, with more compassion, that act to end poverty.

Cameron's EU draft deal makes a two speed Europe a fact and gives the European Union a chance to move forward

For progressives, the bright side of Cameron's renegotiation for two speeds of membership is that it keeps Britain at the heart of the EU, where they can continue to campaign for better, more democratic, system.

David Cameron has got, in draft form, his deal on Europe (Sparrow & Smith, 2016). The deal came with an unequivocal statement that the Prime Minister would, if Britain where not part of the EU, join if these were the terms. The Cameron deal, negotiated and Donald Tusk, President of the European Council (chair of the council of EU member states) came to a short list of agreements.

Member states to have the right to use an 'emergency brake' on providing social security to migrants when movement was above ordinary levels, that those outside bodies like the Eurozone should not be expected to fund them, a commitment from the EU to better regulations and more efficient administration, and for national parliaments that make up 55% of seats on the European Council to represent a veto on European legislation (Sparrow, 2016). What these concessions most clearly establish is a two speed Europe (Verhofstadt, 2016).

Romano Prodi, former Italian Prime Minister and former President of the European Commission (Europe's executive branch), had previously foreseen this outcome (CNN, 2004). An attempt had been made to bring together the various European treaties to create a clear Constitution for Europe, only for it to be rejected at referendums in both France and the Netherlands (BBC, 2005; The Guardian; 2005).

Prodi accepted that, with the failure to establish a constitution for Europe, to make progress the European Union must now move at two speeds (EurActiv, 2007) - so that those who do not want to move forward could have their choice respected, without it overriding the choice of others to move ever closer. Without some formal resolution on that direction, however, Europe has seemingly spent the last decade stalled.

Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the liberals in Europe, praised the chance the renegotiations offered for clarity (Verhofstadt, 2015). Verhofstadt stressed that their was common ground in Europe for clearing up the messy boundaries and agreements, so that all countries could align themselves with a sure understanding of where they were headed.

Making the European Union a two speed institution essentially realigns Europe into two groups: some countries pursuing ever closer union, while others stay at arms length. The first group will accept the Eurozone, Schengen, joint border agencies, and the pursuit of better political and economic governance. Those at the edge will continue to have a seat at the table and important relationships and votes on governance, but there will be opt-outs rather than a veto.

For those in the UK who favour European Union membership, this seems to be the best deal on the table for now. What it certainly does offer is a chance to remain close. As Romano Prodi put it (EurActiv, 2007), "a two-speed Europe does not mean that countries that are in the second group cannot move to the first".

To the UK's progressives, this means the chance to renew efforts for a more social Europe (Shaheen, 2015), for the positive impacts that the EU can have in the fight for a greener world (Vidal, 2016), and to engage with continental campaigns for better democracy, like that being launched in Berlin next week on 9th February by Yanis Varoufakis to improve democracy in Europe (Varoufakis, 2016).

Iowa Caucus: How did the establishment Democratic-Republican system lose control of the 2016 US presidential election?

Abraham Lincoln was the first President from the Republican Party. A liberal and a centrist, whose party believed in civic responsibility, individualism and a liberal reading of the constitution. Photograph: Statue of Abraham Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

The Iowa Caucus, tonight, will mark the true beginning of the 2016 US Presidential Race as the point at which there will finally be some real data. So far the Presidential campaign has been a strange and controversial affair, with much to be set straight by the nominations process in Iowa.

On the Democratic side, there is now a two-way race where the nomination had looked like being little more than a formal hurdle for Hillary Clinton  (Jacobs, 2015). That was until Bernie Sanders, Senator for Vermont and a self-described democratic socialist, entered the race.

Quietly at first, starting some fifty or sixty percentage points behind Clinton, Sander's campaign has gathered momentum as thousands have turned out to hear him speak (Roberts, 2015; Roberts, 2015{2}). While support for Sanders - beyond a few high-polling constituencies - has been doubted, he has nonetheless been developing into the Democrat's anti-establishment candidate (Silver, 2015; Karp, 2016).

On the Republican side, they too are experiencing an anti-establishment insurgency. With an initial list of more than a dozen candidates, the process of holding debates was complicated enough (Gabbatt, 2015). Yet Donald Trump's candidacy quickly turned the nomination race into something not far short of a farce.

The potential candidates have struggled for air time, even split across two debates in the shape of an undercard and a main contest (Taylor, 2015). As the so-called moderates have struggled, Trump has stood out as the loudest and clearest candidate - even if he has been repulsive and offensive (Lewis, 2015).

Trump represents the toxic stew that the Republican Party has become, with the extreme Religious Right seeming less offensive by comparison with Trump. So deeply have the Republicans become embroiled in acquiescing to their own loudest and most deeply partisan supporters that, as put by one of the early establishment favourites Jeb Bush, it might almost be necessary for a Republican to lose in the primaries in order to win the general election (Mishak, 2015).

For both parties, insurgent figures are upsetting what was supposed to be a slick machine. Yet the fact that the United States' Democratic-Republican establishment is so deeply ingrained into the fabric of the political system, as to be virtually unshakeable, seems to have invited this situation.

Various movements, unable to muscle in alongside those two elder statesmen, seem intent on seizing control of those parties themselves first as an entry point. The big question is, what opened the establishment's back door in the first place?

The Party of Lincoln

Photograph: Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

From its founding, the Republican Party dominated American politics, right up until the New Deal coalitions of the 1930s. For most of that period Lincoln's party, in European terms, where Liberals. They stood for individualism, free markets, a constitutionalist stance consistent with the liberal belief in the rule of law, public education and were brought together as abolitionists, wishing to bring an end to slavery (Wheare, 1948). They also carried an interest in state action in the form of tariffs and public investment, inherited from their Federalists and Whig predecessors.

As a result, their members and supporters were a diverse group. From African-Americans, both free and liberated, to businessmen, small business owners and factory workers, to the white working class (Cornwell, 2016) - of a number of backgrounds including protestants and Germans who had come to the United States following the defeat of the radicals, republicans, suffragists and revolutionaries in Europe's Springtime of the Peoples uprising in 1848 (Rapport, 2008).

But the party of Abraham Lincoln were also centrists. Lincoln in particular believed deeply in civic virtues. His party leadership and Presidency were typical of those values, as he sought balance and compromise between progressive and conservative positions, between the popular will and individual rights, in order to hold together his party's divergent factions - ranging from radical abolitionists to constitutional conservatives.

Yet when Lincoln was murdered, only ten years after the founding of the party, the equilibrium was lost. The radicals sought to punish the South and pressed on with reconstruction, enforced by the military, while the conservatives sought a swift reconciliation. That internal divide came to an end with the diminishment of the radical faction due to corruption, splits, an economic depression and a disputed election that led to a tawdry compromise - ending reconstruction and abandoning the South, along with many freed former slaves.

The party then settled down to supporting business with high tariffs, encouragement for industrialisation and modernisation and investment in infrastructure like railroads. Yet the party was never far from the latest row between progressive and conservative factions - such as on prohibition, which drove less pietist Protestants out of the party, or Theodore Roosevelt leaving to found the Progressive Party, which proposed forward-thinking reforms like women's suffrage and comprehensive social security.

The New Deal Coalition

What must have seemed like a clear run to the Presidency, has become for Hillary Clinton a complicated game of placating popular discontent from her position within the establishment. Photograph: Hillary Clinton speaks at a rally at UW-Milwaukee by WisPolitics (License) (Cropped)

The Great Depression brought the era of Republican dominance to an end. It also signalled the beginning of a dramatic shift for the Democrats. Over the next thirty years the party would go from being dominated by deeply conservative, nationalist and sectarian - to outright segregationist - forces in the South, to the new home for all progressives, from liberals and centrists to social democrats and trade unionists.

In order to provide a positive and interventionist response to the Great Depression, Franklin D Roosevelt assembled a grand coalition that combined the Democrats' core support - white, southern and conservative and including many extreme nationalists, with whom the New Deal did not rest easily (The Economist, 2013) - with many groups. At the heart of it all, though, where the working class (The Economist, 2011).

Roosevelt, by reaching across political boundaries, started a shift that opened up the possibility of the Democrats reaching new voters which broke the party out of their dependence upon their narrow conservative base (Jenkins, 2003). That in turn would make the Civil Rights Act feasible, as the Democrats could afford to alienate and effectively cast out the toxic political support of the white, racist, Southern Democrats.

Embracing the role of a progressive party is, however, not without its drawbacks. It comes with high expectations. And like elsewhere in the world, mainstream progressives, like the social democrats in Europe, have often faced criticism for being too tight with the establishment and too slow to bring about reform.

While part of that is surely the logjam that is the American political establishment, there is plenty of legitimate criticism of the Democrat's failure to argue for a better alternative for America (Jones, 2016). Those disappointments lead to disaffection, which can lead to anti-establishment movements.

As a big tent, with little alternative for those seeking change, all of those hopes and all of that energy is funnelled through the Democratic Party. So when a candidate like Bernie Sanders emerges to give those frustrations a candidate and a voice, the traditional party hierarchy has to start trembling - as happened with the rise of Jeremy Corbyn to the Labour Party leadership, where the establishment backed candidates struggled to inspire with their calls for practical politics in the face of a hopeful and optimistic message from an insurgent candidate to enthused supporters.

Much as Corbyn's opposition were seen as the heirs of the New Labour establishment, Hillary Clinton, as the partner of a former President, a long time Senator and Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, is undoubtedly - despite being a woman - seen as a member of the establishment (The Guardian, 2016). Finding a way over that hurdle will likely come to dominate her Presidential campaign.

The Southern Strategy

The struggling campaign of the so-called moderate Jeb Bush is symptomatic of a Republican Party hijacked by narrow, hard right interests. Photograph: Former Governor Jeb Bush speaking with supporters at a town hall meeting at the FFA Enrichment Center in Ankeny, Iowa by Gage Skidmore (License) (Cropped)

The success of the Democrats in shaking off, with affirmative action, the chain around their necks that was a history of association with slavery, segregation and the suppression of rights, would become the roots of the problems for the Republicans today.

Seeking short term political advantage, the Republicans sought to appeal to those voters and interests who felt they had been abandoned by the Democrats over the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Nichols, 2014). The Republicans isolated, alienated and drove out most of their remaining liberals to open themselves up to be the party of reaction.

That move has, after a century of the conservative faction attempting to assert its control, instead left the Republican Party as little more than a hollowed out shell. When the Republicans sought to pander to extreme, southern Christian Nationalists, welcoming them into the party in leadership positions, they killed off what little was left of the legacy of the Party of Lincoln.

Conservatives, in their short sighted pursuit of electoral gains, allowed the Religious Right, Christian Nationalists, to hijack the party in the long term, using the party's credibility and colours to promote their extreme causes. That extremism has begotten extremism, stoking up anger and division - only for candidates to then have to satisfy it later for the right to stay in office - driving the party ever further to the Right (Frum, 2011).

The result has been moderates, who are not really that moderate, struggling to even get a hearing at debates. Jeb Bush, for example. His immigration policy has shades of his moderate father's call to bring people out of the shadows, to stop making it illegal for decent people to work hard within the law or to have their children educated (Bush & Bolick, 2013; Lee, 2015).

But so-called moderates like Bush, or Marco Rubio, are outflanked and forced into a race to the bottom by candidates like Ted Cruz, a member of the Religious Right who has called for a bombardment of the Middle East (The Economist, 2016), or Carly Fiorina, who with no political experience and a questioned business acumen has compared herself to Margaret Thatcher (Lewis, 2015). All this does is force Republican candidates to put the narrow interests of party before the broader ones of the country.

That approach didn't work for Mitt Romney. As Barack Obama's challenger in the re-election year of 2012, Romney won soundly amongst the conservative and Evangelical Christian base of the modern Republican Party (Rove, 2015). Yet his narrow focus on helping the wealthy over the rest, his focus upon the party base over the country, dropped him short of the line (Scheiber, 2012).

The 2016 Election

Bernie Sanders is the heir of the Democrat's shift to embrace progressive politics through the 1930s and 1960s, and of modern progressive discontent with the establishment. Photograph: Bernie Sanders speaking at Hec Edmundson Pavillion in Seattle by Tiffany Von Arnim (License) (Cropped)

The Republican Party have turned a long way from the civic republicanism of their origins and it has helped fan political extremism - which looks likely to leave the established order in American politics weak and threatened. Not least from Donald Trump who looks likely to leave the Republican Party in the dirt just soon as he's done with them, having levered the party apart in the process.

In the Democrat camp, Clinton is hard pressed by the popular support for Bernie Sanders. Sanders is the only candidate in the race standing for a truly progressive alternative, earnestly wanting to create a more just, more equal America, in a country which is not open to such ideas. That is worthy of tremendous admiration. Yet it will also no doubt frighten the hard right.

For Clinton to top the polls in Iowa would be business as usual, crisis averted for the establishment. Likewise if a moderate candidate is able to step up for the Republicans. For a progressive alternative to break through the establishment, and get past hard right partisanship, would be a tough ask. As elsewhere around the world, the Presidential race looks like ultimately being a struggle between the establishment and an insurgent far right.