Trump and Sanders: Two Big Phenomena in US Presidential Election

Zhou Qi & Fu Suixin



Trump and Sanders: Two Big Phenomena in US Presidential Election

Zhou Qi & Fu Suixin

During the presidential primary elections of the US in 2016， the most compelling and discussion-triggering issue must be the Trump phenomenon. As an anti-establishment Republican candidate，Donald Trump took advantage of the voters' anger at America's current situation and political elites， rose as a dark horse in the primary， and might even win the nomination of the Republican Party. Another unexpected situation in the primary is that the Democrat Bernie Sanders has posed a strong challenge to Hillary Clinton. Although this self-proclaimed democratic socialist has been unable to set off a “political revolution，” his emergence managed to force Clinton to make major concessions. The Trump and Sanders phenomena have confused a number of observers in the US and beyond. An explanation of the phenomena will help us better understand the domestic politics and general election of the US. Based on the full use of polling data，this paper will give detailed analysis on the ideology， policy advocacy and voter bases of Trump and Sanders， and carry out discussion on the deep-rooted causes of the Trump and Sanders phenomena.

Trump's Personality and His Position Against Republican Establishment

The reason why Trump is the most compelling figure in the primaries is thathe， without any political experience or clear political idea， was surprisingly able to beat all those seasoned politicians in the fierce competition inside the Republican Party.

Now 70 years old， Trump was born into a wealthy merchant family，and inherited his father's real estate company. After going bankrupt for four times， he is still able to become a quite well-known real estate developer and reality show host. Concerning politics， Trump changes his position frequently. In 1987， he registered as a Republican； in 1999， he became independent； in 2001， he became a Democrat； in 2009， he again became a Republican； after two years he quit； and he returned again in 2012 to be a Republican.1Jessica Chasmar， “Donald Trump Changed Political Parties at Least Five Times: Report，” June 16， 2015，http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/16/donald-trump-changed-political-parties-at-least-fi/.In 2000，Trump participated in the presidential primary election as a member of the Reform Party， but that did not last. In June 2015， he formally announced his competition for the Republican presidential nomination.

Without any political experience and given his bad name in the political and business circles， Trump was not taken seriously at the beginning of the campaign. However， only a month after he announced his participation， his average poll rating surpassed that of Jeb Bush， younger brother of George W. Bush， who was given the biggest hope to win. Trump's support rate has always been way ahead of the other Republican candidates， except for a short period when he was surpassed by Ben Carson in November 2015.22016 Republican Presidential Nomination， http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html.Until the end of last year， however， the establishment camp of the Republican Party never took Trump seriously， believing that he will eventually be abandoned by “rational voters.”3Matea Gold and Robert Costa， “Plan A for GOP Donors: Wait for Trump to Fall （There is no Plan B），”November 25，2016，https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/plan-a-for-gop-donors-wait-for-trump-to-fallthere-is-no-plan-b/2015/11/25/91436a00-92dd-11e5-8aa0-5d0946560a97_story.html.In the Iowa caucus election on February 1， 2016， Trump failed to win as opinion polls suggested. The establishment Republicans were relieved，thinking that his show was about to be over. But after that， Trump led all the way and gained huge advantages in most other states， forcing Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio， the most favored establishment candidates， to withdrawfrom the election. Although Trump was accused by the major conservative publication National Review for not being a real conservative， his relations with the most popular conservative media Fox News deteriorated， and the last Republican President candidate Mitt Romney as well as current House speaker，Republican Paul Ryan publicly accused him， his momentum has not been obviously and negatively affected. Trump has repeatedly broken US political traditions， violated the principle of political correctness， and lowered the limit of political struggle， but voters have not seemed to care.

Trump's ideology and policy preferences belong to a different species in the US mainstream politics today. Republican elites have largely adhered to the Reagan conservatism， that is， the ideology of small government， free market economy and traditional values. Compared with the establishment，the Tea Party members in the Republican Party are even more conservative and extreme. They believe that the ideology of the establishment is not pure enough， and that they have compromised too much to the Obama administration. Since the beginning of 2009， when it grew stronger， the Tea Party has forced the Republicans to turn right further. Trump and his core supporters belong to neither of the above two groups， though they call themselves Republicans.

Complicated as it is， Trump's ideology is highly different from the Republican orthodoxy. He is relatively mild in most economic and social issues as he does not oppose the government-funded medical insurance system； while supporting tax cuts， he claims that he will not reduce costs on medical insurance and social security； though an opponent of abortion， he believes that the Planned Parenthood program has benefited millions of women； he supports economic nationalism， opposes free trade long upheld by Republicans， demands abolishment of regional trade agreements signed by the US， and protects American jobs from being stolen by other countries； and he also attacks the Wall Street and big banks， arguing that they have deprived the people but paid almost no tax， so he is not ready to ease control over thefinancial industry.4Gina Chon， “Trump's Attacks Raise Eyebrows on Wall Street，” December 28， 2015， http://www.ft.com/ cms/s/0/951f5b9a-a8f7-11e5-955c-1e1d6de94879.html#axzz43c2DOI1Q.In terms of religion， it seems that Trump is not really pious. He used to make mistakes when reciting the Bible. And he is reluctant to share with voters his favorite Bible verses. In foreign policy， Trump has a strong inclination to isolationism， which runs counter to the overseas intervention policy supported by the Republican establishment.5Thomas Wright， “Trump's 19th Century Foreign Policy，” January 20， 2016， http://www.politico.com/ magazine/story/ 2016/01/donald-trump-foreign-policy-213546.Trump's most distinctive claim is reflected on his attitude toward illegal immigrants. He accuses illegal immigrants for destroying the US， demanding Mexico to pay for building a great wall along the border between the US and Mexico. He also requests that Muslims should not be allowed into the US. However， the Republican establishment has adopted a dubious attitude in this matter for fear of losing votes of ethnic minorities.

Although Trump's ideology is not very conservative， his positions on many single issues have been rather extreme. But it seems incredible that for Trump， moderate ideology and extreme policy positions can actually coexist.6Ahler Broockman， “Does Elite Polarization Imply Poor Representation？ A New Perspective on the Disconnect Between Politicians and Voters，” https://people.stanford.edu/dbroock/sites/default/files/ahler_ broockman_ideological_innocence.pdf.As a matter of fact， it was the appearance of Trump holding extreme positions that has enabled those politically ignored to have a clear option.

Trump's core supporters are mainly middle-and-lower-class whites. Republican voters can be divided into three categories: Pro-business conservatives， social conservatives and pro-government conservatives. Trump's core supporters are mainly of the third category， while some come from the other two.7Ross Douthat， “How to Break a Party，” Febrary18， 2016， http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/opinion/ campaign-stops/how-to-break-a-party.html？ref=opinion.According to the CNN exit poll about the Michigan Republican primary， Trump's overall popularity in the primary was 37%， but he was supported by 46% of non-college-graduated white voters， and 42% of lowincome voters. In addition， supporters of Trump often uphold relatively mild ideology， who believe that immigration， economy and terrorist attacks are the most important issues. While concerning very much about the US economy，these voters are more angry with the federal government. They also think that Republican elites have betrayed them， hoping to have a non-establishment candidate as their next president.8“Republican Michigan Exit Polls，” http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/mi/Rep.

Donald Trump wins Republican Party's nomination for U.S.President， July 20， 2016.

Summarizing all surveys， it can be seen that a typical supporter of Trump has the following characteristics: Older white men with no college education and relatively low income. Not too conservative in ideology， these voters reject ethnic minorities and immigrants， but they do not oppose more government spending. Politically neglected， they have complained a lot about Republican elites.9Derek Thompson， “Who Are Donald Trump's Supporters， Really？” March 1， 2016， http://www.theatlantic. com/politics/archive/2016/03/who-are-donald-trumps-supporters-really/471714/.This group is actually the white working class， or the so-called “Reagan Democrats.” They are culturally right-wing and economically left-wing， relying on the government but staying away from Wall Street. As with Trump， their ideology is very mixed and even contradictory， but not very conservative. With a decreasing size， this group is marginalized and silent among Republicanvoters. As they are not active politically， elites of both parties can hardly represent them， and rarely respond to their demands. They do not care about ideological orthodoxy， but are eager to express their anger. This group of voters also believe in authoritarianism， hoping for a strong man to protect them and take them out of the troubles.10Amanda Taub， “The Rise of American Authoritarianism，” March 1， 2016.The appearance of Trump， a Republican“heresy” leader who has promised to “make America great again，” has just offered an option for these voters. Unlike Trump， Ted Cruz， the second most popular candidate in the Republican Party， finds his core supporters mainly fall into the aforementioned second category， who are the Tea Party supporters and devout evangelicals.11Shane Goldmacher， “Trump Shatters the Republican Party，” February 24， 2016， http://www.politico.com/ story/2016/02/trump-shatters-the-republican-party-219711.

It is thought-provoking that the Trump phenomenon is not isolated. There is a similar candidate with Trump in the Democratic Party: Sanders. As an anti-establishment Democrat， Sanders has also won considerable support from Democratic voters.

Sanders' Personality and His Challenge to Hillary Clinton

Aged 75， Sanders is a US Senator from Vermont in northeast America. When he was young， he took an active part in and organized many civil rights movements， and was arrested several times. In the 1970s， he tried to organize a third party to run for the Vermont governor and US Senator， but without success. In the 1980s， he， as an independent candidate， was successfully elected mayor of Vermont's largest city， Burlington， and was re-elected many times. In 1991， Sanders was elected US Representative， and in 2006 US Senator. During that period， he always claimed himself to be independent， but usually caucused with the Democrats. On April 30， 2015， he announced that he would run for the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party. But it was not until November of that year that he joined the Democratic Party.12Kathleen Ronayne， “Sanders Declares as Democrat in NH Primary，” November 5， 2015， http://www. burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2015/11/05/sanders-declares-democrat-nh-primary/75242938/.

While people were not optimistic about Sanders at first， he rose rapidly and strongly. Because he comes from a remote northeastern state， and has always acted as an independent， he was not familiar to most Americans when he first appeared. In a Gallup poll in July 2015， only 44% of respondents could comment on Sanders. In contrast， 89% of respondents were able to comment on Hillary Clinton. Even among the respondents favoring the Democratic Party， only 49% of them commented on Sanders.13Lydia Saad， “Sanders Surges， Clinton Sags in U.S. Favorability，” July 24， 2015， http://www.gallup.com/ poll/184346/sanders-surges-clinton-sags-favorability.aspx.But as the primary approaches and begins， Sanders' approval rating has been rising within the party. In August 2015， Sanders' rating in Democratic voters was only 26%， while Clinton's was as high as 61%. But by mid-January 2016，Sanders has surpassed Clinton， and by mid-February， he got support from 57% of the Democratic voters.14Andrew Dugan， “As Voting Begins， Sanders More Popular than Clinton with Dems，” February 1， 2016，http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/188957/voting-begins-sanders-popular-clinton-dems.aspx；Andrew Dugan and Frank Newport， “Among Dems， Clinton Regains Popularity Advantage over Sanders，”February 26， 2016， http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/189611/among-dems-clinton-regainspopularity-advantage-sanders.aspx.From the results of earlier primaries， the rapid upward trend of Sanders can also be seen. In an Iowa poll in November 2015，Sanders was still 20 percentage points after Clinton. But in the Iowa caucus on February 1， he only lost to Clinton by 0.3% of popular votes. And in New Hampshire primary on February 9， he had a big victory over Clinton with a 22% advantage. Many observers started to worry that Clinton's position would be shaken and even collapse. But Clinton's “southern firewall” strategy turned out to be reliable. In southern states with more ethnic minorities， she had huge advantage over Sanders.

However， in northern states where whites take a larger proportion in population， Sanders is well able to make Clinton busy and tired. He won Colorado， Minnesota， Oklahoma， Vermont， Kansas， Nebraska， Maine，etc. Sanders' most amazing victory took place in the Michigan primary on February 8， 2016. Before the election， most polls showed that Clinton had led by at least 20 percentage points，15“Michigan Democratic Presidential Primary，” http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/ michigan_democratic_presidential_primary-5224.html.but the final result was that Sanders wonthe popular vote by 1.6 points. In the primary elections on March 15， despite Sanders' failure in several northern states， his gap with Clinton was very small. However， states that witnessed the victory of Sanders basically have very small population， while those won by Clinton are with large population. Thus， as of March 15， pledged delegates won by Sanders were 300 less than those of Clinton. Although it has almost been hopeless for Sanders to be the Democratic nominee， compared with the situation when he announced his run and the expectations of most people on him， such a result is an extraordinary victory.

Sanders' ideology and policy preferences are both very unique. He has always claimed himself to be a democratic socialist， hoping to build the US into a typical North European welfare country like Sweden and Finland，16“Sanders Socialist Successes，” April 22， 2009， http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/ sanders-socialist-successes.so he can be viewed as left-wing of the Democratic Party. Despite the US mainstream's disgust of socialism， Sanders still participated in the primary election as a democratic socialist. It is unprecedented in the history of US major parties presidential elections that a candidate runs a campaign as a democratic socialist. Sanders also claims himself to be a Jew， and generally does not participate actively in organized religious activities. So he has created a record in the history of US major parties that a non-Christian candidate was able to win the primary of a state.17Peter Weber， “Bernie Sanders Becomes First Jewish， Non-Christian Candidate to Win U.S. Primary，”February 9， 2016， http://theweek.com/speedreads/604757/bernie-sanders-becomes-first-jewish-nonchristiancandidate-win-primary.

Sanders' actions and policy preferences have reflected his ideology of democratic socialism. He was among the few politicians supporting the“Occupy Wall Street” movement in 2011. In the 2016 campaign， he claimed that he intended to launch a “political revolution” in the US， and put forward a set of radical policies. He hoped to establish a medical security system covering all people and solely paid by the federal government， cancel tuitions of public universities and colleges， break up big banks in Wall Street， strengthen supervision and regulation on big enterprises and multinational companies，significantly increase tax for the rich and enterprises， implement paid maternityleave， shorten the naturalization period of illegal immigration， impose carbon tax on polluting enterprises， limit regional trade agreements， oppose US intervention in international disputes and wars， and so on.18David A. Fahrenthold， “How Bernie Sanders's ‘Political Revolution' Would Change the Nation，” January 18， 2016， https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bernie-sanderss-political-revolution-would-changethe-nation/2016/01/18/4c1c13fa-bde4-11e5-9443-7074c3645405_story.html？tid=pm_politics_pop_b.

Democratic US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speaks during a campaign rally in Washington， US， June 9， 2016.

In fact， Sanders' spearhead is basically pointed to the increasingly serious economic inequality. He believes that rich-poor divide is mainly caused by Wall Street financial powers and corrupted political elites bought by them. In the campaign， Clinton claimed herself to be the heritage keeper of Obama，while Sanders called himself a revolutionary who has inherited the spirit of Obama. He has outspokenly pointed out that the Democratic Party has many wrongdoings， and criticized that Obama has not done enough to reduce economic inequality. He has tried to build up grass-roots power to enhance the ideological purity of the Democratic Party， and force the Democratic Party tofurther turn left， so as to promote radical political change.

Sanders does have a large number of strong grassroots supporters， who are mainly young people and middle—lower-class whites. Age and race are the two most important factors to distinguish between the supporters of Sanders and Clinton. According to the Gallup survey of Democratic Party supporters，among people under 30， 62% support Sanders， while only 35% support Hillary Clinton. For those above this age， most of them support Clinton，and the older they are， the more who support Clinton. In addition， 61% of whites are Sanders supporters， but only 36% of blacks and 37% of Hispanic Americans support him.19Andrew Dugan， “As Voting Begins， Sanders More Popular than Clinton with Dems，” February 1， 2016，http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/188957/voting-begins-sanders-popular-clinton-dems.aspx.

The primary polling data of many states has also highlighted the two factors. For example， according to the Michigan exit poll of the Democratic primary conducted by CNN， Sanders is supported by 85% of young voters under age 30 and 56% of white voters， while only 37% of voters above age 45 and 34% of non-white voters support him. Meanwhile， it can be found that middle—lower-class whites are prone to support Sanders. And among white voters without college degree， 57% of them support Sanders. Ideology of Sanders' supporters is also more extreme. 58% of voters who think themselves to be very liberal and 72% of those who believe that the next president should be more liberal are all supporters of Sanders. Sanders' supporters are also more concerned about economic inequality. 60% of voters who list income inequality as the most important issue， 56% of voters who believe that other countries have robbed the Americans of their jobs， and 58% of voters who worry a lot about the US economy all support Sanders.20“Michigan Exit Polls，” http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/mi/Dem.According to these polls， compared with Clinton， Sanders' supporters are mainly young people，followed by middle—lower-class whites， whose ideology is more liberal and who are more concerned about economic inequality.

Sanders' campaign has exerted a significant political impact on the US. Sanders has created history just by being the first democratic socialist candidateof US major parties， largely “desensitizing” the term socialism which is fairly sensitive in the US. The absence of socialism is considered to be part of the“US exceptionism.” Nowadays， the majority of Americans are still suspicious of and disgusted with socialism. However， democratic socialism is becoming more and more popular among young Americans. In a 2011 survey by Pew Research Center， 60% of Americans held negative views about socialism， but young people and most of very liberalized Democrats have held positive views on socialism.21Pew Research Center， “Little Change in Public's Response to ‘Capitalism，' ‘Socialism'？” December 28，2011，http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/.According to a poll right before the Iowa caucus， 43% of potential Democratic Party supporters regarded themselves as socialists.22Aaron Blake， “This Number Proves Bernie Sanders Can Win Iowa，” January 17， 2016， https://www. washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/17/this-number-proves-bernie-sanders-can-win-iowa/.This figure has at least explained from one aspect why Sanders drew with Clinton in the Iowa caucus. With more and more young people involved in politics， the new political alliance created by Sanders may have a greater impact in the future.

The direct impact of Sanders is that he has forced Clinton and the Democratic establishment to accept part of his views. As of March 15， Sanders had gained support of only 5 House Democrats， while no Senate Democrats or governors had supported him. This figure can well be ignored compared with the support Clinton had from the Democratic establishment. However，Clinton's claims have significantly changed under the pressure of Sanders，especially after having experienced two major failures in New Hampshire and Michigan primaries. Given her close ties with Wall Street， Clinton has been largely silent about the problem of big banks. But after the New Hampshire primary， she had to declare that “No bank can be too big to fail， no executive too powerful to jail.” For this， Sanders said that those were his words.23Danny Freeman， “Sanders: Voter Turnout Not as High as I Had Wanted，” February 21， 2016， http://www. nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/sanders-voter-turnout-not-high-i-had-wanted-n523031.In the issues of tuition of public colleges， universal health care and trade protection，Clinton has partly accepted Sanders' points of view.24Matthew Yglesias， “Bernie Sanders Can Still Lead a Political Revolution — Even If He Loses，” March 15， 2016， http://www.vox.com/2016/3/15/11242926/bernie-sanders-political-revolution-future.In addition， Sanders' fund-raising model which is almost entirely dependent on micro-contributionshas even broken the record created by Obama in 2008. This constitutes not only enormous pressure on Hillary Clinton， but also strong denial of the increasingly serious money politics. Both Obama and senior Democrats have acknowledged that Sanders has largely mobilized people for the Democratic Party in the primaries. But they have repeatedly suggested that Sanders should expeditiously withdraw from the competition with Hillary Clinton in order to enable the latter to unite Democrats as soon as possible to contend with Trump as one.25Burgess Everett， “Democrats to Sanders: Time to Wind It Down，” March 21， 2016， http://www.politico. com/story/2016/03/bernie-dems-winddown-220966#ixzz43b8VcNP1.Many experts have argued that Sanders' policy guideline is not feasible in the polarized political environment and debt-ridden financial situation.26Dylan Matthews， “Study: Bernie Sanders's Single-Payer Plan Is Almost Twice as Expensive as He Says，”January 28， 2016， http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858644/bernie-sanders-kenneth-thorpe-single-payer.However， Sanders and his supporters did not flinch.

Similarities and Differences Between Trump and Sanders

On the American political spectrum， Sanders is at the far left end， the establishment Democrats represented by Hillary Clinton are the centreleft moderates， the pro-business conservatives represented by establishment Republicans have largely turned far right by now， and social conservatives such as the Tea Party represented by Cruz are at the right end. This being said， the position of Trump is difficult to identify. In terms of most economic and social issues， he is a moderate conservative， while for a small number of issues such as immigration， he adheres to the extreme conservative position. Although Sanders and Trump belong to different ideological camps， they are in fact similar with each other in many aspects.

First， the campaign of both Sanders and Trump is with strong populist color. Populist movement has at least two core features in common: worship and direct appeal to the people； and opposition to some elite groups. But the populist definition of people is usually of Manichean style. They use the simplistic method of binary opposition to divide all human beings into the noble “people” and some evil “others.” The latter could be elites， rulers， small Washington circles， Wall Street， big capitalists， unscrupulous lawyers or immigrants， and so on. The campaign of both Sanders and Trump has these features. Sanders has called on the people to launch a political revolution against the privileged， especially the rich and big companies. And Trump has mobilized people to expel illegal immigrants， exclude ethnic minorities， block Muslims and attack Wall Street. Both of them are creating “others，” trying to make who they believe to have damaged the US to pay the price.

Sanders， Trump and their own supporters have expressed their dissatisfaction and even anger with Wall Street， big companies and the establishment camps in both parties， but their priorities are highly different. What Sanders have launched was actually a “class struggle，” aimed at guiding the anger of victims to the rich and big companies. But for Trump， although he essentially also focuses on economic issues， he has mainly launched attacks on illegal immigrants and ethnic minorities， ignoring， in many ways，the principle of “political correctness” that has long taken shape in the US mainstream society. Their approaches have respectively reflected two different political traditions of the left-wing populism and right-wing populism. While the left-wing populism tends to favor the socialist ideology， the right-wing populism often has racist， nationalist and nativist colors. The two types of populist movements appeared in many crisis times in the US history. In the early 19th century， Jacksonian Democracy had the left-wing populist color. Its main backers include the northern working class， who opposed political and economic privileged classes. And the Knowing-Nothing Party at that time had the characteristics of the right-wing populism， who strongly opposed to immigration. The People's Party in the late 19th century was the largest left-wing populist movement in the US history. It was mainly about theopposition of western and southern farmers against big monopolies and the financial industry. And the Ku Klux Klan Movement in the early 20th century was typically of the right-wing populism. They strongly reject immigrants and ethnic minorities. The “Occupy Wall Street” movement and Tea Party movement emerged in recent years also belong to left and right-wing populist movements， respectively.

Both Sanders and Trump have succeeded in exploiting people's anxiety. But Trump has done a better job in taking advantage of politics of anxiety，because he has also exploited the cultural anxiety of the white working class. This class fear the decline of their size and status. They are confused by the changed traditional beliefs by rapid social changes， and are angry with their country losing global leadership.27Stephen Collinson， “How Trump and Sanders Tapped America's Economic Rage，” March 9， 2016， http:// www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/sanders-trump-economy-trade/.Such cultural or identity anxiety has added to their racist， nationalist and nativist opinions. While Sanders' populism is mainly focused on economic issues， he has inherited the internationalist elements of the socialist ideology in other areas.

Second， Sanders and Trump have overlapping voter bases. While Sanders' core supporters are mainly young people， he is also supported by middle—lower-class whites. And Trump's core supporters are mainly the latter. Their supporters also have a common characteristic: a very high proportion of whites. Although Sanders has not shown any racist color， his “political revolution”appeal has not received a clear response from the ethnic minorities， so he can only pose a threat to Clinton in northern states where there are more whites. And Trump's supporters are almost exclusively white. However， the ideology of the two groups of supporters has obvious differences. Sanders' supporters are extremely liberal on the whole， while Trump's belong to moderate conservatives. Although Sanders' supporters are dissatisfied with the status quo and elites of the US， they are not yet wrathful. They think that Obama is not aggressive enough， and has compromised too much in the face of Republicans，so they desire to push the Democratic Party to turn further left. Their opinions belong to the same category of ideology with the Democratic establishment，though they are more extreme and radical. Their impact on the Democratic Party is similar with the impact of the Tea Party on the Republicans.

By contrast， Trump and his supporters' ideology is obviously different from that of the Republican establishment or the Tea Party. They do not agree with the ideology of small government， free market economics and traditional values upheld by the latter two， nor do they care about the purity of the Republican ideology. But they are angry about the fact that Republican elites have failed to represent their interests. Since Sanders' ideas are more likely to be absorbed by the Democratic establishment， the possibility of Sanders winning the primary is smaller than Trump.

Moreover， the campaign strategies of the two candidates have a lot in common. Both Sanders and Trump have opposed money politics， and have refused the support of super political action committee （PAC）. Sanders relies mainly on small donations， while Trump uses his own money. Both have sticked to an anti-establishment attitude. Sanders has constantly criticized mistakes of senior Democrats， while Trump has directly showed his contempt for the establishment. Neither of them have the support of the establishment. As of March 15， Sanders received endorsements of only 5 House Democrats，and even Elizabeth Warren， who has similar ideology with him， has kept a neutral attitude； and Trump has only been endorsed by 4 representatives， 1 senator and 2 governors. The support he gets from senior Republicans is far less than Rubio， Bush， and even Cruz. In addition， although both of them hope to attract a wider range of voters， what they mainly rely on are still their core supporters. Sanders' appeal has not expanded significantly in the minorities，and Trump is far from uniting Republican voters.

Finally， there are also many similarities between Sanders and Trump's policy preferences. Both of them support groups that are economically disadvantaged and politically ignored， such as young people and blue-collar workers. Currently in the United States， the problem faced by young people is the heavy pressure of tuition fees， loans， and employment， while that faced by the blue-collar workers is the disappearance of jobs. Both have advocated the introduction of universal health care: Sanders wants to establish a single-payermedicare system run by the federal government for all people. And Trump has for many times promised to replace Obama's medicare system with a better one. Significant tax increases are necessary if the two's proposals are to become reality. Both Sanders and Trump have rejected the free trade theory upheld by bipartisan elites. They also oppose， in varying degrees， to globalization and regional trade agreements. Both believe that globalization and free trade have enabled countries such as China and Japan to rob the Americans of their jobs，so they both criticize the North American Free Trade Agreement （NAFTA）signed by Bill Clinton and the Trans-Pacific Partnership （TPP） supported by Obama， and require the implementation of trade protection. In terms of foreign policy， both are against overseas interventions by the US. But the diplomatic thought of Sanders is mainly based on pacifism， while that of Trump has a strong inclination to isolationism. Neither Sanders nor Trump is a typical US presidential candidate. Instead， they are more like a left-wing or right-wing politician in Europe.

Despite all the similarities between Sanders and Trump， the differences between the two have determined that it will be hard for their supporters to form a left-right-wing populist political coalition. The past more than 40 years have witnessed growing political polarization in American elites. The ideology of voters has been more and more related to their party identity. As a result， there has been serious political division and political deadlock. With his relatively mild ideology， Trump seems to be more capable of uniting left and right-wing voters. And， while Sanders and his supporters have repeatedly attacked Trump， some of them are also likely to vote for him. However， the highly different ideology of the two has determined that their supporters can hardly unite. According to a survey of The Wall Street Journal， only 6% of voters will consider the two candidates at the same time. According to a Pew survey， only 4% of those surveyed think that both are good or great， and only 15% have given them above-average evaluation. 77% of Sanders' supporters think that Trump is terrible， while 60% of Trump's supporters feel that Sandersis terrible.28Thomas B. Edsall， “The Trump-Sanders Fantasy，” February 24， 2016， http://www.nytimes. com/2016/02/24/opinion/campaign-stops/the-trump-sanders-fantasy.html.Moreover， Trump has so far only received support from a small percentage of Republican voters， and its core supporters， the white working class， are declining continuously.

The Underlying Causes for the Trump and Sanders Phenomena

Trump and the Sanders' campaign activities have a lot in common concerning their form and content. There are some shared reasons behind， including the decline of American middle class and blue-collar whites， increasing economic inequality， troubled democracy， changed international status of the US， etc.. Specifically， the reasons are as follows.

First， American middle class and blue-collar whites have significantly declined. Since the last half a century， the size of American middle class and blue-collar whites has been constantly shrinking. In 1971， 61% of the American adults were living in middle-income families. This ratio has declined steadily over the past decades. And by 2015， it has been reduced to less than 50% （the data is 49%）. By contrast， there is an increasing proportion of lowincome population， from 25% in 1971 to 29% in 2015. The proportion of the high-income class has risen from 14% in 1971 to 21% in 2015.29Pew Research Center， “The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground: No Longer the Majority and Falling behind Financially” ， Washington， D.C.: December 2015， p. 7.In the past more than 20 years， the real income of the US middle class has basically been at a standstill. In 2014， the median family income of US was 53，657 US dollars， significantly lower than the 1999 figure of 57，826 US dollars， and about equal to the 1989 figure of 53，290 US dollars.30U.S. Census Bureau， “Income and Poverty in the United States，” 2014， pp. 31-33， https://www.census. gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf.

The decline of the blue-collar class is even more serious. Most of them have accepted no college degree， and are concentrated in the secondary industry dominated by manufacturing. Due to the in-depth development of globalization and technological progress， America's labor-intensive manufacturing industry has largely moved abroad or outsourced. Even if theObama administration pushes re-industrialization， the US manufacturing industry will rely more heavily on technology rather than labor. At its peak in 1979， the American manufacturing industry created 20 million jobs. By 2015，although there are nearly 100 million people added to the US population during this period， only 12 million manufacturing jobs were left， less than 9% of total employment.31United States Bureau of Labor Statistics Data， http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet.While shrinking sharply in size， the blue-collar class also suffer from declining economic status. In all groups， the non-college-graduated people have been the biggest victims of economic status changes over the past decades: There has been a significant decline in their proportion in the highincome class， and a steady rise of their proportion in the low-income one. In addition， young people under 30 years of age are also major victims.32Pew Research Center， “The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground: No longer the Majority and Falling behind Financially，” Washington， D.C.: December 2015， p. 10.In the slow economic recovery since 2010， increased good jobs have been mainly occupied by college-graduated people. On the contrary， blue-collar workers have lost 70，000 good jobs. The jobs they newly got have basically belonged to the low-income level.33Anthony P. Carnevale， Tamara Jayasundera and Artem Gulish， “Good Jobs Are Back: College Graduates Are First in Line，” p. 14， https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Good-Jobs_Full_Final.pdf.

Economic status decline has been accompanied by the deterioration in their mental condition. Over the past 20 years， the mortality rate of middleaged white Americans witnessed a significant rise， mainly due to external factors， such as suicide， drug abuse and alcohol abuse. This phenomenon occurs mainly among those non-college-graduated people， indicating strong correlation between decline of economic status and deterioration of mental condition.34Case， Anne， and Angus Deaton， “Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife among White Non-Hispanic Americans in the 21stCentury，” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences， Vol. 112， No. 49 （2015）， pp. 15078-15083.

Francis Fukuyama， who was once very optimistic about American democracy， has given his own explanation for the shrinking size of the country's middle class. In his view， technological innovation and globalization have destroyed the foundation of the middle class， resulting in the fact that onlya few in developed societies have access to middle-class status. He has also found that Americans' median income has stagnated since 1970. Due to the stagnation of real income growth and social inequality in income distribution，most people in the society have found it increasingly difficult to enter the ranks of the middle class. In terms of the internal reasons， as the United States would not carry out income redistribution like European welfare states， the economic benefits brought about by technological innovation have been occupied by very few elites with the greatest capability， leading to intensified inequality. In“the age of intelligent machines，” every step of great technological progress is accompanied by the loss of a large number of low-skilled jobs， also enabling financial wizards and software engineers to possess more national wealth. For external reasons， globalization has led to the fact that work was done by the older-generation of middle class in the developed world can now be completed in other countries at a cheaper price. As a result， despite increased total revenue in developed countries， their jobs have flowed abroad.35Francis Fukuyama， “The Future of History， Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class？ ，” Foreign Affairs， January/February 2012， pp. 52-61.

The decline of the middle class and white working class have made them politically angry and aggressive. The core tenet of the “US exceptionalism” is that: The United States is a middle class-dominated country， and the middle class is the cornerstone of American democracy； the United States is a country full of opportunities and with strong social and economic mobility， so there is no soil for radical political movements in the United States. However， in the past decades， the size of American middle class was shrinking， many members of the middle class fell into the low-income class， and the ascending channel of the blue-collar class was increasingly narrow. Facing such drastic social changes，the middle class as a “silent majority” has become more radical， and the rebellion of the politically ignored white working class broke out as well. The rebellion of the middle and lower class in the US has usually had a populist color. They call themselves to be the majority of the US society， fighting against the squeeze from both the top and bottom. Sanders and Trump have provided them with extreme left-wing and right-wing populist solutions， targetingat different objects including the wealthy， Wall Street， financial sector， illegal immigrants and ethnic minorities. As globalization， free trade and neoliberal economics are major causes for the decline of American middle class and white working class， the two groups of people have strenuously objected to existing policies such as free trade and regional trade agreements carried out by the bipartisan establishment， demanding to bring jobs back to the United States.

Second， the past few decades have witnessed increasing economic inequality in the US. Since the 1970s， the United States has entered a new Gilded Age， with the level of economic inequality climbing to a historical peak. One of the index used most commonly to measure economic inequality is the Gini coefficient. According to the data of the United States Census Bureau， the Gini coefficient of American household income was 0.353 in 1970， and later rose all the way to 0.48 in 2014，36United States Census Bureau， “Historical Income Tables: Income Inequality，” https://www.census.gov/ hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/.far more than the 0.4 cordon. The Gini coefficient of the US is the highest in major developed countries. According to the statistics of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development（OECD）， the pre-tax Gini coefficient of the US in 2012 was as high as 0.513，and after-tax 0.389. Among the 34 member countries of the OECD， only Ireland， Greece and Portugal， which suffered serious sovereign debt crisis，had higher Gini coefficients than the United States， while those of the others were all lower. In terms of after-tax Gini coefficient， the figures for all OECD developed members were lower than the US. Only Mexico and Turkey， two developing countries， were a little higher. Compared with the United States，the tax policies of European countries have far better effects on reducing income inequality.37OECD Income Distribution Database， http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx？queryid=66670.

Another important indicator for measuring economic inequality is the share of the wealthiest in terms of income and wealth. During the 46 years from 1968 to 2014， the share of income of the highest quintile household in the total household income of the US increased by 20%. Over the same period， the share of income of the lowest quintile household dropped by 26%.The shares of other three quintile groups all declined in the 46 years， dropping by 26%， 19% and 5%， respectively.38U.S. Census Bureau， “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2014，” pp. 31-36， https://www.census. gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf.Studies of scholars such as Thomas Piketty， a well-known French economist and author of the Capital in the Twenty-First Century， and Emmanuel Saez， Professor of Economics， University of California， Berkeley， have shown that since the 1970s， the wealth of the US has been increasingly concentrated in the hands of the top few. In 1929， the wealthiest 0.1% of American families approximately accounted for 25% of the total household wealth. The proportion fell constantly in the wake of the Great Depression and the New Deal. After reaching its lowest point of 7.1% in 1978，the proportion rose rapidly to reach 22% in 2012， back to the level before the Great Depression. During the same period， the share of wealth possessed by 90% of middle and lower American families has witnessed a completely opposite trend of change. In 2012， the wealth occupied by 0.1% richest families was almost equal to that by the 90% middle and lower families.39Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman， http://gabriel-zucman.eu/uswealth/.According to the above data， the economic inequality of the US has returned to the historical peak， with income and wealth increasingly concentrated in the hands of the richest few.

Economic inequality has a serious impact on US politics. In general，political elites are more likely to respond to high and middle-income voters. Republican Party response to higher-income voters is stronger than Democratic Party. Both parties respond to middle-income voters in similar ways. But for low-income voters， there is almost no response. In the context of worse economic inequality， Republican elites have the greatest increase of response to high-income voters， while Democratic elites have the greatest increase of response to middle-income voters. Thus， economic inequality has actually enhanced the political influence of the rich. Whether the “99% vs. 1%” slogan of the Occupy Wall Street movement， or Sanders' prioritization of economic inequality， none are without reasons. Even Trump who runs for the Republican presidential nomination also has statements from time to time against WallStreet and the financial sector， claiming that Wall Street's big money has stained American politics， and that the tax evasion of hedge-fund managers has damaged the interests of the middle class.40Maxwell Tani， “Donald Trump: Hedge Fund Guys Are Getting away with Murder，” Aug. 23， 2015， http:// www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-hedge-funds-2015-8.

Third， the American democracy is in serious trouble. Since 1970，American politics has been increasingly polarized. Ideological homogeneity within each party has grown， and the heterogeneity between the two parties has become stronger. And average people have greater party identity. Economic inequality is one of the main causes of increased political polarization. Growing political polarization has not led any party to prevail. On the contrary， as a result of balance of power in US political system， more and more political confrontations and deadlocks have emerged. Compromise and consensus， foundation for the existence of a democracy， have been replaced by what Fukuyama calls as “vetocracy.”41Francis Fukuyama， “America in Decay: The Sources of Political Dysfunction，” Foreign Affairs，September/October 2014， pp. 5-26.

The several years of the Obama administration have witnessed the most serious political polarization since the 20th century. The health care reform bill he has been vigorously promoting was unanimously opposed by all Republicans in both houses （except for one Republican senator voting abstention）， but was supported by all Democratic senators and most Democratic representatives. Long-term bipartisan opposition has caused people's serious distrust of the government. According to American National Election Studies in 1964， Americans' trust in government index was as high as 61%， but later the index was declining， and in 2012 it was only 22%. It also showed that only 20% of Americans trust the government most of the time，while 76% of Americans trust the government sometimes.42American National Election Studies， “Trust in Government Index 1958-2012，” http://www.electionstudies. org/nesguide/toptable/tab5a_5.htm； Trust the Federal Government 1958-2012， http://www.electionstudies.org/ nesguide/toptable/tab5a_1.htm.The Congress has always witnessed the most intense and chronic bipartisan fights. And Americans' confidence in the Congress is especially low. In 1973， there were still 43% of Americans having faith in the Congress， but by 2014， this figurereduced to a staggering 7%.43Rebecca Riffkin， “Public Faith in Congress Falls Again， Hits Historic Low，” June 19， 2014， http://www. gallup.com/poll/171710/public-faith-congress-falls-again-hits-historic-low.aspx.Distrust of the government and politicians is undoubtedly important expression of lack of representation of certain groups of representative democracy， which has provided fertile soil for the rise of the populist movement.

The white working class represented by Trump has always been a silent group within the Republican Party. Their interest demand for a big government has been ignored by the Republican establishment upholding small government and free trade， so they are eager to launch a great rebellion within the Republican Party. In the Democratic camp， young Americans used to support Obama with great enthusiasm in 2008， but the latter have failed to deliver his promise to launch political reforms made during his campaign. Instead， Obama has compromised again and again， and has done very limited concerning economic inequality. Therefore， in the 2016 election， young Americans have abandoned Clinton supported by Obama， and turned to Sanders， who is more left-wing. Both Trump and Sanders have vehemently attacked the establishment in the two parties. Trump has completely ignored the principle of “politically correctness” set up for long by the elites， nor has he cared about Republican orthodox principles. And Sanders has boldly broken the political traditions of the US， and straightforwardly advocated democratic socialism.

It is important to note that the rebellions led by Trump and Sanders are obviously different in terms of their positions in the two parties. Over the past more than 40 years， the American political polarization was not symmetrical. The right turn of the Republican Party is the main driving force of political polarization， the extent of which far exceeds that of the Democratic Party's left turn， making the Republicans extremely conservative. In the early days of the Obama administration， the United States witnessed the two populist movements of Tea Party and “Occupy Wall Street.” The latter can be regarded as rehearsal of Sanders' campaign in 2016. It was also an effort to push US politics further left. But the Tea Party movement is highly different fromTrump's campaign. The Tea Party movement forced Republicans to further turn right， making mainstream Republicans to stay away from relatively moderate conservative voters， which added to the charisma of Trump for that group of people.

In short， the issue can be viewed this way: the campaign of Sanders has forced the Democratic Party to turn further left， which may represent the future tendency of the party； and the campaign of Trump is an attempt to bring the Republican Party back to the moderate conservative ideology， while it might just be the party's heresy.

Fourth， the Trump and Sanders phenomena have reflected the cognitive differences of the Americans for their national identity. The renowned American political scientist Samuel Huntington once discussed the issue of American national identity in his book Who Are We？ The Challenges to America's National Identity， believing that in the future， there are three solutions for the US to decide its national identity: cosmopolitanism， imperialism， and nationalism. The cosmopolitan solution requires the world to shape the US，and the Americans will listen more to international authorities rather than rules made by their own government； the imperialist solution requires the US to shape the world， which demands US power to be unrivaled in the world and its values universally applicable； and the nationalist solution needs the Americans to carry forward the Anglo-Protestant culture， traditions and values again. Huntington himself may favor the last solution.

According to Huntington's definition， the current bipartisan mainstream of the US seems to prefer imperialist solution. They all think， though varying in degree， that the power of the US is still the strongest in the world， and that the US should launch a military overseas intervention when necessary to promote US values， and all adhere to free trade. Trump opposes the bipartisan consensus in this regard. He has a strong inclination to isolationism when it comes to foreign policy. He questions， with a businessman's eyes， the legitimacy of US military intervention， overseas troops， and even the maintenance of NATO. Trump also defends， with extreme means， the uniqueness of the United States. He calls for the construction of a wall to prevent Mexicanimmigrants， and demands banning the entrance of Muslims into the US. He questions that Obama's place of birth was not in the US， and concludes that Cruz is not qualified to be a US president as he was born in Canada. He claims that the United States has become a dump piled with others' problems. Trump also strongly opposes free trade and regional trade agreements， and calls for reclaiming American jobs from China and Japan. The “America First” principle upheld by Trump may be closer to the nationalist solution of Huntington.

Sanders has also tried to break the mainstream understanding of American identity， but his direction is completely opposite to Trump's. Sanders also opposes military intervention overseas， but he is based on pacifism. He also opposes regional trade agreements， but the starting point is that globalization has harmed disadvantaged groups and human development. He warmly praises the northern European welfare states， hoping a similar welfare system built in the US. Therefore， Sanders' understanding of American identity is more in line with the cosmopolitan solution: He hopes that the United States can further integrate into the international community， and be more like some other countries.

But one thing is clear: neither Trump nor Sanders still insists the imperialist solution believing that US power is unchallenged in the world，and that American values are universally applicable. This reflects that after the decline of US international status and relative power， a considerate number of Americans have re-understood their American identity.

The campaign courses of Trump and Sanders have demonstrated that they and their supporters have chosen totally different solutions in the face of the problems of the US today. However， even if Trump ultimately wins the Republican nomination， and Sanders' “rebellion” poses huge pressure on Clinton， it is hard to imagine that their extreme claims can be sufficiently accepted by America's mainstream politics.

Zhou Qi is Executive President of the National Strategy Institute， Tsinghua University and Research Fellow of Institute of American Studies， Chinese Academy of Social Sciences； Fu Suixin is Assistant Research Fellow at China Institute of International Studies. This article was translated from International Economic Review， Issue 3， 2016.