Author: Vincent Chow

Congress has not been popular the last few years. Constantly criticised for its record-breaking dysfunction and inaction, charges of petty partisanship and irresponsible grandstanding have dominated assessments of its performance in recent years. Members of Congress have been hounded by their constituents and the media, all demanding to know why they seemingly refuse to compromise, put away partisan differences and work across the aisle for the sake of the American people. Record low approval ratings reflect the public’s indignation – at their lowest point in 2013, members of Congress were polling less favourably than head lice.

It must therefore be somewhat bemusing for them to watch the current election unfold.

Last Monday, the primary season kicked-off with the Iowa caucuses. Hillary Clinton unconvincingly prevailed over self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders by 0.3 percentage points, whilst on the Republican side, Texas firebrand Ted Cruz somewhat upset the odds by beating billionaire businessman Donald Trump into second place. Last night, in the New Hampshire primaries, Sanders and Trump blew their opponents out the water, both securing comprehensive victories that would have been unthinkable only a short time ago.

It’s safe to say not many would have predicted these results from Iowa and New Hampshire a few months ago. In fact, most punters had hedged their bets on a general election between establishment candidates, Clinton and Jeb Bush. That match-up looks extremely unlikely now, not least because Bush finished 6^th in Iowa.

The irony should not be lost on anyone: after years of bemoaning Congress’ partisan malady, voters have rallied around candidates who occupy the extreme ends of their respective parties, candidates whose positions on many issues sit diametrically opposed. The cries for compromise and bipartisanship have not translated into support for relatively moderate candidates like Rand Paul, whose early demise in the race is an astonishing one considering the fact that he was tipped as one of the favourites only a few months ago.

Democrats have defied the predictions of the commentariat by propelling Sanders into a neck-and-neck, one-on-one scrap with Clinton. Previously the “inevitable” nominee, the centrist former First Lady is now in a real battle no one had predicted before with a much more radically progressive candidate. Sanders’ progressive policies might not be very radical in the eyes of us here across the Atlantic, or even, evidently, in the eyes of many Democrats, but certainly qualifies as extreme in the eyes of many amongst the American population.

For example, Sanders’ signature proposal is to replace the existing healthcare system with single-payer which will provide free healthcare for all Americans. Bear in mind, as President, he will have to navigate a dysfunctional political landscape that has responded to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) with 62 attempts to repeal it in Congress and huge national unpopularity. The massive obstacles that faced Obamacare, rather modest when compared to what Sanders is proposing, and the sustained attempts to dismantle it by Republicans tells us that Sander’s proposal to have universal healthcare in America is unviable.

Setting the idealism aside, the truth is that Sanders’ pledge to deliver free healthcare is not a serious proposal in the USA, analogous to any promise to confiscate or ban all guns. It is almost inconceivable to think that a Sanders presidency would be able to garner the political will needed for such a radical departure from the status quo, especially when considering the detrimental economic implications that could arise from such a course of action.

On the other side, Republican voters have rallied around Senator Cruz and Trump, both men whose contempt for the Democrats is only paralleled by their contempt for the Republican establishment. Much has been written about the astonishing rise of Trump, who has led the crowded field consistently over the last few months. In fact, I think too much has been written about him, so I want to focus on Cruz, whose surge in the polls is as fascinating as Trump’s.

Few senators rouses more ire amongst fellow members of Congress than Cruz. A flag-bearer of the Tea Party, he played a prominent role in the 2013 government shutdown, infamously making a 21 hour speech calling for the defunding of Obamacare. His refusal to work with those across the aisle, or even those in his own party who are willing to do so, has not endeared him to the Republican establishment (John McCain called him a “wacko bird”). But, his belligerent behaviour in Congress has not diminished his chances of being President; on the contrary, his staunch refusal to compromise and his outspoken contempt for those who do has enhanced his popularity amongst grassroots conservatives. A steady ascent in the polls have come on the back of controversial statements: he’s claimed that the “majority of violent criminals are Democrats” and has pledged to “carpet bomb” entire Syrian cities.

The fascinating question being asked by many people is: what explains the astonishing success of anti-establishment, radical and unapologetic candidates in the election so far? Some argue that the early primaries have always been happy hunting grounds for more radical candidates, citing Mike Huckabee’s win in Iowa in 2008 and Rick Santorum’s win in the same state in 2012 as evidence of this. Both candidates did not maintain traction in the subsequent months and had their campaigns fizzle out into obscurity. Perhaps the successes so far of candidates like Sanders, Cruz and Trump is not surprising, considering the long history of establishment candidates struggling to win the early states.

The problem with this argument is that candidates like Sanders, Cruz and Trump aren’t fizzling out any time soon. Sanders is now virtually tied with Clinton in national polls, while Cruz and Trump are leading the Republican field comfortably, topping every national poll. Also, it’s worth noting that New Hampshire has an excellent record of picking the Republican nominees – both Romney in 2012 and McCain in 2008 lost Iowa then won New Hampshire and went on to become the Republican nominee. A Trump presidency doesn’t seem so impossible now.

Instead, to answer the question, we must look at what is currently happening in its context. This election is occurring on the back of years of increasing polarisation in the American public, a phenomenon that has been well documented. Studies have shown that the country has never been more ideologically divided than it has been in the last few years. It perhaps explains why the current election has been so unlike any other in recent memory in terms of its unpredictability, as well as its candidates’ propensity to write controversial headlines. Divisions in the country are deepening and increasing in number, and voters are becoming increasingly opposed to their counterparts on the other side of the spectrum. The success of candidates like Sanders and Trump reflects this reality. The messages of hope and national unity central to Obama’s 2008 campaign is almost nowhere to be found, supplanted by an attitude of antipathy towards those with divergent views. An increasingly polarised country is having an extremely polarised election.

If what we’ve seen so far is any indicator for what we should expect in the coming weeks and months, this election will only accentuate the deep fundamental divides in the country, and not lessen them. Relatively centrist candidates like Clinton and Rubio are being out-flanked by anti-establishment candidates appealing to the far-left and far-right in their respective parties, forcing them to shift away from a centre-ground that is more conducive for success in the general election, where securing the support of independents is key.

More significantly, the importance of a relevant centre-ground in American politics is that it is more conducive for hopes of a more united country. However, an unsettling “hollowing-out” of the political landscape is currently under way, where moderate, centrist candidates must reposition themselves away from the centre-ground to have a viable chance at securing their party’s nomination. This of course has always been the case, but it’s clear that this election has been markedly tougher for relatively moderate establishment candidates, more so than past elections.

A void is growing in the centre-ground of American politics. Candidates on neither side are willing to fill it as voters grow further apart, populating increasingly distant ends of the political continuum. It is a new reality that does not bode well for those pining for a more united and less partisan country.