When Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders Are the Same Person

This is an opinion from the Center. 

When Abdul El-Sayed claimed victory in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary last Wednesday morning, it was not hard to look back into recent political history to identify the roots of his triumph. Since Bernie Sanders first emerged as a force on the national political landscape, the Democratic Socialists of America have been pulling the party gradually and relentlessly leftward. El-Sayed is simply the latest step in a process that began with Sanders in 2016, escalated with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ election two years after that, exploded with Zohran Mamdani’s decisive victory in New York City last year, and has now extended into the country’s heartland.

But Sanders is not the only American politician to start a revolution.

For over a decade, Sanders and Donald Trump have dominated American politics in a way that few other elected leaders or candidates have done in modern history. Both have fundamentally redefined their respective political parties, vanquishing the existing party establishment and replacing it with a grassroots-driven radicalized insurgency. The Bush and Clinton-shaped party structures and ideologies that preceded them are gone, and they are unlikely to return in any recognizable way.

Both Trump and Sanders became political players long before the 2016 election. Sanders was elected to Congress in 1990 and had served in local politics in Vermont for ten years before that. Trump had speculated about the possibility of running for president for years, although few took his musings seriously. So when the two men formally entered the presidential campaign within weeks of each other in the spring of 2015, there was little indication that either would present anything more than a minor speed bump as frontrunners Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton cruised to their party’s nominations.

But in remarkably similar ways, Sanders and Trump both kindled street-level uprisings that channeled populist resentment and anger against the political establishment. Traditional leaders like Clinton and Bush never saw it coming. Trump, of course, went on to the White House. But Sanders only lost the Democratic nomination by the skin of his teeth, and many credible observers believed that it was only the Clinton machine’s hammerlock control of the Democratic National Committee that prevented Sanders from succeeding. 

Although Trump’s takeover faced less institutional resistance than Sanders, both employed extremely similar political and rhetorical tools to motivate their supporters into storming the palace gates. Trump talked to unemployed factory workers. Sanders bonded with underemployed baristas. But both candidates made it clear to those frustrated by their economic circumstances that they would be welcome as part of these uprisings and that their voices would be heard. Sanders and Trump both promised to listen, and for many of their most devoted followers, that was good enough.

Over the last ten years, DSA and MAGA have progressed on similar tracks, with one significant difference. One movement elected a president, and the other did not. So while Trump’s two presidencies have had a dramatic impact on American policy, culture, and society, the effect of Sanders and his colleagues was less immediately apparent.

But with El-Sayed’s nomination, that may be changing. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez and other more recent DSA successes have come in deep-blue areas in safely Democratic seats. When Trump ran for president, he expanded the Tea Party’s reach from bastions of stalwart conservatism to swing voters in more contested races. If El-Sayed is elected in November, he will represent the first significant ultra-progressive victory in the battleground states. Even if he loses and Michigan sends a Republican to the Senate for the first time since 1995, the fact that he secured his party’s nomination against a far better-funded centrist opponent suggests that the Democrats’ left flank begins the party’s 2028 primary season from a position of great strength.

Sanders himself has indicated that he will not seek the presidency again. El-Sayed’s comments suggest that he is more interested in being kingmaker than seeking the throne himself. But an extremely liberal candidate such as Ocasio-Cortez, or Senator Chris Van Hollen, or a more unknown or improbable outsider could be well-positioned in a contest against the types of candidates normally supported by the embattled Democratic establishment.

Republicans are gleeful at the prospect of running against opponents rushing to the far left. But this current populist emotional explosion comes from the same angry place that Trump himself has tapped into so effectively over the years. Trump twice rode that wave to the Oval Office, but Sanders’ long-term impact is still undetermined—and potentially growing.

Want to talk about this topic more? You can read more of Dan’s writing at www.danschnurpolitics.com.