It is impossible to listen to the candidates of this election cycle without hearing mention of the “establishment,” a sort of shady organization within politics that prevents the goodwill of the people from being heard or legislation from being passed, and anyone who isn’t part of the establishment, it can be assumed, is not longed for the political world because they speak the truth on a certain issue the establishment does not want to let out.
It is by no doubt an effective tool by populist candidates who are already outsiders within the respective party primaries they are running, but is this idea of the establishment really that accurate? Sure there may be systems such as the superdelegates that are questionable, but, as I’ve written before, they are not that serious.
The system that parties make in their primary processes are of course going to want to make it easier for candidates who are within the party’s rank and file. The presidential candidate leads the party’s policy until at least November 2016 and even further if they are elected, so why would they want a candidate that goes off-script or changes their policy away from the central platforms of the party? A perfect example of this is the Republican Party with Donald Trump: They are currently spending a massive amount of time burying hatchets because it has become clear Trump’s policy preferences are not as aligned with the party as many conservatives would hope for. This has even pushed some out of the party entirely.
So who is part of the establishment? Is it all of the members of Congress, most of which are re-elected in their districts by their constituents with great approval? Or is it other members of the party elite who take their party’s interests over that of the American people, which doesn’t make sense since parties want their members to win as much as possible? And what about the “anti-establishment” candidates who win their party’s primary like Trump? Does his position as leader of the party translate into him being incorporated into the establishment even though he says he will change things in Washington?
Being an agent of change within a system still means you are part of it. If Bernie Sanders would’ve won the Democratic primary, then he, too, would have had to conform the establishment of his party with some of his ideas, thus becoming part of this establishment.
While candidates can make the argument that the system is rigged against them, it is important to remember that candidates too often confuse all lost games with rigged ones. Sanders and his supporters will argue that the superdelegate system is rigged to help Hillary Clinton, but the system has been in place for years, not just for the secretary’s election, and even without said delegates, people are still voting for her over Sanders. The will of the voters does not seem like a rigged system, but that does not fit the narrative needed to perpetuate the loss of a certain election.
The calls against the establishment are just another trend in this election cycle of oversimplifying complex political and economic issues into a sound bite that can be repeated. Sometimes, losing is not because the establishment wanted you to lose, it might be that voters just didn’t agree with your ideas.
Kevin Foster is a UF political science senior. His column appears on Tuesdays.
