Subscription 790/year or 190/quarter

Why not Sanders?

A Campaign of their Own
Why didn't Bernie Sanders win in the general election? Swiss documentary reveals astonishing system failure in the US electoral system.




(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)

It is still difficult to understand how the election of President Trump was possible. How can a civilized, well-educated country like the United States want to return to the Middle Ages? How could the people choose a leader who uses a democratic system based on the distribution of power in such a way that it has disastrous consequences for the future of the planet? How is it possible for someone who views "journalism" as a form of manipulation and "scientists" as people who scare children with their horror stories, to be given the opportunity to run as presidential candidate? Who voted for Trump? How and why?

Lionel Rupp and Michael David Mitchell provide parts of a possible answer in his recent documentary A Campaign of Their Own. The film has just had its world premiere as part of the competition program at the Swiss Vision de Réel festival. The filmmakers followed men and women who wanted to return to the basic values ​​of American ideology: combating racism, female discrimination, segregation; to defend freedom of thought and speech and social justice; to demand entirely new ways of distributing wealth and effective measures to remove the ever-growing abyss between rich and poor in the United States. And there was one man who had all this in his program: Bernie Sanders. Campaign Sanders' followers follow through the crucial election weeks.

Bernie's followers feel they are losing everything they have fought for.

Undemocratic electoral system. An astonishing example of how complicated the American system is comes early in the film, when we get a glimpse of the demands placed on independent voters (voters who do not belong to any political party). The can participate in voting for the final presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, but must fight virtually to be allowed to participate in this process. It is required that these voters cast their vote for the full six months before the final election. It is estimated that approximately 3,2 million people were excluded in New York State alone as a result of this provision. In addition, it was not allowed to vote through the post. It is the parties themselves who decide who can and cannot vote. This is the first shocking reveal in Campaign. Another very important point is that voters have to pay 27 dollars to be allowed to vote; in this way, the already marginalized part of the electorate is excluded.

In short: Where Obama represented hope, Sanders stood for clear, concrete steps toward a social revolution. This was the challenge, but the National Democratic Committee (NDC) played a dirty game and broke the rules for the sake of its own interests, as WikiLeaks has shown.

Outsider's campaign. The NDC's interests in another candidate undermined the importance of the procedures during the party's national meeting. Many delegates could have been significantly more active, visible and resolute when it came to supporting Sanders. He received the most support from independents, around 8 million dollars and 13 million votes.

It is the parties themselves who decide who can and cannot vote.

Perhaps the most important and disappointing thing for Sanders supporters was witnessing how Sanders himself handled his defeat. Instead of standing on his own, emphasizing his ideas and values, and ensuring that he was still dedicated to his belief in a more just society, he handed this responsibility to opponent Clinton. She was now going to take his intentions for the American people further, the message read.

At the home of Jonathan Katz and his cohabitant, so far fiery Sanders followers, filmmakers are noticing their deep shock at Sanders' new rhetoric. When Bernie talks about everything they've "achieved," the grassroots in his campaign actually experience losing everything they've fought for. What they expected from his candidate was that he at least maintained his position to the last. Instead, he delegated it to a figure that represented, for hundreds of thousands of Americans, the very incarnation of government power play and manipulation; a politician who favored The Happy Few, those who took advantage of the interests of capitalists; a figure that had never shown any care for the oppressed and underprivileged. Clinton stands for a policy that leads to grotesque social inequalities, a policy that also includes unacceptable minimum wages and hefty tax cuts that favor the rich. In short, she is the embodiment of Wall Street – not to forget her statements in the 1990 about African Americans.

Resigned revolutionary. But Sanders is giving up the revolution. Stylistically, the directors Rupp and Mitchell add to the tradition direct cinema, as they follow the Sanders supporters on campaigns and meetings. They get hold of their enthusiasm, and later the concern when they consider themselves a "lost generation", but this time a generation of all ages. We follow those who sang "Trump beats Clinton, but Bernie beats Trump," those who declared that they were awakened by Sanders and sing traditional indigenous songs, and all those who now feel deeply disillusioned. Some are noticeably more cynical in their comments, stating that people who want real change have zero chance in the system. That Sanders may have played only a fateful strategic role in obtaining votes. Was he deliberately an accomplice? The suspicion of manipulated voices is of course also included.

The belief in a real opportunity to fight against a government that is fighting against its own people is now impossible for a long time to come. After this traumatic experience, it seems understandable that the "losers" will vote against the one who destroyed their hope, and not, unfortunately, against the absurd puppet that no one took seriously.

Dieter Wieczorek
Dieter Wieczorek
Wieczorek is a critic living in Paris.

You may also like