Looking at the US 2016 Election Through the Lens of the Spanish Civil War
In the middle of January this year, Donald Trump took the oath of office to become the 45th president of the United States. This was a feat that surprised a large number of people on both the left and right sides of American politics. However, a thorough analysis of the Spanish Civil War as told through the first-hand experience of George Orwell indicates that this should not have been a surprise.
The 2016 US election created divisions along many ideological lines, similar to the beginning of the Spanish Civil War. The individualism of the leftist groups caused coalitions to fall apart, aided by yellow journalism, causing the weak left to be dominated by a strong unified right. Of course, the dynamic nature of American Democracy means this is a temporary phenomenon that will probably not have the same long-term consequences as Franco’s domination of Spain in the civil war’s aftermath.
The Civil War began when Francisco Franco began a rebellion against the Second Spanish Republic. This led a coalition of left-wing and centrist parties with the goal of repelling the attacks. This coalition included the Republicans, Communists in the PSUC, Socialists in the POUM, and the Anarchists in the FAI. Each of these groups had different ideas for the type of government the country should have, but the threat of Fascism united them all.
Many cities in Spain, such as Barcelona, had developed a Marxist culture. Everyone was viewed as socially equal and the workers owned the means of production. Many hoped this attitude would be adopted all across the country and continued to advance the cause of revolution throughout the war, believing the two were deeply intertwined. This was a view endorsed by the POUM. The PSUC disagreed, believing the war to be higher priority than revolution.
This is similar to the left in American politics during the Democratic primaries. Hillary Clinton represented the mainstream Democratic party while Bernie Sanders represented the revolutionary wing. He called for a revolution and advocated for novel ideas in US politics such as universal, guaranteed healthcare and tuition-free universities. His ideas gained a lot of interest among the nation’s youth as well as appealed to many individuals who have felt left out by the quickly changing economy. He believed that the working class needed more support against the top wealthy Americans. His thoughts align closely with modern day Scandinavian countries like Sweden and can be called “Social Democracy” or “Democratic Socialism”.
Clinton, although at times mirroring his rhetoric, did not endorse the same policies. Running in the same party as the current president, she tended to avoid criticizing the current administration. Ideas like universal healthcare were said to be too radical. Although the unemployment rate was low, labor force participation had also been falling and many people had stopped looking for work. Still, Clinton maintained a fully optimistic view of the economy.
As the election season began, candidates like Trump were given the most attention for their radical ideology. Hillary Clinton pointed to Trump many times with a call that his ideas had to be defeated. Bernie Sanders agreed, and at times appeared to be more sincere with his denouncement of Trump’s rhetoric. Sanders recognized a dissatisfaction with the system and genuinely wanted to reform it to help more people.
Overall the Democratic primary was calm and polite. Sanders and Clinton discussed where they agree and where they differed. However, there was infighting about these disagreements. Clinton supporters wanted Sanders to stop criticizing her, for fear of making her too weak in the general election. They said that everyone had to come together to defeat Trump. Sanders and his supporters didn’t agree with this idea. It appeared to be a way to cut off all discussion of revolution and ignoring valid criticism.
The American Progressive movement had difficulty getting their message out. Lots of the media was not favorable to them. Press during the Spanish Civil War tried to ignore instances of revolution happening in the city. Partially this was along partisan lines, but it was also done strategically to appeal to foreign nations for aid. England and France wouldn’t support revolution, but they would support a fight against Fascism. A weak global economy and war weariness meant allies were not very helpful.
The in-fighting among different ideological parties in the US and in Spain was often more bitter than against their mutual enemy. While both groups wanted victory on their side, there was a lot of uncertainty about what would happen after. Would each nation see revolutionary change or would there be a return to unwelcome status quo?
Fake news has been a major topic at the end of the election and in the months after. As Orwell experienced during the Spanish Civil War, it is a problem which has long existed. The purpose is to cast the movement in a negative light by making them seem incompetent or evil. In 1937, the POUM were said to be “trotskyists” and “fascists” who were working to dismantle the republic from the inside. Last year, prominent mainstream Democrats attacked the “Bernie Bros” and the young innocence of Sanders supporters in order to seem like they were the better choice.
Nearly all the newspaper accounts published at the time were manufactured by journalists at a distance, and were not only inaccurate in their facts but intentionally misleading. — Orwell
The revolutionary movement in Spain ended when the central government made association with POUM illegal and guards arrested members. In the US, the movement ended during the Democratic National Convention, when Clinton was elected as the nominee instead of Sanders. Attention then turned to fighting against their mutual enemy, although by alienating parts of their coalition eventually caused them to lose influence and the election.
A Fascist or Authoritarian government is very hierarchical and disciplined. Citizens may have few civil liberties and live in a highly structured society. This is an advantage during military conflicts as a hierarchical structure allows for quick transition into military. Franco’s government did not have the same sort of in-fighting as it wasn’t allowed. A person’s beliefs were thrust upon them. Fascism was presented as an alternative to socialism, much like Trump was presented as an alternate to the establishment and the idea of political correctness.
In leftist parties, people have greater social equality and social classes are flatter. Orwell comments that soldiers often questioned their superior officers in the trenches. Socialism clashes with the traditional military hierarchy and being able to have different beliefs makes it difficult to develop a unified front. Ideological differences between different parties in the coalition led them to become fractured and ultimately ineffective.
By 1939, Franco had taken full control of Spain. The singular Fascist government was able to defeat the fractured left-wing republic. This happened because the in-fighting inside the left-wing coalition, amplified by yellow journalism, led to the coalition crippling itself when it should have focused on presenting the strongest front against Fascism. This is similar to today, when the Democratic party split based on the idea of revolutionary policies versus incremental policies. After this split, where the revolutionary ideas were rejected, they were unable to amass enough nationwide support to have a presidential victory.
What can be taken away from these two historical events? Decentralized governments are difficult to achieve because they actively repel power away from an oligarchy and give it to a large number of people. As this power is harder to maintain, a more powerful source can easily envelop the state. For much of humanity’s history, power has been concentrated by just a few people. As societies have evolved, we’ve gradually been able to decentralize. However, the threat of oligarchic governance will always be present if the public isn’t able to build stable coalitions.
