The February 10, 2016 episode of On the Media, “I’m an outsider and so can you,” highlights the the ways that media discourse can seep into campaign rhetoric. The episode examines the popularity of the word “outsider” in campaigns and media coverage of the 2016 presidential election. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, the landslide winners from the Iowa primaries, both bill themselves as “Outsiders” to the “Washington Establishment.” Now nearly every candidate has made some argument for why they, too, qualify as “outsiders.” The episode leaves one central question unresolved: Who started using the term “outsider” first – the media, or candidates themselves? The possibility of candidates adopting language that originates in the media shows the power of media institutions to affect campaign rhetoric.
“Outsider” is a term that implies opposition – you have to stand apart from something to be an outsider to it. To what, then, are these candidates outside? I reject the idea that anyone who holds elected office can be an outsider to “establishment politics.” Even Jeb Bush, who claims to be a “Washington Outsider” since he worked on behalf as Floridians as governor, is part of the American political apparatus. Anyone who holds a seat in senate – Sanders, Cruz, or Rubio – contribute to the legislative gridlock that has been the source of outrage and exasperation during the Obama administration. By that metric, no candidate but Trump, who has never held elected office, can claim status as an outsider to DC politics.
Fewer candidates, though, can claim that they are outsiders to the privilege that enables professional and political success. Trump’s $4.5 billion net worth is 100 times greater than the next-wealthiest candidate, Hillary Clinton, whose estate stands at $45 million. Only Bernie Sanders and Marco Rubio, who paid off his law school debt in 2012, have fortunes under $1 million.
Americans have come to accept the sizable wealth gaps between themselves and the people they elect. After all, it’s expensive to be a politician: mounting a political campaign requires economic and social capital, which often circulate in a few exclusive circles. The education required (a bachelor’s degree and advanced degrees in law, business, or social sciences) is also expensive. This is why politicians have traditionally been white men from wealthy families. If we take this as the standard profile of an establishment candidate, then Clinton qualifies as an outsider as a woman (as she’s been quick to remind voters), and Sanders, Rubio, and Cruz are outsiders as the sons of immigrants.
I think that one reason “outsider” candidates may be so attractive is that the term taps into an idealized image of America as a nation that assimilates outsiders. Even though Trump’s nativist rhetoric highlights anti-immigrant sentiment throughout the country, few voters can deny that America is a nation of immigrants, founded on the idea that anyone can transcend the conditions of their birth and build economic security. As wealth and power become more concentrated, perhaps the best way for people to convince themselves that social mobility still exists is by voting a candidate who is “outside” the traditional mold of a politician (white, male, and economically privileged”). That doesn’t explain the success of Trump’s “outsider” campaign, but it does help illuminate the slippery nature of this 2016 election buzzword.
lizzyhardison 