Bernie Sanders is calling for a political revolution. Is there evidence to demonstrate that his “revolution” is needed? And why is the Sanders revolution proving to be more attractive to some voters than Hillary Clinton’s focus on “improving what he have?”

There is considerable evidence in the FY 2017 budget that President Obama just submitted to Congress that the American economy is doing well. Republicans seem to collectively have astigmatisms in both eyes considering how blurred their vision of reality is.

Consider how job growth has changed from 2009 (President Obama’s first year, still in the hangover from the Bush years) through 2015:

Related to that is how unemployment has fallen during the Obama Administration:

Republicans are always harping on the federal deficit, but the rate of growth has consistently fallen through the Obama Administration (as it did during the Bill Clinton years):

To be fair, and to raise a question that Democrats tend to avoid: “has the ‘do-nothing’ nature of the Republican-controlled recent Congresses had anything to do with the sustained growth?” It’s interesting because if it is true, there do not seem to be any Republicans who claim any credit for their role in the growth. This stands in stark contrast to the growth during the Bill Clinton years. If you listen to John Kasich and Newt Gingrich, you would think that their roles as Republicans in Congress were the determining factors in the growth.

The charts above depict certain aspects of the macro-economy. That means how we are doing collectively (I guess that we can now thankfully use that word, courtesy of Bernie). What the charts do not show is the micro-economy – how individuals, families, and small businesses are presently doing.

One way to get a sense of how the economy is working at the grass roots level is to test the mood, or the forecasts of individuals. Using data from the recent December, 2015 CNN/ORC poll, it is clear that the American people are of mixed minds when it comes to how the economy is working for them.

How do you rate the economic conditions in the country today – as very good, somewhat good, somewhat poor or very poor?

What leads to further questions is how the lack of optimism crosses economic and educational levels:

What is interesting here is how the percentages for every single sub-group, with the one exception of college grads who rate economic conditions as “somewhat good,” is within the margin of error, compared to the total column. This indicates that despite the rosy macro numbers, there is no mandate for optimism from citizens. While this pattern has been true for most of the 2000s, it has not always been that way. Take a look at the figures from July of 1998, when Bill Clinton was president:

Take a look at the “Total good” and “Total poor” columns. They seem inconceivable today. Interestingly enough, the “Total good” figure nearly two years later, in June, 2000, was 85%. It makes it hard to believe that Al Gore won the popular election that year by only a half-million votes.

Two of the bellwether questions about how the economy is doing are:

1. Do you believe that you are economically better off than your parents at this stage of their lives?
2. So you believe that your children will be economically better off than you?

Occasional Planet asked those questions in a recent survey* and here are the results:

There are two main conclusions from this chart:

1. None of the bars rises to the 50% level. That means that people do not feel that things “are better” or “will get better.”
2. There is a high degree of uncertainty (42%) about whether or not their children will be better off than they.

The apparent pessimism may be due in part to the lack of growth of “real wages” (wages adjusted for the cost of living) since 1998, the latter part of the Bill Clinton administration:

What we can conclude from all this data is:

1. The American public’s current views about the economy are much less optimistic than they were at the end of President Bill Clinton’s second term.
2. There is pessimism and uncertainty about the prospects for prosperity for our next generation of adults.
3. Despite macro successes, the policies of President Obama and the largely Republican congresses for the past four terms have not really generated confidence among the populace.
4. Perhaps most importantly, the Obama years have not created growth in real earnings for middle and low-income people.

This is in part why Bernie Sanders’ talk of a “revolution” may be more attractive to some voters than Hillary Clinton’s talk of “improving what we have.”

*Occasional Planet interviewed 550 Americans on January 14-15, 2016, using the services of the online-site Survey Monkey. The sample size is reliable +/- 4.5%, 95% of the time. It is demographically balanced by gender, ethnicity, age, income and geographic region.

The post The case for the Sanders revolution appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The mass demonstrations in Egypt, which will most likely result in the overthrow of U.S. backed President Mubarak, and the recent revolution in Tunisia, which overthrew U.S. backed President Ben Ali suggest that it’s time to reconsider our one size fits all view of the Arab world. The push for democracy that seems, to us, to have come out of nowhere, has its origins in a reaction to Western domination and widespread government corruption. But, according to Gema Martin-Muñoz, professor of Sociology at Madrid’s Autonomous University, these revolutions also reflect deep shifts and ongoing changes in the Arab and Islamic cultures themselves.

What we mostly see on our TV are stereotyped portrayals of rigid, fundamentalist societies resistant to change. But, according to Martin-Muñoz, who studies Arab and Islamic cultures,

this image is nearly the opposite of reality in Arab societies, where enormous dynamism is opening doors to many types of change, albeit at different speeds and in complex, contradictory ways—particularly when change from below is held back from above.

Consider Arab women. The predominant image is of a passive, exotic, and veiled victim-woman who reacts to events instead of actively participating in them. She is an impersonal object of communal stereotypes that sustain cultural prejudices.

In fact, Arab societies are engaged in a process of immense and irreversible change in which women are playing a crucial role. During the last half-century, intense urbanization and feminization of the workforce in all Arab countries has propelled women into the public arena on a massive scale.

In a recent article at Project-Syndicate.org, “The Arab World’s Silent Feminist Revolution,” Martin-Muñoz points to several signs of significant change for Arab women.

• Differences in levels of education between boys and girls are lessening, and in some Arab countries, more girls than boys are in secondary and higher education. Parents want education for their daughters as well as their sons
• Surveys are finding that young men and women want to study and have a job before they marry. They also want to choose their partner.
• The traditional model of the Arab family is in flux. Because young people are waiting to marry, and the use of birth control is increasing, family size is getting smaller especially in the North African countries but also throughout the Arab world. This trend is found in both urban and rural areas.

According to Martin-Muñoz, these societal changes are causing a “redistribution of power” between old and young, and between men and women resulting in a slow but steady weakening of patriarchy, as the family shifts from traditional extended families to more Western style nuclear families.

She hastens to add that these changes are uneven and gradual, and the result of compromises and adjustments with traditional patriarchal laws and society. Traditional repression of women exists alongside women taking new roles and finding new freedoms. Yet, instead of these changes at the cultural level, what is most reported on in the West are governments which resist bringing social changes into their laws.

They fear, with reason, that extending freedoms and developing individual autonomy within the family—and so weakening patriarchal authority—could lead to a questioning in the public arena of the ideological basis of state power.

Governments invoke religious norms and tradition in order to legitimize the continuation of patriarchal rule and their political power that rests on it. But Arab political authorities, and the Arab people themselves, are having to confront the contradictions between the traditional authoritarian patriarchal model and the ongoing transformation occurring in the everyday lives of women.

Martin-Muñoz says that the Western view of Arab societies promotes,

the belief that Islam confines all Arab women in the same way, when in reality they experience very different conditions. This prevents many from seeing, much less evaluating, the deep changes taking place in Arab societies—and how women are driving those changes forward.

Brian Whittaker, writing about Arab society over a year ago for the Guardian, pointed to changes in the traditional patriarchal family structure as key to political change.

the Arab family as traditionally conceived— patriarchal and authoritarian, suppressing individuality and imposing conformity, protecting its members so long as they comply with its wishes—is a microcosm of the Arab state.

Changing the power structures within families (and in many parts of the Arab world this is already happening) will also gradually change the way people view other power structures that replicate those of the traditional family, whether in schools and universities, the workplace, or in government. This is where women come in. In an Arab context, demanding the same rights as men is a first step towards change. Asserting their rights doesn’t mean that all women have to be activists for feminism. Even something as simple as going out to work—if enough [women] do it— can start to make a difference.

Feminist gains could be wiped out in post revolutionary Tunisia, where before his ouster, exiled President Bin Ali initiated feminist reform. It’s possible that Islamic fundamentalist forces could gain power in both Tunisia and Egypt, which would signal a return to oppressive conditions for women. Yet, the recent revolutions in those countries were not motivated by a desire for a return to religious fundamentalism, but rather by a desire for release from repressive government, political corruption, and deteriorating economic conditions. It seems unlikely that the young Arab men and women, who organized these revolutions on Facebook and Twitter, would choose a new government modeled on the authoritarian patriarchal world they are trying to escape.

The post Women may be driving revolution in the Arab world appeared first on Occasional Planet.