Two weeks of back-to-back political conventions made for a politically intense July in the United States. In mid-July, the Republican National Convention opened amid continued resistance to nominee Donald Trump. Much of the Republican establishment expressed its displeasure by skipping the convention. A week later, the Democratic National Convention was rocked by leaked emails showing favoritism to Hillary Clinton. The Democratic establishment put on a strong show of party unity that further alienated some supporters of Bernie Sanders.

Political parties are composed of constituencies and interest groups that often find it difficult to work together, but internal discord rarely affects the two major parties at the same time. The situation this year is particularly rare because the cause of the discord is the same: antiestablishment rage. A divided field allowed the antiestablishment Donald Trump to fill the gap and win the nomination resoundingly. The Democrats unified early around Hillary Clinton, but were caught off guard by the strength of the antiestablishment Bernie Sanders. The combined votes of Trump and Sanders outnumber those of Clinton and all of the other Republican candidates, a historic high for antiestablishment candidates.

But who is the establishment and why is it so hated? The establishment in both parties are successful people who express their political views and interests through active participation in the party. Because they are successful, they have the time and money to do so. They have above-average incomes, above-average education and live in nice neighborhoods. They are, in short, winners and have only a remote understanding of the various anxieties that most Americans are feeling. 

Trump and Sanders attracted support because they gave voice to these anxieties in a way the establishment could not, though they differ greatly in policy and temperament. They argued that globalization as manifested in trade agreements was to blame for economic dislocation. Trump argued that limiting immigration would help workers, whereas Sanders argued for a higher minimum wage. Until this campaign, the establishment in both parties supported expanding free trade agreements and rarely discussed economic dislocation.

Polls back up the antiestablishment mood. About 75 percent of the public believes the country is headed in the wrong direction; only about 20 percent believe it is headed in the right direction. Trump also benefits from the natural desire for change after eight years of the same party. This suggests a structural advantage for Trump. It also explains why Trump has been able to compete despite raising and spending much less money. 

Despite these structural advantages, Trump is running behind Clinton in the most recent polls. He is not well liked, has never held elective office and, also by the way, is not well liked. By far, he is the most problematic candidate that any major party has nominated in recent memory. His caustic and divisive rhetoric combined with his unpredictable behavior have convinced many voters that he should be allowed nowhere near the Oval Office. 

The establishment has rallied to defeat Trump and are working overtime to promote Clinton’s candidacy. Under normal circumstances, this would be beneficial, but in today’s volatile atmosphere, it could work the other way. Trump knows this, which explains why he has not moderated his tone even after winning the nomination. He needs to keep anger in play as a way of bating the establishment into condemning him, which only reinforces his image as the outsider.

In this context, the tone of the Democratic Convention was odd. Repeated assertions that America is already great imply that the country is going in the right direction and that Clinton is running for an Obama third term. This message falls on deaf ears to the 75 percent of the country that are unhappy with the status quo.

To win, Hillary Clinton needs to disarm her opponent. She cannot do it with words alone because her numerous policy flip-flops and guarded answers to questions do not engender trust. Instead, she needs to show through deeds, not words, that she understands the antiestablishment rage. 

A dramatic move would be to follow the example of Bernie Sanders and refuse funds from outside groups known as “super PACs” and fund her campaign entirely through small donations. Sanders raised a record amount of money from small donors, and Clinton could do it, too, given the fear of a Trump presidency. Money talks and refusing to rely on wealthy establishment donors would send a strong message that Clinton understands the times and that Wall Street doesn’t own her.

By Robert J. Fouser

Robert J. Fouser, a former associate professor of Korean language education at Seoul National University, writes on Korea from Ann Arbor, Michigan. -- Ed.