Nina M. Lozano-Reich,

The day following the Iowa caucuses, a CNN headline reads, “Bernie Sanders Improbable Revolution.” Common Dreams writes, “Astounding the World in
Iowa, Sanders’ Revolution Marches on.” South Carolina Now’s headline reads, “For Sanders, Iowa is Chance to Turn Revolution into Reality.”

On January 01, 1994, the day of the signing of NAFTA, the Zapatistas
presented themselves to the world. The Zapatistas were, and continue today, to represent the embodiment of an anti-establishment, political revolution.

In Chiapas, Mexico, they trained in secret, for years, prior to the signage of NAFTA; they saw the writing of the wall. Today, forty-one years later, this revolutionary, anti-establishment, anti-globalization, anti-neoliberal economic policies movement has resulted in six autonomous “caracoles,” (independent land sites), wherein the indigenous peoples are a fully
functioning autonomous “Gobierno bueno” (good government) body, which practices direct democracy. “Caracoles,” in Spanish, means snails. Because revolution is slow, like a snail.

Sanders’ rhetoric calls for voters to spark a revolution. He claims to be a candidate who is anti-establishment: “We need a political revolution of millions of people in this country who are prepared to stand up and say, 'enough is enough' ... I want to help lead that effort,” and “With your support and the support of millions of people throughout this country, we begin a political revolution to transform our country economically, politically, socially and environmentally.” Sanders’ discourse effectively taps into the public consciousness pertaining to the Occupy movement, which attacked Wall Street and the one percent. He wants to be a leader for the people. The forgotten. The shrinking middle class. The rhetoric is, indeed, persuasive.

Sanders’ rhetoric is persuasive as the aforementioned Sanders’ headlines are a reflection of Bernie’s utilization of two dominant ideographs, deployed again and again, within his political rhetoric: “anti-establishment” and “revolution.” Ideographs are one-word political slogans, which are imbued with ideology. Ideographs are powerful terms, which function to persuade the masses—most often about political ideals and policies. Sanders’ use of these tropes has been effective. For example, Sanders has raised roughly thirty-three million dollars within the last three months of 2015, with the average donation equaling $27.13. Sanders, a one-time long shot, just pulled out Iowa with a virtual tie, winning twenty-one delegates against Hillary’s twenty-two.

When enacting a rhetorical analysis of Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign rhetoric, then, it begs the question: is, in fact, Sanders, himself anti-establishment, and is his campaign indeed, as he calls it, a “political revolution?”

In January of 2006, the Zapatistas embarked on, in response to the Mexican Presidential election, “La Otra Compaña” (the Other Campaign). The campaign operated outside of the two primary political parties—the PAN and the PRI. The campaign was an attempt to unify the people of Mexico, along with pre-existing groups of resistance, to continue to struggle against the dominant political parties. It was a call for the rejection of the two-party system, a rejection of corporate interests and corrupt politicians. Subcomondante Marcos, the spokesperson for the Zapatistas, functioned as anti-establishment, when he stated: “the goal of the campaign is not to speak or run for office, but to listen to the simple and humble people who struggle.” In not running Marcos for office, the Zapatistas remained inherently anti-establishment. Their rhetoric, which existed outside of the mainstream political system, enabled movements of resistance against neo-liberal capitalist forces to grow—forging strong alliances with other activists groups to form strong hegemonic blocks against the Mexican Government.

Regarding Sanders’ first usage of the ideograph of “anti-establishment”: unlike Subcomondante Marcos, not running for office as a PRI or PAN candidate, Sanders sits squarely as a part of the mainstream United States political process. Sanders, "Sanders, a current Senator of Vermont. , is a life-long politician...", is concurrently eschewing the role of an independent, in order to embrace and center himself as part of the mainstream Democratic party. While the Zapatistas called for the masses to reject voting, and create an alternative, Sanders wants your vote. He wants you to continue to participate within the established political system. In other words, the status quo.

When analyzing Sanders’ rhetoric, in conjunction with the mainstream media’s usage of his campaign as “a political revolution,” one must look at the systemic elements at play. A political revolution—both rhetorically and materially, involves the overthrow or rejection of a system or government, most often by force, and replacing that system with a new system. Sanders is not calling for a rejection of the current system. He wants to be a part of it. If he were to be elected President, Congress is still there. Thus, his “revolution” would need to garner enough Democratic seats to overrule a Republican filibuster, or the masses would have to exert so much pressure, from the ground, that the house and senate would be persuaded to capitulate on issues such as a single-payer healthcare system, taxes, free tuition, single-payer healthcare, etc. Given the ideology of the Republics and the far right, this does not equate to a mass shift in consciousness, which would be a necessary prerequisite to any revolution.

Forty-one years later, in 2016, the Zapatistas now have indigenous and autonomous control over land and resources—land free from maquiladoras (sweat shops), slave labor, GMOs, corporate land take-overs, corrupt politicians, bankers and multi-national corporations. Instead, their revolution has produced thriving communities with their own schools, healthcare clinics, thriving crops, indigenous language preservation and even an academic and trade focused University—all free. Run by the people, for the people.

Whist reflecting on the Zapatistas revolution, in April of 2015, the Zapatistas clarified the distinction, in a world-wide communiqué, between revolutionary change and voting in mainstream elections: “Because it’s the same thing among all those who want a political position, regardless of whether they dress up red, or sometimes in blue, or sometimes they put on a new color. And then they say they are the people and that therefore, the people have to support them. But they aren’t of the people. They’re the same bad governments who one day are local representatives, and the next are union leaders, then they are party functionaries . . . bouncing from one position to another, and also from one color to another.”

Yes, Sanders has raised a lot of money. Yes, Sanders’ rhetoric is persuasive. As a scholar of Communication Studies, I teach my students the power of persuasion. I teach them the devices and appeals to persuade. However, I also teach my students that we must be critical consumers of discourse. When striving to become members of a critical public, we must not be persuaded simply by style or word choice, but instead, we must critically scrutinize the effects and meanings of the persuasive appeals. Therefore, in the current rhetorical situation, an appropriate question that the dominant media is not asking is: does Sanders’ rhetoric of anti-establishment and revolution match up with the material reality? Yes, people are “feeling the Bern.” But they are feeling the “burn” of a traditional established politician, operating within a mainstream political system, with all of the mainstream political constraints for change—not a “burn” of a radical political revolution. For that, you’d have to visit the snails in Chiapas.

-###-

Nina M. Lozano-Reich, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Communication Studies in the Communication Studies Department, at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles

Dr. Reich teaches classes in rhetoric and social movements. She has published numerous book chapters and journal articles within the Communication Studies discipline. Her current work focuses on the rhetoric surrounding the femicides in Juarez, Mexico.

"That is why we, the Zapatistas, don't get tired of saying organize yourselves, let's organize ourselves, each person where they are, let's struggle to organize ourselves, let's begin by thinking about how to start to organize and let's gather together in order to unite our organizations for a world where the people command and the government obeys." Subcomandante Insurgente Moises