The Bern Supremacy

Does the future of the Democratic Party belong to Sanders?

This illustration can only be used with the Jon Judis story that originally ran in the 11/21/2015 issue of National Journal magazine. 
Illustration by Ryan McAmis
Add to Briefcase
John B. Judis
Nov. 19, 2015, 2:12 p.m.

“What is hap­pen­ing is that people in Nevada, people all over Amer­ica, are fight­ing and de­mand­ing a polit­ic­al re­volu­tion,” Bernie Sanders thundered in­to the cold night air earli­er this month at a soc­cer field in North Las Ve­gas, where sev­er­al thou­sand people had gathered to hear him speak. “People from all walks of life are com­ing to­geth­er, and this is what they are say­ing: They are say­ing in a uni­fied voice, ‘Enough is enough.’ And what they are say­ing is that our great coun­try and our gov­ern­ment be­longs to all of us and not just to a hand­ful of bil­lion­aires.” The crowd re­spon­ded with roars of, “Bernie, Bernie.”

Who would have thought a year ago that a can­did­ate call­ing for “re­volu­tion”—a word Demo­crats have, for ob­vi­ous polit­ic­al reas­ons, as­sidu­ously avoided for a long time—might emerge as the main al­tern­at­ive to Hil­lary Clin­ton? Or that Clin­ton, to ward off this can­did­ate’s chal­lenge, would be mim­ick­ing his hard-left stands on trade, cam­paign-fin­ance re­form, and the Key­stone pipeline?

Bernie Sanders is a grumpy 74-year-old “demo­crat­ic so­cial­ist” whose jeremi­ads don’t play well on tele­vi­sion, where he seems to be yelling at the mon­it­or; his polit­ic­al ex­per­i­ence con­sists of rep­res­ent­ing a very small, rur­al state in Con­gress and serving as may­or of a mini-city of 42,000; be­fore this cam­paign, he was not well known out­side Ver­mont. For these reas­ons, among many oth­ers, he is prob­ably not go­ing to win the nom­in­a­tion. But the fact that he is play­ing such a cent­ral role in the primar­ies—at­tract­ing le­gions of small donors, huge crowds, and a healthy minor­ity of Demo­crat­ic votes—is it­self note­worthy. In every pre­vi­ous elec­tion of the past gen­er­a­tion or two, a can­did­ate with this per­sona and rhet­or­ic would have found him­self auto­mat­ic­ally con­fined to the polit­ic­al foy­er, while people like Hil­lary Clin­ton or Joe Biden or even Mar­tin O’Mal­ley oc­cu­pied the main stage. Something very dif­fer­ent has happened this elec­tion cycle—and the ques­tion is wheth­er it’s in­dic­at­ive of any de­vel­op­ing, long-term trends in the elect­or­ate. Is Sanders, who came of age polit­ic­ally in the tu­mul­tu­ous 1960s, just a mo­ment­ar­ily trendy ana­chron­ism, or could he prove to be a har­binger of a re­vived Amer­ic­an Left?

TO BE­GIN TO an­swer this ques­tion re­quires a clear un­der­stand­ing of sev­er­al things: what ex­actly Sanders stands for, who his fol­low­ers are, and which ele­ments of his mes­sage they are drawn to.

Sanders’s polit­ic­al tra­ject­ory is sim­il­ar to my own. He got rad­ic­al­ized in the early 1960s at the Uni­versity of Chica­go; I was at Berke­ley. We were both so­cial­ists who steered clear of vi­ol­ent cra­zies like the Weather­men or the Marx­ist-Len­in­ist aco­lytes of Stal­in, Mao, or Fi­del. At the Uni­versity of Chica­go, Sanders joined the Young People’s So­cial­ist League, the youth arm of Eu­gene Debs and Nor­man Thomas’s So­cial­ist Party. Re­ject­ing the So­viet mod­el, it defined so­cial­ism as an ex­ten­sion of demo­cracy from the polit­ic­al to the eco­nom­ic sphere through pub­lic own­er­ship of the means of pro­duc­tion.

After gradu­at­ing from Chica­go in 1964, Sanders went to Is­rael for a year to live on a kib­butz—Is­rael at that time was a lode­star for many so­cial­ists—and fol­low­ing sev­er­al fruit­less years back in his ho­met­own of New York, he set out in 1968 for Ver­mont. Sanders did not think of him­self as a “hip­pie,” but he was deeply in­flu­enced by the coun­ter­cul­ture of the 1960s. In Ver­mont, he joined sev­er­al thou­sand oth­er mi­grants of the new Left, in­clud­ing famed an­arch­ist and fel­low New York­er Mur­ray Bookchin. Sanders cham­pioned home birth and con­demned com­puls­ory school­ing; he ad­voc­ated free love and the leg­al­iz­a­tion of marijuana; he dabbled in Reichi­an psy­cho­logy; and he railed against com­mer­cial tele­vi­sion which, “like heroin and al­co­hol,” Sanders ar­gued, “serves the func­tion of an es­cap­ist mech­an­ism which al­lows people to ‘space out’ and avoid the pain and con­flict of their lives.”

Sanders championed home birth and condemned compulsory schooling; he advocated free love and the legalization of marijuana; he dabbled in Reichian psychology; and he railed against commercial television. 

He joined the Liberty Uni­on Party in 1971, a year after it was formed, and be­came its first can­did­ate for gov­ernor. He fo­cused his cam­paign on Wash­ing­ton, not Ver­mont, lead­ing his Demo­crat­ic op­pon­ent to sug­gest that he might have been more suited to be a con­gres­sion­al can­did­ate. In a de­bate with his Re­pub­lic­an and Demo­crat­ic ad­versar­ies, he asked the mod­er­at­or to in­quire “why they don’t talk about the war in Vi­et­nam, why they don’t talk about the fact that some people in this coun­try have bil­lions of dol­lars when oth­ers have noth­ing, why we have a grossly in­equit­able tax struc­ture.”

Sanders’s ob­ject­ive was to rad­ic­al­ize the state’s elect­or­ate. “I even men­tioned that hor­rible word ‘so­cial­ism’—and nobody in the audi­ence fain­ted,” he re­coun­ted in a cam­paign di­ary he pub­lished in the al­tern­at­ive news­pa­per Sev­en Days. In his sub­sequent cam­paigns for the Liberty Uni­on Party, in in­ter­views and art­icles he wrote, and in a wor­ship­ful doc­u­ment­ary he pro­duced in 1978 on Debs, Sanders made clear that his ul­ti­mate ob­ject­ive was demo­crat­ic own­er­ship and con­trol of the means of pro­duc­tion.

Even when he was may­or of Bur­l­ing­ton in the 1980s and was pre­oc­cu­pied with con­tro­ver­sies over lake­front de­vel­op­ment, Sanders con­tin­ued to be wed­ded to a Marxi­an view of so­cial­ism. He told The Bal­timore Sun in 1981 that he would like to na­tion­al­ize the banks, but that “I don’t have the power to na­tion­al­ize the banks in Bur­l­ing­ton.” He told a pro­fess­or who wrote a dis­ser­ta­tion in 1988 on his may­or­alty that he sup­por­ted a so­ci­ety “where hu­man be­ings can own the means of pro­duc­tion and work to­geth­er rather than hav­ing to work as semi-slaves to oth­er people who can hire and fire.”

But Sanders, like me and oth­ers who had been so­cial­ists, began to mod­er­ate over time. We came to un­der­stand that the eco­nom­ics of Marx and Debs were not feas­ible and that, for the fore­see­able fu­ture, cap­it­al­ism, in some form, was here to stay. You can see the soften­ing of Sanders’s so­cial­ism in in­ter­views he gave after he was elec­ted to Con­gress in 1990. “To me so­cial­ism doesn’t mean state own­er­ship of everything, by any means,” he told the As­so­ci­ated Press. “It means cre­at­ing a na­tion, and a world, in which all hu­man be­ings have a de­cent stand­ard of liv­ing.” In 1991, he told the Los Angeles Times: “All that so­cial­ism means to me, to be very frank with you, is demo­cracy with a small ‘d.’ Our goal is to cre­ate a so­ci­ety where you don’t have such a gross in­equal­ity in terms of wealth and power, and to provide more polit­ic­al equal­ity for work­ing people and poor people.”

By the time he was elec­ted to the Sen­ate in 2006, Sanders ap­peared to have aban­doned al­to­geth­er the older concept of so­cial­ism. He now equated so­cial­ism with what was hap­pen­ing in Scand­inavi­an coun­tries. “I’m a demo­crat­ic so­cial­ist,” he told The Wash­ing­ton Post. “In Nor­way, par­ents get a paid year to care for in­fants. Fin­land and Sweden have na­tion­al health care, free col­lege, af­ford­able hous­ing, and a high­er stand­ard of liv­ing. ”And in the first pres­id­en­tial de­bate this fall, Sanders cited Den­mark as an ex­ample of a so­cial­ist coun­try. The young­er Sanders (and any self-re­spect­ing so­cial­ist of the 1960s) would have re­garded these words as apostasy. Nor­way, Sweden, Den­mark, and Fin­land were lib­er­al cap­it­al­ist coun­tries: Their so­cial-demo­crat­ic parties had man­aged to en­act re­forms that bettered cit­izens’ lives but they still had to heed a cap­it­al­ist class that owned the coun­try’s in­dus­tries and banks.

In Sanders’s speech Thursday at Geor­getown Uni­versity—which was in­ten­ded to cla­ri­fy what he means by so­cial­ism—he cited New Deal re­forms and his own pro­pos­als for free tu­ition at pub­lic col­leges, Medi­care for all, and a $15 min­im­um wage as ex­amples of “demo­crat­ic so­cial­ism.” These may be com­mend­able goals for the coun­try, but they are part of an ef­fort to hu­man­ize rather than ab­ol­ish cap­it­al­ism. In­deed, when asked by Steph­en Col­bert this past Septem­ber about be­ing a so­cial­ist, Sanders replied, “I prefer the term, ac­tu­ally, to be a ‘pro­gress­ive.’ ” This puts him very much in a tra­di­tion that has coursed through Amer­ic­an polit­ics for more than a cen­tury—from Teddy Roosevelt to the New Deal to Ral­ph Nader. Pro­gress­ives want to sub­or­din­ate the im­per­at­ives of the mar­ket and of private busi­ness to the pub­lic in­terest, and to re­move the spe­cial in­flu­ence of busi­ness from the polit­ic­al arena. They want to achieve liberty and equal­ity. They do not seek to elim­in­ate cap­it­al­ism but, through reg­u­la­tion and very se­lect­ive na­tion­al­iz­a­tion, to re­duce the in­equit­ies of wealth and power that a mar­ket sys­tem cre­ates.

The last two Demo­crat­ic pres­id­ents both en­dorsed a ver­sion of pro­gressiv­ism in their cam­paigns—Bill Clin­ton’s 1992 mani­festo, Put­ting People First, was coau­thored by Derek Shear­er, a vet­er­an like Sanders of the new Left—but once in of­fice, they were forced un­der pres­sure from Re­pub­lic­ans and busi­ness in­terests to aban­don early ini­ti­at­ives. Clin­ton ended up de­reg­u­lat­ing bank­ing and much of tele­com­mu­nic­a­tions; Barack Obama largely let the big banks off the hook for the fin­an­cial crisis and de­ferred to in­sur­ance and drug com­pan­ies in fash­ion­ing his health care plan. Sanders is prom­ising a re­turn to a purer pro­gressiv­ism—one where Wall Street will no longer have a say and where end­ing polit­ic­al and eco­nom­ic in­equal­ity will be a cent­ral gov­ern­ment con­cern.

BUT WHO ARE the voters flock­ing to this mes­sage? Sanders of­ten uses the term “work­ing people” to refer to the con­stitu­ency he wants to lead. It’s a term that con­jures guys in over­alls; yet the bulk of the people at the ral­lies I at­ten­ded were col­lege stu­dents, re­cent col­lege gradu­ates, or white-col­lar pro­fes­sion­als who have the types of jobs that re­quire a col­lege or even a post-gradu­ate de­gree.

At the Sanders rally in Las Ve­gas, I in­ter­viewed about 30 people and also cir­cu­lated around the crowd. I did talk to a jan­it­or from Las Ve­gas’s mil­it­ant culin­ary uni­on and to a re­tired auto mech­an­ic from Idaho who had moved to Las Ve­gas, but the rest of the people I en­countered were stu­dents, teach­ers, sci­ent­ists, civil ser­vants, and so­cial work­ers. At a Sanders rally at George Ma­son Uni­versity in Fair­fax, Vir­gin­ia, I found a sim­il­ar crowd, with gov­ern­ment con­sult­ants, IT ad­min­is­trat­ors, and en­gin­eers also thrown in­to the mix.

These Sanders sup­port­ers are part of a strat­um of the Amer­ic­an labor force that the census des­ig­nates as “pro­fes­sion­als.” They most of­ten work for a wage or salary. They pro­duce ideas and soph­ist­ic­ated ser­vices rather than phys­ic­al goods. They work in hos­pit­als and clin­ics, schools and col­leges, and, above all, of­fices. Un­like routine ser­vice work­ers, they make de­cent or even very good money. In White Col­lar, which ap­peared in 1951, C. Wright Mills labeled this group “the new middle class.” The French so­ci­olo­gist Serge Mal­let called them the “new work­ing class.” At the so­cial­ist journ­al I helped edit in the early 1970s, we called them “edu­cated labor” and part of a new “di­ver­si­fied pro­let­ari­at.”

The ranks of pro­fes­sion­als grew stead­ily dur­ing the 20th cen­tury. In the Labor De­part­ment’s Monthly Labor Re­view, Daniel Heck­er and Ian Wyatt es­tim­ated that this group, which they iden­ti­fied as “pro­fes­sion­al and tech­nic­al” work­ers, went from 4 per­cent of the labor force in 1920 to 23 per­cent in 2000. The biggest jump came dur­ing the eco­nom­ic boom of the 1960s—which was also when this group began turn­ing left­ward.

Pro­fes­sion­als were once the most con­ser­vat­ive and Re­pub­lic­an of oc­cu­pa­tion­al group­ings, even more so than man­agers and ex­ec­ut­ives. In 1956, ac­cord­ing to the Amer­ic­an Na­tion­al Elec­tion Stud­ies, pro­fes­sion­als backed Dwight Eis­en­hower by 69 per­cent to 31 per­cent; in 1960, they voted for Richard Nix­on by 62 per­cent to 38 per­cent. But dur­ing the 1960s, they began to move to­ward the Demo­crat­ic Party and to­ward more lib­er­al or pro­gress­ive po­s­i­tions. In the ex­tens­ive sur­veys he con­duc­ted for his 1976 book The Rad­ic­al Cen­ter, so­ci­olo­gist Don­ald War­ren di­vided the elect­or­ate in­to “low-in­come,” “av­er­age mid­dies” (those with middle in­come, but no edu­ca­tion bey­ond high school), “high-edu­ca­tion mid­dies,” and “af­flu­ents.” War­ren found the group that most con­sist­ently backed George McGov­ern in 1972 were “high-edu­ca­tion mid­dies.” Moreover, in the four elec­tions from 1988 to 2000, pro­fes­sion­als favored Demo­crats by an av­er­age of 52 per­cent to 40 per­cent. In 2012, Barack Obama won 56 per­cent of this vote, com­pared with 40 per­cent for Mitt Rom­ney.

The new Left and pro­gress­ive move­ments of the last 50 years have usu­ally drawn their mem­bers, or at least their lead­ers, from this new middle class. That has in­cluded the civil rights, an­ti­war, pub­lic in­terest, en­vir­on­ment­al, and fem­in­ist move­ments—and, most re­cently, In­ter­net-based groups such as Mo­ve­, which was foun­ded by two Bay Area soft­ware de­velopers.

Many of the new Left groups of the 1960s did ad­voc­ate some form of so­cial­ism; but those that sur­vived, and the groups that arose af­ter­ward, have em­braced Amer­ic­an pro­gressiv­ism. For these groups—and for the pro­fes­sion­als who form the core of Sanders’s base—so­cial­ism has be­come a vague ir­rel­ev­ancy. When I asked people at the ral­lies what they thought of Sanders be­ing a so­cial­ist, many of the stu­dents said it didn’t mat­ter to them; a so­cial work­er poin­ted to the Scand­inavi­an coun­tries as a good ex­ample of so­cial­ism; oth­ers defined so­cial­ism in broad, al­most mean­ing­less terms. An IT per­son at the rally in Fair­fax summed up “demo­crat­ic so­cial­ism” this way: “ ‘Demo­crat­ic’ means it is a demo­cracy. We care for each oth­er; that’s the ‘so­cial­ism’ part.” A wa­ter spe­cial­ist for a Nevada agency said of so­cial­ism: “I think of com­munity. Look­ing out for every­body, not just vot­ing for your­self, but for your coun­try.”

What did stir them, and pro­voked cries of “Bernie, Bernie,” were Sanders’s de­nun­ci­ation of the “bil­lion­aire class” and his prom­ises, in their words, to “rein in cap­it­al­ism,” “send kids through col­lege for free,” and “get the money out of polit­ics.” They un­der­stand what he means when he says that, in or­der to end the drift to­ward eco­nom­ic and polit­ic­al in­equal­ity, a “polit­ic­al re­volu­tion” is ne­ces­sary. They know he doesn’t mean a vi­ol­ent over­throw of the gov­ern­ment, but rather, as he said re­cently in South Car­o­lina, that “mil­lions of people have to stand up and get in­volved in the polit­ic­al pro­cess in a way we have not in many, many years.” When I asked a George Ma­son bio­logy stu­dent at the rally in Fair­fax what Sanders thought a polit­ic­al re­volu­tion could ac­com­plish, she said: “He is really ser­i­ous about the fact that our so­ci­ety and our eco­nom­ic sys­tem are up­side down. Re­volu­tion is turn­ing it all around.”

WHY HAVE “high-edu­ca­tion mid­dies” moved so de­cis­ively to the left over the last 50 years? Part of it can be ex­plained via the the­ory of post-ma­ter­i­al­ism de­veloped by the polit­ic­al sci­ent­ist Ron­ald Ingle­hart. In the wake of the 1960s re­volt, he ar­gued that rising prosper­ity after World War II had brought new non­ma­teri­al is­sues such as the en­vir­on­ment, the qual­ity of con­sumer goods, and race and gender roles to the fore­front in place of more im­me­di­ate eco­nom­ic con­cerns. Col­leges, es­pe­cially those that catered to up­scale stu­dents, be­came in­cub­at­ors of this post-ma­ter­i­al­ist polit­ics.

But there was an­oth­er factor that ex­plained why pro­fes­sion­als turned left­ward. The older pro­fes­sion­als, epi­tom­ized by the dent­ist or doc­tor, saw them­selves as en­tre­pren­eurs and iden­ti­fied with Re­pub­lic­an sup­port for the free mar­ket. They took pride in their autonomy and in their product: Teach­ers wanted to teach; phys­i­cians and nurses to heal; en­gin­eers to make things that worked. But just as happened to the crafts work­ers of the late 19th cen­tury who went on to form the Amer­ic­an Fed­er­a­tion of Labor, pro­fes­sion­als began un­der­go­ing a pro­cess that Marx­ists call pro­let­ari­an­iz­a­tion. They lost their in­de­pend­ence and autonomy, they in­creas­ingly worked for a salary, and their work be­came sub­ject to the im­per­at­ives of ad­min­is­trat­ors and ex­ec­ut­ives. In re­sponse, some of them joined or formed uni­ons; but, more gen­er­ally, they be­came crit­ic­al of the new eco­nomy and of those who ran it. Un­like an older gen­er­a­tion of pro­fes­sion­als, they didn’t re­gard cap­it­al­ism and the free mar­ket as holy writ.

Over the years, the left-wing and lib­er­al move­ments that these pro­fes­sion­als have spawned have had their ups and downs. With the end of the Vi­et­nam War, and the col­lapse of the mil­it­ant Afric­an-Amer­ic­an move­ment, much of the en­ergy passed out of the new Left. Many of the pub­lic-in­terest, fem­in­ist, civil rights, and en­vir­on­ment­al groups en­dured but largely as Wash­ing­ton-based let­ter­head or­gan­iz­a­tions that col­lec­ted dir­ect-mail con­tri­bu­tions to fund their lob­by­ing.

Dur­ing the past two dec­ades, however, the pro­gress­ive Left has again be­gun to stir. The con­trib­ut­ing factors have been var­ied—op­pos­i­tion to the Ir­aq war; the in­creas­ing power (es­pe­cially at the state level) of an ever-more-con­ser­vat­ive GOP; a grow­ing sense, in the wake of the Great Re­ces­sion, that con­spicu­ous con­sump­tion, polit­ic­al cor­rup­tion, and un­der-reg­u­lated cap­it­al­ism were all out of con­trol. Yet an­oth­er factor was eco­nom­ic pres­sure on a new gen­er­a­tion of high-edu­ca­tion mid­dies—pres­sure that has made them jus­ti­fi­ably anxious about their fu­ture. Ac­cord­ing to the Eco­nom­ic Policy In­sti­tute, the real in­fla­tion-ad­jus­ted wages of young col­lege gradu­ates are 2.5 per­cent lower this year than in 2000. Stu­dent-loan debt, too, has emerged as a ma­jor con­cern, in­creas­ing by 84 per­cent from 2008 to 2014.

Sanders’s cam­paign speaks dir­ectly to all these con­cerns. His proph­et­ic per­sona, won­der­fully pro­filed by Mar­garet Tal­bot in The New York­er, stands in sharp con­trast to most oth­er can­did­ates. (In­ter­est­ingly, the Sanders sup­port­ers I spoke to de­scribed his ap­peal—he’s “free of spe­cial in­terests,” he’s “con­sist­ent,” he “tells us what he really be­lieves”—with vir­tu­ally the same words many Trump sup­port­ers use to praise their can­did­ate.) But the es­sence of Sanders’s suc­cess prob­ably does not lie in his style. In­stead, it lies with a seg­ment of voters who, for the past 50 years, have found it dif­fi­cult to ro­man­ti­cize pure cap­it­al­ism. That doesn’t mean they are so­cial­ists, but it does mean they want cap­it­al­ism to be strictly reg­u­lated in the pub­lic in­terest. And Bernie is speak­ing their lan­guage.

FOL­LOW­ING THE 2016 cam­paign, Sanders him­self may fade from the scene. He is an aging fig­ure, and while he has aban­doned his earli­er view of so­cial­ism, he still has not fully ad­ap­ted his new­er ver­sion of demo­crat­ic so­cial­ism to Amer­ic­an polit­ic­al tra­di­tions. Many Amer­ic­ans, for in­stance, are not likely to warm to the ex­ample of Scand­inavi­an coun­tries, with their very high taxes and cent­ral­ized gov­ern­ments.

But his cam­paign may non­ethe­less rep­res­ent a wa­ter­shed in the de­vel­op­ment of a new pro­gress­ive polit­ics. The group from which Sanders has drawn his sup­port—pro­fes­sion­als and tech­nic­al work­ers; es­sen­tially, the high-edu­ca­tion mid­dies—is con­tinu­ing to grow. Ac­cord­ing to eco­nom­ist Dav­id Autor, even dur­ing the re­ces­sion, from 2007 to 2012, the num­ber of pro­fes­sion­als and tech­ni­cians grew about 5 per­cent, while the num­ber of pro­duc­tion, sales, and (routine) of­fice and ad­min­is­trat­ive work­ers shrunk. Un­like many man­u­fac­tur­ing and low-level ser­vice jobs, the jobs of pro­fes­sion­als and tech­ni­cians are not eas­ily sub­ject to auto­ma­tion. On the con­trary, these are of­ten the people who use com­puters to achieve auto­ma­tion.

And there is no sign that the pres­sures that have moved theses voters to the left will abate. They will con­tin­ue to be sub­ject to wage and autonomy pres­sures from ad­min­is­trat­ors, man­agers, and ex­ec­ut­ives. Even doc­tors are now be­com­ing em­ploy­ees of hos­pit­al chains. The so­cial and eco­nom­ic dis­tance between them and the bil­lion­aire class will con­tin­ue to grow. And while a new re­ces­sion does not ap­pear im­min­ent, there is also little sign of the kind of buoy­ant re­cov­ery that the United States ex­per­i­enced in the 1990s.

The res­ult of these changes over the next few elec­tion cycles could be a more as­sert­ive Left in the Demo­crat­ic Party—which could, in turn, res­ult in in­creased po­lar­iz­a­tion and even, in re­ac­tion, a fur­ther turn of the coun­try to the right. But as the ranks of these voters swell, they could also help to cre­ate a more pro­gress­ive coun­try over the long term. If that hap­pens, then his­tor­i­ans may, dec­ades from now, re­gard Bernie Sanders’s 2016 cam­paign as a har­binger of what be­came a sub­stan­tial chal­lenge to the powers that be. 

The print ver­sion of this piece went to press be­fore Bernie Sanders’s speech at Geor­getown. The on­line ver­sion has been up­dated in the wake of that speech.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.