As someone who has spent a fair amount of time living outside the US, I long ago reached the conclusion that having a government that works for and is accountable to the people is much more important than having a government that is elected by the people. For democracy to work, you need both a political class and an electorate that engages in meaningful discussion with good will and transparency. In 1972, Americans were outraged that Nixon lied about the Watergate break-in. Today, we have politicians of both parties who routinely lie and distort facts, and even continue to repeat the same lie after they are called on it, and they are rewarded by ever-increasing popularity among an electorate that either no longer cares or is incapable of differentiating truth from bluster. I know I will be labeled anti-American and unpatriotic, but I am very pessimistic that American democracy will ever solve the problems that we have in the 21st century
9
This is not bcos of Citizens United people, that ruling is very recent. It is due to the failure of the news media to have a moral compass and a backbone.
Look at the election coverage and ask yourself if this is different from 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012. How helpful was it in identifying the traits and policies the elected President or Congress members needed for the actual jobs? Where does all the money being spent on campaigns go anyway? Who benefits from the negative advertisements and mischaracterizations on the TV ads? Follow the money.
A key instigator in all of this was Fox News Channel. Mr. Murdoch identified market opportunities in American television. The programming was lukewarm, milquetoast pap. The evening shows were prudish and preachy (Bill Cosby?!) while the news programs were all politically correct and full of white guilt apologists. Instead of fighting with 3 or 4 networks for the 70% audience, he went for the 30% audience that was paying for porn channels and talk radio. He gave them Fox Broadcasting with its very "adult" programs - Melrose Place, Beverly Hills 90210, Married With Children, and even The Simpsons, a very adult cartoon. The right-wingers yelled and screamed about "family values", but Fox grabbed a good chunk of the viewing audience. For news he had tabloid shows - "City Under Siege". Fox News Channel with its 90% opinion 10% news became #1.
The rest play along now scared that Fox may be their eventual gig. The Republican party is dead.
Look at the election coverage and ask yourself if this is different from 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012. How helpful was it in identifying the traits and policies the elected President or Congress members needed for the actual jobs? Where does all the money being spent on campaigns go anyway? Who benefits from the negative advertisements and mischaracterizations on the TV ads? Follow the money.
A key instigator in all of this was Fox News Channel. Mr. Murdoch identified market opportunities in American television. The programming was lukewarm, milquetoast pap. The evening shows were prudish and preachy (Bill Cosby?!) while the news programs were all politically correct and full of white guilt apologists. Instead of fighting with 3 or 4 networks for the 70% audience, he went for the 30% audience that was paying for porn channels and talk radio. He gave them Fox Broadcasting with its very "adult" programs - Melrose Place, Beverly Hills 90210, Married With Children, and even The Simpsons, a very adult cartoon. The right-wingers yelled and screamed about "family values", but Fox grabbed a good chunk of the viewing audience. For news he had tabloid shows - "City Under Siege". Fox News Channel with its 90% opinion 10% news became #1.
The rest play along now scared that Fox may be their eventual gig. The Republican party is dead.
6
It does not matter who is elected or what kind of government (Republic, Democracy, Theocracy, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Dictatorship, Kingdom, Principality or any other form of government) that the citizens of any nation selects and/or is imposed upon them, that nation still has to have their privately owned businesses continuously create sufficient new taxable national wealth (and jobs) in their nation so that there is enough available wealth in that nation for that nation's government to confiscate a portion of that new taxable national wealth and/or profit that was created by the private sector businesses plus additional amounts confiscated through income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, tariffs, etc., and other taxes by the government tax collectors to pay for their wealth consuming government activities.
This can only be accomplished by Austerity which is limiting government spending (including debt repayment) to less than the government collects in taxes!
Hopefully this can be done by each government without borrowing wealth from individuals and governments (mostly in other nations who buy that nation’s Sovereign Treasury Bonds) to pay for their various wealth consuming government services including any distribution of wealth confiscated from the wealth creators and then handed to the tax supported citizens.
This can only be accomplished by Austerity which is limiting government spending (including debt repayment) to less than the government collects in taxes!
Hopefully this can be done by each government without borrowing wealth from individuals and governments (mostly in other nations who buy that nation’s Sovereign Treasury Bonds) to pay for their various wealth consuming government services including any distribution of wealth confiscated from the wealth creators and then handed to the tax supported citizens.
3
Our President Obama seems to want the USA to imitate the Greek economic policies and just continue borrowing more and more money from individuals in the industrialized BRIC nations by printing and selling more and more US Treasury Bonds and then using the proceeds to spend on more and more wealth-consuming government jobs and other wealth consuming government services (in order to buy more votes) just like the other European "Socialist Nanny States" are doing.
France and other non-third world PIIGS nations (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain) seem to want to just continue borrowing more and more money by printing and selling more and more Sovereign Treasury Bonds and then spending the proceeds on more and more wealth-consuming government jobs and other wealth consuming government services (in order to buy more votes) just like the other European "Nanny States" and the USA are doing.
France and other non-third world PIIGS nations (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain) seem to want to just continue borrowing more and more money by printing and selling more and more Sovereign Treasury Bonds and then spending the proceeds on more and more wealth-consuming government jobs and other wealth consuming government services (in order to buy more votes) just like the other European "Nanny States" and the USA are doing.
4
I think that the author does one mistake: he ignores the effect of "means tested" policies that greatly expanded over the last few decades on the willingness of the general electorate to support public services.
Problem is, a lot of US households - yes, even those who make median - don't quite see any programs that benefit them. And, well, there are not that much, particularly if a person is above the subsidy cutoff for Obamacare. Things got even trickier for many of the underemployed, who came to view a lot of benefits associated with the jobs as part of the compensation, and not government action. Even worse, both sides, Democrats included, cry the inevitable demise of Medicare and SS, so what's the point of supporting them?
Couple this with the sizeable debt accumulated over the course of the recession, and the fact that a lot of recovery measures didn't produce any measurable recovery for most households, and you can understand the shift in priorities.
Problem is, a lot of US households - yes, even those who make median - don't quite see any programs that benefit them. And, well, there are not that much, particularly if a person is above the subsidy cutoff for Obamacare. Things got even trickier for many of the underemployed, who came to view a lot of benefits associated with the jobs as part of the compensation, and not government action. Even worse, both sides, Democrats included, cry the inevitable demise of Medicare and SS, so what's the point of supporting them?
Couple this with the sizeable debt accumulated over the course of the recession, and the fact that a lot of recovery measures didn't produce any measurable recovery for most households, and you can understand the shift in priorities.
7
Mark Schmitt attempts to explain past and recent voter behavior. But will the young and future generations follow suit? Or will they radicalize and strike out against a political system that promises everything and delivers very little in return except divisive name-calling and blame in the name of the "loyal opposition." Will the new generations rebel against the political machine that oils itself by writing laws that create problems which, in turn, need new laws to fix?
5
I wish journalists would call it like it is at the time of events instead of indulging in what I call reality hindsight. Fortunately at the moment the performance of Trump does not need words. However I recall US correspondent, Nick O'Malley, writing of the night of Mr O'Bama's first victory. "That very night - according to PBS Frontline - the Republican group, which included Republican heavyweights Paul Ryan,Eric Cantor and Jim De Mint, agreed on a simple strategy - ruthless, disciplined opposition to everything and anything Obama proposed." And that's exactly the way it went. And it was the Republicans who gave the world two wars - and escalating - and the global financial crisis. Such generosity! But no care or concern for the American people. Just determination to keep the power to continue behaving as they do.
18
Did Mr. Schmitt really just equate the NRA and the NEA? And he's a veteran of numerous Washington think tanks?
I think the problem is that flabby gasbags like Mr. Schmitt are determined to dumb us down until we too see no difference between the gun lobby and the teachers' lobby.
I think the problem is that flabby gasbags like Mr. Schmitt are determined to dumb us down until we too see no difference between the gun lobby and the teachers' lobby.
10
The rejoinder to your last sentence. It doesn't, at least not in the United States.
I am concerned that so many opiners and reporters claim Trump has ushered in a new political era. As Nate Silver points out, Trump's supporters make up about 6% of the total voting population, and those who are opposed to his ideas/personality, are really, really opposed.
It seems in every election, everywhere in the world, at least 6% of voters will be ill-informed and spurred on by ugly prejudices.
It seems in every election, everywhere in the world, at least 6% of voters will be ill-informed and spurred on by ugly prejudices.
6
Alexander Hurst wrote an article that appeared in The New Republic titled "Donald Trump and the Politics of Disgust."
The last paragraph stated the following:
"When it comes to Mexicans, Muslims, and women, Trump and his supporters might be literally disgusted. . . . The risk for Trump is that emotions go both ways. By voicing so much disgust, he might very well find that, to other voters, he has become an object of disgust himself."
Here is a link to the entire article: https://newrepublic.com/article/126837/donald-trump-politics-disgust
The last paragraph stated the following:
"When it comes to Mexicans, Muslims, and women, Trump and his supporters might be literally disgusted. . . . The risk for Trump is that emotions go both ways. By voicing so much disgust, he might very well find that, to other voters, he has become an object of disgust himself."
Here is a link to the entire article: https://newrepublic.com/article/126837/donald-trump-politics-disgust
3
We are at war, a CIVIL WAR with propaganda machines in full swing blaring at us with divisive, hate filled disinformation. The rhetoric of FIXED NEWS and all the other right wing propagandists stir the drum beat of fascism. Efforts at mind control have reached an apogee with this senseless absurdity. Trump is simply adopting a style that Latin American dictators and the triumvirate of Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini perfected. The BIG LIE is with us every moment. Most that I know have 'tuned out' and 'dropped out' leaving us defenseless. It seems apparent that even though nearly all the commentators here 'get it' none voice the real danger with which we are confronted. Not only must we vote we must actively participate. FEEL THE BERN!
7
Some commenters rightly underscore the role technology and big data play in allowing candidates and their dark money organizations to funnel resources only to those who matter, who can and will vote -- "the majority of the voting minority" as noted by MTDougC of Montana. Thereby ignoring most of their constituents. Treating them with pure indifference. The people they are there to serve, they just don't matter. Things are so rigged, so gerrymandered. so engineered by money, influence and algorithims that the whole thing is now no more than a showy transaction, efficient and false -- the primaries are a kind of paypal (no offense) of an election to be conducted on eBay. Or is it oBey?
3
And Trump did not break politics anymore than you can "break" Play-Doh. Like Play-Doh, it has been molded and manipulated since its inception.
We look at today's politics and cry "foul" yet just a few generations candidates were selected by party bosses. And the fix that was in then is in today. The only time we get change is when there are figures bigger than the either of the parties - and even then they were "picked" by the parties and with little electoral interaction ... despite the "dog and pony shows."
Today's corruption (legal and illegal alike) is simply more transparent. We see it and loath it. Many are so turned off by it that they are indifferent and don't vote (which is why we have such low turn out rates). Some are angry (Occupy Wall Street and Tea Bag Party). Some have "bought into the party line." And now the acknowledgement of the single and or less than three major polices voter ... which will grow greatly (Gun rights and the NRA).
Thanks to digital media that feeds only "preferred" content our electoral will soon become overwhelmingly be defined by single issues ... Why? That is the attention span of our under 40 years of age generations. Canned content based on preferences soon to be followed by political content aimed at them.
Gone are the days of print papers when you were at least forced to gloss over news and issues not of your preference. What now should be a time of the educated voter is now the preference voter. Played like Play-Doh.
We look at today's politics and cry "foul" yet just a few generations candidates were selected by party bosses. And the fix that was in then is in today. The only time we get change is when there are figures bigger than the either of the parties - and even then they were "picked" by the parties and with little electoral interaction ... despite the "dog and pony shows."
Today's corruption (legal and illegal alike) is simply more transparent. We see it and loath it. Many are so turned off by it that they are indifferent and don't vote (which is why we have such low turn out rates). Some are angry (Occupy Wall Street and Tea Bag Party). Some have "bought into the party line." And now the acknowledgement of the single and or less than three major polices voter ... which will grow greatly (Gun rights and the NRA).
Thanks to digital media that feeds only "preferred" content our electoral will soon become overwhelmingly be defined by single issues ... Why? That is the attention span of our under 40 years of age generations. Canned content based on preferences soon to be followed by political content aimed at them.
Gone are the days of print papers when you were at least forced to gloss over news and issues not of your preference. What now should be a time of the educated voter is now the preference voter. Played like Play-Doh.
1
Don't forget that many in government get re-elected because a party gets in power, voting districts get redrawn to favor the incumbent heavily thus making it very difficult to unseat them. Essentially the politicians choose their electorate instead of the electorate choosing the officials. The elected have an easier time maintaining & influencing power in the State.
7
You say this like Trump is not to blame for his part in this. Trump is the culmination of all that has come before, capitalizing on past exploitation, corruption, extortion and syndicates of power that bear much resemblance to the mafia. Sorry, no dice. Trump gets every bit of the blame for what he's done and additionally for capitalizing on the sins committed before he came along.
5
I remember the 1970s when the Saudis opened and closed the oil spigot and wreaked havoc on our economy. President Carter put on a sweater and put solar panels on the White House. He told us what we had to do. Reagan and Bush told us they would take care of the problem all we had to do was avert our eyes.
We averted our eyes and we have 2016 to do a gut rehab with Bernie Sanders or some more cosmetics with Clinton, Trump, or Cruz.
Gut rehabs take time energy and money and I am afraid that we will just choose new wallpaper, paint and a new coat of plaster over the termites.
To paraphrase Jack Nicholson we can't handle the truth and what is voting by not voting but averting our eyes and pretending the termites are not doing any damage.
We averted our eyes and we have 2016 to do a gut rehab with Bernie Sanders or some more cosmetics with Clinton, Trump, or Cruz.
Gut rehabs take time energy and money and I am afraid that we will just choose new wallpaper, paint and a new coat of plaster over the termites.
To paraphrase Jack Nicholson we can't handle the truth and what is voting by not voting but averting our eyes and pretending the termites are not doing any damage.
6
Unless we, the Liberals, the Moderates, the Democrats, get our butts off our chairs, what we know as our way of life will be eviserated. We need to kick apathy and complaining to the curb like a bad drug habit and get out and work for the candidate that best represent us. Finally, we need to vote. We see the results of our lack of responsibility in the maintenance of a Democracy that is in the throes of a deadly illness and it is up to us to use the cure available - ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE! IT IS UP TO US!
6
I would state that the US political system is broken and perverted by our elected officials that offer financial benefits from the public treasuries in exchange for bribe payments from those beneficiaries to our elected officials!
This "PAY TO PLAY" and the current "LEGISLATION FOR SALE" situation is probably not what the founders of this nation had in mind when they granted US citizens the constitutional right to "petition the government."
Here in Texas our State administration is now increasing the costs of
the “no-bid” contract awards from $20m to $110m for a technology company 21CT probably to include the "PAY TO PLAY" tax money to influence (bribe, reward or buy) those elected and appointed officials that could award that Texas State Contracts.
I presume that this type of governance will now filter down to the municipal levels.
Neither major political party has a monopoly for providing honesty in government.
This "PAY TO PLAY" and the current "LEGISLATION FOR SALE" situation is probably not what the founders of this nation had in mind when they granted US citizens the constitutional right to "petition the government."
Here in Texas our State administration is now increasing the costs of
the “no-bid” contract awards from $20m to $110m for a technology company 21CT probably to include the "PAY TO PLAY" tax money to influence (bribe, reward or buy) those elected and appointed officials that could award that Texas State Contracts.
I presume that this type of governance will now filter down to the municipal levels.
Neither major political party has a monopoly for providing honesty in government.
4
Mark: All the “violations” of “old norms” you cite (*) have two things in common: First, they were all (every one of them) actions taken by Republicans. Second, they all (every one of them) occurred after, and in reaction to, the election of a black man as President (and therefore also as the de facto leader of the Democratic party).
The underlying lesson, which is so difficult to deal with, is that these developments are motivated by racism. People may be ashamed of that, may wish to hide it, or deny it within themselves. But it is deep and strong in the American psyche - strong enough to bring out unconscious irrational behaviors that override normal, rational politics.
Our country was built on exploitation of “inferior” races - African slaves and Native Americans. It is woven deeply into the fabric of who we are. We don’t like to look at that - for good reason - but it is true. We cannot truly heal until we start putting it out in the open and facing that reality.
(We aren’t different from other societies in this - the Middle East Sunni/Shiite conflicts being a current example.)
========
(*) “Old norms” now overturned include: (1) refusing to help constituents with ACA problems, (2) refusing to accept federal funding for infrastructure and/or Medicaid expansion, (3) recasting politics as a winner-take-all battle between incompatible ideologies, (4) re-elections of politicians despite abysmal approval ratings.
The underlying lesson, which is so difficult to deal with, is that these developments are motivated by racism. People may be ashamed of that, may wish to hide it, or deny it within themselves. But it is deep and strong in the American psyche - strong enough to bring out unconscious irrational behaviors that override normal, rational politics.
Our country was built on exploitation of “inferior” races - African slaves and Native Americans. It is woven deeply into the fabric of who we are. We don’t like to look at that - for good reason - but it is true. We cannot truly heal until we start putting it out in the open and facing that reality.
(We aren’t different from other societies in this - the Middle East Sunni/Shiite conflicts being a current example.)
========
(*) “Old norms” now overturned include: (1) refusing to help constituents with ACA problems, (2) refusing to accept federal funding for infrastructure and/or Medicaid expansion, (3) recasting politics as a winner-take-all battle between incompatible ideologies, (4) re-elections of politicians despite abysmal approval ratings.
9
I've voted in more elections than Meg Whitman and I'm the first to admit, sometimes it made no difference. But this time I think we can safely assume whoever runs against Ms. Clinton will be a very different choice.
4
I am wondering whether the American people, voters and non-voters, could be persuaded to agree on their priorities for the country and their lives if not the world as a whole? 1-peace 2-economic well being for all 3-all around health 4-an equal administation of laws.
Once a set of these simplest of priorities is established it might not be feasible to perpetuate the anarchic state of near non-democracy that prevails nationally.
Once a set of these simplest of priorities is established it might not be feasible to perpetuate the anarchic state of near non-democracy that prevails nationally.
1
Rob Ford set the template for unqualified, nasty, borderline-incompetent politicians who cater to angry, none-too-bright voters. Trump is just following the mold on a grander stage.
4
'Merica. That shining monothiestic plutocratic theocracy upon a hill.
3
the only way we can insure honest government it to have term limits, and elections should be funded by we the people... I wouldn't trust the one and only ''Mother Teresa'' after a third term... too much power intoxicates the best hearts as wine does to the strongest heads... who is a candidate going to be working for, me ''joe 3 pack'', or a motivated Vegas trillion aire?.. it would be money well spent.. we save a penny by cutting the I.R.S. budget and lose billions to rich tax cheats because the I.R.S. is ill equipped.. [probably by design]..
4
What's never mentioned is the core problem and its many contradictions that had led us to this point. The problem never is discussed, and in fact cannot be rationally discussed in the US. That problem is capitalism, and it devours everything: our environment, our social structures, and people.
3
I wonder if Trump's early lead in the polls will work against him in the long run. When voters are accustomed to angry tirades and his red, contorted face, his novelty could wear thin. Americans watched governments under Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, and Stalin oppress their own peoples. Perhaps the electorate will wake up in time. It would help if the press would quit giving Trump a free ride.
4
It's quite simple really. The old rules of politics were based on the assumptions that voters were paying attention, were informed, were reasonably intelligent, and would vote for their own interests.
None of those is really true any more, which is how Trump, a business failure and a boor, utterly uninformed about government, morality, and geopolitics, can be in the lead on the Republican side. The only people who could support him are not paying attention, not informed, not particularly intelligent, and not voting for their own interests.
None of those is really true any more, which is how Trump, a business failure and a boor, utterly uninformed about government, morality, and geopolitics, can be in the lead on the Republican side. The only people who could support him are not paying attention, not informed, not particularly intelligent, and not voting for their own interests.
9
Money is speech...or so the SCOTUS's Citizen's United decision says. Unlimited campaign spending drives down voter turnout. Pure and simple. Thus, the GOP can claim "The American voter has spoken!" and take their positions as Speaker of the House and Senate majority leader even though turnout is less than 40% of the registered voters.
There is a method to their madness. By convincing voters that there is no point the GOP can keep the rules that have let the US economy gain $4T since 2009 (+28%) while median household income add $2,000 (4%). The system is being used to fleece the public, and not voting keeps it that way.
Donald Trump exploits voter disgust with the system. Unfortunately, he presents no feasible policy solutions. Just blurbs and soundbites.
There is a method to their madness. By convincing voters that there is no point the GOP can keep the rules that have let the US economy gain $4T since 2009 (+28%) while median household income add $2,000 (4%). The system is being used to fleece the public, and not voting keeps it that way.
Donald Trump exploits voter disgust with the system. Unfortunately, he presents no feasible policy solutions. Just blurbs and soundbites.
4
"Restrictions on voting, along with aggressive redistricting, reduce the influence of the median voter. "
So how do we change this?
So how do we change this?
1
Mr. Schmitt concludes his piece by mildly stating that "we need a new set of tools to understand how democracy works, or it doesn't." He like most other OpEd writers in this newspaper never utter the thought that maybe we need constitutional reforms. The phrase is avoided like the plaque yet we are supposed to be a democracy where there should be a public forum for the free exchange of ideas, especially radical ones. Certainly such a notion is clearly expressed in many European countries such as Spain and in the UK. Let's face it we are a deeply, deeply divided country and the true line of division is between federal and state rights. I see my area of New England appear to have less and less in common with large areas of the South and West; we would be terrified to see adults openly carrying AK47s around the streets of Boston as they do in Austin, Texas. Furthermore, we are committed to addressing climate change and have a much stronger sense of the common good. How do we accommodate such cultural and political differences when there is an ideological schism in our nation that is more profound than any since the Civil War?
7
@John Marksbury: You propose that there should be a public forum for the free exchange of ideas, especially the radical ones. Good point, but we already have many such forums: for example, the comments sections of NYT and WashPost. We really don't want to do things like the Europeans. Just let those who are interested and follow the news engage in forums available to us already. Mind you, our univerisities aren't suitable, since they tend to deny, or even forcibly kick out, speakers of conservative persuasion who openly challange their left wing faith.
You said something interesting: "….we are committed to addressing climate change and have a much stronger sense of common good". You are referring to New England. But those in Texas are just a likely to say that THEY have a "much stronger sense for common good", basing their belief on smaller government and more individual freedom. Are you just bragging about the place you live in?
You said something interesting: "….we are committed to addressing climate change and have a much stronger sense of common good". You are referring to New England. But those in Texas are just a likely to say that THEY have a "much stronger sense for common good", basing their belief on smaller government and more individual freedom. Are you just bragging about the place you live in?
How do we accommodate such cultural and political differences when there is an ideological schism in our nation that is more profound than any since the Civil War
yeas...and then they went ahead and had a real civil war
yeas...and then they went ahead and had a real civil war
2
John-- sure hope you are not including CA, OR, WA in your "west." We are not crazy.
2
What I see is voter disaffection across both major parties, and for good reason. The Democratic Party of the '60s and '70s no longer exists, having moved right thanks to Clinton, and further with Obama. The solid respectability of the cloth coat Republicans of yore has been eclipsed by the screaming meemies of the Tea Party and its enablers, who oddly go unmentioned in this piece. I recognize neither party as the ones I grew up knowing, where differences in philosophy usually broke on fiscal lines, but the working assumption--among public and politicians--was that you overcome differences and hammer out accords. Neither party's representatives seem to seriously embrace that commitment now.
So what I think we're seeing among voters is a kind of individualism with far looser true party affiliation, in which they'll align with the individual they think best represents their interests and world view. The party's more or less abandoned them to its own interests--maintaining high-level cash flow from its keepers--so neither the DNC nor the RNC can legitimately feel entitled to expect voter loyalty. That means as far as the old rules go, and with outliers like Trump and Sanders in the game, all bets are off.
So what I think we're seeing among voters is a kind of individualism with far looser true party affiliation, in which they'll align with the individual they think best represents their interests and world view. The party's more or less abandoned them to its own interests--maintaining high-level cash flow from its keepers--so neither the DNC nor the RNC can legitimately feel entitled to expect voter loyalty. That means as far as the old rules go, and with outliers like Trump and Sanders in the game, all bets are off.
2
One day in the near future Americans will look at Donald Trump as we now look at Eugene McCarthy of the 1950's, but McCarthy had mobs who loved him then, as Trump does now. Mostly we always only learn these lessons the hard way. In case anyone imagines politics solves problem or that humans are actually not as dumb as door knobs, Enjoy the rise and fall of Trump.
3
Many of us voted for Obama because he said he would end the wars.
Still in Afghanistan. Still in Iraq.
We will never, ever, leave those countries.
And it does not matter how we vote.
Maybe- just maybe- Trump would take us out of those endless, unproductive, wars.
But we know- not a single other candidate would (except, maybe, Sanders).
Nothing, not even Trump, could be worse than what we have. An entire professional political class made up of liars and self-promoters.
Now- another round of tax-cuts and another decade of war.
Still in Afghanistan. Still in Iraq.
We will never, ever, leave those countries.
And it does not matter how we vote.
Maybe- just maybe- Trump would take us out of those endless, unproductive, wars.
But we know- not a single other candidate would (except, maybe, Sanders).
Nothing, not even Trump, could be worse than what we have. An entire professional political class made up of liars and self-promoters.
Now- another round of tax-cuts and another decade of war.
7
No matter what mr Obama does or does not do, Will, people will always say he didn't do enough or he did too much!
5
Problem: Nobody cares.
Reason: All politicians are the same person regardless of party.
Summary: People don't care because It Just Doesn't Matter, and you're fooling yourself if all the heat generated by editorials like this (read: clickbait), generate Any Meaningful Difference.
End: Zzzzz
Reason: All politicians are the same person regardless of party.
Summary: People don't care because It Just Doesn't Matter, and you're fooling yourself if all the heat generated by editorials like this (read: clickbait), generate Any Meaningful Difference.
End: Zzzzz
Politics is no longer about policies. Politics today is mostly stirring the pots, which get ratings in all the various media venues. Politics is driving by "getting clicks", which raises the revenues to the media. It is now "bug business."....and will remain so with social mead getting even more influence.
1
This article takes a microscopic look at the dysfunctional interactions of politics in the US but fails to look at the big picture and draw the obvious conclusion that the system has configured itself to the point where it can't possibly be fixed from within.
7
"Since 2013, about 40 percent disapprove of their own member of Congress." well, we got some real doozies in there last time. That's party going awry.
4
Mr. Trump is a media personality and as such is much more comfortable speaking off the cuff in front of cameras and crowds.
Whether those crowds who like the circus will be moved to actually vote much the less caucus in Iowa, which take quite a bit more dedication, remains to be seen.
Perhaps people actually motivated enough to show up will care more about issues than glitz. If so, I would expect Ted Cruz to do really well in both early states, as he's rabid enough for the Republican right, religious enough for the religious right, and is much more lucid (albeit reactionary in the extreme) on the issues.
Whether those crowds who like the circus will be moved to actually vote much the less caucus in Iowa, which take quite a bit more dedication, remains to be seen.
Perhaps people actually motivated enough to show up will care more about issues than glitz. If so, I would expect Ted Cruz to do really well in both early states, as he's rabid enough for the Republican right, religious enough for the religious right, and is much more lucid (albeit reactionary in the extreme) on the issues.
3
35+ years of failed government- failed under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Terrible laws and policies- for 35+ years.
The only constant? The two political parties.
Trump can do no worse than what we have already gone through.
I was a Democrat- one of those millions of citizens who were completely ignored when healthcare reform was happening. I wanted single-payer.
What did one of the largest Democratic majorities, ever, accomplish? They passed a Republican health-care reform bill.
I am tired of the Democratic Party. Am I more tired of the GOP? Sure. But I get the same terrible policies either way.
At least Trump is standing against the idea that anyone, and everyone, with a pulse and a sad story gets to emigrate here. At least Trump is saying that religious lunatics, who share none of our values, aren't wanted here.
Both parties are slaves to wealth and special interests. I will be voting for Trump as a vote of no confidence in our corrupt and ineffectual system.
Terrible laws and policies- for 35+ years.
The only constant? The two political parties.
Trump can do no worse than what we have already gone through.
I was a Democrat- one of those millions of citizens who were completely ignored when healthcare reform was happening. I wanted single-payer.
What did one of the largest Democratic majorities, ever, accomplish? They passed a Republican health-care reform bill.
I am tired of the Democratic Party. Am I more tired of the GOP? Sure. But I get the same terrible policies either way.
At least Trump is standing against the idea that anyone, and everyone, with a pulse and a sad story gets to emigrate here. At least Trump is saying that religious lunatics, who share none of our values, aren't wanted here.
Both parties are slaves to wealth and special interests. I will be voting for Trump as a vote of no confidence in our corrupt and ineffectual system.
16
You nailed the attraction of Trump. I will not vote for him under any circumstances because for one he is a misogynist and I am a feminist. but none of the pundits, none of the people talking trash about Trump understand his appeal in the way that you just explained. His fans are not all racists and crazies-- you are not, as proven by your comment.
3
Trump isn't "...test[ing] the basic assumptions about how politics works..." He is using his understanding of how media, including social, amplify personal expression. The media -- and some of the public -- are conflating what he's doing with politics, and offering him potential power on a plate, almost for free.
Trump's a good self-promoter. Y'all are buying what he's selling, relabeling it, then reselling it.
Trump's a good self-promoter. Y'all are buying what he's selling, relabeling it, then reselling it.
6
One may well build an airplane; but one can't defy gravity. Thucydides wrote in the first chapter of his History of the Peloponnesian War that, while circumstances change, human nature doesn't. He was right.
The practical disenfranchisement resulting from Citizens United, combined with gerrymandering and the blurring of party divides (why would one believe that HRC would be so different from a republican, given how much money she raised from Wall St?) creates tension between the powerful few and the helpless many. And a paramount law of political physics is that every tension mounts until it is resolved -- somehow.
Our leadership's pervasive self-interest (Rahm anybody?) and speciously literal and anachronistic reading of the Constitution (Mr. Scalia) is setting the stage for a catastrophe.
The practical disenfranchisement resulting from Citizens United, combined with gerrymandering and the blurring of party divides (why would one believe that HRC would be so different from a republican, given how much money she raised from Wall St?) creates tension between the powerful few and the helpless many. And a paramount law of political physics is that every tension mounts until it is resolved -- somehow.
Our leadership's pervasive self-interest (Rahm anybody?) and speciously literal and anachronistic reading of the Constitution (Mr. Scalia) is setting the stage for a catastrophe.
13
@Paolo: Just how were regular citizens disenfranchised by the Citizens United? Were any of them stopped from voting by that decision? Try naming one person who wasn't allowed to vote because of it.
And just why Scalia's reading of the Constitution is setting the stage for catastrophe? On the contrary, it may very well be setting the stage of healing and prosperity. Since when is it wrong to read this document in the manner it was written?
And just why Scalia's reading of the Constitution is setting the stage for catastrophe? On the contrary, it may very well be setting the stage of healing and prosperity. Since when is it wrong to read this document in the manner it was written?
Because, quite obviously, Scalia picks and chooses what he wants to read literally, makes things up when there's no clear precedent, and ignores clear, literal meaning when it doesn't suit him. All a matter of public record.
3
@rimantas: Disenfranchisement doesn't solely have to do with one's inability to cast a ballot. How can one make an informed choice about a candidate without any visibility into who's supporting them? Citizens United made it virtually impossible to understand who's financing whom; and where allegiances rest.
Re: literal interpretation of the Constitution - the letter of the law is always a very, very dangerous weapon, especially when the law in question was written more than 200 years ago in a wholly different world.
In 1791 nobody was thinking of corporations' rights when it came to free speech. Nobody had thought about drug approval processes and labels, and nobody had dreamed of something like the FDA. Yet, if one were to read the Fist Amendment literally, it might be reasonable to make the case that FDA's policing of off-label claims is a violation of pharma's free speech. Do you see the issue now?
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment mentions "male" citizens as the base for congressional apportionment. It made sense at a time when women didn't vote; does it still?
Re: literal interpretation of the Constitution - the letter of the law is always a very, very dangerous weapon, especially when the law in question was written more than 200 years ago in a wholly different world.
In 1791 nobody was thinking of corporations' rights when it came to free speech. Nobody had thought about drug approval processes and labels, and nobody had dreamed of something like the FDA. Yet, if one were to read the Fist Amendment literally, it might be reasonable to make the case that FDA's policing of off-label claims is a violation of pharma's free speech. Do you see the issue now?
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment mentions "male" citizens as the base for congressional apportionment. It made sense at a time when women didn't vote; does it still?
4
Why not eliminate all $$$ from campaigning. The people own the airwaves. Give each candidate free airtime. Let them make a written case for themselves in editorials across the country and let this be a way for them to correct what they may feel are erroneous depictions of themselves. Any outlandish claims or straight up lies should be called out and the one doing the lying has to defend the lie If they can't let the penalty be a temporary restriction on campaigning using print and airwaves. If this can be applied to the internet, let it be applied. As for transportation, provide 1 maybe 2 buses with a stipend for gas. Until all money is eliminated from politics there will be no fair and clean elections. One more thing, personal wealth can't be used! This way the wealthiest and the poorest can both run for office, both local and national.
4
@Flip: Please explain why I can't use my money to spread my political message? NYT uses their millions to spread their message, as allowed by the First amendment; so, why can't I?
Or do you object because my message just might contradict yours?
Or do you object because my message just might contradict yours?
Nice ideas. Too bad they're pie-in-the-sky: since SCOTUS has determined money to be equal to speech, the owners of Congress are no longer "the people" but "the paying people."
4
I would note that LePage of Maine was reelected because a Democrat who had no chance of winning took enough votes from one who could win that LePage benefited. LePage is not liked in Maine and has had a number of law suits go against him.
4
Very interesting analysis. I'm wondering if we might see more coalition politics as we see in the parliamentary systems in Europe. There are still business-minded folks in the Republican Party who are uncomfortable with the agenda of cultural conservatives, just as there are practical Democrats who understand that we have to pay for things we want. The passage of the 2016 budget may be a step forward. Additionally, one senses that we are witnessing a turning point in the Republican Party in this Presidential election. How many presidential elections will they lose before they turn away from the extremists?
4
Maybe the GOP does not need or want to win the presidency. Maybe that is part of the strategy of short term obstruction and long term destruction of our democracy and the federal government? (except the perpetual dept of war)
3
This was a really thoughtful piece, however, the effect of modern gerrymandering was not emphasized nearly enough
8
I think the author misses the big point: Americans are increasingly rejecting both the GOP & the Dems but we're still stuck with picking from among the two of them when we enter the voting booth. "Independent" is now the biggest affiliation nationally (39%), with the Dems at an anemic 32% and the GOP on life support at 23%. But come Election Day, we still have to hold our noses & pick one of them.
I do agree that the current situation pre-dates Trump. Romney's picking Paul Ryan as his running mate in 2012 was a watershed event in further crippling the GOP as a viable party--Ryan's big plan to "privatize" Social Security & Medicare is a stake in the heart to working-class Americans who'll be working to age 85 if they don't have it. When Trump announced his candidacy, he said he was going to strengthen SS, a big plus in his favor among the working class.
On the other hand, for decades the Dems were seemingly unable to utter a sentence that didn't include the phrase "poor & underprivileged", with an attendant spending program to aid them. Bill Clinton broke that mold, Obama has kept to the same winning strategy. Hillary has shrewdly targeted college educations as an entitlement (but the devil will be in the cost details). With the GOP so broken, you'd think the Dems would be winning in landslides. That they're not is due in part to the fear that local property taxes will further skyrocket due to more mandates, highly-expensive ESL programs, etc.
I do agree that the current situation pre-dates Trump. Romney's picking Paul Ryan as his running mate in 2012 was a watershed event in further crippling the GOP as a viable party--Ryan's big plan to "privatize" Social Security & Medicare is a stake in the heart to working-class Americans who'll be working to age 85 if they don't have it. When Trump announced his candidacy, he said he was going to strengthen SS, a big plus in his favor among the working class.
On the other hand, for decades the Dems were seemingly unable to utter a sentence that didn't include the phrase "poor & underprivileged", with an attendant spending program to aid them. Bill Clinton broke that mold, Obama has kept to the same winning strategy. Hillary has shrewdly targeted college educations as an entitlement (but the devil will be in the cost details). With the GOP so broken, you'd think the Dems would be winning in landslides. That they're not is due in part to the fear that local property taxes will further skyrocket due to more mandates, highly-expensive ESL programs, etc.
5
I have to comment here: You misinterpret Hillary's taking on the college cost issue as 'shrewd', when in fact it is just a way (perhaps even a ploy) to take some of Bernie Sanders' millions of young supporters. He raised the issue long before she got around to it.
2
Be careful what you ask as for getting is to often more the complaint. Having what is over the rainbow is a let down and just back to demanding more - again and again - why... politics is best left tot he strong and rotational i a complex world - for me the times is best to check with the best journalist and editorial opinions who know ad play by valor, virtue, and smart can do results that work at the best offer in price and in character for all our national honor.
As for Mr. Donald trump he may not break the politics gig - but he sure does bend the world to his warp game theory for his everything - everybody wins on earth - and that's his exceptional planetary goal and vision for happy days are here again and again - hey one can only ask to be president and the see.....
jjja Manhattan, N.Y.
As for Mr. Donald trump he may not break the politics gig - but he sure does bend the world to his warp game theory for his everything - everybody wins on earth - and that's his exceptional planetary goal and vision for happy days are here again and again - hey one can only ask to be president and the see.....
jjja Manhattan, N.Y.
1
A well informed electorate is essential to a democracy. And a vigorous and free press is essential to a well informed electorate. Thomas Jefferson said something along those lines; it was true then it is true now.
And we don't really seem to have either one, today. 60% of voters in 2014 did not know which party was in control of Congress. It is the business of the news business to inform voters about incidentals like who controls Congress and the news business is not doing its job.
Fox news, whose job is to propagate republican propaganda, is doing its job while the rest of the news business just keeps reporting opinion as fact. No wonder that in spite of historic low levels of confidence and respect, Mitch McConnell is still the majority leader in the Senate and Ryan Speaker of the House.
35 years after FDR's New Deal American was humming right along. 35 years after Reagan's voodoo economics America can't even pave its roads.
And we don't really seem to have either one, today. 60% of voters in 2014 did not know which party was in control of Congress. It is the business of the news business to inform voters about incidentals like who controls Congress and the news business is not doing its job.
Fox news, whose job is to propagate republican propaganda, is doing its job while the rest of the news business just keeps reporting opinion as fact. No wonder that in spite of historic low levels of confidence and respect, Mitch McConnell is still the majority leader in the Senate and Ryan Speaker of the House.
35 years after FDR's New Deal American was humming right along. 35 years after Reagan's voodoo economics America can't even pave its roads.
14
We have not had "elections" for many years. We have experienced a financial coup by the wealthiest which has led to the near destruction of OUR social safety net and all the things that made America great in the 50s and 60s. All money can buy is OUR votes and the only way to restore democracy in America is to get out the progressive vote. Very simple really.
15
We need to get big money under some kind of control. Citizens United was a disaster. Now, the wealthy donors matter more than the average voter. We can't undo technological advances that make conservomedia possible. What we can do is make sure to elect a Democrat for president, in order to allow some kind of sanity in the judicial branch. There is no longer a meeting point, no olive branch is possible. That was proven by the shameful treatment of Obama by Congress after he was reelected.
11
This goes back way before citizens United. Justices nominated by both Republicans and Democrats have given corporations the rights of people for over 150 years.
4
Our public meeting places and times have decreased exponentially in recent decades. Religious institutions are pretty much empty or emptying. The front porches where we might have fallen into conversation with passers-by are now backyard decks and patios, designed for privacy. We drive to the mall or grocery store to shop, where we may or may not see someone we know. If we're raising children, our time is strictly regulated to accommodate commuting, working, children's sports, workouts. But a strong democracy requires a strong local community.
Lack of time and interest drive our abdication of responsibility to issues and politics. That can change. If there were a draft, for example, (and I am not suggesting there should be one), people would become involved. See Vietnam War.
There is a degree of choice in all of this. We cannot simply give up on the democracy out of personal convenience. We need to establish and maintain the kinds of gathering places where neighborhood issues are freely engaged, where we learn from each others' ideas, and where we work to build community, according to democratic principles: Widely available public forums and gathering places. Community gardens. Libraries. Discussion groups. Lectures. Public transportation making these things possible for everyone. These people will be voters!
Or we can turn on the t.v. and watch the corporate-sponsored news and programming, while our leaders swap our freedoms for a promise to keep us safe.
Lack of time and interest drive our abdication of responsibility to issues and politics. That can change. If there were a draft, for example, (and I am not suggesting there should be one), people would become involved. See Vietnam War.
There is a degree of choice in all of this. We cannot simply give up on the democracy out of personal convenience. We need to establish and maintain the kinds of gathering places where neighborhood issues are freely engaged, where we learn from each others' ideas, and where we work to build community, according to democratic principles: Widely available public forums and gathering places. Community gardens. Libraries. Discussion groups. Lectures. Public transportation making these things possible for everyone. These people will be voters!
Or we can turn on the t.v. and watch the corporate-sponsored news and programming, while our leaders swap our freedoms for a promise to keep us safe.
9
The most important part of the Occupy Wall Street movement, was the making of public space for public discussion of issues. My favorite part of going to Occupied Zuccotti Park was meeting smart people with different views about the world, policy, and governing, and having awesome conversations about creating systems that work for everyone.
In Spain this became so popular, that children were playing General Assembly. And The people that participated in assembled across the country now have a powerful political party.
In Spain this became so popular, that children were playing General Assembly. And The people that participated in assembled across the country now have a powerful political party.
5
You neglect to mention social media, which has become a widespread 'community of ideas'. A lot of information (and misinformation) is conveyed there, with people having an option to weigh in and be heard. People will find a way.
For a very large subset of the US population, American democracy has always been broken: recall that, for the purposes of representation, the Constitution states that a slave was to be counted as 3/5 of a man. Emancipation, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, Second Reconstruction (the Civil Rights Movement), and now Second Jim Crow, show a historical trajectory that now begins to entrain larger sectors of the US population as the forces that produced the Cold War and devastated the US manufacturing economy now turn further inward. We reap what we sow.
8
Yes, Trump did not break politics. Obama and the liberals did.
The recent history is obvious to all willing to admit it. First, people elect Obama, believing his promises delivered in a passionate, simple sounding oratory. After two years they realize they were deceived, and elect many Republicans to oppose him. But they do nothing. To top it off, they do little to oppose Obama in 2012.
The people try again; this time really giving the entire Congress and great majority State houses to the Republicans, as if saying, "please save us from Obama". The GOP again does nothing. Oh, their agenda is on the side of the people, but the elected politicians appear to be too scared or too lazy. The people look at the declared candidates for 2016 election; none appear fit to oppose the mighty left. They lost faith in Republican Congress where they had hope.
Enters Trump. He promises the people what they have been wishing for all along. Can anyone blame them for flocking to him immediately? They already turned deaf to the liberal media (this article included); whom else will they listen to? Oh, many are still skeptical he can do the job of beating Hillary, but what strong alternative do they have?
Trump is not a politican. But he just may be the one to fix what everyone agrees is broken.
The recent history is obvious to all willing to admit it. First, people elect Obama, believing his promises delivered in a passionate, simple sounding oratory. After two years they realize they were deceived, and elect many Republicans to oppose him. But they do nothing. To top it off, they do little to oppose Obama in 2012.
The people try again; this time really giving the entire Congress and great majority State houses to the Republicans, as if saying, "please save us from Obama". The GOP again does nothing. Oh, their agenda is on the side of the people, but the elected politicians appear to be too scared or too lazy. The people look at the declared candidates for 2016 election; none appear fit to oppose the mighty left. They lost faith in Republican Congress where they had hope.
Enters Trump. He promises the people what they have been wishing for all along. Can anyone blame them for flocking to him immediately? They already turned deaf to the liberal media (this article included); whom else will they listen to? Oh, many are still skeptical he can do the job of beating Hillary, but what strong alternative do they have?
Trump is not a politican. But he just may be the one to fix what everyone agrees is broken.
16
What Obama promises did he not act on? In what way were his supporters deceived after 2008? Wars were wound down, economic disaster was averted, more-affordable healthcare became national policy.
Republicans were elected in 2010 because the Great Bush Recession was not yet over and because many Democratic voters were complacent (see the 40% voting rate for households with less than $52,000 incomes). This ruinous result allowed Republican gerrymandering at every level.
In 2012 people obviously did not want to be "saved" from President Obama, and polling indicates that gun control, wealth redistribution, healthcare, abortion rights, etc. are Democratic-favoring issues of an "agenda on the side of the people."
Trump is a vulgarian celebrity. We live in a deplorable celebrity culture, and it will take many more months of adult education to make sure that the electorate knows how unsuitable Mr. Trump is for the Presidency.
Republicans were elected in 2010 because the Great Bush Recession was not yet over and because many Democratic voters were complacent (see the 40% voting rate for households with less than $52,000 incomes). This ruinous result allowed Republican gerrymandering at every level.
In 2012 people obviously did not want to be "saved" from President Obama, and polling indicates that gun control, wealth redistribution, healthcare, abortion rights, etc. are Democratic-favoring issues of an "agenda on the side of the people."
Trump is a vulgarian celebrity. We live in a deplorable celebrity culture, and it will take many more months of adult education to make sure that the electorate knows how unsuitable Mr. Trump is for the Presidency.
13
"Please save us from Obama"
Cute. Is that why he was reelected? You're just another right wing extremist.
"....fix what everyone agrees is broken."
I don't agree, and that alone means you are mistaken when you say "everyone". It is my experience that when someone claims that "everyone" agrees with them that person is not to be taken seriously.
Cute. Is that why he was reelected? You're just another right wing extremist.
"....fix what everyone agrees is broken."
I don't agree, and that alone means you are mistaken when you say "everyone". It is my experience that when someone claims that "everyone" agrees with them that person is not to be taken seriously.
5
@David: Many promises he acted on, but the people suffered. Like, Obamacare. Wars were not wound down: even NYT still says the war in Afganistan is going on and our soldiers are suffereing because of Obama's rules of engagement. Iraq war was won, but Obama gave it away. Now Obama sent our soldiers back to fight there. Ever hear of ISIS?
Trump is not the vulgarian celebrity - Hillary is. We do live in a deblorable culture, one encouraged by Obama and his cronies, where students in universities are encouraged to try to repeal the 1st amendment, and foul language is hailed on the left wing outlets. The electorate knows all this regardless of the elitist propoganda you are dishing out. I am not claiming Trump will be the most suitable president, but a liar like Hillary certainly is the most unsuitable.
Your reading of the 2010, 2012 and 2014 election results is wrong. Since you appear to be a liberal, the electorate simply said, repeatedly, that your agenda for them is wrong. And I am sure it hurts you to admit it.
Trump is not the vulgarian celebrity - Hillary is. We do live in a deblorable culture, one encouraged by Obama and his cronies, where students in universities are encouraged to try to repeal the 1st amendment, and foul language is hailed on the left wing outlets. The electorate knows all this regardless of the elitist propoganda you are dishing out. I am not claiming Trump will be the most suitable president, but a liar like Hillary certainly is the most unsuitable.
Your reading of the 2010, 2012 and 2014 election results is wrong. Since you appear to be a liberal, the electorate simply said, repeatedly, that your agenda for them is wrong. And I am sure it hurts you to admit it.
2
This piece has very little to do with Trump other than to give him more of the free publicity that propels his candidacy.
7
We need more money in politics. It usually knows what it wants. People are too stupid to even vote their own interest.
2
The 3 basic problems are this: News Media outlets - are only interested in "eyeballs & earlobes" - and all of this play acting has the usual pavlovien effect on News Groups --- Trump says something outlandish - they report upon it. The second problem is the News - is no longer journalism -it is Entertainment Nightly - I'm still waiting for ALL the major News Outlets to challenge Trump on his "on 9/11, he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating in Jersey City" - he lied and no one from the media has hammered him on this and other bald-face lies. ALL News MEDIA needs to decide - are you journalists or are you entertainers. Last - our society has lost respect for itself and the elected government - that WE decided upon. So, we MUST decide what kind of government that we want - demonstrate our allegiance to that government. We need to elevate voting as a privilege and support our elected officials. If our elected officials do a good job - we vote them back in - and give them praise. If they don't do a good job - "throw the bums out!". BTW - News Flash: Donald Trump is doing all these things for his next reality show - and he needs all this content - to make it entertaining.
7
Demonizing opponents began with Newt Gingrich. Too many voters do not follow state or national government and politics. Others choose Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh and other far right radio sources. Others look at party and vote for that party only. Elections are expensive and need large amounts. Businesses' provide funds and then candidates who win do what the business's want. With the Supreme Court decision of Citizens United business' and the rich provide large amounts and candidates do what they ask. We must change these problems to have Congress work as it did in the past.
9
If you think The Newt was the original Demonizer, you must be very young. In my lifetime, some of the more memorable demonizers were Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Joe McCarthy, Ronald Reagan, Harlot Cancer.....
There is an old saying in politics. "If you can't say something bad about somebody, you're not trying hard enough."
There is an old saying in politics. "If you can't say something bad about somebody, you're not trying hard enough."
4
"Demonizing opponents began with Newt Gingrich."
Thank you, Fred, for the best laugh I've had in a long time. I immediately thought of the tv ads advancing the notion that Barry Goldwater would bring about an atomic war. But I am sure that there are earlier examples of which I am unaware.
Thank you, Fred, for the best laugh I've had in a long time. I immediately thought of the tv ads advancing the notion that Barry Goldwater would bring about an atomic war. But I am sure that there are earlier examples of which I am unaware.
3
The problem isn't Trump or any of the dirty politicians. It's a lazy and ignorant electorate that largely either doesn't take time from their phones, reality TV, or sports to educate themselves and get out to vote their interests, or a fearful, easily led demographic that is so scared their privilege card is about to be revoked that they can't see they are being used by the wealthy and powerful to advance their exclusive interests while their wages are stagnating, their jobs are sent overseas, health care is oppressively expensive for them, college tuition is ridiculous with more and more graduates unable to get well-paying jobs, corporations are passing more and more laws to protect their interests, among a host of other issues. Who else would be stupid enough to vote against their own interests and not be able to tell that they are being used?
8
Nice to characterize the electorate as 'lazy'. Easy out. But consider that there are many people who have 2 or 3 jobs to get by. Add to that formula reduced voting hours and strict requirements for identification, and you have a great Republican formula to keep the electorate 'lazy'.
2
The first rule that must change is on redistricting. Gerrymandering frustrates what's left of real democracy.
The second is that all laws must have a sunset clause. At least that would force legislators to rethink laws.
The third is to throw out the tax code, all 75,000 pages of it, eliminate special favors for all the oligarchs who traipse into the White House every day, and do some semi-honest accounting on the real debt of the country, estimated at least six times greater than usually acknowledged.
Donald Trump's approval ratings go up because he acknowledges what most Americans see as major problems (lack of jobs yet employing illegal aliens; runaway entitlements like the ACA; milksop foreign policy).
Essays reiterating all the people Trump has allegedly insulted do not convince careful readers. Trump did not insult women: he fought back against several who attacked him. He did not insult Mexicans: he said "THEY" (presumably Mexico authorities, or possibly Mexican coyotes) are "sending" rapists, criminals, and "good people."
The inability of writers to distinguish between "this horse is white; therefore all horses are white" and "that horse is black, therefore SOME horses are black" is as irritating as it is dishonest. Insulting some people as rapists does not imply that all people (or men, or Mexicans) are rapists.
The second is that all laws must have a sunset clause. At least that would force legislators to rethink laws.
The third is to throw out the tax code, all 75,000 pages of it, eliminate special favors for all the oligarchs who traipse into the White House every day, and do some semi-honest accounting on the real debt of the country, estimated at least six times greater than usually acknowledged.
Donald Trump's approval ratings go up because he acknowledges what most Americans see as major problems (lack of jobs yet employing illegal aliens; runaway entitlements like the ACA; milksop foreign policy).
Essays reiterating all the people Trump has allegedly insulted do not convince careful readers. Trump did not insult women: he fought back against several who attacked him. He did not insult Mexicans: he said "THEY" (presumably Mexico authorities, or possibly Mexican coyotes) are "sending" rapists, criminals, and "good people."
The inability of writers to distinguish between "this horse is white; therefore all horses are white" and "that horse is black, therefore SOME horses are black" is as irritating as it is dishonest. Insulting some people as rapists does not imply that all people (or men, or Mexicans) are rapists.
1
You should try and offer your argument again, but this time use Trump's actual comments, instead of what you wish he had said.
5
Thanks for your post. Now I'm beginning to understand more how people are able to justify Donald Trump in their mind. It sure takes a stretch of the mind to re-cast his obnoxious and abusive manner as some form of honest dialog. I am in awe of your ability to deceive yourself. Wow.
1
I heard Trump's original statement on TV. It's unfortunate that he doesn't clarify, modify, or provide sources, and it's unfortunate that he paints with a broad brush, because his statement is irrelevant and doesn't address the real issues: (1) too many employers who would rather pay slave wages to illegal aliens than decent ones to America's un- and under-employed; and (2) many crimes are committed by illegal aliens, and then we have to pay for their trials, their incarceration, and their recidivism; (3) we need to have a guest worker program with both a carrot (money) and a stick (a way to force return to home country).
However, my paraphrase is accurate, and his statement was based on a report noting that 80% of women crossing the southern border had been raped.
http://fusion.net/story/17321/is-rape-the-price-to-pay-for-migrant-women...
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-epic-statement-on-mexico-20...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n...
However, my paraphrase is accurate, and his statement was based on a report noting that 80% of women crossing the southern border had been raped.
http://fusion.net/story/17321/is-rape-the-price-to-pay-for-migrant-women...
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-epic-statement-on-mexico-20...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n...
So, that people choose not to vote is also the Republican's fault? Incredibly powerful Force, they are.
5
Hard to admit, but Trump is right when he says that our politician class is incompetent and unresponsive. He wants to be CEO and relegate Congress to insignificance -- perhaps not a bad idea if he were not the foremost proponent of the Big Lie.
8
As someone who's always been low-income, grew up in Missouri and now lives in Chicago, I have to point out how ridiculous all the standard political posturing has always been.
In Chicago our mayor is a Democrat and our Governor is a Republican. They both have demonstrable contempt for poor people. They vacation together. "Why bother?" is a very valid question. Rahm was very nearly voted out, but it's disheartening.
People are not econs, and everybody knows that. People have morals, left and right, and are more driven by moral compass than calculating self-interest when they go to vote. It's very condescending to think poor white people in the Republican base are being fooled. Maybe, for many, their checkbook is not the most important thing to them. Maybe sticking it to black people is more important. And for those who would vote for their own interest, who are on the left, who is speaking to them? The Democrats are, at best, willing to offer concessions to poor people, which is very different than championing them.
These less/more government arguments have always been proxies for the moral question of whether we help the disadvantaged, or not, with a knowledge that the disadvantaged includes those who aren't white.
In Chicago our mayor is a Democrat and our Governor is a Republican. They both have demonstrable contempt for poor people. They vacation together. "Why bother?" is a very valid question. Rahm was very nearly voted out, but it's disheartening.
People are not econs, and everybody knows that. People have morals, left and right, and are more driven by moral compass than calculating self-interest when they go to vote. It's very condescending to think poor white people in the Republican base are being fooled. Maybe, for many, their checkbook is not the most important thing to them. Maybe sticking it to black people is more important. And for those who would vote for their own interest, who are on the left, who is speaking to them? The Democrats are, at best, willing to offer concessions to poor people, which is very different than championing them.
These less/more government arguments have always been proxies for the moral question of whether we help the disadvantaged, or not, with a knowledge that the disadvantaged includes those who aren't white.
3
First of all, "morals" are subjective, and for that matter, so is religious belief. You have no right to force your "morals" on others.
Secondly, what in the world do morals have to do with people arguing lame talking points about such things as climate change that only serve the purposes of the wealthy and powerful and how the President isn't doing anything about jobs or stagnating wages or benefits, which again, is only in the power of the wealthy and powerful, have to do with anything? THAT is not voting your interests.
Or are you really just talking about abortion, because I know that is the only problem facing humanity right now.
Secondly, what in the world do morals have to do with people arguing lame talking points about such things as climate change that only serve the purposes of the wealthy and powerful and how the President isn't doing anything about jobs or stagnating wages or benefits, which again, is only in the power of the wealthy and powerful, have to do with anything? THAT is not voting your interests.
Or are you really just talking about abortion, because I know that is the only problem facing humanity right now.
4
I think you have a very optimistic viewpoint of the thinking processes of the poor when they vote. Naive, in fact. What you may need to realize is that they are being bombarded by the 'moral' issues as a way to deflect them from the fact that their leaders (and the leaders' super-donors) are robbing them blind. They are, in fact, being duped~
1
Foreign Manufacturers and foreign governments probably think that they paid President Clinton for NAFTA and all of that that other Free Trade Agreement legislation, MFNs, PNTRs and that secret US Military Rocket Technology “fair and square” in accordance with the prevailing INSTITUTIONALIZED federal government “PAY TO PLAY” bribery procedures for awarding favors, Free Trade Agreement Legislation, Military Secrets, and no-bid contracts to political contributors!
Google Up “Chinagate!”
Google Up “Chinagate!”
3
Narcissists don't follow political 'rules', if there is such a thing. Give him a microphone and access to money, and we see our democracy failing right before our eyes.
6
@Dee Dee: You are correct - that is exactly what Obama did.
1
thats exactly what bush did
4
@thx1138: No. If you followed Bush years, you will know he was a very poor public speaker, useless with a microphone, and he spent people's money almost as much as the liberals. And in case you haven't noticed, the democracy survived famously, without any terrorist attacks on our soil.
1
In a word ... gerrymandering.
3
The problem is a combination of things.
A disgusting amount of money in politics and an exceedingly long election cycle.
Media (including the NYT) that is ratings and bottom line driven hence the minute by minute dump of "information" and "news" consumers are offered.
A low, very low information voter.
A disgusting amount of money in politics and an exceedingly long election cycle.
Media (including the NYT) that is ratings and bottom line driven hence the minute by minute dump of "information" and "news" consumers are offered.
A low, very low information voter.
4
US Democracy..The Myth. From its inception; The Bill of Rights and the Constitution, both open ended fortunately. But, the practical application initially was for white, male, property owners; A carry over from England. Freed slaves were disenfranchised after Reconstruction, and "Suffrage" constitutionally resolved in 1920. Not until the Civil Rights act of 1964 did the US finally, by legal statue, approach democracy. And now, culturally and traditionally, various segments of US society are still "disenfranchised"
3
Trump is a revolution to political consultants. He doesn't go by any of their scripts.
7
Trump did not break politics; Pelosi and Obama did when they sold out to the insurance cabal. When our party is so obviously bought, the only question for Trump was which bought for party he'd buy.
8
Gerrymandering of districts has to have a huge effect. Candidates for each party are more extreme. A voter may not like the candidate of his/her party, but the opposing candidate is just too extreme on the other side.
4
That Donald Trump has willfully become the Howard Stern of politics is simply another sign of the decline of American life. Our ethics, dress, language, education, customer service, behavior, gun fetish, money obsession etc., all are reflected in our politics. Will we, can we produce a leader as elevating as Winston Churchill and FDR that will inspire a renaissance in America? Or will we sink into an abyss sees that America evolve into a national Las Vegas governed by leaders analogous to a hybrid of the Mafia, the KKK, American Nazis and far right extremists?
10
The redrafting of American politics began over 30 years ago when Republican activists silently and with little fan fare began taking over local and state governments. The rule that all politics is local has been proven true. Democrats disastrously assumed that the Federal government and its sweeping laws would dominate, but overlooked the fact that states and especially the House are dominated by local politics. And Republican success at creating local fiefdoms through gerrymandering and voter suppression has been overwhelming. Local politics is more cheaply bought than larger election venues and Republicans have realized this thoroughly.
So we have this stalemate between what the country at large wants and needs and the dominance of small time politicians who pander to their local base and in many cases now can even afford to ignore them. Democrats need to get back to the down and dirty hand to hand conflicts of local elections if we are to slowly gain back losses that have crippled our ability to fight back against corporate giants and the NRA.
The mediocrity of the Republican field for president is a consequence of Republicans conceding larger battles and perhaps a new sloppiness that Democrats might exploit, but I fear that Democrats do not have the stomach for this local fight to win back our destinies.
So we have this stalemate between what the country at large wants and needs and the dominance of small time politicians who pander to their local base and in many cases now can even afford to ignore them. Democrats need to get back to the down and dirty hand to hand conflicts of local elections if we are to slowly gain back losses that have crippled our ability to fight back against corporate giants and the NRA.
The mediocrity of the Republican field for president is a consequence of Republicans conceding larger battles and perhaps a new sloppiness that Democrats might exploit, but I fear that Democrats do not have the stomach for this local fight to win back our destinies.
47
Very true. When I arrived in Oklahoma 33 years ago, it was a reliably (Blue-dog) Democratic state. Part of the trouble was that it was also an often corrupt political environment. Over the next decade, Republicans moved into both state and national offices, so that in the most recent election, the state became solidly Republican at all levels.
There is also a regional element that will make changing this very difficult. Many of our more colorful Republican politicians ( e.g. both our current senators, our governor, our attorney general, and most of our congressmen) have made national news spouting crazy ideas, and the consequence has been to cement the idea that Oklahoma hasn't changed much since Steinbeck. This makes recruitment from more liberal areas of the country difficult and encourages a downward spiral of extreme political positions. I'm looking forward to retirement, when I can leave this state for more pleasant surroundings.
There is also a regional element that will make changing this very difficult. Many of our more colorful Republican politicians ( e.g. both our current senators, our governor, our attorney general, and most of our congressmen) have made national news spouting crazy ideas, and the consequence has been to cement the idea that Oklahoma hasn't changed much since Steinbeck. This makes recruitment from more liberal areas of the country difficult and encourages a downward spiral of extreme political positions. I'm looking forward to retirement, when I can leave this state for more pleasant surroundings.
7
Yes, the recasting started with the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy and the enthronement of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan in OUR White House by the wealthiest. 40+ years later thewealthiest have convinced too many Americans that their vote doesn't count and, rather than find a way to restore democracy, many moderate voters stay home. The fact is that ALL that matters is OUR votes. It is all money can buy. Gerrymandering can make some districts easier for republicans to hold but can't stop ALL of us when we vote and persuade others who usually don't vote that change is up to them as well. There is no time-out or sitting on the sidelines in a true democratic society unless we want the anarchy we are facing today.
7
This article gives the Republicans far more credit than they deserve. They accidentally backed into their position of power when the Democrats decided to abandon the white working class.
And for those who complain about gerrymandering, remember that gerrymandering is now legally mandated in order to achieve racial diversity in Congress. Once again, the Republicans have benefited by accident, not design.
It is certainly true that the Republican elite has chosen to ignore the wishes of the voters who brought them to power. Sometimes there have been consequences for such elitism, notably Eric Cantor. There may be more.
The fact is, these political upheavals, as well as Trump's success, show that democracy is working, even if it is not working out the way liberals had hoped or expected.
And for those who complain about gerrymandering, remember that gerrymandering is now legally mandated in order to achieve racial diversity in Congress. Once again, the Republicans have benefited by accident, not design.
It is certainly true that the Republican elite has chosen to ignore the wishes of the voters who brought them to power. Sometimes there have been consequences for such elitism, notably Eric Cantor. There may be more.
The fact is, these political upheavals, as well as Trump's success, show that democracy is working, even if it is not working out the way liberals had hoped or expected.
7
Up until a couple of years ago, when redistricting delivered us (a rare event--usually it goes the other way!) we were 'managed' by one of the most ideologically right-wing members of Congress. We received NO, repeat NO consideration for anything that would benefit us locally, while he was off trotting around to military bases around the globe showing what a 'patriot' he thinks he is. But 'twas ever thus, I guess: we just chalk it up to living in the 21st century equivalent of the more backward parts of 20th century Mississippi.
2
The American system is a winner take all system encouraging the existence of only two parties. The failure of large groups of people to vote, especially in off-year elections, have given single issue groups and large donors much more power than the median voter.
8
Wouldn't it be possible to address some of this problem by making each elector in the Electoral College independent? Instead of winner-take-all, each district electors vote on the basis of the voters' choice in that district.
3
You mean, the people vote, but the electors decide? As in the Holy Roman Empire of Germany before 1871?
Simple solution, abolish the Electoral College, made sense when it was first established. Now? Not so much.
2
This op-ed exemplifies why so many voters do not vote. It lauds our rigged system rife with misinformation and it removes any kind of reasonable historical perspective. Every election we see our elections turned into neck-and-neck horse races, even when they are not. Numbers are ginned and lies told. Voter needs need not be considered; only whitewashed. Trump didn't break anything? Yes, he did. But it wasn't the rules nor did he do anything that hasn't been done before. He changed media's expectation of income. PAC money was lined up for Jeb! and for Hillary. A handful of executives had carved up the roast and Trump stopped the festivities dead in its tracks. He did it without advertising dollars or PAC money. Sanders is doing the same thing for the Democrats but the media was ready to stop him from getting any publicity.
Once Again The NYTimes is trying to set the table anew. They are rearranging the facts to fit ,so voters will think there is credible competition that can beat Trump. Worse, Sanders has not been invited yet young voters and Democrats keep showing up in the tens of thousands to hear him speak. The horse race has been vetted. The media has given Hillary her colors and they are hoping to pick a triple crown winner of their choosing. Yet, the underdog is coming on strong for a man in his seventies.
Once Again The NYTimes is trying to set the table anew. They are rearranging the facts to fit ,so voters will think there is credible competition that can beat Trump. Worse, Sanders has not been invited yet young voters and Democrats keep showing up in the tens of thousands to hear him speak. The horse race has been vetted. The media has given Hillary her colors and they are hoping to pick a triple crown winner of their choosing. Yet, the underdog is coming on strong for a man in his seventies.
34
I was with you until you intimated that there is really no credible competition for Trump. In fact, he is the favorite of a fraction of Republicans. Just because the media has blown his influence out of proportion in addition to the attention given him, he is not a shoo-in.
4
Mark Schmitt,
Here in the USA we have recently elected the very best US congressmen, congresswomen, senators, governors, presidents and other government administrations that money can buy!
These elected and appointed officials do, however, offer to sell their votes for tax loopholes for their campaign contributor's business, offshore tax havens, Free Trade Agreements, MFN trade statuses, PNTR trade statuses, Alaskan drilling permits, no-bid PAY TO PLAY government contracts funded from the public treasuries such as the CGI Federal no-bid contract; military weapon system software secrets transferred to Communist China (Hughes Aircraft company Rocket Guidance Software - Google up “Chinagate”); H.1.b. visa increases; more U.S. taxpayer foreign aid to finance the building of more Nuclear Bombs for/in Israel; presidential pardons for convicted felons, and their legislative votes for sale to US citizens, foreign governments, and to anybody else, at very reasonable prices!
Maybe Donald Trump is wealthy enough to not be susceptible to the bribery attached to financial campaign contributions that other candidates have accepted in return for the politician’s promises of financial benefits from the US Government Treasury and new US Government laws.
Here in the USA we have recently elected the very best US congressmen, congresswomen, senators, governors, presidents and other government administrations that money can buy!
These elected and appointed officials do, however, offer to sell their votes for tax loopholes for their campaign contributor's business, offshore tax havens, Free Trade Agreements, MFN trade statuses, PNTR trade statuses, Alaskan drilling permits, no-bid PAY TO PLAY government contracts funded from the public treasuries such as the CGI Federal no-bid contract; military weapon system software secrets transferred to Communist China (Hughes Aircraft company Rocket Guidance Software - Google up “Chinagate”); H.1.b. visa increases; more U.S. taxpayer foreign aid to finance the building of more Nuclear Bombs for/in Israel; presidential pardons for convicted felons, and their legislative votes for sale to US citizens, foreign governments, and to anybody else, at very reasonable prices!
Maybe Donald Trump is wealthy enough to not be susceptible to the bribery attached to financial campaign contributions that other candidates have accepted in return for the politician’s promises of financial benefits from the US Government Treasury and new US Government laws.
2
Bernie Sanders might not be a Billionaire, but I hear that he is an honest elected politician (maybe the only one in Washington DC) also not accepting campaign contributions in exchange for Pay to Play government contracts, Military Secrets, MFN or PNTR trade statuses, Environmental Damage Liability Limits, more U.S. taxpayer foreign aid, Alaskan drilling permits, and other US government benefits for sale to US citizens and to foreigners.
7
I note this comment in your editorial: "In 2011, Rick Scott of Florida rejected $2.4 billion in federal funds for a commuter rail project and yet got re-elected." A few points of clarity;
1. Scott faced Charlie Crist, a flip flopping, party changing newly coined Democrat, who was a weak opponent.
2. Scott is very wealthy, having ripped off Medicare for many millions in his previous position as a health care CEO. When the polls became close near the end of the re-election battle, he infused a great deal of cash into his campaign that he had previously pledged not to spend, and he basically bought the election for the second time.
3. The voters of Florida are notoriously lazy, ill informed, easily conned, and the polls always close before the early bird special.
Your point appears to be overall well made, but there is no point in using Florida as an example of logic in politics.
1. Scott faced Charlie Crist, a flip flopping, party changing newly coined Democrat, who was a weak opponent.
2. Scott is very wealthy, having ripped off Medicare for many millions in his previous position as a health care CEO. When the polls became close near the end of the re-election battle, he infused a great deal of cash into his campaign that he had previously pledged not to spend, and he basically bought the election for the second time.
3. The voters of Florida are notoriously lazy, ill informed, easily conned, and the polls always close before the early bird special.
Your point appears to be overall well made, but there is no point in using Florida as an example of logic in politics.
3
Another piece that ignores racism, which has been the main driver of political change since the Civil Rights Era. The Republican party drew Southern and other racists away from the Democratic party, but is increasingly unable to satisfy them in any material way - they just rely on increasing partisanship through propaganda campaigns.
5
Americans are afraid and discouraged. The world is increasingly complex and more and more difficult to navigate. This in an electorate that still massively favors Christianity and creationism. Is it any wonder that not much thinking or planning for a more stable and equitable society is going on? Just a lot of facile sound bites to confuse the issues. I don't expect much to change whether it's Donald or Hillary, or someone else.
1
@spinotter: Actually, the electorate favors evolution over creationism. First, all schools teach this doctrine, and second the liberal press uses it to take Christianity apart. But that is hypocritical. Evolution's basic tenet is "survival of the fittest". This is the basic mechanism by which evolution took place.
If you preach evolution, you must believe it; yet no one on the left wants to allow "survival of the fittest" in our society. Why not? Just because it would kill socialism?
If you preach evolution, you must believe it; yet no one on the left wants to allow "survival of the fittest" in our society. Why not? Just because it would kill socialism?
1
Mark Schmitt,
Why isn’t anybody talking about how President Obama has achieved “Peace In Our Time?”
But only for the next ten years and then he has agreed that Iran can build as many nuclear weapons as it wants in accordance with this agreement!
Iran does not have intercontinental ballistic missile delivery systems, but they can afford to rent a van for a suicide bomber instead!
This treaty is a great diplomatic victory for the Obama Administration!
Why isn’t anybody talking about how President Obama has achieved “Peace In Our Time?”
But only for the next ten years and then he has agreed that Iran can build as many nuclear weapons as it wants in accordance with this agreement!
Iran does not have intercontinental ballistic missile delivery systems, but they can afford to rent a van for a suicide bomber instead!
This treaty is a great diplomatic victory for the Obama Administration!
2
Has Iran demanded that the U.S. and/or Israel stop expanding their nuclear arsenals? Regardless of whether Tehran manages to build a nuclear weapon 10 years from now or even 2 years from now it will never be able to catch up to this country or to threaten us in any serious sense. And, by the way, they don't employ suicide bombers.
4
Iran has not yet "employed suicide bombers," but they watch TV and read the newspapers so they know that is an option!
1
"And yet with each transgression, his poll numbers bubble upward."
The big omission in that statement is that they bubble upward with the Republican Party's base which consists of white hard right conservatives. Those voters approve of and embrace Trump's racist demagoguery. Birther lies?
Those people, todays neo-confederates, were always open to racist nd misogynistic appeals. This punk Trump has simply acknowledged them for what they are and is giving them, a distinct minority nationally and in the Republican Party, what they want.
The big omission in that statement is that they bubble upward with the Republican Party's base which consists of white hard right conservatives. Those voters approve of and embrace Trump's racist demagoguery. Birther lies?
Those people, todays neo-confederates, were always open to racist nd misogynistic appeals. This punk Trump has simply acknowledged them for what they are and is giving them, a distinct minority nationally and in the Republican Party, what they want.
3
Repression and projection. That's where the ad hominem stuff comes from.
Stereotype much?
The New York liberals are quite wrong to assume that Trump's appeal is mainly to racists. Most of the folks I know who are giving Trump a fair hearing are far from racists, and many are Democrats. What they have in common is that they believe Washington DC has become isolated, that Congress is indifferent to their concerns, that politicians never give a straight answer. To these people, Trump is a breathe of fresh air. He says what they are thinking, which no politician will do.
Liberals demonize Trump supporters at their peril. They ought to try to understand the concerns of ordinary Americans and respond to them, instead of wondering "What's the Matter with Kansas?" When I say that Obama has been a terrible President, it's not because I'm racist. It's because on the record, on the facts, he has been the best President in history for the 1%, they are massively better off today than in 2008. For the rest of us, not so much. Trump understands that, none of the politicians do.
The New York liberals are quite wrong to assume that Trump's appeal is mainly to racists. Most of the folks I know who are giving Trump a fair hearing are far from racists, and many are Democrats. What they have in common is that they believe Washington DC has become isolated, that Congress is indifferent to their concerns, that politicians never give a straight answer. To these people, Trump is a breathe of fresh air. He says what they are thinking, which no politician will do.
Liberals demonize Trump supporters at their peril. They ought to try to understand the concerns of ordinary Americans and respond to them, instead of wondering "What's the Matter with Kansas?" When I say that Obama has been a terrible President, it's not because I'm racist. It's because on the record, on the facts, he has been the best President in history for the 1%, they are massively better off today than in 2008. For the rest of us, not so much. Trump understands that, none of the politicians do.
4
E.Dantes, if the 1% have done better since Obama's election you can thank the Republicans in Congress who held the suffering American workers hostage so they could keep big tax cuts for their donors. Even now their proposals are for more cuts for big money, including Trump. If you think they are on the side of average Americans you are living in fantasyland.
4
For the first time since I was able to vote I abstained from the last election. I had no use for Romney and I was totally unimpressed by Obama's first term. Now I see it was a mistake. I am not interested in voting for any of the candidates other than Bernie Sanders (who I see as an unlikely nominee) but I will cast a vote. Not doing so compromises my right to vote, a precious right.
7
One hopes you do not continue to act as a typical voter and remember it is equally important to cast your vote in local and state elections.
Because voting for another "hope and change" occupant for the White House is only a small part of preserving that "precious" right.
Because voting for another "hope and change" occupant for the White House is only a small part of preserving that "precious" right.
4
Our votes mean absolutely nothing as long as the Electoral College is still in place.
3
This is a very thoughtful and thought provoking analysis of American politics. Trump is exposing the ragged edges of a broken process.
4
Trump has done us all a favor by exposing the true face of the Republican party. In recent years, Republicans have tried to capitalize on the fears and anger of their base by subtlety implying racist and mindlessly militaristic viewpoints without actually owning up to them. Trump has astutely observed that this delicacy was not only unnecessary, but counterproductive. Why imply that you are against immigrants and Muslims when you can gain so much more support by coming right out and saying that immigrants are criminals and rapists, and that Muslims are terrorists? If the real political battle is between having our policy determined by fear and ignorance, or by rational consideration of the facts that they exist, why not frame it in just those terms?
8
The Republicans have set the stage for the hate-mongering Trump. In the last 8 years, they have encouraged irrational hate and obstructionism toward President Obama and government in general. Trump is just the manifestation of their policies. Hopefully, we will not pay the price for their mistakes as we have in the past.
6
1/4/2016 10:50 am
Unlike many analysts I don’t believe most voters are stupid. Being a member of the lower working class, I understand how difficult it is to find time to sift through the snow job vested interests put out.
I agree with those letter writers who suggest really the voters recognized that the Rep party works against them on many key issues of importance to them (environment, research, insurance coverage, SS, Medicare, work laws, etc). Yet, the Dems break from a moral compass based on simple principles to one of actively pursuing intellectual utopias based on academic notions of right and wrong is on a practical level just as devastating.
Most things tend to drift in a direction. Newton’s law of motion applied to cultural memes. It takes someone like Trump with the resources to stop and question where this has taken us.
I wish there were someone like Trump within the Dem party to question it’s drift. Bill Clinton was in that regard most like Trump. In his ‘sister soljuh’ moment, in his signing the defense of marriage, in his questioning of welfare as a way of life he was then what Trump is now.
The Rep’s scare me; but Trump doesn’t. I am not a homophobe, yet I believe that a family of a mother and father is the most fundamental building block of society. When that belief and aspiration is made something to be attacked by the Dem creed then it is time to question the method by which it arrives at all its values.
Unlike many analysts I don’t believe most voters are stupid. Being a member of the lower working class, I understand how difficult it is to find time to sift through the snow job vested interests put out.
I agree with those letter writers who suggest really the voters recognized that the Rep party works against them on many key issues of importance to them (environment, research, insurance coverage, SS, Medicare, work laws, etc). Yet, the Dems break from a moral compass based on simple principles to one of actively pursuing intellectual utopias based on academic notions of right and wrong is on a practical level just as devastating.
Most things tend to drift in a direction. Newton’s law of motion applied to cultural memes. It takes someone like Trump with the resources to stop and question where this has taken us.
I wish there were someone like Trump within the Dem party to question it’s drift. Bill Clinton was in that regard most like Trump. In his ‘sister soljuh’ moment, in his signing the defense of marriage, in his questioning of welfare as a way of life he was then what Trump is now.
The Rep’s scare me; but Trump doesn’t. I am not a homophobe, yet I believe that a family of a mother and father is the most fundamental building block of society. When that belief and aspiration is made something to be attacked by the Dem creed then it is time to question the method by which it arrives at all its values.
2
Not a bad column, but far too over-complicated.
Mr. Schmitt argues that "members of Congress secured re-election even in districts that voted for the other party’s presidential candidate, through slavish attention to local concerns, ... [etc]"
That may be a small portion of the reason, but the primary reason people vote to re-elect their representative is ... they know his/her name. The political participation of this country's population is a worldwide embarrassment: nobody votes, and those who do vote know absolutely nothing. The shopkeepers and cabdrivers I speak to in Greece (for example) are far more well-informed politically, and put us to shame with how much trouble they will take to vote, whether for national or local candidates or in referenda.
Hence, name-recognition is far and away the number one factor in attracting American votes. Do we still really think people voted for W because they were impressed with his credentials, and not because, thanks to having a father who'd been president, they recognized the name?
The news media do nothing to help this situation by reporting on those who attract attention rather than those who earn it: anyone could have predicted that in a country where a show like "The Apprentice" is a huge ratings hit, its carrier would attract high polling numbers. Acting like this is is a newsworthy item is laziness, not journalism, and becomes a self-feeding cycle.
Mr. Schmitt argues that "members of Congress secured re-election even in districts that voted for the other party’s presidential candidate, through slavish attention to local concerns, ... [etc]"
That may be a small portion of the reason, but the primary reason people vote to re-elect their representative is ... they know his/her name. The political participation of this country's population is a worldwide embarrassment: nobody votes, and those who do vote know absolutely nothing. The shopkeepers and cabdrivers I speak to in Greece (for example) are far more well-informed politically, and put us to shame with how much trouble they will take to vote, whether for national or local candidates or in referenda.
Hence, name-recognition is far and away the number one factor in attracting American votes. Do we still really think people voted for W because they were impressed with his credentials, and not because, thanks to having a father who'd been president, they recognized the name?
The news media do nothing to help this situation by reporting on those who attract attention rather than those who earn it: anyone could have predicted that in a country where a show like "The Apprentice" is a huge ratings hit, its carrier would attract high polling numbers. Acting like this is is a newsworthy item is laziness, not journalism, and becomes a self-feeding cycle.
6
We are living in an age of disruption, get used to it and hang on to your hats. In 2008 Obama was able to energize and mobilize voters the poli-sci pundits wrote off as non-voters. His campaign used the techniques and strategies that still leave other candidates campaigns scratching their heads and left Clinton standing alone at the altar.
Today, Trump, not needing a Super PAC, is succeeding (until the RNC finishes him off) by flouting the "rules" of campaign financing and playing to the bleacher seats (this used to be called "populism"). Sanders has also wandered off the well-trod path to election by refusing Super PAC funding and running on a single issue regardless of the questions posed to him by media experts.
The rule book is being re-written. For direction on how to run a campaign, the contenders and their campaigns are well advised to study and understand what works today, not revel in their comfort zones of what once worked.
Today, Trump, not needing a Super PAC, is succeeding (until the RNC finishes him off) by flouting the "rules" of campaign financing and playing to the bleacher seats (this used to be called "populism"). Sanders has also wandered off the well-trod path to election by refusing Super PAC funding and running on a single issue regardless of the questions posed to him by media experts.
The rule book is being re-written. For direction on how to run a campaign, the contenders and their campaigns are well advised to study and understand what works today, not revel in their comfort zones of what once worked.
2
What rules are the prerogatives of big business: insurance, fast food, media, real estate, energy, oil, health care. Their businesses buy off legislators and create legislation that keeps the American people entwined in high cost health care, expensive higher education, unhealthy food and suburban sprawl.
Add to that a never ending war machine that spends trillions of hired guns to fight battles around the globe, keeps us on 24-hour-a-day panic mode about terror and constantly evolving threats; and a gun lobby determined to pour more weapons into everyone's hands.
We have a crappy government because it has grown into a self-serving monster whose mission is to grow and grow. It is as much an illness of "conservatism" as "liberalism".
And the politicians who feed off this sick system care as much about their constituents as a tsunami does for a beach.
Add to that a never ending war machine that spends trillions of hired guns to fight battles around the globe, keeps us on 24-hour-a-day panic mode about terror and constantly evolving threats; and a gun lobby determined to pour more weapons into everyone's hands.
We have a crappy government because it has grown into a self-serving monster whose mission is to grow and grow. It is as much an illness of "conservatism" as "liberalism".
And the politicians who feed off this sick system care as much about their constituents as a tsunami does for a beach.
5
People are over thinking the Trump "phenomenon". Trump is the white version of Al Sharpton. I bet a higher percentage of blacks support Sharpton than whites support Trump. But nobody gets all upset about that. The sad fact is, there is a sizable portion of our population, white and black, that are ignorant. They'll support some goofy candidate or leader because they don't think of the consequences. Are we saying white people are supposed to be less ignorant than black people? Seems like a racist belief to me.
4
He's actually the political version of Kathy Griffin: going around the country, filling auditoriums, putting down politicians and pretending he's an outsider.
3
Trump is far from the first and will be far from the last braggadocios to come down the pike. He has set a standard for hitting below the belt, but that is not new. In my life, I have witnessed Joe McCarthy and George Wallace do worse in their heyday, They had their moment in the sun, then like Pegasus burnt up from the heat of the spotlight. Eventually this fate awaits Trump.
It's Trump's gimmick, his shtick. Flaunting a New Yawkese accent across the fruited plain, a technique honed as reality show poobah. Trump's stand-up recalls another Donald, Don Rickles. Both put on an act. Only Rickles admits it. Once Trump's gullible yahoos realize they've been taken in, they will abandon him and grow even angrier for being so foolish, again.
Why does this occur? Like all Ponzi scheme shysters, the masses yearn for the quick fix, the White Knight, the Marshall Dillons of the world to ride into town and clean house for the good people of Dodge. These Western mythological tales still hold strong in White America's eyes as they rapidly fade from our horizon. It was a time when law and order prevailed, the bad were vanquished, and all was right with the world. The reality? That era never existed.
An emerging diversity and rise of liberalism in America has caused this segment of the populace to view the US as scary and dangerous. They are primed at the pump for a Marshall Trump. For them it's High Noon in America. They are in for another rude awakening.
DD
Manhattan
It's Trump's gimmick, his shtick. Flaunting a New Yawkese accent across the fruited plain, a technique honed as reality show poobah. Trump's stand-up recalls another Donald, Don Rickles. Both put on an act. Only Rickles admits it. Once Trump's gullible yahoos realize they've been taken in, they will abandon him and grow even angrier for being so foolish, again.
Why does this occur? Like all Ponzi scheme shysters, the masses yearn for the quick fix, the White Knight, the Marshall Dillons of the world to ride into town and clean house for the good people of Dodge. These Western mythological tales still hold strong in White America's eyes as they rapidly fade from our horizon. It was a time when law and order prevailed, the bad were vanquished, and all was right with the world. The reality? That era never existed.
An emerging diversity and rise of liberalism in America has caused this segment of the populace to view the US as scary and dangerous. They are primed at the pump for a Marshall Trump. For them it's High Noon in America. They are in for another rude awakening.
DD
Manhattan
10
Mark Schmitt,
Why isn’t anybody talking the federal taxes spent for President Obama's political power influenced “Pay to Play” no-bid contract awards, gigantic Lockheed-Martin type no-bid military contract(s), Solyndra PAY TO PLAY business loan default deal, CGI Federal political power influenced PAY TO PLAY contract award, and other no-bid federal contracts awarded to political campaign contributors and others represented by lobbyists for contract amounts much larger than would have been paid by other contractors are a waste of taxpayer's money?
Did you forget all of the Obama administration's "PAY TO PLAY" no-bid contract awards such as the $650,000,000.00 CGI federal ACA software contract which could have been done for a tiny percentage of that amount!
Ask any of your computer programmer friends how much their company would have charged to create the "Obamacare exchange web portal?"
Was the remainder of that $650 million CGI Federal government no-bid contract just "PAY TO PLAY" money?
Why isn’t anybody talking the federal taxes spent for President Obama's political power influenced “Pay to Play” no-bid contract awards, gigantic Lockheed-Martin type no-bid military contract(s), Solyndra PAY TO PLAY business loan default deal, CGI Federal political power influenced PAY TO PLAY contract award, and other no-bid federal contracts awarded to political campaign contributors and others represented by lobbyists for contract amounts much larger than would have been paid by other contractors are a waste of taxpayer's money?
Did you forget all of the Obama administration's "PAY TO PLAY" no-bid contract awards such as the $650,000,000.00 CGI federal ACA software contract which could have been done for a tiny percentage of that amount!
Ask any of your computer programmer friends how much their company would have charged to create the "Obamacare exchange web portal?"
Was the remainder of that $650 million CGI Federal government no-bid contract just "PAY TO PLAY" money?
4
Peanut counting (in comparison) that merits just one word in reply: Blackwater
5
Of course your elected representatives are going to ignore you when the only thing you "think" you need to do is express your "outrage" is to post in forums like this is how "evil" are GOP politicans and how much of a "sellout" your Democratic Party representative has become.
5
I can't imagine why you think our efforts are limited to this.
2
re: jb from ok
Guess I must have missed those "massive" voter turnouts, those numerous boycotts against evil corpoartions, the million person rallies in favor of good government and how movements like Occupy Wall Street have transformed our country....
Guess I must have missed those "massive" voter turnouts, those numerous boycotts against evil corpoartions, the million person rallies in favor of good government and how movements like Occupy Wall Street have transformed our country....
1
I blame the average citizen, most fo who are on the right, who have descended into watching sports, the Kardashians, and every other mindless distraction. Their ignorance allows opportunists who know better gain support by simply stoking fear over outright lies. The right particularly gobbles it up and spits it out as truth. Much of this started under Ronald Reagan when he married the Religious Right, a group he himself thought were whack jobs, but with a few public prayers he could win their votes. Under Clinton the right had grown into conspiracists, so bitter that the age of Reagan had passed that Clinton was their target at any cost, even lying ad sending innocent people to jail. Ken Star? Can one imagine getting away with simply inventing lies about a President? Obama, well, race angered them even greater, nothing he could do, not even beneficial legislation to the very people who hated him, they resisted and undermined him. Trump is smart, he talks dumb because that's what people identify as. A poor single mom on food stamps with a gun in her pickup truck in New Hampshire, thinks a Billionaire from NYC has the right ideas to help her and the country. How pathetic.
4
How depressing! But, also, how eye-opening this piece is. Thank you to the writer/thinker and the Times.
2
Looking back, it seems to me that the change started under Reagan, who famously cast government as the problem rather than the solution. He also turned the word "liberal" into a pejorative in a way that was new.
By eliminating the Fairness Doctrine on the public airwaves, Reagan also facilitated the rise of talk radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh, who, along with Fox News, effectively became the promotional and propaganda wing of the Republican Party and right-wing policies. The left never responded effectively with its own version, and the result is the polarized, gridlocked country we see today.
Oh, and did I mention the to-my-mind activist SCOTUS that has also functioned to pervert the political landscape through cases like "Citizens United"?
No, Trump didn't break our politics. They were broken long before Trump, over time, and quite deliberately, to benefit the rich and powerful few.
By eliminating the Fairness Doctrine on the public airwaves, Reagan also facilitated the rise of talk radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh, who, along with Fox News, effectively became the promotional and propaganda wing of the Republican Party and right-wing policies. The left never responded effectively with its own version, and the result is the polarized, gridlocked country we see today.
Oh, and did I mention the to-my-mind activist SCOTUS that has also functioned to pervert the political landscape through cases like "Citizens United"?
No, Trump didn't break our politics. They were broken long before Trump, over time, and quite deliberately, to benefit the rich and powerful few.
12
On the contrary, the left has long owned almost all of the media. The "Fairness Doctrine" was used as a shield for decades to preserve their monopoly. The doctrine was abandoned because it had become technologically irrelevant.
The left repeatedly has tried to develop a left-wing version of Rush Limbaugh for the radio. The problem is, there is no market for left wing opinion on sponsored radio, each of their attempts has crashed and burned. That still leaves the left with NPR, which promotes left-wing talking points 24/7, compared to the few hours each week that Rush is on.
The left repeatedly has tried to develop a left-wing version of Rush Limbaugh for the radio. The problem is, there is no market for left wing opinion on sponsored radio, each of their attempts has crashed and burned. That still leaves the left with NPR, which promotes left-wing talking points 24/7, compared to the few hours each week that Rush is on.
2
And let's not fail to note that in promoting their leftist views on-air through NPR, they have with their usual fairness required that even people who find their views odious have to financially support NPR. This is what they mean when they use the phrase "freedom of speech."
I guess we should be grateful that they also waste these taxes on BBC aristocracy porn.
I guess we should be grateful that they also waste these taxes on BBC aristocracy porn.
Trump is the end game of GOP movement conservatism, based as it is on the paranoia and victimization narrative of Nixon, combined with Ronald Reagan's populist racism and war on the very idea of government. It's aided and abetted by a corporate media that is all about entertaining its audience, not informing it.
This is the Civil War, part II - the rise of American fascism.
This is the Civil War, part II - the rise of American fascism.
7
Trump is basically just publicly voicing what the GOP has been re-inventing itself---the party of (mostly) white, rural and suburban males. Nothing more, and nothing less.
The Republicans problem is that they prefer not to actually say so in public, or while looking at themselves in the mirror.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
The Republicans problem is that they prefer not to actually say so in public, or while looking at themselves in the mirror.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
2
re: Cheekos from South Florida
And Cuban Americans in South Florida or African Americans mindlessly voting for anyone with a (D) after their name is any less worrisome than some rural white guy pulling the lever for a GOP candidate?
So unless we want this country to turn into a third world hasbeen we need to attack the rise in demographic tribalism in every corner of our country and not just in rural and suburban America.
And Cuban Americans in South Florida or African Americans mindlessly voting for anyone with a (D) after their name is any less worrisome than some rural white guy pulling the lever for a GOP candidate?
So unless we want this country to turn into a third world hasbeen we need to attack the rise in demographic tribalism in every corner of our country and not just in rural and suburban America.
3
What we are seeing now is the failure of the two party system.
As noted, the extremists of the left and right now determine who governs us. We need a permanent 3rd party – the Moderate Party - of centrist American voters to neutralize those idiots at the extremes, and return government to the centrist majority of the nation.
We, the Mods, with only 15% or 20% of the vote in Congress, could realign power away from the Democratic left and Republican right, and return it to the majority middle, where it belongs!
A new Moderate Party would have immediate media interest:
Our party song lyrics from Stealers Wheel: "Clowns to the left of us; Jokers to the right..."
Our election year motto: Vote Mods you Clods!
Our animal icon: the Wise Old Owl, waving an American Flag,
Now all we need are donations, sponsors, and a few charismatic candidates to put us on the ballot.
As noted, the extremists of the left and right now determine who governs us. We need a permanent 3rd party – the Moderate Party - of centrist American voters to neutralize those idiots at the extremes, and return government to the centrist majority of the nation.
We, the Mods, with only 15% or 20% of the vote in Congress, could realign power away from the Democratic left and Republican right, and return it to the majority middle, where it belongs!
A new Moderate Party would have immediate media interest:
Our party song lyrics from Stealers Wheel: "Clowns to the left of us; Jokers to the right..."
Our election year motto: Vote Mods you Clods!
Our animal icon: the Wise Old Owl, waving an American Flag,
Now all we need are donations, sponsors, and a few charismatic candidates to put us on the ballot.
4
No, Trump didn't "break politics," but he has gone a long way toward breaking the power of the Mainstream Media, which has been the king maker in Presidential politics dating back to the late 50s. The Media was a constant scold, lecturing us on what was acceptable to say and think, which always dovetailed with the liberal philosophy. The opinions of editorial boards and Harvard professors actually mattered.
But except for those who have just recently arrived from the Planet Zeus, everyone by know knows that the Media is overwhelmingly liberal, save Fox News and talk radio.
And Middle America has finally figured that out. It has reached a consensus that the Media is simply the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, which in turn is determined to destroy Middle America. So nothing the Media says can be trusted, and neither Trump nor his supporters care one fig about what the liberal Media says. In fact, the more the Media slimes him, the more popular Trump becomes.
The Media is still powerful. It can still fire up the liberal base - preaching to the choir - with its routine scare stories about racism, police brutality, global warming, mistreatment of immigrants, etc. But the Media no longer has the power to change opinions. And Donald Trump has proven it.
But except for those who have just recently arrived from the Planet Zeus, everyone by know knows that the Media is overwhelmingly liberal, save Fox News and talk radio.
And Middle America has finally figured that out. It has reached a consensus that the Media is simply the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, which in turn is determined to destroy Middle America. So nothing the Media says can be trusted, and neither Trump nor his supporters care one fig about what the liberal Media says. In fact, the more the Media slimes him, the more popular Trump becomes.
The Media is still powerful. It can still fire up the liberal base - preaching to the choir - with its routine scare stories about racism, police brutality, global warming, mistreatment of immigrants, etc. But the Media no longer has the power to change opinions. And Donald Trump has proven it.
4
"The Media was a constant scold, lecturing us on what was acceptable to say and think, which always dovetailed with the liberal philosophy." So Archie Bunker is simply the America you want without decency or civil rights?
And care to elaborate on WHY "the Media is simply the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, which in turn is determined to destroy Middle America". What would be the point in destroying Middle America?
And care to elaborate on WHY "the Media is simply the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, which in turn is determined to destroy Middle America". What would be the point in destroying Middle America?
4
Right on target, Mr. Dancer.
1
This applies primarily to Republican politicians. Denying constituent services for the ACA hurts lower income people and those with health problems. Much of the rhetoric bashes immigrants, minorities, women, and even the military.
No longer do these politicians represent all of their constituents. They only represent the white, wealthy, and conservative.
This is not democracy.
No longer do these politicians represent all of their constituents. They only represent the white, wealthy, and conservative.
This is not democracy.
9
As working Americans continue to financially lose ground, their anger and frustration may become a dangerous powder keg to our society if they mindlessly strike out at the political system, i.e. supporting Trump like figures. This is a disaster caused in part by the greed of the financial elite who can't seem to stem their own need for more power and $. What a legacy they are cursing our country with. When does one begin give back to their community and I not talking about the powder puff philanthropy the rich seem so enamored with.
4
Trump is successfully appealing to the small group of voters that will determine the outcome of the Republican primary. These voters have been primed by Fox News and conservative talk radio to be receptive to his campaign tactics. He understands that to become President he first must be the candidate of a major party. He will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. Why would anyone expect a different behavior?
2
Kansas and Sam Brownback is one of the most obvious examples for me.
Even other Republicans in the state tried to prevent him from getting re-elected.
How did he do it?
Even other Republicans in the state tried to prevent him from getting re-elected.
How did he do it?
3
While nasty politics has been around for centuries, the modern republican party certainly perfected it. Lee Atwater may have repented for his dirty tricks before he died, but his tainted and reprehensible legacy lives on.
3
The author writes as if these were all negative developments. But why? The age of ideologies has never gone away because an ideology - better known as a worldview - defines who we are. In the past, though, ideological differences were smoothed over by complacency, conformism, and belief that having a mortgage- free home in suburbia is enough to make you happy. But people do not live by entitlements alone. I vote Democrat because I can't stand the anti-science stand of most Republicans. But unless the Democratic Party is able to articulate an uplifting, comprehensive ideology that goes beyond appealing to the economic self-interest of society's losers and old-fashioned identity politics, it will fade away.
2
Both parties seem pretty anti-science to me. I'm an independent.
2
Whoa, hold on, detail: people "just below" the median income, like people just above the median income, aren't "low income". They are by definition middle income. Their income falls squarely in the middle of the range. "Low income" would be people who do earn a wage, but who subsist below, at or just above poverty level.
That "just below median" is too little to maintain a house, a car or two, health care, and savings for college and retirement is a fact of which those of us who dwell there are well aware. It's what we've been trying to tell you, and you don't listen. Fully half of all Americans have a household income that's insufficient, even though you can best that most of those earning "just below" median work full-time. This can include a great many people with college degrees, including some teachers in a single-income household. In many households, one FT and one PT worker may together earn around the median, or just below or above.
So maybe my bumper sticker for the political season should be:
"I'm just below median income, and I vote."
Or, "I'm a well-educated, well-informed liberal Democrat just below median income, and I vote."
That "just below median" is too little to maintain a house, a car or two, health care, and savings for college and retirement is a fact of which those of us who dwell there are well aware. It's what we've been trying to tell you, and you don't listen. Fully half of all Americans have a household income that's insufficient, even though you can best that most of those earning "just below" median work full-time. This can include a great many people with college degrees, including some teachers in a single-income household. In many households, one FT and one PT worker may together earn around the median, or just below or above.
So maybe my bumper sticker for the political season should be:
"I'm just below median income, and I vote."
Or, "I'm a well-educated, well-informed liberal Democrat just below median income, and I vote."
5
This situation is partly the result of the "Citizen's United" decision. It allows corporations and organizations to be treated like 'individuals' and it allows unlimited financial contributions to political campaigns under the guise of being 'free speech'. However, it also allows money to be given anonymously through 501(c)(4) 'social welfare' organizations (so-called 'dark money'). Thus, 'free speech' is now equated with anonymous political donations.
More money, in turn, generally creates better voter turnout vis-a-via a more extensive get-out-the-vote campaign (e.g., more political ads; more reminders for supporters; more rides for seniors who don't drive). There is a very positive correlation between the amount of money a campaign receives (directly or indirectly through PACs) and voter turnout.
In short, the paralysis in Congress is the result of increased money being given to political campaigns and the Supreme Court bears a great deal of responsibility for this situation because of their "Citizen's United" decision.
More money, in turn, generally creates better voter turnout vis-a-via a more extensive get-out-the-vote campaign (e.g., more political ads; more reminders for supporters; more rides for seniors who don't drive). There is a very positive correlation between the amount of money a campaign receives (directly or indirectly through PACs) and voter turnout.
In short, the paralysis in Congress is the result of increased money being given to political campaigns and the Supreme Court bears a great deal of responsibility for this situation because of their "Citizen's United" decision.
3
"Stocks globally tumbled in the first trading day of 2016, as indexes plunged in China on concerns about economic growth. The sell-off carried over to the United States and Europe..." (NY Times, Jan.4)
My fear is that with a Right leaning president, government cuts will destabilize the economy and lead to recession. Small downturns in the US may reverberate around the world, and pull us down, more and more.
I think that Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders should focus voter attention on the threat to economic recession with a Republican president in 2016.
As FDR said, "the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself."
This is why I support Hillary Clinton for president in 2016
==========================================
My fear is that with a Right leaning president, government cuts will destabilize the economy and lead to recession. Small downturns in the US may reverberate around the world, and pull us down, more and more.
I think that Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders should focus voter attention on the threat to economic recession with a Republican president in 2016.
As FDR said, "the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself."
This is why I support Hillary Clinton for president in 2016
==========================================
6
Donald Trump is giving politicians a good name. Is that what Mark Schmitt is saying? Hmm. I'll buy that.
2
"Underlying the old rule was a bigger one: the 'median voter theorem' — the idea that the views of the typical, middle-of-the-road voter, as expressed through elections, drove parties and politicians. These are the 'Reagan Democrats' and 'soccer moms' of recent decades. The political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have called this the 'master theory' of their discipline."
Only idiots would have relied on this as a "master theory" in an era of low overall voter turnout. The genius of Lee Atwater, Karl Rove and the rest of the reptiles lies simply in knowing that low voter turnout means you can win elections if you turn out more people than the other side, chiefly by motivating your voters with appeals to base emotion.
Any member of a political science faculty who didn't understand this from the get-go should be marooned on an island with only the works of Sarah Palin for amusement.
Only idiots would have relied on this as a "master theory" in an era of low overall voter turnout. The genius of Lee Atwater, Karl Rove and the rest of the reptiles lies simply in knowing that low voter turnout means you can win elections if you turn out more people than the other side, chiefly by motivating your voters with appeals to base emotion.
Any member of a political science faculty who didn't understand this from the get-go should be marooned on an island with only the works of Sarah Palin for amusement.
2
don't forget, too, the erosion of local news coverage and readership. voters have to work pretty hard to fully understand what their reps are actually doing or not doing, beyond those glossy campaign fliers.
4
How right you are. People are worried that if Trump is elected the Republic will fall, or something. I think Hilary is the worse danger because she will preserve the corrupt status quo, while seeming (at least to some) to be something new just because her anatomical parts are different. If Trump is elected and provokes the populace to rise up and get a grip on where we are going, he's done us a service. If Bill Clinton couldn't bring down the nation, Trump won't. (Bill was more polite, it's true.) If Hilary is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for whoever runs against her, even Trump. It won't be the end of the world.
4
Just like Obama wanted to be the First African American President so too Hillary as being "The First" it's all about THEM. Never the people. So as Obama has done absolutely nothing to reform how campaigns are funded or Wall Street so too Hillary will be .......much the same. She is OWNED by Wall Street and her empty claims to "reign" them in rings hollow. She will do nothing much like Obama. He of the hope and change thing that so many people believed all those years ago. So good luck libs in voting this woman in simply because she is not a Republican. She did little while sitting SOS other than get some fat donations from the UAE. Those stalwarts of human and female rights. You know the things that Hillary stands for. Hypocrisy thy name if Democrat.
3
A friend of mine likes to say, "If voting actually changed anything, they wouldn't let us do it."
I used to smile, thinking how naive the statement was, but I'm beginning to think I'm the naive one.
I used to smile, thinking how naive the statement was, but I'm beginning to think I'm the naive one.
6
Our country's political system has long been overdue for a clean sweep. Wall Street and lobbyists should be the first to go. It's time we the American people take back our Congress. Last time I checked the position to hold office is for civil servants who will do the people's bidding.
6
This is great. On the same day the NY Times Op-Ed slams the President of Mexico for outrageous behavior (and the rightly), we aren't much better. The main difference being we do it a little more COVERTLY.
4
The median voter theorem, and the electoral system in general, are broken because the system has been hijacked. It has been shown mathematically to ignore the policy wants of the majority of Americans, while giving global corporations (at the expense of small business and individuals) everything they want.
The actual median voter is not voting because she can see clearly that the system is broken. (Everyone should vote anyway, but vote for good candidates that might lose, instead off lesser evils who might win).
The actual median voter is not halfway between the two pro-corporate parties that control the electoral process and keep out third parties by manipulating the rules.
It is time for the majority of Americans who want common sense solutions to their problems, not a fake war over the size of government, to stop believing that they are at some radical extreme that can never elect a candidate, as the media keeps telling them, and force real change by organizing to elect good candidates and to creatively keep elected officials accountable between elections.
We all have a responsibility to govern. Politicians are supposed to be our representatives, not our leaders. We are supposed to lead. Do not abdicate your sovereignty to some slick salesman.
The actual median voter is not voting because she can see clearly that the system is broken. (Everyone should vote anyway, but vote for good candidates that might lose, instead off lesser evils who might win).
The actual median voter is not halfway between the two pro-corporate parties that control the electoral process and keep out third parties by manipulating the rules.
It is time for the majority of Americans who want common sense solutions to their problems, not a fake war over the size of government, to stop believing that they are at some radical extreme that can never elect a candidate, as the media keeps telling them, and force real change by organizing to elect good candidates and to creatively keep elected officials accountable between elections.
We all have a responsibility to govern. Politicians are supposed to be our representatives, not our leaders. We are supposed to lead. Do not abdicate your sovereignty to some slick salesman.
1
Trump is a reaction by the voters against business-as-usual politics. The old game plan doesn't work anymore and that's what has politicians on both sides terrified.
5
When Bernie Sanders tries to get the 99.9% to vote against the interests of the 0.1%, it's called socialism, or class warfare.
When the 0.1% spends billions of dollars to elect a congress and president to enacts laws that favor the 0.1%, it's called democracy.
Perhaps we should change the word democracy to conservancy, or even con-servant-cy.
When the 0.1% spends billions of dollars to elect a congress and president to enacts laws that favor the 0.1%, it's called democracy.
Perhaps we should change the word democracy to conservancy, or even con-servant-cy.
5
It is the redistricting/gerrymandering that has moved this country away from the center. In national elections, the center has held (because there is no gerrymandering). But in congress, we have politicians more worried about losing their job to a member of their own party and not the other. This leads to incumbents trying to out extreme everyone else, leaving a challenger open to cries of being soft. This move to the edges (own party threat ) versusmove to the cneter (other party threat), is what is wrong with American politics. In addition, It is this inter party combat that leaves party special interests in charge of the government. After all, if the NRA has to worry about far right candidate A versus farther right candidate B, they win either way.
2
From George Washington to Andrew Jackson to Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan there were politically transformational leaders who peacefully moved, made and defined the governing American center for decades as their lasting legacy. With a divided limited power democratic republican form of government favoring compromise or stasis that is the most likely continuing and future normal outcome. The one exception being the Civil War during which Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis managed to kill 750,000 of their fellow Americans in a nation with a tenth of our current population. Civil war is not likely nor imminent to break politics.
1
The common denominator of these broken rules is a political class that has become over the years focused on their personal advancement rather than the advancement of the goals of a democracy. Governing is serious business, requiring study, debate/discussion, and crafting legislation --- we have little evidence of this business going on in Washington. The serious business of Washington DC today requires money raising, implementing the goals of special interests, and building a legislative resume that will open the doors to a lobbying firm when a legislator decides to retire. What concerns me is a public who has fallen asleep at the citizen switch. For years now our political class as openly behaved as private contractors, not public servants, and yet we permit this behavior not only continue but to become more outrageous. Yes, Trump and Bernie Sanders have tapped into the "fix is in" anger, but it will take more than the last angry man campaign to dislodge the a government mindset solely focused on what's in it for me.
3
With Trump it's not about politics at all. It is about rabble rousing and appealing to humanity's worst impulses--fear, insecurity, bigotry, and resentment. There is no benefit or relevance in discussing the "politics" of a lynch mob.
4
You could've saved all this writing by simply stating our electorate is ignorant, apathetic and responds most to "personalities.". Yoda would get elected if he ran.
3
I am sorry - did the author really equate the National Education Association with the National Rifle Assiciation?
Stop with the false equivalence. No, both sides are not to blame. This horrific state we find ourselves in rests 99 percent on the Republicans, period.
Stop with the false equivalence. No, both sides are not to blame. This horrific state we find ourselves in rests 99 percent on the Republicans, period.
8
Democrats want college tuitions, health care and internet service to be free because justice demands it. Republicans know that this is absurd but will accept everything free that comes along.
4
The changes in the understandings of and the practices regarding the rules suggest the following concerns:
Politicians and political parties no longer govern or help citizens on the basis of the will of or the needs the people. Politicians and parties now impose their ideologies and ways of working on the electorate, their constituents.
Congressional politicians, parties, and some of those striving to become president are leaning more in style, actions, and words towards being dictators than representatives of the people.
Those involved are shaping the American mind rather than the American mind, the will of the people, shaping governance: policy and practice.
Turning the American political system away from its basic principles is not conducive to participatory democracy as the United States has envisioned and idealized it in the American political traditions.
Politicians and political parties no longer govern or help citizens on the basis of the will of or the needs the people. Politicians and parties now impose their ideologies and ways of working on the electorate, their constituents.
Congressional politicians, parties, and some of those striving to become president are leaning more in style, actions, and words towards being dictators than representatives of the people.
Those involved are shaping the American mind rather than the American mind, the will of the people, shaping governance: policy and practice.
Turning the American political system away from its basic principles is not conducive to participatory democracy as the United States has envisioned and idealized it in the American political traditions.
2
What do people most popularly know about Congress or what it does? Not much, and not many sweat the details that they don't know. That's why politics have become so E-Z, the roughly seven ingredients of a campaign:
1. Is the candidate for or against taxes (up or down)?
2. Is the candidate for bigger or smaller government?
3. For or against immigration?
4. For or against welfare?
5. Have they done anything cool on TV?
6. Who is the candidate married to?
7. Democrat or Republican?
1. Is the candidate for or against taxes (up or down)?
2. Is the candidate for bigger or smaller government?
3. For or against immigration?
4. For or against welfare?
5. Have they done anything cool on TV?
6. Who is the candidate married to?
7. Democrat or Republican?
4
Mark's analysis is kind of superficial. One basic explanation is that most Americans are still emotionally religious. They are still looking for messiahs, the nearer the better.
1
Mark's analysis is "superfical" because that is what most folks in this country - including those highly "educated" readers of the NYT - are capable of understanding.
All I know is that until someone buys Fox Cable, the rhetoric and the politics will not change. Their noise of hating all things American is more powerful than any election. The talk reinforces powerless feelings of hopelessness and despair - very powerful tools for manipulation. No questions asked, no details necessary.
Need a break today? Hate your fellow American, for the price of your cable bill. "I would have no problem if it were not for "you." It's always you."
Time for a divorce from FoxCable. Sponsors, are you listening?
Need a break today? Hate your fellow American, for the price of your cable bill. "I would have no problem if it were not for "you." It's always you."
Time for a divorce from FoxCable. Sponsors, are you listening?
4
Silencing what we identify as competition for the hearts and minds of people is not the answer. Free speech is still preferable to silencing opinions with which we do not agree. If anything, we need to provide pros and cons to political ptoposals and let the public make an informed decision.
3
When will the public see through Trump's blatant lies like today's "you won't be able to buy guns." If the public can be that gullible, is it possible a cartoon character like Elmer Fudd could win the presidency. Why not? A virtual president.
6
Donald Trump is just an actor, reading the script he's been handed. His advisors tell him what he needs to say to get "closet" emotions to obliterate reason.
2
Who are his handlers? it is a very incestuous inter dependent world in politics. That he is allowed to speak freely means he is given permission.
1
There is something to what was written in an old comic strip, Pogo. "We have met the enemy, he is we." Sad to say, the "we" does not have to be a majority of the voting public as the Presidential Election of 2000 proved. But all of "we" (please excuse the break in grammar) have to suffer the consequences. But then again George W. was reelected in 2004 after it was common knowledge that the invasion was a fiasco.
2
A wish list of processes and requirements to reintroduce the law of gravity into politics:
1) Direct election of the President. Abandon the Electoral College to history's dust bin.
2) Assignment of Representatives to constituents by alphabetical grouping of the voters' names, not by artificial and very artfully drawn geographical boundaries.
3) Eliminate governmental pensions for elected officials. If 401-K's and IRA's (without employer match) are good enough for the peasantry, it'll just have to do for the gentry as well. Democracy, you know.
4) At a minimum, forty-five 40-hour workweeks per year for elected legislators.
5) Minimum of 24 months of military service required to be eligible to run for Legislative office.
If these were in place today, none of the current crop of Presidential wannabes, and very, very few of the aspirants for Legislature would be eligible, or even interested in holding office.
1) Direct election of the President. Abandon the Electoral College to history's dust bin.
2) Assignment of Representatives to constituents by alphabetical grouping of the voters' names, not by artificial and very artfully drawn geographical boundaries.
3) Eliminate governmental pensions for elected officials. If 401-K's and IRA's (without employer match) are good enough for the peasantry, it'll just have to do for the gentry as well. Democracy, you know.
4) At a minimum, forty-five 40-hour workweeks per year for elected legislators.
5) Minimum of 24 months of military service required to be eligible to run for Legislative office.
If these were in place today, none of the current crop of Presidential wannabes, and very, very few of the aspirants for Legislature would be eligible, or even interested in holding office.
6
6) And a 5-year post-office ban on working for or with any lobby group. Oh, what the heck, make it lifetime ban.
5
Glen, how I do love your comment but it will never fly. Our deadbeat politicians would not stand for such demands. Kinda like Leona Helmsley and her famous quote where only the poor pay taxes. How dare you demand a senator to put in a full day's work? And heaven forbid they should contribute part of their earnings for retirement? They wouldn't last 5 minutes in the private sector, hence their long overdue stays in Washington.
3
- that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
apathy = consent
apathy = consent
2
Or apathy = no true representation of anyone but the extreme base. Voter suppression and other tactics such as not providing constituent services or insulting many constituents have effectively done away with the motivation to vote.
1
Trump is the current result of 30 years of GOP pandering to the idiots and morons and religious extremists in the USA. By amplifying fear and hate and racism, they ensure their rabid acolytes go to the polls to vote.
The Tea Party and Trump are the natural result of the GOP sell-out to corporations and the super-rich that began under Reagan in the 1980s.
The Tea Party and Trump are the natural result of the GOP sell-out to corporations and the super-rich that began under Reagan in the 1980s.
5
Special interest groups are "special" because they're organized, as Mr. Schmitt suggests. The relative decline of civil organizations like unions (and let's add churches, service groups, PTAs, ad infinitum) is just the obverse of this statement and screams "the moderate middle class needs to get organized." Note how uncomfortable that makes us feel. Who? Me? I have to actually participate? No matter what your political persuasion they're counting on your not participating. Good luck with that.
2
So long as they remain apathetic and willfully ignorant, Americans get what they deserve, and deserve what they get.
4
All well said, but the fault, dear Brutus, lies not simply in our changed politics, but in how we poll. Trump leads not because the poll is actually predictive, now some 10 months from the actual election, but because of who is actually willing, at this early date, to be counted.
My suggestion is we avoid the election industry and wait for the actual election.
My suggestion is we avoid the election industry and wait for the actual election.
If the voting pattern doesn't match the polls, maybe the polls are wrong. Yet, time and time again, "responsible" news organizations rely on polling to justify even more speculative coverage. Another possibility is that the voting machines are tainted. Heresy, I'm sure, but the Kansas election has some serious flaws within the voting patterns and the Republican Secretary of State refuses to allow an audit. Lack of voting machines in minority areas, evidence that voting machines are not tamper proof, gerrymandering, Citizen's United's lopsided money influence, voter suppression and apathy all add up to an electorate that is not reflective of the majority. These items break the "rules" of politics, not some new customs. We don't need new tools, we need the old tools to be enforced. It could start with the New York Times reporting more facts than entertainment and accurate articles instead of false Hillary scandals.
3
False Hillary scandals? Really? Please send the true facts in a letter to the Times and ask the paper to print it. In the interest in getting at the"truth" and printing dissenting opinions, the Times could use your info to clarify the situation.
Let's put it this way, end Citizens United then you cut out ALL UNION contributions for any candidate. Can't have it both ways. The PBA in Nassau and Suffolk County have a stranglehold on taxpayers and politicians. Retiring tax free on $200,000.00 nice work.
Were historical perspective not an apparent taboo...the piece could have touched on other periods in our history where politics was ruled by a self-empowered wealthy elite at the expense of everyday-man. Cultural shifts of societal-norms have occurred with almost dependable frequency as younger generations retire or modify those of the the older.
A baby-boomer actively instrumental, on a small scale, in the shifts of the '60's, I now fully understand, even relate to, the angst of my Great Depression/WWII parents - and the amusement of my, 'Roaring 20's', grandparents...
No, Trump did not break Politics, he is playing the throwback to those crasser, baser days of political campaigning (good thing 'dueling' has been outlawed), exploiting whomever and whatever he can in connivance to achieving he's goals - by belittling every other candidate, race, religion and persuasion it seems.
The pendulum of social-norms swings to and fro...politics is a reflection.
A baby-boomer actively instrumental, on a small scale, in the shifts of the '60's, I now fully understand, even relate to, the angst of my Great Depression/WWII parents - and the amusement of my, 'Roaring 20's', grandparents...
No, Trump did not break Politics, he is playing the throwback to those crasser, baser days of political campaigning (good thing 'dueling' has been outlawed), exploiting whomever and whatever he can in connivance to achieving he's goals - by belittling every other candidate, race, religion and persuasion it seems.
The pendulum of social-norms swings to and fro...politics is a reflection.
The Median Voter Theorem is a theorem - it can't be wrong as long as its assumptions are valid. First, the median voter is the median of people who vote, not people of voting age (to say the median voter is not voting is an oxymoron). It is probably true that the median voter is a little to the right of the median person of voting age because the median voter is older, richer and whiter - still according to the theorem that is the person who politicians should be targeting.
The problem is that the median voter is thin on the ground and hard to find. This is because the electorate is increasingly polarized (distributed bimodally on the left and the right), so there are very few voters near the median and they are mostly low information voters. Rather than trying to reach them, the parties concentrate on increasing turnout of their base (the two modes). The theorem still holds, but the median shifts in the direction of whichever party succeeds.
Donald Trump does, however, illustrate a case in which the assumptions of the theorem may not hold. To be useful, you have to be able to arrange the voters along a dimension (like politically left and right). Trump's nativist populist "message" scrambles that a bit since it is conservative on immigration, refugees, and ethnicities, but liberal on social programs for Americans.
The problem is that the median voter is thin on the ground and hard to find. This is because the electorate is increasingly polarized (distributed bimodally on the left and the right), so there are very few voters near the median and they are mostly low information voters. Rather than trying to reach them, the parties concentrate on increasing turnout of their base (the two modes). The theorem still holds, but the median shifts in the direction of whichever party succeeds.
Donald Trump does, however, illustrate a case in which the assumptions of the theorem may not hold. To be useful, you have to be able to arrange the voters along a dimension (like politically left and right). Trump's nativist populist "message" scrambles that a bit since it is conservative on immigration, refugees, and ethnicities, but liberal on social programs for Americans.
1
Your equation of the electoral money and influence of the NRA to the NEA is disingenuous. The outside spending by the NEA pales in comparison to the spending of the NRA. In the 2014 election cycle, the NRA spent over $28 million, almost five times more than the NEA's six million dollars. The NEA has under three million members. Post Newtown, the NRA has five million members.
The NRA electoral mission is to scare and arm Americans, while the NEA lobbies for better resourced public schools, student health and safety, and professional advancement for teachers. Republican lawmakers regularly ignore teachers, but cozy up to the NRA. Why? Easy answer. More money.
The implication by Mr. Schmitt that all outside money is equal is simply dishonest.
The NRA electoral mission is to scare and arm Americans, while the NEA lobbies for better resourced public schools, student health and safety, and professional advancement for teachers. Republican lawmakers regularly ignore teachers, but cozy up to the NRA. Why? Easy answer. More money.
The implication by Mr. Schmitt that all outside money is equal is simply dishonest.
4
There are many nihilists out there who believe that the entire system should be figuratively blown up and started anew. This is idiotic but is the reason many vote against their interests and have no desire to vote or participate in a system they see as phlegmatic and confusing.
1
Schadenfreude was a natural strategy for him.
1
Really? Special interests on "both sides" have more clout. I don't think so. Like Greenpeace has the "lobbying" budget, and therefore clout, of Cargil or Monsanto or Blackwater or S. Adelson or Koch?
6
I don't doubt the veracity of this article. And yet it only tangentially mentions the main reason for this change: jerrymandering of election districts. I would like to hear more about states such as California that have decided to do something about this underlying factor in the polarization of the electorate.
3
96% win re-election because of redistricting carried out by POLITICIANS.
But it redistricting is just as bad in Democratic controlled States (NY comes to mind, a State that competes with Illinois on being the most corrupt),
California reformed redistricting, under a Republican Governor, aka the Governator.
It proves that redistricting not a party thing, but germane to the US political process.
Turning to Trump. As the Governator , he was a self made wealthy man, experienced in show biz, and willing to break up the self preserving, and deeply corrupt US political system.
The public perceives this break up as being the number one priority - and hence overlooks Trump's other glaring short comings.
As it did in the case of Arnie.
But it redistricting is just as bad in Democratic controlled States (NY comes to mind, a State that competes with Illinois on being the most corrupt),
California reformed redistricting, under a Republican Governor, aka the Governator.
It proves that redistricting not a party thing, but germane to the US political process.
Turning to Trump. As the Governator , he was a self made wealthy man, experienced in show biz, and willing to break up the self preserving, and deeply corrupt US political system.
The public perceives this break up as being the number one priority - and hence overlooks Trump's other glaring short comings.
As it did in the case of Arnie.
1
What politician --what humsn being--doesn't have glaring short-comings? Some more glaring than others. Better that they acknowledge and deal with them than pretend to be perfect!
With the banning of earmarks, there is less pork to bring home to constituents, and less jockeying that can be done within the halls of Congress. What has changed is the entrenchment of polarized political views, a set of compromise-be-damned attitudes, especially on the part of far-right Republicans, to hold the entire Federal gov't apparatus hostage to their beliefs in absolutely no new taxes, and no new budget limits. Of course, the Republicans just broke both those pledges with the recent budget deal, but the tooth-and-nail battles re these issues will continue long into the future unless we realize that there are more people in America now than there was 20 years ago, and the size of government must grow to accommodate their needs. Politics is the art of the possible, and almost nothing is possible when politicians refuse to compromise with those who hold opposing views.
2
I think the only rule that Trump follows is that people are sick and tired of politically correct rhetoric and broken promises.
3
Recent mass amnesia notwithstanding, opinion surveys have never been a basis for democratic elections in the United States. Trump has never yet won a single vote as a candidate for an elected office.
Never mind who broke politics. That is important, but NOT the main issue here. The fundamental issue is: Who broke responsible effective journalism?
Never mind who broke politics. That is important, but NOT the main issue here. The fundamental issue is: Who broke responsible effective journalism?
5
While there is much to respond to here, I find the essay brings to mind a sea change that occurred in British politics in the 20th century.
A hundred years ago, British politics was binary. (I suspect regardless of the system, this is inevitable; we tend to think in either/or patterns.) Although their parliamentary structure left much more elbow room for small parties than ours, the electorate split into Tory (Conservative) and Liberal. Lloyd George, the WW I prime minister, was Liberal. After the war, the Liberals declined and the UK got its first Labour PM, Ramsey McDonald. There's still a Liberal party, but it's small, and Labour has vacillated between left and centre, more de facto liberal than doctrinaire socialist. A Tory's still a Tory, and the system's still roughly binary with some bustling at the fringes (e.g., Scots nationalists).
Perhaps one or both of our parties will decline, and when it all shakes out there will be one or even two new parties. It's happened before in American history, after all. A Monty Python election sketch divided the electorate into the Sensible and Silly Parties, with a splinter 'Extremely Silly' third party. We now have no Sensible Party, just the Silly and Extremely Silly. Maybe we could have a Sensible Party? Too much to hope?
A hundred years ago, British politics was binary. (I suspect regardless of the system, this is inevitable; we tend to think in either/or patterns.) Although their parliamentary structure left much more elbow room for small parties than ours, the electorate split into Tory (Conservative) and Liberal. Lloyd George, the WW I prime minister, was Liberal. After the war, the Liberals declined and the UK got its first Labour PM, Ramsey McDonald. There's still a Liberal party, but it's small, and Labour has vacillated between left and centre, more de facto liberal than doctrinaire socialist. A Tory's still a Tory, and the system's still roughly binary with some bustling at the fringes (e.g., Scots nationalists).
Perhaps one or both of our parties will decline, and when it all shakes out there will be one or even two new parties. It's happened before in American history, after all. A Monty Python election sketch divided the electorate into the Sensible and Silly Parties, with a splinter 'Extremely Silly' third party. We now have no Sensible Party, just the Silly and Extremely Silly. Maybe we could have a Sensible Party? Too much to hope?
2
You mean politicians want to ignore their constituents and behave however they deem appropriate regardless of the voting (or non-voting) masses? Shocking! Here I thought "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" was non-fiction.
2
Trump is merely an extension of what's been going on in politics for years. Yes, he takes things to an extreme, and many find it entertaining (and people LOVE entertainment). But our political system has been broken for a long time. Over the last seven years, since Obama has been president, obstructionism and negativity have increased exponentially, and the notion of compromise (which is what governance is all about) has evaporated. No, Trump didn't "break" politics, our politics have been in need of repair for a long time.
3
I feel like a Roman citizen, watching the empire fall.
5
Everything Mr. Schmitt says in this essay is true and I want to thank him for writing it.
1
After the Kent State massacre by National Guard troops firing on Kent State students Ronald Reagan declared "If it takes a bloodbath, lets get it over with". Reagan extended his disdain toward students "dresses like Tarzan, has hair like Jane and smells like Cheetah". All environmental issues of energy conservation and ecological concerns were treated in the same manner. See Colin Powell's story about Reagan's squirrel. The same harsh half baked condescendsions we witness in Donald Trump is merely a retro-act installed by the Great Communicator taking credit for the fall of the Soviet Union, The Gipper, who's Star Wars Defense Program was as viable as Trump's Mexican border wall. A chip off the old cray.
4
And Reagan tripled the debt.
1
The Supreme court broke politics and made government a pay to play scheme with Citizens United ruling. The incentive for Politicians to represent their constituents is gone as the focus for politicians becomes pleasing the donors who are the King makers now. This is the second time the Supreme Court have deeply wounded democracy in the last 16 years. First time it was by they themselves electing W Bush which was maybe the most disastrous presidency yet and a totally undemocratic move by the Supreme court. Public service is suppose to be the aim of both Politics and judiciary and right now it is AWOL in America
115
Your understanding makes sense, with one exception: Bernie Sanders. He is demonstrating that small contributions from millions of fellow citizens is sufficient to compete with big money candidates, including self funded billionaires.
2
Mark Twain would be amused to hear that we believe Congressional imbecility is a recent invention.
61
Other than those dealing with mass murders, this may be the most depressing and worrisome article that I've read in a long time.
3
I agree, except for leaving out mass murder stories. Think about it; the entire population of this planet stands by while a child dies every 6 seconds in India. Mass murder? No. Death from inaction? Absolutely! Look how much money is wasted on Super Pacs and the like. We could cut numbers like I just mentioned in half (or more) if the funds from Big Pharma and the entire Military Complex were spent more wisely. This is something Trump knows as well as every other putz running for President.
Easy goer, if each one of us knew everything about what was going on in the world omnipotently, we each would have blown our minds away. The human mind is build to limited awareness and knowledge, if it was limitless, we would all be omniscients.
1
Schmitt is missing the point.His analysis may be fair but context is everything.The "old rules"applied when most American's standard of living was relatively high and rising.In today's America,a shrinking middle class coupled with extreme differences in living standards means that our Society as a whole is becoming more disaffected,cynical and in search of someone or something to blame.Given the slide down Maslow's Hierarchy,the vast majority of Americans are also focussed even more on their day to day needs and less on issues that don't affect them directly and immediately.Voter apathy and pandering to small but vocal minorities is a natural consequence of these changes.
26
What a corrupt definition of politics! Politics is more than handing out federal goodies and having locals accept them without any regard to the consequences! Politics is first and foremost about upholding the law, protecting our freedom, liberty and safety, and preserving the common good.
Right now we have a President ruling by 'Executive order' on topics that are of profound interest to the American people and in direct opposition to the will of our representatives in Congress because he does not agree with their inaction in the face of his demands. That is broken politics.
Right now we have a President ruling by 'Executive order' on topics that are of profound interest to the American people and in direct opposition to the will of our representatives in Congress because he does not agree with their inaction in the face of his demands. That is broken politics.
18
When things need to get done because lives are negatively impacted, and the Republicans in Congress not only do nothing about anything, but actively try to disrupt any action by anyone else, what do you expect someone who cares about our nation to do? Obama is showing leadership, integrity, and concern for our country.
4
"Broken politics" has resulted from the failure of Congress to act on many issues where undeniably serious problems exist (immigration, gun violence, to name only two) and where polling clearly indicates that a large majority of the American people want particular action taken (legalization and a pathway to citizenship, greater gun control).
2
John, broken politics is when gerrymandering, among other things, results in representatives who are not representative, as the article states. Obama's use of executive privilege is the employment of one of several mechanisms devised to allow decision-making when the separation of powers results in stalemate--it's a limited mechanism to allow the government to continue functioning, not a breakdown of politics. The breakdown is the continued stalemate caused by those unrepresentative representatives.
3
I think Trump and Sanders are easily explained. Ask yourself this, are your kids being well served by the system? If you are not a member of a favored group, the rich, the politically connected, big city government workers, lawyers, are you being well served?
3
Only one thing to say. No matter how you triangulate, don't let the dangerous Republican party keep you home. Get out and vote!
If you think the Bernie-Hillary split is honest, think again. You're being manipulated.
It does matter, even if your district is heavily biased. Stand up and be counted, or don't complain.
Please!
If you think the Bernie-Hillary split is honest, think again. You're being manipulated.
It does matter, even if your district is heavily biased. Stand up and be counted, or don't complain.
Please!
3
I'll vote. But never for Clinton. There are other choices.
3
Behold Trump’s all or nothing, no holds barred reckless fling at self destruction and dragging his immediate world down with him with a despotic and utter disregard of them as individuals … what an amazing spectacle! How is this possible? It’s possible because of the glaring incompetence and dangerousness of each and every GOP candidate. A Trump candidacy could well win the Presidency, the Senate, and maybe even the House for the Democrats. Even districts that are 55% GOP might not be safe with Trump leading the ticket.
2
" Now that congressional leaders, governors and Mr. Trump have shown the rules and customs of American politics to be hollow and unenforceable, we need a new set of tools to understand how democracy works, or doesn’t." Again- NYT cannot resist wrapping political ills with DT wrapping paper.
The staid rules and customs are indeed hollow for reasons other than- in addition to those addressed in the piece; it's far more than just coarse/crass discourse. One, for instance, is the entire Presidential forecasting process, which must be examined and "redone"; starting with the almost cult-like focus/fetish on what happens in one of the smallest states in the Union: The false barometer of utilizing Iowa as a so-goes-Iowa-so-goes-the-nation matrix.
Population, 2014 estimate 3,107,126
White alone, percent, 2014 (a) 92.1%
Black or African American alone, percent, 2014 (a) 3.4%
Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2014 (b) 5.6%
Iowa does not look like much of the rest of America, but the obsessive media focus- thus voter perception of its significance provides undue influence on one of the most important citizen rights we have.
Perhaps this will be the year when another- albeit quieter "new tool" will take effect; voters bypassing the prognosticators: There's something quite sobering about having one's ballet in front of one's face- confronting the names thereon and realizing, " this @@@@ is for- real".
The staid rules and customs are indeed hollow for reasons other than- in addition to those addressed in the piece; it's far more than just coarse/crass discourse. One, for instance, is the entire Presidential forecasting process, which must be examined and "redone"; starting with the almost cult-like focus/fetish on what happens in one of the smallest states in the Union: The false barometer of utilizing Iowa as a so-goes-Iowa-so-goes-the-nation matrix.
Population, 2014 estimate 3,107,126
White alone, percent, 2014 (a) 92.1%
Black or African American alone, percent, 2014 (a) 3.4%
Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2014 (b) 5.6%
Iowa does not look like much of the rest of America, but the obsessive media focus- thus voter perception of its significance provides undue influence on one of the most important citizen rights we have.
Perhaps this will be the year when another- albeit quieter "new tool" will take effect; voters bypassing the prognosticators: There's something quite sobering about having one's ballet in front of one's face- confronting the names thereon and realizing, " this @@@@ is for- real".
2
Ask Eric Cantor about how wise it is to ignore your constituents. What has changed in politics is the emergence of the TEA Party's impact on the Republican Party. The Republican Party is terrified of the TEA Party, just ask John Boehner.
2
Do hacks have a piffle generator?
Insulting McCain is not a political "rule." One of about twenty non sequiturs in this piece.
Wanna know who greased the skids for republican buffoon candidates with specious gossip of VSPs?
Read Mark Scmitt today, or another day, or his hack peers. I really din't think they miss a day, but I will not do the survey to prove it. Today's NYT is enough.
Insulting McCain is not a political "rule." One of about twenty non sequiturs in this piece.
Wanna know who greased the skids for republican buffoon candidates with specious gossip of VSPs?
Read Mark Scmitt today, or another day, or his hack peers. I really din't think they miss a day, but I will not do the survey to prove it. Today's NYT is enough.
2
None of this has anything at all to do with the appeal of Donald Trump. For one thing, a survey last week averred that the base of his appeal is to those same "Reagan Democrats" this article mentioned as being slighted. Like many on the right, the author is too blinded by his own political preconceptions to gauge Trump accurately.
What we are seeing in him actually arises from dissatisfaction with the Republican Party establishment, which much of their base feels has sold out to corporate interests and/or is in bed with the left to feather their own nests. It is an insurrection within the right against its ostensible leadership. Trump's supporters reject the language and mindset of political correctness, which is why his serial transgressions against that only further endear him to them. But part of that is the demand that Republican leadership join them in that, and distrust of that leadership because they do not.
Unlike most populist movements in the past, this is culturally based rather than economic (although economic developments heighten its effect). These folks are not upset that their congressmen are not delivering service to them in navigating the ACA or getting them more goodies. They are mad as Hades at the general direction of the country and blame GOP congressmen for not being tougher in opposing the left, as any cursory review of conservative websites would quickly prove. This is a civil war on the right.
What we are seeing in him actually arises from dissatisfaction with the Republican Party establishment, which much of their base feels has sold out to corporate interests and/or is in bed with the left to feather their own nests. It is an insurrection within the right against its ostensible leadership. Trump's supporters reject the language and mindset of political correctness, which is why his serial transgressions against that only further endear him to them. But part of that is the demand that Republican leadership join them in that, and distrust of that leadership because they do not.
Unlike most populist movements in the past, this is culturally based rather than economic (although economic developments heighten its effect). These folks are not upset that their congressmen are not delivering service to them in navigating the ACA or getting them more goodies. They are mad as Hades at the general direction of the country and blame GOP congressmen for not being tougher in opposing the left, as any cursory review of conservative websites would quickly prove. This is a civil war on the right.
4
If you look realistically at the issues, you would see that the civil war on the right is misguided by various interest groups--the energy money debunking climate change, the NRA and gun manufacturers on gun control, the 1%'s horror of fair taxation, etc. Interest groups of the type that the rebels abhor in the other side, but are oddly inimitable to thier own interest in a cleaner, safer, more equitable society. Rebels are often wrong, in conservative, and misled.
There is also a civil war on the left. Most supporters of Bernie Sanders have already rejected Clinton and are not going to sheepishly come back if the media and the DNC throw her the primaries. Clinton's disapproval rating is above 50%.
The people have given up on the two corporate parties. Their approval ratings are dismal. The congress they control is less popular than cockroaches, turnout is at historic lows, government is only responsive to billionaires and global corporations, Party control is doing back and forth at an accelerated rate, etc.
These are all signed that the stem is unstable and about to undergo some major change.
Clinging to lesser evils is not going to help.
First we need a movement to get money out of politics. This means organizing outside of the two part system. It means creatively educating each other about the real problems and real solutions. And it means showing the government that I'd they do not do what the American People want done, they will lose everything. A candidate that backs these ideas is helpful, but not the most important part.
This is why Bernie is unlike other candidates. Neither Hillary not Trump will be going to the people as the source of their power, to pressure congress, they will go to the powerful who like the status quo.
Only Bernie Sanders wants to help organize a powerful citizens movement. And even if he were elected, we can't leave it to him. We will have to pressure him while we pressure congress.
The people have given up on the two corporate parties. Their approval ratings are dismal. The congress they control is less popular than cockroaches, turnout is at historic lows, government is only responsive to billionaires and global corporations, Party control is doing back and forth at an accelerated rate, etc.
These are all signed that the stem is unstable and about to undergo some major change.
Clinging to lesser evils is not going to help.
First we need a movement to get money out of politics. This means organizing outside of the two part system. It means creatively educating each other about the real problems and real solutions. And it means showing the government that I'd they do not do what the American People want done, they will lose everything. A candidate that backs these ideas is helpful, but not the most important part.
This is why Bernie is unlike other candidates. Neither Hillary not Trump will be going to the people as the source of their power, to pressure congress, they will go to the powerful who like the status quo.
Only Bernie Sanders wants to help organize a powerful citizens movement. And even if he were elected, we can't leave it to him. We will have to pressure him while we pressure congress.
2
It would be better to say that Trump has not YET broken politics. After all, he hasn’t been nominated much less elected to any political office.
As to his offensiveness to Latinos, consider an op-ed appearing just yesterday in the Times that questioned why Latinos have yet to exercise their electoral clout. In the end, Trump could prove to be crazy like a fox.
As to members of Congress refusing to provide constituent help on the ACA, this is the price of one party’s ramming of transformative legislation through procedural shenanigans and in the teeth of unanimous resistance by the other party – given the low popularity of ObamaCare, it’s unlikely that these members will suffer for their actions.
However, despite trends that have been evident for some time in how politics operates in America, and despite the fact that Trump’s manifestly evident demagoguery is hardly new to America, the extent to which he “breaks” politics really depends on the extent of his success. He has rallied Republicans while clearly not being much of a Republican at all, through intense demagogic manipulation – which hasn’t been notably successful in America for many decades. If he succeeds at being nominated and even more if eventually elected, he presents the threat of breaking politics very badly.
As to his offensiveness to Latinos, consider an op-ed appearing just yesterday in the Times that questioned why Latinos have yet to exercise their electoral clout. In the end, Trump could prove to be crazy like a fox.
As to members of Congress refusing to provide constituent help on the ACA, this is the price of one party’s ramming of transformative legislation through procedural shenanigans and in the teeth of unanimous resistance by the other party – given the low popularity of ObamaCare, it’s unlikely that these members will suffer for their actions.
However, despite trends that have been evident for some time in how politics operates in America, and despite the fact that Trump’s manifestly evident demagoguery is hardly new to America, the extent to which he “breaks” politics really depends on the extent of his success. He has rallied Republicans while clearly not being much of a Republican at all, through intense demagogic manipulation – which hasn’t been notably successful in America for many decades. If he succeeds at being nominated and even more if eventually elected, he presents the threat of breaking politics very badly.
4
@Richard Luettgen: "As to his offensiveness to Latinos, consider an op-ed appearing just yesterday in the Times that questioned why Latinos have yet to exercise their electoral clout. In the end, Trump could prove to be crazy like a fox."
So it's okay to offend Latinos by stereotyping them as rapists and other kinds of criminals while conceding that a few of them may be "good people"?
Thanks for confirming that Republicans have despicably bigoted attitudes. Or you're at least willing to exploit those attitudes to win.
So it's okay to offend Latinos by stereotyping them as rapists and other kinds of criminals while conceding that a few of them may be "good people"?
Thanks for confirming that Republicans have despicably bigoted attitudes. Or you're at least willing to exploit those attitudes to win.
4
R. Davidoff:
Thanks for confirming that liberals are despicably predisposed to demonizing ideological adversaries without the slightest evidence of demon-like behavior or sentiment. I never justified Trump's behavior and have roundly condemned it since he began practicing it: all I did was comment on how effective it might be.
Fortunately, your demonization is pretty transparent and, like those of others ("You never built that"), likely won't result in more than losing MORE legislative seats to the adversaries you demonize.
See you at the polls.
Thanks for confirming that liberals are despicably predisposed to demonizing ideological adversaries without the slightest evidence of demon-like behavior or sentiment. I never justified Trump's behavior and have roundly condemned it since he began practicing it: all I did was comment on how effective it might be.
Fortunately, your demonization is pretty transparent and, like those of others ("You never built that"), likely won't result in more than losing MORE legislative seats to the adversaries you demonize.
See you at the polls.
2
If the "old rules" were so easily broken, perhaps they were never valid in the first place. America began as a country where only a minority could vote, and its democracy evolved only as its society became more industrialized.
There is no reason why America can't move the other way. The majority of its residents don't vote, either because they lack the documents that give them the right, or they have the documents and can't be bothered. Why would the dominant groups in society have an interest in changing this?
Its easy to imagine an American society organized along the lines of Britain in the eighteen hundreds. Voting restricted to property owners, a House of Commons filled mainly by sons of the upper crust, and a House of Lords for the rich and the bishops. Donald Trump would have felt at home. In some ways, he could have stepped right out of Trollope and not necessarily as a villain.
Further back, the past is not so reassuring. It's still a long way to outright feudalism, but if you look around carefully, there are quite a few Americans who are trying to take us there.
There is no reason why America can't move the other way. The majority of its residents don't vote, either because they lack the documents that give them the right, or they have the documents and can't be bothered. Why would the dominant groups in society have an interest in changing this?
Its easy to imagine an American society organized along the lines of Britain in the eighteen hundreds. Voting restricted to property owners, a House of Commons filled mainly by sons of the upper crust, and a House of Lords for the rich and the bishops. Donald Trump would have felt at home. In some ways, he could have stepped right out of Trollope and not necessarily as a villain.
Further back, the past is not so reassuring. It's still a long way to outright feudalism, but if you look around carefully, there are quite a few Americans who are trying to take us there.
4
The internecine clash within the Republican Party has been coming for a long, long time.
The ideals and true policy ideas, as articulated by the right wing's right wing, were previously kept more or less amongst themselves. Now we see the establishment try to reign in this monster that they permitted to grow unchecked, lest it split the party. The moderate / rational members trying to find a governing stance that is not stained with the poison the Teaparty and it's ilk spew out....which is an anathema to most Americans.
The ideals and true policy ideas, as articulated by the right wing's right wing, were previously kept more or less amongst themselves. Now we see the establishment try to reign in this monster that they permitted to grow unchecked, lest it split the party. The moderate / rational members trying to find a governing stance that is not stained with the poison the Teaparty and it's ilk spew out....which is an anathema to most Americans.
5
Mr. Schmitt's thesis attributes our 'broken politics' to the behavior of both parties, but virtually all his examples refer to the actions of the GOP. They control the legislatures that enact voter registration laws and do most of the gerrymandering. Their governors preside over efforts to gut social and infrastructure spending. While both parties pander to special interests such as the NRA, the Republicans make such behavior official party policy.
Within Congress, moreover, the current version of the GOP has displayed an intransigence almost unique in its comprehensive nature. Democrats cooperated with Bush to approve his wars of choice, helped pass his tax cuts, and participated in his campaign to strengthen the national security state. The Republicans, on the other hand, have faithfully fulfilled McConnel's pledge of non-cooperation with President Obama.
In this sense, Trump has remained true to his party's divisive tactics. The GOP seeks to derail spending vital to the future of the country and to the well-being of the most vulnerable groups in our society. Trump attempts to expel these groups from the national community by portraying them as 'losers,' unworthy of our help or concern. While he claims to support social spending, his vitriolic rhetoric reveals little empathy for Americans outside his economic class.
It is the GOP, not both parties, that has rejected the tradition of compromise and the sense of national community vital to our political system.
Within Congress, moreover, the current version of the GOP has displayed an intransigence almost unique in its comprehensive nature. Democrats cooperated with Bush to approve his wars of choice, helped pass his tax cuts, and participated in his campaign to strengthen the national security state. The Republicans, on the other hand, have faithfully fulfilled McConnel's pledge of non-cooperation with President Obama.
In this sense, Trump has remained true to his party's divisive tactics. The GOP seeks to derail spending vital to the future of the country and to the well-being of the most vulnerable groups in our society. Trump attempts to expel these groups from the national community by portraying them as 'losers,' unworthy of our help or concern. While he claims to support social spending, his vitriolic rhetoric reveals little empathy for Americans outside his economic class.
It is the GOP, not both parties, that has rejected the tradition of compromise and the sense of national community vital to our political system.
9
James Lee - "It is the GOP, not both parties, that has rejected the tradition of compromise and the sense of national community vital to our political system."
Really! President Obama has "compromised," Harry Reid has "compromised"?
Please give us an example of Democratic COMPROMISE.
Really! President Obama has "compromised," Harry Reid has "compromised"?
Please give us an example of Democratic COMPROMISE.
If the GOP is the addict, the DNC, as your own examples show, are the enablers.
The GOP proudly does the wrong thing and the DNC is afraid to do the right thing.
This is why we have insurgents on both sides of the isle, who despite differences in rhetoric have policies that are more like each other than like their own parties.
Both Trump and Sanders are closer to the real center than the establishment candidates.
I still fully expect to see another ClintonBush election by the way, although I'm fighting to see the opposite.
The GOP proudly does the wrong thing and the DNC is afraid to do the right thing.
This is why we have insurgents on both sides of the isle, who despite differences in rhetoric have policies that are more like each other than like their own parties.
Both Trump and Sanders are closer to the real center than the establishment candidates.
I still fully expect to see another ClintonBush election by the way, although I'm fighting to see the opposite.
I know the media always touts how low the approval rating is of Congress but I never see what the approval ratings are of the media. Where can I find that?
6
You seem to be supporting them ...
America has reached an Infection Point. The inexorable turn to the right, begun in the Reagan years, pits the United States against the rest of the world just when much of the world has pivoted to the left and embraced issues such as human rights (read women's rights), the environment, fair and accountable government, war and peace. It's ironic that just when much of the world has transitioned to the model we put forth in the years since WWII, we have turned our backs on that very model and have become more belicose and reactionary. If this trend continues, the world will become a much more unstable world, indeed. And we will have no one to blame but ourselves!
8
I believe the author of this comment meant inflection point, not infection point, but both would be apt, so i may be wrong.
1
Elections are an instrument of oligarchy--not democracy. The ancient Greeks understood this--we do not. We continue, falsely, to link elections to democracy. Any polity that uses elections to choose its leaders is by definition an oligarchy for the simple reason that elections intrinsically favor the rich, famous, or connected. For the ancient Greeks it was clear that the lottery was the only democratic way to choose leaders.
34
In general, my Congressional representatives are not loved by me. They do not represent my wants or needs, but pursue their own ideological agendas. They do not listen. They do not respond. They simply keep lining their pockets for reelection. No single voter can change this mess. When will Americans wake up and realize how out of their control the entire process is?
92
Mostly we have been happy with our elected reps to Congress, especially proud of Ed Kennedy and John Kerry! Cringe worthy, was Scott Brown, thank goodness MA booted him out to NH.
3
Did you vote? If not, then don't complain. If you did, start persuading everyone you know to vote. One voter won't change anything, but millions of voters will.
1
Do you ever wonder what might happen if the other 58% of the under $52K group voted and the other 50% of the over $150K? Where are they? Why aren't they voting? They have ceded the process to others. One vote plus one vote plus.... And much of the rhetoric is designed to do just this: get us to sit idly while others make the decisions. And it's working.
Dear Mr. Schmitt,
But you neglect to speak of, what I call, the "Cartman Rule of American Politics". While attempting to write a paper about the "Constitutional Convention" in an episode of "South Park", Cartman eventually realizes what this country is all about: "Say one thing then do just the opposite".
We supposedly LOVE peace but sell more weapons than any other country the world.
We supposedly LOVE peace but are armed to the teeth with over 300 million "registered guns" and an untold number not registered.
Mr. Trump is merely the end result of this downward spiral in American politics/business where money rules supreme, thank you SCOTUS.
America, founded and funded by slavery, was NEVER what it claimed to be from the very beginning.
But you neglect to speak of, what I call, the "Cartman Rule of American Politics". While attempting to write a paper about the "Constitutional Convention" in an episode of "South Park", Cartman eventually realizes what this country is all about: "Say one thing then do just the opposite".
We supposedly LOVE peace but sell more weapons than any other country the world.
We supposedly LOVE peace but are armed to the teeth with over 300 million "registered guns" and an untold number not registered.
Mr. Trump is merely the end result of this downward spiral in American politics/business where money rules supreme, thank you SCOTUS.
America, founded and funded by slavery, was NEVER what it claimed to be from the very beginning.
10
Ronald Reagan broke politics... y'all. We have not had a real progressive Democrat like Nixon -- OK like Johnson or Eisenhower (yes I mean hat people who followed the Christian ethic of from those who have much much is expected...pay your taxes already... and support social programs to help others.)Just remember Bill was a good friend to Wall Street -- and his own mother did not like what sonny boy did giving business people a big leg up over the ordinary person in AK.
Like Pope Francis, Donald Trump is truly a breath of fresh air even if a narcissist (which politician isn't) and he used the system. (Wonder who he might have lobbied directly rather than indirectly as do most politicians.
Travelling on American Airlines -- with problems grandes -- I want to know which person decided it was a good idea to merge USAir w American. Capitalists who want monopolies?? no competition ?/ (no Air BnB; no Uber?)
Politicians don't want competition from the outside either... they want to play an inside game... not very democratic!! Trumpity trump trump -- look at Donald go.
Like Pope Francis, Donald Trump is truly a breath of fresh air even if a narcissist (which politician isn't) and he used the system. (Wonder who he might have lobbied directly rather than indirectly as do most politicians.
Travelling on American Airlines -- with problems grandes -- I want to know which person decided it was a good idea to merge USAir w American. Capitalists who want monopolies?? no competition ?/ (no Air BnB; no Uber?)
Politicians don't want competition from the outside either... they want to play an inside game... not very democratic!! Trumpity trump trump -- look at Donald go.
2
Trump is the BEST thing that's come around in a long time. I have never been as excited about a candidate as I am he. He is the only one willing to say the Emperors of Media, Politics, Newspapers, the NY Times, Profiling, Political Correctness ad nauseam are wearing no clothes. If you read his books, he does have a plan, and a very detailed plan. Unfortunately, this newspaper doesn't want you to know this. Unfortunately, this comment will probably not appear in this ultra liberal and very biased NY Times. Let's see if this is the case today?
7
DeToqueville's quip is still true. I paraphrase:
"You will have your democracy until your politicians bribe you with your own money."
Now, they are bribing us with our grandchildren's money.
"You will have your democracy until your politicians bribe you with your own money."
Now, they are bribing us with our grandchildren's money.
12
Alas, on the road to perdition Mr. Trump is just another traveler.
4
I live in a neighborhood which is very mixed. We have rich to poor. We have every ethnicity and continental ancestry affiliation and combination there of. Years ago on election day you had to go early to vote if you wanted to get to work on time because the polls would be crowded. If you waited until after work the polls would be jammed. Today there are no long lines. The polls are deserted. If you go during the workday you might just be the only person voting there. There are generally more volunteers manning the polls than people voting. It is a bit different when it is a presidential election year but not much. I have noticed the thinning over the years.
It seems that most Americans have forsaken their democracy. The one power average and poor Americans have is the vote. We cannot influence candidates with money but we can with the vote. The picture showing the American flag being thrown in the garbage truck by sanitation workers is telling. It is not the rich who have abandoned us. We have abandoned ourselves. We have abandoned our democracy. We no longer believe what we see with our eyes. We believe the propaganda laid forth on a purchased media and spoken by purchased legislators and "news" commentators. The symbolism of a regular American tossing the flag into the garbage is what Americans do every time they do not go into a voting booth armed with the knowledge of the candidates and what they stand for and seriously casting a vote for the good of the community.
It seems that most Americans have forsaken their democracy. The one power average and poor Americans have is the vote. We cannot influence candidates with money but we can with the vote. The picture showing the American flag being thrown in the garbage truck by sanitation workers is telling. It is not the rich who have abandoned us. We have abandoned ourselves. We have abandoned our democracy. We no longer believe what we see with our eyes. We believe the propaganda laid forth on a purchased media and spoken by purchased legislators and "news" commentators. The symbolism of a regular American tossing the flag into the garbage is what Americans do every time they do not go into a voting booth armed with the knowledge of the candidates and what they stand for and seriously casting a vote for the good of the community.
18
People may be casting mail ballots, Patty Anne B, but you're right - it is alarming that so few people vote.
1
This good article by Mark Schmitt points up four factors: the corrosive effects of unfettered and unlimited money in American politics, the slow death of political parties, the new prominence of the one-issue special interests, and the uncontrolled gerrymandering of safe districts.
Politicians like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and others, spouting sometimes outrageous extreme positions, easily grab the spotlight. There is no counterweight, and moderates lose.
None of this would have happened without a corrupt Congress and a complicit Supreme Court and, in some cases, a lazy mainstream media.
Politicians like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and others, spouting sometimes outrageous extreme positions, easily grab the spotlight. There is no counterweight, and moderates lose.
None of this would have happened without a corrupt Congress and a complicit Supreme Court and, in some cases, a lazy mainstream media.
203
sdw: Agree! Add to the mix - apathetic voters!!
1
The only resolution is term limits! Service to the government was never intended to be a lifetime career. This one limitation would force less corruption as the players would be constantly changing.
10
Most of the Founding Fathers WERE professional politicians, in the sense that they spent most of their lifetimes either in office or trying to get there. Term limits simply means mandating inexperience, as if experience was unnecessary, worthless, or even harmful when it comes to politics, unlike, say, to parenting.
The Republican Party is broken. It was broken by Roger Ailes, Lee Atwater, Tom Delay and Mitch McConnell among others, and it's foolish embrace of the angry ignorance of the Tea Party. Trump has only exposed the deep incompatibility and discord among the party's constituent groups. Republican presidential politics have become a clown show and a farce. Congress is a failed institution because the republican majority doesn't know how to govern. Our politics have become toxic because republicans prefer to spew poison rather than solve problems. The system can be salvaged, but not as long as the Republican Party remains broken.
11
Politics and political discourse requires some attention to the details of issues. The only way to get facts and perspective is through the "Media". We used to have newspapers (sorry about the past tense, NYT) which were widely read even by less wealthy but interested voters. Facts were important to journalists, and though probably biased, some degree of perspective was added in editorials. What we have now is the big distortion. There is little editorial oversight in partisan TV reporting, and other media is more entertainment than substantive. Even NYT and NPR choose what to send us and there is no 5th page report that may counter the front page. It is too easy to get news but hard to get facts. Those who are not following issues until election day are swayed by the stuff that Trump uses to get the blood boiling. In the meantime we have some serious stuff in a complex world to decide. Democracy is hard, but we have to pay attention and people have to get good facts to make good votes.
13
"Socrates" writes "GOP corporate fascist moneyed speech."
Another left wing fringer calling the other party fascist. What is truly sad is that this extremism is highly recommended here.
This is very sad for the US.
And of course, these extremists blame the other party for gridlock!
Another left wing fringer calling the other party fascist. What is truly sad is that this extremism is highly recommended here.
This is very sad for the US.
And of course, these extremists blame the other party for gridlock!
6
Campaign finance reform must become the single most important issue to each and every voter. We must reclaim our heritage and our democracy from the special interests and super-rich, who have stolen them.
6
Hmmm, not to mention gerrymandering (you better love your congress-critter cuz you're stuck forever) and active voter suppression (welcome to Joburg circa 1900). Mere voter attitude pales in comparison...
11
We can learn a lot by studying South Africa. Good reference. How many will "get" it?
1
"When politicians know more or less who will vote and how, they can ignore most voters — including their own loyalists."
That is the core objection to Hillary. It is the core point made by both Bernie and Trump.
It isn't working among Republicans. It may not work for Hillary either.
This certainly expresses what the Republican losers seem to believe.
That is the core objection to Hillary. It is the core point made by both Bernie and Trump.
It isn't working among Republicans. It may not work for Hillary either.
This certainly expresses what the Republican losers seem to believe.
7
I'm hopeful that what I think is true will be true: That Hillary cannot easily court her core female voting group because it will irritate or inflame opponents and those on the fence. Granted, we tend to know people like ourselves, but everyone I know--and I know a lot of people--are voting for Hillary, while also expressing affection for Bernie Sanders. We're all sitting on the sidelines, watching the parade, while assuming we get a chance to vote for the first female president.
1
For good or bad, anything muttered is free speech and anything absurd only gets more attention, sadly.
15
There was an alien character on the series 'Lost In Space' that walked around repeating the mantra, "Crush, kill, destroy".
How did that become a model for governance?
How did that become a model for governance?
27
it started with Reagan's "government is the problem not the solution." We no longer are "we the people" - we've dissociated ourselves from our own governance.
4
I think this opinion makes a very uncomplicated thing complicated. The vast majority of people lean toward one party or the other. And while neither party's candidate may agree with everything a voter wishes for the voter is loathe to vote for the other candidates party. Even the independents largely lean hard toward one party or the other. They are all influenced by a lot of things including how their family and circle of friends vote.
7
Charlie
I'd respectfully disagree. I've taken the time to consider each party's candidates, and have done so since I first began to vote. I have happily supported bot the GOP and the Democratic Party, if their candidate(s) had the best solution for the country at that time.
I remarked just yesterday that I'd support Kasich if he were to be nominated. Sadly the right wing's right wing of the GOP seems bent on putting forth the modern equivalent of the "Know Nothing Party" via Trump or Carson.
After reviewing their stances on the major issues, and the blatant inability to tell the truth, combined with a lack of seriousness on the GOP side, I'm likely not to support them this year, unless, of course, Kasich is the nominee.
I'd respectfully disagree. I've taken the time to consider each party's candidates, and have done so since I first began to vote. I have happily supported bot the GOP and the Democratic Party, if their candidate(s) had the best solution for the country at that time.
I remarked just yesterday that I'd support Kasich if he were to be nominated. Sadly the right wing's right wing of the GOP seems bent on putting forth the modern equivalent of the "Know Nothing Party" via Trump or Carson.
After reviewing their stances on the major issues, and the blatant inability to tell the truth, combined with a lack of seriousness on the GOP side, I'm likely not to support them this year, unless, of course, Kasich is the nominee.
1
Useful article and informative. "The immutable laws of politics begin to fall." True. Trump is a reflection of this. The opponents of Donald Trump are handling him the wrong way. They could take some lessons from my new book:
"2016, Selecting the President, The Most Important Decision You will Ever Make."
We should select our President intelligently based on qualities and not rhetoric, anger and fear. The book outlines 15 leadership qualities a President MUST HAVE to be effective. No President has had them all but some of our best had most. Trump is a business leader, a decision maker and a communicator. Those qualities are among those essential to the planetary leader who occupies the Oval Office, but are not enough! We need character which includes, honesty and integrity; respect for diversity, ability to work with others like the Congress; assembling a brain trust of talent; emotional intelligence; willingness to reform a corrupt and dysfunctional political system, etc. The book explains all 15 traits a President requires with examples from Presidents who demonstrated these qualities. It include a Voter's Checklist where each of us can evaluate the candidates based on these qualities. As a result, the other candidates who are competing either on the Republican or Democratic side should focus on the leadership skills they bring to the task and contrast those with the lack of skills of their adversaries. This would help them in winning and us in choosing.
"2016, Selecting the President, The Most Important Decision You will Ever Make."
We should select our President intelligently based on qualities and not rhetoric, anger and fear. The book outlines 15 leadership qualities a President MUST HAVE to be effective. No President has had them all but some of our best had most. Trump is a business leader, a decision maker and a communicator. Those qualities are among those essential to the planetary leader who occupies the Oval Office, but are not enough! We need character which includes, honesty and integrity; respect for diversity, ability to work with others like the Congress; assembling a brain trust of talent; emotional intelligence; willingness to reform a corrupt and dysfunctional political system, etc. The book explains all 15 traits a President requires with examples from Presidents who demonstrated these qualities. It include a Voter's Checklist where each of us can evaluate the candidates based on these qualities. As a result, the other candidates who are competing either on the Republican or Democratic side should focus on the leadership skills they bring to the task and contrast those with the lack of skills of their adversaries. This would help them in winning and us in choosing.
5
What a reasonable and logical set of ideas. I vote for you for president.
Trump will face actual voters in a little more than a month. He has done the easy part- the pre-voter period- quite well. If he loses in either Iowa or NH, the key to his future will be his reaction to adversity. If he comes out humbled but still committed to running, his chances of actually winning the nomination will improve.
2
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are the consequences, not the drivers, of our country's intractable degradation of political discourse. Nevertheless, voter suppression notwithstanding and as Mr. Schmitt points out, the current climate cannot be improved if our less affluent citizens fail to vote.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
23
There have been numerous documented irregularities in Republican electoral victories. This may help to explain the reelection of unpopular candidates. I'd like to see the NYT dig into this instead of pretending it's left-wing paranoia.
22
Examples?
4
George Bush, Hanging chads, Supreme Court decision....
4
Get over it. Gore lost Florida and conceded this by not asking for a statewide recount. The Supreme Court simply rubber stamped this result and di so along party lines. Portia needs to face life.
2
The demonization of government is the essential tool of those who want to shirk their responsibility to their fellow Americans and to the planet. It is so sad that many of those who hate government programs like the Affordable Care Act are those who need them the most. If inculcating cynicism is the name of the game, Republicans have won.
180
The GOP started inculcating cynicism with the Ronnie Reagan Show. They knew exactly what they were doing. An immature. resentful man and his sideshow economics which have ruined the country to some degree permanently. And lots of die-hards, in their hearts, know it. If that's not cynicism nothing is.
1
When Obama Care was passed but before it was implemented I predicted that my conservative friends and family would be first in line to sign up for its benefits and first to complain if they didn't get a gullet full of benefits. Sure enough ... they are now whining about the increase in premiums this year compared to last even as they enjoy medical benefits that they wouldn't have been able to obtain or afford before Obama Care.
1
President Obama promised we would be out of Iraq.
On that basis I voted for him.
He lied. And I will never vote Democrat again.
Because I would rather take a stupid, but honest, Republican over a Democrat who offers up a good policy as a lie.
And that is what it was- a lie. Obama never intended to leave Iraq. But he did intend to get voters like me to throw their vote away on his lie.
On that basis I voted for him.
He lied. And I will never vote Democrat again.
Because I would rather take a stupid, but honest, Republican over a Democrat who offers up a good policy as a lie.
And that is what it was- a lie. Obama never intended to leave Iraq. But he did intend to get voters like me to throw their vote away on his lie.
With people like McConnell and Ryan in charge of Congress, it is unlikely that any truly honorable human (and I can think of two who qualify) could be an effective President and lead us out of the quagmire of our present political system.
Therefore, the obvious solution lies in electing Hillary, a savvy and seasoned in-fighter, and have her put Bernie and Liz Warren on the supreme court.
Instead of watching the wigged airhead today, plop this proposal on your forehead and consider Hill, Liz and Bern as potential saviors.
Therefore, the obvious solution lies in electing Hillary, a savvy and seasoned in-fighter, and have her put Bernie and Liz Warren on the supreme court.
Instead of watching the wigged airhead today, plop this proposal on your forehead and consider Hill, Liz and Bern as potential saviors.
21
Bernie isn't a lawyer, so the USSC probably not for him. Sen. Warren may be far more effective in the Senate. Many good choices out there nonetheless.
2
Mr. Schmitt makes some valid points in this piece. However, rather than primarily blaming the electorate for this dismal state of affairs, there are a few simple items worth mentioning that can sum up many of the reasons for the downward spiral in U.S. politics:
- The Supreme Court's Citizen United decision
- Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act
- Republican gerrymandering of electoral districts and concomitant passing of voter suppression laws
- Increasing wealth inequality in a supposed "economic recovery" in which the middle class and minorities continue to be victimized while the top 1% are enjoying its greatest growth in decades
- Disappearance with the "American Dream" for our youth who are burdened with mortgage-like debt but left without a means of independent support after college
- A congress in which no significant legislation is passed to address any of the major issues of importance to the American people
- Mainstream media's control by corporations and its support of tabloid journalism rather than reporting real news with facts about ALL presidential/congressional candidates
This has made the entire political landscape ripe for either a complete surrender to political oligarchy in the coming elections - or - incentivize a revolution in which "we the people" rise up to vote and throw the scoundrels out.
- The Supreme Court's Citizen United decision
- Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act
- Republican gerrymandering of electoral districts and concomitant passing of voter suppression laws
- Increasing wealth inequality in a supposed "economic recovery" in which the middle class and minorities continue to be victimized while the top 1% are enjoying its greatest growth in decades
- Disappearance with the "American Dream" for our youth who are burdened with mortgage-like debt but left without a means of independent support after college
- A congress in which no significant legislation is passed to address any of the major issues of importance to the American people
- Mainstream media's control by corporations and its support of tabloid journalism rather than reporting real news with facts about ALL presidential/congressional candidates
This has made the entire political landscape ripe for either a complete surrender to political oligarchy in the coming elections - or - incentivize a revolution in which "we the people" rise up to vote and throw the scoundrels out.
356
Unfortunately, throughout history, revolutions more often end in dictatorships... The type of super-rich political activists we are seeing, remind me of the latter senates of Rome. Adventurous, conspiratorial, murderous, solipsistic, destructive and ultimately failures...
Actually, Mr. Schmitt is too gentle on the electorate, and most of the points you raise can also be seen as ultimately (and validly) putting substantial blame on voter apathy and ignorance, and an avid embrace of tribalism over pragmatism. There was a reason why, once upon a time, participation in a democracy was limited to landowners or what-have-you: those restrictions were often motivated by a reasonable fear that average people simply can't, or won't, invest the time to analyze and think about candidates, issues, and electoral outcomes so as to cast their votes wisely (if at all). Yes, that sounds elitist, but take a look at the photos of the people who show up at Trump rallies and tell me if you really think that this country can remain strong amid such colossal collective ignorance and cluelessness. I'm hoping that the demographic realities that underpin the immigration fear-mongering that has propelled Trump to date ultimately save the day. That will, I hope, prove to be a great irony.
1
I choose the second option, wysiwyg.
Namby pamby stuff here and an overlooking of the very sad state of
voter understanding of issues and facts; terrible journalism; acceptance of Trump nonsense; big bucks stacking the deck, etc.
We are watching processes by which even a great society undermines
itself.
Start calling 'stupid' what it is, Times. Ignorance, in a very complex
world, is the root of this political mess and pretending U.S. voters are actually informed does not help. Enough parsing in the margins and on the sidelines.
voter understanding of issues and facts; terrible journalism; acceptance of Trump nonsense; big bucks stacking the deck, etc.
We are watching processes by which even a great society undermines
itself.
Start calling 'stupid' what it is, Times. Ignorance, in a very complex
world, is the root of this political mess and pretending U.S. voters are actually informed does not help. Enough parsing in the margins and on the sidelines.
29
Naming names: it's the Fox News world, and all the rightwing think tanks and "entertainment programs" (looking at you, Rush Limbaugh) that made this world. Their objective is to make this country ungovernable by non-conservatives, and -- but for Obama's and Pelosi's effectiveness -- they have greatly succeeded. Also, the influx of conservative evangelical voters into the GOP -- considering a Democrat for office is probably akin to voting for the devil, to many of them. It can be that stark. (Am not speaking of all Christians, just the hardline conservative ones.)
This situation did not arise overnight. Rightwing media and politicians have made the country ungovernable, to great extent. Mitch McConnell could never have gotten away with the sheer obstruction in an earlier era when Republicans were more moderate and more interested in governing. And then you have a sensationalistic major-corporation owned media, and 24/7 cable news -- with a lot of sloppy "both sides do it! Give up on everything about politics!" reporting to discourage voting. None of this happened by accident. Look to who it benefits. The average American? Not so much.
This situation did not arise overnight. Rightwing media and politicians have made the country ungovernable, to great extent. Mitch McConnell could never have gotten away with the sheer obstruction in an earlier era when Republicans were more moderate and more interested in governing. And then you have a sensationalistic major-corporation owned media, and 24/7 cable news -- with a lot of sloppy "both sides do it! Give up on everything about politics!" reporting to discourage voting. None of this happened by accident. Look to who it benefits. The average American? Not so much.
30
This article does nothing more than confirm that voters hear one story from leaders while the leaders do something else. This could only happen if the media, which provides information to the people, is in collusion with the politicians of if the media no longer knows or cares about truth in information. It is a fact that the entertainment industry has consolidated news reporting in to fewer hands that represent large corporations whose interests are in making money and the hands that expect money also expect to be entitled too money like the rest of the business and corporate communities in the nation. We the people need money to survive also but corporate interests seek absolute control over the economic interests of the country which is in direct conflict with government responsibilities toward we the people.
17
Unfortunately, many on the Right see "government responsibilities" to the people as limited to foreign policy and security. This is the heart of our struggle--to form a more perfect union and not just a cash-box for the wealthy.
11
We the people have all paid for the security of our military and our police forces. All of us have paid and the wealthy will be happy to have us continue to pay for the protection services that the wealthy enjoy. In fact the super rich from around the world would love to join our wealthy people under the umbrella of military police and judicial protection the citizens of the United States have built to protect wealth.
1
"Even when they saw their approval ratings drop into the 30s, they survived."
This is perhaps one of the most unbelievable trends I have witnessed. Pre election polls would have indicated that the Republican Governors of Florida, Maine, and Kansas were toast. And yet on election night they still won. I knew Republicans could be tricked into voting against their own self interest, but to recognize that their elected representative had failed them and then go out in large numbers and reelect them was astonishing. It can only be explained by one depressing fact, Republicans are TRIBAL. You can have a brother who is a screw up in every way imaginable, but in the end he is family so you still support him. Republican voters act as if they are giving their representatives life time appointments to the Supreme Court.
This is perhaps one of the most unbelievable trends I have witnessed. Pre election polls would have indicated that the Republican Governors of Florida, Maine, and Kansas were toast. And yet on election night they still won. I knew Republicans could be tricked into voting against their own self interest, but to recognize that their elected representative had failed them and then go out in large numbers and reelect them was astonishing. It can only be explained by one depressing fact, Republicans are TRIBAL. You can have a brother who is a screw up in every way imaginable, but in the end he is family so you still support him. Republican voters act as if they are giving their representatives life time appointments to the Supreme Court.
24
Perhaps the Republicans who didn't support these governors simply sat out the elections, just as so many non-rich Democrats did. All the more reason for everybody to VOTE!
'Republicans are TRIBAL.'
And Democrats are not? Don't kid yourself.
Actually there are differences. Democrats are united more than anything by their hatred of Republicans (which Republicans have done much to deserve), but quite ready to turn on each other in internecine warfare. There is no Democratic equivalent of Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment, 'thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican'; if you needed a quip to sum up the party it would be Will Rogers' statement, 'I am not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat'. In the Democratic family, you can have a brother who's practically a saint but screws up only once, and your knife will be in his back.
And both parties periodically, like the mythical lemmings, swarm over a cliff after a leader or ideology. (Real lemmings don't actually commit mass suicide - they have more brains than political ideologues.)
And Democrats are not? Don't kid yourself.
Actually there are differences. Democrats are united more than anything by their hatred of Republicans (which Republicans have done much to deserve), but quite ready to turn on each other in internecine warfare. There is no Democratic equivalent of Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment, 'thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican'; if you needed a quip to sum up the party it would be Will Rogers' statement, 'I am not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat'. In the Democratic family, you can have a brother who's practically a saint but screws up only once, and your knife will be in his back.
And both parties periodically, like the mythical lemmings, swarm over a cliff after a leader or ideology. (Real lemmings don't actually commit mass suicide - they have more brains than political ideologues.)
3
"And Democrats are not?"
Far less so. I live in the state of New Jersey as apparently you do. We are a blue state where registered Democrats far outnumber registered Republicans. Yet Christie won two terms. And guess what because of his performance most people will never vote for him again for any office in our state. Notice the emphasis on performance. But in the Deep South the Republican stronghold and in many rural areas across the U.S. it's difficult to imagine (only in rare instances) any Democrat having a chance.
Far less so. I live in the state of New Jersey as apparently you do. We are a blue state where registered Democrats far outnumber registered Republicans. Yet Christie won two terms. And guess what because of his performance most people will never vote for him again for any office in our state. Notice the emphasis on performance. But in the Deep South the Republican stronghold and in many rural areas across the U.S. it's difficult to imagine (only in rare instances) any Democrat having a chance.
1
Republicans delude themselves into thinking that changing government in ways they favor can be done by tossing out the old and bringing in their supposedly new and better ideas. The reality is that almost all governmental change in a country of 320 million people is incremental, as we see over and over again. Obamacare, for example - for all the rhetoric about it - is an incremental change in the healthcare system that builds on what existed before rather than remaking that system entirely. Radical changes to Social Security and Medicare seem unlikely as well. When Republicans ever return to reality, they will need to stop over promising the change they can bring and offer more realistic - and incremental - changes to government.
62
Tim, could the same not be said about Democrats supporting Sanders? Many of we pesky political middle-roaders find his proposals every bit as radical as Trump's.
I am waiting for Mr. Trump to win some sort of actual election. Until we see how many votes he can get, it is just silly to make large claims for him and his impact on American politics. Until the votes are in, all his ranting accounts as nothing more than entertainment.
8
Your thesis on "recasting politics as winner-takes-all conflict" ignores the prime instigator of this approach, Mr. Obama. He has failed not only to pay much heed to Republicans in Congress, but even to members of his own party. His un-Constitutional abuse of executive authority has left most of the electorate deeply bitter. His failure to enforce the rule of law regarding illegal aliens, foreign policy, and political abuses in his Justice Department and the IRS has shown that he is truly our first ends justify the means president. You don't need Donald Trump to make your points, even if that is an inconvenient truth.
28
Hi MFW; please read the essay again. This has been going on since before president Obama was in undergraduate. Regardless, your list seems like weak tea.
14
That was all nonsense. Obama and the Democratic Party in 2009, had control of the presidency and filibuster proof control over both houses of congress. They could have passed their entire platform in a couple of days. Obama would have had to twist the arms of some Blue Dog Democrats (who because of their spineless went on to lose reelection) but that's the presidents job.
Instead he decided to compromise with Republicans in the name of nice politics. And every time they moved right to mollify Republicans, the Republicans moved further right. Instead of passing universal single payer healthcare (which polls say majorities of Americans want, they spent months negotiating with Republicans and insurance companies to eventually pad Romney Care.
It got so ridiculous that at one point, Obama offered to make $4 trillion in entitlement cuts and the Tea Party turned him down.
It took 6 years for Obama to get sick of trying to negotiate with people who think that compromise is a four letter word. I agree that governing by executive order is problematic, but Bush governed by signing statements, and Republicans refuse to compromise on anything.
Anyway the whole thing is a show designed to deliver policy for billionaires while the rest of us fret about divided government.
Instead he decided to compromise with Republicans in the name of nice politics. And every time they moved right to mollify Republicans, the Republicans moved further right. Instead of passing universal single payer healthcare (which polls say majorities of Americans want, they spent months negotiating with Republicans and insurance companies to eventually pad Romney Care.
It got so ridiculous that at one point, Obama offered to make $4 trillion in entitlement cuts and the Tea Party turned him down.
It took 6 years for Obama to get sick of trying to negotiate with people who think that compromise is a four letter word. I agree that governing by executive order is problematic, but Bush governed by signing statements, and Republicans refuse to compromise on anything.
Anyway the whole thing is a show designed to deliver policy for billionaires while the rest of us fret about divided government.
10
Weak tea? That's too kind of you. It's nonsense, Bill.
3
Bernie Sanders is breaking politics as described while you rant about Trump. The NYT is a bastion of politics as usual.
13
Why add Trumps name to this at all. Ignorant rants are not part of free speech.
5
'Ignorant rants are not part of free speech.'
Oh, yes they are. The essence of free speech is that you don't get to decide what is and isn't acceptable.
Oh, yes they are. The essence of free speech is that you don't get to decide what is and isn't acceptable.
3
Hate speech has been determined by the courts to be NOT free speech under the US Constitution.
1
The term " poligarchs" should be coined to describe the political oligarchs whose campaign donations increasingly control American politics.Donald Trump is a political anomaly because he is totally independent of party or financial power structures.He never had to compromise or modify his views to advance through a system.He also is independent of the Super Pacs, that thanks to the egregious decision in Citizens United, increasingly control American politics. The sycophantic and pandering behavior of Republican candidates in connection with their kowtowing pilgrimages to seek donations from the "poligarchs" is one the the more disgusting rituals in American politics. Hillary Clinton, while visually less obsequious, makes similar pilgrimages. Donald Trump's authentic independence gives him the agency to assault the mores of American politics with his unique demagoguery, stream of political consciousness, and bombast.
13
Unfortunately Trump is only in it for himself. He probably only started campaigning for publicity and is only now thinking, "maybe I can actually get elected.
Once elected he would put TRUMP on the White House, give himself $100 million raise, cut all taxes for himself, award all government contracts to his company, and pass the Bad Hair Act.
Once elected he would put TRUMP on the White House, give himself $100 million raise, cut all taxes for himself, award all government contracts to his company, and pass the Bad Hair Act.
2
if what Professor Krugman says is true, the question becomes why this has happened. It may be that politics on the last three decades has failed a large swath of voters and they have become cynical or are looking for a new kind of Politician. The trickle down of Reagan era did no trickle down very far. The Clinton Gingrich years failed to create cost effective national health care; but was successful in promoting globalisation of the economy and welfare reform. The globalisation was supposed to cause prosperity for many but created stagnant wages for most; and welfare reform of Clinton Gingrich created the new Corporate welfare. The Bush presidency speaks for itself. The failure of major Political initiatives of the last 3 decades have failed the majority of Americans as regards their standard of living.
The result for many folks is is either droping out of the political process or looking for a new leadership with new ideas. Politics does matter.
The result for many folks is is either droping out of the political process or looking for a new leadership with new ideas. Politics does matter.
26
How does Trump get to use these venues he speaks in for free ?
That's actually quite remarkable. I would think that it would cost something. Do taxpayers pay for it ? The GOP ?
That's actually quite remarkable. I would think that it would cost something. Do taxpayers pay for it ? The GOP ?
2
Typically free television political news shows (or radio) paid for with advertising. They cover his rallies and speeches.
3
He is trolling the country.
2
The networks are booking auditoriums for Trump, and footing the bill ?
That can not be right.
You are saying that the networks are funding his campaign. That's a scandal. Which networks ?
That can not be right.
You are saying that the networks are funding his campaign. That's a scandal. Which networks ?
1
An interesting article that only gives you half the story. Let's not forget that we have a president that was elected by the smallest minority in history. Just 36.4% of the population voted in 2014. A number that will be larger in 2016, but still trending down towards 50%. A disgrace that cannot fall on republicans. While this and other write ups like to point towards republican efforts to reduce participation, traditionally Democrat states (and most pupulated) NY and CA fell well below the national average. While Florida surged? In the end, these voter #'s are due to the absurdities of the electorial college. Why bother voting in NY or CA, as the election is already so far gone to one side in these states. Why did the democrats and Obama spend so much on boosting voting in Florida? Because it's a state with electorial votes up for grabs.
You want representation, let's get rid of the electorial college. We already have presidents elected by the ministry of the USA. So don't sit on your high horse, complaining of republican gerrymandering, when the electoral college essentially ensures democrats the votes in states such as NY and CA. The most important electorial states.
You want representation, let's get rid of the electorial college. We already have presidents elected by the ministry of the USA. So don't sit on your high horse, complaining of republican gerrymandering, when the electoral college essentially ensures democrats the votes in states such as NY and CA. The most important electorial states.
10
Majority voting means Obama wins. Along with Gore.
16
You think a Democrat can get a single Electoral College vote in Dixie this year? Utah? Ohio? Pen?
2
You sure about that? Using 2012 Presidential stats, only 53% of the NY population voted, yet that secured 29 Electoral votes. Only 55.9% of CA voted and that secured 55 electoral votes. The point is that there isn't any point voting in states that are overwhelmingly Democratic or Republican, due to the EC. You need 270 EC votes to win the Presidential election in 2012. By securing just these 84 EC votes, that represents 15.6% of all 538 EC votes and 31% of the EC votes needed to win the presidency. This despite ONLY 9.9% of the total US population voting to secure these EC votes in NY and CA. Sorry Bill, but it's a rigged system that favors democrats.
2
As classless as Trump is and as distasteful as some of his rhetoric is I still prefer him to any of the current political class. Certainly to the likes of Obama and Clinton who are simply wolves in sheep clothing. Perhaps Trump could fracture the system enough to reset it. That would be of such an enormous benefit to this country its hard to imagine anything negative enough to offset it.
47
This precisely is what's going on. Trump is a Democrat and a Republican and an Independent because he's really none of these but a revolutionary who says that we must end the current corruption regime, and rebuild it from the ground up. Can he do it? Who knows, but the usual corrupt crew isn't going to do it. That we know for certain.
5
And while Trump is re-painting the White House, what do you think the Chinese will be at? Oh? Trump will set the Pentagon free with its nukes? Ok! WW III here we come.
6
The Communists in Germany thought along those lines in 1932, when they refused to join a coalition with the Social Democrats to unite against Hitler.
Their slogan was "After Hitler, Our Turn!" How did that work out?
Do you think that you're likely to see anything emerge from a Trump presidency other than an acceleration of hate and divisiveness? Dream on.
Their slogan was "After Hitler, Our Turn!" How did that work out?
Do you think that you're likely to see anything emerge from a Trump presidency other than an acceleration of hate and divisiveness? Dream on.
5
Trump is remarkable for his shot-gun approach to attacks on those who criticize him; for his disregard for the meaning of words--"political correctness;" "sexism;" and for the absence of details of how his policies might be implemented, relying on gross outlines to stir the pot: building a wall; excluding Muslins; excoriating Mexicans.
More relevant are the factors that seem to make him admirable to so many Americans. We need to look beyond the old angry white guy syndrome, and look at the epidemic of narcissism that plagues all corners of American society. Narcissism has grown, and empathy has decreased, over the past forty years. We are so arrogant that we can't keep our online services safe; we cheer destructive foreign wars and demand more. Increasingly, we demand the right to flaunt assault weapons in public; and if we don't like democracy we take over federal facilities or kill a lot of children. In this atmosphere, Trump has a real shot at the presidency.
More relevant are the factors that seem to make him admirable to so many Americans. We need to look beyond the old angry white guy syndrome, and look at the epidemic of narcissism that plagues all corners of American society. Narcissism has grown, and empathy has decreased, over the past forty years. We are so arrogant that we can't keep our online services safe; we cheer destructive foreign wars and demand more. Increasingly, we demand the right to flaunt assault weapons in public; and if we don't like democracy we take over federal facilities or kill a lot of children. In this atmosphere, Trump has a real shot at the presidency.
24
We can only hope.
1
So to be clear, all things broken in politics are the fault of Republicans and everything is great on the Democrat side of the house.
Well, nobody can accuse the NYT of not knowing their audience. Hence, the mindless partisanship we see here.
Well, nobody can accuse the NYT of not knowing their audience. Hence, the mindless partisanship we see here.
6
Not great, just better.
PS - How many times does a pro-Hillary poster need to post something before it gets through the GOP censors ?
PS - How many times does a pro-Hillary poster need to post something before it gets through the GOP censors ?
2
Hopefully we will be entering a new age of what is best for the most, and not what suits the interests of the uber wealthy. It would be wonderful to see some patriotism by the super wealthy in their willingness to step up and pay taxes for the common good. Meanwhile, that seems a pipe dream with little embarrassment on their part, in propping up politicians that represent their greedy ways of keeping as much for themselves as possible. This is not a liberal or conservative view, but one of enlightened self interest. It seems they are not intelligent enough to figure this out. They lack the broad view of how a healthy civil society actually supports their activities. They seem to lack the understanding that public infrastructure is necessary to run their businesses. This is probably because the uber wealthy are not caring about Americans. Their business is global. It points to the need for the goliath corporations to be broken up and reorganizing themselves to a more human scale. Perhaps a few anti-trust laws actually enforced could be useful. Let's start with the banks.
35
True. The global, libertarian plan also requires the dismantling of government support for the less fortunate among us. Remember the old phrases: let Medicare wither on the vine; poke a sharp stick through the soft underbelly of the welfare system?
11
Say goodbye to "For the people, by the people, and of the people."
18
This ignores the role of the press in the disconnect between policy and elections.
Media that jumps right in to spend a week debating what Trump meant when he said Kelly had blood coming out of her whatever, is devoid of reporters who care deeply about, or even are qualified to analyze, policy proposals.
Unless a voter has time to follow their representative's votes on Thomas.gov, all they learn is through personality- driven empty reporting and ads paid for by interest groups.
An ad paid for by someone who wants to be free to pour toxic waste into water won't advocate for pouring toxic waste, it will be full of American flags. Who will call out the source of funding?
Voters get cynical due to negative ads and no information about the actual policy consequences of their votes. Trump's rise only emphasizes the failure of the media to use our public airwaves to " inform our consent."
Media that jumps right in to spend a week debating what Trump meant when he said Kelly had blood coming out of her whatever, is devoid of reporters who care deeply about, or even are qualified to analyze, policy proposals.
Unless a voter has time to follow their representative's votes on Thomas.gov, all they learn is through personality- driven empty reporting and ads paid for by interest groups.
An ad paid for by someone who wants to be free to pour toxic waste into water won't advocate for pouring toxic waste, it will be full of American flags. Who will call out the source of funding?
Voters get cynical due to negative ads and no information about the actual policy consequences of their votes. Trump's rise only emphasizes the failure of the media to use our public airwaves to " inform our consent."
73
This is sadly accurate. Jon Stewart was on the air for, what, close to 15 years? His point, from the beginning, was that our news media was failing us--failing to inform us, failing to separate truth from fiction, failing to present reality fairly. The "news" stopped trying to be "news" in this country long ago; CNN, Fox, MSNBC and all the rest, they're entertainment. Not even infotainment. They're reality television about elected and appointed officials. The only purpose is to get more eyeballs and more advertising revenue.
When Stewart went on Crossfire back in 2004, Carlson and Begala were flabbergasted. They were like children being told it was wrong to lie, and not quite grasping the concept. The idea that the critique was not that they were "too left" or "too right," but that they were selling meaningless conflict when they should be doing news was beyond their ability to understand, and you can watch them repeatedly not get it on air. CNN, perhaps understanding or perhaps not, canceled Crossfire, as if Crossfire was so different than the other 23.5 hours they aired a day. But nothing has changed. Well, I guess one thing has changed. CNN brought Crossfire back a few years ago.
When Stewart went on Crossfire back in 2004, Carlson and Begala were flabbergasted. They were like children being told it was wrong to lie, and not quite grasping the concept. The idea that the critique was not that they were "too left" or "too right," but that they were selling meaningless conflict when they should be doing news was beyond their ability to understand, and you can watch them repeatedly not get it on air. CNN, perhaps understanding or perhaps not, canceled Crossfire, as if Crossfire was so different than the other 23.5 hours they aired a day. But nothing has changed. Well, I guess one thing has changed. CNN brought Crossfire back a few years ago.
3
"We need a new set of tools to see if democracy works, or doesn't."
What a depressing statement, coming on the heels of an column that essentially says, voters don't count any more--special interests do: "But in recent years, Republican politicians especially have not only defied the rules, they have also protected themselves from the consequences."
When a party can routinely thumb its nose at its electoral base, and yet still become reelected, something is hugely wrong.
But a large part of the responsibility resides with voters, or more precisely, apathetic nonvoters. The statistics cited include 40% and 52% voting rates, but I remember hearing a grand total of 36% voted in the 2014 midterms.
That's an abomination. I'm tired of hearing people scream about leaders, corruption in politics, and the sad state of the union, only to find out they couldn't be bothered to vote. One of these days, folks, we could wake up to find we've lost the right to vote. Yes, that's right, by not paying attention to the issues that hit hardest at home--pocketbook policies, the quality of infrastructure, educational reform--the next step is allowing rollbacks of essential tenets of democracy.
You say, it can't happen here? Don't be so sure.
What a depressing statement, coming on the heels of an column that essentially says, voters don't count any more--special interests do: "But in recent years, Republican politicians especially have not only defied the rules, they have also protected themselves from the consequences."
When a party can routinely thumb its nose at its electoral base, and yet still become reelected, something is hugely wrong.
But a large part of the responsibility resides with voters, or more precisely, apathetic nonvoters. The statistics cited include 40% and 52% voting rates, but I remember hearing a grand total of 36% voted in the 2014 midterms.
That's an abomination. I'm tired of hearing people scream about leaders, corruption in politics, and the sad state of the union, only to find out they couldn't be bothered to vote. One of these days, folks, we could wake up to find we've lost the right to vote. Yes, that's right, by not paying attention to the issues that hit hardest at home--pocketbook policies, the quality of infrastructure, educational reform--the next step is allowing rollbacks of essential tenets of democracy.
You say, it can't happen here? Don't be so sure.
424
Young american's don't fully grasp there obligation to participate in the democratic process. They're clueless what sacrifice has been given in both treasure and blood to have basic rights. Most won't know what they have until they lose it. They're lost and if they think they can be informed merely by watching or listening to corporate filtered news are in a hopeless situation. Tito52
1
But isn't the right to vote slipping away already? Redistricting reduces the one-person-one-vote count. Reducing voting times makes a real difference for those who can't afford to take time off to vote. Stacking the voting places so that people of lesser means must stand in line to vote, sometimes for hours, means fewer voters not only among those who can't take hours off work without risking jobs, but those who are physically unable to stand for hours.
2
It is entirely possible democracy doesn't work.
Not only is this nation a political experiment unprecedented in human history, it isn't even the government the founders intended when they cobbled together the Constitution. It is in the nature of an experiment that its outcome is not known in advance.
Democracy has worked only in smaller, more homogenous communities, and usually when the franchise was limited to a small, educated elite. Full citizenship, including voting and office-holding, was closed to large swathes of the populace. The founders modelled their republic (not a democracy) partly on Rome, with a property requirement for voting and the Senate elected by state legislatures, to keep power out of the hands of the illiterate rabble, and crafted a government for a small, largely rural, pre-industrial, more or less culturally homogenous nation.
You may despise the founders' paternalism, but what we have now is not what they designed for. We have a nation of 320M+ people, widely varied in culture and philosophy, many of whom are barely literate and dumber than the proverbial box of rocks. Under such circumstances, 'democracy' operates on the principle that if you just aggregate enough stupidity, intelligence will somehow be distilled from it.
Not only is this nation a political experiment unprecedented in human history, it isn't even the government the founders intended when they cobbled together the Constitution. It is in the nature of an experiment that its outcome is not known in advance.
Democracy has worked only in smaller, more homogenous communities, and usually when the franchise was limited to a small, educated elite. Full citizenship, including voting and office-holding, was closed to large swathes of the populace. The founders modelled their republic (not a democracy) partly on Rome, with a property requirement for voting and the Senate elected by state legislatures, to keep power out of the hands of the illiterate rabble, and crafted a government for a small, largely rural, pre-industrial, more or less culturally homogenous nation.
You may despise the founders' paternalism, but what we have now is not what they designed for. We have a nation of 320M+ people, widely varied in culture and philosophy, many of whom are barely literate and dumber than the proverbial box of rocks. Under such circumstances, 'democracy' operates on the principle that if you just aggregate enough stupidity, intelligence will somehow be distilled from it.
1
Representative Democracy doesn't...A more Direct Democracy will!
William:
Voters routinely prove they don't know anything about anything, especially on a national scale. As as result, direct democracy would be an instantaneous, massive disaster.
Our representative democracy may stink, but it may well be the least odiferous of all forms of government.
Voters routinely prove they don't know anything about anything, especially on a national scale. As as result, direct democracy would be an instantaneous, massive disaster.
Our representative democracy may stink, but it may well be the least odiferous of all forms of government.
11
Why can't this writer admit that our system itself is broken. We don't need just new rules but a way to preserve the power of the voter, so an and to gerrymandering and an end too to money. We individual voters cannot organize to counter the power of individual big donors.
38
The answer is a simple one: The writer needs his paycheck. If you are curious about more: ask who is paying him and find out who owns big media monopolies. Look into the FCC ownership rules and you will find your answers there.
Actually, the justifiably maligned Military Industrial Complex has given us all the means to organize and effect meaningful change: it is called the Internet, a creation of DARPA for military use that is now available for all to use. If, that is, we can stop obsessing about the Kardashian's and the other useless icons in today's media.
1
It's a fancy title, which is repeated in the introduction and conclusion, but the body doesn't support any of it.
The body races through a vague list of ways government no longer represents the people. While Trump if elected also won't represent the people, his stand out characteristic is his rude criticism of his opponents.
The body races through a vague list of ways government no longer represents the people. While Trump if elected also won't represent the people, his stand out characteristic is his rude criticism of his opponents.
6
Trump's deliberate crudeness indicates that he is not secure in his masculinity.
12
He has had masculinity issues ever since the Army told him he was too weak to fight in Vietnam.
There's an anger there that has never gone away.
There's an anger there that has never gone away.
3
Republicans have successfully co-opted good government and politics since Lewis Powell wrote his right-wing call to American corporate fascism in 1971.
Prior to accepting President Nixon's appointment to the Supreme Court, Powell sent his "Confidential Memo" titled "Attack on the American Free Enterprise System" to the US Chamber of Commerce as a call to arms against 1960's liberalism.
Powell wrote "The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism came from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians."
In his memo, Powell advocated "constant surveillance" of textbook and television content, as well as a purge of left-wing elements.
Powell named consumer advocate Ralph Nader - the man who saved countless lives by demanding seat belts - as the chief antagonist of American business.
The Powell memo foreshadowed a number of Powell's court opinions, especially First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, which perverted 1st Amendment law by declaring that corporate financial influence of elections through independent expenditures should be protected with the same vigor as individual political speech.
Most of the sociopathic reasoning of the Citizens United catastrophic decision come from Powell's Bellotti case.
https://goo.gl/YRpT9y
It's been all 0.1% and GOP corporate fascist moneyed speech downhill ever since in American politics.
Prior to accepting President Nixon's appointment to the Supreme Court, Powell sent his "Confidential Memo" titled "Attack on the American Free Enterprise System" to the US Chamber of Commerce as a call to arms against 1960's liberalism.
Powell wrote "The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism came from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians."
In his memo, Powell advocated "constant surveillance" of textbook and television content, as well as a purge of left-wing elements.
Powell named consumer advocate Ralph Nader - the man who saved countless lives by demanding seat belts - as the chief antagonist of American business.
The Powell memo foreshadowed a number of Powell's court opinions, especially First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, which perverted 1st Amendment law by declaring that corporate financial influence of elections through independent expenditures should be protected with the same vigor as individual political speech.
Most of the sociopathic reasoning of the Citizens United catastrophic decision come from Powell's Bellotti case.
https://goo.gl/YRpT9y
It's been all 0.1% and GOP corporate fascist moneyed speech downhill ever since in American politics.
387
"Socrates" writes "GOP corporate fascist moneyed speech."
Another left wing fringer calling the other party fascist. What is truly sad is that this extremism is highly recommended here.
This is very sad for the US.
And of course, these extremists blame the other party for gridlock!
Another left wing fringer calling the other party fascist. What is truly sad is that this extremism is highly recommended here.
This is very sad for the US.
And of course, these extremists blame the other party for gridlock!
4
Yes very true. This shows that overturning Citizens United is not nearly enough to get corporate cash from corrupting the political process. We need an Amendment to the Constitution: "Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech."
But don't think this is all about Republicans. There are always enough Democratic votes to pass these laws, and the Democrats never use the rules to stop the billionaires sponsored legislation.
It is not even so much about voting and legislation as it is about the domination of mass media by global corporations who decide which issues and points of view are allowed into the discussion and which are not.
Look at the Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade deal which covers a third of world trade and gives U.S. sovereignty to global corporate tribunals.
Most people have never heard of it. The media almost completely ignores it, and Obama has promised to sign it as soon as he can.
The next three trade deals will basically cement the Global Corporate Coup into place, giving international trade courts the power to do things like disallow country of origin labeling even for beef ("Made inn the USA" is an unfair trade advantage).
The only candidate talking about this is Bernie Sanders, and the media ignores him or treats him like a grumpy old kook.
But don't think this is all about Republicans. There are always enough Democratic votes to pass these laws, and the Democrats never use the rules to stop the billionaires sponsored legislation.
It is not even so much about voting and legislation as it is about the domination of mass media by global corporations who decide which issues and points of view are allowed into the discussion and which are not.
Look at the Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade deal which covers a third of world trade and gives U.S. sovereignty to global corporate tribunals.
Most people have never heard of it. The media almost completely ignores it, and Obama has promised to sign it as soon as he can.
The next three trade deals will basically cement the Global Corporate Coup into place, giving international trade courts the power to do things like disallow country of origin labeling even for beef ("Made inn the USA" is an unfair trade advantage).
The only candidate talking about this is Bernie Sanders, and the media ignores him or treats him like a grumpy old kook.
2
I disagree with R.R. on almost every issue. But I agree we ought to amend Godwin's Law.
Whoever is the first to fling any term that ends in 'ist' - at least, without specifically defining the term in context of the argument and preferably providing specifics as to why this term is applicable - loses the debate.
That goes for fascist, socialist, racist, sexist, communist, you name it. The comments are too often dominated by what logician Jamie Whyte, in his invaluable little book Crimes Against Logic, calls 'hooray words' and 'boo words', bypassing analysis, short-circuiting intelligent thought, and going straight for the knee-jerk. Whenever my eye stumbles across one of those words, without more, I know I can just stop reading right there and go do something productive with my time. (I confess that I rarely read Socrates beyond the first few lines, for this reason and because all Socrates' comments say the same thing anyway.)
Whoever is the first to fling any term that ends in 'ist' - at least, without specifically defining the term in context of the argument and preferably providing specifics as to why this term is applicable - loses the debate.
That goes for fascist, socialist, racist, sexist, communist, you name it. The comments are too often dominated by what logician Jamie Whyte, in his invaluable little book Crimes Against Logic, calls 'hooray words' and 'boo words', bypassing analysis, short-circuiting intelligent thought, and going straight for the knee-jerk. Whenever my eye stumbles across one of those words, without more, I know I can just stop reading right there and go do something productive with my time. (I confess that I rarely read Socrates beyond the first few lines, for this reason and because all Socrates' comments say the same thing anyway.)
2
The slate of GOP candidates reminds me of a tightly packed feed-lot where steers void themselves on their neighbors. That has consequence for us all. In the first place, cattle from real feed-lots need a thorough wash-down following slaughter. But even with that, E. coli from their feces makes its way into beef and especially chopped beef.
Secondly, the toxicity of the bacteria is greater now because of the inclusion of corn in cattle feed--ruminants have never eaten corn until this age of toxic hand-out politics, and that co(r)ncentrate promotes the growth of more toxic fecal coliforms.
There are lessons there for us all. Congress has helped to make our beef-burgers toxic. Congress has helped to make our elections toxic. And the deep-pocket subsidy-hungry at the top of our political food-chain can't make it toxic enough for the rest of us while they promote the splatter of the candidate feed-lot.
Secondly, the toxicity of the bacteria is greater now because of the inclusion of corn in cattle feed--ruminants have never eaten corn until this age of toxic hand-out politics, and that co(r)ncentrate promotes the growth of more toxic fecal coliforms.
There are lessons there for us all. Congress has helped to make our beef-burgers toxic. Congress has helped to make our elections toxic. And the deep-pocket subsidy-hungry at the top of our political food-chain can't make it toxic enough for the rest of us while they promote the splatter of the candidate feed-lot.
45
Basically less than half of eligible voters even bother to vote. Hard to imagine we'd have the Congress we currently have if we had, say, 80% turnout. But we should also wonder if low-approval ratings are a goal: make Americans so disgusted with government that they simply stop voting. How much easier to win with appeal to narrow special interests and to those with the money to pay for the campaigns.
514
Mr. Barnaby, don't forget about the many eligible voters who would "bother to vote" were they not being prevented from doing so y the all-too-familiar voting restrictions that have been put into place during the past decade.
14
Mary, Specifics? I show ID when I vote. It's not an undue burden. Like it or it, citizens in this country need proper ID to function even if just to prove they are eligible for needed benefits. Let's work on including everyone rather than making excuses why they are exempt.
4
2C4N should be reminded that this nation has a shamefully rich history of voter suppression going back to clear and obvious efforts by states to prevent blacks from voting. Current voter suppression efforts are only slightly more subtle, hiding behind the guise of preventing ( non-existent!) voter fraud. Nobody should be fooled by these state efforts to cull people from the voting rolls.
Comparing requirements for the need for a picture ID to board an airplane or cash a check with a person's right to vote is apples and oranges. Voting is a form of free speech guaranteed by the constitution, a right that that aside from restrictions of age and citizenship should be made as easy as possible, as, for example Oregon has just done by making it automatic with vehicle registration.
The idea that one must show picture ID in the exercise of free speech is absurd.
Comparing requirements for the need for a picture ID to board an airplane or cash a check with a person's right to vote is apples and oranges. Voting is a form of free speech guaranteed by the constitution, a right that that aside from restrictions of age and citizenship should be made as easy as possible, as, for example Oregon has just done by making it automatic with vehicle registration.
The idea that one must show picture ID in the exercise of free speech is absurd.
8
While evolving strategies are of academic interest, of far greater significance is the evolution from representative democracy to oligarchy. Most folks can't get this to sink in because we still vote. But the sad truth is that concerns of ordinary citizens are ignored. Details? Right here: https://youtu.be/1k5Mio8FXd4
15
Oddly enough, Republicans see this and think the solution is to replace it with a monarchy.
Yikes.
Yikes.
2
The rules are all about persuading voters how to vote or trying to block their vote.
You can all resist those trying to manipulate you.
Find a way to vote, vote for the best, and encourage even better candidates to run. Don't sulk if your favorite does not get chosen in the primary.
Changing the rules could certainly help. But that would only help to get you out to support and vote for the best candidate. Nothing good will happen until we all get out and vote, and vote intelligently (not emotionally).
You can all resist those trying to manipulate you.
Find a way to vote, vote for the best, and encourage even better candidates to run. Don't sulk if your favorite does not get chosen in the primary.
Changing the rules could certainly help. But that would only help to get you out to support and vote for the best candidate. Nothing good will happen until we all get out and vote, and vote intelligently (not emotionally).
17
For a while I was worried that Schmitt would never find the nugget of gold which allows all the ills of low information voters and distortion of the "majority rule" principle by the GOP to contaminate the government - redistricting.
It's as simple as that, and until someone honest comes along and fixes it, people will always wonder why Congress can't do the right thing for the majority of the country's people.
It's as simple as that, and until someone honest comes along and fixes it, people will always wonder why Congress can't do the right thing for the majority of the country's people.
15
States are the agents of redistricting. That takes a lot of people, honest or otherwise. Voters elect their state assemblies, which then re-draw district boundaries.
3
I see the narrative differently. As Democrats trended toward the right and decided to "reinvent" government instead of pushing back against the Reagan ideology that "government is the problem" a large swath of the electorate found little to choose between when elections were held. This rightward trend was reinforced by two other factors: globalization, which moved union jobs offshore; and affirmative action, which gave disaffected whites the notion that they were being victimized. Republicans shamelessly appealed to the displaced workers and "victimized" whites while Democrats shamefully took money from the corporations that off-shored jobs and remained silent about racism that underlies the "victimization" mentality. This is the backdrop we operate under today and it fuels both Trump's and Sanders' campaigns.
13
Trump is theatre, pandering to the fears and concerns of the masses.
The real question is whether the polls are useful measures, or simply grist for the media mills.
Meanwhile, there is no question that money in politics has corrupted the system.
We're due for another constitutional convention, methinks. Do away with the electoral college; it's no longer needed. Institute congressional term limits; they're very much needed, to restore balance among the branches. Invoke public funding of federal elections, strictly limited without additional contributions, to level the playing field. Eliminate "The best Congress money can buy."
The real question is whether the polls are useful measures, or simply grist for the media mills.
Meanwhile, there is no question that money in politics has corrupted the system.
We're due for another constitutional convention, methinks. Do away with the electoral college; it's no longer needed. Institute congressional term limits; they're very much needed, to restore balance among the branches. Invoke public funding of federal elections, strictly limited without additional contributions, to level the playing field. Eliminate "The best Congress money can buy."
243
If you get your constitutional convention, it will deliver the opposite of what you want and the USA needs.
7
Term limits sound good from a revenge standpoint but limiting the lengths of term assumes that there will be a steady supply of qualified candidates willing to take a few years out of their lives and careers to "do the right thing". If only life were a "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" movie.
We have term limits in Michigan. All it does is reduce institutional knowledge, encourage job hopping from one office to another, and remove any accountability when laws prove to be ineffective.
Don't wish to hard for term limits, you might get them.
We have term limits in Michigan. All it does is reduce institutional knowledge, encourage job hopping from one office to another, and remove any accountability when laws prove to be ineffective.
Don't wish to hard for term limits, you might get them.
7
Term limits are a bad idea. They would only ensure that *all* real power would devolve to unelected bureaucrats, who would be the only ones who know the ropes. Elected representatives would always be on a steep learning curve and then would have to leave when they finally knew enough to be effective.
No thanks. If we want to change the person in office, we need to improve voter turnout. Change, yes. Term limits, a resounding no.
No thanks. If we want to change the person in office, we need to improve voter turnout. Change, yes. Term limits, a resounding no.
9
I am not worried about Trump changing the rules, I welcome this, I worry about the visible compromises he makes in order to get the GOP nomination. If Trump were an independent candidate, he'd have more in common with Sanders, because he too wants to tackle certain problems at the root cause and the GOP establishment doesn't want change (see single payer for instance.)
7
And so why isn't Bernie running as an independent?? The dems who are under clinton's lying thumb are every bit as recalcitrant as The GOP to change.
5
Trump would be able to do very little without a Congress willing to go along with him, viz. Obama. One of the basic miscalculations made by Trump supporters is to assume that he will be able to do what he says singlehandedly.
3
True, sadly this is why Trump and Sanders decided to run with the (R) and (D)s.
Technology has really driven these changes. Candidates use databases to map out voters and their key issues. They know who is going to vote when and how in their district. So they don't have to speak to the public, only to the majority of the voting minority; and they say exactly what those people want to hear. Trump doesn't "believe" most of what he says, that is his election-speak to the fraction of republican primary voters in the early states. It will change and he doesn't have to fear the press. Most of the voting minority that he speaking to don't trust the press, and he knows it. The best campaigns do the best research and they both know and speak to their voting constituency.
104
And you forgot the rest of this tale - they get elected in this manner and then do whatever they want.
2
Don't be so sure that Trump doesn't believe what he says. He believes in Trump -- and that whatever Trump says is good and just and beneficial - for Trump. His very assuredness is attracting both the ignorant and the angry - especially those who wish they could get away with behaving that way. Whatever WORDS he uses, the belief lies in the narcissistic self.
And isn't it amazing how well it sells!
And isn't it amazing how well it sells!
I've heard of a suggestion that would change how we vote, and count votes.
We allow everyone the opportunity to vote *for* or *against* a candidate. So, people would be able to for or against Hillary, or The Donald, or for or against their own Congressional candidates.
For votes would be counted as +1, against votes a -1. Conceivably, given that we have such underwhelming choices of candidates, and such a high disapproval of our leaders, a person could win the seat or the presidency by being less appalling that the opponent. -5% wins over -8%, in a firm indication that "we hate you less."
It likely wouldn't change the outcome, but it might inspire people to actually vote, if they didn't believe that to vote against some one like Trump, or Sam Brownback, they'd have to voter *for* someone they also loathed.
We allow everyone the opportunity to vote *for* or *against* a candidate. So, people would be able to for or against Hillary, or The Donald, or for or against their own Congressional candidates.
For votes would be counted as +1, against votes a -1. Conceivably, given that we have such underwhelming choices of candidates, and such a high disapproval of our leaders, a person could win the seat or the presidency by being less appalling that the opponent. -5% wins over -8%, in a firm indication that "we hate you less."
It likely wouldn't change the outcome, but it might inspire people to actually vote, if they didn't believe that to vote against some one like Trump, or Sam Brownback, they'd have to voter *for* someone they also loathed.
2
Something needs to be done otherwise it will be complete anarchy!
1
It's obvious that the key to success in the 2016 GOP is negativity. The more negative the candidate, the better the numbers.
Even Christie has figured this out and has gone all negative all the time. He's actually more negative than Trump, but he doesn't get the coverage.
The last thing Christie said that wasn't negative was "I was the one moving the cones".
Even Christie has figured this out and has gone all negative all the time. He's actually more negative than Trump, but he doesn't get the coverage.
The last thing Christie said that wasn't negative was "I was the one moving the cones".
11
To summarize, we're doomed.
7
We don't need a new set of tools. We need to fix what the GOP broke, between gerrymandering and money in politics. We need for our press to find its ethical center and stop pandering to the corporatist agenda or risk further alienating its readership. We need a press that informs, and doesn't only aspire to titillate through the obsessive coverage of bombast. We need a press that is devoted to reporting on the issues and allowing its readership to make up its mind, rather than setting artificial agendas that don't reflect the everyday needs or experience of regular Americans. It is no wonder that so many Americans now turn to alternative sources for their information.
While there is much to blame the GOP for, the press is equally to blame here. It made Trump who, as of two weeks ago, barely spent what amounts to pocket lint on advertising, while the Bush campaign and its superpacs had spent over $100 million.
The system was broken by greedy special interests. It's time for every day Americans to retake control, with or without the mainstream media.
---
www.rimaregas.com
While there is much to blame the GOP for, the press is equally to blame here. It made Trump who, as of two weeks ago, barely spent what amounts to pocket lint on advertising, while the Bush campaign and its superpacs had spent over $100 million.
The system was broken by greedy special interests. It's time for every day Americans to retake control, with or without the mainstream media.
---
www.rimaregas.com
45
Sorry to let the news out but as for greedy; well, there is no one candidate in the history of the USA more greedy than a Clinton.
6
Thanks to mt for demonstrating the kind thinking that goes for truth among the right-wingers today. The Clintons are greedy, he or she says. In fact, they are the very most greedy of all greedy candidates. It's not that mt knows every candidate in America, or that not one of these candidates has tested higher in some scale of acts motivated by greed. It's that mt has heard awful things trumpeted by those who want republicans elected, that's all. And of course, the Clintons are not just the "greediest" in American today, oh no. They are the greediest in two hundred fifty years, of all the candidates EVER. Not really from mt's survey of centuries of history of tens of thousands of candidates for office, including those of the republican and democratic machines of our past. But because this over-blown, unreasoning bombast is how republicans talk, it's what they hear and choose to believe, as clearly absurd on its face as it is.
1
jb, the most "unreasoning bombast" as it relates to the Clintons I've heard has originated from the mouths & keyboards of Sanders supporters. If you're to believe some of them, she's the second coming of some evil, sordid something-or-other.
To label it as a Republican-only phenomenon is inaccurate &, frankly, disingenuous.
To label it as a Republican-only phenomenon is inaccurate &, frankly, disingenuous.
1
For over 90 years we have seen how fascists use Democracy against itself to create tyranny. From Mussolini's "March on Rome" in October of 1922 to the parallel tactics of Putin in Russia and Erdogan in Turkey today, those who hate Democracy have no qualms about using its freedoms to end it.
And it is happening here, now, in the USA, and has been happening since 1980. The right-wing is well-organized and well-funded and has contested every school board and dog-catcher race. They've taken over state houses and then gerrymandered relentlessly so that lunatics like Louis Gohmert and Steve King and Michelle Bachmann get reelected easily. They've struck fear in once-sane Republicans with local challenges in Senate and Congressional primaries--the Bob Bennett Syndrome.
They want the White House, and will do anything to get it. Anything. Prepare for the dirtiest Presidential general election in history, worse than 2000, worse than 1980, worse than 1876. Our Democracy is the prize--whether we keep it, or head toward Putinism and Erdoganism.
And it is happening here, now, in the USA, and has been happening since 1980. The right-wing is well-organized and well-funded and has contested every school board and dog-catcher race. They've taken over state houses and then gerrymandered relentlessly so that lunatics like Louis Gohmert and Steve King and Michelle Bachmann get reelected easily. They've struck fear in once-sane Republicans with local challenges in Senate and Congressional primaries--the Bob Bennett Syndrome.
They want the White House, and will do anything to get it. Anything. Prepare for the dirtiest Presidential general election in history, worse than 2000, worse than 1980, worse than 1876. Our Democracy is the prize--whether we keep it, or head toward Putinism and Erdoganism.
68
Excellent post. Unfortunately, we never really had democracy--we've had a semblance of it, particularly when all the right-wing stars were in alignment, with the GOP in control of all branches of the government, and with the Pentagon sucking noisily on the budget teat.
2
I fear that it is already too late. When you combine everything that you mentioned above and combine it with a growing population of uniformed voters who can easily be manipulated by catchphrases and slogans, power will remain in the hands the wealthy right wing which has the money and is best able to exploit the anger and disenfranchised working poor to advance their own agenda.
2
Most Democrats seem to think that Trump would be hopeless in the general election. That is decidedly not the case. If Trump gets the nomination, he will tune his message like a fish swims through water. To me, he is the only Republican who could actually win. And if he does, America will get its very own Berlusconi - a grandiose loud mouth, shamelessly using his office to make his great wealth greater.
4
Actually the rules still work just fine. The key message of this piece is voter suppression. Conservatives are making it increasingly difficult for mainstream voters to exercise the franchise. The electorate is becoming increasingly conservative as a result forgetting the need to reach accommodation in a democracy. Next stop is Fascism.
27
An idiot public helped create this and they are continuing to support it. I used to feel a part of this country, now it's just somewhere I live, and I feel immeasurably sad about it all. What I realized, after the continued mass shootings, the lack of health care for millions, The ELECTED republicans working against climate change legislation even as their constituents are flooded, the continued attempts to raid social security, is that certain voters will always vote against their self-interest. We have a long way to fall before we can regain sanity, and it won't happen in my lifetime.
151
Calling them idiots only emboldens them.
5
The idiot public is made so by the media who half feed them with entertainment rather than real news. The idiot public is also attention deficit.
2
Gloom and doom won't get us there, Mcacho38. Only active grassroots synergy, such as that that fuels the Senator Bernie Sanders popularity, will.
1
I don't think that the question who bent/broke the rules first is the best way to understand Trump. It has always been a near-miracle how capitalist Republicans could make people vote against their own economic interests. When it comes to taxes and immigration, the interests of GOP donors and GOP voters were always diametrically opposed. Now that times are getting harder, it is getting impossible to patch this over. Republicans are angry at their own, while still hating Democrats. That is the opening that Trump walked through.
110
All too many people are happy to vote against their own interests, and against their children's, if they can keep immigrants and blacks even farther down. (BTW, I'm white. I hear pretty frank discussion sometimes, because these folks assume that anyone with white skin and no foreign accent will agree with them.)
13
I don't think this article is primarily about how to understand Trump (in spite of the headline) but about how the rules of politics are changing. On the other hand, it does address how, if "the interests of GOP donors and GOP voters" are diametrically opposed, a candidate will ignore the voters, since they're going to vote Republican regardless.
Stefan K, Germany - "It has always been a near-miracle how capitalist Republicans could make people vote against their own economic interests."
Voting for smaller government which in turn costs the taxpayer less in taxes is not against one's own interest. What a stupid statement. When politicians can show that they can do what they promised to do with the money available, by cutting the pork and the waste they will receive the votes.
Voting for smaller government which in turn costs the taxpayer less in taxes is not against one's own interest. What a stupid statement. When politicians can show that they can do what they promised to do with the money available, by cutting the pork and the waste they will receive the votes.
1
Its as if everybody has gone to sleep so the crooks don't even bother to wear masks or to tip toe their way around the house anymore. In fact we have handed them the house keys and told them to help themselves to the frig. If we're poor, we even give them our sons and daughters to be slaughtered or scarred for life to fight the wars that they cause and never finish. Finally, we give them the car keys so they can run over us, finally putting an end to our misery.
35
We didn't really hand them the keys - lobbyists, lawyers, and big money worked tirelessly day and night to gradually sneak them away from us. 99% of Americans lack the time and resources to respond. Sure we can (and should) vote, but choosing between Trump and Clinton isn't going to fix anything. Hire a lobbyist if you want your voice heard. Or maybe think about voting for Sanders.
8
I take issue with the statement that Donald Trump disparaged women. He made some negative comments about a few people, who happened to be women, whom he happened to dislike for his own legitimate reasons. We all dislike some people and like other people based on how they treat us or even on how they look. If some of these people happen to be men or women, it doesn't mean that we're man haters or women haters. If Trump said in a private conversation that he didn't like Carly Fiorina or if he discussed the bathroom delay in full prime time of HRC, I don't see this as "disparaging all women," and I don't feel insulted as a woman. To the contrary I see these women playing the woman card when they shouldn't. They should handle the criticism alone and not lay it on all women, so we can scapegoat them.
This is why Trumps' numbers bubbled forward each time the media accused him unjustly of hating or disparaging entire groups of women based on affirmation that were targeted to one person. We are sensing that the establishment and the media is too desperate to trash the credibility of any candidate they can't control.
This is why Trumps' numbers bubbled forward each time the media accused him unjustly of hating or disparaging entire groups of women based on affirmation that were targeted to one person. We are sensing that the establishment and the media is too desperate to trash the credibility of any candidate they can't control.
5
my two cents: Please! He disparages everyone and he has surely done a number
on women. The bathroom comment was disgusting, and an attempt to humiliate
Mrs. Clinton, obviously alluding to her being a female. This jerkhead made reference
to C. Fiorina's face - her looks - that's what misogynist types like Trump do. But
let's face it, he's an equal opportunity humiliator - there is nothing legitimate
about him. He's a nasty piece of work that appeals to the ignorant underbelly of
America. There's a lot of hate in the air, and Trump has merchandised it to the
world.
on women. The bathroom comment was disgusting, and an attempt to humiliate
Mrs. Clinton, obviously alluding to her being a female. This jerkhead made reference
to C. Fiorina's face - her looks - that's what misogynist types like Trump do. But
let's face it, he's an equal opportunity humiliator - there is nothing legitimate
about him. He's a nasty piece of work that appeals to the ignorant underbelly of
America. There's a lot of hate in the air, and Trump has merchandised it to the
world.
15
so you think a woman's need for a bathroom break is "very disgusting" act? his mother, his sisters , his daughters, his many wives, and even you, two cents,need to have a bathroom break, every now and then..so does it mean this break is very disgustin to do. for me it is but natural and necessary.
if you think trump is justified to labe it so, then all his women relatives and you, too, do all very disgusting acts.
as if he does not need any bathroom break. but he calls it very disgusting because it is done /performed by his political rival.
anyone who competes or comments on trumps bullying always gets worse if not childish, unprofessional criticism. a very bad and disgusting bully..and he wants to be president.
you can imagine what he'd call anyone who opposes him in congress or anywhere in gov't or even private citizens who may require some presidential or not, if he becomes president..
if you think trump is justified to labe it so, then all his women relatives and you, too, do all very disgusting acts.
as if he does not need any bathroom break. but he calls it very disgusting because it is done /performed by his political rival.
anyone who competes or comments on trumps bullying always gets worse if not childish, unprofessional criticism. a very bad and disgusting bully..and he wants to be president.
you can imagine what he'd call anyone who opposes him in congress or anywhere in gov't or even private citizens who may require some presidential or not, if he becomes president..
10
It was clear the rules of politics had gone out the window when a congressman can yell, "You lie" to the president with no repercussions. That was not the start.
The start began in the 80's when Reagan reneged on his promises to the air traffic control union before the election, with no repercussions. Then we got supply side economics which broke the social contract. It took 30+ years for that to finally take enough effect that it couldn't be denied: working hard and paying your taxes was not enough to get you ahead as a working or middle class American. After 30+ years, it is clear that the rich and powerful (which now includes most national politicians) don't play by the rules that the rest of us have.
Trump, as he says often enough, "Doesn't care." He knows that everything is set up for a rich and powerful candidate. He has nothing to lose. No matter what happens he gets richer and more powerful. He preaches fear and hate. On the other side of that Grand Canyon political divide we have Bernie Sanders. After 30 years in politics a net worth of $400k, an 83% popularity rating (the highest in the Senate), and the title "amendment king" for getting things done in congress. Detailed policy plans to return economic power to the people. 2.5 million contributors and no PAC backing. Angry, uniformed people are flocking to the demagogue. Angry, informed people are flocking to the candidate who works for the average voter. It is an interesting election, that is for sure.
The start began in the 80's when Reagan reneged on his promises to the air traffic control union before the election, with no repercussions. Then we got supply side economics which broke the social contract. It took 30+ years for that to finally take enough effect that it couldn't be denied: working hard and paying your taxes was not enough to get you ahead as a working or middle class American. After 30+ years, it is clear that the rich and powerful (which now includes most national politicians) don't play by the rules that the rest of us have.
Trump, as he says often enough, "Doesn't care." He knows that everything is set up for a rich and powerful candidate. He has nothing to lose. No matter what happens he gets richer and more powerful. He preaches fear and hate. On the other side of that Grand Canyon political divide we have Bernie Sanders. After 30 years in politics a net worth of $400k, an 83% popularity rating (the highest in the Senate), and the title "amendment king" for getting things done in congress. Detailed policy plans to return economic power to the people. 2.5 million contributors and no PAC backing. Angry, uniformed people are flocking to the demagogue. Angry, informed people are flocking to the candidate who works for the average voter. It is an interesting election, that is for sure.
130
We're getting closer to "the time for the tumbrils". The more the 1% takes the closer it comes. Their private armies won't be able to protect them forever.
4
@Pablo: Exactly. There was a great article in Politico about this in summer 2014.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming...
I'm not in favor of violence, but I understand the anger of being a citizen of the richest country the world has ever seen with child poverty rates like a third world country, stagnant wages and full time workers living in poverty. Socialism for the rich, feudalism for the poor.
It is amazing how most of the ultra-rich just expect the poor to starve and die quietly. That works for a while...until it doesn't. Getting back to your point, King Louis and Marie Antoinette didn't see it coming either.
I'd rather Sanders get elected and we have a bloodless revolution.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming...
I'm not in favor of violence, but I understand the anger of being a citizen of the richest country the world has ever seen with child poverty rates like a third world country, stagnant wages and full time workers living in poverty. Socialism for the rich, feudalism for the poor.
It is amazing how most of the ultra-rich just expect the poor to starve and die quietly. That works for a while...until it doesn't. Getting back to your point, King Louis and Marie Antoinette didn't see it coming either.
I'd rather Sanders get elected and we have a bloodless revolution.
9
Pablo, they don't need private armies. They've got ours. And a surveillance web already around us, and weapons against dissent from pepper spray to designation as "terrorists" (indeed Occupy was termed "proto-terrorist" by the FBI). The president needs only to mutter "terrorist" to strip you of your Constitutional rights, imprison, "interrogate" or even kill you, and the next president will claim the same power. They learned from the Viet Nam protest movement, and they intend never to allow such a thing again. We have little recourse--although massive boycotting and other acts in our roles as consumers (one of our few remaining power roles) might be of use.
“Americans hate Congress, but love their own member of Congress.” The second half of this folk wisdom about politics and American citizenry is being challenged because a greater number (40%) than in the past disapprove of their own senator or representative.
In spite of their constituents' approval or disapproval senator or representative continue to be reelected. This is primarily due to redistricting or gerrymandering. And therein lies the real problem. Our representatives continue to carve districts that would win were they playing a game of Twister.
It is high time that redistricting were under the purview of a neutral independent authority. And since these come under the purview of states there is no inherent incentive for any state to cede control to such an authority. It is time to call for a national referendum and a constitutional amendment.
In spite of their constituents' approval or disapproval senator or representative continue to be reelected. This is primarily due to redistricting or gerrymandering. And therein lies the real problem. Our representatives continue to carve districts that would win were they playing a game of Twister.
It is high time that redistricting were under the purview of a neutral independent authority. And since these come under the purview of states there is no inherent incentive for any state to cede control to such an authority. It is time to call for a national referendum and a constitutional amendment.
9
One reason why people vote for candidates they don't like is that they dislike the opponent even more.
1
No, Trump did not break politics, but the end result is a politically created Frankenstein.
3
The median voter rule you mention is really just a national consensus. When we had a national consensus that crime was the greatest threat to public safety and keeping criminals off the streets was the only solution, the result was politicians competing to lengthen sentences, build more prisons and define new crimes. That consensus has broken down. Politicians at both the state and federal level are revising sentences and, in some cases, even releasing inmates serving sentences now considered excessive.
If we had a national consensus on the major issues today, politicians in both parties would get onboard. Voters may have likes and dislikes and they are telling pollsters they are not satisfied with politicians. Voter are not telling pollsters that they share a common perception of any problem they expect politicians to address.
The lack of a national consensus empowers special interests and politicians like Donald Trump who appear to be able to shake up politics.
If we had a national consensus on the major issues today, politicians in both parties would get onboard. Voters may have likes and dislikes and they are telling pollsters they are not satisfied with politicians. Voter are not telling pollsters that they share a common perception of any problem they expect politicians to address.
The lack of a national consensus empowers special interests and politicians like Donald Trump who appear to be able to shake up politics.
2
Excellent points, OldBoatMan.
Regarding a national consensus (on any topic), we're all too busy talking past each other & lobbing zingers at political opponents to worry about such a thing. These days the "other side" must be punished & shown the errors of their way before we get down to the business of agreeing on anything.
Regarding a national consensus (on any topic), we're all too busy talking past each other & lobbing zingers at political opponents to worry about such a thing. These days the "other side" must be punished & shown the errors of their way before we get down to the business of agreeing on anything.
1
This article doesn't include the word "immigration," which is the key to understanding Trump's success in 2015.
6
Non voters have to remember that apathy serves the interest of the winners. By not voting you are virtually casting a vote for the winner, whomever it may be. Think it through!!!
11
When you consider that our choices are often between one candidate who believes in nothing but polls & triangulation and another candidate who might believe in anything from a flat earth to the need for armed insurrection, it's surprising that anyone votes at all. Why choose between a health-care system that takes the profitability of a superfluous insurance industry as its first demand, and one that fantasizes withholding healthcare in order to punish the poor?
The end point of this game is a society in which everyone remains glued to the circus, no one votes, and the donors & lobbyists just keep writing the checks & the laws.
The end point of this game is a society in which everyone remains glued to the circus, no one votes, and the donors & lobbyists just keep writing the checks & the laws.
34
Religious philosophy says everything happens for a reason. So I am staying with that. Trump running for President is like asking PeeWee Herman to head the Supreme Court. Except the latter would be fun and PeeWee is very bright. The Donald is a Joke and will remain a Joke. Just because 15% of Republicans approve of his cheap theatrics, essentially because the rest of them make everyone nauseous, doesn't mean he's a White House shoe-in.
4
Maxomus, what do you think of Hillary? She is no joke--she is very dangerous, sneaky, and thinks only of Hillary. Trump's popularity is due to people being fed up with establishment politicians. He says what we are thinking.
If we don't like him, we should put forth a different candidate. The DNC is pushing Hillary, and the RNC doesn't know what to do since Bush has appeared to crash and burn. However, the RNC doesn't like Trump. Cruz seems, to me, to be the obvious choice, but the RNC and GOP establishment don't like him. They just don't get it.
If we don't like him, we should put forth a different candidate. The DNC is pushing Hillary, and the RNC doesn't know what to do since Bush has appeared to crash and burn. However, the RNC doesn't like Trump. Cruz seems, to me, to be the obvious choice, but the RNC and GOP establishment don't like him. They just don't get it.
coffic,
Please. These guys will pretend they are sick of the establishment, but I can guarantee that they'll all go and check the box next to whatever GOP candidate the establishment offers up to them for Senate, the House, Governor, the Assembly, District Attorney.
In other words, they are being tricked by the establishment into thinking that they are voting anti-establishment, when in reality, they are playing right into the party's hands.
Please. These guys will pretend they are sick of the establishment, but I can guarantee that they'll all go and check the box next to whatever GOP candidate the establishment offers up to them for Senate, the House, Governor, the Assembly, District Attorney.
In other words, they are being tricked by the establishment into thinking that they are voting anti-establishment, when in reality, they are playing right into the party's hands.
3
Coffic,
Hillary may be a convenient whipping girl for the Republicans but every candidate at this point is (has to be) only thinking about himself or herself, in terms of how to get elected. Let's not get all self-righteous about it.
Whom do you think Trump and Cruz are thinking about - you?
Hillary may be a convenient whipping girl for the Republicans but every candidate at this point is (has to be) only thinking about himself or herself, in terms of how to get elected. Let's not get all self-righteous about it.
Whom do you think Trump and Cruz are thinking about - you?
5
Our political system is entirely broken. Schmidt's analysis is right on, but it's old news to most Americans.
4
What? We "need a new set of tools to understand how democracy works, or doesn't"? This is ludicrous! We, the people is the tool, the only tool needed unless, that is, you prefer dictatorships or tyrannical leaders like President Obama with his phone and pen in place of his employers, i.e., the people. Trump offers Democrats (which he has been one for much of his life) and Republicans, as well as Independents, the possibility of regaining democracy from the tyranny of the political class and their billionaire owners. The current system is so corrupt, he says, it must be blown up and rebuilt to the original specs. What's wrong with that?
1
Just blow it all up and assume what follows will be an improvement- you mean like what we've been doing in the Middle East? I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, but I hope so.
3
The Middle East is but one example of why the current (or past) systems did not work. Hillary Clinton, as senator, voted for the Iraq war, as did Sen. John Kerry. Both voted to give President Bush authority and resources to invade Iraq. Yes, today they run away from those decisions but facts are stubborn things, to quote Cheryl Mills at Bill Clinton's impeachment trial. The Constitution sets forth how wars are to be declared. What's wrong with listening to the people for a change? Isn't that the fundamental definition of democracy? Trump isn't perfect, not even very good, but he offers the only chance of breaking the continuum of corruption that has befallen traditional pols of all stripes.
2
Tyrannical? You're watching too much FOX News.
7
When thinking of our political future, remember the saying attributed to Caligula: oderint dum metuant -- Let them hate as long as they fear.
2
Here is one rule that is still largely true:
One dollar, one vote.
One dollar, one vote.
13
I think it's gotten a bit more expensive than that.
3
Since the Citizen's United ruling, be cheaper all around if voters could just be bought, which almost mounts to the same thing...
1
Compulsory voting and a preferential system of allocating secondary choices take care of many of these problems, as instituted in Australia. Part of the problem is that the United States is so diverse that by necessity in order to forge a common national identity amongst 300m people it has had to become extremely nationalistic. This in turn makes reform hard, because any change can be labelled as foreign and un-American.
8
While we're reforming, let's get rid of the electoral college. At its extremes, a citizen of Wyoming has four votes for president, compared to one vote for each citizen of Texas. There are similar disparities among other high and low population states. Presidential elections also determine Supreme Court appointments, and half of Congress is already dedicated to the interests of the low population states.
No other country has this arrangement.
No other country has this arrangement.
4
The author decries the weakening of unions but derides the National Education Association as a special interest group. If the big bad NEA (which represents middle income teachers not fat cats on Wall Streeth) was so powerful we would not be seeing millions of our tax dollars diverted to poorly regulated charter schools, for profit charters, online schools and management companies nor would our kids have spent the last few years being driven crazy by excessive testing.
239
Of cours, you would be held accountable for the increasingly poor education US children get, as the pension assets grow. This despite one of the highest spend per child on the planet. The dumbing of Americans, will almost certainly bring income equality. The teachers unions in the US are just as guilty as any of the major lobbiest groups, pandering to their own personal agenda, even if not in the best interest of US citizens.
1
ANYC, when you've got a nation of children who are glued to cell phones before they enter kindergarten, a nation in which reading is dying while trivia rules, in which teachers are vilified and "evaluated" by ten-year-olds, it's not the fact that some teachers are not yet stripped of benefits (although 3/4 of college teachers have been, having no unions to protect them) that have caused children not to thrive intellectually. They are certainly not the only ones who've been dumbed down, either; I'm astonished at the willingness of adults to live in a right-wing alternate reality, one easily seen to be false to anyone who will look and think at all.
2
We are suffering disinformation served by a newspaper owned by the richest man in the oil business, who is the second richest man in the world. Surprised? I think not. Voters are served disinformation every day and many have just backed away from the ballot box, while others are being cut from the voter rolls.
Candidate Obama sold us hope. He kept his audacity but he stole the hope. Congress has become the solely owned arm of K-Street and the Supreme Court wants to nullify every law including the Magna Carta. If John Roberts has his way Shakespeare's work will replace common law. Alas, poor Yorick . . .
Candidate Obama sold us hope. He kept his audacity but he stole the hope. Congress has become the solely owned arm of K-Street and the Supreme Court wants to nullify every law including the Magna Carta. If John Roberts has his way Shakespeare's work will replace common law. Alas, poor Yorick . . .
2
Senator Mitch McConnell did a great deal to create Donald Trump. When Obama was elected president McConnell vowed to make his administration fail. He has consistently and reflexively tried his level best, at every turn, to make that happen, while leading the republicans in congress in accomplishing nothing. He has set the tone for republican non-governance, and now we have Trump running for the presidency in non-governance. Trump owes a debt of gratitude to McConnell. Trump is just a vulgar grandiose narcissistic madman. McConnell is the toxic factor in the madness.
494
It's about time that someone brought that up, and add Mr. Orange Tan (Bohner) to that despicable group who continually tried to derail Obama's presidency. The fact that those two were able to do that contributed to Cruz being able to shut the government down for a time - does anyone remember that? And now, Trump can incite the fears of so many people which puts this country in jeopardy of losing its direction.
6
What people forget easily is what a birther Trump was, such a pain the first few years, made worse by the likes of vengeful Dinesh D'Souza types who made lies into a movie to be screened nation wide, right in front of our very noses. Anti colonial, not American enough, these are lies that Mr Trump spun and spewed. He is one of the most disrespectful of the Commander in Chief and most unpatriotic American who now goes around telling his audience he wants to make America great again, without addressing any real problems or providing any real solutions as to how he would do that. Nightmare on America's Main Street.
4
Agreed but it is less about the person (McConnell) and more about the party and their overlords who wished for him to do this. You are giving the politician too much credit.
The people as a whole enjoy Democratic policies, barring those which have to do with civil rights, which tend to break down based on regional and sectarian differences. But on the meat and potatoes of domestic policy, the people enjoy their retirement age, social security, medicare, and in any honest accounting they know taxes are needed to pay for them.
The Republican party (not most of their voters, the party) has been fighting a three-pronged war to defend against this (to them) unpleasant outlook. Gerrymandering, toxic political discourse, and wedge politics. The end game of that strategy is the creation of an ultra-partisan electoral base, but general voter disaffection. The hoped-for fruit of this strategy is that elections can be
won simply by the turnout of voters who vote Republican, believe Republicans, but are also volatile and prone to getting quite carried away with the wedge themes and toxic manners that are part of the Party strategy, while many stay home, disgusted at the process.
But as far as representation, the matter is as this article states. A vote is not for representation, but for an act of catharsis, and in that kind of environment politicians can, indeed, increasingly ignore their constituents -- as long as they provide them the partisan catharsis they have mistaken as the function of their vote.
So actual policy reasons and outcomes are buried under a torrent of partisan emotion; anything but that the people actually rationally consider them.
The Republican party (not most of their voters, the party) has been fighting a three-pronged war to defend against this (to them) unpleasant outlook. Gerrymandering, toxic political discourse, and wedge politics. The end game of that strategy is the creation of an ultra-partisan electoral base, but general voter disaffection. The hoped-for fruit of this strategy is that elections can be
won simply by the turnout of voters who vote Republican, believe Republicans, but are also volatile and prone to getting quite carried away with the wedge themes and toxic manners that are part of the Party strategy, while many stay home, disgusted at the process.
But as far as representation, the matter is as this article states. A vote is not for representation, but for an act of catharsis, and in that kind of environment politicians can, indeed, increasingly ignore their constituents -- as long as they provide them the partisan catharsis they have mistaken as the function of their vote.
So actual policy reasons and outcomes are buried under a torrent of partisan emotion; anything but that the people actually rationally consider them.
18
This was the most clear-headed and rational analysis of the current political situation that I've seen for a long time. Thank you.
24
As in Britain the voters have to choose between the undesirable candidates put forward by the political parties. It then becomes a choice of the least undesirable candidate in the marginal contests or a protest vote in the gerrymandered places. Is it then surprising that voters are put off?
11
Gerrymandered (rearranged House districts along party lines) do not just "reduce the influence of the median voter", they negate the votes of those who would disagree. This is major, significant, an affront to democracy that "we the people" have allowed to creep forward bit by bit, used by both parties, to re-shape and effectively ravage the functionality of our democracy.
The Democrats original sin in this matter was to encourage the creation of "black districts", or areas where minority candidates, especially African-Americans, would have a much better chance of getting elected. WAIT: that means that those votes were pulled away as leveling factors in other districts. Concentrated in "safe" House seats for minorities, the votes taken away elsewhere had no influence on other contests.
Gerrymandering has accelerated since the 2010 census coupled with Republican control of governorships and state legislatures. The result is that the political map has been rearranged. The country is majority, or close to it, Democratic, but the House is majority Republican. If that is not an intentional defeat of democracy, what is?
The other changes described are largely the result of the triumph of propaganda. For 4 decades since 1970, the Republicans attacked major media and helped to drive their voters into an ideological corner. The creation of right wing media completed the picture, not to counter the left, but to lock people into a single set of slanted information with no escape.
The Democrats original sin in this matter was to encourage the creation of "black districts", or areas where minority candidates, especially African-Americans, would have a much better chance of getting elected. WAIT: that means that those votes were pulled away as leveling factors in other districts. Concentrated in "safe" House seats for minorities, the votes taken away elsewhere had no influence on other contests.
Gerrymandering has accelerated since the 2010 census coupled with Republican control of governorships and state legislatures. The result is that the political map has been rearranged. The country is majority, or close to it, Democratic, but the House is majority Republican. If that is not an intentional defeat of democracy, what is?
The other changes described are largely the result of the triumph of propaganda. For 4 decades since 1970, the Republicans attacked major media and helped to drive their voters into an ideological corner. The creation of right wing media completed the picture, not to counter the left, but to lock people into a single set of slanted information with no escape.
117
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not goin' take it any more!" so screamed Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky's "Network," that 1976 fictional satire that has blossomed in to reality with fall of the FCC fairness doctrine and the rise of horrors like Roger Ailes and Rush Limbaugh. For the past fifteen years, transnational commercialized racism and anti government conspiracy have created an ever increasing number of Americans who are attuned to believing their government is the enemy, and drop by drop, as an aging electorate experience their retirement as a form of reactionary Republicanism, the venom and hate have built. So out pops Trump, not so much a product of political realignment, but as a manifestation of the mass media nightmare that has created a morphing monstrous mass media political movement. What is left of moral sanity on tv and internet now is gradually ebbing, and our civil society and the institutions that work for the public good are increasingly at risk.
133
"The future's uncertain and the end is always near" (Jim Morrison). It feels like that to many of us in very different political/economic spheres. Folks of every stripe are getting really worried about the sustainability of their respective lifestyles. Politicians are raking muck, or inventing it, to polarize and solidify their support by telling us "what to be afraid of and who to blame for it", as president Andy Shepherd describe senator Bob Rumson in "The American President". Is it any surprise that more than 1/3 of us own guns and actively support the right to do so? When we see corporations entitled as people with respect to campaign spending and religious objections, who could doubt the rights we though were assured could be under attack? Armed standoffs with government are becoming the vogue in some areas, I'm betting we'll see more of this and soon. If the government gives them a Waco or Ruby Ridge, it will just get worse. If they don't, it might also get worse. As with politicians, the Bundy's have attached themselves to the latest incident, to the dismay and disavowal of the principles. It matters not, it will still serve as a clarion to some.
There is a gaping void the author describes perfectly as "the rules and customs of American politics (are) hollow and unenforceable". So go the rules and customs of civil society as well. It feels like we're on an inexorable trajectory towards the decline and fall of our "fractured" empire.
There is a gaping void the author describes perfectly as "the rules and customs of American politics (are) hollow and unenforceable". So go the rules and customs of civil society as well. It feels like we're on an inexorable trajectory towards the decline and fall of our "fractured" empire.
3
Every election cycle the FCC ownership rules become bargaining chips. Corporations merge and power is conglomerated. We have seen the end of the information age and the beginning of another, where data mining has become a contact sport that threatens property ownership and our income. Voting? Well, ask Al Gore. Does he still vote?
1
It is hard to argue with much of this and other posts. Americans have always been lazy about voting and mail in ballots as we have in Oregon might help.
TV is still the 'Great Wasteland', but worse with all the reality shows pandering to people's escapism fantasies. This fixation with the Kardashian's is a strong sign that folks just don't care anymore. With electronic book borrowing now available at public libraries and online clubs, why do so few people read anything nowadays when the need to be informed is greater than ever?
While it is almost a patella reflex for NY Times commenters to blame the Republicans for everything they perceive to be amiss, I think both parties are to blame in conjunction with the corporate controlled media (which includes the Times as it is largely owned by the richest man in the world, telecom mogul Carlos Slim).
Let's not forget that NAFTA and repeal of Glass-Steigel happened on Bill
Clinton's watch or that it is Obama and Hillary along with most Dems who are shoving the Trans Pacific Partnership down our collective throats.
With a 96% re-election rate, we the people have only one path left to us to restore sanity and integrity to government; Re-Elect No One and really clean house!
TV is still the 'Great Wasteland', but worse with all the reality shows pandering to people's escapism fantasies. This fixation with the Kardashian's is a strong sign that folks just don't care anymore. With electronic book borrowing now available at public libraries and online clubs, why do so few people read anything nowadays when the need to be informed is greater than ever?
While it is almost a patella reflex for NY Times commenters to blame the Republicans for everything they perceive to be amiss, I think both parties are to blame in conjunction with the corporate controlled media (which includes the Times as it is largely owned by the richest man in the world, telecom mogul Carlos Slim).
Let's not forget that NAFTA and repeal of Glass-Steigel happened on Bill
Clinton's watch or that it is Obama and Hillary along with most Dems who are shoving the Trans Pacific Partnership down our collective throats.
With a 96% re-election rate, we the people have only one path left to us to restore sanity and integrity to government; Re-Elect No One and really clean house!
1
The author suggests that purity of ideology defines politicians more today than in the past. But why do people seem to insist that there be a single thoery that best explains everything?
I live a very conservative life. In 2008 the boss came into my office and said we had to implement 20% pay cuts. I said OK. I also want to pay more in taxes.
Ayn Rand is appropriate in some regards while Karl Marx is in others. Purity of ideology is shallow, as are our politicians.
I live a very conservative life. In 2008 the boss came into my office and said we had to implement 20% pay cuts. I said OK. I also want to pay more in taxes.
Ayn Rand is appropriate in some regards while Karl Marx is in others. Purity of ideology is shallow, as are our politicians.
6
My master theory of politics is that one party focuses on the future and the other on the past. One party seeks the improve the conditions of life for future generations while the other looks to return to some mythical past when, to paraphrase Trump, "everything was great".
The interaction between these two ideological poles has been a disaster for public policy. Major policy advances have been damaged by this adversarial relationship since the Missouri Compromise, which led to the Civil War.
Farm workers were excluded from Social Security and other New Deal programs by Dixiecrats seeking to keep their foot on the necks of rural blacks.
The expansion of the Vietnam War which killed 3 million people was the price paid to enact Great Society programs like Medicare to appease Southern hawks, a terrible price still being paid today by veterans.
Everything from tax policy to minimum wages to environmental policy has been damaged by this warfare. The GOP consistently wants to preserve programs like Medicare and Social Security for seniors, while shortchanging the next generations who will pay for them.
And the warfare has now escalated with the unbridled influence of the plutocratic power that now grips the Capitol.
As long as voters continue to sit out elections or vote for the past, this dark power will continue to grow. And the ultimate price will be exacerbation of climate change.
The interaction between these two ideological poles has been a disaster for public policy. Major policy advances have been damaged by this adversarial relationship since the Missouri Compromise, which led to the Civil War.
Farm workers were excluded from Social Security and other New Deal programs by Dixiecrats seeking to keep their foot on the necks of rural blacks.
The expansion of the Vietnam War which killed 3 million people was the price paid to enact Great Society programs like Medicare to appease Southern hawks, a terrible price still being paid today by veterans.
Everything from tax policy to minimum wages to environmental policy has been damaged by this warfare. The GOP consistently wants to preserve programs like Medicare and Social Security for seniors, while shortchanging the next generations who will pay for them.
And the warfare has now escalated with the unbridled influence of the plutocratic power that now grips the Capitol.
As long as voters continue to sit out elections or vote for the past, this dark power will continue to grow. And the ultimate price will be exacerbation of climate change.
91
Gov. Rick Scott of Florida and the state's ultraconservative House of Representatives seem to typify current American politics. Scott, like Jeb Bush before him, pleased conservatives but suffered no permanent damage by sabotaging a high speed rail project that the state had done the groundwork for over a period of many years. Scott, who claims to want manufacturing jobs, even rejected passenger train assembly plants that would have come with the rail project.
Likewise, the Legislature has suffered no voter discontent from refusing Medicaid expansion or from cutting back state aid for children with chronic health problems. The Miami Herald recently found that state budget limits have forced many thousands of kids to do without essential care. Need cleft palate surgery and therapy? Move to New York.
This year's legislative session will feature a project to get rid of all but "essential" health care for the poor (including "intrusive" pregnancy coaching and anything that could be conceived as "the legitimate realm of private charity") in order to provide funds to upgrade the University of Florida so it'll be more like the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Which in turn is having its funding gutted by Republicans. But that's a different story.
I'm waiting for Florida to have a hurricane, then discover that it no longer has the public resources to handle the emergency.
Likewise, the Legislature has suffered no voter discontent from refusing Medicaid expansion or from cutting back state aid for children with chronic health problems. The Miami Herald recently found that state budget limits have forced many thousands of kids to do without essential care. Need cleft palate surgery and therapy? Move to New York.
This year's legislative session will feature a project to get rid of all but "essential" health care for the poor (including "intrusive" pregnancy coaching and anything that could be conceived as "the legitimate realm of private charity") in order to provide funds to upgrade the University of Florida so it'll be more like the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Which in turn is having its funding gutted by Republicans. But that's a different story.
I'm waiting for Florida to have a hurricane, then discover that it no longer has the public resources to handle the emergency.
248
All of these states (Kansas, NC, Florida, etc.) are probably only one or two weather disasters away from finding out just how short-sighted a policy it is to continue to cut government funding for essential services. Climate change, which they deny, may just be helpful in waking voters up to the reality of what their careless votes have wrought. Or maybe not, sadly.
11
While we seldom get the government we want, we always get the government we deserve.
7
The foto for this op ed shows an American flag as it is tossed into a garbage truck. The point is. made for the essay, but it pains me to see this. Was the foot staged? Or was it a genuine glimpse into an actual garbage clearing operation? Either way , it is profound disrespect to the flag , which, unlike Congress, is not broken. How sad is this picture.
6
@RM: Your comment is an easy cliche to throw around, but it isn't true. Americans didn't deserve the George W. Bush/Darth Cheney government. The majority of us didn't vote for Bush in 2000. He won via the Electoral College due to the chicanery conducted in Florida, where his brother was conveniently the governor. In a notorious party-line decision which the Supreme Court has said should never be used as precedent for any other case, the Republican justices appointed Dubya president. He then got "re-elected" by exploiting the terror caused by 9/11, lying us into the invasion of Iraq so he could run as a "war president" and silence debate.
Your statement that we deserved that administration is an insult I do not accept.
Your statement that we deserved that administration is an insult I do not accept.
41
@Chuck Bouroughs: Yeah, that's what's important. We should be outraged by disrespect for the flag. Disrespect for democracy is too unimportant to mention.
15
It is easy to criticize those who do not vote in off-year elections, but not hard to understand why that choice may not be so crazy. If you live in a Congressional district in which voter registration tilts to one party or the other, then your vote basically does not matter. The U.S. representative for your district, if he or she is in the "other" party, is not likely to care about the views of any particular individual constituent, let alone someone who is a member of the opposition political party. If you live in a state in which one party dominates U.S. senate elections, the same problem exists. So you not only have to contend with Congressional indifference toward individual constituents, which is driven by the incredible power of lobbyists and big dollar campaign contributors, but you also have to deal with the reality that gerrymandering and ideologically rigid states actually impair the function of representative government.
Congress does not work. I think most Americans would agree that the institution is corrupt and that most members are corrupt. Those elected to, in theory, represent people of their district or their state actually represent only those who write big checks. Why waste time casting a ballot if it not only makes no difference, but encourages the continuing legalized bribery and influence peddling that has made a joke out of what was once a somewhat respectable legislature?
I have no more confidence in any congressman than I do in an average crook.
Congress does not work. I think most Americans would agree that the institution is corrupt and that most members are corrupt. Those elected to, in theory, represent people of their district or their state actually represent only those who write big checks. Why waste time casting a ballot if it not only makes no difference, but encourages the continuing legalized bribery and influence peddling that has made a joke out of what was once a somewhat respectable legislature?
I have no more confidence in any congressman than I do in an average crook.
183
The individual constituent, the typical American citizen, not only has lost political influence, he has lost many of his own rights and lost the ability to hold big business and financial institutions to a reasonable level of responsibility. The prohibitive cost of legal action and the expansion of arbitration in almost every type of legal contract has left the average citizen without recourse except to make annoying noise. The attention being paid to Trump's annoying noise gives the disenfranchised some comfort and level of hope.
9
It's not the single congressman, the problem is the Constitution and the two-party system. It doesn't work. The only solution would be a third party, but just mention Ralph Nader, and you are shouted down even in "left" US forums. The Occupy movement never wanted to become a political party, impotent right from the start. Where are the "Grey Panthers", "Pirates" or other new parties that bring constant change in European democracies?
2
This comment is nothing but a surrender to the current status quo. A rich man's one vote is equal to a poor man's one vote. As voters we must defend the notion that this is a nation "of the people, by the people and for the people." We have the power to take back government one vote at a time.
14
Wouldn't the solution lie in the existence of a third ( and maybe more) strong political party?
10
Well -- yes. And if the Republican Party is handed the decisive defeat it deserves, maybe a new party will result.
4
@Condo: It will never happen. If Trump fails to get the Republican nomination, his ego may drive him to launch a well-financed third-party campaign. But he will serve mainly as a spoiler, as Ralph Nader did the year he helped George W. Bush win and establish his disastrous presidency with the aid of Florida Governor "Hanging Chad" Jeb. Ross Perot had the same effect. Third parties in this country usually are based not on the beliefs of a large number of people but on individual egos. Moderates don't have the strong motivation needed to join together, fight for change and succeed.
There's a fantastic TV series available on DVD called "Borgen." It has been called the Danish version of "The West Wing." It shows how a country with many political parties ends up with "coalition" governments, as the different parties form alliances to get a majority. It's fascinating how that form of democracy works, but I don't think it is possible here. Change is resisted by those who have power, and because they have power they get their way.
There's a fantastic TV series available on DVD called "Borgen." It has been called the Danish version of "The West Wing." It shows how a country with many political parties ends up with "coalition" governments, as the different parties form alliances to get a majority. It's fascinating how that form of democracy works, but I don't think it is possible here. Change is resisted by those who have power, and because they have power they get their way.
8
Mr. Gore lost because he ran away from the Clinton economic success.
2
It portends more shutdowns and threats
And just how much harder it gets,
But time now grows shorter
To put Earth in order,
Before the last chance we have, sets.
And just how much harder it gets,
But time now grows shorter
To put Earth in order,
Before the last chance we have, sets.
70