In all this not a word about Fox News, An organization devoted almost exclusively to fostering, intensifying and focussing rage for politically useful ends and which shapes the Republican agenda from beginning to end.
36
I do not blame the GOP people for being mad. I am a DEM and I am mad, very mad that the country has made slow progress during the last seven years, and stood still in some cases because of the just say no GOP congress.
11
"To be clear, many Republicans are frustrated without being racially prejudiced. But there is abundant evidence — from polls and analysis of web behavior, for example — that racial attitudes play a significant role in today’s politics."
This should have been the lead and could have been the only paragraph. Some white people are angry -- deeply so -- and are willing to elect anyone they think will bring back the good ol' days.
This should have been the lead and could have been the only paragraph. Some white people are angry -- deeply so -- and are willing to elect anyone they think will bring back the good ol' days.
12
So with Palin endorsing Trump, it kinda confirms the silliness of the whole thing.
3
Allow me to boil things down to the essence, The Republican mantra, beginning with folks like Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh and certified by Fox News has been "Let's make America great again!" and "Let's return to the principles of our forefathers!". Such is disingenuity in it's purest form. Only a fool would not understand such means "Let's make America white again!" and "Let's return to white forefathers!". Few, if any, of the newly disaffected Right will, if asked, admit such in social settings. If only we had flys-on-the-wall in some American living rooms would the ugliness become known.
16
The anger of self-identified Republicans has no rational basis. Consider that at the end of the Clinton Administration, an era of peace during which an unprecedented 22 million jobs were created, vast amounts of household wealth was created, inequality diminished, and the federal government ran a budget surplus, in excess of 50 percent of Republicans were dissatisfied with the direction of the country.
Then during the Bush Administration, a period in which the country faced slow growth, rising inequality, increasing budget deficits, and the country was led to war on false pretenses, the dissatisfaction of Republicans with the direction of the country ebbed to 20 percent as late as 2005. In other words, one-third of self-identified Republicans were more satisfied during a period of war and terrible economic conditions than during a time of peace and economic prosperity.
This isn't an issue of anger, this is madness.
Then during the Bush Administration, a period in which the country faced slow growth, rising inequality, increasing budget deficits, and the country was led to war on false pretenses, the dissatisfaction of Republicans with the direction of the country ebbed to 20 percent as late as 2005. In other words, one-third of self-identified Republicans were more satisfied during a period of war and terrible economic conditions than during a time of peace and economic prosperity.
This isn't an issue of anger, this is madness.
32
The explanations offered here for the psychology of Republican voters (supposedly 'angry') concerns (a) stagnant wages and (b) value changes.
An alternative focuses upon the institutional arrangements in the American constitution. Many years ago, the distinguished sociologist Juan Linz recognized that presidential systems can work as well as parliamentary systems in homogeneous societies where vote-seeking political parties cluster around median voters in the center ground. Arguably the situation in the US for much of the late 20th century. The recipe for disaster is to combine presidential winner-take-all systems and primary selection processes with polarized and fragmented parties and divided electorates, as this is a recipe for policy stalemate, rival sources of electoral authority which veto each other, an executive facing a hostile congress, and 'loser take all' politics.
So the deeper explanation lies less in the electorate than in the institutional context and the reasons why political parties have become more polarized. And the explanation for this needs to take a broader perspective by considering outlets for party polarization in equivalent European parliamentary democracies, with similar social trends, but with parliamentary executives, PR electoral systems, and coalition governments which do not squeeze competition into just two parties.
An alternative focuses upon the institutional arrangements in the American constitution. Many years ago, the distinguished sociologist Juan Linz recognized that presidential systems can work as well as parliamentary systems in homogeneous societies where vote-seeking political parties cluster around median voters in the center ground. Arguably the situation in the US for much of the late 20th century. The recipe for disaster is to combine presidential winner-take-all systems and primary selection processes with polarized and fragmented parties and divided electorates, as this is a recipe for policy stalemate, rival sources of electoral authority which veto each other, an executive facing a hostile congress, and 'loser take all' politics.
So the deeper explanation lies less in the electorate than in the institutional context and the reasons why political parties have become more polarized. And the explanation for this needs to take a broader perspective by considering outlets for party polarization in equivalent European parliamentary democracies, with similar social trends, but with parliamentary executives, PR electoral systems, and coalition governments which do not squeeze competition into just two parties.
6
Is it possible plain stupidity is the problem in the GOP? It wasn't always so, obviously. Republicans used to have imaginative ideas to address real problems but those days are long gone. When the party bosses hurried to absorb the Tea Party, they opened the gates to uninformed extremists with no patience for facts or practical reality and no interest in actual governance. The party bosses played with fire and now their party may burn to the ground. We can only hope a competent replacement will rise from the ashes.
21
I'm curious to know whether the number of self-identified Republicans has increased or decreased over the past decade. Perhaps the party is drifting so far to the right that it has caused many moderates to no longer self-identify as Republican. If that's the case, then an increase in Republican Disaffection is a given since those moderates would no longer be included in the denominator of that calculation.
12
Easy to research. It's decreased.
2
Great piece, Mr. Leonhardt!
As they say, each country has the government and politicians it deserves; if the voters don't like them, vote for someone else.
There are angry voters everywhere these days, not just in the U.S. However, the American election campaigns and Washington in general are so noisy that they resonate round the world. That's why it would be desirable that the American voters take elections seriously.
As they say, each country has the government and politicians it deserves; if the voters don't like them, vote for someone else.
There are angry voters everywhere these days, not just in the U.S. However, the American election campaigns and Washington in general are so noisy that they resonate round the world. That's why it would be desirable that the American voters take elections seriously.
2
So when are we going to discuss the crisis in our press? Where moral relevance has rendered oatmeal, instead of hard information lies are referred to as untruths if only in retrospect. Never mind all the "untruths" quoted day in and day out without question.
It is way past time the press began a dialogue with itself, with its audience and between different factions before its trending toward alphabet soup turns it into meaningless gruel. Which by the way is what many already perceive it to be.
Every day the press reminds us that Americans are dissatisfied with government but we never hear how we feel about our news reporting organizations. It is way past time that this discussion take place. Starting with the press acknowledging its very influential but careless roll in shaping opinion.
For all practical purposes our prayer that the higher quality organizations self correct has gone by the wayside as we witness reporters and editors fend off constructive criticism with transparent juvenile rationalization.
It is way past time the press began a dialogue with itself, with its audience and between different factions before its trending toward alphabet soup turns it into meaningless gruel. Which by the way is what many already perceive it to be.
Every day the press reminds us that Americans are dissatisfied with government but we never hear how we feel about our news reporting organizations. It is way past time that this discussion take place. Starting with the press acknowledging its very influential but careless roll in shaping opinion.
For all practical purposes our prayer that the higher quality organizations self correct has gone by the wayside as we witness reporters and editors fend off constructive criticism with transparent juvenile rationalization.
9
Polls are all fine and good, but they mean less in a caucus state like Iowa where the voters must commit quite a lot of time and energy to the process. I didn't realize until I attended my first caucus here in WA that it is not just a vote-and-be-done affair like a primary-- it's a real discussion and it takes time. Passionate supporters who are willing to serve as delegates must be identified. This is why the ground game the campaigns run in Iowa makes such a huge difference in the outcome.
From what I have read, the Trump "campaign" has done little to actually ensure that people get to their caucuses and volunteer to be delegates. Mark my words-- Trump will land with a huge FLOP in two weeks, and that will summon his ignominious end. He can get spectators to rallies and he can get disaffected Americans to support him in polls, but he will not get the support of caucus-goers on election day.
From what I have read, the Trump "campaign" has done little to actually ensure that people get to their caucuses and volunteer to be delegates. Mark my words-- Trump will land with a huge FLOP in two weeks, and that will summon his ignominious end. He can get spectators to rallies and he can get disaffected Americans to support him in polls, but he will not get the support of caucus-goers on election day.
2
Great column. Great role for the author, Mr. L.
Suggestion - revive the NYT polling operation w/ his guidance or leadership. I'm sure Pew does an ok job or better, but the NYT could (and SHOULD) do it even better.
Suggestion - revive the NYT polling operation w/ his guidance or leadership. I'm sure Pew does an ok job or better, but the NYT could (and SHOULD) do it even better.
1
Republicans are angry at the wrong audience. It's not the federal government, except for the person sitting at the helm whom they hate with the ferocity that only racial animosity can bestow.
If they are angry at the government I would ask why --since with the exception of the ACA, virtually nothing has been accomplished largely due to the intransigence of the GOP itself and its majority do-nothing Congress.
The economic malaise has continued send to since 2008, and it's not the federal government's fault that the no growth economy has created few jobs because It's the super wealthy who have refused to invest in business expansion.
In fact I would ask all those angry GOP voters to look themselves in the mirror if they're looking for a scapegoat for their intense rage.
If they are angry at the government I would ask why --since with the exception of the ACA, virtually nothing has been accomplished largely due to the intransigence of the GOP itself and its majority do-nothing Congress.
The economic malaise has continued send to since 2008, and it's not the federal government's fault that the no growth economy has created few jobs because It's the super wealthy who have refused to invest in business expansion.
In fact I would ask all those angry GOP voters to look themselves in the mirror if they're looking for a scapegoat for their intense rage.
17
Funny how the deliberate fear-mogering and coded racial signals get no acknowledgement. In fact this article says "racism" isn't a factor but "racial attitudes" may be. The more we pretend this aspect away, the more it will plague us.
22
Trump, Cruz, etc. just point up the basic flaw in the political primary system. All this attention is placed on early primary states like Iowa. 2012 Iowa GOP caucus 121,501 votes were recorded. The 121,501 votes represent 19.8 percent of active 611,990 registered Republicans in the state and just 5.4 percent of all Iowans eligible to vote. Santorum "won" with 29,839 votes, that is 4.8% of total Iowa GOP eligible voters. Iowa ultimately went to Obama in the general election. I would expect 2016 to have higher numbers, but I bet it the GOP total is far less than half of the registered Iowa Republicans.
The issue is very complex, but perhaps the best way would be to hold a single national primary, and the two winners go on to the convention for a final vote to determine the final party nominee. Or perhaps go back to the old pre 1970s system of the back room deals with party managers making the decisions. As they say, politics is like sausage....
The GOP needs to cut out the cancer they have created over the past 30 years of the extreme right wing (call them Tea Party) and let them form their own party. Then the GOP can try and find some responsible positions. I am a Bernie supporter, but I believe in the 2 party system, and the Dems need a responsible counter-weight. The current GOP does not offer that now, and cannot as long as it is held hostage by the "Tea Party." Let them have their own voice and make their own pitch to the American people.
The issue is very complex, but perhaps the best way would be to hold a single national primary, and the two winners go on to the convention for a final vote to determine the final party nominee. Or perhaps go back to the old pre 1970s system of the back room deals with party managers making the decisions. As they say, politics is like sausage....
The GOP needs to cut out the cancer they have created over the past 30 years of the extreme right wing (call them Tea Party) and let them form their own party. Then the GOP can try and find some responsible positions. I am a Bernie supporter, but I believe in the 2 party system, and the Dems need a responsible counter-weight. The current GOP does not offer that now, and cannot as long as it is held hostage by the "Tea Party." Let them have their own voice and make their own pitch to the American people.
14
No need to be diplomatic about "untruths", NYT. They are, in fact, lies.
36
The number one cause of disenchantment--by all voters, not just conservatives--is money in poltics. The American majority knows they have no voice in the political process. Their concerns are ignored and their power has been supplanted by around 400 families of the über-rich who control both political parties.
That is why Trump is going to win (and, hopefully Sanders). Voters think that all the other candidates have been bought and paid for, except Trump.
And they are right.
But if Trump wins, Democrats better hope Sanders wins. Because while I can see conservatives voting for Sanders (because he has integrity and intelligence), I don't see conservatives EVER voting for Clinton.
Feel the Bern. Sanders '16
That is why Trump is going to win (and, hopefully Sanders). Voters think that all the other candidates have been bought and paid for, except Trump.
And they are right.
But if Trump wins, Democrats better hope Sanders wins. Because while I can see conservatives voting for Sanders (because he has integrity and intelligence), I don't see conservatives EVER voting for Clinton.
Feel the Bern. Sanders '16
31
I'd like to know how many people were actually polled. We keep hearing that "the majority of republicans, Americans, democrats... think this or that. Well, provide the American people with the actual number of citizens polled then we can decide if the country actually feels/thinks whatever way that they report. I'll wait...
4
Pew generally surveys large samples of the electorate. For the kinds of numbers reported here, samples of even a few hundred people give decent results, and polls over a thousand have high statistical reliability. These are mathematical facts; the "margin of error" in a poll is inversely proportional to the square root of the sample size. So a poll of 400 people is twice as accurate as one with 100 respondents, but to halve the error again requires interviewing 1,600 people.
However most of these results reported in this article are based on Republican identifiers, who are typically about 30 percent of the population. So in that poll of 1,600 people only about 500 or them are Republicans. Still, in a poll of 500 people, the margin of error is at most plus or minus four percent.
In this age of cell phones and answering machines, you should be more concerned about how representative polls are. Pew reports that only about one in ten of the people contacted actually complete an interview (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/poll-response-rates_n_1518501.h.... Right away that means the sample is likely to be composed of people with a greater interest in politics and a greater willingness to be interviewed. Pollsters re-weight their samples using known demographics to make them more representative, but they cannot fix the problem of who cooperates and who does not.
However most of these results reported in this article are based on Republican identifiers, who are typically about 30 percent of the population. So in that poll of 1,600 people only about 500 or them are Republicans. Still, in a poll of 500 people, the margin of error is at most plus or minus four percent.
In this age of cell phones and answering machines, you should be more concerned about how representative polls are. Pew reports that only about one in ten of the people contacted actually complete an interview (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/poll-response-rates_n_1518501.h.... Right away that means the sample is likely to be composed of people with a greater interest in politics and a greater willingness to be interviewed. Pollsters re-weight their samples using known demographics to make them more representative, but they cannot fix the problem of who cooperates and who does not.
7
Trump is shepherding out the votes, exciting and gathering people to stay active this election season. His celebrity status is a magnet for people to get out of their comfort zones and hear his outrageous statements. However he himself doesn't know HOW he would fix things. The country is not a business, you cannot hire and fire the congress at your will, whims and fancy. So he is not strictly a serious guy running for the highest "government" job! He wouldn't know the first thing about running the government and navigating the clunky bureaucracy that is the government. Mitt Romney lost because he wanted to run the country like a business.
20
For at least 20 years now, the GOP has been conducting a very skillful campaign to get its followers to ignore facts and information. Looks like it backfired.
13
No one who actually works and receives wages for a living--in contrast to living off of dividends and capital gains-- should ever vote Republican. Nothing the current crop of Republican candidates is proposing would help working Americans climb out of the slough created by the Recession of 2008. Like many commentators, I am always puzzled that the GOP gets so many poor and middle class whites to vote against their own best interests. It's like the ten-minute "hate" in Orwell's "1984." Through media and talk radio, they get to vent their self-inflicted misery on the "other." If you are strong enough, read some of the comments on yahoo on current political issues.
17
On the Democratic side, what makes 2016 different from all other elections is the remarkable generational cleavage between supporters of Clinton and those of Sanders. A Fox poll in early January showed Sanders leading Clinton 61-31 among voters under 45 while she lead Sanders 71-21 among older voters. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/01/08/fox-news-poll-nat... As someone who has conducted and followed polling for forty years, I cannot recall an age cleavage of this magnitude.
The 2008 race showed a generational difference between supporters of Obama and Clinton, but nothing like the division we see today. The Times reported that Clinton led Obama 57-36 among voters over 65, and that he led Clinton 59-38 among voters under 30. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/us/politics/22age.html) Race may have blunted the age effect somewhat among those older voters in 2008, with Obama gaining support from over-65 blacks. Without a "cross-cutting" racial cleavage in 2016, generational differences have become more significant.
The 2008 race showed a generational difference between supporters of Obama and Clinton, but nothing like the division we see today. The Times reported that Clinton led Obama 57-36 among voters over 65, and that he led Clinton 59-38 among voters under 30. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/us/politics/22age.html) Race may have blunted the age effect somewhat among those older voters in 2008, with Obama gaining support from over-65 blacks. Without a "cross-cutting" racial cleavage in 2016, generational differences have become more significant.
9
It is because the young watch The Young Turks on YouTube, listen to podcasts and read the news on their smartphones. Whereas, Babyboomers watch cable news, listen to right-wing radio, and still read the newspaper.
One encompasses free thinking via easily accessable fact-checking on the web, while the other encourages inaccurate group-think and entrenched biases.
Let's hope the young turn out in droves this election and the old stay home in their Laz-i-Boys.
One encompasses free thinking via easily accessable fact-checking on the web, while the other encourages inaccurate group-think and entrenched biases.
Let's hope the young turn out in droves this election and the old stay home in their Laz-i-Boys.
5
I've noticed this as well, but I think it's because most older voters are so familiar with Hillary and many older women want to see a woman become president. But I show them Bernie and then they're like, oh, wait. They've also told me they worry about his age. My generation grew up apathetic about politics. Bernie is so radically different and I think younger people these days are more willing to take that chance than older voters who probably prefer to go with the person they're familiar with.
2
RF -- you need to remind them that Sanders is only 6 years older than Hillary and he was a long distance runner who is in excellent condition.
6
I agree that most workers are angry about wages. But the Federal Government doesn't control that. Raising the minimum wage would help, as then it puts pressure on companies to raise pay for people above that level. The angry Republican voters still end up voting for Congress members who refuse to touch the minimum wage.
I occassionally tune in to talk radio to hear what nonsense they're spewing. Levin especially drums up the anger in himself and his audience. He and Ingraham are influencers. When did you ever hear your fellow citizens spouting "tyranny" or "liberty"? They've become brainwashed from the mantras coming out of far-right radio. Biggest mistake Clinton made was eliminating the fairness doctrine. Republicans knew it would eventually be their ticket to winning Congress and the state and local elections.
I occassionally tune in to talk radio to hear what nonsense they're spewing. Levin especially drums up the anger in himself and his audience. He and Ingraham are influencers. When did you ever hear your fellow citizens spouting "tyranny" or "liberty"? They've become brainwashed from the mantras coming out of far-right radio. Biggest mistake Clinton made was eliminating the fairness doctrine. Republicans knew it would eventually be their ticket to winning Congress and the state and local elections.
16
The economic causes of the discontent and anger can be rationally understood and action can be taken to change the situation: for a leftist, that might mean wage supports, encouraging unions, extending the social safety net, recognizing that "the market" does not work in the provision of health care, passing laws against economic speculation, ending the ruinous and bloody American wars that enflame sectarianism, destroy societies and bolster dictatorial and corrupt governments.
11
Liberals on these comments like to blame Reagan. The problem is much more fundamental and the reason 1980 matters is not Reagan, but Jobs -- Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates and the fundamental transformation of the economy by digital computing power.
The rise of increasingly cheap, increasingly powerful, increasingly miniaturized computers led directly to the centralization of knowledge, power and money. Without the PC and the Internet it would impossible to create and sell financial derivatives, and much more difficult to manage economic organizations. Hedge funds and the replacement of the "tangible things" economy with the "intangible things" economy of Wall Street, the big banks, automated trading, Silicon Valley, apps, Uber and the rest are responsible for massive job destruction. We have been waiting for 35 years for the "creative" part of "creative destruction" to appear. We might as well be Waiting for Godot.
It is useless, pointless, and fundamentally untrue to blame White Racism for the level of anger among a clear majority of the blue collar class in America. Blacks have been sent to prison and killed by cops in horrific numbers. Non-elite whites have been disregarded, sent to Iraq and Afghanistan to die or come home mentally and physically maimed, and given opiates to die in horrific numbers. People, black and white, are living on the edge and falling over.
The BLM movement and the Trump movement share a common cause: Lack of Green and Lack of Respect.
The rise of increasingly cheap, increasingly powerful, increasingly miniaturized computers led directly to the centralization of knowledge, power and money. Without the PC and the Internet it would impossible to create and sell financial derivatives, and much more difficult to manage economic organizations. Hedge funds and the replacement of the "tangible things" economy with the "intangible things" economy of Wall Street, the big banks, automated trading, Silicon Valley, apps, Uber and the rest are responsible for massive job destruction. We have been waiting for 35 years for the "creative" part of "creative destruction" to appear. We might as well be Waiting for Godot.
It is useless, pointless, and fundamentally untrue to blame White Racism for the level of anger among a clear majority of the blue collar class in America. Blacks have been sent to prison and killed by cops in horrific numbers. Non-elite whites have been disregarded, sent to Iraq and Afghanistan to die or come home mentally and physically maimed, and given opiates to die in horrific numbers. People, black and white, are living on the edge and falling over.
The BLM movement and the Trump movement share a common cause: Lack of Green and Lack of Respect.
6
Yes, The BLM movement and the Trump movement share a common cause: Lack of Green and Lack of Respect.
For that very reason, the BLM movement would do well to reconsider its antipathy toward those who insist, instead, that "All Lives Matter" -- many of whom were Obama voters themselves.
To disenfranchised non-elite whites, BLM seems to be seeking a race-based pass for wrongdoing when there ought to be post-racial common cause. Meanwhile, the 1% keep laughing, all the way to the bank.
For that very reason, the BLM movement would do well to reconsider its antipathy toward those who insist, instead, that "All Lives Matter" -- many of whom were Obama voters themselves.
To disenfranchised non-elite whites, BLM seems to be seeking a race-based pass for wrongdoing when there ought to be post-racial common cause. Meanwhile, the 1% keep laughing, all the way to the bank.
I do not doubt Trump's credibility. I just think he's stupid. Ted Cruz's credibility I doubt very much. He's not stupid, he's dangerous.
34
Unfortunately, neither Trump nor Cruz is stupid, which is what makes them both dangerous.
9
Let's see about his credibility: Trump has said that Obama was not born in this country and never went to school. He saw thousands and thousand of Muslims cheering on TV in after 9/11. According to him ALL Mexican immigrants are rapists and murderers.
A study has found that Trump lies about 70% of the time. Cruz 66% of the time. Carson 86% of the time. See article below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians...
A study has found that Trump lies about 70% of the time. Cruz 66% of the time. Carson 86% of the time. See article below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians...
4
"Only about half of babies born last year were non-Hispanic whites — while about nine in 10 of Republicans are non-Hispanic whites. A liberal African-American has been elected president, twice."
Good heavens!! Where is this nation, pray tell, where a *liberal* was elected President?
Obama has been a grave disappointment to the real left in the U.S. His foreign policy is indistinguishable from what a third and fourth term of Bush's would have looked like. He has been a disaster on civil liberties, mass surveillance, and the like. He has done almost nothing towards ending the prison-industrial complex. His health care "reform" was a boondoggle for the insurance industry. He came out in favor of gay marriage only when it was politically safe to do so. If he has favored other than continuing the idiotic, destructive War on Drugs (another war on the poor, really) I haven't heard about it. Before taking office he assured the Bush administration and its black operatives there would be no investigation of--let alone prosecution for--war crimes. Wall Street escaped with its massive looting of the American treasury entirely unpunished... I could go on and on. And on.
What on earth makes Obama a "liberal"?
What can you possibly be thinking?
Good heavens!! Where is this nation, pray tell, where a *liberal* was elected President?
Obama has been a grave disappointment to the real left in the U.S. His foreign policy is indistinguishable from what a third and fourth term of Bush's would have looked like. He has been a disaster on civil liberties, mass surveillance, and the like. He has done almost nothing towards ending the prison-industrial complex. His health care "reform" was a boondoggle for the insurance industry. He came out in favor of gay marriage only when it was politically safe to do so. If he has favored other than continuing the idiotic, destructive War on Drugs (another war on the poor, really) I haven't heard about it. Before taking office he assured the Bush administration and its black operatives there would be no investigation of--let alone prosecution for--war crimes. Wall Street escaped with its massive looting of the American treasury entirely unpunished... I could go on and on. And on.
What on earth makes Obama a "liberal"?
What can you possibly be thinking?
8
You are so wrong, even a liberal like Paul Krugman has changed his tunes and agrees mr Obama has accomplished much on the liberal "agenda", more than we could expect given the brutal opposition he faced. So do not underestimate his obama's successes and give him the credit due.
13
"His [Obama's] foreign policy is indistinguishable from what a third and fourth term of Bush's would have looked like."
To put it bluntly, NO WAY. We would have NEVER had the Iran nuclear deal under a continuation of Bush. We didn't get Bin Laden under Bush, and in some of his public statements he encouraged the perception that getting Bin Laden wasn't a priority for him. But we would have been in a large-scale ground war in the Middle East, whether in Iraq, Iran, somewhere else or some combination of countries, under a continuation of Bush.
"His health care 'reform' was boondoggle for the insurance industry.'
The fact is that there were too many "Blue Dog" senators (Ben Nelson, Max Baucus and Blanche Lincoln, among others) who opposed the public option, let alone single-payer, for either one to pass. The choice at that point was to continue tilting at windmills and get nothing done once the Republicans took over the House following the 2010 elections, or to get the ACA passed and accomplished at least SOMETHING. Most of the 16-17 million Americans who have gotten coverage under the ACA would agree that the second course was the wiser one.
"What on earth makes Obama a 'liberal'?"
He pushed through the stimulus, the ACA, Dodd-Frank (which, even if it did not go far enough, still did impose meaningful constraints on Wall Street for the first time in nearly 80 years) and tax hikes on the wealthiest. Sounds pretty liberal to me.
To put it bluntly, NO WAY. We would have NEVER had the Iran nuclear deal under a continuation of Bush. We didn't get Bin Laden under Bush, and in some of his public statements he encouraged the perception that getting Bin Laden wasn't a priority for him. But we would have been in a large-scale ground war in the Middle East, whether in Iraq, Iran, somewhere else or some combination of countries, under a continuation of Bush.
"His health care 'reform' was boondoggle for the insurance industry.'
The fact is that there were too many "Blue Dog" senators (Ben Nelson, Max Baucus and Blanche Lincoln, among others) who opposed the public option, let alone single-payer, for either one to pass. The choice at that point was to continue tilting at windmills and get nothing done once the Republicans took over the House following the 2010 elections, or to get the ACA passed and accomplished at least SOMETHING. Most of the 16-17 million Americans who have gotten coverage under the ACA would agree that the second course was the wiser one.
"What on earth makes Obama a 'liberal'?"
He pushed through the stimulus, the ACA, Dodd-Frank (which, even if it did not go far enough, still did impose meaningful constraints on Wall Street for the first time in nearly 80 years) and tax hikes on the wealthiest. Sounds pretty liberal to me.
3
Indeed, "There were too many "Blue Dog" senators (Ben Nelson, Max Baucus and Blanche Lincoln, among others) who opposed the public option, let alone single-payer." The problem, then, was a failure to stand up to the insurance industry, even among Democrats. Ditto for Dodd-Frank and banking.
To many liberals, this comes across as a failure of Obama's leadership, even within his own party. If people are angry now, where was Obama's anger then?
To many liberals, this comes across as a failure of Obama's leadership, even within his own party. If people are angry now, where was Obama's anger then?
Maybe they've finally started to realize that the party hasn't really been working for them. Perhaps they're onto the party being more for the plutocrats than for Everyman.
8
"All three regularly tell untruths on the campaign trail."
You know, statements like that bother me. They lied. This isn't philosophy class where we use terms like the "negation of the truth," this is politics where we can identify fact and fiction.
And some candidates lie much more than others.
You know, statements like that bother me. They lied. This isn't philosophy class where we use terms like the "negation of the truth," this is politics where we can identify fact and fiction.
And some candidates lie much more than others.
53
Right, why does the Times whitewash what they do by saying they are "telling untruths?" Call them what they are, deliberate liars! We can no longer even trust the media because they themselves are apparently afraid to tell the truth about demagogues.
7
"The economic cause is the great 21st-century wage slowdown." Data published in this paper and elsewhere show that the re-distribution of income and wealth toward the top few percent of the income scale began closer to 1980 than 2000. The power of a trend is related directly to its duration, so the cumulative anger at this outcome has become pervasive and intense.
Blame for this outcome is being assigned mostly to the Republican establishment because that group dominates business leadership. That establishment was formerly adept at delivering broader-based prosperity and its actions recognized the concept of the common good. The Great Recession removed the last veil hiding conspicuous establishment incompetence and near-boundless predatory greed.
A fairer take is that many establishment Democrats are junior partners in being responsible for the economic stagnation of the middle class. The state of their primary race shows the Democratic electorate has caught on.
Blame for this outcome is being assigned mostly to the Republican establishment because that group dominates business leadership. That establishment was formerly adept at delivering broader-based prosperity and its actions recognized the concept of the common good. The Great Recession removed the last veil hiding conspicuous establishment incompetence and near-boundless predatory greed.
A fairer take is that many establishment Democrats are junior partners in being responsible for the economic stagnation of the middle class. The state of their primary race shows the Democratic electorate has caught on.
18
If "the re-distribution of income and wealth toward the top few percent of the income scale began closer to 1980 than 2000," that wasn't Morning In America. The light we saw was merely the Midnight Special. No wonder people are mad!
1
Big missed point. The radicalization of the Republican party tracks solidly with the rise of conservative media on television, radio and the Internet. As Obama pointed out during his state of the union, life in the USA is good and significantly better than anywhere else in the world, despite the economic transformation and wage stagnation.
No, it's the "fact free" world of conservative media that pumps the gloom and doom through the angry voices of FOX, Limbaugh, etc. If we had a Republican president right now it would be morning in America. How pundits keep missing the cultural impact of conservative media on Republican thinking is, indeed, crazy and confounding.
No, it's the "fact free" world of conservative media that pumps the gloom and doom through the angry voices of FOX, Limbaugh, etc. If we had a Republican president right now it would be morning in America. How pundits keep missing the cultural impact of conservative media on Republican thinking is, indeed, crazy and confounding.
87
Agreed. I occasionally read Breitbart and other outlets just to see what they're getting up to, and what the right doesn't know is astounding. There's a wholesale failure to grasp even the rudiments of economics, foreign policy, the budget.... Probably worse is the almost complete ignorance of facts among the right. There is nothing solid on which the rare useful thought in that neighborhood can find purchase. Most are adamant that taxes have never been higher. Most insist that Obama really is from Kenya. A Pew poll recently found that more registered Republicans blamed Obama for the government's handling of hurricane Katrina, than blamed Bush. Furthermore, they tend to be completely adamant regarding what they're hopelessly wrong about.
In such a poisoned atmosphere conversation, let alone negotiation, or, god forbid, compromise, simply is not possible.
In such a poisoned atmosphere conversation, let alone negotiation, or, god forbid, compromise, simply is not possible.
49
Very good point. Bill Maher has suggested that Fox News is the most destructive influence in American politics because it has successfully disinformed and inflamed millions in collaboration with the RNC and is largely responsible for the confusion, fear and resentment that characterizes the new republican base. He may be right.
5
"About half of Republicans have disapproved of their party’s congressional leaders in most polls since 2013."
The conventional wisdom is that at the start of the Obama presidency, Republican congressional leaders met and agreed on a plan of non-cooperation and obstruction with respect to anything Obama proposed.
Whether that's fact or an urban legend, the fact is that Republicans in Congress have created a state of gridlock that both Eisenhower and LBJ would have found unthinkable.
Yet I get the feeling that these poll results show that half the Republicans are angry because their leaders have given too much away to Obama.
So what exactly do they want? A Republican-led coup d'etat?
The conventional wisdom is that at the start of the Obama presidency, Republican congressional leaders met and agreed on a plan of non-cooperation and obstruction with respect to anything Obama proposed.
Whether that's fact or an urban legend, the fact is that Republicans in Congress have created a state of gridlock that both Eisenhower and LBJ would have found unthinkable.
Yet I get the feeling that these poll results show that half the Republicans are angry because their leaders have given too much away to Obama.
So what exactly do they want? A Republican-led coup d'etat?
22
They already had a Republican-led coup d'état: when W was elected by the Republican -led Supreme court and the state of Florida was told to stop counting the votes. Who was governor of Florida in 2000??? If the same series of events had happened in any other country, the press here would have been screaming about the coup d'état in wherever (name your third world country).
5
Maybe conservative voters are tired of being labeled all the time by self knowing righteous liberals that the former are spiteful, racist and fearful. Maybe they are tired of being told all the time they have no ideas but always just say " no", when n reality it's the Democrats who never compromise. Maybe they're frustrated that they have played the game by the rules and have a majority of both houses in Congress but the Dems still want to act as if they are the majority party (along with their supporters) and won't admit the majority of the country is on the other side.
4
There's no factual way to argue that the GOP has played by the rules. In fact, they have continually attempted to adjust the rules to their own favor. And it's not that conservatives are being told they have no ideas, it's that their ideas are not something the majority of people in this country agree with. As for being spiteful, racist and fearful... actions speak louder than words and the party's overarching actions and the words and deeds of its members really suggest they're being driven by all of those. As for compromise, name one time the GOP was willing to compromise? (And no, just saying do it our way is not a compromise.)
If conservative voters were smart, they would stop focusing on feelings and belief and start focusing on reality. And the reality is, whatever you think your issues are, the people you have carrying your banner forward are unelectable and doing a bad job of trying to get your message across.
The Dems have mastered the old GOP playbook and have stayed largely together. The GOP simply cannot agree on anything enough to have a consistent message or voting block. If they keep this up, they'll lose spectacularly in November. Hopefully it will be enough to get them back to square one because for our country to work, we really need to fully functional political parties. Not one and a sideshow.
If conservative voters were smart, they would stop focusing on feelings and belief and start focusing on reality. And the reality is, whatever you think your issues are, the people you have carrying your banner forward are unelectable and doing a bad job of trying to get your message across.
The Dems have mastered the old GOP playbook and have stayed largely together. The GOP simply cannot agree on anything enough to have a consistent message or voting block. If they keep this up, they'll lose spectacularly in November. Hopefully it will be enough to get them back to square one because for our country to work, we really need to fully functional political parties. Not one and a sideshow.
28
Apparently, "Science Teacher" thinks that extreme gerrymandering of House districts equals playing by the rules. The Republicans and their billionaire donors have done a good job of taking ruthless steps to take many state & local offices and to redistrict House seats. Having a gerrymandered majority of the House hardly equals having the majority of the country on your side. Just look at opinion polls about specific policies.
19
Let's talk about gerrymandering - first, show me the proof. I've yet to see "billionaire" donors put money into, or influence, the election of local state officials. Second, would you like to see it in action? Look at a congressional map of my state, Illinois, after the last census, set up by a legislature of majority Dems (oh yes, Obama's state!). We're in massive debt, mismanaged for years, and one of the current leaders is (oh yes!) the president's former advisor as mayor of Chicago. The reason we now have a Republican governor is not because of gerrymandered districts - it's because a majority of Illinois voters got fed up with the looming bankruptcy of failed (and here, corrupt) Democratic politics.
1
America has always had crackpot politicians & voters, but the state of the Republican Party defies logic. How a major party in a huge, modern nation could be so detached from reality is almost beyond belief.
Belief is a good word because those who tend to vote Republican seem more driven by beliefs than by facts. Many independents & most Democrats can be persuaded by sound logic & hard numbers but that is not true of many Republicans.
In my lifetime I have seen 3 Republican Parties. The first in my Midwestern youth was the pragmatic party of Eisenhower, Dirksen & Ford, the second was the Reagan Revolution that blossomed as I came of age, the third is the current crowd seemingly motivated by the fear of the moment & the absolute certainty that their beliefs are the only pure & true way- facts be damned. The old phrase 'who are you going to believe- me or your lying eyes' certainly applies here.
Democrats and those that lean Democratic tend to be more open to see things as they are despite wanting them to be otherwise. 'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.' is something Daniel Patrick Moynihan is quoted as saying and it fits many outside the Republican universe. Global Warming, Economic Inequality, Militarized Policing and our as yet unresolved issues regarding race require an openness to factual information that flies in the face of our country's foundation myths. They are among the challenges of our time and require an open mind to solve.
Belief is a good word because those who tend to vote Republican seem more driven by beliefs than by facts. Many independents & most Democrats can be persuaded by sound logic & hard numbers but that is not true of many Republicans.
In my lifetime I have seen 3 Republican Parties. The first in my Midwestern youth was the pragmatic party of Eisenhower, Dirksen & Ford, the second was the Reagan Revolution that blossomed as I came of age, the third is the current crowd seemingly motivated by the fear of the moment & the absolute certainty that their beliefs are the only pure & true way- facts be damned. The old phrase 'who are you going to believe- me or your lying eyes' certainly applies here.
Democrats and those that lean Democratic tend to be more open to see things as they are despite wanting them to be otherwise. 'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.' is something Daniel Patrick Moynihan is quoted as saying and it fits many outside the Republican universe. Global Warming, Economic Inequality, Militarized Policing and our as yet unresolved issues regarding race require an openness to factual information that flies in the face of our country's foundation myths. They are among the challenges of our time and require an open mind to solve.
97
"All three (Trump, Cruz, Carson) regularly tell untruths..." you say. Why not just say they regularly lie instead, NYT? Does calling the ridiculous things they say "untruths" make them closer to the truth than if they were called out to be the lies they actually are?
85
The NYT and other publications have been doing this for years. I think its the lawyers advice to reduce liability. But really, it just makes this and all the other publications look weak and silly.
5
Say what you will Mr. Leonhardt, summon all the numbers and analysis you can, but in the first and final analysis this is entirely about race.
Republicans made a deal with the devil the day LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law, doubled down when he signed the 1965 Voting Rights Law and played the race card ever since.
They created an angry, white, aging, less and ill-educated constituency, told it to blame all its troubles, failures, worries and fears on "the other"-- on anyone who is not not white.
Then comes an African American president, a BLACK MAN in the WHITE HOUSE, and what do Republican professionals and politicians do? They tripple down; oppose him at every turn, make him object of all their hatred -- tell that self-isolating loathing all white, old/getting older left behind white constituency he is the worst president in history and that he is out to get them. They lie about him, about where he comes from, about his religion, about everything he does and says.
And then they try to find someone to run for president and discover that their angry, aging, frightened white constituency believes it all and hears only hate -- that it feeds on hate the way a howling wolf feeds on raw red meat.
So Trump or Cruz is now the fate of a Republican Party coming apart at the seams in an historic American political realignment. The Republican Party deserve to disappear and a plague on it for what is has done, become and where it can't be allowed to take us.
Republicans made a deal with the devil the day LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law, doubled down when he signed the 1965 Voting Rights Law and played the race card ever since.
They created an angry, white, aging, less and ill-educated constituency, told it to blame all its troubles, failures, worries and fears on "the other"-- on anyone who is not not white.
Then comes an African American president, a BLACK MAN in the WHITE HOUSE, and what do Republican professionals and politicians do? They tripple down; oppose him at every turn, make him object of all their hatred -- tell that self-isolating loathing all white, old/getting older left behind white constituency he is the worst president in history and that he is out to get them. They lie about him, about where he comes from, about his religion, about everything he does and says.
And then they try to find someone to run for president and discover that their angry, aging, frightened white constituency believes it all and hears only hate -- that it feeds on hate the way a howling wolf feeds on raw red meat.
So Trump or Cruz is now the fate of a Republican Party coming apart at the seams in an historic American political realignment. The Republican Party deserve to disappear and a plague on it for what is has done, become and where it can't be allowed to take us.
129
I always do a text search on these kind of articles to see if the text string "immigra" is include.
As usual ... no.
As usual ... no.
1
Looking at self-identifying "Republicans" or "Democrats" is more useful than looking at "voters," but it's not refined enough to increase our understanding of the political scene very much.
The single most important factor in understanding U.S. politics has never changed. It's the impact of slavery and its legacy, which can be seen in today's news that blacks intend to boycott the Oscar ceremony. Race is why the South has been Republican for 40 years. You could even say that the country has never recovered from the death of the man whose memory was honored yesterday.
The single most important factor in understanding U.S. politics has never changed. It's the impact of slavery and its legacy, which can be seen in today's news that blacks intend to boycott the Oscar ceremony. Race is why the South has been Republican for 40 years. You could even say that the country has never recovered from the death of the man whose memory was honored yesterday.
16
Insightful piece (and comments). I hope to read an equally thorough flip side analysis of why an anti-establishment Democrat has achieved such traction among disaffected party members. I suspect many Democrats share a "disenchantment" that is rooted in "economic" causes, but break with Republicans on the "cultural" dimensions of their frustration. It's this break that seems to map the unexpected and bizarre landscape of the 2016 race.
21
To be honest, it's not obvious, based on the charts included with the story, that republican dissatisfaction with the government is statistically significantly higher than it was during the Clinton administration. GOP dissatisfaction with a democratic president as compared to his Republican predecessor (or successor) is unsurprising and doesn't on its own explain the Rise of Trump.
3
The main reason for GOP dissatisfaction with establishment types is that with both houses of Congress, W had free reign to try all of the ideas that conservatives had been talking about for many years, and it turned out they mostly didn't work. The GOP needs to do something else, but the establishment has no new ideas.
Another reason is that the GOP and conservatives generally have cultivated and encouraged more extreme sections of the electorate in order to win support. Now the chickens are here to roost.
A third reason is that white racists are very concerned that Euro-Americans are genuinely losing privilege. They want to roll things back and assert white power, and they also simply want to punish the Dems for having placed an African-American in the WH who actually accomplished policy goals, and for threatening to place a very strong woman there.
A fourth reason, based on anecdotal evidence of my own conservative friends, is that many GOP voters do not expect to win in 2016, so many of them are willing to choose a "throwaway" candidate more reflective of what they would like to see in a society without liberals.
A fifth reason, which applies to both conservatives and libs, is that the economy is shifting fundamentally as automation and highly competent foreign competition make it increasingly difficult for many people to feel secure in a career, yet the government isn't really addressing these issues.
So fear, spite, and emotion have a lot to do with it.
Another reason is that the GOP and conservatives generally have cultivated and encouraged more extreme sections of the electorate in order to win support. Now the chickens are here to roost.
A third reason is that white racists are very concerned that Euro-Americans are genuinely losing privilege. They want to roll things back and assert white power, and they also simply want to punish the Dems for having placed an African-American in the WH who actually accomplished policy goals, and for threatening to place a very strong woman there.
A fourth reason, based on anecdotal evidence of my own conservative friends, is that many GOP voters do not expect to win in 2016, so many of them are willing to choose a "throwaway" candidate more reflective of what they would like to see in a society without liberals.
A fifth reason, which applies to both conservatives and libs, is that the economy is shifting fundamentally as automation and highly competent foreign competition make it increasingly difficult for many people to feel secure in a career, yet the government isn't really addressing these issues.
So fear, spite, and emotion have a lot to do with it.
66
Well said.
I am now reading the book,"America Ascendant," by pollster Stanley H. Greenberg, who claims that we are in an interregnum like the one described by the Italian political theorist Antonio Gramsci, when "the old is dying and the new cannot be bore," during which "a great variety of morbid symptoms appear."
Greenberg predicted that the Republicans, in appealing to their base in a time when their supporters are losing ground demographically to nonwhites, college-educated, secular urbanites, and Millennials, will become more and more radical and apocalyptic. This strategy gets their base excited but becomes a grave liability in presidential elections even as it works on the local and state levels and in low-turnout off-year elections.
Greenberg thought, before the 2016 campaign began, that the Republican party would end up in one of three ways: it will fracture, it will implode, or it will reform itself drastically. Perhaps it will take a third drubbing, worse than 2008 or 2012, for Republicans to change, just as the Democratic party moderated itself after three successive defeats in 1980, 1984, and worst of all, 1988.
We will all know a lot more by mid-November.
Greenberg predicted that the Republicans, in appealing to their base in a time when their supporters are losing ground demographically to nonwhites, college-educated, secular urbanites, and Millennials, will become more and more radical and apocalyptic. This strategy gets their base excited but becomes a grave liability in presidential elections even as it works on the local and state levels and in low-turnout off-year elections.
Greenberg thought, before the 2016 campaign began, that the Republican party would end up in one of three ways: it will fracture, it will implode, or it will reform itself drastically. Perhaps it will take a third drubbing, worse than 2008 or 2012, for Republicans to change, just as the Democratic party moderated itself after three successive defeats in 1980, 1984, and worst of all, 1988.
We will all know a lot more by mid-November.
47
Let's hope a third party emerges, based on progressive values. Because we already have two conservative ones now.
4
Excluding single issue voting blocks, such as the rabid NRA membership, it would be useful to know, as distinct from speculation, the grounds for the intense dissatisfaction amongst the remainder of the Republican electorate. For example, if it is largely economic, then the electorate might want to reconsider their allegiance to the political party most responsible for economic policies advertised as the solution to economic inequality, but which have had the opposite effect.
11
Your question has been raised by many, and all are befuddled . How could the Republicon media machine convince so many to vote against their best interests ?
6
".... it would be useful to know, as distinct from speculation, the grounds for the intense dissatisfaction amongst the remainder of the Republican electorate."
Fwiw, the answers I've gotten have been gibberish. I don't say that as a partisan, either. I hear recitations of nonsense promulgated by the GOP, by talk radio, and by rabid, far right columnists. there's simply no sense to it. How do you talk to people who believe the President is a Kenyan Marxist Muslim, that taxes are the highest they've ever been, and that Obamacare is a complete failure that is bankrupting the treasury?
What can possibly be the basis for discussion?
Fwiw, the answers I've gotten have been gibberish. I don't say that as a partisan, either. I hear recitations of nonsense promulgated by the GOP, by talk radio, and by rabid, far right columnists. there's simply no sense to it. How do you talk to people who believe the President is a Kenyan Marxist Muslim, that taxes are the highest they've ever been, and that Obamacare is a complete failure that is bankrupting the treasury?
What can possibly be the basis for discussion?
8
Fear is a powerful motivator. Folks are not doing well financially, though some of them thought they were until the G. Recession struck. Folks who had $500k or even $1 million in their 401(k) saw it fade away. Panicked, they likely pulled out of the market and put it in something "safe." Too scared to get back in the market they missed the subsequent surge. If they got back in at some point they bought high and are now in a panic again. Others have lost jobs as manufacturing jobs left (partly to automation; partly overseas) so the money is not as good. Their main asset, their house, is no longer worth what it was (if only on paper).
More and more they encounter folks in their towns whose customs, beliefs, and dress they do not understand. The small supermarket in downtown is now a supermercado; neighbors talk to each other in a foreign tongue. Some feel alienated in the place they have long called 'home.' Gays who used to have the decency to stay in the closet and out of sight now appear all lovey-dovey on TV or walk down the street shamelessly holding hands. The list goes on and on, but all this uncomfortable change along with the loss of money and status (there is pride in bringing home a good pay check and of being self sufficient) makes folks hopeless, sad, and angry. It is easy to blame the "most liberal president we have had," but then they can't understand why their GOP reps don't impeach him for his actions, if not for the situation of his birth.
More and more they encounter folks in their towns whose customs, beliefs, and dress they do not understand. The small supermarket in downtown is now a supermercado; neighbors talk to each other in a foreign tongue. Some feel alienated in the place they have long called 'home.' Gays who used to have the decency to stay in the closet and out of sight now appear all lovey-dovey on TV or walk down the street shamelessly holding hands. The list goes on and on, but all this uncomfortable change along with the loss of money and status (there is pride in bringing home a good pay check and of being self sufficient) makes folks hopeless, sad, and angry. It is easy to blame the "most liberal president we have had," but then they can't understand why their GOP reps don't impeach him for his actions, if not for the situation of his birth.
55
There is no sincerity by any of the Republican presidential candidates to address
income inequality beyond it value to con the electorate in hopes of getting elected. Their party has condsistently and reliably worked to increase income inequality under the false banner of "opportunity". They speak with forked tongue.
income inequality beyond it value to con the electorate in hopes of getting elected. Their party has condsistently and reliably worked to increase income inequality under the false banner of "opportunity". They speak with forked tongue.
19
@Anne-Marie Hislop. You have it right on target. The reality is that the combination of income inequality and fear of the "other" fueled by right-wing radio hosts has brought the older, poorer, less educated white Republicans to a boil. They can't reclaim the past and the future holds no hope but empty words. However, they will continue to vote against their best interests because they are fueled by all of the above.
19