You bet Trump is wrecking both parties. Both parties, that were alternating in promising change before elections, but governed similarly to the other party. This is true in Europe also, where established parties are challenged by populists. Populism is a direct result of failure of elitism. You heard it here first.
8
It seems he is definitely racking the Republican Party, which now has a white elephant in the room.
5
Anyone who thinks raising hundreds of millions of people out of poverty is abandoning social justice principles is thinking too small.
13
There are statistics and then there are damned statistics. It is all in the interpretation. The basic fact that the Royals have taken home all of the productivity gains in the past 30 plus years while the working middle class (the lower 99%) have taken it up the rear is the reason that there is no trust and therefore no allegiance to either party. The Royals have lied to Joe six pack and he was naive enough to believe them and now he his following the pied piper of hate to get back at them.
The Democrats abandoned Joe six pack with Bill's NAFTA and 'welfare' reform and now don't trust HRC.
It's a mess and there is no easy answer for the unthinking voter. The concern is that Joe six pack will once again vote against his own interests and the Orange One will wreak havoc in the world.
Vote in November.
The Democrats abandoned Joe six pack with Bill's NAFTA and 'welfare' reform and now don't trust HRC.
It's a mess and there is no easy answer for the unthinking voter. The concern is that Joe six pack will once again vote against his own interests and the Orange One will wreak havoc in the world.
Vote in November.
8
The left thinks that because we took down the Confederate flag we're not racist, while at the same time we're throwing the middle class (including and especially blacks) under the bus. We then hypocritically dismiss the anger of the middle class whites as racist, while denying that there is any anger (and hopelessness) in the black community over the loss of jobs.
12
everyone questions Mr. Trumps as he gets worse and worse. In my opinion he knows he will never win this election, thus he feels he will go out in a flame. IN addition he knows he will continue support from his party. He will not need to attend debates because it is an unfair system, and he will blame everyone other then himself.
9
Are "elites" "isolated" from the rest of America or integrated in "multicultural urban centers"? I'm confused.
6
We have two parties, both for the 1%.
10
Whatever happened to the 'agency' of the 'white working class'? Did not they form the core of the so-called 'Reagan Democrats'? Isn't it fair to say that particularly in Dixie this group continues to back the GOP, the trend in recent decades? Did the Democrats desert them by embracing desegregation? Or did they desert the Democrats, as Lyndon Johnson predicted precisely because of the embrace of desegregation (which the international climate compelled)? And, as for 'racial and ethnic minorities' and their alleged 'identity politics: do not these groups form the core of what is left of liberal leaning unions (the left was weakened during the Cold War: see the travails of Harry Bridges and Pacific Coast stevedores to cite one example amongst many): I think of e.g. Service Employees International Union; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, etc. Are they not in the forefront of the 'Fight for 15'--the battle to increase the minimum wage?
5
I do not think Trump has changed the current Democratic party. I think the Democrats are still somewhat in reactive mode, trying to determine how to respond to a candidate as obviously simplistic and mentally unbalanced as Mr. Trump.
I'm sure the following analysis (or something close) has been done: what percentage of Trump supporters also cite Fox "News" as their primary news source? I would posit that the correlation between the two is close to 100%.
I am all for the first amendment, but the segment of our population that believes the right-wing tripe on offer is why the Republican party is the train wreck it is today.
I'm sure the following analysis (or something close) has been done: what percentage of Trump supporters also cite Fox "News" as their primary news source? I would posit that the correlation between the two is close to 100%.
I am all for the first amendment, but the segment of our population that believes the right-wing tripe on offer is why the Republican party is the train wreck it is today.
8
Is Trump wrecking both parties? Ha! Trump is wrecking all that is decent, and good, and noble in this world.
8
Gee, did Trump wreck the Democrats in Kansas? I don't think so. And it didn't even take Trump to wreck the Republicans; it took only the application of the standard Republican fiscal policy (don't tax the rich; do cut services).
As a result, Kansas is hemorrhaging, with schools receiving too little money. You'll notice that by now, after Republicans have seen the actual Republican policy being applied, they don't like it and are starting to vote out Brownback's cronies.
As a result, Kansas is hemorrhaging, with schools receiving too little money. You'll notice that by now, after Republicans have seen the actual Republican policy being applied, they don't like it and are starting to vote out Brownback's cronies.
16
The article didn't go in the direction I expected. I expected it to point out that with the collapse of the Republican Party, there'd be no counterpoint, no push from the right. I expected it to point out that Hillary Clinton is likely to shift right in order to occupy part of the resulting vacuum. She figures she has votes from those on the left end of the spectrum locked up; and if by shifting right she picks up enough votes to get a landslide, she'll conclude that she has a mandate to do as she wishes. And she's center-right already.
7
I say let affluent Democrats become the New Republicans, instead of being Democrats in Name Only...and the Old Republicans can either move into the lunatic asylum, or start the "American Fascist Party!"
We don't need "New Democrats"--the old ones did just fine, representing the interests of the working people who built this Country. So give us our Party back!
Then we would have truth in labling, all around.
We don't need "New Democrats"--the old ones did just fine, representing the interests of the working people who built this Country. So give us our Party back!
Then we would have truth in labling, all around.
6
The only party Trump has really wrecked is himself. The more desperate he becomes, the more deranged he sounds. The man needs to be committed.
4
The people gave up on trying to achieve economic justice and fought for more limited types of justice. Victories were achieved. But, as FDR said, without economic justice there can be no real justice.
5
Sometimes I wonder if many people who are die-hard partisan support and vote only for their party for the sake of their party and would do so even if the devil himself was running. Hmmm, maybe Trumpty Dumpty and Madame Hillary are devils???
1
He may be paying some of those plants in the crowds. There isn't a whole lot to explain his support other than they are they walking mindless dead, or relatives, or paid trumpeters.
2
Is Edsall Wrecking the Party? Sure, as usual.
3
It is unsettling to see in the faces of a crowd of Trump admirers the hope/belief that this person can lead the peoples from Egypt. At least, it cannot all be caused by the vicarious thrill of seeing all the powers that be being roundly criticized.
Or can it?
Or can it?
3
180 degrees backwards.
Both parties are wrecking America and Trump is one outcome of their outrageous wreckage. Unless America stops denying the dysfunctional mayhem inflicted by the AWOL duopoly running it, Trump won't be the last or worst such disaster.
Both parties are wrecking America and Trump is one outcome of their outrageous wreckage. Unless America stops denying the dysfunctional mayhem inflicted by the AWOL duopoly running it, Trump won't be the last or worst such disaster.
3
The GOP with the aid of Trump has dug its own hole and the ones that continue to dig that hole deeper are the hard core NRA subscribers, religious zealots and white nationalists aka KKK.
4
I've never seen a bigger bit of political hogwash than this bid of mumbo jumbo from Mr. Edsall. The facts couldn't be clearer. The Democrats have incorporated the meaningful populism of Bernie Sanders into their platform. The Republicans are in total disarray and Donald Trump is their candidate.
7
Yes Trump is and deservedly so.. BOTH are corrupt and both prey on the middle class to compensate for tax cuts on the wealthy andsubsidies for the poor. It doesn't matter which is which and who is who- It's a rigged game all the way around.
6
They are already wrecked! The Republicans had an open call and wound up with D.Trump, who has recently behaved strangely. The Democrats, not to be outdone, reached into the time machine and came up with the distaff side of Hill and Bill. So now it's the not so gay nineties versus a newer face, albeit one who seems intent on sabotaging his own campaign. You can't get much more wrecked then with this combination! Pity the poor country!
3
Yes, Trump is wrecking the Democratic party all the way to double digit leads in the polls. Soon he will wreck the Democrats into a landslide victory in the fall, and soon thereafter, Democrats will control the Supreme Court. Most likely, they will also have been wrecked into control of the Senate. Here's hoping the Democrats get wrecked like this every election year. Oh, and Mr. Edsall, that would be an elephant right there hanging out in your living room. Miss it?
5
Trump may not win this election but both partys need to clean up their acts in the immediate future. The next Trump or Bernie will win.
4
The glaring misfire in these analyses is the that the immigration issue is just some sort of right wing vote getting scam.
In fact, immigration is precisely the *main* driver of economic insecurity for working and middle classes. Wages were higher in America because its population was smart with more available land\resources per worker. In the post-war era, under the low immigration regime, this produced the first true mass prosperity society, where even the working man lived well.
But when you expose Americans to the world labor market with mass immigration … this working class prosperity evaporates. Mass immigration delivers cheap maids, gardeners and nannies, to the Wall-Street\Washington rent-seekers. They pat themselves on their backs on their "tolerance", while Rosa takes care of the kids and washes the dishes. But for Americans on the left half of the bell curve, mass immigration just means wage suppression\unemployment. Sectors—ex. construction—which used to employ lots of “non-bookish” men have been turned over to foreigners. Serious analyses show immigration has zero economic benefit to Americans--the returns go to immigrants themselves. But for Americans immigration benefits the rich with cheaper labor and services, but suppresses the wages the working class. Harvard's George Borjas estimates that 50% of the rise in income inequality in the last 50 years is solely due to immigration, dwarfing any technological or regulatory factor.
In fact, immigration is precisely the *main* driver of economic insecurity for working and middle classes. Wages were higher in America because its population was smart with more available land\resources per worker. In the post-war era, under the low immigration regime, this produced the first true mass prosperity society, where even the working man lived well.
But when you expose Americans to the world labor market with mass immigration … this working class prosperity evaporates. Mass immigration delivers cheap maids, gardeners and nannies, to the Wall-Street\Washington rent-seekers. They pat themselves on their backs on their "tolerance", while Rosa takes care of the kids and washes the dishes. But for Americans on the left half of the bell curve, mass immigration just means wage suppression\unemployment. Sectors—ex. construction—which used to employ lots of “non-bookish” men have been turned over to foreigners. Serious analyses show immigration has zero economic benefit to Americans--the returns go to immigrants themselves. But for Americans immigration benefits the rich with cheaper labor and services, but suppresses the wages the working class. Harvard's George Borjas estimates that 50% of the rise in income inequality in the last 50 years is solely due to immigration, dwarfing any technological or regulatory factor.
16
Welcome to The Land of the Free* and the home of the Knave.**
* This approach is currently not functioning properly. For assistance, please contact the head knave**.
**The Donald is coming his hair. Please do not disturb.
* This approach is currently not functioning properly. For assistance, please contact the head knave**.
**The Donald is coming his hair. Please do not disturb.
1
The irony is that what's happening inside the major corporate parties is of far less importance to the future of electoral politics than what is happening outside the electoral arena. By paying undue attention only to the appeal of right-wing populism the mainstream media ignores the long-term effects of Occupy, the rank and file insurgency in the Chicago Teachers Union, the Fight for 15$ and most importantly Black Lives Matter. These explosions from below have created the conditions for new left-wing mass movements among young people of all races and income levels, and the continuation of neoliberal economic policies by both Democrats and Republicans will only drive these movements forward and increase their appeal among working class people. Pressure is coming from the left and from below, the policies of the corporate parties will have the unintended effect of increasing this pressure and it will ultimately reshape the electoral arena in unpredictable ways.
5
The Democratic establishment is overwhelmingly white, educated, socially liberal and economically conservative. They advocate economic help for the poor if the poor are minorities. For example, you don't find Democrats directing their message of help to the poor in Appalachia.
In the first Democratic debate, then candidate Jim Webb said that he was against affirmative action if it was race based, because his constituents in West Va. were poor and white. He was laughed at by the Democratic voters and pundits.
This is arrogance at its most painful. The Democratic Party panders to minorities, uses them as weapons to drive understandably angry white working class voters into the arms of the GOP. Then the Democrats accuse those whites of being racist, because they don't approve of poverty programs that appear to help minorities at the working class whites expense.
I say appear, because the media is an active player in this game. The face of poverty in the media is non-white. This serves to create anger, envy and so on. When was the last time you heard the news media try to report on social class issues without bringing race and ethnicity into the picture?
This election is different. Trump is not a true Republican. He's more of a George McGovern for reality TV. Hillary is the actual Republican in this race. We now have 2 Republican Parties in America, and no Democratic Party left.
In the first Democratic debate, then candidate Jim Webb said that he was against affirmative action if it was race based, because his constituents in West Va. were poor and white. He was laughed at by the Democratic voters and pundits.
This is arrogance at its most painful. The Democratic Party panders to minorities, uses them as weapons to drive understandably angry white working class voters into the arms of the GOP. Then the Democrats accuse those whites of being racist, because they don't approve of poverty programs that appear to help minorities at the working class whites expense.
I say appear, because the media is an active player in this game. The face of poverty in the media is non-white. This serves to create anger, envy and so on. When was the last time you heard the news media try to report on social class issues without bringing race and ethnicity into the picture?
This election is different. Trump is not a true Republican. He's more of a George McGovern for reality TV. Hillary is the actual Republican in this race. We now have 2 Republican Parties in America, and no Democratic Party left.
11
Excellent analysis. But I believe that the left is also racist because the off shoring of our jobs, and the undercutting of our wages by illegal labor, impacts the black middle class even more severely than the white middle class.
6
Freudian slip on my part. I meant to call Trump a George Wallace for reality TV. My apologies to George McGovern and his family.
5
The elites bribe the "minorities" with bread and circuses while maintaining themselves in posh enclaves. The poor have an illusion of entitlement while they are consigned to no social mobility by enablers that disincentivize earning and laud socially destructive behavior. The middle class is taxed to pay the poor and cheated by the top 1% by a rigged system. To add insult to injury, the upper .1% pay little or no taxes while aligning politically with the bottom 5%. Clinton the Billion dollar super-Pac woman and Trump the nickle Billionaire only represent their own interests.
4
In the race to understand the present ideological coalitions "as they are," we may be missing the boat.
These coalitions exist for no good reason, and are destined to collapse under the weight of their own incoherence.
Do you really think that in one hundred years people will still associate being anti-environment with being anti-abortion or pro-gun or heteronormative? These positions have nothing to do with each other!
And the same goes for the ungainly sum of their opposites, which is called Liberalism.
If these free-association-based ideological clusterings hold up for more than another five years, it will be by sheer force of brainwashing. No sane person could find a sensible intellectual construct in either camp.
These coalitions exist for no good reason, and are destined to collapse under the weight of their own incoherence.
Do you really think that in one hundred years people will still associate being anti-environment with being anti-abortion or pro-gun or heteronormative? These positions have nothing to do with each other!
And the same goes for the ungainly sum of their opposites, which is called Liberalism.
If these free-association-based ideological clusterings hold up for more than another five years, it will be by sheer force of brainwashing. No sane person could find a sensible intellectual construct in either camp.
2
Regardless whether Donald Trump wins or loses (more likely) the election, he already has impacted the dynamics of presidential elections in two areas.
First, how candidates behave in relation to opponents during public debates; the gentleman's polite treatment of the past is over.
Second, debates will be focused on issues that really matters to voters. Right now how to stop the middle-class social income decline.
First, how candidates behave in relation to opponents during public debates; the gentleman's polite treatment of the past is over.
Second, debates will be focused on issues that really matters to voters. Right now how to stop the middle-class social income decline.
2
It's a very good sign for the country that education pays off - those with college degrees recognize the stunning danger and incompetence of a Trump presidency. And even among those without a college degree, Trump is trailing. A Democratic coalition that includes ethnic and racial minorities isn't likely to forget those without a degree.
And it's the GOP that has played the lower earners for fools since Reagan, while it's Democrats who resist Ryan and the GOP's "magic asterisk" plans to save Social Security - there's just no substance to the man nor his party and that's been true for decades. Trump has cleverly played to the anger of those left behind and now it's up to Democrats to show those voters where that anger should be directed.
Governing a diverse and divided nation will certainly be hard - nativism and racism will always be with us - but as Skocpol says, the idea that the GOP is better prepared to deal with those who are struggling economically is absurd on its face.
And it's the GOP that has played the lower earners for fools since Reagan, while it's Democrats who resist Ryan and the GOP's "magic asterisk" plans to save Social Security - there's just no substance to the man nor his party and that's been true for decades. Trump has cleverly played to the anger of those left behind and now it's up to Democrats to show those voters where that anger should be directed.
Governing a diverse and divided nation will certainly be hard - nativism and racism will always be with us - but as Skocpol says, the idea that the GOP is better prepared to deal with those who are struggling economically is absurd on its face.
2
If ever-increasing numbers of minorities are flocking into the Democratic Party, how can it be becoming the party of the white "elite"? The Hispanic population alone will become a--if not the--major force in the Democratic Party. Are we supposed to believe they are all suddenly affluent liberals with no concern for the poor? Immigration reform has now all but moved entirely into the Democratic Party: that's not an issue for the wealthy elite.
2
Wow. In all the slicing and dicing of the electorate in this article, Mr. Edsall gives hardly a thought to women and their voting patterns. Race and class are analyzed, but he assumes men as the representatives of their respective social classes, despite the fact that women now constitute half or more of U.S. voters and don't march in lockstep with male peers of their own class (or race--this seemingly being especially true among whites). In disregarding so blithely the gendered aspect of voting trends (or dismissively inferring that they are covered by the catch-all "identity politics," itself a derisive term), Mr. Edsall is ignoring an important part of the picture.
This almost sounds like it could have been written by a curmudgeon in the 1960s, when good lefties (and those on the right for different reasons) still assumed the primacy of class and didn't take gender seriously as an influence on political behavior or voting patterns. Think again, Mr. Edsall!
This almost sounds like it could have been written by a curmudgeon in the 1960s, when good lefties (and those on the right for different reasons) still assumed the primacy of class and didn't take gender seriously as an influence on political behavior or voting patterns. Think again, Mr. Edsall!
8
Well you just proved the identity politics part. Congrats. But I don't see where men are focused on as opposed to women. And what about trans people? And intersection people? They didn't get mentioned! Or gay people! Or....
4
The well-to-do who wish to protect their enclaves belong with the Republicans, since the Republicans have perfected this strategy by demonizing the Democrats. Slick Willie trumped his ongoing demonization by triangulation; Obama was unable to do the same thanks to Republican intransigence. He offered them nationwide Romneycare and they declared absolute war on it. If Clinton had attempted to govern as a liberal, Newt would have crushed him.
Many well-to-do want not only to protect their enclave but also protect the ability of others to do what they or their parents did and join the enclave while drastically expanding it. Present structures of our economy and society make this difficult, and most people know this, which gives both Sanders and Trump much of their appeal.
Most Trump supporters feel that both parties and all of mainstream society are constantly producing hokum (to use a polite word) to hide what is really going on. Even campaigns against hokum are, correctly, seen as hokum. Trump has a proven record of cutting through political hokum, and seeing someone cut through hokum the way he does makes many of us cheer.
Sanders is more able than anyone else to communicate with these people, since he relates his hokum directly to problems they know they have by connecting their problems to growing income inequality and where the fruits of the country's labor have been going. Hillary needs to adopt some of this rhetoric.
Many well-to-do want not only to protect their enclave but also protect the ability of others to do what they or their parents did and join the enclave while drastically expanding it. Present structures of our economy and society make this difficult, and most people know this, which gives both Sanders and Trump much of their appeal.
Most Trump supporters feel that both parties and all of mainstream society are constantly producing hokum (to use a polite word) to hide what is really going on. Even campaigns against hokum are, correctly, seen as hokum. Trump has a proven record of cutting through political hokum, and seeing someone cut through hokum the way he does makes many of us cheer.
Sanders is more able than anyone else to communicate with these people, since he relates his hokum directly to problems they know they have by connecting their problems to growing income inequality and where the fruits of the country's labor have been going. Hillary needs to adopt some of this rhetoric.
1
This essay is correct regarding the transition of the GOP from the upper middle class, socially moderate party of the 1960's to its present status as semi-fascist, bigoted, ultra-fundamentalist-religious, nutty party favored by the uneducated and prejudiced old White men.
But, this essay is mistaken regarding the current trends of the Democratic Party.
In the period of 1948-1980, the Democratic Party became more progressive by abandoning its traditional bigoted, ultra-fundamentalist-religious, White nuts, and happily allowing the GOP to become the party of ignorance and bigotry.
I agree that the Bill and Hillary Clinton are the equivalent of 1960's center-right Rockefeller Republicans, but at best they represent the national Democratic Party machine being taken over by the wealthy prior to 2008.
Barack Obama has been more progressive than the Clintons, and can best be described as center or center-left. While more progressive than the Clintons, Obama is more conservative than all the Presidents from FDR thru Nixon.
But the Democratic voters are currently far more progressive than Obama or the Clintons. Certainly, the Democratic voters elected Obama expecting him to be much more progressive than he has been.
In 2015-16, many Democratic voters demonstrated their great progressiveness by supporting Bernie Sanders. Bernie would have been nominated and elected by a large margin, except for the Party machine being run by the Clintons and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
But, this essay is mistaken regarding the current trends of the Democratic Party.
In the period of 1948-1980, the Democratic Party became more progressive by abandoning its traditional bigoted, ultra-fundamentalist-religious, White nuts, and happily allowing the GOP to become the party of ignorance and bigotry.
I agree that the Bill and Hillary Clinton are the equivalent of 1960's center-right Rockefeller Republicans, but at best they represent the national Democratic Party machine being taken over by the wealthy prior to 2008.
Barack Obama has been more progressive than the Clintons, and can best be described as center or center-left. While more progressive than the Clintons, Obama is more conservative than all the Presidents from FDR thru Nixon.
But the Democratic voters are currently far more progressive than Obama or the Clintons. Certainly, the Democratic voters elected Obama expecting him to be much more progressive than he has been.
In 2015-16, many Democratic voters demonstrated their great progressiveness by supporting Bernie Sanders. Bernie would have been nominated and elected by a large margin, except for the Party machine being run by the Clintons and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
5
When I point out a possible Clinton v.2 transgression, if I am spot on and worthy of being read I am accused of parroting my fellow Republican Party minions. My family were tradespeople, registered Dems down the line. Cried like mad over Kennedy and spent 40 years cursing everyone else who said they were the new Dem. We say 'supper', not dinner. Only one is educated per family. I refuse to admit if that was me. If we have work, we're too tired and beaten by concrete and planks to spell out how we know something is wrong. He will lose, we will lose worse and I am recently unaffiliated, beginning a new tradition.
1
I would like to see evidence that the upper middle class voters that are supporting HRC are actively against the needs of the working class. These voters split more strongly for Bernie Sanders than HRC.
These article is undocumented and shoddy, featuring speculative quotes but not substantiation.
These article is undocumented and shoddy, featuring speculative quotes but not substantiation.
12
Hillary has supported the TPP in spite of her recent denial. That will take away more middle class jobs. She has aligned herself with Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, Chevron. She supported the Iraq war, which predictably has become a never ending black hole on our finances. And I believe that her globalization efforts, which don't affect just middle class whites, are racist of the most pervasive nature, because the black middle class is even more fragile that the white.
4
This is missing a key point. As the GOP elite went with the Chamber of Commerce and Democrats embraced war and austerity that left huge parts of each party feeling unrepresented, without a voice. News outlets did not help. The 4th estate should be a voice for the voiceless but it has been increasingly targeted at its already well represented current audience which leaves everyone else feeling ignored. That’s the reason Trump’s line "I am your voice" resonated so well and why Sanders delegates taped their mouths closed and wrote “Silenced” on the tape at the DNC. Alternative Media served as vent but it isn’t sufficient because that is talking amongst peers. The troubling part about not being represented is the mainstream is the faux claims of media outlets to be impartial; the display of a ‘multitude’ of opinions that are all essentially the same leaves unrepresented people feeling like they don’t have an advocate. Democracy that leave citizens feeling like their issues don’t matter don’t work. Whoever decided that they could divine what voters want from polls was very mistaken.
It isn’t just the elections either. Voters have been saying in every way they know how that the economy isn’t doing what it’s supposed to. Since the 80’s households have been paying for the nation’s growth with credit cards while the 1% pocket the rest. They maxed out and there needs to be a major debt cancellation to get things growing equitably again like they were in the 60’s.
It isn’t just the elections either. Voters have been saying in every way they know how that the economy isn’t doing what it’s supposed to. Since the 80’s households have been paying for the nation’s growth with credit cards while the 1% pocket the rest. They maxed out and there needs to be a major debt cancellation to get things growing equitably again like they were in the 60’s.
1
Both political parties are in a mess an hanging on to old ideologies . What is needed is a vigorous campaign to convince the public that taxes and government are not evil forces. We need to arrive at a point where it is possible to be elected on a platform of increased taxes and a greater role for government. No, that does not mean socialism or lack of private investments to stimulate ecnomic growth. It simply allows an intelligent approach to governing the country .
6
What would be wrong with taking a sledgehammer to both parties? Do either actually represent or for that matter even raise a voice on behalf of the majority of our citizens?
Trump has, as often noted, clearly struck a chord with people who are justifiably angry with the loss of decent paying jobs, homes and educational opportunities due almost entirely to the transfer of wealth which has increasingly accelerated since the middle of the last century. That he appears to spend his own money rather than taking that of others only adds to his appeal
Even the appearance of having gamed the system only adds to the common acceptance of his success. Hard work which used to be the yardstick of upward mobility is seen as a sucker's game by those who have lost good jobs to the greed of off shoring.
People of wealth control our elections through a system which is increasingly tempered by laws allowing almost limitless campaign "donations" and insidious gerrymandering.
His followers are angry, overwhelmingly white, know that politicians do not listen to them and have been seething for some time. He is not by any means the average candidate and neither was Huey Long.
The chickens are coming home to roost and he is crowing the loudest
Trump has, as often noted, clearly struck a chord with people who are justifiably angry with the loss of decent paying jobs, homes and educational opportunities due almost entirely to the transfer of wealth which has increasingly accelerated since the middle of the last century. That he appears to spend his own money rather than taking that of others only adds to his appeal
Even the appearance of having gamed the system only adds to the common acceptance of his success. Hard work which used to be the yardstick of upward mobility is seen as a sucker's game by those who have lost good jobs to the greed of off shoring.
People of wealth control our elections through a system which is increasingly tempered by laws allowing almost limitless campaign "donations" and insidious gerrymandering.
His followers are angry, overwhelmingly white, know that politicians do not listen to them and have been seething for some time. He is not by any means the average candidate and neither was Huey Long.
The chickens are coming home to roost and he is crowing the loudest
8
Mr. Edsall asks: Has Trump wrecked both parties? Nope. I would like to say he's the final nail in the republican coffin but he has not. Democrats, relegated to being the only party interested in the professional aspects of government, have abandoned their mission in our dichotomous system but Bernie Sanders pulled them back and millennials will demand that it resume it's progressive purpose.
2
Nonsense. When Trump and his machinations are crushed in November, both parties will look back at his run and make viceral decisions to never, ever allow his turning the election into a plaything that doesn't just affect their party structure but also the direction of government and the country. Give the vast bulk of politicians credit for not buying into just his methods but instead his theory of the United States. Sometimes it takes the worst example of something to bring out the best. Every action brings on an opposite and equal reaction. Believe me, we are living throug the worst.
4
First you bully everyone with "trickledown", "supply side", obstruction from day one, defeats in midterms, and all the tactics perfected by Rove and the Koch billionaire network, and refuse to negotiate. You get control of the Supreme Court and OK an attack movie on Hillary, hence CItizens United, and make it her fault. The goalposts move ever rightward, and the right is never satisfied. Now these right-leaning power brokers are moving into universities and have a few reporters even here at the supposedly liberal bastion of the New York Times.
Then you turn around and blame the victims for making accommodations with the bullies in order to get what little they can do for the rest of us done.
Yeah, it's democrats fault. Not.
Then you turn around and blame the victims for making accommodations with the bullies in order to get what little they can do for the rest of us done.
Yeah, it's democrats fault. Not.
15
To the people who support what the Kochs are doing, don't bother. Their work to dismantle democracy, pollute and profit, deregulate, and poison both the public conversation and our environment, reaches beyond what is acceptable in a civilized community that works for all, not just owners and the powerful.
If you don't want to buy her book, try a simple search on what they've been up to. Here's one: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations
There's lots more, including their attempts to discredit her, along with any other opponent that prevents them from getting their way. https://www.google.com/search?q=new+yorker+jane+mayer+koch
There will be people claiming we don't dare continue to mention who is destroying our country, but good people will not allow themselves to be bullied by claims that mentioning the Kochs is disqualifying. Bull-oney.
If you don't want to buy her book, try a simple search on what they've been up to. Here's one: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations
There's lots more, including their attempts to discredit her, along with any other opponent that prevents them from getting their way. https://www.google.com/search?q=new+yorker+jane+mayer+koch
There will be people claiming we don't dare continue to mention who is destroying our country, but good people will not allow themselves to be bullied by claims that mentioning the Kochs is disqualifying. Bull-oney.
8
Not true, it was Reagan who took the Dems to the cleaners. If not for Bill and his centrist policies to get back the moderates Democtrats won't have benn in the White House for another decade or so.
Al Gore should have been the President in 2000 if not for Nader, if not for Bill's moral weakness, if not for Gore's foolishness to not ask Bill to campaign for him, and the American prosperity would have continued without the trillion dollar war and tax cuts for the wealthiest. In that alternate universe the 2009 recession might not have happened.
And here we are much behind the curve with high income inequality even though the recession is over.
So yes, Trump is wrecking his party but transition for the Democrats started much earlier!
Al Gore should have been the President in 2000 if not for Nader, if not for Bill's moral weakness, if not for Gore's foolishness to not ask Bill to campaign for him, and the American prosperity would have continued without the trillion dollar war and tax cuts for the wealthiest. In that alternate universe the 2009 recession might not have happened.
And here we are much behind the curve with high income inequality even though the recession is over.
So yes, Trump is wrecking his party but transition for the Democrats started much earlier!
6
I concede that I could not read this article in it's entirety. The Talking Heads continue to kill the truth with the death of a thousand razor cuts. As the economic power of the few has grown exponentially with no regard for the consequences of their actions, a propaganda machine the likes of which this world has never seen before has been created. People the world over are buying into this propaganda because it is absolutely so effective that very few people can resist it. Life is the actions you take in the moments you live in. Words are nothing but waves of air pressure or dots of color on a piece of paper or a screen, their meaning only what you bring to it. It is the individual that decides to live concerned only for itself or inclusive of the conditions of others. How ever, it seems to me that the most strident Republican supporters are either very nearly inarticulate, or obviously a piece of the propaganda machinery. Not to say that the Democrats don't have their own propagandist. But it does seem that those able to resist the propaganda and have an ability for reflective thought are far more articulate than those that have succumbed to the propaganda. Just my opinion.
8
This analysis, while interesting, is at least 1-2 years premature. It would be far less speculative about future trends with Trump largely out of the picture. How much has Trump distorted this election and influenced the trends described by Edsall and those he quotes? Or, is he merely a cruder, more exaggerated representative of the GOP than the 16 primary opponents he vanquished? How will the GOP respond in the aftermath of the 2016 election? Will it take meaningful steps to shed its narrow "anti-" agenda, e.g., implementing the more reasonable recommendations of the 2012 "autopsy"? Will Clinton and a potential Democratic-controlled Senate--and even House Democrats--have learned anything from this election that will positively influence the future of the Democratic Party and the constituencies to which it appeals?
A retrospective assessment will tell a lot more than this largely prospective analysis. But, then, such an attitude might result in dislodging numerous political prophets, pundits and would-be academic influencers.
A retrospective assessment will tell a lot more than this largely prospective analysis. But, then, such an attitude might result in dislodging numerous political prophets, pundits and would-be academic influencers.
5
wishful thinking - President Obama has had his fingers in the dam against the malignancy and degeneracy of a republican party that explicitly stated that their ONLY agenda was to make him a one term president - the republican party is indeed teetering on the edge of the abyss - and I hope they go over including the house and senate. I am taking HRC at her word (not accounting for obstruction by a republican congress) to raise the minimum wage - have the rich pay their fare share of taxes (percentage wise) expand medicare and social security - and invest heavily in infrastructure - and immigration reform. If not then the Democrats will get their just deserts.
6
Though I respect Edsall greatly, he gets a number of things wrong here:
1. Dems - " the Democratic Party faces the prospect of becoming the party of the winners". How can this be right when the income quintile which most favors Dems (42%) is still the bottom 20%.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affiliation-and-c...
2. Rodrick - "They abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central tenets." This criticism seems far more directed at Bill Clinton rather than Hillary today who has shifted sharply left.
The GOP has always been an amalgamation of different groups including the upper income Bush's (lower taxes, reduce regulation) and the middle income Huckabees (focused on social issues like guns and religion). If you put aside Trump's bluster, the difference here is simply one of accentuating the middle income Republicans due to the Dems largely discarding them and the urban rich trending towards the Dems. As a consequence, you see a greater emphasis on middle class economic and social issues (maintain entitlements, reduce immigration and trade).
"The significance of the Trump campaign may well prove to be the changes he has wrought in the Democratic Party." Dems claim that they want to emulate Europe but that involves everyone (including the poor) paying high taxes. Instead, Dems just want to stick the rich with the bill. But as Thatcher said, at some point you run out of spending other people's money.
1. Dems - " the Democratic Party faces the prospect of becoming the party of the winners". How can this be right when the income quintile which most favors Dems (42%) is still the bottom 20%.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affiliation-and-c...
2. Rodrick - "They abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central tenets." This criticism seems far more directed at Bill Clinton rather than Hillary today who has shifted sharply left.
The GOP has always been an amalgamation of different groups including the upper income Bush's (lower taxes, reduce regulation) and the middle income Huckabees (focused on social issues like guns and religion). If you put aside Trump's bluster, the difference here is simply one of accentuating the middle income Republicans due to the Dems largely discarding them and the urban rich trending towards the Dems. As a consequence, you see a greater emphasis on middle class economic and social issues (maintain entitlements, reduce immigration and trade).
"The significance of the Trump campaign may well prove to be the changes he has wrought in the Democratic Party." Dems claim that they want to emulate Europe but that involves everyone (including the poor) paying high taxes. Instead, Dems just want to stick the rich with the bill. But as Thatcher said, at some point you run out of spending other people's money.
Much of Mr. Edsall's analysis is correct, except for the fact that he incorrectly uses the terms "liberalism" or "the Left" when want he is really talking about is "the Democratic Party". The problem is not that "liberals" have changed, the problem is that since 1992, the Democratic Party establishment has rejected liberalism in favor of corporate "centrism". Liberals are still very much out here- witness the 40% of the Democratic voters who chose Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. But they have been stamped down and drowned out by the establishment (as represented by the Clintons and Obama). It is these corporatists who have elevated identity politics over liberalism, because it costs them nothing. Their policies still result in massive upward wealth redistribution, but they make a big show of ensuring that minority out groups get an equal share of the crumbs that fall off their table. While doing absolutely nothing to give those groups a chance to actually get ahead.
The main effect that Trump has had on the Democratic Party is to save the establishment's bacon in a year that otherwise would likely have seen a full scale revolt by the liberals in the Party. For a long time there has been some half-joking speculation that Trump was really only running in order to be a stalking horse to force voters to flee to Clinton. While I'm pretty sure that is not true, the fact is that he couldn't be doing a better job of it if that really were his intention.
The main effect that Trump has had on the Democratic Party is to save the establishment's bacon in a year that otherwise would likely have seen a full scale revolt by the liberals in the Party. For a long time there has been some half-joking speculation that Trump was really only running in order to be a stalking horse to force voters to flee to Clinton. While I'm pretty sure that is not true, the fact is that he couldn't be doing a better job of it if that really were his intention.
12
After reading Mr. Edsall's piece, it appears that Bill Clinton is the person who is most responsible for damaging the Democratic party with his strategy of triangulation, where he adopted policies that appealed to members of the Republican base, but hurt much of the Democratic base, including the members of the white working class now supporting Mr. Trump. Mr. Clinton's policies may be Hillary Clinton's largest obstacle to the White House.
8
I'm enjoying watching the Democrats continuing to dig grave for themselves. The Republicans did it to their own party several years ago, and they're done. Now it's time for the Dems to die for their crimes against the people, especially the crimes they've committed against minorities.
5
Trump is wrecking both parties. And they deserve to be wrecked.
11
Trump broke the Republican Party, yes. But Clinton and neoliberalism are breaking the Democratic Party. And this is coming from a college-educated, 100,000 household. And a writer/activist.
11
Mr. Trump's legitimate position is that careless trade and careless immigration policies have hurt the American working class of all backgrounds, and that the
white working class has recognized this, whereas those from minority
backgrounds have chosen other electoral priorities, so that they are more resistant to Mr. Trump's appeal.
It won't be very hard to modify our trade arrangements , but the immigration toothpaste is out of the tube, the Democrats want the votes, and business
wants the cheap labor, so there isn't much that can be done about it, except to out vote Mr. Trump's constituents.
white working class has recognized this, whereas those from minority
backgrounds have chosen other electoral priorities, so that they are more resistant to Mr. Trump's appeal.
It won't be very hard to modify our trade arrangements , but the immigration toothpaste is out of the tube, the Democrats want the votes, and business
wants the cheap labor, so there isn't much that can be done about it, except to out vote Mr. Trump's constituents.
1
The need to continuously solicit enormous amounts of money from wealthy donors has already wrecked both parties. Neither party can afford to represent the interests of the majority of Americans who can't write large checks.
The differences between the two parties may have more to do with the identity of their donors than with traditional values and constituencies. Republicans represent large corporations and Global Capitalism with economic policies that promote income inequality and the zero-sum accumulation of wealth by the wealthy. (They created the "trickle-down" myth to persuade voters to vote consistently against their own interests.)
Democrats also (necessarily) represent corporations and Global Capitalism. But their policies are tempered by other donors, including what's left of labor unions and industries (entertainment, technology) that have liberal beliefs. Those interests happen to coincide slightly more with those of ordinary voters, but not by much.
Voters now appear to have awakened to the reality that neither party represents them, nor has any interest in changing a system that enriches donors while leaving everyone else behind. The awakening has taken party elites by surprise. It let the opportunistic demagogue Trump step into Republican confusion, and gave Clinton unexpected opposition in what was supposed to be a smooth cruise to coronation. Even if Clinton wins, the awakened frustrated non-donor majority will continue to surprise elites and donors.
The differences between the two parties may have more to do with the identity of their donors than with traditional values and constituencies. Republicans represent large corporations and Global Capitalism with economic policies that promote income inequality and the zero-sum accumulation of wealth by the wealthy. (They created the "trickle-down" myth to persuade voters to vote consistently against their own interests.)
Democrats also (necessarily) represent corporations and Global Capitalism. But their policies are tempered by other donors, including what's left of labor unions and industries (entertainment, technology) that have liberal beliefs. Those interests happen to coincide slightly more with those of ordinary voters, but not by much.
Voters now appear to have awakened to the reality that neither party represents them, nor has any interest in changing a system that enriches donors while leaving everyone else behind. The awakening has taken party elites by surprise. It let the opportunistic demagogue Trump step into Republican confusion, and gave Clinton unexpected opposition in what was supposed to be a smooth cruise to coronation. Even if Clinton wins, the awakened frustrated non-donor majority will continue to surprise elites and donors.
49
bravo
Global Capitalism is not leaving planet Earth. It is here to stay. What's anybody going to do about that?
This is a terrific column. i knew that Trump has destroyed the Republican Party but it hadn't occurred to me that he has also destroyed the Democrat Party. Even if we prefer the new groups controlling each party to the old established groups, the fact is that the demographics have been changed, possibly irreversibly. and we have to give credit and/or blame to Bernie as well. Both parties have been taken over by outsiders. This is in part, due to the candidates themselves but it also reflects a general deep dissatisfaction by people with the politicians in both parties who have lied to and misled them, making promises and not keeping them.
4
"Both parties have been taken over by outsiders. This is in part, due to the candidates themselves but it also reflects a general deep dissatisfaction by people with the politicians in both parties who have lied to and misled them, making promises and not keeping them."
Then Richard, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that both parties destroyed, or at least seriously wounded, themselves by not living up to their promises and professed principles.
Then Richard, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that both parties destroyed, or at least seriously wounded, themselves by not living up to their promises and professed principles.
5
you are absolutely correct.
First Trump threatened the ‘Mexicans’, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a ‘Mexican’.
Then Trump threatened Women, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Woman.
Then Trump threatened the Muslims, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Muslim.
Then Trump threatened me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Because I was not a ‘Mexican’.
Then Trump threatened Women, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Woman.
Then Trump threatened the Muslims, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Muslim.
Then Trump threatened me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
12
Interesting analysis, but fundamentally off I think. It leaves out too much party history and regional culture.
In the Midwest, the birthplace of the GOP - the party of small landholders - there's still a legacy of self sufficiency. Expertise is regarded as suspect, common sense is good, hard work is valued, and traditional morals are still adhered to. Hence, the Midwest and especially its rural parts, are still Republican leaning.
The South is a bit more complicated. Part of its moral tradition came down from the royals who settled the coasts and Chesapeake Bay area. They honored nobility and class. But the back county was peopled by folks from the north Midlands and the border areas around Scotland. These people valued egalitarianism and were fiercely independent. They actually seceded from the planter class when given the chance, with West Virginia being a result.
In other words, after the wounds of the Civil War healed, it was only a matter of time for the South, the Midwest, and the Mountain West to collectively gravitate towards the GOP and Republicanism.
The Democrats took another path, and evolved into the party of patrician planters and the extreme elites of the NE. For ground troops they relied on their "tribal" dependents - be they blacks or whatever urban immigrant group happened to be surging at the time. So of course they wound up dominating our cities, and attracting those who consider themselves to be petty nobles.
In the Midwest, the birthplace of the GOP - the party of small landholders - there's still a legacy of self sufficiency. Expertise is regarded as suspect, common sense is good, hard work is valued, and traditional morals are still adhered to. Hence, the Midwest and especially its rural parts, are still Republican leaning.
The South is a bit more complicated. Part of its moral tradition came down from the royals who settled the coasts and Chesapeake Bay area. They honored nobility and class. But the back county was peopled by folks from the north Midlands and the border areas around Scotland. These people valued egalitarianism and were fiercely independent. They actually seceded from the planter class when given the chance, with West Virginia being a result.
In other words, after the wounds of the Civil War healed, it was only a matter of time for the South, the Midwest, and the Mountain West to collectively gravitate towards the GOP and Republicanism.
The Democrats took another path, and evolved into the party of patrician planters and the extreme elites of the NE. For ground troops they relied on their "tribal" dependents - be they blacks or whatever urban immigrant group happened to be surging at the time. So of course they wound up dominating our cities, and attracting those who consider themselves to be petty nobles.
8
So you've read "American Nations." That's so "last year."
It doesn't account for places like Ohio (or perhaps Iowa, or evdently even Utah), where there's really no sharp geographic line between "Yankees" and "Midlanders" -- nor does it explain why (in the Democratic primaries) so many rednecks and "Reagan Democrats" opted (so uncharacteristically) for a socialist New York Jew.
It doesn't account for places like Ohio (or perhaps Iowa, or evdently even Utah), where there's really no sharp geographic line between "Yankees" and "Midlanders" -- nor does it explain why (in the Democratic primaries) so many rednecks and "Reagan Democrats" opted (so uncharacteristically) for a socialist New York Jew.
This is a ridiculous comparison and analysis. Trump D Dumpty is a trainwreck and crazed man. ANYONE supporting him or considering voting for him is unexplicable. Truly The Don Godfather is looking more like a lunatic and that would include anyone who votes for him appearing to be on the brink of lunacy.
19
It certainly seems that the democratic party has shaped itself around three groups.
The first are those that they promise the moon and stars...free health care, free college, free citizenship, high wages regardless of skill or aptitude. Welfare as long as it is needed with little-to-no restriction.Basically, entitlements for anyone who is not able to afford everything they want.
The second group would be those that can afford to pay the level of taxes required to support this entitlement society AND have an elevated social conscience that believes it's our collective duty to make sure everyone is cared for properly.
The third group are young and purely ideological voters who believe that it's their duty to save the world from inequality. Personally, I think these are the kids who were raised in a society where everyone got a trophy...and believe that the world should be "fair" as they graduate from their previously sheltered existence.
The first are those that they promise the moon and stars...free health care, free college, free citizenship, high wages regardless of skill or aptitude. Welfare as long as it is needed with little-to-no restriction.Basically, entitlements for anyone who is not able to afford everything they want.
The second group would be those that can afford to pay the level of taxes required to support this entitlement society AND have an elevated social conscience that believes it's our collective duty to make sure everyone is cared for properly.
The third group are young and purely ideological voters who believe that it's their duty to save the world from inequality. Personally, I think these are the kids who were raised in a society where everyone got a trophy...and believe that the world should be "fair" as they graduate from their previously sheltered existence.
4
What we want is to be able to vote for our favorite candidates, not who is most likely to win. Electoral reform would be a first step in the right direction.
2
Headline misleading. Can't pin this on Trump. We Dems have been turning our party into a top-down money-driven party for a long time before Trump came on the scene. Perhaps his awfulness (and Bernie's obnoxiousness) will have shaken us out of our self-congratulations and reminded us that we should be what we say we are - the party of the people.
7
Imagine the primary season without Bernie Sanders. Now extend that thought experiment to the general election season with headlines about Republican politicians defecting to Clinton. Without factoring in Sanders, Clinton's strengths can't be properly understood.
2
Not one in a thousand people are aware of the figures you are quoting who can pontificate in their meta academic parlance about how "liberals" are ignoring the working class to focus on identity politics and "market imperatives". Unlike the election, this is not chicken or fish, and historically progressive economic movements have also been behind progressive social movements. The populists politicians and academics like Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, and Bob Reich have more influence than the turgid prose turners you quote.
11
I was never a fan of the neocons of the past and certainly am appalled by the nocons (the just say NO conservatives) of the last six years. Reformocons are a fantasy as Skocpol comments as it represents a complete "U" turn they are incapable of making.
As for neoliberals - I have no idea where they really stand anymore. Perhaps if they were as clear as the neocons and the nocons, I'd be appalled at them too.
As for neoliberals - I have no idea where they really stand anymore. Perhaps if they were as clear as the neocons and the nocons, I'd be appalled at them too.
6
Mr. Edsall has been paying too much attention to Mr. Trump. The peripatetic wooly headedness, or lack of oxygen, is beginning to affect him. This piece is too long, yet conveys little content. Because its assumptions are wrong.
In 1956, when I was born, the Democratic party was the party of power and racism in the South, yet at the same time, the last gasp of the New Deal, at least for the white working class. It was incoherent. Both the Republican and Democratic parties were incoherent, both had Conservative and Liberal wings. Will Rogers put it best, "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
Anyone who says, "The Left..." and then connects that to the present Democrats, or "The Right" and connects that to the present Republicans, is ignoring complicated reality, and deluding themselves. Just as anyone who presumes that interest and attitude are dictated by economic status, or ethnicity, is ignoring complicated reality, and deluding themselves.
Republicans and Democrats are party names that have covered many different, sometimes opposing, views. Liberal and Conservative are sometimes useful labels that are sometimes used to cudgel people one doesn't agree with. Left and Right have somewhat different meaning and somewhat similar usages. They're all social constructs, not physical facts.
In 1956, when I was born, the Democratic party was the party of power and racism in the South, yet at the same time, the last gasp of the New Deal, at least for the white working class. It was incoherent. Both the Republican and Democratic parties were incoherent, both had Conservative and Liberal wings. Will Rogers put it best, "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
Anyone who says, "The Left..." and then connects that to the present Democrats, or "The Right" and connects that to the present Republicans, is ignoring complicated reality, and deluding themselves. Just as anyone who presumes that interest and attitude are dictated by economic status, or ethnicity, is ignoring complicated reality, and deluding themselves.
Republicans and Democrats are party names that have covered many different, sometimes opposing, views. Liberal and Conservative are sometimes useful labels that are sometimes used to cudgel people one doesn't agree with. Left and Right have somewhat different meaning and somewhat similar usages. They're all social constructs, not physical facts.
12
Everything good is Republican. But when the Republican Party goes bad, then, they think both parties are bad.
No. That's not true. Democrats didn't nominate an orange clown as our nominee. The Republican electorate chose to do that on their own. Our nominee is a Jurist Doctorate, twice elected former U.S. Senator, a former Secretary of State, and a former First Lady to a governor and U.S. President.
She's qualified and real. Trump is a dumpster fire.
And quit lying about Clinton signing NAFTA. George H.W. Bush negotiated NAFTA with Canada and Mexico as president and signed it in a lame duck session after Clinton won the election in 1992. A year later, Clinton signed the law that set the tariff levels for the existing law. Google it. But look past the initial articles. Look for George H.W. Bush and NAFTA.
No. That's not true. Democrats didn't nominate an orange clown as our nominee. The Republican electorate chose to do that on their own. Our nominee is a Jurist Doctorate, twice elected former U.S. Senator, a former Secretary of State, and a former First Lady to a governor and U.S. President.
She's qualified and real. Trump is a dumpster fire.
And quit lying about Clinton signing NAFTA. George H.W. Bush negotiated NAFTA with Canada and Mexico as president and signed it in a lame duck session after Clinton won the election in 1992. A year later, Clinton signed the law that set the tariff levels for the existing law. Google it. But look past the initial articles. Look for George H.W. Bush and NAFTA.
4
If working class white Republicans were opposed to means-tested benefits because they would not enjoy them, then why are they opposed to the Affordable Care Act?
5
Everything good is Republican. But when the Republican Party goes bad, then, they think both parties are bad.
No. That's not true. Democrats didn't nominate a Don Cheeto as our nominee. The Republican electorate chose to do that on their own. Our nominee is a Jurist Doctorate, twice elected former U.S. Senator, a former Secretary of State, and a former First Lady to a governor and U.S. President.
She's qualified and real. Trump is a dumpster fire.
And quit lying about Clinton signing NAFTA. George H.W. Bush negotiated NAFTA with Canada and Mexico as president and signed it in a lame duck session after Clinton won the election in 1992. A year later, Clinton signed the law that set the tariff levels for the existing law. Google it. But look past the initial articles. Look for George H.W. Bush and NAFTA.
No. That's not true. Democrats didn't nominate a Don Cheeto as our nominee. The Republican electorate chose to do that on their own. Our nominee is a Jurist Doctorate, twice elected former U.S. Senator, a former Secretary of State, and a former First Lady to a governor and U.S. President.
She's qualified and real. Trump is a dumpster fire.
And quit lying about Clinton signing NAFTA. George H.W. Bush negotiated NAFTA with Canada and Mexico as president and signed it in a lame duck session after Clinton won the election in 1992. A year later, Clinton signed the law that set the tariff levels for the existing law. Google it. But look past the initial articles. Look for George H.W. Bush and NAFTA.
8
It would have been useful for the purposes of open discourse to have included the voices of at least one or two non-condescending voices, conservative or middle-of-the-road. What we end of up with are a group of public intellectuals of the left lamenting the fact that political mistakes by the privileged (but enlightened) are leading to the victory of the forces of darkness. I am tired of having patriotism equated with "xenophobia" Except for a relatively small number of people clustered on the left or at the top of the economic pyramid, the great majority of Americans do not see the nation state as an atavistic barbaric anachronism. The "liberal project," if there is still such a thing, will surely founder against love of the nation-state both here and in Europe. We barbarians have hard-wired feelings about the allegiances to which we were born.
1
I guess I'm confused.
My parents are midwestern Republican -- my Mom a centrist/establishment type and my Dad a Trump supporter. Neither went to college. But, they both had that good paying middle class jobs we are currently mourning. My Dad's a Vietnam vet. I am the neoliberal described in this article. I've surpassed my parents in education (not the same as wisdom) and income. All my years in university and living in DC and NYC have made me socially liberal. I prefer cities and don't own a car. I believe in a robust safety net, capitalism, and a strong government that puts a check on capitalism. My world travels (study abroad) have widened my vision. I consider myself a global citizen while also very proud to be an American.
Yet, my parents resent me. They feel I have moved beyond my station in life -- that I have lost sight of where I came from (the working class American midwest) But, all I did was achieve all the things they wanted for me -- hence the confusion. It just seems tricky of them. "Get ahead, but not too far ahead." "Be tolerant and care for others -- but only the ones that look like us and share our ideas and beliefs." I wish they were more clear on what they expected of me -- my parental approved path was much more narrow than they led me to believe.
The division and resentments between my parents and I seem to perfectly represent fissures pulling our country apart. My country / my family ... one and the same.
My parents are midwestern Republican -- my Mom a centrist/establishment type and my Dad a Trump supporter. Neither went to college. But, they both had that good paying middle class jobs we are currently mourning. My Dad's a Vietnam vet. I am the neoliberal described in this article. I've surpassed my parents in education (not the same as wisdom) and income. All my years in university and living in DC and NYC have made me socially liberal. I prefer cities and don't own a car. I believe in a robust safety net, capitalism, and a strong government that puts a check on capitalism. My world travels (study abroad) have widened my vision. I consider myself a global citizen while also very proud to be an American.
Yet, my parents resent me. They feel I have moved beyond my station in life -- that I have lost sight of where I came from (the working class American midwest) But, all I did was achieve all the things they wanted for me -- hence the confusion. It just seems tricky of them. "Get ahead, but not too far ahead." "Be tolerant and care for others -- but only the ones that look like us and share our ideas and beliefs." I wish they were more clear on what they expected of me -- my parental approved path was much more narrow than they led me to believe.
The division and resentments between my parents and I seem to perfectly represent fissures pulling our country apart. My country / my family ... one and the same.
28
Great insight. What our country needs is for people like you to run for public office.
Both parties are wrecking themselves. There is a staggering amount of corruption and gross incompetence in both parties. Trump plowed through the Republican field of candidates because the voters have had enough of the completely rotten job their party and elected officials are doing. The Democratic Party is not far behind. As one who has historically voted Democrat I see the party losing its luster from the local level to the national. A recurring theme I hear over and over again, is the major unhappiness with the party's nominee. People are frustrated with the lack of choices given to Democratic voters. Soon it may be renamed the Undemocratic party. Even the mere appearance of collusion by a party to deny its members more choices could have dire consequences for the party in the future.
6
I am puzzled by the current meaning of the term Neoliberalism. It does not seem to fit any "liberal history" as I know it. Liberalism in the US, begining in the early 1900's, did advocate for bringing career professionals into government. Replacing the city majors with (non-elected) city managers. Taking away government by patronage and running cities like a business; which they are.
It was a limited goal- to reduce rampant corruption in government.
That idea does not run in a straight line to the "Great society"; which was an overreach by government into the private sector, but they became conflated somehow. Enter Ronald Reagan and the "the government is not the answer, the government is the problem".
The "liberals" did not so much embrace market based solutions, as realize they could not continue to push "big government". This accommodation is what I would now call "Neoliberalism". It's a truce; not a blanket advocacy of business solving all problems.
As a cosmopolitan liberal elite, I fully support and advocate for the role of government. Most of my CLE friends do as well. I know there are other member of my boomer generation, the Tea Party, that are causing all of us to be labelled the "selfish generation". By my experience it is a minority [and they had to join another party to express it].
Liberalism in its earlier sense is still alive and well, but it has been heavily and successfully demonized for decades by the right.... "Volvo driving, latte liberals".
It was a limited goal- to reduce rampant corruption in government.
That idea does not run in a straight line to the "Great society"; which was an overreach by government into the private sector, but they became conflated somehow. Enter Ronald Reagan and the "the government is not the answer, the government is the problem".
The "liberals" did not so much embrace market based solutions, as realize they could not continue to push "big government". This accommodation is what I would now call "Neoliberalism". It's a truce; not a blanket advocacy of business solving all problems.
As a cosmopolitan liberal elite, I fully support and advocate for the role of government. Most of my CLE friends do as well. I know there are other member of my boomer generation, the Tea Party, that are causing all of us to be labelled the "selfish generation". By my experience it is a minority [and they had to join another party to express it].
Liberalism in its earlier sense is still alive and well, but it has been heavily and successfully demonized for decades by the right.... "Volvo driving, latte liberals".
2
It's a daunting challenge for the political movement headed by Donald Trump to prevail over an extremely intelligent criminal sociopath such as Mrs. Clinton. Career sociopaths Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have built a sophisticated government entwined criminal enterprise. This enterprise (The Clinton Foundation) has created vast personal wealth for the Clinton's under the guise of altruistic charity. In fact, The Clinton Foundation is the alter ego of the Clinton's. This charity scam legal construct is truly ingenious. Moreover, the Clinton's are protected by the corrupt establishment, at the highest level. Did I mention all liberal media is vigorously promoting the Clinton agitation propaganda message of class division, an expansion of destructive politically correct ideology? The Clinton's will say and do anything to obtain power and personal wealth. If sociopath liar Mrs. Clinton is (elected), the presidency will be diminished beyond recognition, become a meaningless figurehead position..
5
Are you thinking the presidency will be a meaningful, respected office if sociopath liar and thin-skinned, ignorant Trump is elected?
2
My fear is that when Clinton beats Trump this November, the Democratic Party establishment will learn nothing. People don't learn from success. Failure is the only effective teacher.
Clinton and her party are already forgetting anything they might have learned from the unexpectedly close call they had with Bernie Sanders, who captured the majority of Democratic primary voters under 45 and of all genders and ethnicities.
When Clinton wins in November, she and her party' establishment will conclude that their brand of neoliberal identity politics still works and the majority of the country sees no need to change the status quo.
They will discount the fact that this year is different. That they will win mostly because Trump is so uniquely over-the-top that actually pulling the lever to make him President will be too difficult for the majority of voters. In addition, he will have only the most grudging support of key parts of the Republican Party establishment, much of which is already declining to go over the cliff with him.
With their current "wisdom" confirmed by victory, the Democrats will have no incentive to change. However, all the problems outlined in this article will remain when 2020 comes around.
Meanwhile, the Republicans will have learned something. They will come back with a less-crazy candidate and a less divisive platform that will win them the White House. Great gift to our children, who tried to warn us with the help of a grumpy 74-year-old white guy.
Clinton and her party are already forgetting anything they might have learned from the unexpectedly close call they had with Bernie Sanders, who captured the majority of Democratic primary voters under 45 and of all genders and ethnicities.
When Clinton wins in November, she and her party' establishment will conclude that their brand of neoliberal identity politics still works and the majority of the country sees no need to change the status quo.
They will discount the fact that this year is different. That they will win mostly because Trump is so uniquely over-the-top that actually pulling the lever to make him President will be too difficult for the majority of voters. In addition, he will have only the most grudging support of key parts of the Republican Party establishment, much of which is already declining to go over the cliff with him.
With their current "wisdom" confirmed by victory, the Democrats will have no incentive to change. However, all the problems outlined in this article will remain when 2020 comes around.
Meanwhile, the Republicans will have learned something. They will come back with a less-crazy candidate and a less divisive platform that will win them the White House. Great gift to our children, who tried to warn us with the help of a grumpy 74-year-old white guy.
6
Guy, your fear may prove to be well-founded. By the end of this year, it will have been 7.5 years since the Great Recession officially ended. At least since the end of WW2, if not before then, this country has never gone as long as 11.5 years without a recession. History suggests that we are due for a recession at some point over the next 4 years, and if that happens, President Hillary Clinton (and not Congress) will get the blame for that.
2
The give-away for this broad-stroke pseudo-argument occurs right away: Trump, he lets on, is "competitive" --- that is to say, losing! --- among "the less affluent and those without college degrees... by 3 and 4 points respectively." The author then rushes off to ignore these majorities --- they simply don't exist in his reckoning. Take them into account, we have the Democrats allying a large swath of the entire population, cutting across classes.
To turn it around, we have a core of rightwing extremists who've done well but not terrifically well among sub-middle-class whites. They are also part of a curious alliance involving the hyper-wealthy. They have gained an outsize influence on the polity for various reasons. An organized Democratic party, now aware of the rightwing insurgency in this nation, could conceivably gain a decisive upper hand.
To turn it around, we have a core of rightwing extremists who've done well but not terrifically well among sub-middle-class whites. They are also part of a curious alliance involving the hyper-wealthy. They have gained an outsize influence on the polity for various reasons. An organized Democratic party, now aware of the rightwing insurgency in this nation, could conceivably gain a decisive upper hand.
4
IF they are really listening and watching...I hope so.
1
Your notion that well-off Democrats are in "enclaves" is naive. It is the college-educated Dems who have chosen to return to the cities, and then from there, in many cases, to rural towns, revivifying the economies of both. It is the Republicans who removed themselves to the suburbs and deserted the working classes. It is the Republicans whose communities are gated. It is the Republicans whose values are no longer classically American.
4
The problem is that many Americans--perhaps even most Americans--are not being represented or served by either party, albeit for different reasons. The question now is what can or will be done about that?
6
Being one of those that Edsall thinks is preparing to shut themselves off in their rich white enclaves, he couldn't be more wrong. I, and perhaps 95% of the people I know, support the Democratic Party because it is inclusive, seeks to lift the bottom and ensure it is healthy, because it is the right thing to do, even if it hurts them a little vs. supporting the GOP.
Gated communities are most common in the south and southwest. I don't think its liberals walling themselves off there.
Gated communities are most common in the south and southwest. I don't think its liberals walling themselves off there.
10
Even with higher taxes, voters in the top income quintiles derive enormous benefits from cheap imports and cheap domestic (immigrant) labor.
Their homes are packed with cheap imports, and their lawns are mowed (and) their gates are guarded by cheap (immigrant) labor.
To these people, immigration reform means more cheap labor, with the advantage that the domestic working class will be outvoted.
The higher quintile jobs are less likely to be exported, and the higher paid public servants among them derive direct benefits from the higher taxes, which is why the prosperous suburbs of Washington D.C. overwhelmingly favor cheap imports and cheap labor, it is why these voters vote for the Democratic Party.The bonus is that these bien pensant voters of all races and creeds are able to congratulate themselves for not being prejudiced.
Working class consumers and working class labor form the bottom two income quintiles, but they are likely to be increasingly outvoted, even as
they are increasingly demonized as racists, including the large number of
Hispanic Americans who consider themselves White.
Their homes are packed with cheap imports, and their lawns are mowed (and) their gates are guarded by cheap (immigrant) labor.
To these people, immigration reform means more cheap labor, with the advantage that the domestic working class will be outvoted.
The higher quintile jobs are less likely to be exported, and the higher paid public servants among them derive direct benefits from the higher taxes, which is why the prosperous suburbs of Washington D.C. overwhelmingly favor cheap imports and cheap labor, it is why these voters vote for the Democratic Party.The bonus is that these bien pensant voters of all races and creeds are able to congratulate themselves for not being prejudiced.
Working class consumers and working class labor form the bottom two income quintiles, but they are likely to be increasingly outvoted, even as
they are increasingly demonized as racists, including the large number of
Hispanic Americans who consider themselves White.
1
Certain phrases encapsulate liberal rage that others just don't agree with them. The latest is "dog whistle"; six months ago it was "false equivalence". And always, it is the supposed greater intelligence occasioned by the claimed higher levels of formal education on the left. This from a party that spent the 30s through the 50s extolling the wisdom of the common man.
The left will continue to call Trump voters uneducated, visceral yahoos--and worse. They just don't get it. Trump voters have enormous, legitimate concern over where this country is heading, and feel the Dems sold them out decades ago. And know that to differ from reigning orthodoxy on immigration results in an automatic charge of racism. Phooey on all that!
Reading these comments is a guilty pleasure, because it shows most Times commenters clutching desperately to a really timeworn conceit: that those who oppose them are fools, racists and fascists. Look in the mirror, folks.
The left will continue to call Trump voters uneducated, visceral yahoos--and worse. They just don't get it. Trump voters have enormous, legitimate concern over where this country is heading, and feel the Dems sold them out decades ago. And know that to differ from reigning orthodoxy on immigration results in an automatic charge of racism. Phooey on all that!
Reading these comments is a guilty pleasure, because it shows most Times commenters clutching desperately to a really timeworn conceit: that those who oppose them are fools, racists and fascists. Look in the mirror, folks.
6
"Enormous" and "legitimate" concern are not necessarily the same thing. What is most important is the precise content of that concern and how it is expressed. If it is white-first, nativism, pro-protectionism, and anti-immigrant, then it is what it is, phooey or not. If it is aimed at "others", if it means misdirected scapegoating, then the expression of those concerns ceases to be legitimate and becomes more moblike. If it means becoming a Trump follower and admirer, well, what could be more visceral, foolish, and uneducated than that? There's no way to dress it up.
5
Many people who oppose Trump such as myself are sympathetic to the problems of those people who are voting for Trump because of the loss of manufacturing jobs. However, I do not believe Trump will fix the problem.
1. His own clothing lines are largely manufactured overseas, so his record does not demonstrate concern about loss of manufacturing jobs.
2. If elected, he will be unable to stop the spread of automation.
3. One thing that is badly needed and could help with creating jobs is the upgrading of infrastructure in the USA. Little chance that a Republican congress would be willing to spend money on that.
1. His own clothing lines are largely manufactured overseas, so his record does not demonstrate concern about loss of manufacturing jobs.
2. If elected, he will be unable to stop the spread of automation.
3. One thing that is badly needed and could help with creating jobs is the upgrading of infrastructure in the USA. Little chance that a Republican congress would be willing to spend money on that.
3
It's important to remember that the New York Times is a Corporation, as is the Washington Post, which means that these corporations are legal persons with free speech rights.
The question is whether other citizens can combine their resources to express their own and different viewpoints.
The question is whether other citizens can combine their resources to express their own and different viewpoints.
2
You are not defining the qualities of any of the well-to-do democrats I know, at least here in CA. We are socially liberal, of course. We are concerned about climate change and want a huge plan put in place to start attacking it. We do not want the Christian faith to enter into the town square any more than it already has. We know how bad the infrastructure is-- we all work and are thus stuck in it, all the time. We want great public schools-- most of us are products of them, many if not most of us send our kids to them. But we do not desire to "protect our enclaves" from the population at large. Far from it-- we want and will work for a better life for all Americans. We recognize that the hollowing out of the great middle class has had a destructive effect on the life of ALL of us.
13
Karen, I think you along with your children and children's children are in for a disappointment.
You seek to be socially and geographically inclusive of different ethnic groups, races, etc.; you support the ideal of the public good through shared responsibility and the widespread availability and provision of public goods; you are opposed to 'protected enclaves' which do comport with your high sense of social justice.
Extending this view to the core values of the socially progressive CA voter. You believe that this can be accomplished through open borders, free trade, the IMF, the World Bank, NATO, and the rest of the neoliberal tradition that is exemplified in the tradition and thought of John Stuart Mill.
Hmm. It sounds good but what you essentially end up with is escalating rents; growing income inequality; poor, unsafe, culturally bereft neighborhoods, juxtaposed with upscale safe havens for educated, well heeled winners of the globalization divide.
What you and many like you have failed to account for is the age old problem of scarcity. There's simply not enough to go around and try as you may you can't fix the problem by being inclusive. Indeed, inclusivity simply makes the situation worse, especially for those least equipped to thrive in this brave new world. There's simply too many people vying for the choice jobs; the choice places to live; the choice climate; the choice education; the sun, the fun; the California of the 1960s.
Paradise lost...
You seek to be socially and geographically inclusive of different ethnic groups, races, etc.; you support the ideal of the public good through shared responsibility and the widespread availability and provision of public goods; you are opposed to 'protected enclaves' which do comport with your high sense of social justice.
Extending this view to the core values of the socially progressive CA voter. You believe that this can be accomplished through open borders, free trade, the IMF, the World Bank, NATO, and the rest of the neoliberal tradition that is exemplified in the tradition and thought of John Stuart Mill.
Hmm. It sounds good but what you essentially end up with is escalating rents; growing income inequality; poor, unsafe, culturally bereft neighborhoods, juxtaposed with upscale safe havens for educated, well heeled winners of the globalization divide.
What you and many like you have failed to account for is the age old problem of scarcity. There's simply not enough to go around and try as you may you can't fix the problem by being inclusive. Indeed, inclusivity simply makes the situation worse, especially for those least equipped to thrive in this brave new world. There's simply too many people vying for the choice jobs; the choice places to live; the choice climate; the choice education; the sun, the fun; the California of the 1960s.
Paradise lost...
1
Trump is embodiment of the political sensibilities of the '50's....the 1850's...
He's channeling Millard Fillmore and the "Know Nothings"
He's channeling Millard Fillmore and the "Know Nothings"
4
Trump is showing us that we need to get beyond this party nonsense (another rigged game for career politicians) and make this all about finding a leader who can deliver the items on the people's agenda. Glad he is running this time.
2
After a lot of navel gazing at academic fluff, Mr. Edsall arrives at the fundamental problem that Pres. Clinton and the Democratic Party will face. They are no longer the Democratic Party, and their historic base will finally abandon them after this election when it becomes obvious that Wall Street (thanks for the endorsement, Mr. Buffet) and identity politics have replaced the struggles of the faceless poor at the dinner table. Limousine liberalism will be exposed as the hypocrisy it always was. Bernie was the first wave of the barbarians at the gate.
As for the Party formerly known as the GOP, well....
Turn out the lights, folks. The Parties is over.
As for the Party formerly known as the GOP, well....
Turn out the lights, folks. The Parties is over.
6
No. Just your party.
4
If he is wrecking both parties, THANK GOODNESS. Time for this country to heed the wisdom of George Washington to not form parties in the first place. No way, with the diversity of issues and ideas we face, should we be suffocated by a two-party system.
6
I studied and wrote about the Austrian Freedom Party for many years and largely agree with Judis that its current strength derives from its increasing appeal to workers who had previously been the core of the Social Democratic Party. However, it should not be construed that the FPOe has lost the support of the anti-cosmopolitan, rural and suburban petit-bourgeoise of its roots. It is definitively not a workers' party in the traditional Austrian sense.
2
The fundamental problem is the growth of the very rich. The extremely rich now dominate both parties and subvert the parties by bribing politicians at all levels. The leading example of this is the Koch-funded ALEC program at the state government level. The Koch money has bought pro-wealth governments at the state level to support the national parties, which are both now mouthpieces for the wealthy.
We fought a revolution to rid ourselves of government by inherited wealth. Now, Trump wants to totally end inheritance taxes and bring back the plutocracy even faster.
The solution is to get rid of the very wealthy class. The plutocrats all inherited their money, like the Koch brothers. Six of the richest ten Americans inherited several BILLION dollars each. The few self made billionaires are like black football stars - tokens.
We need high inheritance taxes, or maybe the destruction of wealth over a certain level. Thomas Jefferson outlawed extreme inheritance, and we should do the same. Some societies destroy the wealth of their richest people upon death - a 100% death tax (described in The Origins of Inequality from Harvard University Press).
Edsall alone among NY Times writers His writing needs a lot better editing to make it accessible to the average reader (I am a former professor of statistics and CEO of a software firm). But I want to say THANKS, EDSALL for keeping the spotlight where it should be.
Go to YouTube view Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec).
We fought a revolution to rid ourselves of government by inherited wealth. Now, Trump wants to totally end inheritance taxes and bring back the plutocracy even faster.
The solution is to get rid of the very wealthy class. The plutocrats all inherited their money, like the Koch brothers. Six of the richest ten Americans inherited several BILLION dollars each. The few self made billionaires are like black football stars - tokens.
We need high inheritance taxes, or maybe the destruction of wealth over a certain level. Thomas Jefferson outlawed extreme inheritance, and we should do the same. Some societies destroy the wealth of their richest people upon death - a 100% death tax (described in The Origins of Inequality from Harvard University Press).
Edsall alone among NY Times writers His writing needs a lot better editing to make it accessible to the average reader (I am a former professor of statistics and CEO of a software firm). But I want to say THANKS, EDSALL for keeping the spotlight where it should be.
Go to YouTube view Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec).
3
I have to say, I find the phoniness of Edsall here disgusting.
Just last week, Mr. Edsall was demonstrating from Science that the voters who support Trump are Authoritarians, and so sought censorship. The inference was obvious to make: they were the natural supporters of fascism, and, of course, Trump was Fascist in Chief. It hardly matters in his imaginary world that it is of course the left who are demanding that free speech be closed down -- it's "hate speech" -- and that it's Trump supporters who defend it.
And now he expresses shock, shock, that these very voters will be left behind by the Democratic coalition?
Well, as long as we have Mr. Edsall's around to demonize these voters as bigots and racists -- and we always will -- that is the precise product of his own concerted efforts.
Don't despair of the loss of white working class voters from true representation in our system, Mr. Edsall, when you yourself are a calculating, aggressive agent of that loss.
Keep your crocodile tears to yourself, please.
Just last week, Mr. Edsall was demonstrating from Science that the voters who support Trump are Authoritarians, and so sought censorship. The inference was obvious to make: they were the natural supporters of fascism, and, of course, Trump was Fascist in Chief. It hardly matters in his imaginary world that it is of course the left who are demanding that free speech be closed down -- it's "hate speech" -- and that it's Trump supporters who defend it.
And now he expresses shock, shock, that these very voters will be left behind by the Democratic coalition?
Well, as long as we have Mr. Edsall's around to demonize these voters as bigots and racists -- and we always will -- that is the precise product of his own concerted efforts.
Don't despair of the loss of white working class voters from true representation in our system, Mr. Edsall, when you yourself are a calculating, aggressive agent of that loss.
Keep your crocodile tears to yourself, please.
10
Any large organization will respond to its largest constituencies. So how would you go about persuading the likes of Trump's followers to join the Democratic party? They have been trained by radio talk show hosts, Fox News anchors and amateur right-wing "news" outlets to detest liberals. They can't decide whether we are more stupid than evil or vice versa.
The Democrats have worked hard to provide healthcare, better wages and a stronger social safety net for the folks at the lower end of the economic slide. The fact is, Trump followers believe they can get a better deal from the GOP. They believe the benefits afforded the wealthiest Americans will improve their lives, too--look at the lower-middle-class folks who rail against the "Death Tax." They think, against all evidence, that the GOP will get them better jobs at better pay. They are convinced that the Democrats are taking their money and giving it away to illegal immigrants, people of color and lazy citizens who don't want to work.
It's hard to recruit people who hold you in utter contempt.
The Democrats have worked hard to provide healthcare, better wages and a stronger social safety net for the folks at the lower end of the economic slide. The fact is, Trump followers believe they can get a better deal from the GOP. They believe the benefits afforded the wealthiest Americans will improve their lives, too--look at the lower-middle-class folks who rail against the "Death Tax." They think, against all evidence, that the GOP will get them better jobs at better pay. They are convinced that the Democrats are taking their money and giving it away to illegal immigrants, people of color and lazy citizens who don't want to work.
It's hard to recruit people who hold you in utter contempt.
10
Another aspect to the "education/miseducation-propaganda" problem is the idea that opinions--beliefs, dogmas, faith--form in the grassroots; campaigners just tap into them to win their support.
But that's like claiming Christianity or Islam just spontaneously sprouted in its peoples--the grassroots and priests and imams just tapped into it. Absurd.
These ideologies were created by authors much like popular fiction including movie fiction and disseminated--marketed--by ideologues--idea salespeople--the definition of 'sophist'--said Plato.
So too with political ideologies. Thus the root fault does--as one source cited here suggested--go to US Academics for letting the grassroot-rot happen. That includes both religion as well as political/economic fiction marketed as reality.
But Academia too has been bought into corporatism-- aka as fascism, by the way. True--that is mere name calling--but obviously names matter in marketing.
But that's like claiming Christianity or Islam just spontaneously sprouted in its peoples--the grassroots and priests and imams just tapped into it. Absurd.
These ideologies were created by authors much like popular fiction including movie fiction and disseminated--marketed--by ideologues--idea salespeople--the definition of 'sophist'--said Plato.
So too with political ideologies. Thus the root fault does--as one source cited here suggested--go to US Academics for letting the grassroot-rot happen. That includes both religion as well as political/economic fiction marketed as reality.
But Academia too has been bought into corporatism-- aka as fascism, by the way. True--that is mere name calling--but obviously names matter in marketing.
2
Although Trump is the one given to Madison Avenue hyperbole and New York tabloid audacity, it is Clinton who is selling an illusion. Five minutes’ conversation with anyone who now intends to vote for Clinton will reveal how troubled, if not disgusted, she is by the prospect of a Clinton presidency, but at this point, for such a voter, Clinton could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and it wouldn’t make a difference.
1
Converse with me. I am very excited by the prospect of a Clinton presidency and even more enthralled with the possibility of picking up some seats in the House and Senate, too.
6
Baloney. People who will vote for Clinton are delighted to have the chance to vote for a brilliant woman, finally! She is not the one who bragged about shooting someone on fifth Avenue.
4
You are missing the crucial point. The "working class" and the "liberal elites" have fundamentally the same objectives. The difference is in their approaches -- naive vs. informed (or stupid vs. smart, if you prefer). The working class thinks with its gut, and the liberal elites think with their brains. (Trump is loved or hated because he is all gut, no brain.)
The source of this is in parenting. As George Lakoff notes, working class parenting tends to be "do it because I said so" which paints a world of simple answers. Liberal elite parenting tends to encourage critical thinking, which paints a world in which, to quote John Muir, "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe."
Bottom line, liberal elites need to internalize working class objectives, and the working class needs to internalize carefully thought-through problem-solving.
The source of this is in parenting. As George Lakoff notes, working class parenting tends to be "do it because I said so" which paints a world of simple answers. Liberal elite parenting tends to encourage critical thinking, which paints a world in which, to quote John Muir, "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe."
Bottom line, liberal elites need to internalize working class objectives, and the working class needs to internalize carefully thought-through problem-solving.
6
I have a couple of advanced degrees, served 26 as a Marine and consider myself a bit to the left of Bernie Sanders. I am around a fair amount of 'white, working class' people and I am getting sick and tired of having them referred to as ignorant or stupid - the attitude expressed above is exactly what the problem is, and it is ignorant and stupid!
35
I've got both in my family (California and Texas, I'll let you figure out which is which). The working class part is way too busy with anti-vaccination, Obama's plans to seize their guns, and Jesus's hate for various illegals to have time for thought-through problem-solving.
Sorry, the elite liberals are going to have to make policies that work for all or we're going to have a future Mein Trump to deal with.
Sorry, the elite liberals are going to have to make policies that work for all or we're going to have a future Mein Trump to deal with.
8
You voiced my thoughts, thank you. Society as a whole always evolved, and will always do. Trump is not the agent for change, I see him as just taking advantage of the current transformation for his personal gains, and that never included elective office in his agenda of personal gains. Personal ego is in his agenda, and he is feeding it from the way media has been covering him. To your point, the class difference between 'elites' and 'workers' has always been established by what you said - naïve vs. informed. But, society still had managed to balance itself between the classes. My highest concern today is - how the current frenzy is going to take its final shape, it does not look to me that we shall regain the stability for a healthy, open, society for some time no matter who is elected Nov 9th.
5
August 11, 2016
Wrecking language political science arts is well understood by this article.
Yes D Trump is a wreck for the nation and himself and even if the unlikely win he surely will not last out his four years - for lots of reason and not related to the Second Amendment - but more toward his own personality flaw and so my best guess is depression, overload, and counter punching from the better angels on the entire planet that have and expect to enjoy America sophisticated cultural might by not economic grace but by the brilliance of our country's enlighten bright light that emanates from our grace as Americas - with the inheritance of all the best in our known history - and not tax reporting or material wealth as singularity's chaos theory should one impose this election's determinism by the candidates in question......
jja Manhattan, N.Y - a registered Republican voting for the Democratic party.
Wrecking language political science arts is well understood by this article.
Yes D Trump is a wreck for the nation and himself and even if the unlikely win he surely will not last out his four years - for lots of reason and not related to the Second Amendment - but more toward his own personality flaw and so my best guess is depression, overload, and counter punching from the better angels on the entire planet that have and expect to enjoy America sophisticated cultural might by not economic grace but by the brilliance of our country's enlighten bright light that emanates from our grace as Americas - with the inheritance of all the best in our known history - and not tax reporting or material wealth as singularity's chaos theory should one impose this election's determinism by the candidates in question......
jja Manhattan, N.Y - a registered Republican voting for the Democratic party.
1
The whole obsession with identity politics has been such a tragic trap for the Democratic party and left-leaning groups generally. While driven by good intentions it has played right into the hands of Southern-Strategy type Republicanism, and has fragmented a Democratic coalition that was none too unified in the first place ("I belong to no organized political party -- I'm a Democrat", as Will Rogers put it) into a shaky alliance of identity constituencies that is all too easily dismissed by Republicans as a grab-bag of "special interests".
None of that is to dismiss the real problems highlighted by identity politics. But a thoroughgoing emphasis upon social class (yes, despite what we old folks were told during the Cold War, we do have classes in America) could have accomplished nearly everything sought by most identity constituencies, while building a broad and solid social coalition for positive change.
Instead, if you're one of those less-affluent, less-educated whites, your choice is a GOP that has used you (while playfully manipulating your symbols -- note the wealthy Republican candidates who suddenly become NASCAR fans every four years) -- and a Democratic party that increasingly has sneered at you.
We could have done better, and still could. Let the GOP flacks say we're indulging in "class warfare" -- they started it, and unfortunately we all too willingly let them win.
None of that is to dismiss the real problems highlighted by identity politics. But a thoroughgoing emphasis upon social class (yes, despite what we old folks were told during the Cold War, we do have classes in America) could have accomplished nearly everything sought by most identity constituencies, while building a broad and solid social coalition for positive change.
Instead, if you're one of those less-affluent, less-educated whites, your choice is a GOP that has used you (while playfully manipulating your symbols -- note the wealthy Republican candidates who suddenly become NASCAR fans every four years) -- and a Democratic party that increasingly has sneered at you.
We could have done better, and still could. Let the GOP flacks say we're indulging in "class warfare" -- they started it, and unfortunately we all too willingly let them win.
6
For too many of us both parties have been wrecked for a long time. We are lucky to have Obama who tries to speak for all Americans. When Democrats and Republicans worked so diligently to destroy the Carter Presidency I think many us couldn't wait for Trump to taker the wrecking ball to both parties.
Even today the name Carter brings the word failure to most lips. Yet when we read to remember his words we realize his failure was he spoke only the truth.
Even today the name Carter brings the word failure to most lips. Yet when we read to remember his words we realize his failure was he spoke only the truth.
6
America always has been ruled by a constitutional oligarchy and will continue to be until some populist demagogue more adept than Trump seizes power and establishes an autocracy.
Currently, America's ruling plutocrats -
- have lost control of the Republican Party to Trump, at least temporarily, but
- are in full control of the Democratic Party, at least temporarily.
If America's plutocracy regains the sense of moderation and noblesse oblige that was swept away by the Reagan Revolution, they will perpetuate their regime by grudgingly accommodating enough of the needs of the middle class as may be necessary to keep the masses content and docile.
If the plutocracy as whole remains as greedy, cruel and myopic as the Republican billionaires who just lost the GOP, then the next Trump most likely will succeed at becoming America's first dictator.
Currently, America's ruling plutocrats -
- have lost control of the Republican Party to Trump, at least temporarily, but
- are in full control of the Democratic Party, at least temporarily.
If America's plutocracy regains the sense of moderation and noblesse oblige that was swept away by the Reagan Revolution, they will perpetuate their regime by grudgingly accommodating enough of the needs of the middle class as may be necessary to keep the masses content and docile.
If the plutocracy as whole remains as greedy, cruel and myopic as the Republican billionaires who just lost the GOP, then the next Trump most likely will succeed at becoming America's first dictator.
7
Thoughts:
"This is partly because leftwing parties since the 1960s began to switch their attention from working class struggle to identity politics."
And at the same time right wing parties intensified their identity politics. See also: civil rights, voting rights, integration of everything from schools to unions, etc.
The new coalitions basically moved Democrats from FDR liberalism to Clinton/Obama neo-liberalism.
Trump's campaign is the continuation of past campaigns of Wallace, Nixon, Reagan, Buchanan and its appeal is well documented in the recent "Hillbilly Elegy" and "White Trash".
With a tip of the hat to Bob Dylan:
"Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
"This is partly because leftwing parties since the 1960s began to switch their attention from working class struggle to identity politics."
And at the same time right wing parties intensified their identity politics. See also: civil rights, voting rights, integration of everything from schools to unions, etc.
The new coalitions basically moved Democrats from FDR liberalism to Clinton/Obama neo-liberalism.
Trump's campaign is the continuation of past campaigns of Wallace, Nixon, Reagan, Buchanan and its appeal is well documented in the recent "Hillbilly Elegy" and "White Trash".
With a tip of the hat to Bob Dylan:
"Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
4
Although I appreciate Edsall's editorial labors, his main accomplishment (intended or not) is to demoralize liberals. In his view of things, we almost always fail or betray ourselves. And his arguments are frequently flawed.
The primary reason why many working-class voters are attracted to Trump is that they are white working-class voters who vote against their economic interests out of bigotry; minority working-class voters tend not to.
Unless we are to believe that mass deportations and a ban on Muslim immigration somehow help the proletariat, there is no reason to believe that a Trump presidency would do them any good. And historically, the Democrats have been more protectionist than the Republicans. Even as they have become increasingly in favor of free trade, the Democrats have proposed redistributive remedies through higher taxation on corporations and the wealthy.
It is tantamount to a slander on the well-educated, urban whites who vote for a progressive agenda to label them as elitist. I, for one, am willing to tolerate higher taxation and regulation to help those less-fortunate, regardless of their race or ethnicity.
The primary reason why many working-class voters are attracted to Trump is that they are white working-class voters who vote against their economic interests out of bigotry; minority working-class voters tend not to.
Unless we are to believe that mass deportations and a ban on Muslim immigration somehow help the proletariat, there is no reason to believe that a Trump presidency would do them any good. And historically, the Democrats have been more protectionist than the Republicans. Even as they have become increasingly in favor of free trade, the Democrats have proposed redistributive remedies through higher taxation on corporations and the wealthy.
It is tantamount to a slander on the well-educated, urban whites who vote for a progressive agenda to label them as elitist. I, for one, am willing to tolerate higher taxation and regulation to help those less-fortunate, regardless of their race or ethnicity.
7
GV, I'm not aware of any tax increases or penalties that were imposed on ANY companies which off-shored jobs out of this country, whether through free-trade agreements or otherwise. Yes, Democratic control of Congress largely ended in 1994 (except for the brief blip from 2007-10), but off-shoring of jobs has been a major problem since at least the 1970s, when the Democrats had solid majorities in both houses. At least in this way, Democrats dropped the ball on the working class, big-time.
2
Edsall could be right. Trump could be exploiting the Democrats' weakness -- the lack of a real message -- by using the same populist, rabble-rousing strategies of 1920s-1930s European fascisms: convince the lower middle class that their "best interests" are those of the super wealthy, and that their precarious status is contingent on keeping those below them (ethnicities, minorities, the poor) down.
1
Trump has wreaked damage on both parties by wreaking their acts, which in a way were coordinated together in a Kabuki type dance. His blatant racial appeals have exposed the GOP's cynical dependence on appeals to bigotry, and his drawing off of uneducated whites has revealed the Democrats abandonment of the working class to serve investors. I'm guessing he has done more long-term damage to the GOP, I hope.
1
To Walkman, Are the Latinos and Africa-Americans of our country not mainly in the working class? If white workers feel abandoned, that is not true of the above.Of course, the Democrats' efforts have often been incomplete, ineffective or blocked, but I am optimistic that Bernie Sanders has injected a new sense of urgency and intensity concerning the need to address the plight of those left behind. Let us hope the nation rallies on November 8th and afterwards to convince the Congress to take meaningful action.
And where are the low-income or middle-income representatives in Congress?
You have to be an upper-income citizen to access donors and be taken seriously for a Congressional campaign.
Truly, there is NO WAY any current member of Congress can claim a modicum of empathy or understanding or our neglected classes.
You have to be an upper-income citizen to access donors and be taken seriously for a Congressional campaign.
Truly, there is NO WAY any current member of Congress can claim a modicum of empathy or understanding or our neglected classes.
8
Trump is the result of neither party listening to its constituents. He is the consequence of both parties wrecking themselves, not the cause.
20
Spot on, Mom...
Absurd. Absurd. Are elitists people with undergraduate degrees?
6
Trump's numbers are so bad, he really represents no one at this point. He's certainly not wrecking the Democratic Party, which is favored overwhelmingly by the young, by minorities, by the gay community, by women, by the environmental community...
1
The economic problems of blue collar whites stem from the loss of of their past economic power. They are now competing with both robots and potentially skilled workers in third world countries. We clearly should adopt laws mandating sharing the benefits of increased efficiency through the use of ever smarter machines, including robots, rather than having it go to the 0.1 percent who control our major businesses, as is now the case. But blue collar wages are, as both Trump and Bernie Sanders have demagogued, are also reduced by competition with the huge mass of third world people of potentially equal capabilities. The proposals of both Trump and Sanders would exacerbate existing international inequalities, which for historic reasons put working class Americans in a favored position. There is no moral justification for this kind of privilege, however politically appealing its maintenance is to both the Trump right and the Sanders left.
8
"The proposals of both Trump and Sanders would exacerbate existing international inequalities, which for historic reasons put working class Americans in a favored position. There is no moral justification for this kind of privilege, however politically appealing its maintenance is to both the Trump right and the Sanders left."
No moral justification? OK, how about this: as Americans, it is morally just to protect our own workers as much as possible and to prioritize their well-being above that of workers from anywhere else. It is certainly morally unjust not to do this, in my opinion. Let the governments of other countries worry about the well-being of their workers. If the American government doesn't put the interests of Americans workers first vis-à-vis their global competitors, you can be sure that no other government will.
No moral justification? OK, how about this: as Americans, it is morally just to protect our own workers as much as possible and to prioritize their well-being above that of workers from anywhere else. It is certainly morally unjust not to do this, in my opinion. Let the governments of other countries worry about the well-being of their workers. If the American government doesn't put the interests of Americans workers first vis-à-vis their global competitors, you can be sure that no other government will.
3
We have had 8 years of a half-black president, and face 4-8 years of a woman chief executive. If nothing else, these facts explain why certain white people, even those who are educated and with good earnings, are ripe for a WHITE MAN who, to them, projects strength and simple answers to our society's problems. And the same group, plus others who are liberal but who rely on emotion rather than sober analysis, have been convinced by the drumbeat of right-wing media to give Hillary a pass.
I don't think we have to blame the 2 major parties here, as either or both of them could attract many of the same people, to sane, purposeful ends, if the rabble-rousing were to cease. What fools we are.
I don't think we have to blame the 2 major parties here, as either or both of them could attract many of the same people, to sane, purposeful ends, if the rabble-rousing were to cease. What fools we are.
3
I don't think so. Identity politics? who are black and Latino/a democrats? Hint, they aren't in the 1 percent, which is 96 percent white. They are mainly working class. Hillary Clinton owes her candidacy, actually, to black voters. Go out and ask these voters how upper middle class they are. Then look at any of the surveys that have been done over the decades. Here's one from 2012 - http://www.gallup.com/poll/151310/u.s.-republican-not-conservative.aspx
Those making more than 500000 per year are much more likely to vote Republican. In the gallup pole, 57 percent lean republican.
Those making more than 500000 per year are much more likely to vote Republican. In the gallup pole, 57 percent lean republican.
1
Obama could not have won without white votes. It sure wasn't low income, less educated white people who voted for Obama. Your thesis very flawed.
3
In this essay, Edsal seems to dimly perceive that maybe the "white patriarchs," vilified time after time in the NY Times, have a point, at least those of the white patriarchs who are truly poor, in spite of their "white privilege."
There is a certain amount of "nativism" among the working poor. How did it happen? I can only mention my own experience.
My parents moved to Lynwood California in 1965---it was then an upscale mostly white community, although there were also many from other races.
What happened was a slow transformation of this community into an urban hell-hole, driven by immigration, much of it presumably illegal.
Crime became rampant. The religious school, a block from my parent's home was sold to the state and made into an inner city school, riven with drugs.
In 1992, the grocery store my parents shopped at burned to the ground. EVERYBODY suffered from the LA riots.
Now, the signs around my parent's former home are in Spanish. Life is much harder for those few holdouts who clung to the remnants of the earlier civilization, such as English. Or following the law.
South central Los Angeles was invaded by Mexico. But the invaders didn't use guns, they used the power of the womb. Now the whites will be replaced.
Will the residue be better? More likely is the devolution of society into a new anarchy.
California like Syria has suffered from population growth. Trump or a successor may be our Assad, perhaps better than outright chaos.
There is a certain amount of "nativism" among the working poor. How did it happen? I can only mention my own experience.
My parents moved to Lynwood California in 1965---it was then an upscale mostly white community, although there were also many from other races.
What happened was a slow transformation of this community into an urban hell-hole, driven by immigration, much of it presumably illegal.
Crime became rampant. The religious school, a block from my parent's home was sold to the state and made into an inner city school, riven with drugs.
In 1992, the grocery store my parents shopped at burned to the ground. EVERYBODY suffered from the LA riots.
Now, the signs around my parent's former home are in Spanish. Life is much harder for those few holdouts who clung to the remnants of the earlier civilization, such as English. Or following the law.
South central Los Angeles was invaded by Mexico. But the invaders didn't use guns, they used the power of the womb. Now the whites will be replaced.
Will the residue be better? More likely is the devolution of society into a new anarchy.
California like Syria has suffered from population growth. Trump or a successor may be our Assad, perhaps better than outright chaos.
10
All that you say is true of parts of CA. But it was not the fault of democrats alone. Remember-- it was Reagan who signed the Amnesty act, and it is mostly GOP business owners who hired the illegals. This was a bi-partisan story. It sure won't be an inexperienced know-nothing like Trump who solves it.
2
Both parties are the "party of winners." Our government (executive, legislative and judicial branches) is not only for sale, it is effectively already owned by the richest among us. Trump is a PT Barnum who has emerged from TV promoter to know-nothing candidate. He's a joke and he'll be crushed, despite the media's attempts to make this look like a contest. The saddest aspect of the collapse of the Republican Party that produced his "campaign" is that it leaves us with no choice but Hillary Clinton, a candidate so mired in the current political context that we are likely to no economic improvement for the bottom 90% over the next four years. We are desperate for moderate left party (or, frankly, ANY left party) with credibility to push our politics in the direction of social democracy (think Canada, Denmark). Bernie had impact, but the ascension of Trump gave him (and us) no choice but a grudging, nose-holding vote for the same-old, same-old. If we are to avoid a total collapse of our democracy, looming disaster (people without jobs, health care, education or prospects for their kids WILL rise up - Trump and Bernie are just two tips of the same iceberg) we need a credible social democratic option to rule by cut throat capitalists. Those with no resources and no hope for their children will rise up. Trump is only the beginning. Next time we may see a real fascist, not just a circus clown.
6
Rick, you seem to imply that any actual Republican (Trump, like Sanders, being a Party interloper) would have been preferable to Clinton. Among the many that Trump vanquished, whom would you consider to be a better Presidential choice than Clinton?
2
Rick,
Perhaps your views are oversimplified, given that it is to Hillary Clinton's advantage to actually make some meaningful reforms as espoused by her position papers and her campaign. In addition, if we believe as stated by Obama, and Sanders that reform comes largely from below, then, notwithstanding the poor odds of overcoming the vested interests of the powerful ,if also disparate oligarchy, we must do what we can to pressure Congress now and after November 8th.
Perhaps your views are oversimplified, given that it is to Hillary Clinton's advantage to actually make some meaningful reforms as espoused by her position papers and her campaign. In addition, if we believe as stated by Obama, and Sanders that reform comes largely from below, then, notwithstanding the poor odds of overcoming the vested interests of the powerful ,if also disparate oligarchy, we must do what we can to pressure Congress now and after November 8th.
2
So everything is the fault of the Democrats? Nixon peeling off the Dixiecrats? We know why that happened. Reagan peeling off the Reagan Democrats? We all know why that happened. It's all been a racist dog whistle since 1968. If Mr Edsall thinks that logic and reason are going to affect the typical Trump supporter he is living in a dream world. I used to wonder about why some people vote against their own best interest, e.g. The Kentucky voters voting against the first opportunity for health care in their lifetime. Now I don't care.
7
"...And that is largely because the core of Trump’s support is raw nativism...."
And that is largely because essentially every sound bite "news" source - of any stripe - has insisted, the last 20-ish years - on hammering "binary positions" at the expense of any nuance; on pushing intentionally simplistic "either/or" choices; on shrieking "us vs. them" sound bite reactions to every news event. Etc. Our software-driven echo chamber social media obsessed - and extremely narrowly sliced radio and TV driven "news source" society - thinks it's being given "just the facts". Regardless whether the facts as presented contain any truth. The saddest paradox in all of this "just the facts" media frenzy, is so many facts are willfully ignored and/or willfully crushed because they are too complicated to fit into the modern news cycle. As often as not because an unbending "black" or "white" position - even...or more probably, especially...when the stated position is outrageous - reliably attracts the most eyeballs. And "shares". And since acknowledging any grey area in the middle - of any shade in any of the current ornery discussions - has become shamed as "selling out" - especially by so many generally safely gerrymandered politicians - it's no surprise how many people who feel left behind see little or no choice other than choosing binary, extreme sides. "Political Parties? Good Riddance!! Trump tells it like it is!! Even if whatever it is he is babbling makes no sense."
And that is largely because essentially every sound bite "news" source - of any stripe - has insisted, the last 20-ish years - on hammering "binary positions" at the expense of any nuance; on pushing intentionally simplistic "either/or" choices; on shrieking "us vs. them" sound bite reactions to every news event. Etc. Our software-driven echo chamber social media obsessed - and extremely narrowly sliced radio and TV driven "news source" society - thinks it's being given "just the facts". Regardless whether the facts as presented contain any truth. The saddest paradox in all of this "just the facts" media frenzy, is so many facts are willfully ignored and/or willfully crushed because they are too complicated to fit into the modern news cycle. As often as not because an unbending "black" or "white" position - even...or more probably, especially...when the stated position is outrageous - reliably attracts the most eyeballs. And "shares". And since acknowledging any grey area in the middle - of any shade in any of the current ornery discussions - has become shamed as "selling out" - especially by so many generally safely gerrymandered politicians - it's no surprise how many people who feel left behind see little or no choice other than choosing binary, extreme sides. "Political Parties? Good Riddance!! Trump tells it like it is!! Even if whatever it is he is babbling makes no sense."
4
The split in the Democratic base Edsall refers to at the end, between well-off liberals and poorer minorities, is strikingly analogous to the split in the Republican base between big business and the poorer white population. Neither party is tending to the economic future of the poorer part of the base. The main difference is that the Democrats tend to ignore it and the Republicans tend to destroy it.
2
What Edsall avoids (overlooks, ignores) in his 30,000 foot essay is the power of unbridled hate. The stadiums full of Trump supporters aren't there as "left-behinders" any more .... that has morphed (thanks to The Donald) into mobs of furious haters, there not to gain an appreciation for the GOP plan to make their lives better (there simply is no such thing), but to express their rage at "the machine" and anyone who fails to recognize the doom and gloom image Mr. Trump feed them. It's simply a vicious and irrational feedback loop within which Trump thrives. The 'Left' will need to come to grips with the propaganda of blind hatred the candidacy of Donald Trump leave in his wake and simply reaching out to the disposed with 10-poinit plans will not do it.
13
There is no helping "furious haters" unfortunately. They will be ignored and marginalized and their hate will take them down even further. There are folks in the south who never reconciled to abolishment of slavery ... and they exist (and hate) on the margins of the overall US society and economy.
1
Democratic party does not face as much of a problem as suggested in this article. The minorities who are poor are happy with the progress, and are looking for incremental betterment in their lives, which is easy to accomplish in a growing economy that I strongly believe Clinton will be able to accomplish (lower corporate taxes is an easy fix). It is the whites without college degree, angry because of their loss of position in the society relative to minorities, who are susceptible to a populist demagogue. Note that the populist on the left (Bernie) was not able to get the votes of minorities during the primary. It is highly likely that Hillary will look to raise taxes on the wealthy, and that may indeed alienate the wealthy democratic voters; however, given the backlash towards the 1% in both the democratic and republican primaries, they may already be reconciled to modest increases in taxes. Unless the Republican party is able to reform itself to the extent that it again becomes the party of lower taxes, free trade, and anti-immigrant to the extent of enforcing the law (legalize the status of current 11 M illegal immigrants in the US, and then go after businesses employing illegal immigrants of the future) without the nativism, it is unlikely that any of the affluent democrats will shift to the republican party. It is the Republican party that still needs to reconcile the three factions: the really angry Trump supporters and evangelicals, and the free market wing.
3
RR-Hillary's speech, today in Warren Michigan, was the best she has given so far. Excellent laying out of her plans for many economic issues. She seems to have a really good plan. Let's a Democratic majority, so her plans can be put into practice. Today, I must admit, I got excited about Hillary Clinton, as president.
3
No, the Republicans just laid the groundwork for the emergence of someone like Trump, so, in reality, you could call Trump matter and the rest of the Republican party anti-matter and scientists will tell you what happens when both elements come together, complete extinction. The DNC? Well, between the E-Mails, a party that has turned further and further to the right moving away from its long time important voting base, while accepting corporate donations in the process, it is just gradually disintegrating all by itself, it does not need Trumps help.
When only a grand total of 9 percent of registered voters voted for the two candidates running for President, that trust and confidence level, or lack of it, in these candidates pretty well says it all.
When only a grand total of 9 percent of registered voters voted for the two candidates running for President, that trust and confidence level, or lack of it, in these candidates pretty well says it all.
1
The Democrats searching for a winning formula with Bill Clinton became a corporatist salesman for multinational corporations. Labor became irrelevant. Somehow Clinton was going to get workers better jobs. Newt Ginrich unleashed toxic partisanship which was based on white resentment with the globalized economy. The Democrats are less able to see the benefits of the globalized economy and the Republicans could make headway with their agenda of huge spending cuts in social services and education. Trump is the final stage of resentment based politics which immigration is the red meat issue. Hillary Clinton stands for status quo economics.
3
The core problem with both parties is they are not paying attention to a basic dynamic: jobs in many categories are vanishing. Both parties have "opinions" about this: Republicans like to claim that cheaper labor has taken them overseas, and to strongly imply that "those others" have also been culprits. Democrats like to claim that businesses have not been doing their part, and that too many jobs have gone offshore.
A key problem with both arguments is that business will always profit-maximize. Republicans believe this is the only goal, while Democrats believe it is OK within limits. Capitalism is a game with rules. Government makes the rules and provides enforcement. Ideally, the rules "rig" the game to maximize the ideals like "promote the general welfare", and the "pursuit of Happiness". Democrats are aware of the need, but reluctant to address them. Republicans are in denial.
Neither party has come to terms with the huge shift now underway for Manufacturing jobs, clerical jobs, and service jobs enabled by technology advances. The earlier shift from farm to factory (also enabled by technology advances) created evil (see Sinclair Lewis)--addressed finally by unions and progressive legislation. Many of the jobs created by the earlier shift are gone forever. Finding the right way to enable successful lives for the most people should be the goal of both parties. The Republicans serve only those with great wealth while the Democrats are still looking backwards too much.
A key problem with both arguments is that business will always profit-maximize. Republicans believe this is the only goal, while Democrats believe it is OK within limits. Capitalism is a game with rules. Government makes the rules and provides enforcement. Ideally, the rules "rig" the game to maximize the ideals like "promote the general welfare", and the "pursuit of Happiness". Democrats are aware of the need, but reluctant to address them. Republicans are in denial.
Neither party has come to terms with the huge shift now underway for Manufacturing jobs, clerical jobs, and service jobs enabled by technology advances. The earlier shift from farm to factory (also enabled by technology advances) created evil (see Sinclair Lewis)--addressed finally by unions and progressive legislation. Many of the jobs created by the earlier shift are gone forever. Finding the right way to enable successful lives for the most people should be the goal of both parties. The Republicans serve only those with great wealth while the Democrats are still looking backwards too much.
6
A generation of free market mania and anti government propaganda with dubious results for the middle class has created a cynical electorate. Those who profit from such policies are in the Trump class. Unfortunately his supporters have bought into the propaganda that liberals caused the current economic failures.
Ryan and his fellow free market fundamentalists have nothing to offer. Jeb's greatest accomplishment in Florida was to privatize and profitize public education. Rubio is nothing more than an accomplished door knocker. Kasich, far from a so called popular governor, has a mixed record. To see
the real underbelly of these policies look at the state of Kansas. Despite the failures of these policies the gop is strong in states thanks to voter suppression and gerrymandering.
The democrats far from offering something different have abandoned new deal policies and moved to the right. Some of the fixes for the great recession were right in front of our eyes but we have been blinded by lassiez faire ideology.
Why elect someone to public office (the tea party) who does not believe in much of what governments do for their citizens. The great destroyer of the parties is the growing awareness that free market fundamentalism is nothing but a trade off of big government for too big to control big corporations and big money.
Ryan and his fellow free market fundamentalists have nothing to offer. Jeb's greatest accomplishment in Florida was to privatize and profitize public education. Rubio is nothing more than an accomplished door knocker. Kasich, far from a so called popular governor, has a mixed record. To see
the real underbelly of these policies look at the state of Kansas. Despite the failures of these policies the gop is strong in states thanks to voter suppression and gerrymandering.
The democrats far from offering something different have abandoned new deal policies and moved to the right. Some of the fixes for the great recession were right in front of our eyes but we have been blinded by lassiez faire ideology.
Why elect someone to public office (the tea party) who does not believe in much of what governments do for their citizens. The great destroyer of the parties is the growing awareness that free market fundamentalism is nothing but a trade off of big government for too big to control big corporations and big money.
4
Both Trump and Clinton represent the dead end of the two-party system. I disagree that Trump represents the aspirations of working people - white or otherwise. He has styled himself as a spokesman for declassed elements. The vernacular term for this section of society is "white trash". Referring to these people as working class is about as accurate as referring to folks who cross pickets lines (also known as scabs) as workers. The more scientific term is lumpen - as in lumpen proletariat. The structural inability of either the Democrats or Republicans to address the burning issues of the day has lead to growing ruptures in the two-party setup. The Republican Party is in an advanced state of disintegration. The Sanders phenomenon was an attempt to resuscitate the Dems but the fundamental problem is that there's no there there. Clinton will win by default not acclimation. The productivity of labor has trebled since the end of WWII while living conditions have stagnated or for many - declined. Why? Most people are aware of the fact that the income problems that LBJ promised would disappear within a single generation (the Great Society speech of 1964 promising an end to poverty) remain omnipresent. The false hopes manufactured by a succession of false prophets - from Nixon through Obama - portend of a looming upset that may have begun with the loonies of the GOP but as the author notes embraces the fate of the Dems, as well. Hang on. The ride is about to get much rougher.
6
The entire basis of this article is ridiculous. As reader Mr. Deitz has pointed out, the parties started destroying themselves a long time ago, Reagan for the Republicans and JFK for the Democrats. Trump has been saying directly, without disguise, what the Republicans have been saying, with a wink, for a long time. When the Democrats started playing the ethnic and racial card to make up for the loss of the South and heartland, their problem started. The result, a "do nothing" Congress, totally impotent.
What is difficult to understand is why both parties continually vote the same incompetent legislators back into office, regardless of the fact that they are mainly interested in power and money, not what is good for the country or its citizens. Both parties are beholden to big money and Wall Street, regardless what the candidates preach. Those supporting Trump will some day realize that he is fundamentally a billionaire who could care less about their economic plight. Similarly, the Democrat liberals will soon realize that Clinton is also a tool of big money and unless the Congress changes drastically she too will be ineffective. Therein lies the problem of the shrinking middle class, and a source of their frustration, whether "elite", white or not, or college educated or not. We've been taken for a ride and by focusing on the President rather than the Congress where the real work should be done, nothing will change.
What is difficult to understand is why both parties continually vote the same incompetent legislators back into office, regardless of the fact that they are mainly interested in power and money, not what is good for the country or its citizens. Both parties are beholden to big money and Wall Street, regardless what the candidates preach. Those supporting Trump will some day realize that he is fundamentally a billionaire who could care less about their economic plight. Similarly, the Democrat liberals will soon realize that Clinton is also a tool of big money and unless the Congress changes drastically she too will be ineffective. Therein lies the problem of the shrinking middle class, and a source of their frustration, whether "elite", white or not, or college educated or not. We've been taken for a ride and by focusing on the President rather than the Congress where the real work should be done, nothing will change.
8
Both parties deserve to be wrecked.
12
This article correctly identifies the Democratic Party as a neoliberal bastion of the elite, Bernie Sanders criticized Democrats for ceding the working class vote to the Republicans before he was silenced by the Clinton camp at the DNC. The true nature of DNC was revealed by their treatment of the Sanders campaign and his issues. HRC has already abandoned her faux progressive-ness and pivoted towards disgruntled upscale Republicans because that is who she is, a Goldwater girl.
After presiding over an economic boom and a balanced budget, why did Bill Clinton give up so much to the banks and privatization of prisons and low income mortgage lending? Because that's who he is, a moderate Republican who represents the well-to-do, although he was better at the bait-and-switch than Hillary. Like Trump, he was able to con white working class male voters.
So yes, there is a strong argument that Democrats are MORE RESPONSIBLE for Trump than Republicans.
After presiding over an economic boom and a balanced budget, why did Bill Clinton give up so much to the banks and privatization of prisons and low income mortgage lending? Because that's who he is, a moderate Republican who represents the well-to-do, although he was better at the bait-and-switch than Hillary. Like Trump, he was able to con white working class male voters.
So yes, there is a strong argument that Democrats are MORE RESPONSIBLE for Trump than Republicans.
6
This is an incisive discussion of the current socio-political-economic dynamics playing in Europe, the USA, and developing countries today. Hillary has tacked more left thanks to St. Bernie. She has proven she can work across the aisle. It will be more challenging for her to address the expectancies of St. Bernie's disciples.
2
If Trump IS wrecking both Parties, he is doing it with the complicity of the media, their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. The "Fourth Estate" has become just part of Trump's "real estate." What a tragedy.
1
What Trump has proven is that "news" isn't factual anymore.
1
True. And for 30 years, the right wing has been aided and abetted by the WSJ, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc. And the democrtic party just put up with it, as our media fairness was destroyed.
1
ur: Well we do know for sure that Trump would not know a fact from a hole in the ground. He is all about the base and firing them up with whatever idea floats through his skull at that moment.
Despite himself, Trump has provided a valuable service to this nation: he has shown just how racist, radical, ignorant, and crazy the GOP base truly is. Many doubted us when we told them. Now there is room only for denial, not doubt.
6
There's a mistake early in the piece. You contrast the margins in Clinton's victory "over George H.W. Bush" and his victory "in 1992." As I hope you remember, Clinton's electoral victory over 41 was, in fact, his victory in 1992. Did you mean to compare his margins in 1992 with his margins in 1996, when his opponent was Robert Dole? Oops!
The author is citing four different cohorts in the 1992 election.
Better educated voters, in my experience tend to be more open minded and more caring for others. They are the ones that do the volunteer work for places like rape crisis centers, dementia day care facilities, programs for people with "different" abilities, boy and girls clubs, volunteer medical clinics etc., both in fund raising and "boots on the ground." They even, much to my surprise, volunteer in patient care at for profit hospitals. Lots of them go to church, but they don't adhere to the old "women must be subservient mantra." They have raised children who are comfortable with others of different economic status and different nationalities. A surprising number of the most successful have children who have chosen "blue collar" careers. Many of them have lived and worked in foreign countries or at least travelled widely and most are patriotic without insisting we are the only country that does things right.
Two days ago, I sat next to a very interesting man on my long delayed Delta flight. He told me how he had grown up in SC in a working class family as the oldest of 12 children. He was the first to get educated and continued throughout his career to work on advancing his skills until today he is captain of a cargo ship plying the waters of a third world country protected by two accompanying gun boats. He loves his crew and the local people of that country . He is a responsible gun owner. And he stated emphatically he will never vote for Donald Trump.
Two days ago, I sat next to a very interesting man on my long delayed Delta flight. He told me how he had grown up in SC in a working class family as the oldest of 12 children. He was the first to get educated and continued throughout his career to work on advancing his skills until today he is captain of a cargo ship plying the waters of a third world country protected by two accompanying gun boats. He loves his crew and the local people of that country . He is a responsible gun owner. And he stated emphatically he will never vote for Donald Trump.
6
"Instead of serving as the political arm of working and middle class voters seeking to move up the ladder, the Democratic Party faces the prospect of becoming the party of the winners.”
I'm sorry, but simply being a member of the white race doesn't guarantee you a good job anymore, and it shouldn't. If working-class whites who back Trump began to accept that, they might have a chance to improve their economic lot.
I'm sorry, but simply being a member of the white race doesn't guarantee you a good job anymore, and it shouldn't. If working-class whites who back Trump began to accept that, they might have a chance to improve their economic lot.
5
Overly complicated article. Right now both parties favor capital over labor. Because capital has so much more power than labor wages stagnate and debt create by capital (banks) skyrockets.
4
Ok given this calculus plays out to its worst end and we get a Trump presidency but this left-out class doesn't get a new, white, 50's US with $100K factory jobs springing up and minorities kicked out, what will they do then? Because that is what will happen. Will Trump have to start a war to divert and maintain his worshipping fans? And while democrats may be more prosperous now and less blue collar, the difference is we care. Most republicans don't, blaming hardship on the victim as justly deserved. We will support programs to help people help themselves and have equal opportunity. The democratic party is still by far the best hope for all classes and races.
2
Why should this be a surprise? The Republican party has played to this element with it's overt denial of science, accompanied by immature labeling and name calling directed at anyone who doesn't agree with their narrow ideology.
I'm not fond of dividing the populace up between those who support higher education vs. those who don't, because even along those lines there are large disparities. There is just as likely to be a college educated person who has not been successful in life because their chosen path hasn't worked out for them either, just like those who lost jobs due to technological shifts.
But is their anger truly justified? It often comes down to personal choices? When does individual responsibility matter? If you spent six years studying to be a zoo keeper, for example, and live in a small city that only has a petting zoo, please don't complain about not finding gainful employment. And you probably might have done some up front research on the number of jobs in that profession and what salary to expect before running up debt you can't repay.
Of course when you've grown up in a sheltered household where you're parents did everything for you and wanted to be your friend more than a parent it's hard to blame you for their lack of parenting skills.
The anger is misplaced. You could have had your lives interrupted (or ended) by being sent off to fight a global war. Consider that for a minute.
I'm not fond of dividing the populace up between those who support higher education vs. those who don't, because even along those lines there are large disparities. There is just as likely to be a college educated person who has not been successful in life because their chosen path hasn't worked out for them either, just like those who lost jobs due to technological shifts.
But is their anger truly justified? It often comes down to personal choices? When does individual responsibility matter? If you spent six years studying to be a zoo keeper, for example, and live in a small city that only has a petting zoo, please don't complain about not finding gainful employment. And you probably might have done some up front research on the number of jobs in that profession and what salary to expect before running up debt you can't repay.
Of course when you've grown up in a sheltered household where you're parents did everything for you and wanted to be your friend more than a parent it's hard to blame you for their lack of parenting skills.
The anger is misplaced. You could have had your lives interrupted (or ended) by being sent off to fight a global war. Consider that for a minute.
2
The picture accompanying the article is informative indeed--there are no persons of color in it at all.
1
Both the Red and Blue parties have monied elites who run the show. Currently we are led to the conclusion that Hillary/Democratic money elites are BAD and Republican/Trump are GOOD. Why we are being lead down this path by the media I don't know. Both parties need to address their kow-tow to money. It would also seem that lower class citizens would all be united in common cause for better and more jobs, higher wages, better health benefits etc. They are not. This is because amid all the mumbo jumbo is the fact that the Republican party has for the past 60 years made its bed with Southern white racism. Trump has made this a cornerstone of his campaign and the Republican party has been revealed and must stick with it. There is no analysis which could suggest that a persons skin color dictates their political views. This has almost become the case here in America because of racism. Trump has revealed the ugly truth. If America can stop this by voting against Trumpian racism then maybe both parties can begin to reshape policy along other tenets.
1
"Currently we are led to the conclusion that Hillary/Democratic money elites are BAD and Republican/Trump are GOOD."
Elizabeth, I'm not aware of anyone stating the second part of this conclusion. Anyone who is stating the first part of the conclusion is doing so to make the case that the Democrats are hypocrites for kowtowing to monied elites while professing (pretending?) to fight for the little guy. Until this year, one could have made the case that such kowtowing was a necessary evil to effectively compete in the modern-day world of campaigning. But the impact that the Sanders campaign had while relying almost exclusively on small donors negated that argument, in my opinion.
Elizabeth, I'm not aware of anyone stating the second part of this conclusion. Anyone who is stating the first part of the conclusion is doing so to make the case that the Democrats are hypocrites for kowtowing to monied elites while professing (pretending?) to fight for the little guy. Until this year, one could have made the case that such kowtowing was a necessary evil to effectively compete in the modern-day world of campaigning. But the impact that the Sanders campaign had while relying almost exclusively on small donors negated that argument, in my opinion.
2
To whoever wrote the headline "IsTrump wrecking both parties?". Its bad enough - both parties are guilty of coming up with poor candidates, one of whom will likely be elected! All the poor voter can do is try to stop their worst legislative blunders as their agendas (?) unfold. Stop already - its like trying to decide if the Hindenburg would have done better with an impact angle of 90 degrees versus one of 80 degrees.
2
In the CNN table cited, white and non-white incomes are combined. If low-income non-whites were excluded, we'd see an even stronger inverse linear relationship between income and support for Trump/Pence.
1
80% of Evangelicals support Trump? What incontrovertible evidence--again-- that what unifies members of organized religion is their rampant hypocrisy.
8
I disagree with much of the analysis in his piece, especially that of Mr. Buruma, which repeats long held views by pundits and others, but has no basis in the actual trends in politics in the post WWII period.
In the 1960s the Democratic Party did not switch from the party of the working class to one of identity politics. It brought itself into alignment with GOP in favoring civil rights, and recognized that the non-white working class was part of its coalition.
In 1964 the GOP nominee, Goldwater, was an opponent of civil rights legislation. He won only about 39% of the popular vote, and carried only the states in the deep south (plus his home state of Arizona barely), just as Strom Thurmond had done in 1948.
In 1968, Nixon and Humphrey each garnered about 43% of the popular vote. Wallace won about 14%, carrying the Thurmond/Goldwater deep south states. At this point the GOP came to realize that its future lay in winning over that vote.
The result was the Southern Strategy, Silent Majority, welfare queens. Willie Horton etc. (Ford in 1976 and Mc Cain in 2008, both of whom lost, were exceptions).
This strategy was based on the premise that the white majority had had something "tangible" taken away from them - jobs, educational opportunities, personal safety etc. But, all they had actually lost was something intangible - social staus based on skin color alone, nothing else.
Trump and Make America Great Again is the current permutation. As before, the premise is racism.
In the 1960s the Democratic Party did not switch from the party of the working class to one of identity politics. It brought itself into alignment with GOP in favoring civil rights, and recognized that the non-white working class was part of its coalition.
In 1964 the GOP nominee, Goldwater, was an opponent of civil rights legislation. He won only about 39% of the popular vote, and carried only the states in the deep south (plus his home state of Arizona barely), just as Strom Thurmond had done in 1948.
In 1968, Nixon and Humphrey each garnered about 43% of the popular vote. Wallace won about 14%, carrying the Thurmond/Goldwater deep south states. At this point the GOP came to realize that its future lay in winning over that vote.
The result was the Southern Strategy, Silent Majority, welfare queens. Willie Horton etc. (Ford in 1976 and Mc Cain in 2008, both of whom lost, were exceptions).
This strategy was based on the premise that the white majority had had something "tangible" taken away from them - jobs, educational opportunities, personal safety etc. But, all they had actually lost was something intangible - social staus based on skin color alone, nothing else.
Trump and Make America Great Again is the current permutation. As before, the premise is racism.
6
There's a problem with the basic premise here, because in other polls the average income of Trump supporters is actually higher than that of Clinton supporters. The average Trump supporter makes $72,000 a year, hardly "working class". That's also higher than the income of the average Clinton supporter.
There is a common thread in who supports Trump, but it's not income level. He has working class supporters, middle class supporters, and upper class supporters, with the average as I say falling around upper middle class. So income level is not the divide, contrary to the theory that this article is based on.
What is the common thread among Trump supporters? Read on:
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/03/birtherism_and_bigotry_these_are_the_vil...
There is a common thread in who supports Trump, but it's not income level. He has working class supporters, middle class supporters, and upper class supporters, with the average as I say falling around upper middle class. So income level is not the divide, contrary to the theory that this article is based on.
What is the common thread among Trump supporters? Read on:
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/03/birtherism_and_bigotry_these_are_the_vil...
5
To Jeo,
Sadly, it was also the common thread among the supporters of most GOP candidates, going back to the 1960s.
Sadly, it was also the common thread among the supporters of most GOP candidates, going back to the 1960s.
3
I generally agree with the overall thrust of the argument here, and the kinds of scholarship that is adduced to support it. There's no question in my mind that the rise of Trumpism or right populism can be explained by the failure of the supposed "left" parties to represent the working class, and especially in the case of the US, the white working class, whose members have nothing to gain from the Democratic Party. However, I completely disagree with the premise that the Democratic Party was "[o]nce a class-based coalition," if by this the author means that the Democratic Party's composition was essentially working class. It's always been a party of, for, and largely by liberal capitalists.
3
Clearly you missed the US history classes about support of the labor movement and the New Deal and Truman's move to integrate the military and LBJ championing Civil Rights, Medicare and the conceptual Great Society. Your definition of the democrats as liberal is correct; your position that they are all capitalists (as opposed to what-- marxists?) is simplistic at best, false at worst.
Clearly you missed the statement by FDR that he was "capitalism's best friend." And the notion that the Democratic Party itself was responsible for these reforms you point to is suggestive of your top-down understanding of history. The Democrats would have done nothing if not for working-class pressure placed on them.
Working-class leftism is always irrelevant in multiracial societies, where identity politics always trumps anything else. This, will be America's status quo for the foreseeable future.
And besides, there's nothing truly admirable about European style social democracies. It makes the population feel secure, and not much else.
And besides, there's nothing truly admirable about European style social democracies. It makes the population feel secure, and not much else.
7
"there's nothing truly admirable about European style social democracies. It makes the population feel secure, and not much else."
Ryan, the events of 2008 and their aftermath quite clearly show that economic security is fragile and cannot be taken for granted.
Ryan, the events of 2008 and their aftermath quite clearly show that economic security is fragile and cannot be taken for granted.
2
From 1964 to this year, politics in American evolved along fairly predictable and understandable dimensions. Republicans represented the wealthiest one percent and conned enough low end white voters with social and religious nonsense to win elections. Democrats represented people who were smart enough to more or less understand economics and to know they were not part of the one percent, plus other minorities. Donald Trump has messed up the system by giving the conned a focus for their anger. It will take some time to see how things sort themselves out.
The threat to Democrats in this election begins with the leftward shift in the platform responding to the Bernie voters and the "promises" that are being made to effect progressive change. Hillary's reputation as a liar, that has been nonsense up til now, is about to get a shot of reality when, after getting elected, she will deliver none of the things on which she is campaigning. Republicans will control congress and will go along with exactly nothing of what Hillary is promising. Raise taxes on the high end? Invest in infrastructure to boost the economy? Get serious.
Democrats need to be running against the Republican congress, not the bizarre guy at the top of the ticket who has already self destructed. Promising stuff you can't deliver is bad politics when you win.
The threat to Democrats in this election begins with the leftward shift in the platform responding to the Bernie voters and the "promises" that are being made to effect progressive change. Hillary's reputation as a liar, that has been nonsense up til now, is about to get a shot of reality when, after getting elected, she will deliver none of the things on which she is campaigning. Republicans will control congress and will go along with exactly nothing of what Hillary is promising. Raise taxes on the high end? Invest in infrastructure to boost the economy? Get serious.
Democrats need to be running against the Republican congress, not the bizarre guy at the top of the ticket who has already self destructed. Promising stuff you can't deliver is bad politics when you win.
8
As Trump intensifies his dangerous attacks he is setting the stage for cowering Republican members of Congress to make a choice between conscience and collaboration. Republicans need to consider whether they want to be recorded in history as Vichy Republicans or patriots.
7
Plato said "Law can be a great educator"--done right. Bigots say, "You can't teach morality;" but that is exactly what US civil rights law did and does.
It is what Trump is trying to undo--replace civility with barbarism.
The middle step in this transition is "free marketing"--replacing fact, truth, logic, evidence--the backbone of education--with what the market will bear. An opinion market in long decay due to Fox News.
Marketing is the "science" of separating fools from their money. The first step is to create more fools. Fools are persuaded by propaganda. "Propaganda" was coined to propagate the faith--faith being illogical dogmatic belief. (See "No Logo" for the link between advertising and religion.)
Marketing then is a way of parasitizing those "buying" goods, services or opinions.
The trouble is parasites can over do it--destroying their hosts. Too many awfully foolish people can destroy the culture--the civilization--that props up capitalism/plutocracy/corporatism.
That would be Trump and his fanatic "true [dogmatic] believers"--who would support him HE SAID even if he killed people willy-nilly. He is the Trump-virus.
Some have claimed Trump is a Red Herring--thrown into the campaign to guarantee that a capitalist/plutocrat/corporatist/nouveau-riche--HRC--would be elected.
They might have been better off reforming the rigged system than by creating more fools which--like other biological weapons--destroy the culture but not the buildings.
It is what Trump is trying to undo--replace civility with barbarism.
The middle step in this transition is "free marketing"--replacing fact, truth, logic, evidence--the backbone of education--with what the market will bear. An opinion market in long decay due to Fox News.
Marketing is the "science" of separating fools from their money. The first step is to create more fools. Fools are persuaded by propaganda. "Propaganda" was coined to propagate the faith--faith being illogical dogmatic belief. (See "No Logo" for the link between advertising and religion.)
Marketing then is a way of parasitizing those "buying" goods, services or opinions.
The trouble is parasites can over do it--destroying their hosts. Too many awfully foolish people can destroy the culture--the civilization--that props up capitalism/plutocracy/corporatism.
That would be Trump and his fanatic "true [dogmatic] believers"--who would support him HE SAID even if he killed people willy-nilly. He is the Trump-virus.
Some have claimed Trump is a Red Herring--thrown into the campaign to guarantee that a capitalist/plutocrat/corporatist/nouveau-riche--HRC--would be elected.
They might have been better off reforming the rigged system than by creating more fools which--like other biological weapons--destroy the culture but not the buildings.
4
Presumably you want to use Plato to justify your notion that Trump's followers are fools.
But your criticism misses the mark. Trump's followers are poor. Most of them are uneducated. Therefore they chose as spokesperson Trump, who speaks to them, not to the elite.
He uses simple sentences. He repeats slogans. He tries to convince them that he feels their pain.
While the NY Times essentially denies the efficacy of their vote by declaring Trump a "madman," as "mentally ill."
And to be fair, the NY Times is partly right. Trump has NO PLAN whatsoever, at least nothing that makes real sense, except for this:
The US has been suffering from too much population growth. This raises unemployment among the poor. So halting illegal immigration would be a step forward.
Or more precisely, it would have been a step forward a generation and a half ago. US population grew by 36% in the period 1980-2010. That means that limited resources get spread among more people. (It is actually too late.)
You cited Plato. But plato ordered regimes of government:
1. aristocracy, rule by philosopher-kings
2. timocracy
3. oligarchy
4. democracy
5. tyranny
Plato was right. Poor Americans now, realizing that they have been bamboozled by the sanctimonious left, are choosing to proceed from democracy to tyranny.
And who can blame them?
Not to worry--liberals will once again disenfranchise the poor. It's just that they can't ensure that the movement Trump started will disappear.
But your criticism misses the mark. Trump's followers are poor. Most of them are uneducated. Therefore they chose as spokesperson Trump, who speaks to them, not to the elite.
He uses simple sentences. He repeats slogans. He tries to convince them that he feels their pain.
While the NY Times essentially denies the efficacy of their vote by declaring Trump a "madman," as "mentally ill."
And to be fair, the NY Times is partly right. Trump has NO PLAN whatsoever, at least nothing that makes real sense, except for this:
The US has been suffering from too much population growth. This raises unemployment among the poor. So halting illegal immigration would be a step forward.
Or more precisely, it would have been a step forward a generation and a half ago. US population grew by 36% in the period 1980-2010. That means that limited resources get spread among more people. (It is actually too late.)
You cited Plato. But plato ordered regimes of government:
1. aristocracy, rule by philosopher-kings
2. timocracy
3. oligarchy
4. democracy
5. tyranny
Plato was right. Poor Americans now, realizing that they have been bamboozled by the sanctimonious left, are choosing to proceed from democracy to tyranny.
And who can blame them?
Not to worry--liberals will once again disenfranchise the poor. It's just that they can't ensure that the movement Trump started will disappear.
2
Trumps history is one of being nothing but a USER and he is using the poor and uneducated as a means to an end, he could not care less about these people. Between his pathological lying, fabrication of facts, myriad of lawsuits suing everybody that says something bad about him, the stiffing of business partners in at least SIX bankruptcies and his longtime consorting with known criminals, hardly makes him a savior for the poor.
I turn 60 next week, which means I've been around a while now. In my youth, environmental problems were bi-partisan; Richard Nixon signed into law most of our landmark environmental legislation (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and more) and created the EPA & CEQ. Today, anyone who holds environmental issues as a priority has moved to the Democratic party (or farther left) and Republicans deny climate science and try to gut all of our environmental legislation. In my youth, so-called Dixiecrats were the states' rights segregationists; they and their ideological descendants have all become Republicans (and now "Trumpets"). Finally, there was a time when one could plausibly argue that Republicans were the more fiscally responsible party, but since Reagan's supply-side voodoo economics, that claim has now been false for over 35 years. I grew up in a Republican family, but was the first to leave for the Democrats when I grew disgusted with Nixon/Kissinger lies about the Vietnam war. I have since been followed by my entire family. My point is that parties evolve and have been evolving in the US as long as I have been paying attention. One's loyalties should not be to a party name, but to your ideals, to your values, to your knowledge, to science and to research-verified fact. If these lead you to leave your party, so be it. I expect that many of the few remaining "moderate" Republicans must be weighing that choice right now, forced by Trumps outrageous positions. GOOD FOR THEM!
30
No, Trump is not doing anything new and different, only worse. He represents the logical outcome of the Republican political tactics going back decades. The party has no positive agenda to unite the various voting blocks and can only unite to win presidential elections by demonizing their opponents. For democracy to survive, we need a philosophical debate about the competing definitions of progress in our society. If the Republicans had any confidence that they would win that debate, they would engage. Instead, they continue to duck that debate in favor of the so-called character issues. Lacking any sense of proportion or principle, they never back away from any accusation even when it is shown to be false. Trump is the apotheosis of deny, deflect, denounce, which will lead to destroy - democracy, not just the parties.
8
If Trump ever gets back to leading the polls, buy gold, lots of freeze dried foods, water and get ready to hunker down. Or head for any border.
The democrats sliced and diced the electorate into "identity" groups very much like Proctor and Gamble once dissected its market into segments. Campaign strategies were then developed for each "identity" just like P&G targeted different demographics.
Unfortunately, democrats also pitted those groups against each other, making certain groups believe others were out to get them (ex. "War on [fill-in-the-identity"]). Democrats then offered protection for the price of a vote, a bit like an extortion racket.
Democrats tried to address economic insecurity with more identity politics. Thus came their "income inequality" meme, this time pitting the rich against the poor. It has produced little in the way of solutions or policy proposals because it's looking at the problem from the wrong perspective.
"Identity is a marketing concept", nothing more. By now Americans should be wise to the fact that they are being marketed to based on their identities.
Unfortunately, democrats also pitted those groups against each other, making certain groups believe others were out to get them (ex. "War on [fill-in-the-identity"]). Democrats then offered protection for the price of a vote, a bit like an extortion racket.
Democrats tried to address economic insecurity with more identity politics. Thus came their "income inequality" meme, this time pitting the rich against the poor. It has produced little in the way of solutions or policy proposals because it's looking at the problem from the wrong perspective.
"Identity is a marketing concept", nothing more. By now Americans should be wise to the fact that they are being marketed to based on their identities.
8
I think you have your thinking cap on backwards. The Republicans are the ones pitting the rich against the poor, pretending to care while giving themselves and their big donors huge tax cuts while pretending they are going to use that money to create jobs. In the meantime they (and this includes Trump) use H1B visas to import cheap labor and keep moving their manufacturing to other countries so as to pad their pockets further. Just today I read in our local paper how the local grocery chains are using J1 visas to trick college age youngsters to PAY for the privilege of coming to this country thinking they will have office jobs only to find they are crammed four to a bedroom in an apartment miles from the grocery store where they will be cleaning floors and cooking chicken in the Deli department. I doubt any Democrats are running those visa scams.
1
So non-educated whites, the blue collar workers are falling away from the Democratic Party.
Doesn't it seem that the destruction of unions in America can be as responsible for this as almost any other factor? I guess it makes sense why some people are so enthusiastic to see them go.
Doesn't it seem that the destruction of unions in America can be as responsible for this as almost any other factor? I guess it makes sense why some people are so enthusiastic to see them go.
2
Republicans, namely Reagan, destroyed to Unions.
1
I find this very depressing, but not unexpected after the Sanders loss in the primary. If the Democrats are not the party of the poor and working class then the poor and working class don't have a party. Some of them may cling to Trump and the Republicans, because at least that's definitely a change from the status quo, but the Republicans haven't really ever been concerned with the problems of people without much money.
So we've got a big segment of the population (the one that most needs help from the government) with no political party that's particularly interested in helping them.
Yes, racism is an enormous problem in the US, and it feeds into other problems like poverty, and the inadequate and systemically biased criminal justice system. And it's nice that the Democrats seem to be more interested in dealing with the problem. But I'm not sure if they can do that while still serving the well off economic liberals who seem to be not only a large portion of their voters, but largely their paymasters as well.
It's getting to the point where I think the Democrats are duping minority voters in the same way the Republicans are duping social conservatives.
So we've got a big segment of the population (the one that most needs help from the government) with no political party that's particularly interested in helping them.
Yes, racism is an enormous problem in the US, and it feeds into other problems like poverty, and the inadequate and systemically biased criminal justice system. And it's nice that the Democrats seem to be more interested in dealing with the problem. But I'm not sure if they can do that while still serving the well off economic liberals who seem to be not only a large portion of their voters, but largely their paymasters as well.
It's getting to the point where I think the Democrats are duping minority voters in the same way the Republicans are duping social conservatives.
4
"If the Democrats are not the party of the poor and working class then the poor and working class don't have a party."
Sure, they do...the Green party.
Sure, they do...the Green party.
1
Mr. Edsall touches briefly on one of the curiouser curiosities of the Trump candidacy: his support among evangelicals, notwithstanding his very public sex life, with 3 marriages and lots of boasting about being in bed with "top women" during the times before and between marriages. I have interpreted the paradox of evangelical support as evidence that many evangelicals are, forgive me, hypocrites. (A notable exception is Mormons, who generally do not support the Trump candidacy.) Evangelicals don't like homosexuals, sexually acitve unmarried women, Mexicans, immigrants, and pro-choicers on abortion, but they seem willing to give Trump a pass on his un-Christian sexual behavior as long as he bashes immigrants and women.
9
I usually love the articles by Mr. Edsall and I usually agree but not this time.
I was a Democrat when I was poor and still a Democrat as part of the middle class.
In my mother's household, everyone was meant for college. Yes, education is the way to middle class. That is what the Democratic party has always advocated for. It is Rick Santorum that said college was not for everyone criticizing Prez. Barak Obama when he said we should all be striving for a college education.
Fundamentally, I think the problem with the people supporting Trump is they are a reflection of the decline in the public education system that has lost a lot of credibility and funding over the years from Republican policies. They are the ones that want to abolish Dept of Education. They don't want to pay teachers a decent salary. They want school choice which means that poorer schools do not get funding.
US has been part of Globalization for over a hundred years - we were educated enough to compete but that is not the case now.
I was a Democrat when I was poor and still a Democrat as part of the middle class.
In my mother's household, everyone was meant for college. Yes, education is the way to middle class. That is what the Democratic party has always advocated for. It is Rick Santorum that said college was not for everyone criticizing Prez. Barak Obama when he said we should all be striving for a college education.
Fundamentally, I think the problem with the people supporting Trump is they are a reflection of the decline in the public education system that has lost a lot of credibility and funding over the years from Republican policies. They are the ones that want to abolish Dept of Education. They don't want to pay teachers a decent salary. They want school choice which means that poorer schools do not get funding.
US has been part of Globalization for over a hundred years - we were educated enough to compete but that is not the case now.
13
since we have never had a true capitalist system i am always amused when someone claims that one for of government intervention or another has saved capitalism from itself. government intervention has always and from the beginning favored one person, business, industry at the expense of others. the fallacy of hubris (that the faction that creates a government power will always be in control of it) will always ensure that one market intervention will require another and then another all designed to fix the damage done in the first place until we end up with a trump vs a Clinton where either choice is likely to end badly.
1
The problem is that capital seeks government intervention. "Free markets" are merely a loss leader for eventual corruption.
1
The Democrats are running a war hawk and the Republican's a mad dog. Our only prayer is that they both disqualify themselves before November.
I'm from Texas, where a Trump win is a near certainty, and should be able to vote Green to voice my preference. I feel sorry for all those in the more competitive states who have a much more difficult decision to make.
I'm from Texas, where a Trump win is a near certainty, and should be able to vote Green to voice my preference. I feel sorry for all those in the more competitive states who have a much more difficult decision to make.
3
Clinton is reticent about talking about the poor. Trump talks . . . about everything, big and small, the scared and the profane. Neither talking nor not-talking says much about where these two speakers have their sensibilities deposited.
There is a simple way to see what each is up to: look for where they have been. Both are old enough to have left for us a long record of commission and omission. Clinton has been a Goldwater-girl-turned-socialist-turned-insecure millionaire. Trump is a gaudy, filthy millionaire who has found a use for the poor -- slot-machine-fodder for his casinos.
There is a simple way to see what each is up to: look for where they have been. Both are old enough to have left for us a long record of commission and omission. Clinton has been a Goldwater-girl-turned-socialist-turned-insecure millionaire. Trump is a gaudy, filthy millionaire who has found a use for the poor -- slot-machine-fodder for his casinos.
3
Check out Clinton's advocacy history and her programs to improve education and vocational training. Compare it to Trumps manipulation of the system to protect his inheritance while hiring foreign workers and using foreign factories.
Clinton already wrecked the Democratic party by corrupting it almost completely.
By the way, I see the Times has covered Trump's purported call for Clinton's assassination, but it seems to have forgotten to mention that in 2008 Clinton was "speculating" about Obama being assassinated a la Robert Kennedy as a reason for her to remain in the race.
By the way, I see the Times has covered Trump's purported call for Clinton's assassination, but it seems to have forgotten to mention that in 2008 Clinton was "speculating" about Obama being assassinated a la Robert Kennedy as a reason for her to remain in the race.
13
The Democratic Party is in good shape, Kat. They have an 80 per cent chance of winning the presidency. The election may result in a landslide, in which they will recapture the Senate and House. This should break the logjam, resulting in much-needed progressive legislation.
5
Hillary Clinton is the de facto head of the Democratic Party. She does what she wants and to whom she wants. Democratic voters have never had any other choice but to vote for her. (Her person, Wasserman Schultz, was working on super delegates long before anyone knew what they were.)
If that's not a corruption of power, I don't know what is.
If that's not a corruption of power, I don't know what is.
1
Clinton's gaffe was reported, too. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I am surprised that the post-9/11 rabid, fact free rush towards war in Iraq is never mentioned as a precursor to the Trump era. It seems to be me that many of the same people put blinders on then and supported Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and demonized their opposition, e. g. Kerry. Ironic that this crowd castigates Hillary for her Iraq vote, too....
8
"Capital Mobility" isn't a policy choice, it is a reality of a global economy witha global Internet. Professor Rodrik should give thought to how on earth it could be stopped before he labels it a policy.
2
Don't blame Trump for the Democratic Party abandoning the poor and middle-class... blame Hillary and Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton first for supporting NAFTA and selling out the unions and American manufacturing workers who supported the Democratic Party for decades. Ever since that time, the Democratic Party has inched further and further away those constituents and closer to Wall Street. They still support a more progressive tax code and a higher minimum wage, but they've been silent on trade for decades allowing a phony like Trump to outflank them on the issue.
10
NAFTA was negotiated under George HW Bush although it was signed by the newly inaugurated Clinton. I don't see how you can blame that on Mrs. Clinton although Republicans have a penchant for blaming anything and everything that ever goes wrong in life on someone else and they encourage their constituents to do the same.
1
Khrushchev stated "I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you,"
He was referring to Marxist dogma, but to his credit he may end up being right as the excesses of capitalism in the current form is fracturing communities, towns, regions, countries and societies. Yes, it really is that bad, just look at the growing concentration of wealth across the country and the globe. The results are all around us, with people, including the NYT and readers, increasingly getting out and using the big crayons to describe each other in scathing terms, not knowing that they are essentially fighting for the cake crumbs that fall from the table of the 1%.
The right question is 'is capitalism in its current form wrecking both parties?'
He was referring to Marxist dogma, but to his credit he may end up being right as the excesses of capitalism in the current form is fracturing communities, towns, regions, countries and societies. Yes, it really is that bad, just look at the growing concentration of wealth across the country and the globe. The results are all around us, with people, including the NYT and readers, increasingly getting out and using the big crayons to describe each other in scathing terms, not knowing that they are essentially fighting for the cake crumbs that fall from the table of the 1%.
The right question is 'is capitalism in its current form wrecking both parties?'
6
Can you tell the hundreds of millions of dead counter-revolutiuonaries about the paradise they're missing by being dead? Is stupidity in its' current form either by choice or ignorance obscuring all those pesky historic corpses buried in mass graves in Europe and Asia by "Socialists"?
1
Interestingly enough, Khrushchev didn't say "We will kill you"; he said "bury." We bury those we outlive, even loved ones. As for capitalism, the jury's still out. These days, even Khrushchev and Goldwater not to mention Eisenhower) are looking good.
Both parties are driven by political-consultant coalition tactics, and have no clear principles or values. We need for Clinton and Trump to re-enact Jefferson-Burr.
4
We need for Clinton and Trump to re-enact Hamilton-Burr -- but for Hillary to take away Trump's gun before he gets to use it.
Trump wants to react Hamilton/ Burr with Mrs. Clinton as Hamilton.
Duh! That was (part of) my point...
Whether the article is an opinion or not, I cannot take anything seriously that leads off with "findings from...Twitter..." Especially if it mentions that anything on Twitter "leads to a clear conclusion." No wonder people question the media and "experts" If this is what passes for journalism these days.
9
"This is partly because leftwing parties since the 1960s began to switch their attention from working class struggle to identity politics."
What is obviously left unsaid here is the reason that the left moved away from lower class whites: that demographic was successfully recruited by the Republican party using blatant disinformation campaigns and racist fear-mongering, called the 'southern strategy', rather than actually favoring policies that would help the working class as Democrats had long done. Republican policies like cutting taxes for the rich and free trade harmed the working class, but they won the propaganda war which they then re-branded as a culture war.
What is obviously left unsaid here is the reason that the left moved away from lower class whites: that demographic was successfully recruited by the Republican party using blatant disinformation campaigns and racist fear-mongering, called the 'southern strategy', rather than actually favoring policies that would help the working class as Democrats had long done. Republican policies like cutting taxes for the rich and free trade harmed the working class, but they won the propaganda war which they then re-branded as a culture war.
10
You're giving Donald Trump way too much credit, Mr. Edsall. The whooshing sound you apparently missed in 1980 was a significant part of the Democratic Party switching sides to become "Reagan Democrats". It didn't start with Trump.
Hillary Clinton's policy proposals include plans to lift all people, including whites, but less educated white people probably never hear about them through the Limbaugh and Ailes noise machines. Even if they were aware of her ideas, they are so culturally conditioned by decades of GOP propaganda that they would not listen to "Crooked Hillary", the theme kept alive since the 1990s. It didn't start with Trump.
Clinton will be able to govern if the Democrats are able to take back the Senate primarily and perhaps make inroads in the House. With a senate behind her, she can appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court and get lower courts staffed. One hopes at that point she can restore some of the sanity by revitalizing the VRA and get some of the money out of politics.
Very little of the situation today can be attributed to Trump. The Republicans went off the cliff all by themselves and the Democrats followed close behind. Trump has exposed the Republican Party for what it is, which gives Democrats an opportunity to self correct. I hope they take it.
Hillary Clinton's policy proposals include plans to lift all people, including whites, but less educated white people probably never hear about them through the Limbaugh and Ailes noise machines. Even if they were aware of her ideas, they are so culturally conditioned by decades of GOP propaganda that they would not listen to "Crooked Hillary", the theme kept alive since the 1990s. It didn't start with Trump.
Clinton will be able to govern if the Democrats are able to take back the Senate primarily and perhaps make inroads in the House. With a senate behind her, she can appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court and get lower courts staffed. One hopes at that point she can restore some of the sanity by revitalizing the VRA and get some of the money out of politics.
Very little of the situation today can be attributed to Trump. The Republicans went off the cliff all by themselves and the Democrats followed close behind. Trump has exposed the Republican Party for what it is, which gives Democrats an opportunity to self correct. I hope they take it.
8
I acknowledge the distinction within the Democratic Party between low-income minorities and upper-class whites, but I think their interests are much more closely aligned than the interests of their rich and poor counterparts on the Republican side. Wealthy Democrats generally favor an expansion of public benefits. I don't see the alliance on the Democratic side falling apart the way it has for Republicans.
10
I would be considered well-to-do by the authors definition (upper 5%?), but my support for the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton is not rooted in a desire to "protect my enclave" against the other half of the party. I grew up with and participated in the protest movements of the sixties and seventies. I deplore the enormous wealth disparities that recall the 1920's. I recognize that they invite social unrest. I want to pay more taxes. I would like to see a new "Works Projects Administration" to create jobs and renew our infrastructure. I recognize that a truly gender and racially blind society is a stronger and more resilient society. I want to pay for pre-school for all children (though I have none). The authors assume that the well-to-do are all greedy. I think this is an error. We are not stupid or foolish. Some of us are even moral. We know that American security depends on making a more inclusive society and on eliminating huge disparities in wealth. That's why I'm a Democrat.
54
Thanks. Yay, verily and amen.
4
Economically the government gets stronger and the people weaker. Such noble brotherhood between all the people works really well until the first dispute between equals. Then the sequels from the ministry will take over to protect you from violence, unfortunately the Sequels will have to execute some of the equals to set an example. Unlike other past despotic regimes they will have the full cooperation of science to enforce the "Law".In fifty years the Sequels will be known as the aristocracy and the 99.975 will be called the serfs. Don't worry there won't be any guns allowed but don't get in the way at feeding time.
2
"I want to pay more taxes."
What has prevented you from doing that?
What has prevented you from doing that?
We need a Democratic supermajority, so that legislation such as the Employee Free Choice Act can be passed. It doesn't seem like middle and working class Americans have the brains to vote this way and to ignore right-wing propaganda, thus we all suffer. I have never understood why so many Americans vote against themselves by voting Republican. I feel as if it must be ignorance.
7
The power point bullet points for all to understand:
Traits that define Republicans
Shameless
Hypocritical
Angry
Ignorant
Racist.
The fear and hate are symptoms of ignorance and anger. Probably need to amend and attach misogynist to racist.
Traits that define Republicans
Shameless
Hypocritical
Angry
Ignorant
Racist.
The fear and hate are symptoms of ignorance and anger. Probably need to amend and attach misogynist to racist.
5
Ignorance is when a moronic self described do gooder starts pontificating about the other guys brains. Propaganda is universal ,stupid, and everyone has to suffer fools, not necessarily gladly.
1
Mr. Edsall:
thank you for the details imparted herein.
this is quite a primer, especially considering the inherent limitations of space and time that an Opinion Column represents.
it might be re-enlightening to remind your readers:
that WJC,
seeking a 1996 re-election,
almost from day-one in 1993,
and most-certainly in January, 1995,
shifted as far-right as necessary to accomplish this,
abandoning almost all of the New Deal and Great Society programs that once were the bedrock-foundations of the 20th Century Democratic Party.
should HRC manage to become the next president,
- - - which will require substantial election-support of both African-Americans and Hispanics - - -
any realistic hope of a second term will necessitate her to 'shift-left' in order to recapture their participation.
and this will be fully against the wishes of the Elite Class of which you write.
we live in most interesting times.
shudder - shudder
1
It is time for national self-examination. Seriously.
This presidential campaign is no reality show, or 'let's make a deal' game, or opportunity to sell steaks, wine, Trump U, Vodka, real estate, or gambling.
The candidate for the Republican party has repeatedly called for his opponent to be jailed, humiliated, and degraded. He has now called for a political assassination. He has asked for a foreign power to use espionage to bring her down.
This GOP candidate has repeated repeated deliberate, unfounded, malicious lies about his opponents, each more vitriolic than the last: Obama FOUNDED ISIS, with co-founder Clinton, and on.
It was pathetic enough he smeared females, the disabled, reporters, babies, and that he threatened the free press. However his activities have entered into the dangerous and the seditious.
This is a national constitutional crisis and should be treated as such. This criminal should be dealt with -- obviously giving him due process, but he is singularly not only unqualified to be president, but a treasonous threat to freedom.
Voters may not like Clinton, but please replace this thug with someone decent, and honest, and with good character to give the people a choice again, and not be subjected to a fascist bully!
This presidential campaign is no reality show, or 'let's make a deal' game, or opportunity to sell steaks, wine, Trump U, Vodka, real estate, or gambling.
The candidate for the Republican party has repeatedly called for his opponent to be jailed, humiliated, and degraded. He has now called for a political assassination. He has asked for a foreign power to use espionage to bring her down.
This GOP candidate has repeated repeated deliberate, unfounded, malicious lies about his opponents, each more vitriolic than the last: Obama FOUNDED ISIS, with co-founder Clinton, and on.
It was pathetic enough he smeared females, the disabled, reporters, babies, and that he threatened the free press. However his activities have entered into the dangerous and the seditious.
This is a national constitutional crisis and should be treated as such. This criminal should be dealt with -- obviously giving him due process, but he is singularly not only unqualified to be president, but a treasonous threat to freedom.
Voters may not like Clinton, but please replace this thug with someone decent, and honest, and with good character to give the people a choice again, and not be subjected to a fascist bully!
18
Yes... our politics is ruining the country. I blame money.
once we have public campaign financing, representatives will again be responsible only to the public.
once we have public campaign financing, representatives will again be responsible only to the public.
6
What the Author describe is the Democratic party's strategy for the last two elections: liberal middle class voters + minorities. It was a likely response to the Bush family's "Hispanic voter" strategy combined with black vote suppression. It worked 'miracles' for two election. Only every action causes a counter-action. Bush's strategy created Obama's, and Obama's strategy created Trump's.
The Republicans did not realise but the block vote of the black minority forces them to choose a new voting strategy. One that appeals to the wider middle class and the lower classes.
That is what's happening.
It remains to see whether the blacks realise that they been had (Barack Obama did exactly nothing for them).
The Republicans did not realise but the block vote of the black minority forces them to choose a new voting strategy. One that appeals to the wider middle class and the lower classes.
That is what's happening.
It remains to see whether the blacks realise that they been had (Barack Obama did exactly nothing for them).
2
Exactly nothing? What can a POTUS do given that the constitution restrains her/him from legislating? A POTUS can work with a willing Congress, which Obama had for two years. He got them to enact the ACA. He got them to rescue the auto industry and the entire economy.
9
Perhaps it's difficult to know how policies and politics are playing out on the ground here in the U.S. when writing from Budapest, but African Americans have a pretty clear cognizance of exactly where the obstruction and hostility toward their community and their economic interest is rooted. The Republicans have worked hard to almost entirely alienate by deed, word, attitude, and a gratuitous disrespect for a two term president who happens to be one of the best in history - the African Americans who elected Barack Obama as much as any other voting segment in 2008 and 2012.
The Republicans, including Trump have proposed nothing but empty promises and lies to the middle class or aspiring lower classes. All Trump's economic blather is the same old tax cuts for the uber wealthy redux, and a bunch of blather without funding that is as real as 'his great big huge wall.'
The Republicans, including Trump have proposed nothing but empty promises and lies to the middle class or aspiring lower classes. All Trump's economic blather is the same old tax cuts for the uber wealthy redux, and a bunch of blather without funding that is as real as 'his great big huge wall.'
10
What this op-ed does not note is that the Republican party as represented by Paul Ryan and even Trump is still the party of redistribution from the poor and the middle-class to the rich - through reducing taxes for corporations and the wealthy. The numbers don't add up, and the objectives are not all the same between the traditional party elite and the Trump insurgency, but this aspect is shared.
8
We are all sold by Congress as captive consumers to pay non-negotiated prices for basics like drugs and internet service.
4
Credit must be given where it's due: Trump is a builder, not a wrecker He is the founder of The Stupid Party, and they honor him (adapting from one of his recent outrageous statements).
69% of Trump's supporters believe that if Hillary Clinton wins, it's because the election was rigged, while only 16% believe that it would be because she won fair and square. A staggering 40% believe that the long long defunct ACORN will rig the election to Hillary's advantage!!
While analysts have evaluated that the language used by Trump in his rallies is at a Third Grade level, the flip side of the coin is that he doesn't talk down to his supporters. He talks in a way that he can be trusted by those people. They get him.
These are the same geniuses who believe that Obama is a Muslim (60% do so) or that Trump's comments against judge Curiel weren't racist.
Forget words, facts don't matter to them. Reality doesn't matter to them. They are loud and proud in their denial of the "elites", which is their way of thumbing their nose at those that follow facts and reason - as opposed to conspiracies (to their credit at least they've finally solved the conspiracy of who REALLY killed JFK: Ted Cruz's father).
The party of Trump is no longer the party of Lincoln. It's well and truly The Stupid Party now.
69% of Trump's supporters believe that if Hillary Clinton wins, it's because the election was rigged, while only 16% believe that it would be because she won fair and square. A staggering 40% believe that the long long defunct ACORN will rig the election to Hillary's advantage!!
While analysts have evaluated that the language used by Trump in his rallies is at a Third Grade level, the flip side of the coin is that he doesn't talk down to his supporters. He talks in a way that he can be trusted by those people. They get him.
These are the same geniuses who believe that Obama is a Muslim (60% do so) or that Trump's comments against judge Curiel weren't racist.
Forget words, facts don't matter to them. Reality doesn't matter to them. They are loud and proud in their denial of the "elites", which is their way of thumbing their nose at those that follow facts and reason - as opposed to conspiracies (to their credit at least they've finally solved the conspiracy of who REALLY killed JFK: Ted Cruz's father).
The party of Trump is no longer the party of Lincoln. It's well and truly The Stupid Party now.
30
The Democratic party is not wrecked. It has only realigned. You will notice that the author doesn't mention African Americans and Hispanics till the very last sentence. This is the blind spot that is causing his confusion. One of the most reliably liberal coalitions was the coalition of northeast liberals and freed slaves in the Republican party post civil war. The interests do match quite consistently. The lack of economic grievances allow upper middle class whites to more confidently protect and support the civil rights of marginalized groups like blacks/hispanics but also gays/women for other gender related reasons. That is essentially what we are seeing in the Democratic party. The more militant the economic populism that comes from the far right and increasingly, the far left, the closer these groups will huddle. The fact that many white elites and blacks/hispanic don't live in the same neighborhoods is far less important than the fact that they share the same fears socially.
11
Wishful thinking. MLK and the civil rights movement in general was closely aligned with the labor movement. Have you actually read a MLK speech before? They're filled with economic populism and focuses on the shared interests of the working people of all backgrounds.
The Democratic Coalition is now held together essentially by the bigotry and xenophobia coming from the mouths of Trump and those on the far right. If they were to ever follow the advise in their own "autopsy" of several years ago, the Democratic Party could quickly find itself in real trouble. You can only hold together a coalition for so long, especially when that coalition is based mostly on what they are against rather than what they stand for.
I fear you and many other Democrats dismiss the danger posed by allowing Trump to outflank them to the left on trade. Without being the more progressive party on trade, the Democrats have little to nothing to offer to low and middle income white people and I don't know what they stand for economically... corporatism?
Maybe I'm worrying more than I should, but it makes me very uneasy that Democrats ceded the trade issue to Trump and judging my Sanders' support, I'm not alone.
The Democratic Coalition is now held together essentially by the bigotry and xenophobia coming from the mouths of Trump and those on the far right. If they were to ever follow the advise in their own "autopsy" of several years ago, the Democratic Party could quickly find itself in real trouble. You can only hold together a coalition for so long, especially when that coalition is based mostly on what they are against rather than what they stand for.
I fear you and many other Democrats dismiss the danger posed by allowing Trump to outflank them to the left on trade. Without being the more progressive party on trade, the Democrats have little to nothing to offer to low and middle income white people and I don't know what they stand for economically... corporatism?
Maybe I'm worrying more than I should, but it makes me very uneasy that Democrats ceded the trade issue to Trump and judging my Sanders' support, I'm not alone.
1
Trump has taken a good shot at wrecking the GOP. But there are many histories to draw on, not just US Whigs and Tories. Oliver Cromwell put an end to monarchy with the headsman's axe, but monarchy was restored not long after Oliver's death. Ian Paisley, closer to Trump in time and behavior, used vicious attacks on the Pope and the establishment to end the hegemony of the Ulster Unionist Party. Until the 1970s, the UUP was the official voice of Northern Ireland, a horsey, classy party to which Protestant workers were expected to adhere gratefully and faithfully. Paisley ended that. Trump now apes Paisley. It may be that with Ian gone, things may shake up again, but they will never be the same.
The Democratic Party has long been a party of reaction to the GOP. Long before Trump, the GOP banished its RINOs. As a result, Democrats are again ripe for change. See the fate of the British Labour Party. Thatcher put it on the rack, and it responded by becoming New Labor. That version has now run its course, and its members search for a mission in the new world economy. Some of them, like Sanders here, have recourse to inapplicable 1950s rhetoric.
Revolutions usually come from the streets or the fields, but succeed only to the extent that intellectual leadership is found. Where in America are the intellectuals that can lead the oppressed classes? (Not Trump or Sanders!)
The Democratic Party has long been a party of reaction to the GOP. Long before Trump, the GOP banished its RINOs. As a result, Democrats are again ripe for change. See the fate of the British Labour Party. Thatcher put it on the rack, and it responded by becoming New Labor. That version has now run its course, and its members search for a mission in the new world economy. Some of them, like Sanders here, have recourse to inapplicable 1950s rhetoric.
Revolutions usually come from the streets or the fields, but succeed only to the extent that intellectual leadership is found. Where in America are the intellectuals that can lead the oppressed classes? (Not Trump or Sanders!)
2
The Sanders/Warren wing of the Democratic party is the answer to this long-term trend in the Democratic party, which dates most significantly to Bill Clinton's presidency. Expect a Democratic challenger running a broad, populist, class-based campaign for the nomination in 2020, regardless the outcome this year. Expect such a candidate to get the nomination in 2024 if Clinton wins reelection in 2020. Sander's base of young voters, whom he activated and networked across the country, will be core of Democratic party activists and operatives as the 60s generation finally fades.
4
I hope you're right... and that it won't be too late. After 16 years of Clintons in office, who favor Wall Street and free trade, I don't know if Democrats will have the credibility on the issue to pull it off.
Clinton nomination essentially ceded the issue of trade to Donald Trump and while the union leaders still support Democrats, the rank and file are backing Trump because he's the one they trust on trade.
What I fear is that having ceded this issue to Trump this election, the door is left open for another Republican (a sensible and decent one) to pick up his populism while leaving behind the bigotry. That would be a force to be reckoned with and the Democrats would be in trouble.
Clinton nomination essentially ceded the issue of trade to Donald Trump and while the union leaders still support Democrats, the rank and file are backing Trump because he's the one they trust on trade.
What I fear is that having ceded this issue to Trump this election, the door is left open for another Republican (a sensible and decent one) to pick up his populism while leaving behind the bigotry. That would be a force to be reckoned with and the Democrats would be in trouble.
1
I have to respectively disagree as it is too soon to tell what will be the outcome of this election on the 2 parties. Bernie seemed to make decent headway in moving the Dems to the left and Hillary's embrace of him may bode well for the revival of classical, New Deal type liberalism. Hillary's support of Sanders was the political life vest she needed to save her political life. If she gets into office and the reverts back to the Republican Lite, Triangulations of Clintonism, them the Dems have indeed abandoned the working class that were the party's traditional allies. Shame on her if that is the outcome of 2016.
8
Peter, assuming that Hillary is elected this November, if she then tries to govern like Bill did, she will face a primary challenge in 2020 and, even if she wins the party's re-nomination, will lose her re-election bid. The Sanders supporters who are (largely) lining up behind her now, in the hopes of exercising policy leverage over her presidency, will desert her in droves in 2020 if she ignores their concerns and priorities once in office.
3
I'm not sure if Trump's wrecking 'parties', but we as a democracy have been wrecking humanity, equality and the climate for decades. When greed and capitalistic values dominate our morality and economics, then we have no real future. I guess a good question is, Why are we here? Surely it's not to make as much money as possible and let society become haves and have-nots. But, this is exactly what we do.
Whenever we move towards compassion and love, we will right the ship. Until then, we wreck everything.
Whenever we move towards compassion and love, we will right the ship. Until then, we wreck everything.
6
Okay I give up. Why are we here?
It's all too easy to say that sort of thing (and I'm no fan of greed *or* the lust for power) but it's less than helpful if you don't answer your own rhetorical question.
And we are not a "democracy". We are a republic, a nation of ostensibly free people that elects a government to do our bidding within the limits of the Constitution.
The problem is the avarice and lust for more power of those we have elected.
It's all too easy to say that sort of thing (and I'm no fan of greed *or* the lust for power) but it's less than helpful if you don't answer your own rhetorical question.
And we are not a "democracy". We are a republic, a nation of ostensibly free people that elects a government to do our bidding within the limits of the Constitution.
The problem is the avarice and lust for more power of those we have elected.
4
Trump helped give cohesion to the Democratic Party by demonstrating that the Republicans were willing to unite with a few exceptions behind a despotic misogynist, demagogue who race baits and incites violence from his most rabid followers with the infantile enthusiasm of a Nero.
7
The Republican Party wrecked both Parties when they claimed government was the problem, and they set out to prove it by demonizing Democrats as traitors and ensuring government did nothing but aid the wealthy, both living and dead.
10
Not one mention of Bernie Sanders and his supporters? Really???
3
Because everyone know that Progressive values and Liberalism don't exist without him.
6
That somehow makes the exclusion of his part in the electoral process this year acceptable?
I don't call them the Greed Over the People (GOP) political party for nothing. Just review "Don the Con's" so-called economic policy which is again the same old "trickle-down economics" brought to us by a second-rate movie actor named Ronald Reagan. Forty years of "trickle-down" economics has lead to greatest concentration of wealth for the 1% in American history!
4
The real problem is organizational, not intellectual.
The defeat of labor unions has left a hole in American politics that no other organizations have filled: https://hbr.org/2014/09/what-unions-no-longer-do
Other organizations, especially ACORN, provided other kinds of political representation for members of the US working class, but were fragile and were defeated more recently by rightwing activists. This is not news to Democratic Party politicians.
Democratic Party policy makers have many ideas, because society keeps changing and the welfare state needs to change too, and because those policy makers aren't ignorant of these facts. The rest of us can read their books, if we have time and are sufficiently interested.
For example, paid family leave is a long-overdue addition to the weak US system of social insurance and welfare, because (obviously) women are nearly half the workforce.
Likewise, Keynesian isn't superfluous. It's needed more than ever, as Krugman frequently argues, and he's far from alone in this. Likewise for raising taxes on the wealthy.
Intellectual clarity isn't the problem for Democrats and for American democracy. Lack of working class organization and representation is the problem.
The defeat of labor unions has left a hole in American politics that no other organizations have filled: https://hbr.org/2014/09/what-unions-no-longer-do
Other organizations, especially ACORN, provided other kinds of political representation for members of the US working class, but were fragile and were defeated more recently by rightwing activists. This is not news to Democratic Party politicians.
Democratic Party policy makers have many ideas, because society keeps changing and the welfare state needs to change too, and because those policy makers aren't ignorant of these facts. The rest of us can read their books, if we have time and are sufficiently interested.
For example, paid family leave is a long-overdue addition to the weak US system of social insurance and welfare, because (obviously) women are nearly half the workforce.
Likewise, Keynesian isn't superfluous. It's needed more than ever, as Krugman frequently argues, and he's far from alone in this. Likewise for raising taxes on the wealthy.
Intellectual clarity isn't the problem for Democrats and for American democracy. Lack of working class organization and representation is the problem.
7
The parties were wrecked long before Trump. We've all felt suckered by our politicians. Right or left, we're frustrated and disgusted. The tea bag party uncorked these feelings in the louder, nuttier right. Occupy and Sanders or Bust people similarly yell for change.
Change would be an end to special interests and corruption. Right or left, our politicians corrupt themselves to keep power and make somebody or some corporation richer. Everybody wants rid of the do-nothing government but too often vote against self-interest and keep their own do-nothing representatives.
Trump's supportive mob, largely men, under-educated, older, blue-collar whites, either missed their marks or think they were robbed. The left, Occupy and Bernie backers are young, educated, socially liberal, and diverse who believe they've been robbed before they started.
Both factions are thwarted by the do-nothing corrupt, GOP congress which can't or won't do what's best for the people. They would deny health care, affordable housing, affordable education, decent public schools, safe infrastructure and water, equal pay, minimum wage, etc. They fail us in almost every way, because when they do act, it's not for our benefit but for their benefactors and sometimes all we get is the tab.
Trump has ruined a lot in his time, but don't credit him with wrecking the parties. They did that all on their own. Term limits, anyone?
Change would be an end to special interests and corruption. Right or left, our politicians corrupt themselves to keep power and make somebody or some corporation richer. Everybody wants rid of the do-nothing government but too often vote against self-interest and keep their own do-nothing representatives.
Trump's supportive mob, largely men, under-educated, older, blue-collar whites, either missed their marks or think they were robbed. The left, Occupy and Bernie backers are young, educated, socially liberal, and diverse who believe they've been robbed before they started.
Both factions are thwarted by the do-nothing corrupt, GOP congress which can't or won't do what's best for the people. They would deny health care, affordable housing, affordable education, decent public schools, safe infrastructure and water, equal pay, minimum wage, etc. They fail us in almost every way, because when they do act, it's not for our benefit but for their benefactors and sometimes all we get is the tab.
Trump has ruined a lot in his time, but don't credit him with wrecking the parties. They did that all on their own. Term limits, anyone?
8
As shown in the article, both parties pay more attention to their donor class than to voters.
Because so few citizens actually vote, both parties believe that elections are won by bringing the "base" to the polls. Doing so requires expensive advertising and professional organization. Thus, the candidates require large sums of "campaign contributions" (otherwise known as bribes) that are collected mainly from the billionaire donor class.
The middle class has been completely ignored, while financial interests of oligarchs have been protected. Unions have all be disappeared. Global trade pacts have produced record profits for corporations while displacing many workers. Affected people have received essentially no aid and been left to struggle on their own. No wonder they are voting Trump.
Because so few citizens actually vote, both parties believe that elections are won by bringing the "base" to the polls. Doing so requires expensive advertising and professional organization. Thus, the candidates require large sums of "campaign contributions" (otherwise known as bribes) that are collected mainly from the billionaire donor class.
The middle class has been completely ignored, while financial interests of oligarchs have been protected. Unions have all be disappeared. Global trade pacts have produced record profits for corporations while displacing many workers. Affected people have received essentially no aid and been left to struggle on their own. No wonder they are voting Trump.
9
The GOP, including Trump, talks a big game about support for small business. But, it is multi-national corporations to whom they are beholden. They could care less about the working class. They're still holding to the failed policy of trickle-down economics that got us into this mess in the first place.
One is an elite if one has a bachelor's degree and makes more than $50K? Give me a break!
The GOP (Paul Ryan) still want to do the same darn things they have wanted to do for a long time, privatize social security and turn Medicare into a voucher system. So, the same working class that seems to be supporting Trump and the GOP does so at their peril.
Bush43 wanted to privatize social security in 2007, and what would have happened if he had succeeded? We'd still be in a recession, and it would likely be worse than the Great Depression. Paul Ryan still wants to privatize social security. And, the GOP at the federal level consistently conflates investment with deficit spending. Yes, a large infrastructure bank would be a stimulus, but it would be a desperately needed investment, it would pay for itself with multiplier effects and working class people would have good jobs. Moreover, GDP would go up and UE would go down, so it would be a FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE policy.
The two principal problems of the United States are the increasing, undue influence of lobbying and the substitution of real, competitive capitalism with crony capitalism.
One is an elite if one has a bachelor's degree and makes more than $50K? Give me a break!
The GOP (Paul Ryan) still want to do the same darn things they have wanted to do for a long time, privatize social security and turn Medicare into a voucher system. So, the same working class that seems to be supporting Trump and the GOP does so at their peril.
Bush43 wanted to privatize social security in 2007, and what would have happened if he had succeeded? We'd still be in a recession, and it would likely be worse than the Great Depression. Paul Ryan still wants to privatize social security. And, the GOP at the federal level consistently conflates investment with deficit spending. Yes, a large infrastructure bank would be a stimulus, but it would be a desperately needed investment, it would pay for itself with multiplier effects and working class people would have good jobs. Moreover, GDP would go up and UE would go down, so it would be a FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE policy.
The two principal problems of the United States are the increasing, undue influence of lobbying and the substitution of real, competitive capitalism with crony capitalism.
10
Thank you for questioning the term "elite!" I guess I am an "elite" who had trouble coming up with the cash for a dental implant...
3
"Wrecking Both Parties?"
Creative destruction, it's called.
Creative destruction, it's called.
4
The presumption is that the under educated non-urban white is existing in a fine environment where with just a little break from the "elite" he could have the life he wants. Is that why the rates of spousal abuse, of child abuse, drug abuse, and reliance on government income programs are higher in rural flyover land than they are anywhere else? Why is methamphetamine and heroin abuse something that radiates from the small town out into the larger urban areas? The idyllic view of the non-urban environment and under-educated environment has been a myth for decades and any analysis which relies on it will be faulty.
3
What's really sad is that my well educated, professional siblings will vote for the Orange One, thinking they're doing gods work. They see helping the disadvantaged as socialism, not charity and humanity. They see unions as bad for the country, and refuse to accept that reality that without the unions fighting for us over the years, an hourly pay of $5 would still be seen as a 'good' wage. Just as my father thought Medicare was the end of American freedoms, they see the Affordable Healthcare Act in the same shade of 'end of society as we know it'. We all make our choices, I just hope we can still talk after this election, because that's how deep the divide has become this time around.
195
Trump could have transformed the Republican Party to a pure Working Class Party. But the cultural issues are swamping him.
Sanders made a late but futile attempt to return Democrats to its working class roots. He attracted the working class votes (labeled 'dregs of the society' by NYT readers) by ‘free education’ and ‘single payer’ (labeled ‘free healthcare’). These Sanders’ Republicans are today (unfortunately) going back to Trump.
Both Sanders & Trump appeal to the working class votes by understanding their pain of loss of job. Both understand that the State must protect against the vagaries of Nature (in this case Free Market).
But therein the difference ends. Trump is promising them yesterday. Solutions: removing low end worker competition by erecting a wall, absolutist position of free trade etc.
Sanders promised them tomorrow. His solution was free education for the current generation to claw themselves back to today’s job market and for future generation to build a hard foundation for tomorrows job market. His solution was single payer health care that makes easy to workers to get health care and businesses not to worry about it.
But that is considered socialism and is, ipso facto, bad.
Trump will continue to attract working class votes till bourgeoisie Democratic Party needs to understand that (a) working class exists; (b) they are not dregs and (c) the solution to their problems must transcend cold war economic absolutism.
Sanders made a late but futile attempt to return Democrats to its working class roots. He attracted the working class votes (labeled 'dregs of the society' by NYT readers) by ‘free education’ and ‘single payer’ (labeled ‘free healthcare’). These Sanders’ Republicans are today (unfortunately) going back to Trump.
Both Sanders & Trump appeal to the working class votes by understanding their pain of loss of job. Both understand that the State must protect against the vagaries of Nature (in this case Free Market).
But therein the difference ends. Trump is promising them yesterday. Solutions: removing low end worker competition by erecting a wall, absolutist position of free trade etc.
Sanders promised them tomorrow. His solution was free education for the current generation to claw themselves back to today’s job market and for future generation to build a hard foundation for tomorrows job market. His solution was single payer health care that makes easy to workers to get health care and businesses not to worry about it.
But that is considered socialism and is, ipso facto, bad.
Trump will continue to attract working class votes till bourgeoisie Democratic Party needs to understand that (a) working class exists; (b) they are not dregs and (c) the solution to their problems must transcend cold war economic absolutism.
5
Everywhere that Socialism (caretaker government for Communism) has existed whether generic or imposed from without ,or an actual Communist state it has been an abject failure. There is no free lunch and some people are so blind as to think they can "ipso facto" change human nature at will and all problems will be solved. Read "The Blank Slate" and study the history of the last 150 years and then tell me how nicely the USSR and China et al have "treated their people". Tilting at non-functional Socialistic windmills is not the answer. Unfortunately for good or ill human freedom and not coercion is the only logical way forward. People, especially Americans don't like to be told what to do by their "betters".
1
The social democracies in Sweden, Denmark and Norway are hard to categorize as an abject failure. You have a decent vocabulary and I'm sure you've seen lists of the countries with the happiest people in the world. Scandanavians are always at the top, so I wonder why you would post this obviously false comment?
2
Well said, Corey M.
As for the original comment itself, ignoring the pathetic English, what Drumpf and Sanders promised is pie in the sky. I've asked you several times how Sanders would get to single-payer, and how he'd control costs. You've never been able to answer, and yet you continue to peddle these ridiculous ideas - free college, tax increases, etc.
As for Drumpf, the Orange Buffoon doesn't even know what he's saying, so why bother to critique his 'ideas'?
Try reading 'Hillbilly Elegy' by J D Vance.
As for the original comment itself, ignoring the pathetic English, what Drumpf and Sanders promised is pie in the sky. I've asked you several times how Sanders would get to single-payer, and how he'd control costs. You've never been able to answer, and yet you continue to peddle these ridiculous ideas - free college, tax increases, etc.
As for Drumpf, the Orange Buffoon doesn't even know what he's saying, so why bother to critique his 'ideas'?
Try reading 'Hillbilly Elegy' by J D Vance.
The Democratic Party wrecks and remakes itself periodically. It must do so to best identify with and appeal to its constituents in the lower economic classes. The Republicans are more stable, more stolid. Their formula is easy. If you're loaded with money, you vote a straight Republican ticket, because it's almost always better than the alternative.
There is nothing wrong or unnatural about our system. It has worked for well over 200 years here and will continue to work notwithstanding the Trump candidacy or even his election.
There is nothing wrong or unnatural about our system. It has worked for well over 200 years here and will continue to work notwithstanding the Trump candidacy or even his election.
So tired of NYT articles that use the term working class as if it was interchangeable with white workers or worse yet white male workers.
Racial categories all but make it impossible to analyze our situation with any clarity. To suggest that the Democratic collation lacks a growing working class base is to overlook the fact that the majority of the "identity politics" folk are working class. Yes the Hispanics, Asians, Women, LBGT, white men,and African Americas who make up the party are members of both the working class and their so-called identity groups.
What so many of these analysis fail to recognize is that the new majority coalition of the Democratic Party is not just a rehash of 1960s era unity politics but rather reflexes the rise of a mixed race majority - that unaccounted group of Americans who by birth are members of more than one of the racial or gender identity groups, and yes working class.
For several generations of Americans this truth has been masked hidden or denied, but social taboos against interracial marriage like the laws against it have not been enforced for most of the last 40 years. The result is a dramatic rise in the number of mixed race members of mostly the working class.
To miss the significance of this new demographic and its impact on coalescing center left politics is like missing the fact that our first "Black" president is really mixed not Black not white but mixed. This mixed America is our future the pot is finally melting!
Racial categories all but make it impossible to analyze our situation with any clarity. To suggest that the Democratic collation lacks a growing working class base is to overlook the fact that the majority of the "identity politics" folk are working class. Yes the Hispanics, Asians, Women, LBGT, white men,and African Americas who make up the party are members of both the working class and their so-called identity groups.
What so many of these analysis fail to recognize is that the new majority coalition of the Democratic Party is not just a rehash of 1960s era unity politics but rather reflexes the rise of a mixed race majority - that unaccounted group of Americans who by birth are members of more than one of the racial or gender identity groups, and yes working class.
For several generations of Americans this truth has been masked hidden or denied, but social taboos against interracial marriage like the laws against it have not been enforced for most of the last 40 years. The result is a dramatic rise in the number of mixed race members of mostly the working class.
To miss the significance of this new demographic and its impact on coalescing center left politics is like missing the fact that our first "Black" president is really mixed not Black not white but mixed. This mixed America is our future the pot is finally melting!
6
If the Republicans want support from working class and middle class voters they should stop talking about privatizing Medicare and Social Security. I'm thinking of Paul Ryan's terrible economic plans.
6
The choice today is basically between an intelligent and pragmatic Democratic Party, understands the problems of the modern world, and Trumpism, that feeds on resentment of non white racial and ethnic minorities, as well as education. The Republican Party has painted itself into this narrow corner, and it will be difficult for it to get out of it. The gerrymandering of congressional districts, combined with the political segration of more liberal elements of the population and minorities, have created a regime where Republicans can prevent the Democratic Party from ameliorating the economic, educational and social problems of America. The Democratic Party members seem willing to do the work but are being blocked by the brain dead Republicans. Most of the well educated people in the Democratic Party have the understanding and empathy for the poor and minority elements of their coalition to support the necessary to our economic and social problems.
I see no sign that the coalition is coming apart. As this election proceeds, it is evident that Trumpism is losing support.
I see no sign that the coalition is coming apart. As this election proceeds, it is evident that Trumpism is losing support.
110
Did you read the article? Nothing in it stir you?
The simple reason that Hillary is crushing Trump among college graduates is that people with a "good brain", like Trump or Zoolander, are able to see through the con that Trump is working.
He is not "wrecking" both parties, that is pure beltway, navel gazing nonsense.
It is hard to imagine Trump doing any worse than GWB did as president, despite his insane, daily ramblings.
Yes, his finger on the nuclear trigger is troubling, I'll give you that one, but still.
The GOP is the party of stupid and will remain so, which is just the way they like it. To keep it together, it can't be any other way. They have to have the stupid people in their tent or the math just doesn't work.
The only people in the GOP who have trouble with the idea of Trump is maybe a few thousand "elites" at the very top, as they just can't admit to themselves or anybody else that they are in league with this vulgarian.
It just doesn't look good at the club, you know.
He is not "wrecking" both parties, that is pure beltway, navel gazing nonsense.
It is hard to imagine Trump doing any worse than GWB did as president, despite his insane, daily ramblings.
Yes, his finger on the nuclear trigger is troubling, I'll give you that one, but still.
The GOP is the party of stupid and will remain so, which is just the way they like it. To keep it together, it can't be any other way. They have to have the stupid people in their tent or the math just doesn't work.
The only people in the GOP who have trouble with the idea of Trump is maybe a few thousand "elites" at the very top, as they just can't admit to themselves or anybody else that they are in league with this vulgarian.
It just doesn't look good at the club, you know.
3
"Yes, his finger on the nuclear trigger is troubling, I'll give you that one, but still."
"... but still"? But nothing. If someone's access to a nuclear weapon is troubling, that's in and of itself reason not to grant such access. Also bear in mind we're not talking about a burgeoning nuclear program like North Korea or Iran, still struggling to perfect a warhead or figure out long range ballistics. Trump will have access to thousands of warheads made by experts who know PRECISELY what they are doing. He will also have access to missiles with the range to hit any target and the guidance systems to ensure he doesn't miss. When it comes to those weapons we DO need a "traditional politician".
Of course, even without the specific threat of nuclear weapons, Trump will also command the entirety of the U.S. military's conventional forces. You might say that only Congress can declare war, but we've effectively been at war for over a decade without any such declarations from what's become by far our most dysfunctional branch of government. Even putting that issue aside, one wonders what's to stop Trump from simply declaring an emergency and taking our military on successive 90-day joy rides to we-know-not where and for reasons unknown. And these are just two of the most immediate mortal threats to our collective safety under a Trump Presidency. I haven't even touched upon the more nuanced threats to our foreign policy, economy, civil rights or moral authority in general.
"... but still"? But nothing. If someone's access to a nuclear weapon is troubling, that's in and of itself reason not to grant such access. Also bear in mind we're not talking about a burgeoning nuclear program like North Korea or Iran, still struggling to perfect a warhead or figure out long range ballistics. Trump will have access to thousands of warheads made by experts who know PRECISELY what they are doing. He will also have access to missiles with the range to hit any target and the guidance systems to ensure he doesn't miss. When it comes to those weapons we DO need a "traditional politician".
Of course, even without the specific threat of nuclear weapons, Trump will also command the entirety of the U.S. military's conventional forces. You might say that only Congress can declare war, but we've effectively been at war for over a decade without any such declarations from what's become by far our most dysfunctional branch of government. Even putting that issue aside, one wonders what's to stop Trump from simply declaring an emergency and taking our military on successive 90-day joy rides to we-know-not where and for reasons unknown. And these are just two of the most immediate mortal threats to our collective safety under a Trump Presidency. I haven't even touched upon the more nuanced threats to our foreign policy, economy, civil rights or moral authority in general.
2
No, kind of the opposite. Both parties are trying to wreck Trump.
3
Yes, Trump is a tremendous threat to everyone who relies on the government for their power, influence and livelihood. Think everyone in DC.
2
Isn't Bernie Sanders the synthesis of the 2 diverging trends? He integrates social liberalism with economic populism. Hopefully, he will push Hillary enough to make that the new Democratic platform.
2
Clearly, it is time for the well-off to step up to the plate. 'They are aware of the problem and they need to share (writ big) in the solution.
3
Get over your guilt trip about elitism! For years, we liberals have claimed that a better educated population is the real solution to our problems. Well, here you finally have it. Educated Americans favor Clinton and those without a college education favor a violent ignoramus. The problem ahead is to redistribute the money so that everyone can afford a full education. Those with one who still favor Trump are beyond hope.
4
Thomas,
Interesting way you have sliced the baloney that makes up our US demographics.
But no matter how you slice it, “top twenty percent,” “college graduates,” every demographic group in our population dislikes Trump except the religious fundamentalists, the gun-toters, and the under educated. Even there you show him with at best a plurality.
You still can’t tell if all those dislikes will turn into a vote for the Democrat, so how can you and whomever your quoting say the parties are shifting to some new type of political stance.
In math, the numbers close to a point of instability can act in funny, unexpected ways. Away from that point, the numbers act fairly normal.
Interesting way you have sliced the baloney that makes up our US demographics.
But no matter how you slice it, “top twenty percent,” “college graduates,” every demographic group in our population dislikes Trump except the religious fundamentalists, the gun-toters, and the under educated. Even there you show him with at best a plurality.
You still can’t tell if all those dislikes will turn into a vote for the Democrat, so how can you and whomever your quoting say the parties are shifting to some new type of political stance.
In math, the numbers close to a point of instability can act in funny, unexpected ways. Away from that point, the numbers act fairly normal.
1
I'd love to believe that your typical Republican working class voter is voting Republican because the Democrats only offer somewhat more economic assistance than Republicans, but we both know that's just not the case.
Republican voters I've met are a mix of people who hate taxes and regulation, and "social conservatives" who hate the fact that non-whites have rights. I've mostly met the former, but it sure looks like the latter are the Trump voters.
Republican voters I've met are a mix of people who hate taxes and regulation, and "social conservatives" who hate the fact that non-whites have rights. I've mostly met the former, but it sure looks like the latter are the Trump voters.
7
It seems to me a bit ingenuous to write a piece about the realignment of the two political parties without mentioning Nixon's 'southern strategy'.
Telling one class or race of worker that their problems all revolve around another class or race of worker has always worked for the ruling class. They get the workers riled up about some other workers while they go about picking everybody's pockets.
Rural and small town white folks might not even have electrification if not for a democrat named Roosevelt, yet they were convinced by the likes of Billy Graham that this leveling of the playing field was somehow against "God's word and will".
T rump's supporters and the rest of small town rural America are constantly saying they are tired of being portrayed as rubes by the snobby elites from the coastal cities. People who have voting for 50 years against their own best economic, moral, and social interests are now seeing that the republican party has not given them much of anything for those votes, but they are so convinced that the Democratic party is doing the work of the devil they are incapable of making a rational decision. Hence...T rump.
The founding Fathers feared mob rule almost as much as they feared kings. And mob rule is what we are seeing in the republican party proletariat, where what they fear doesn't even exist; neither Clinton nor T rump (God forbid) could do most of the un Constitutional things T rump is claiming she will do or he can do.
Telling one class or race of worker that their problems all revolve around another class or race of worker has always worked for the ruling class. They get the workers riled up about some other workers while they go about picking everybody's pockets.
Rural and small town white folks might not even have electrification if not for a democrat named Roosevelt, yet they were convinced by the likes of Billy Graham that this leveling of the playing field was somehow against "God's word and will".
T rump's supporters and the rest of small town rural America are constantly saying they are tired of being portrayed as rubes by the snobby elites from the coastal cities. People who have voting for 50 years against their own best economic, moral, and social interests are now seeing that the republican party has not given them much of anything for those votes, but they are so convinced that the Democratic party is doing the work of the devil they are incapable of making a rational decision. Hence...T rump.
The founding Fathers feared mob rule almost as much as they feared kings. And mob rule is what we are seeing in the republican party proletariat, where what they fear doesn't even exist; neither Clinton nor T rump (God forbid) could do most of the un Constitutional things T rump is claiming she will do or he can do.
168
Don't forget candidate Trump's recent not-so-veiled encouragement to his supporters that they exercise their "Second Amendment" remedies should his "rigged" election result prophecy come to pass.
Well spoken, even though you meant dis - ingenuous. As for T rump, I suppose you will be writing about C rump after the election, as in, his goose will have been cooked.
It's simple. The Republican Party was and still is the stupid led by wth wealthy. All that has changed is that it has become too stupid and scary for some.
7
The Democrats have wrought this themselves, not Trump, with a barbell approach that has resulted in party based on identity politics and rent seeking elitists.
Prohibiting construction of the Keystone pipeline to appease eltitist Hollywood climate change activists has cleaved the blue collar worker from the Democratic party.
This is an interesting phenomenon. Too bad the article is essentially another one of NYT's endless Trump hit pieces.
Prohibiting construction of the Keystone pipeline to appease eltitist Hollywood climate change activists has cleaved the blue collar worker from the Democratic party.
This is an interesting phenomenon. Too bad the article is essentially another one of NYT's endless Trump hit pieces.
2
Good luck with attempting to frame those who demand to change the direction of this country to avert certain financial ruin as slow-witted, racist, mysogneist, nativist, climate denying bigots . . . and possible Mormons too.
Trump is running against both parties, an entrenched Establishment, 52,000 lobbyists on K Street, Wall Street, the ten richest counties in America leeched onto D.C., the radical Left, the Globalists, and a livid press that has lost its mind.
they don't have a chance . . .
Trump is running against both parties, an entrenched Establishment, 52,000 lobbyists on K Street, Wall Street, the ten richest counties in America leeched onto D.C., the radical Left, the Globalists, and a livid press that has lost its mind.
they don't have a chance . . .
1
I guess I am one of them - accused at least of being a mostly self-interested, educated, urban (suburban anyway) over-educated member of this new elite that Edsall describes.
But!
I am not that at all. I have not left behind liberal and progressive ideals that call for strong social safety nets, robust regulation of business/capital, proactive leadership in international forums and events, equalization of financial outcomes for all citizens (the keystone being the progressive income tax) and respect for social differences while defending rule of law and equal rights for everyone.
In this regard, if most progressives and lifetime liberals like myself are or become the core of the Democratic Party, I don't see that our coalition with those who are less fortunate or victims of circumstances in any way should fray.
But it is certainly subject to execution by the next President and Congress. A key objective is to bring in a more balanced or Democrat led Congress in November!
But!
I am not that at all. I have not left behind liberal and progressive ideals that call for strong social safety nets, robust regulation of business/capital, proactive leadership in international forums and events, equalization of financial outcomes for all citizens (the keystone being the progressive income tax) and respect for social differences while defending rule of law and equal rights for everyone.
In this regard, if most progressives and lifetime liberals like myself are or become the core of the Democratic Party, I don't see that our coalition with those who are less fortunate or victims of circumstances in any way should fray.
But it is certainly subject to execution by the next President and Congress. A key objective is to bring in a more balanced or Democrat led Congress in November!
6
While Trump is wrecking the Republican Party, Clinton is destroying the Democratic Party.
Both candidates are seriously and irretrievably flawed, and the only acceptable candidates are from the Libertarian and Green Parties.
Our only hope is that neither Clinton nor Trump are able to garner the required 270 electoral votes, in which case the Congress might select a more acceptable presidential candidate.
The fact that we as a nation have chosen these two seriously flawed individuals reflects very poorly on the nation as a whole.
Both candidates are seriously and irretrievably flawed, and the only acceptable candidates are from the Libertarian and Green Parties.
Our only hope is that neither Clinton nor Trump are able to garner the required 270 electoral votes, in which case the Congress might select a more acceptable presidential candidate.
The fact that we as a nation have chosen these two seriously flawed individuals reflects very poorly on the nation as a whole.
2
Like Osama bin Laden, Donald al-Trump seeks to literally destroy our democratic way of life.
And like bin Laden, Mr. Trump just might succeed.
And like bin Laden, Mr. Trump just might succeed.
1
If you look at the people this author quotes as proof of his point of view, it is revealing. There is a professor at Bard College, a professor at Harvard, a left policy makers and analysts, another professor ( of public policy) at Harvard, and a bunch of political scientists at Michigan and Harvard. Do they have any common ground that the working class non elites share? Minimal if any. Though out this campaign the press has painted Trumps supporters as under educated and under employed. In other words, second class citizens. The same press that interprets each statement Trump makes for their political purpose, skims over Clinton's strong ties to wall street and other characteristics. They have given her a pass on her transcript of her quarter million dollar speech for Goldman-Sachs. They ignore her fabrication about the landing in Bosnia, her diametrically opposed statements on same sex marriages, her attack of a fourteen year old girl who claimed she was rape, saying she just wanted an association with an older man. Working people believe truth has value. The real question isn't why are people drawn to Trump even with some of his outlandish statements. The real question is how is he staying so close in a race against someone who spent eight years in the White House politics, a former U.S. Senator, and previous Secretary of state? The answer won.t come analyzing Trump. It will only come with a realistic, honest look at Clinton.
4
Clintons are financial republicans and their conservative economic values are disgusting! To call them liberal is absurd! They have greatly benefited from the shift of wealth that Reagan began and which they champion!
4
This column's title is rhetorical.
Educated white Americans simply view Trump as a moron, a liar, and a bigot who is vastly ill prepared to be president. Conversely, they relate to and respect Hillary’s academic background, and government experience. It’s logical. Many white educated communities also have first hand experience with our youth (their children) who have had to contend with ever-higher bars of academic standards and preparedness demanded by universities and corporations. Yet, here is a dummy like Trump running for president. There's something wrong with that picture.
As for the poor white working class, many are fundamentally narrow-minded and misguided. I prescribe to the point of view that Conservative Republicans have “neglected” working class interests and Trump (like Bernie) is their voice. Sadly, working class whites are ignorantly voting against their own self–interest. Let’s hope the Trump candidacy (not election) will at least wake up Congress; they must finally work together to enact legislation that will help poor and working class America— of all stripes and colors. Economic inequality is destructive to our democracy.
As for the poor white working class, many are fundamentally narrow-minded and misguided. I prescribe to the point of view that Conservative Republicans have “neglected” working class interests and Trump (like Bernie) is their voice. Sadly, working class whites are ignorantly voting against their own self–interest. Let’s hope the Trump candidacy (not election) will at least wake up Congress; they must finally work together to enact legislation that will help poor and working class America— of all stripes and colors. Economic inequality is destructive to our democracy.
1
So is stupidity and the Potemkin village idiocy of "smart" left wing stooges.
1
another great analysis by Edsall. but here's a different way of looking at it:
Starting around the 1930's the Republicans were a more homogenous set, focused on "what's good for General Motors is good for the country;" moderately smaller government, conservative social values but not enforced by the government -- what became "Rockefeller Republicanism." Blacks went along because of Lincoln and the racist southern Democrats. The Democrats, meanwhile, were a more heterogenous bunch of coastal liberals, white southern bigots, and bible thumpers. This flipped 180 degrees with the revolt of the Goldwater Republicans, and the Civil Rights Act under Lyndon Johnson, both in 1964. The Republicans got the bigots and the bible thumpers, and as the Democrats pursued identity politics the Republicans also got the white economic losers. The Democrats became somewhat more homogenous, with the old liberal base and the new black, hispanic and other minorities that were the clients of their identity politics. This change had powerful positive feedback, and when the losers who kept voting Republican finally got it that they were being conned, we have today's Trumpism (which has NOTHING to do with Republicanism) and a Democratic party and nominee who feel pretty cozy with Wall Street while running a little less hypocritical game with the non-white poor.
The Democrat party today has the basis of a 1,000 year Reich while the Republican party is just about non-existent. Interesting.
Starting around the 1930's the Republicans were a more homogenous set, focused on "what's good for General Motors is good for the country;" moderately smaller government, conservative social values but not enforced by the government -- what became "Rockefeller Republicanism." Blacks went along because of Lincoln and the racist southern Democrats. The Democrats, meanwhile, were a more heterogenous bunch of coastal liberals, white southern bigots, and bible thumpers. This flipped 180 degrees with the revolt of the Goldwater Republicans, and the Civil Rights Act under Lyndon Johnson, both in 1964. The Republicans got the bigots and the bible thumpers, and as the Democrats pursued identity politics the Republicans also got the white economic losers. The Democrats became somewhat more homogenous, with the old liberal base and the new black, hispanic and other minorities that were the clients of their identity politics. This change had powerful positive feedback, and when the losers who kept voting Republican finally got it that they were being conned, we have today's Trumpism (which has NOTHING to do with Republicanism) and a Democratic party and nominee who feel pretty cozy with Wall Street while running a little less hypocritical game with the non-white poor.
The Democrat party today has the basis of a 1,000 year Reich while the Republican party is just about non-existent. Interesting.
2
The shifting parties remind me of Oceania, Eurasia, and East Asia. Hillary's soft prattle reminds me of a bootheel stomping on a human face.
2
So if you graduate from college and make over $50,000 annually, you're elite? You're in the upper echelons of society? Please.
7
Trump doesnt make people smart or smarter but rather making people less smart.
1
Point #1: Edsall and everyone he talked to suddenly forgot that Bernie Sanders came close to fighting Clinton to a draw.
Point #2: Michael Lind is completely wrong and backwards about working class whites not being eligible for means tested programs. Most recipients of food stamps, etc, have been white, and the greatest density of such funds goes to the Trump Belt (the geographic belt of Trump voters).
Point #3: The elite cosmopolitian alliance of the Democrats is troubling, but the dependence on black and latino voters means that a lot of working class and poor people are counted on as part of that alliance. Edsall and other commentators failed to explore the significant tensions that introduces when it comes to economic policy.
Point #4: The real danger of Trump is not his effect on the political parties. The real danger is that Trump and the deep rooted movement he is riding are undermining self-government as a whole. This is comparable to the years from 1854 to 1860: The road to disunion, to seeing every step of governance as a plot by one side or the other to illegitimately take over the country.
Point #2: Michael Lind is completely wrong and backwards about working class whites not being eligible for means tested programs. Most recipients of food stamps, etc, have been white, and the greatest density of such funds goes to the Trump Belt (the geographic belt of Trump voters).
Point #3: The elite cosmopolitian alliance of the Democrats is troubling, but the dependence on black and latino voters means that a lot of working class and poor people are counted on as part of that alliance. Edsall and other commentators failed to explore the significant tensions that introduces when it comes to economic policy.
Point #4: The real danger of Trump is not his effect on the political parties. The real danger is that Trump and the deep rooted movement he is riding are undermining self-government as a whole. This is comparable to the years from 1854 to 1860: The road to disunion, to seeing every step of governance as a plot by one side or the other to illegitimately take over the country.
1
To suggest that the Right is anymore populist driven at this point than the Left is ridiculous. The Left is just more subtle in its populism and wealthy underpinnings.
Blah, blah, blah...if you're poor who ya' gonna' call?
The Koch beholding, Trickle Down idiocy of the intractable GOP?
Please.
This piece is laughable Mr. Edall.
I mean all you have to do is look at recent Presidential elections to see the left is doing just fine so enough with the drama okay?
Jeez...
The Koch beholding, Trickle Down idiocy of the intractable GOP?
Please.
This piece is laughable Mr. Edall.
I mean all you have to do is look at recent Presidential elections to see the left is doing just fine so enough with the drama okay?
Jeez...
2
A curse on both halves of the Uniparty.
2
This is a very interesting analysis....thank you!
The Democrats, under the leadership of Bill Clinton and the New Democrats during the 1990s, essentially abandoned the working poor, the working class, and most trade union workers. They turned the party leadership over to well paid upper middle class technocrats and professionals who look down their noses at "uneducated working class whites"... and they haven't done much for minority workers, either. So I've never understood the conventional wisdom that Bill Clinton was a fine president. Other than taking credit for the economic boom caused by the digital revolution (which he nothing to do with), he did little but move the country backward.
4
Excellent questions. The GOP is likely to fall apart after this election. Big business, Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and the good ol' military-industrial complex will try to hijack the Democratic party by seducing HRC and her inner circle (and will probably succeed). That will leave the rump of the GOP/tea-party/Trump supporters as a populist authoritarian party on the right, but also probably a growing populist progressive party of Bernie-ites and Greens on the left. The latter will try to appeal to the non-white voters, but in the end, the US political system will only support two parties.
Educated white Americans simply view Trump as a moron, a liar, and a bigot who is vastly ill prepared to be president. Conversely, they relate to and respect Hillary’s academic groundwork, and government experience she has. It’s logical. Many white educated communities also have first hand experience with our youth (their children) who have had to contend with ever-higher bars of academic standards and preparedness demanded by universities and corporations. Yet, here is a dummy like Trump running for president. There's something wrong with that picture.
As for the poor white working class many are fundamentally narrow-minded and misguided. I prescribe to the point of view that Conservative Republicans have “neglected” working class interests and Trump (like Bernie) is their voice. Sadly with Trump working class whites are ignorantly voting against their own self–interest. Let’s hope the Trump candidacy will at least wake up Congress; they must finally work together to enact legislation that will help poor and working class America— of all stripes and colors. This economic inequality is destructive to our democracy.
As for the poor white working class many are fundamentally narrow-minded and misguided. I prescribe to the point of view that Conservative Republicans have “neglected” working class interests and Trump (like Bernie) is their voice. Sadly with Trump working class whites are ignorantly voting against their own self–interest. Let’s hope the Trump candidacy will at least wake up Congress; they must finally work together to enact legislation that will help poor and working class America— of all stripes and colors. This economic inequality is destructive to our democracy.
1
If he is wrecking both parties then he is doing what was once "considered impossible" with parties that were "established, assumed, taken for granted, obediently accepted and considered beyond stretching, let alone wrecking".
If that is what Trump is doing, and could achieve, then he is "a patriotic genius", and part of "an inside exclusive government that is of the people and for the people and its future", which has decided to do some serious "house cleaning"...because "it is time" and "the sign has been given". Let us admit that both the national parties have failed the people and the world (to a degree).
At the moment I am too low in power, and too high in powerlessness, to know whether Mr.Trump is doing just that: wrecking both parties. All I can hope is that citizens and residents who are smart, and genuinely care for the world and justice, are also intuitive enough to figure out the truth.
I remain optimistic.
Call me nuts. :))
The truth is out there....
If that is what Trump is doing, and could achieve, then he is "a patriotic genius", and part of "an inside exclusive government that is of the people and for the people and its future", which has decided to do some serious "house cleaning"...because "it is time" and "the sign has been given". Let us admit that both the national parties have failed the people and the world (to a degree).
At the moment I am too low in power, and too high in powerlessness, to know whether Mr.Trump is doing just that: wrecking both parties. All I can hope is that citizens and residents who are smart, and genuinely care for the world and justice, are also intuitive enough to figure out the truth.
I remain optimistic.
Call me nuts. :))
The truth is out there....
1
"...how well will Clinton be able to govern with a base split between the well-to-do...and...low-to-moderate income African-Americans and Hispanics and the truly poor?"
Apparently she thinks she'll be able to govern just fine by continuing to provide "benefits" to the (large) portion of her party which doesn't provide for itself, and paying for it all by taxing the Trump supporters she just defeated. She said it herself loud and clear just 3 days ago: "We're going to raise taxes on middle class..."
Apparently she thinks she'll be able to govern just fine by continuing to provide "benefits" to the (large) portion of her party which doesn't provide for itself, and paying for it all by taxing the Trump supporters she just defeated. She said it herself loud and clear just 3 days ago: "We're going to raise taxes on middle class..."
3
Gee, I thought trump supporters were kinda down and out and don't pay taxes like Romney's 47%. And re the closing quote, provide a reference.
First of all, there is considerable factual dispute as to whether she actually said that or not. But secondly (and more importantly), if she did, then in my book that's a good thing. In order to fund the types of economic improvements that this country needs (increased infrastructure spending, etc.), the federal government will at some point have to raise taxes on the middle class. Pushing this through in 1993 was perhaps the only liberal thing that Bill Clinton ever did as President, and it helped pave the way for the economic boom and balanced budgets of his presidency. Sanders acknowledged this necessity during the Democratic primary and took a lot of heat for it, but he was right. Those of you who insist on ruling out a tax hike on the middle class will simply have to make do with less from the government and won't have any room to complain about it.
My father, a child of the Great Depression and a huge Irish immigrant family and beneficiary of an eight grade education voted for George Wallace in 1968. He literally wore a blue collar to work as a unionized steamfitter and faithfully drank his lunch everyday. After King was shot in Memphis in April of 1968 he bought a Remington pump action shotgun and a Winchester .303 lever action rifle in response to the wave of riots. He called me a "n-r loving idiot" and asked what I would do " when the n-rs you love more than your own kind climbed in the window and raped your sister and mother” I told him that was never going to happen and it never did. In 1972 he voted for Nixon. In 1972 I worked for McGovern. When I read or hear Trump and his fans spew their vitriol and preach a regressive 19th century world view it brings back not-so-fond memories of my father and his brother, Tom, who beat his wife into a coma and shattered her jaw. Democrats and progressives have to stop indulging white "working class" reactionaries. Trump’s supporters are “voluntary” racists, paranoids, homophobes, creationists. Sociologists should not offer apologetics for angry white guys' inane and fatuous beliefs based on millions of morons' psychological need for “ confirmation bias”. Evil is evil. Wrong is wrong. Trump supporters practice a willful ignorance and have an allergy to facts and antipathy towards real history. Trump's followers are spiteful idiots by choice, not by circumstance.
7
The claim that working class whites find no support from the democrats is patently absurd. ACA? Protecting Social Security and Medicare? Investment in public infrastructure? The point, simply put: left to republican devices, white, blue collar workers would quickly find themselves bereft of any public sector support and the safety net, under strict republican governance, would be torn to shreds.
What is it that the white working class doesn't get?
What is it that the white working class doesn't get?
4
I would guess common sense when it comes to choosing Trump over Clinton.
Can we all say, academic psychobabble spawning odd hypotheses?
Yes. Remember medieval Philosophers arguing about how many angels fit on a pinhead? Are there any pinheads about?
Trump's braggadocios sex-capades did nothing to erode his "overwhelming support from evangelical voters" because the "Christian" Right is steeped in unabashed hypocrisy. If anyone had any doubt after Josh Duggar (and I didn't), the wholesale moral bankruptcy and relentless hypocrisy of Jerry Falwell, Jr., et al. could not be more crystal clear.
3
"But if she wins, how well will Clinton be able to govern with a base split between the well-to-do, many of whom seek to protect their enclaves against the interests, needs and classically American ambitions of the other half of the party — low-to-moderate income African-Americans and Hispanics and the truly poor?"
The logical thing to happen is for moderate-income blacks and Hispanics to leave the Democratic party. They have more in common with the blue-collar worker base of the GOP. The only exception are unionized government workers, who are stuck with the Democrats.
Even a small move away from the Democrats by their core supporters would make it very difficult to win elections nationally.
The logical thing to happen is for moderate-income blacks and Hispanics to leave the Democratic party. They have more in common with the blue-collar worker base of the GOP. The only exception are unionized government workers, who are stuck with the Democrats.
Even a small move away from the Democrats by their core supporters would make it very difficult to win elections nationally.
3
The Democrats wreck their own party themselves.
3
The party of so-called elites is the party of the common good. We haven't abandoned poor whites, they just keep building their walls to keep everyone else out, fueling the fires of paranoia and hatred, and that is hardly a recipe for success in the 21st. Century.
3
That's easy - Trump is wrecking the country by inciting hatred and violence. He has revealed to us that civilisation often is just a thin veneer.
3
That's the ticket, we can just repaint the society with two coats and this horror show will go away.
This is an excellent piece that puts forward well argued and supported analysis. A stand out in the mess of bias "reporting" and editorializing that has dominated Times coverage of late.
2
Oooppssss - that should have been Howard Dean, not John Dean!
OK, Hilary is a moderate "Rockefeller" Republican, and Trump is a Yahoo in the old Andrew Jackson tradition who is ready to dismantle everything in Washington (literally.) But I still can't understand anything about why the conservative Christian crowd prefers a multiple-divorced, casino-owning used-car salesman who relies on hate and guns as his message of salvation. Why, oh why, is he preferable to a 'stand-by-your-man' one-time married woman who is actually quite cautious on most social issues? What answer is there other than racism and sexism in evangelical groups?
5
Oh for dog's sake. Thomas Edsall cannot look at anything without it being bad for Democrats. How tiresome.
2
I'm a liberal who will vote for Clinton. She can govern this split with the usual political method of throwing this dog a bone, then the other one a bone, the way coalitions have always been governed. This is elementary. But her real problem will be her tendency to lie when surprised by questions she has not rehearsed for, as at press conferences. Her advisors have no doubt been trying intensely to get her to stop lying but they can't. She has a small amount of Trump in her when it comes to lying. She will have few press conferences but dramatic ones, and her corresponding need for secrecy will balloon. If you think her career has been stormy so far, you haven't seen anything yet. Do not think the defeat of Trump will promise you a rose garden.
1
Is the pendulum swinging to the right globally?
Over the centuries we've see this happen, are we on the cusp again?
Over the centuries we've see this happen, are we on the cusp again?
1
What is forgotten here is that Republicans have been instrumental since the 60's in destroying unions, and decreasing the wages of the working class, and limiting the minimum wage. This is a bait-and-switch argument.
6
One point I found resonating with San Francisco, so called progressive Democrats (I lived in the Bay Area for 23 years): " ...well-to-do, many of whom seek to protect their enclaves against the interests, needs and classically American ambitions of the other half of the party — low-to-moderate income African-Americans and Hispanics and the truly poor? When President Obama suggested making community colleges free for the masses by taxing the upper classes just a little bit more, the Bay Area and especially San Franscico "Democrats" immediately called their Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and told her in no uncertain terms that they would not pay for college for "those people". And of course they send their kids to private school. The Democratic rich are just as racist as Republicans. If we well-educated, well off Democrats don't embrace the more poorly educated Americans worries, Republicans will own America, not just the gerrymandered House. Thanks Thomas for exposing the weakness of 21st century Democrats.
My home is in a very small southern town, in one of the poorer counties in the state. I think this article nails it, and John Dean called it years ago when he said something to the effect that the problems the Dems had was that they did not know how to talk to the white guy in the pick-up truck flying a Confederate flag.
Uppsss - that should of course be Howard Dean, not John Dean
At the root of all populist movements is the assertion that things will return to "normalcy" if a certain group or groups are "eliminated." We see this many times in American history, going back to the Know Nothing Party in the 1840s. This is the horrible root of populism, and it is not limited to the United States. The Nazi Party in Germany was in its fundamentals a populist movement.
2
I wonder why the Time continues to publish Mr. Edsall. He chooses a topic, accumulates a bunch of quotations, and throws them on the page, like a high school student writing her first English essay using note cards. What's the point?
2
Wow -- what a surprise, educated people who aren't being fed hate, xenophobia, racism and misogyny 24-7 by rightwing radio and Faux Noise will vote for Clinton -- the educated, policy-oriented, well-qualified candidate while the uneducated, poorly educated who cling to conspiracy theories, deny science, cling to the words of the blustering Limbaughs on radio and the vitriolic dumbmeisters on Faux Noise will vote for Trump -- the vile, vulgar, racist, xenophobe.
4
My only comment to this article is follow the money. Circumstances following Citizens United have forced both sides to prostitute themselves because in reality elections are bought and it takes a lot of money to do so.
5
It seems nearly impossible that both parties (especially the GOP) can ultimately restructure themselves in a manner that will have long-range appeal to struggling minorities and low-educated whites who are not fundamentally nativists and/or blinded by end-times evangelic fear. Perhaps Ralph Nader is spot on. The U.S. needs another alternative to the Coke & Pepsi choice we've been offered over many generations. If the Bernie Sanders movement can somehow be sustained, that might be a start.
2
Probably, but both parties need to change, since they have moved farther and farther away from the primary needs the country. (Republicans more than Democrats.)
2
My thought is that this string may be the most thoughtful, intelligent, and polite string of comments I ever recall reading. I’m impressed. Congratulations to you all. It makes me feel more optimistic.
1
No, Trump is not ruining our democracy with his loose morals. (How did this headline devolve into a chastisement of Trump's sex life btw?)
Putin and his useful Cheetoh idiot are creating chaos in our government via the internet.
If that feels weirdly familiar, it's because Putin's net-savvy FSB, (and it's famed Russian math talent), seem to be disrupting US governance using techniques gleaned from (US involvement in) the Arab Spring.
Our current political chaos could be seen as our cyber warfare thrown back in our faces, by a $2T GDP player, no less. Worryingly, our $17T GDP behemoth has been outflanked by a pesky, clever gnat.
Next up? Our insidious drone warfare thrown back in our faces.
Putin and his useful Cheetoh idiot are creating chaos in our government via the internet.
If that feels weirdly familiar, it's because Putin's net-savvy FSB, (and it's famed Russian math talent), seem to be disrupting US governance using techniques gleaned from (US involvement in) the Arab Spring.
Our current political chaos could be seen as our cyber warfare thrown back in our faces, by a $2T GDP player, no less. Worryingly, our $17T GDP behemoth has been outflanked by a pesky, clever gnat.
Next up? Our insidious drone warfare thrown back in our faces.
3
No, dear. He isn't.
He has done more to bring the Democratic Party together than any other person or event.
Both Parties ruined?
Sounds like a Republican hope that won't come true.
Like so many.
Like their goal at Obama having a 'failed' presidency.
The Republican goal after his election, all goals for the country forgotten by the wayside.
Both parties ruined?
Only in your dreams.
He has done more to bring the Democratic Party together than any other person or event.
Both Parties ruined?
Sounds like a Republican hope that won't come true.
Like so many.
Like their goal at Obama having a 'failed' presidency.
The Republican goal after his election, all goals for the country forgotten by the wayside.
Both parties ruined?
Only in your dreams.
5
What is happening to the democratic party seems very similar to what has been happening to the Labor party in the UK. At least until they elected the new leader of labor, Jeremy Corbyn.
As an aside, this article was dull as dirt and felt like it was written on note cards.
As an aside, this article was dull as dirt and felt like it was written on note cards.
1
Wow -- $50,000 sure doesn't sound "elite" to me.
6
Trump is only a person "who tells it like it is" and then has to have 15 million people explain what he just said wasn't what he just said. Is this man capable of destroying everything without saying anything cohesive?
3
Oh and look at all those bright young (white) faces smiling and lining up to meet the uncontrolled man-child with the expensive blond toupee!
This and the right wing hate-talk machine that helped create Drumpf both recall the lyrics to 'Clampdown' by the Clash, from over thirty years ago:
"We will teach our twisted speech to the young believers
We will train our blue-eyed youth to be young believers..."
The generational passing of both overt and covert racism is a sad spectacle for this country. Will we never be over this curse??
This and the right wing hate-talk machine that helped create Drumpf both recall the lyrics to 'Clampdown' by the Clash, from over thirty years ago:
"We will teach our twisted speech to the young believers
We will train our blue-eyed youth to be young believers..."
The generational passing of both overt and covert racism is a sad spectacle for this country. Will we never be over this curse??
2
Good analysis. However, I have simplified this election down to a remark by Dan Quayle, who, when caught misspelling potato said, "if all the bad spellers vote for me and all the good spellers vote for the other guy. I win." I fear, in that case, Trump wins.
As members of the cosmopolitan elite intelligentsia Lee Drutman, Dani Rodrik, and Robert Putnam have an insular view of Amercia. Maybe they should spend some time living in a small town. The Democratic Party has become more for the working class than ever thanks to Bernie Sanders influence on the Democratic platform. Many academics make a living by being contrarian. It helps with the publishing.
3
The analysis presented in this column is accurate, but it is too pessimistic about the ability of the Democratic Party to adapt to this situation. Over the past 4 years President Obama has advocated for major public investment in infrastructure. Such investments would have both direct and indirect positive effects of the sectors of our society most harmed by globalization. There is also an awakening that much more must be done to address the uneven benefits of too-rapid globalization, and to speed up the pace at which manufacturing jobs return to America. For this awakening Bernie Sanders and his supporters deserve our thanks.
Unfortunately, there is little more that the Democrats can do about the reaction to immigration than what has been done by President Obama: a massive increase of Border Patrol agents along the Mexico-US border, combined with more advanced technology to spot humans attempting to cross that border. Neither Trump nor Clinton bring up the large increase in deportations and border-crossing apprehensions in recent years. Trump doesn't tell the truth, and Clinton fears turning off many of her supporters.
Lets get through the next 100 days and after Hillary has won, then this can be addressed.
Unfortunately, there is little more that the Democrats can do about the reaction to immigration than what has been done by President Obama: a massive increase of Border Patrol agents along the Mexico-US border, combined with more advanced technology to spot humans attempting to cross that border. Neither Trump nor Clinton bring up the large increase in deportations and border-crossing apprehensions in recent years. Trump doesn't tell the truth, and Clinton fears turning off many of her supporters.
Lets get through the next 100 days and after Hillary has won, then this can be addressed.
1
The simple answer to the headline banner is: yes. Like all Donald doings, the candidate comes in; destroys businesses and peoples' lives, declares bankruptcy, exaggerates and lies, then leaves the clean-up to those abandoned. The next banner question: Is the political landscape reparable after this vast faux-right-wing pollution of the Trump Family and the likes of thieves like Mnuchin (Trump's financial guru)?
Donald Trump is everything the GOP pretends not to be!
2
Last time I checked -- watching the Democratic Convention -- the party looked just great. Please stop this partisan hackery nonsense, OK?
5
Bobby Jindal said it best when he warned fellow Republicans that they can't win if they are widely seen as the "stupid party".
Trump is hostile to science and other forms of social/emotional intelligence. He courts those similarly oriented and offends the intelligent voter. His anticipated failure at the polls will perhaps raise the future prospects of those who peddle similar folly but are both more clever and evil, like Cruz and most of the other GOP candidates.
Trump is hostile to science and other forms of social/emotional intelligence. He courts those similarly oriented and offends the intelligent voter. His anticipated failure at the polls will perhaps raise the future prospects of those who peddle similar folly but are both more clever and evil, like Cruz and most of the other GOP candidates.
1
Nixon called on a "silent majority" with a nod, wink and dog whistle. Trumplethinskin counts on being elected by a Bellicose Minority.
2
The one disturbing aspect of this opinion piece is the setting of educated middle and upper-middle class against those without a college degree as an inevitable feature of the present Democratic coalition. The implicit assumption is that the educated class is more interested in preserving their privileged position than in seeing the Trump supporters improving their lot. I don't see why the Democratic party cannot push for government programs that would benefit those that have been left behind by automation and globalization. I am sure most highly educated Americans understand that social harmony requires that all Americans feel they are getting a fair share of a growing economy. They will not want to preserve their privileges by increasing the discontent of those left behind. How that can be done is not well understood at this time but that should not stop policy makers from searching for practical solutions. Nativism and xenophobia will not disappear but can be tempered down if Trump supporters see that there are serious attempts at improving their lot without giving in to their prejudices.
2
serban, I hope you are right, but I fear you may be underestimating the greed and selfishness of the highly educated, even those who identify as liberals.
Mr. Edsall is absolutely right. I just released The Great Divide, an eBook that describes why this is happening in terms of the deeper psychological dynamics that I have termed The Great Divide. As I describe it:
"Though there are ten progressively complex "shapes of mind" along a spectrum of psychological development, for our purposes there is a single dividing line near the middle of the spectrum that I believe bears most heavily on the reaction to globalization: right near the middle of the stages is a "Great Divide" that marks the transition into the values, viewpoint and identity of a global, worldcentric mental operating system. Anyone who is operating to the right of the Great Divide most of the time–someone whose values, viewpoint and identity are situated in one of the later stages–is able to take a critically-objective view of their own viewpoint."
You can grab a version of the eBook here: http://www.robbsmith.com/the-birth-of-prosperity
"Though there are ten progressively complex "shapes of mind" along a spectrum of psychological development, for our purposes there is a single dividing line near the middle of the spectrum that I believe bears most heavily on the reaction to globalization: right near the middle of the stages is a "Great Divide" that marks the transition into the values, viewpoint and identity of a global, worldcentric mental operating system. Anyone who is operating to the right of the Great Divide most of the time–someone whose values, viewpoint and identity are situated in one of the later stages–is able to take a critically-objective view of their own viewpoint."
You can grab a version of the eBook here: http://www.robbsmith.com/the-birth-of-prosperity
I think your "mental operating system" has crossed the "great divide" into a netherworld maze that only someone who has left the surly bonds of rationality behind and taken a right turn into the twilight zone zone of pathological selfabsorbtion could possibly comprehend.
Another excellent point-counterpoint analysis, Thomas Edsall.
Plenty to think about.
Plenty to think about.
1
Great column Mr. Edsall. The post WWII era, in which America dominated the global economic stage, is at its end. Additionally, global economic growth is slowing, and we may be in for a long period of disinflation, or even deflation. Living standards in the US really haven't improved in many years. Middle class families struggle.
Ironically, the Trump anti-immigrant and anti-trade policies would only make the situation worse. We need immigration to bring in young workers, or we face a stagnant, old workforce like Japan and Europe. We also need free trade. Government programs which support sensible immigration, better education for workers, and a better safety net for the displaced, would help. I just don't see how we get there in a politically polarized environment.
Ironically, the Trump anti-immigrant and anti-trade policies would only make the situation worse. We need immigration to bring in young workers, or we face a stagnant, old workforce like Japan and Europe. We also need free trade. Government programs which support sensible immigration, better education for workers, and a better safety net for the displaced, would help. I just don't see how we get there in a politically polarized environment.
Reading this piece is actually more convoluted than listening to a Trump rant.
1
"Is Trump Wrecking Both Parties?"
Yes, Thank God, and don't they both need it. A little light under the door exposes much. Take Jeb and the Bush family history, and Ms Wasserman-Schultz as two examples.
Yes, Thank God, and don't they both need it. A little light under the door exposes much. Take Jeb and the Bush family history, and Ms Wasserman-Schultz as two examples.
2
Bernie lost fair and square...grow up and deal with it.
1
Dissatisfaction with Govt. feeds the fringe. Money in politics is directly linked to elected at all levels polluting the notion of representation. Term limits for legislative & judicial branches and strong finance reform at state & national level will help return a model of representation, rendering the fringe less attractive.
I find it outrageous that the title of "elite" is pinned on those with good educations, versus those financier "masters of the universe" wolves who make fortunes in the market, often in destroying other businesses.
Many of the highest educated people themselves work in academia, making a fraction of what they could make in the private sphere. Yes, that's a choice, and they may indeed possess elite (esoteric) knowledge.
But let's get real: Saying the hedge fund manager with three houses is less elite than the assistant professor struggling to pay the mortgage on one is nothing but an outright LIE. And it's a calculated one at that.
Many of the highest educated people themselves work in academia, making a fraction of what they could make in the private sphere. Yes, that's a choice, and they may indeed possess elite (esoteric) knowledge.
But let's get real: Saying the hedge fund manager with three houses is less elite than the assistant professor struggling to pay the mortgage on one is nothing but an outright LIE. And it's a calculated one at that.
4
I enjoy the professor's insights, and perhaps mow am less confused, or more confused, as per my further response:
Today's reality is as contradictory, complicated & convoluted--I suppose--as ever.
Populism (or anti-elitism) composes the essence of Trump's demagoguery.
Meanwhile, GOP defection is hopefully compensating Hillary's loss of hard working whites.
The traditional New Deal's coalition is shattered & by continuing loss of the massive white working class, which has been a trend since the "Real Majority" was spawned by the horribly divisive Vietnam War, negative reaction to the civil rights movement, bitterness from the war on poverty and idealism-breaking white flight.
The angry government shutdown of "repeal Obamacare" but "don't take my Medicare" allows me to sadly smile.
Today's reality is as contradictory, complicated & convoluted--I suppose--as ever.
Populism (or anti-elitism) composes the essence of Trump's demagoguery.
Meanwhile, GOP defection is hopefully compensating Hillary's loss of hard working whites.
The traditional New Deal's coalition is shattered & by continuing loss of the massive white working class, which has been a trend since the "Real Majority" was spawned by the horribly divisive Vietnam War, negative reaction to the civil rights movement, bitterness from the war on poverty and idealism-breaking white flight.
The angry government shutdown of "repeal Obamacare" but "don't take my Medicare" allows me to sadly smile.
1
The headline of this article suggests that Trump is the culprit, while the content seems to indicate the Democrats have done this to themselves and left the working class flailing in in an economy that no longer works for them.
4
People want simple answers to problems. Who better to give a simple answer than a simpleton?
1
As a political moderate, I think Trump and Sanders have had a largely negative effect, not only in some of their policies (the fact is that free trade has been an overall big benefit to the U.S.), but in talking as if their followers were a majority that could force Congress to do their bidding. Democracy requires compromise with our political enemies to get things done and purists would rather sit on the sidelines and condemn pragmatists. But we're faced with a stark choice and here is my documented list of reasons to support Clinton to share (9100 read so far): https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/open-letter-sanders-supporters-scott-s-sm...
1
This stretches credibility so far that it breaks. Democrats, the party of Social Security, Medicare, the ACA, financial reform, and fiscal stimulus during recessions -- are abandoning the middle class and the working class? In what alternative universe? How about instead the WHITE middle and working class allowed themselves to be seduced by a decades-long Republican campaign to divide the races so as to weaken the middle and working classes overall and shift power and wealth to financial and corporate interests? Blaming Democrats for the Republican wrecking-crew is like blaming the firefighters for the aftermath of arson. It's nonsense.
4
Thought provoking article. We need more like it.
Bernie Sanders was the answer to the Democrats' cosmopolitan elitism. And had the deck not been so heavily stacked in Hillary's favor, he might have pulled off the nomination. He has at least reminded the Democratic party of what it once stood for and hopefully pulled Hillary more to the left of center, whether through conviction or necessity is immaterial at this point.
Though Hillary is a perfect example of the wealthy new class of Democrats, she is steady, sane, and earnest. Trump is none of those. Contemplating the points made in this article would give him a three day headache and a week long scowl. KA
Bernie Sanders was the answer to the Democrats' cosmopolitan elitism. And had the deck not been so heavily stacked in Hillary's favor, he might have pulled off the nomination. He has at least reminded the Democratic party of what it once stood for and hopefully pulled Hillary more to the left of center, whether through conviction or necessity is immaterial at this point.
Though Hillary is a perfect example of the wealthy new class of Democrats, she is steady, sane, and earnest. Trump is none of those. Contemplating the points made in this article would give him a three day headache and a week long scowl. KA
1
A lot of overwrought philosophy elucidated with dense terminology here.
At least the Democrats try.
At least the Democrats try.
2
The saying goes: "If you want to live like a Republican, vote for a Democrat." They did. And now, these Democrats live like Republicans.
2
GOP: the gullible and their overlords (in business and propaganda).
Dems: minorities and college graduates (wisdom-bearers, community focus)
Dems: minorities and college graduates (wisdom-bearers, community focus)
I think an overlooked demographic to consider, which further cements the realignment of the parties, is the tremendous bevy of Sanders supporters who were more skeptical to get behind Clinton than typical primary losers. College-educated millenials supported Sanders over Clinton in such large numbers because they too felt disenfranchised by current economic trends, but embrace multiculturalism and are uncomfortable with right-wing nativism and opposition to immigration. But unlike Clintonian democrats, they also feel that the solution must include the provision of social programs which have lifted the country in the past - and not the Third Way espoused by Bill Clinton, which marries a conservative love for laissez-faire capitalism with the Democratic coalition. This was a political necessity after Reagan, but now is faltering.
I think that the comparisons between the Sanders and Trump coalitions are a bit thin, but if anything they share an opposition to the do-nothing protection of the wealthy by way of market deregulation. They blame different sources for the economic problems of the day and seek different solutions, but ultimately reject the plutocracy of the Democratic coalition as it stands.
I think that the comparisons between the Sanders and Trump coalitions are a bit thin, but if anything they share an opposition to the do-nothing protection of the wealthy by way of market deregulation. They blame different sources for the economic problems of the day and seek different solutions, but ultimately reject the plutocracy of the Democratic coalition as it stands.
Excellent article. I think it's important to remember, with the Left's embrace of science comes an embrace of pragmatic thinking. As long as the Left doesn't get corrupted by a diseased class of money hoarders, many of us recognize that limiting income inequality is good for society as a whole and individuals in every class.
As one of those moderate, affluent white voters, someone with liberal views on social issues but center right views on economic issues, I couldn't be happier about the marginalization of both the Religious Right and the Socialist Left in our politics.
Bring the realignment on.
Bring the realignment on.
The article is so ridiculous that I might request suspension of disbelief for a minute, and use an analogy to get my point across.
Imagine that around 1600AD, a scion of a rich native American organized a rally of people and proclaimed: "All native born! Let's build a wall. Natives rule, everyone else OUT."
I can picture a rabble of hooting and hollering natives waving their bows and arrows, and beating up some poor slob on the way back to the teepees. They would indeed be angry. Quite rightly, I might add.
Anger toward what? Invaders had better technology, they were better organized and determined to take over all factors of production (starting with land). To be native born at that time meant that everything you knew was wrong, and everything about you was redundant.
Of course they would be justifiably angry.
Yet, even the most well meaning invader could not have transformed them into vibrancy.
You can caution us about their anger today, about their ripeness for right wing exploitation. It makes academic sense. But no one can transform the Trump rabble into vibrancy today, or reshape capitalism or globalization to help them.
Tried talking to a Trump acolyte? He wants to be in charge, you gone, and have your money and property.
Hence, the Trump rabble is poised to lose. Lose big. I don't like it, but is the way the world works. But I guess from where you are sitting, you couldn't see that.
Kalidan
Imagine that around 1600AD, a scion of a rich native American organized a rally of people and proclaimed: "All native born! Let's build a wall. Natives rule, everyone else OUT."
I can picture a rabble of hooting and hollering natives waving their bows and arrows, and beating up some poor slob on the way back to the teepees. They would indeed be angry. Quite rightly, I might add.
Anger toward what? Invaders had better technology, they were better organized and determined to take over all factors of production (starting with land). To be native born at that time meant that everything you knew was wrong, and everything about you was redundant.
Of course they would be justifiably angry.
Yet, even the most well meaning invader could not have transformed them into vibrancy.
You can caution us about their anger today, about their ripeness for right wing exploitation. It makes academic sense. But no one can transform the Trump rabble into vibrancy today, or reshape capitalism or globalization to help them.
Tried talking to a Trump acolyte? He wants to be in charge, you gone, and have your money and property.
Hence, the Trump rabble is poised to lose. Lose big. I don't like it, but is the way the world works. But I guess from where you are sitting, you couldn't see that.
Kalidan
Either the Democratic Party embraces the Sanders left, which is racially and economically inclusive and includes the majority of the youth of the U.S., or it will die a deserved death as the left deserts it.
1
When unable to explain the behavior of Hillary and angry voters NYT always resorts to calling GOP racists. There is no defense to being called racist. I'm always suspicious when the "Ivy League" elite define white American males.
They enjoy defining the psyche of the white male as negative so they can be positive white American males from their elite scholarly high road where they have never worked in the public work force,
They enjoy defining the psyche of the white male as negative so they can be positive white American males from their elite scholarly high road where they have never worked in the public work force,
2
Interesting, but I think a major point is missing.
Yes, both parties are changing because of Trump. He is dividing the "Christian right." Conservative evangelical Christians are willing to overlook the repeated adultery and serial marriages of Trump to bask in is his xenophobia. Conservative Catholics, not so much.
Catholics are heading back to the Democratic Party of their forefathers and mothers. Trump will be leading a Republican Party of white working class Protestants. The Democratic Party will have a renewed base...of CHRISTIANS.
Yes, both parties are changing because of Trump. He is dividing the "Christian right." Conservative evangelical Christians are willing to overlook the repeated adultery and serial marriages of Trump to bask in is his xenophobia. Conservative Catholics, not so much.
Catholics are heading back to the Democratic Party of their forefathers and mothers. Trump will be leading a Republican Party of white working class Protestants. The Democratic Party will have a renewed base...of CHRISTIANS.
3
At last. Some recognition that today's Democrats are yesterday's Republicans. And BORH are responsible for Trump as well as Sanders. The notion of merit-based wealth through education and hard work is as likely to produce income inequality as protecting inherited wealth. Time for major adjustments to the system if we truly believe in equality.
3
What is his workable alternative for today's Democratic Party? He has multiple complaints but no solutions for 2016.
1
Is it any mystery why the GOP so despises liberal education and universities. It is in the Republicans' interest to keep the electorate as resentful and undereducated as possible. Advanced education requires challenging thought which hardly favors the right wing.
The GOP isn't even "conservative" anymore; real conservatism generates ideas and policies. All Republicans have on-offer today is obstructionism, ridiculous ad-hominem attacks and assassination calls against democratically-selected opponents.
President Obama is the "co-founder of ISIS?" That's even more absurd than accusing GWB of the same "crime."
www.endthemadnessnow.org
The GOP isn't even "conservative" anymore; real conservatism generates ideas and policies. All Republicans have on-offer today is obstructionism, ridiculous ad-hominem attacks and assassination calls against democratically-selected opponents.
President Obama is the "co-founder of ISIS?" That's even more absurd than accusing GWB of the same "crime."
www.endthemadnessnow.org
5
What this article is describing is the fact that the former fiscally conservative and socially progressive "moderate" Republicans of the Northeast have joined the Democratic party and are reshaping it to their own image.
This is not reason for rejoicing. It leaves the majority of Americans - yes, Independents outnumber the membership of the Republicans and Democrats - without representation of their interest in Congress, the White House, and the court.
Bernie was and is right.
This is not reason for rejoicing. It leaves the majority of Americans - yes, Independents outnumber the membership of the Republicans and Democrats - without representation of their interest in Congress, the White House, and the court.
Bernie was and is right.
1
If Donald Trump is President I believe that he will use nuclear weapons. Says ISIS will be hit hard and quickly. Quickly means Nukes. He will destroy the world as we know it. Doesn't believe in climate change. A polluter of the environment and also commits fraud against the most vulnerable of us. He lies and cheats. His role models are the strong and dictators Putin, Hassan, North Korea's leader. Disrespects a gold star family, avoided service in Vietnam through deferments for a bone spur and lying about it by saying his draft number was high. Hillary Clinton has the knowledge, experience and temperament to be Commander in Chief, President of the United States.
1
I think it humorous when I hear whit people say that they feel like "strangers in their own country" as if it were given to them by god to keep forever. Never mind that they stole it. PS, I'm black. I don't even have a country.
4
Everyone is just holding their noses until Trump loses, then goes through the five stages of grief for his defeat: 1. Anger, 2. Denial, 3. More Anger, 4. More Denial, 5. Melting Down with a final acceptance of is loss. The air should clear up around November 9th.
Or... maybe it's far more simple than your sophisticate analysis, Edsall. People simple vote for those who look like them. Unless...well unless, it's Obama or Hillary Clinton. In which case, a more sophisticated analysis may be needed. Or.... it could be that Clinton and Obama reached most of the same folks: the educated and the racial and sexual outsiders. In other words, it may be that the electorate is always interested in "throwing the bums out" and putting in folks like "us", i.e., the poor and the relatively powerless. Period.
So who represents and works for the interests of people who are not transglobal elitists or the poor? You know, like most of us? The bigger picture is does the US continue on the road to becoming a banana republic?
1
Donald Trump should step down and get out of politics. He is NOT fit to be the republican nominee and he is an embarrassment to our society. The Trumpsters crazy statements and asking people to use their "second amendment rights" is dangerous and insane. If anything would happens to the democrat nominee by a lone wolf it would be the Tumpsters fault because he is dividing all the insane and poorly educated followers of the republican party. Just yesterday he started to say that the democratic president is a member of ISIL and so was Hillary. With those comments they should ask him to step down as the republican nominee. Trumpster is terribly disturbed and should be looked at by a medical professional that deals with paranoia and narcissistic behavior he is out of control. I shutter of the fact that he could be president and he is completely beyond CRAZY. People should stand up and ask tell him to step down.
The "Democratic" leaders including Obama, Clinton and Wasserman Schultz among others have done a great job of destroying the Democratic Party all on their own!
4
Yes, crooked lying Trump is wrecking both parties, giving an awful name to 'politics', the art of the possible, by perverting the process rabble-rousing misinformed and prejudiced folks into violence against the established order. This vulgar bully is so arrogant when basking in his extreme ignorance of the facts, that he makes things up as he goes, demeaning or insulting others, not wanting to recognize he himself is superbly equipped with racism, xenophobia, misogyny and hateful divisions based on exclusion. He spews rumors as gospel, blaming everybody opposing him as the source of all evil. All this bluffing is risible of course...were it not so dangerous to ignore. Trump is a disgrace and a fraud, and must be exposed without interruption...until his just defeat is assured. Trump is a totally irresponsible 'wrecking ball' and must be anchored and sunk, so he can savor his own impertinence at leisure, cast into oblivion, where he belongs.
96
Trump is a monster. But so are some of his supporters. They re not all poor delegated suckers. There has always been a portion of Americans who are hateful, ignorant, nasty racists and nativists, and Trump has charged them up. Their present ascendancy is Trump's real wrecking ball. Let us pray that their charge wanes after the election, and that they will eventually crawl back under their rock. But don't hold your breath waiting.
I see the current political alignments in the United States as a reflection of perceived group interests and identities. The Democrats have not abandoned the poor or blue collar whites, that is pure propaganda. True to form, Trump and his allies have used progressive policies that benefit minorities as a wedge issue with working class whites who are along with working class and poor nonwhites victims of both globalization and technological change. Trump successfully split the Republican Party in two, mobilizing working class whites by directly challenging the internationalist agenda of Republican elites.
In doing so, Trump has been attracting working class whites who have identified with the Democratic party for generations. But I think this most likely is a short term phenomena associated with Trump's personality cult.
Assuming his defeat, both parties should revert to where they were. The two parties have been bleeding voters for decades with independents now of equal or greater numbers in most states than the two major parties.
There is a bridge to working class whites for Democrats. That would be the Bernie Sanders wing of the party. That wing would undoubtedly push millions of centrist Democrats into the arms of moderate Republicans, but that is what politics is all about. What may happen soon, especially with the rise of the multi-racial millennials, is a leftwing progressive coalition, perhaps a return of the 1930s New Deal coalition that awaits No.46.
In doing so, Trump has been attracting working class whites who have identified with the Democratic party for generations. But I think this most likely is a short term phenomena associated with Trump's personality cult.
Assuming his defeat, both parties should revert to where they were. The two parties have been bleeding voters for decades with independents now of equal or greater numbers in most states than the two major parties.
There is a bridge to working class whites for Democrats. That would be the Bernie Sanders wing of the party. That wing would undoubtedly push millions of centrist Democrats into the arms of moderate Republicans, but that is what politics is all about. What may happen soon, especially with the rise of the multi-racial millennials, is a leftwing progressive coalition, perhaps a return of the 1930s New Deal coalition that awaits No.46.
1
The provision of political parties by state governments makes politics an insiders game only.
The inescapable conclusion from this article is that the parties created an environment that would allow someone to do what Trump is doing.
Democrats: the party of SAT tutoring and second homes. The fact that GOP high-rollers and antsy billionaires are flocking to Clinton is her long-time dream come true. These are her type of people after all. If you're black or brown, you're just there for the photo-op and then can go home- quietly - thank you.
2
The challenge facing both parties (i.e., the country) is how to support and grow the middle class in an increasingly postindustrial US economy that requires, at a minimum, a college education increasingly unaffordable to many.
3
It is time, finally, for the GOP and others who "support" Trump to back away and not only denounce him, but find a legal way to remove him as the GOP nominee. He has clearly demonstrated again and again and again, that he simply is not morally and mentally fit for the honor of being the POTUS and representing our country and the great people who live here.
#nevertrump
#nevertrump
1
The great danger to America is that we think that there is only one solution - get rid of our current system and its political parties. Trump has called on Bernie supporters to support him. What seems obsurd is not and that is trumps greatest threat. We tend to think in terms of black and white, taxes and regulations are either good or bad. Wrong, taxes and regulation are tools that when used correctly benefit all. Capitalism is not evil nor communism, you just have to take out human greed, poor planning and failures. And that is why Hilary makes the most sense. She is a moderate, without a radical vision of where this great country needs to be. And that will produce real results.
1
My conclusion to this survey of scholarly opinion is that HRC will have to govern more like FDR in order to succeed. The banks and other elites are going to have to realize that neoliberalism, globalization, not to mention automation, have taken such a huge toll on the middle class and poor that the system that they set up is crumbling. Therefore, to keep the demagogues at bay it will be necessary to throw the 99 percent more than a couple of bones. Judging from HRC's speech at the convention, perhaps we can hope that this just might be in the works. There's only one way to save capitalism, and that's by using the right amount of socialism.
1
The comparisons between 1992 and 2016 – twenty-four years apart – are facile and your inferences questionable. You have essentially ignored the political context created during the past eight years in which Republicans (and their talk radio) taught that it was OK to be racist. All the ignorant and uneducated people, particularly traditionally conservative rural people, who carp and whine about their lack of success in life now had someone to blame – the Black guy. These are your Trump supporters – not disaffected members of Roosevelt’s New Deal, but Red State bigots who buy Trump’s mantra that “It’s always someone else’s fault – and we know who the someone else’s are.” There are times when the Big Political Tent fabric cannot stretch without ripping apart and this may be one of those times – self-identified Trumpites may have irrevocably placed themselves too far outside the Democratic Party to ever come back.
2
The Democratic Party has finally followed middle-class white flight from the cities, which began in earnest in the mid-1960s and hasn't stopped. Did it really have any other choice?
It appears likely that Hillary Clinton will win the Presidency by default. I expect she will have one term to demonstrate real commitment to progressive solutions to working class economic woes, and she will have to achieve some results. If she returns to classic Clinton centrism, she will face a challenge from within her own party in the next election and will likely be a one-term President.
The success of her first term will depend on Congress. If republicans remain in control, nothing will be accomplished. If democrats control the senate and make gains in the house, then there is a chance for her.
In order to get any productive legislation done during a Clinton presidency, the Democrats HAVE to regain the House majority (which will be VERY hard; they have to flip 30 seats to do this) and not only regain the Senate majority but run up the score in this year's Senate races. Then they have to hit the ground running next January. The clock will be ticking mercilessly; the 2018 Senate map is brutal for them, and the party holding the White House has lost House seats in all but a very few off-year elections since the Civil War.
Technological evolution will inevitably generate an evolving global price and a global wage. That is bad news for most Americans, and politicians never win by acknowledging bad news. This means our greatest problem does not get defined, let alone addressed. This is a great and overdue article. One could, in fact, publish a timely and important daily newspaper for a very long time by reporting and writing almost nothing but stories that flow from this one.
1
I think you need to take responsibility for your own messes, Tommy. The Clintons have been ruining the Democrat Party since the early 90's.
2
Bill handed Bush II a budget surplus in 2000. I'll take that kind of ruin any day.
The Democrats destroyed their own party, starting with the policies passed during the Johnson administration. Now everything is catching up with them, at least with the perceptive intelligent people who know they've been used by the Democrats.
2
Trump is not the cause. Trump is the symptom. Remove Trump and you still have the panoply of social and economic forces that propelled Trump to the GOP nomination. Analyses that confuse these forces with the charismatic candidate who expresses them only further confuse the issue.
1
In other, and fewer, words: Republicans now constitute the party of the top one percent; Democrats, the party of the top TEN (or so) percent. The rest of us, if hoping for someone to address our personal or collective public interests, are simply on the outside looking inwardly.
3
Must say this is one of the most thought provoking and clear-eyed analysis I've read in the Times. Still, I don't see that it points to a solution to this crisis-- and it is a crisis. There's no way out but forward, and we have no idea where it will lead. Most likely it won't be pretty.
Really overthinking this. The major factor in all of this is that Trump is an entertaining TV personality. And if you can't see how it makes much of a difference, that's as good a reason as any to give the man a chance.
A chance for what...to initiate WWIII?
We've heard the conspiracy that Trump is ploy by the Dems to throw the election to HRC. We could look at it the opposite way: Trump is pulling the Repubs so far right that the Dems move to the center and even moderately right of center. There is no real Left left. People can yell Sanders/Socialism all they want. In Europe Sanders would be a mainstream liberal. Everything (institutions, govt.) in the U.S. up and down the food chain has tilted right since the 80s.
1
Wow. The reversal of Bill Clinton's electoral coalition to wide spread support of Trump by working class whites is an eye opener. The Democratic left will, of course, attribute it to racism. But it is the Democrats who seemed to have lost touch with their traditional economic base to pursue more race driven, identity politics. Arguably, Bernie Sanders sought to reverse this , but failed. And notably, economic elites, who know that government actions are by far the best way to protect entrenched interests, flocked to Hillary.
2
Trump is obviously not in this for the good of the USA. He wants the presidency for himself and own grandeur, and is not doing it for public services reasons. Sadly, his style of disruption is good for selling newspapers. I wonder how long it will be before he is silenced. I remember when Sarah Palin had the same sort of grip in the press and than poof she was gone.
My philosophy is that all cultures can change. As for liberalism and social structures, my thought is it just takes a lot of time. For example, Paris is over 1000 years old. The USA could take another 500 years, before we will have the same social programs Europe takes for granted. We survived a Civil War and other tests to our countries unity. People are flawed, irrational and fickle.
Let's hope that flawed, irrational and fickle doesn't win this election.
My philosophy is that all cultures can change. As for liberalism and social structures, my thought is it just takes a lot of time. For example, Paris is over 1000 years old. The USA could take another 500 years, before we will have the same social programs Europe takes for granted. We survived a Civil War and other tests to our countries unity. People are flawed, irrational and fickle.
Let's hope that flawed, irrational and fickle doesn't win this election.
Professor Edsall's work typically has a weight about it that other writers here might think to emulate. I inevitably come away from an Edsall piece with the realization that these subjects are necessarily complex and that simple answers, in pithy opinion columns, rarely probe the complicated truth of the matter.
1
Excellent astute analysis. The Democratic party is going to have to
deal with their lack of appeal to white working class voters in the next decade.
deal with their lack of appeal to white working class voters in the next decade.
There are grains of truth throughout Edsall’s article, but the absence of one very important fact – the economic and income inequality negative trends will continue stressing out more and more Americans, as it moves up the income distribution.
In other words, our very real economic problems are not going to be wished away with election year slogans for much longer.
Democrat and Republican establishment types are taking Trump’s very flawed messenger status as confirmation that they can hold off 90% of the population flat income growth forever.
If not Trump, there will be another messenger more politically skilled, less able to be painted as racist, and not 75 years old and unable to run a second time, as is the case with Sanders.
In other words, our very real economic problems are not going to be wished away with election year slogans for much longer.
Democrat and Republican establishment types are taking Trump’s very flawed messenger status as confirmation that they can hold off 90% of the population flat income growth forever.
If not Trump, there will be another messenger more politically skilled, less able to be painted as racist, and not 75 years old and unable to run a second time, as is the case with Sanders.
What if the "professionals" broadly associated with the Democratic party, who make their livings telling the world what they think other people think, and who are quoted so amply here, are what's wrong with the Democratic party?
I mean persons who, like Hillary, don't want want to break up the big banks because (as she so gamely pointed out) that won't end Racism and Sexism and Homophobia, while she presumably will. And besides, portfolios would suffer and stock dividends might be subject to taxes again, if we broke up the banks instead of talking so much about Racism, Sexism and Homophobia.
Trump supporters may be stupid, but the Democratic party con isn't lost of them. What does New America, so amply quoted here, offer anyone beyond self-serving jargon? Or employment opportunities for a tiny number of like-minded people who also tell the world what they think other people think?
I mean persons who, like Hillary, don't want want to break up the big banks because (as she so gamely pointed out) that won't end Racism and Sexism and Homophobia, while she presumably will. And besides, portfolios would suffer and stock dividends might be subject to taxes again, if we broke up the banks instead of talking so much about Racism, Sexism and Homophobia.
Trump supporters may be stupid, but the Democratic party con isn't lost of them. What does New America, so amply quoted here, offer anyone beyond self-serving jargon? Or employment opportunities for a tiny number of like-minded people who also tell the world what they think other people think?
1
The Times portrays Trump daily as the Devil on Earth.
This one sided propaganda reminds me more of a Joseph Goebbels speech than an an American newspaper.
This one sided propaganda reminds me more of a Joseph Goebbels speech than an an American newspaper.
3
I believe "buffoon" would be more accurate. Trump is out for publicity and has no intention of becoming president. It would cramp his business dealings. He'll parlay the presidential campaign of 2016 into a new TV reality show for 2017.
"...Trump has tapped into and exploited the inadequacy of the responses coming from both major parties to voters who feel that they are “strangers in their own country.”
Isn't it the GOP that has blocked such progressive ideas as universal health care, expanded Medicare, more government stimulus, etc.? You are saying that both sides are responsible, which is rubbish.
Isn't it the GOP that has blocked such progressive ideas as universal health care, expanded Medicare, more government stimulus, etc.? You are saying that both sides are responsible, which is rubbish.
Dog-whistle.
T has stoked ignorant passions, the dude has no plan that would ever matter for those making less than 50k a year and undereducated.
Hillary's proposal of free education for them they don't care about. Why? Rage against the machine > Caring
We need to teach civics starting at the 1st grade.
T has stoked ignorant passions, the dude has no plan that would ever matter for those making less than 50k a year and undereducated.
Hillary's proposal of free education for them they don't care about. Why? Rage against the machine > Caring
We need to teach civics starting at the 1st grade.
2
It seems to me that the trend is reversing. As the Republicans collapse into disarray and froth-at-the-mouth idiocy, Democrats are tacking left and growing more confident. It's much the same as what happened in the 1970s, only with the parties reversed. Hillary Clinton is highly adaptable, and I think the Bernie supporters may be pleasantly surprised by how she actually governs.
2
Ah, more of the 'everything wrong in the world is Putin's fault' and nothing to do with the Hillary and earlier GW Bushes's US foreign policy disaster's', is being matched by the 'everything wrong in the US is Trump's fault' even though he is not yet in power and is not responsible for the new democrats decision to bypass democracy, go Prussian militarist jingoist and go with the selected before the election oligarch (Hillary) over the caring about the folks and 'of the people, by the people for the people' principles of democracy.
Indeed it has been the pro Hillary and old GOP elite who have shown their support for Oligarchy, vote manipulation and 'private rights' of the Party elite's over the folks Constitutional rights to vote. The new NYT indulges in shooting the messengers's, censoring intelligent critiques and blaming the cheated on rather than the cheaters for the war Oligarchs corruption of our democracy (blame Putin and leaks for this!)
Meanwhile as in the UK, the so called ex center Left newspapers (see UK Guardian) are transformed into war propaganda outlets, more interested in smearing the true center left candidates, whether Jeremy Corbyn or Sanders, despite there non involvement in the disasters of their governments programs like blaming Corbyn not Cameron for Brexit.
Without the mistakes made by the old GOP and the new Democrats, neither the ME nor our democracy would face the prospect of a Trump POTUS or war. Hillary, GW and US oligarch allies built that!
Indeed it has been the pro Hillary and old GOP elite who have shown their support for Oligarchy, vote manipulation and 'private rights' of the Party elite's over the folks Constitutional rights to vote. The new NYT indulges in shooting the messengers's, censoring intelligent critiques and blaming the cheated on rather than the cheaters for the war Oligarchs corruption of our democracy (blame Putin and leaks for this!)
Meanwhile as in the UK, the so called ex center Left newspapers (see UK Guardian) are transformed into war propaganda outlets, more interested in smearing the true center left candidates, whether Jeremy Corbyn or Sanders, despite there non involvement in the disasters of their governments programs like blaming Corbyn not Cameron for Brexit.
Without the mistakes made by the old GOP and the new Democrats, neither the ME nor our democracy would face the prospect of a Trump POTUS or war. Hillary, GW and US oligarch allies built that!
1
This is just too damn complicated. Most voters want to feel that they have representation. Is that too much to ask?
3
Have you ever tried talking to one of the uneducated masses? It is not easy to speak in words of one or two syllables and sentences of fewer than seven words. Communication of all but the simplest concepts becomes difficult. Imagine trying to get thru life with the ability to understand little more capability than Victor Frankenstein's creation: "Food, good! Fire, bad!" These people did not start out with limited intellects, but that is how they ended up. I do not know why, and at this point I do not care. Which is why I now see the eternal wisdom of the Electoral College. I hate to agree with any thought ever conceived by Antonin Scalia, but those founding fathers knew what they were doing. ELECTORAL COLLEGE FOREVER!
2
When I read about how the Democrats have abandoned the white middle class, I always wonder why they are supposed to do, short of enacting a miraculous universal basic income. It is far easier to work against discrimination than to re-employ highly paid, low-skilled workers in an age of globalization and intelligent technology. This is the most intractable problem we face.
1
The arrival of Trump is the logical consequence of the GOP making a conscious choice to become "the party of stupid", as Bobby Jindal so colordfully put it. It was inevitable that educated voters would gravitate to the Democrats, as the GOP pandered to creationists, climate-deniers, and other anti-reason constituencies, while deliberately mocking "elites" such as academics and fomenting disdain for anything that smelled like expertise. It is Trump who is attracting former Democratic constituents, but the GOP has handed elites to the Democrats. If the HRC administration does its duty by those old constituencies, she will stand a better chance of winning them back than Republicans have of recovering the college educated, white collar cohort.
Mr. Edsall, I am confused.
Why is it that every time someone mentions the words "free trade", the immediate image is abandoned factories and thousands of permanently unemployed voters in the Rust Belt?
The USA exports $2.3 trillion worth of stuff every year. We are the second-largest exporting nation, after China. And we are not so far behind China; our exports are about 85% of China's.
$2.3 trillion is one-eighth of the entire US economy. There are tens of millions of Americans who depend on exports for a living. Why do we never hear their voices?
Why is it that every time someone mentions the words "free trade", the immediate image is abandoned factories and thousands of permanently unemployed voters in the Rust Belt?
The USA exports $2.3 trillion worth of stuff every year. We are the second-largest exporting nation, after China. And we are not so far behind China; our exports are about 85% of China's.
$2.3 trillion is one-eighth of the entire US economy. There are tens of millions of Americans who depend on exports for a living. Why do we never hear their voices?
5
despite the title, this remains an essay on the origins of trump's political support. voters don't matter in that analysis. votes are the electoral goods that a party produces by churning discontent in the same way that farmers produce corn by plowing dirt.
when you look at how the parties raise money and make payback, you see a donor class that owns them both.
i'm wary of the immigrant issue because it doesn't specify why immigrants matter. took my job? changed my neighborhood? can't speak english? bring crime and drugs? prove the system is out of control? racism is an easy and perjorative diagnosis.
isn't it simpler, when you see the same trends in europe, russia, china, north america, to seek structural and demographic explanations rather than delve the platitudinous rhetoric designed to harvest votes or wonkish policy analysis? after all, policy has always been in terms of generating wealth for corporate owners, and baby, we've generated a lot of wealth in the past century.
just ask the wealthy.
factional divisions, inequality, decentralization, nativism, conflict, increasing costs of administration -- these are classic symptoms of what tainter calls the collapse of complex societies.
those skilled and highly educated workers and wealth generators prized in the new global economy may think they can ride out the future through canny maneuvering and TED insights. trump voters appraise the future in darker terms, and with good reason.
when you look at how the parties raise money and make payback, you see a donor class that owns them both.
i'm wary of the immigrant issue because it doesn't specify why immigrants matter. took my job? changed my neighborhood? can't speak english? bring crime and drugs? prove the system is out of control? racism is an easy and perjorative diagnosis.
isn't it simpler, when you see the same trends in europe, russia, china, north america, to seek structural and demographic explanations rather than delve the platitudinous rhetoric designed to harvest votes or wonkish policy analysis? after all, policy has always been in terms of generating wealth for corporate owners, and baby, we've generated a lot of wealth in the past century.
just ask the wealthy.
factional divisions, inequality, decentralization, nativism, conflict, increasing costs of administration -- these are classic symptoms of what tainter calls the collapse of complex societies.
those skilled and highly educated workers and wealth generators prized in the new global economy may think they can ride out the future through canny maneuvering and TED insights. trump voters appraise the future in darker terms, and with good reason.
1
Quick review of elections for President since the end of WWII
1948 - Democrat born poor beats Republican born rich
1952 & 1956 - Republican born poor beats Democrat born rich
1960 - Democrat born rich beats Republican born poor
1964 - Democrat born poor beat Republican born rich
1968 & 1972 - Republican born poor beats Democrat born poor
1976 - Democrat born rich beats Republican born poor
1980 & 1984- Republican born poor beats Democrat born rich
1988 - Republican born rich defeats Democrat born 'well-to-do'
1992 - Democrat born poor defeats Republican born rich
1996 - Democrat born poor defeats Republican born less poor
2000 & 2004 - Republican born rich defeats Democrat born rich
2008 & 2012 - Democrat born poor defeats Republican born rich
That's a total of 17 elections. The candidate born poor won 12 of those (71%).
But two of those elections (2000 and 2004) had no 'born poor' candidate.
1960, 1976, and 1988 were the only contests where the wealthy at birth candidate beat a poorer rival. So, it seems that voters across the country will, if given a choice, vote for the candidate who comes from the poorer background, regardless of party. We respect those who have risen to power from humbler beginnings.
And of those three anomalous races:
JFK was a war-hero 4F; Nixon was a Naval reserve paper-pusher, and JFK came from a long line of successful politicians
Carter beat Ford, who got the office when Nixon resigned
Bush I rode the coat-tails of Reagan.
Harder for a rich man
1948 - Democrat born poor beats Republican born rich
1952 & 1956 - Republican born poor beats Democrat born rich
1960 - Democrat born rich beats Republican born poor
1964 - Democrat born poor beat Republican born rich
1968 & 1972 - Republican born poor beats Democrat born poor
1976 - Democrat born rich beats Republican born poor
1980 & 1984- Republican born poor beats Democrat born rich
1988 - Republican born rich defeats Democrat born 'well-to-do'
1992 - Democrat born poor defeats Republican born rich
1996 - Democrat born poor defeats Republican born less poor
2000 & 2004 - Republican born rich defeats Democrat born rich
2008 & 2012 - Democrat born poor defeats Republican born rich
That's a total of 17 elections. The candidate born poor won 12 of those (71%).
But two of those elections (2000 and 2004) had no 'born poor' candidate.
1960, 1976, and 1988 were the only contests where the wealthy at birth candidate beat a poorer rival. So, it seems that voters across the country will, if given a choice, vote for the candidate who comes from the poorer background, regardless of party. We respect those who have risen to power from humbler beginnings.
And of those three anomalous races:
JFK was a war-hero 4F; Nixon was a Naval reserve paper-pusher, and JFK came from a long line of successful politicians
Carter beat Ford, who got the office when Nixon resigned
Bush I rode the coat-tails of Reagan.
Harder for a rich man
What just wrecked the Democrat Party is minorities allowing themselves to be played for fools, by the celebrity standard bearer of the status quo. Analogous to the classic disaster of recent American political history; the white working people of America voting against their own interests to foist Ron Reagan on the US, the political naivety and lack of foresight of American Blacks & Hispanics just set the progressive cause back 25 years. Unbelievable.
Mrs Clinton is a proper enough candidate, but when you have a person of integrity and human caring the caliber of Bernie Sanders at the ready, and you choose the highly manufactured, & processed product you will get all the junk ingredients contained therein - very unhealthy for America. Huge mistake, a derailing of what was a very exciting prospect for progress. How can the most needy, most set upon people in America allow themselves to be so easily bamboozled? This is why progressives are dismayed, we just handed the electoral reigns to misguided panderers of celebrity.
Mrs Clinton is a proper enough candidate, but when you have a person of integrity and human caring the caliber of Bernie Sanders at the ready, and you choose the highly manufactured, & processed product you will get all the junk ingredients contained therein - very unhealthy for America. Huge mistake, a derailing of what was a very exciting prospect for progress. How can the most needy, most set upon people in America allow themselves to be so easily bamboozled? This is why progressives are dismayed, we just handed the electoral reigns to misguided panderers of celebrity.
I have wondered about the effect Trump and / or the collapse of the Republican party will have on the Democratic party. There will certainly be one. But until Clinton wins (fingers crossed) & until a new Congress & until at least a year or two down the road, it is impossible to say. These analyses are interesting to a point but extremely premature--a warning perhaps to open up to blue-collar reforms (& by the way many blue collars make more than I do in my supposedly white collar double-masters job) and the poor, who the Times notes today are once again the unmentionables.
A simpler way maybe to think about this is to see Bill Clinton for what he was--a center left Republican running on the Democratic ticket. I am a big believer in funding government jobs because those are middle class jobs that create a market for businesses and wish universal health care could be pitched as a business-friendly program (after all, why in the world should a shop owner be responsible for anyone's health care, other than making sure the shop is safe?). But when Clinton took the ground typically occupied by moderate Republicans and Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor became the liberal on the Court, the right defined itself by veering even harder to the right.
By the way, not all gays, African Americans, and Latinos live in urban areas or Kim Davis of Kentucky would not have had to worry about signing those marriage licenses. Plenty of gays in rural Kentucky, too, with rights that need to be protected.
By the way, not all gays, African Americans, and Latinos live in urban areas or Kim Davis of Kentucky would not have had to worry about signing those marriage licenses. Plenty of gays in rural Kentucky, too, with rights that need to be protected.
1
The Democratic Party is for:
Raising the minimum wage,
Equal pay for equal work,
Paid family leave,
Protecting Social Security and Medicare,
Moving toward universal healthcare.
The interests of the working people are a fundamental part of the Democratic Party.
Raising the minimum wage,
Equal pay for equal work,
Paid family leave,
Protecting Social Security and Medicare,
Moving toward universal healthcare.
The interests of the working people are a fundamental part of the Democratic Party.
Think tanks are part of what built the right wing fantasy world of the GOP. Equal time for the left wing versions don't "explain" Trump any better. The man is unbalanced, and he lies. He offers fantasy too.
A guy exploiting old racisms and financial insecurities to get ahead is nothing new. Trump has no plan, no ideas, no vision. He has built no factory. He has the KKK/NRA supporters but what is that worth?? He cheats those very people in his own "University". He sees these folks as cash flow. They are more useful hungry than happy to him.
Think tanks need to use some of their time figuring out some creative solutions for jobs for Americans at all levels and work for something reality-based.
A guy exploiting old racisms and financial insecurities to get ahead is nothing new. Trump has no plan, no ideas, no vision. He has built no factory. He has the KKK/NRA supporters but what is that worth?? He cheats those very people in his own "University". He sees these folks as cash flow. They are more useful hungry than happy to him.
Think tanks need to use some of their time figuring out some creative solutions for jobs for Americans at all levels and work for something reality-based.
1
The author discounts the possibility that well-to-do progressives understand that the only way to preserve their privileges is to ensure that the benefits of globalisation extend beyond the top 5-10%. That's why progressives champion universal healthcare, free early childhood education, parental leave and enhanced access to higher education. And yes many are even prepared to accept higher rates of taxation to pay for this. If the Democratic Party continues to champion these and other progressive causes there is no reason why it's winning coalition should not persist well into the future.
This is very interesting because essentially what you saying is the Democratic Party is taking over the demographic of the Republican Party. Albeit the working class and poor are minority in the Democratic Party.
Which to me means in say 30 years the Democratic Party will be facing the same crisis the Republican Party faces today.
Or if we are very lucky we will figure out a way to overthrow the oligarchs and have two parties more in tune with the people. How lovely it would be if the only thing we had to fight over was how much more money we should give to schools rather than should we install metal detectors to stop guns in our elementary schools.
Which to me means in say 30 years the Democratic Party will be facing the same crisis the Republican Party faces today.
Or if we are very lucky we will figure out a way to overthrow the oligarchs and have two parties more in tune with the people. How lovely it would be if the only thing we had to fight over was how much more money we should give to schools rather than should we install metal detectors to stop guns in our elementary schools.
1
Really you have to stop blaming Democrats for Donald Trump.
1
Speaking of President Barack “Hussein” Obama and Hillary Clinton, Trump now says:
“He’s the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder. He founded ISIS.” He added, “I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton.”
ISIS being the mortal enemy of the U.S. that he himself has pledged to destroy, what does this say about the futures of President Obama and Mrs. Clinton when Trump becomes President?
“He’s the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder. He founded ISIS.” He added, “I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton.”
ISIS being the mortal enemy of the U.S. that he himself has pledged to destroy, what does this say about the futures of President Obama and Mrs. Clinton when Trump becomes President?
2
I disagree, Much has been written about the view of many Republican voters that they have not left their party, their party has left Them. Edsall is arguing here that the same is true for the Democratic party. I disagree.
The Democratic party has not left its voters. The voters have left the party. Let's look at some examples.
Take unions. The party has always supported unions and still does. BUT starting with Reagan's crushing of the flight controllers union, the Republican, big business, and the Rich have fought a largely successful war against unions.They have persuaded white, less affluent, less educated voters to vote against their own best interest and support policies like "right to work" laws which allow deadbeat workers to enjoy unions benefits without paying for them and to abolish collective bargaining in certain cases.
Take healthcare. The party has supported government support of healthcare at least since since Truman in 1945 and still does. Even in 2003, the country supported Medicare for All by 2 to 1 in many polls. BUT since then, the relentless attack on Obamacare, full of lies and misrepresentations, moved the core voters away from the party.
The party of the Clinton's, Sanders, Warren, Biden, and Obama is not that much different from the party of the Kennedy's, Truman, Stevenson, Johnson, and Tip O'Neil. BUT the party of the Bushes's, Cruz, Ryan, Ben Carson, and Trump is nothing like the party of Dirksen, Javits, Rockefeller, Warren and Taft.
The Democratic party has not left its voters. The voters have left the party. Let's look at some examples.
Take unions. The party has always supported unions and still does. BUT starting with Reagan's crushing of the flight controllers union, the Republican, big business, and the Rich have fought a largely successful war against unions.They have persuaded white, less affluent, less educated voters to vote against their own best interest and support policies like "right to work" laws which allow deadbeat workers to enjoy unions benefits without paying for them and to abolish collective bargaining in certain cases.
Take healthcare. The party has supported government support of healthcare at least since since Truman in 1945 and still does. Even in 2003, the country supported Medicare for All by 2 to 1 in many polls. BUT since then, the relentless attack on Obamacare, full of lies and misrepresentations, moved the core voters away from the party.
The party of the Clinton's, Sanders, Warren, Biden, and Obama is not that much different from the party of the Kennedy's, Truman, Stevenson, Johnson, and Tip O'Neil. BUT the party of the Bushes's, Cruz, Ryan, Ben Carson, and Trump is nothing like the party of Dirksen, Javits, Rockefeller, Warren and Taft.
Trump is the embodied form of the 20 year project of Roger Ailes and people like him to wean voters from even basic rationality to authoritative dribbling and racial biases of celebrity type "reporters". He essentially offered fake conservative credentials for merely turning on a TV.
Ailes realized the voting power of poor and ill-informed people could be leveraged into an endless supply of dollars and could elect a Congress that regularly did nothing pragmatic but instead offered religious bromides. Trump is just the guy attracted to the roadkill the GOP has made of the poor once it got them separated from reason, the Constitution, science, critical thinking, the American sense of optimism, their voting rights, and now, decency.
Trump isnt even expected to make any sense from day to day. Yeah, it hurts everyone.
Ailes realized the voting power of poor and ill-informed people could be leveraged into an endless supply of dollars and could elect a Congress that regularly did nothing pragmatic but instead offered religious bromides. Trump is just the guy attracted to the roadkill the GOP has made of the poor once it got them separated from reason, the Constitution, science, critical thinking, the American sense of optimism, their voting rights, and now, decency.
Trump isnt even expected to make any sense from day to day. Yeah, it hurts everyone.
1
Tom, let me question two of your assumptions:
First, that the Democratic Party is leftist. Republican propaganda and discipline has pulled their party somewhere past far right. The Democratic Party, poorly organized and proud of it, has been dragged past the center to become a center-right party by historical US and contemporary European metrics. Jill Stein is correct, from her frame of reference, in asserting that Hillary is the lesser of two evils but misguided in arguing that it is inherently wrong to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Second, that Trump has in some way contributed to the current alignment of the Democratic Party. That contribution was already made by the Republican "establishment." Democrats need to think hard about who and where they are, but their reassessment should be Trump-free.
First, that the Democratic Party is leftist. Republican propaganda and discipline has pulled their party somewhere past far right. The Democratic Party, poorly organized and proud of it, has been dragged past the center to become a center-right party by historical US and contemporary European metrics. Jill Stein is correct, from her frame of reference, in asserting that Hillary is the lesser of two evils but misguided in arguing that it is inherently wrong to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Second, that Trump has in some way contributed to the current alignment of the Democratic Party. That contribution was already made by the Republican "establishment." Democrats need to think hard about who and where they are, but their reassessment should be Trump-free.
Trump is accelerating a long term trend. It looks like we are moving to a four party system. A globalist Hamiltonian Party, a Jacksonian nationalist Party, a no nothing nativist party and a social Democratic Party. The two,party duopoly is dying just as the three networks died.
The Democratic Party has been lost since Wilson. Democratism is the new communism. The Democratic Party is a disgrace. Obama is a disgrace. Hillary is a disgrace.
This inversion that appears to be in progress, with the Dems moving away from social justice and 'ordinary people' is disconcerting and unfortunate, but at least the Republicans new mantra 'Join the GOP, the party of losers!' does have a certain ring to it.
So now the the Democratic Party will be more reflective of me and my cohort? That's sounds okay. Organizations evolve as societies change. I am not like my grandparents, so does this mean that the Democratic Party must stay frozen in the time of their generation. Other than for their current presidential candidate, I like the Democratic Party of today. I often have to deal with the cohort of individuals who would support Donald Trump. I am more than willing to jettison them to the Republican Party. They are a shrinking population that no longer is a reflection America and its aspirations. Why then do they deserve center stage?
So we need a Social Democratic Party. I note Bernie gets no mention. NYT again.
1
Scholarly studies indicate that the FDR coalition broke up and the working class abandoned the Democratic Party in the late 1960's. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/04_demographics_tei... In 1960-64, 55% of the working class voted for Democrats. In 1968-72, that dropped to 35%. Among the principal factors were white opposition to the Civil Rights movement and to other progressive causes. For fifty years, now the Democrats have been a coalition of the wealthy and the interest groups they support. The working class has long since abandoned the Democrats. Trump is not in a position to accelerate a transition that is already complete.
Michjas writes, "The FDR coalition broke up and the working class abandoned the Democratic Party in the late 1960's.... The working class has long since abandoned the Democrats."
The working class is not entirely white. Words matter -- and in this instance, they distort the analysis.
The working class is not entirely white. Words matter -- and in this instance, they distort the analysis.
1
Since when is the middle not also the working class. tump supporters aren't concerned about globalization, immigration, etc. They are racist who see their white privilege eroding. They aren't socially conservative. The are racist bigots.
Trump is not wrecking both parties. Both parties wrecked themselves. The leaked email show major corruption and criminality by the Democrats and the DNC. Their party leader, Hillary Clinton, is an obvious criminal.
The GOP wrecked themselves when they were awarded control of Congress in '14 and immediately stopped being the opposition party and gave Obama all the money he needed to fund his radical corrupt anti-American agenda.
Trump is what you get when you fail to lead and cede your constitutional authority.
The GOP wrecked themselves when they were awarded control of Congress in '14 and immediately stopped being the opposition party and gave Obama all the money he needed to fund his radical corrupt anti-American agenda.
Trump is what you get when you fail to lead and cede your constitutional authority.
1
Obama's agenda has been "anti-American"?
He's twice been elected President of the United States. That's a perverse way of identifying an "anti-American" agenda.
He's twice been elected President of the United States. That's a perverse way of identifying an "anti-American" agenda.
Due to the lack of any coherent policy, I somehow doubt that TRUMP represents anything more than anger amongst a segment of the population who seek boogiemen. It's a cult of personality, not a movement. And then there is Sanders. How to interpret his popularity? He may have been light on policy details, but he had very coherent policy positions. I see much more chance of a progressive movement gaining strength as evidenced by the Sanders run than any sort of movement coalescing from the TRUMP disgruntled-angry-mob fad.
1
"In case you weren't convinced Democrats art becoming the cosmopolitan elite party." Lee Drutman
"A Group that Trump and Clinton barely mention: The Poor." NY Times headline, Aug. 11.
While the GOP has remained the party of the top .01%, Democrats are now the party representing those resembling the characters from "The Good Wife," pretty much the following .09%.
"A Group that Trump and Clinton barely mention: The Poor." NY Times headline, Aug. 11.
While the GOP has remained the party of the top .01%, Democrats are now the party representing those resembling the characters from "The Good Wife," pretty much the following .09%.
1
if the current trends continue. what...any dithering on forward progress will be determined by the Planet. she is kind of ticked off. this human experiment let alone america's will be over. take care of the home then grab the house. time for systemic change. don't be a chump dumptrump
For an excellent summarization of the trend of the Democratic Party becoming the Party of young educated professionals, one should read Thomas Frank's excellent book "Listen Liberal". Blue collar working people are now left in the unenviable position where neither Party truly represents their interests. They have been abandoned. In 2016 the only voice in the primaries that honestly took up their cause was Sanders. But the nativist bent that grips these peoples' thinking would never allow them to vote for a Socialist.
1
Democrats think the more advanced degrees from Ivy League schools you have, the smarter you are, and the smartest people should get to decide things for everybody else (and be paid well for being the elite.) Republicans think the people with the most money should make the decisions, since obviously richer=smarter. Either way, money is everything. The formulation is always "How much can we get away with before the inhabitants get rowdy?" The democrats think you have to raise minimum wage by a nickel every ten years, the republicans don't. I'm voting for Hillary, and will spend my nickel promoting candidates that favor universal health care, tuition free state schools, and basic human decency. Since neither party currently endorses such a candidate, it would indeed be a very good thing if this election tore down the barriers to progress that have been put in place by the rich and elite.
Democracy rarely works as the least productive among us rarely attain political clout or power. Anyone that thinks otherwise is kidding themselves because asset absent individuals typically care less about anything except now. How they feel in ten minutes will be whatever their mindless distraction might be until it is beer and weed time. I'm not referring to the poor but rather the asset deficient white trash. Books are now written about white trash trying to figure out if it's genetics or culture that causes the phenomenon typically observable at a Trump rally.
"Asset absent individuals typically care less about anything except now. How they feel in ten minutes will be whatever their mindless distraction might be until it is beer and weed time. I'm not referring to the poor but rather the asset deficient white trash."
Terry, have you ever heard of Walt Whitman?
Terry, have you ever heard of Walt Whitman?
He owned copyrights aplenty and so what might be your point?
Did you ever get past the copyright notice, or were his "assets" the only part that interested you?
So much for "democratic vistas"! ;-)
So much for "democratic vistas"! ;-)
Correct that Trump is flailing "in every self-destructive fashion conceivable," but only the Republicans have taken the position that our government (from local school districts to the federal executive branch) must fail so it can be rebuilt as they see fit. Our collective amnesia leads us to forget that Trump was not by any means the most extreme of the Republican presidential candidates (think Cruz or Carson for starters). There is no doubt that a Republican-led Congress will support many if not all of Trump's outlandish ideas and continue to be an obstacle to progress on the economy, national security, the environment and health care.
5
Could a more "normal" person than Trump or Sanders unite their followers?
Their followers seem to have similar economic views so this would require somehow compromising their social differences. My guess is that the Trump folks would give up on a lot of their social concerns if they could prevail on the economics. And perhaps Sanders' folks could tone down the social rhetoric in exchange.
If such a leader could somehow broker a truce on social issues and then set them aside ("live and let live") this could lead to a powerful realignment of U.S. politics, basically between the "haves" and the "have nots." And leave the "haves" divided between those who favor unfettered free market capitalism and those who believe in a more regulated economy. In that case the "have nots" might prevail against the divided "haves."
Such a movement could be especially powerful if it succeeded in attracting those minorities who aren't so much interested in a strengthened welfare state as strengthened opportunity for those whose goal is working their way up.
Who in that leader? Curious minds want to know.
Their followers seem to have similar economic views so this would require somehow compromising their social differences. My guess is that the Trump folks would give up on a lot of their social concerns if they could prevail on the economics. And perhaps Sanders' folks could tone down the social rhetoric in exchange.
If such a leader could somehow broker a truce on social issues and then set them aside ("live and let live") this could lead to a powerful realignment of U.S. politics, basically between the "haves" and the "have nots." And leave the "haves" divided between those who favor unfettered free market capitalism and those who believe in a more regulated economy. In that case the "have nots" might prevail against the divided "haves."
Such a movement could be especially powerful if it succeeded in attracting those minorities who aren't so much interested in a strengthened welfare state as strengthened opportunity for those whose goal is working their way up.
Who in that leader? Curious minds want to know.
3
Mr. Edsall: I share your concern for the continued support of the poor and the blue collar citizens. Lets however step back and ask ourselves what could have happened if the Democrats under Bill Clinton had not embraced globalization in the 1990's. First and foremost in my mind was the fact that the people of the two current Asian economic powerhouses China and India would have not, none the less, been denied. They certainly would have realized that America and the West weren't really interested in leveling the economic playing field and more than likely it would have resulted in political and social unrest which very easily could have resulted in a major regional conflict. Secondly, least we forget Europe and the former Soviet block countries had emerged from the Cold War and their economies were struggling to find their place in the world economy, and Russia in fact was in chaos. So, yes once the world economy had reached some sort of equilibrium with the help of the US globalization policies, it certainly would have been best for the Democrats to once again turn their attention to their traditional concerns for the Blue collar and poor in the US. We must remember however what occurred in the beginning of the 00's- George Bush Jr was elected and the World Trade Center was destroyed....And you know the rest.
4
"The World Trade Center was destroyed." What a fascinating metaphor!
Pundits will tell us the winner on Election Day achieved an historic victory. The next day history will tell us, "The more things change, the more they remain the same."
Politics suggests a degree of malleability in human affairs. The dynamics of class and other aspects of culture suggest far less.
Politics suggests a degree of malleability in human affairs. The dynamics of class and other aspects of culture suggest far less.
3
Is Trump wrecking both parties?
I hope so.
They both need wrecking.
If he does that, he'll have done a service greater than all the promises made by all the other politicians. It would make up for a lot, especially since he's probably incapable of much else.
I hope so.
They both need wrecking.
If he does that, he'll have done a service greater than all the promises made by all the other politicians. It would make up for a lot, especially since he's probably incapable of much else.
13
Bernie lost because the voters picked someone else...so please stop whining...it just isn't that cute anymore.
2
Mr. Thomason,
I've long appreciated your contributions to these pages. I was dismayed to see the judgments brought down on you re your post the other day. Perhaps you set a new record for comments on a post. The vast majority negative.
While I did not agree with essence of your post, the lack of respect by our fellow readers could be understood by your false equivalencies. And that quite apparently so many people were so unhappy because you have obviously been recognized by so many with respect over the years; and thus the reaction.
And yet here you are sort of doubling down. Wrecking is not a"service." What is called for, imperatively, is fixing. And Trump is the abomination to our history. I too was for Sanders, but am choosing the lesser of two evils. I hope you'll find your way around to this perspective.
I've long appreciated your contributions to these pages. I was dismayed to see the judgments brought down on you re your post the other day. Perhaps you set a new record for comments on a post. The vast majority negative.
While I did not agree with essence of your post, the lack of respect by our fellow readers could be understood by your false equivalencies. And that quite apparently so many people were so unhappy because you have obviously been recognized by so many with respect over the years; and thus the reaction.
And yet here you are sort of doubling down. Wrecking is not a"service." What is called for, imperatively, is fixing. And Trump is the abomination to our history. I too was for Sanders, but am choosing the lesser of two evils. I hope you'll find your way around to this perspective.
2
William Alan Shirley -- Thank you. That was something of a shock.
It is no longer about Bernie. He lost, and realistically he can't run again given his age. Run in his late 70's to serve well into his 80's? He did a lot for his cause this time, and I think that is as far as he can be expected to go.
I have given up on both parties as organizations, as structures.
I believe we must do as we did in the 1850's, when both parties dissolved and their elements reformed in new ways, cross attaching as the military calls it.
I said "wrecked" but my real focus is on the new construction to follow. To rebuild anew, first on must clear the site. The old must be taken down.
We need a new moderate right, and a new moderate left. My own opinion is that Hillary is that moderate right, and Bernie was that moderate left. Neither will be the ones to rebuild this though, so that debate can be left aside for historians.
I think Trump has done so much damage to the Republicans he has kickstarted that. I think Bernie may have done that for those Democrats and Independents who are so unhappy with Hillary, whether they vote for her or not.
My focus is on that rebuilding, and I am starting early. I have no hope at all that either of the present candidates will be anything other than a complete disaster, albeit in slightly different ways.
It is no longer about Bernie. He lost, and realistically he can't run again given his age. Run in his late 70's to serve well into his 80's? He did a lot for his cause this time, and I think that is as far as he can be expected to go.
I have given up on both parties as organizations, as structures.
I believe we must do as we did in the 1850's, when both parties dissolved and their elements reformed in new ways, cross attaching as the military calls it.
I said "wrecked" but my real focus is on the new construction to follow. To rebuild anew, first on must clear the site. The old must be taken down.
We need a new moderate right, and a new moderate left. My own opinion is that Hillary is that moderate right, and Bernie was that moderate left. Neither will be the ones to rebuild this though, so that debate can be left aside for historians.
I think Trump has done so much damage to the Republicans he has kickstarted that. I think Bernie may have done that for those Democrats and Independents who are so unhappy with Hillary, whether they vote for her or not.
My focus is on that rebuilding, and I am starting early. I have no hope at all that either of the present candidates will be anything other than a complete disaster, albeit in slightly different ways.
2
Mr. Edsall needs to widen his sources of information beyond the so-called experts who tend to view everything in academic terms. May I suggest that the reason the Democrats have lost the "poorly-educated white" voter is not that difficult to see.
The rise of right-wing media from Fox to talk radio has been relentlessly targeting the poorly-educated, white, male population; flooding this segment of the population with xenophobic views, conspiracy-inspired anxiety, and yes, dog-whistle racism. Couple that with "massive cuts" for education at the state level by Republicans, and one has the formula for "brainwashing" an entire segment of the population. If these same media sources would have placed the blame for their situation on the republicans, Mr. Trump would be running as a democrat and these folks would still be flocking to him.
The election of President Obama, and the virulent assault of Mr. Trump on his legitimacy from day one of his presidency has re-opened the dormant gates of "racism" in a large part of this electorate; again benefiting anyone who tells them that the reason for their situation is "the other"; Trump might as well have been running on the Green Party ticket; they would have followed him there too.
The Democrats' major fault is their failure to recognize this phenomenon because their elaborate focus on "policy" is unable to reach this electorate. It's much too intellectual. Yes, one can fool some of the people most of the time.
The rise of right-wing media from Fox to talk radio has been relentlessly targeting the poorly-educated, white, male population; flooding this segment of the population with xenophobic views, conspiracy-inspired anxiety, and yes, dog-whistle racism. Couple that with "massive cuts" for education at the state level by Republicans, and one has the formula for "brainwashing" an entire segment of the population. If these same media sources would have placed the blame for their situation on the republicans, Mr. Trump would be running as a democrat and these folks would still be flocking to him.
The election of President Obama, and the virulent assault of Mr. Trump on his legitimacy from day one of his presidency has re-opened the dormant gates of "racism" in a large part of this electorate; again benefiting anyone who tells them that the reason for their situation is "the other"; Trump might as well have been running on the Green Party ticket; they would have followed him there too.
The Democrats' major fault is their failure to recognize this phenomenon because their elaborate focus on "policy" is unable to reach this electorate. It's much too intellectual. Yes, one can fool some of the people most of the time.
7
You presume the poorly-educated white males are stupid and malleable to the slick talkers of the right-wing media. I would counter that even the poorly-educated have a core set of beliefs and priorities; the right-wing media merely echoes this, in order to steer the poorly educated to support a specific political outcome. The beliefs and feelings are genuine; only the fact that this turns into Republican/Tea Party/Trump votes is the outcome of manipulation.
I agree. Mr. Edsall has some valid points, but let's face it, a lot of white Americans wouldn't vote for a black person and a lot of Americans won't vote for a woman, no matter what. Can the Democrats get back in touch with their former base? Maybe, but I don't think so if they stay, "Republican Lite."
The column fails to point out the structural changes in our political system that have forced the two parties into their respective camps.
One is the effect of redistricting, which right now is mostly controlled by Republican legislatures, who've done a fine job of corralling likely Democratic voters into urban districts where the educated and minorities tend to congregate. By contrast, the GOP districts have been gerrymandered to favor white suburban and rural voters.
The other structural trend not mentioned is that Presidential politics have evolved (or devolved) into a personality contest in which "coattails" mean virtually nothing. Starting with Bill Clinton's second election, Democratic Presidential campaigns are largely self-contained entities with little input or influence by party officials in Congress or the states. A similar trend began with John McCain in 2008 who, in the opinion of the GOP Establishment, was doomed to defeat and thus hung out to dry. Trump is merely the most extreme example of this phenomenon.
The resulting political environment gives us competing candidates battling for the White House from their respective bases in a baker's dozen "swing" states (the rest of the nation doesn't really count). In effect, the national election has become a regional contest among estranged citizens fueled by billions of dollars and fought out in specifically targeted -- and expertly defined -- areas of the country.
One is the effect of redistricting, which right now is mostly controlled by Republican legislatures, who've done a fine job of corralling likely Democratic voters into urban districts where the educated and minorities tend to congregate. By contrast, the GOP districts have been gerrymandered to favor white suburban and rural voters.
The other structural trend not mentioned is that Presidential politics have evolved (or devolved) into a personality contest in which "coattails" mean virtually nothing. Starting with Bill Clinton's second election, Democratic Presidential campaigns are largely self-contained entities with little input or influence by party officials in Congress or the states. A similar trend began with John McCain in 2008 who, in the opinion of the GOP Establishment, was doomed to defeat and thus hung out to dry. Trump is merely the most extreme example of this phenomenon.
The resulting political environment gives us competing candidates battling for the White House from their respective bases in a baker's dozen "swing" states (the rest of the nation doesn't really count). In effect, the national election has become a regional contest among estranged citizens fueled by billions of dollars and fought out in specifically targeted -- and expertly defined -- areas of the country.
3
Studies have shown that gerrymandering is a secondary factor. More important is demographics-- the concentration of minorities in urban areas.
As a Vatican II cradle Catholic, chocked full of "good works" social responsibility to others, I have never been able to understand why Evangelical spokespersons, except for a few like Jim Wallis, seem to be more Old Testament/Angry God adherents than wanting to bear witness to and live out the Sermon on the Mount/Loving God.
Ultimately, their strongest theology is based on the Gospel of Wealth offered in the secular world by Republican politicians in general and Trump in particular.
While most would think the saying “Love The Sinner, Hate The Sin” is an abomination, along with premarital sex and divorce, their love of wealth acquisition is far stronger than the love of Christ's words.
That may explain why over three-quarters of self-described Evangelicals can support a man married three times, who boasts about his sex-life in the media, and treats other people in the most unChristian ways through word and action.
Ultimately, their strongest theology is based on the Gospel of Wealth offered in the secular world by Republican politicians in general and Trump in particular.
While most would think the saying “Love The Sinner, Hate The Sin” is an abomination, along with premarital sex and divorce, their love of wealth acquisition is far stronger than the love of Christ's words.
That may explain why over three-quarters of self-described Evangelicals can support a man married three times, who boasts about his sex-life in the media, and treats other people in the most unChristian ways through word and action.
8
In my view, this analysis overemphasizes the rifts in the Democratic Party for the sake of a catchy headline. Yes, a President Clinton will have to navigate an uneasy alliance between working-class people of color and upscale white progressives, but this is nothing new for the party and little different from the coalition that President Obama (and the first President Clinton) had to hold together.
The Republican Party, on the other hand, has to somehow reconcile its strong base of social conservatives with the behavior and attitudes of its presidential candidate, not to mention its traditionally influential pro-business wing with the howling nativist masses. If anything, candidate Trump is driving more and more voters to the Democratic side and making the party stronger as the election season progresses, since it is increasingly apparent that there is really only one choice on the ballot for people with any shred of human decency.
I tend to agree with the thesis that the Democrats have largely ignored the concerns of working-class (and even middle-class) whites in recent years, to their detriment in state and congressional elections. But on the Republican side we are witnessing a political party coming apart at the seams in real time.
The Republican Party, on the other hand, has to somehow reconcile its strong base of social conservatives with the behavior and attitudes of its presidential candidate, not to mention its traditionally influential pro-business wing with the howling nativist masses. If anything, candidate Trump is driving more and more voters to the Democratic side and making the party stronger as the election season progresses, since it is increasingly apparent that there is really only one choice on the ballot for people with any shred of human decency.
I tend to agree with the thesis that the Democrats have largely ignored the concerns of working-class (and even middle-class) whites in recent years, to their detriment in state and congressional elections. But on the Republican side we are witnessing a political party coming apart at the seams in real time.
10
Wow. (Worthy) "working class people of color" versus (execrable) "howling nativist masses".
1
Take this article as an early warning, not just an assessment of the current status. It's undoubtedly true that this year has seen the furthest intrusion of Fascism and nativism into the election process in American history. That's a trend we should worry about. The Republican Party is in shambles, and is far too weak to arrest this trend. So it's up to the Democrats to do something to defuse it.
1
"If anything, candidate Trump is driving more and more voters to the Democratic side…"
We'll see, but I suspect the same could be true in the other direction. Polarizing candidates, have we.
We'll see, but I suspect the same could be true in the other direction. Polarizing candidates, have we.
1
Like Michael Lind has theorized, Trump has been the vehicle to set loose the forces of political realignment. Win or not, the engine of change has begun, its left the station. Its either join the changes that will continue to develop in the XXI century, try influence their trajectory, or get lost in a past that will never again resuscitate.
4
"It's either join the changes that will continue to develop in the XXI century, try influence their trajectory, or get lost in a past that will never again resuscitate"?
True. The question is: which are the changes, and which is merely the past? FDR was a long time ago; I'm not optimistic.
True. The question is: which are the changes, and which is merely the past? FDR was a long time ago; I'm not optimistic.
It appears as if the GOP is falling apart and the Dems are realigning themselves. As Clinton is a more moderate candidate and will ensure the rich stay richer and the banks keep skriting the law, coupled with Trump's insanity, I think we will see a shift akin to 1964 when the Dixiecrats left the Democratic party. Republicans are realizing Clinton is an ally in both economics and foreign policy.
What will happen to these angry right-wing (mostly white voters) is anyone's guess at this point but there is certainly a vacancy being created. A third party should rise to bring a liberal platform to our nation, while at the same time the Dems become the party of big-business and the Republicans collapse.
So we will be left with two major parties: the Dems & Liberals. But what about these ultra right wingers? Will they too form a party? Hard to say but this is where I see things going.
What will happen to these angry right-wing (mostly white voters) is anyone's guess at this point but there is certainly a vacancy being created. A third party should rise to bring a liberal platform to our nation, while at the same time the Dems become the party of big-business and the Republicans collapse.
So we will be left with two major parties: the Dems & Liberals. But what about these ultra right wingers? Will they too form a party? Hard to say but this is where I see things going.
2
It's not productive to think of politics in two dimensions-- left and right. It's a multi-dimensional universe where smaller groups of like-minded individuals clump, and then re-form in loose coalitions.
1
I think you are right. With some common sense on immigration and some job creation / demand creation ideas, there cold be a new party that captures the whole middle of the country, but no one has the gumption to take on the .1%.
2
Agreed, but our country loves bifurcating government. There should be four parties at least, really, but is that likely to happen?
Did the Democratic party abandon working whites? As I remember it, the Democratic party, which had represented the downtrodden working classes since the early 20th century, decided that the downtrodden included blacks and Hispanics, and that women weren't being treated fairly either. When the party embraced various fairness, equality, civil rights and womens rights causes, working whites, particularly male working whites, abandoned the party and became "Reagan Democrats". Broadening the coalition of working people failed because the first members, white male workers, had entered the middle class and did not welcome women, blacks, or Hispanics who wished to follow their path. Should the Democratic party abandon the values of equal treatment for all that it adopted over the last 50 years to welcome back a shrinking minority, less-educated white males, whose goals are regressive, backward looking, and impossible to attain in the 21st century? I think not.
71
A little real union support to counter ALEC would have been well received. Not everything is about race.
2
"Should the Democratic party abandon the values of equal treatment for all that it adopted over the last 50 years to welcome back a shrinking minority, less-educated white males, whose goals are regressive, backward looking, and impossible to attain in the 21st century? I think not."
Why not just call them losers, and then go on to congratulate yourself as a champion of "social justice"?
Have you, sir, at long last, no sense of irony?
Why not just call them losers, and then go on to congratulate yourself as a champion of "social justice"?
Have you, sir, at long last, no sense of irony?
1
Well, it might help if the Democrats didn't continue to enthusiastically support free trade agreements, for example. I would like to see a shift from the current Corporatist Democratic Party to a Labor Democratic Party.
1
The mass media continues to confuse and conflate Donald John Trump the messenger with the message from the legion or legend for whom he speaks. And the same mistake was made with Bernie Sanders. Gandhi once defined leadership as the ability to see where the people are going and running out in front of them.
The threat to both parties does not come from their chosen current mouthpieces. Hillary and Donald are both hoary corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarchs. The two political parties take turns lying to and stealing from us. Both political parties are wispy wishy-washy mixed mirror imaged messes who deserve to be wrecked before wrecking America.
The threat to both parties does not come from their chosen current mouthpieces. Hillary and Donald are both hoary corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarchs. The two political parties take turns lying to and stealing from us. Both political parties are wispy wishy-washy mixed mirror imaged messes who deserve to be wrecked before wrecking America.
13
Why doesn't something like this comment get a NYT's pick?
It's true and it's stark. Maybe that's the problem.
It's true and it's stark. Maybe that's the problem.
"hoary corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarchs"
You left out "corporatist statist running dogs". And it doesn't count if it isn't capitalized.
You left out "corporatist statist running dogs". And it doesn't count if it isn't capitalized.
1
"But if she wins, how well will Clinton be able to govern with a base split between the well-to-do, many of whom seek to protect their enclaves against the interests, needs and classically American ambitions of the other half of the party — low-to-moderate income African-Americans and Hispanics and the truly poor?"
That problem will pale to insignificance compared to the question of her ability to govern a country half of whom are enraged Trump supporters who, following Trump's lead, aren't going to show the slightest restraint in expressing their fury at, and contempt for, a woman they consider a corrupt, criminal, traitor.
The gloves are coming off, as they say in the vernacular. It's taken decades, but millions of Americans have finally been pushed too far by a government they see as prejudiced against themselves and relentlessly favouring "others."
This isn't going to end well. Whether it will result in violence, or of what scale, I can't say. But it's certainly going to rive this country even further into factions of enormous mutual antagonism. Governments can't play favourites without infuriating the unfavoured side, but that's exactly what the US government has been doing.
That problem will pale to insignificance compared to the question of her ability to govern a country half of whom are enraged Trump supporters who, following Trump's lead, aren't going to show the slightest restraint in expressing their fury at, and contempt for, a woman they consider a corrupt, criminal, traitor.
The gloves are coming off, as they say in the vernacular. It's taken decades, but millions of Americans have finally been pushed too far by a government they see as prejudiced against themselves and relentlessly favouring "others."
This isn't going to end well. Whether it will result in violence, or of what scale, I can't say. But it's certainly going to rive this country even further into factions of enormous mutual antagonism. Governments can't play favourites without infuriating the unfavoured side, but that's exactly what the US government has been doing.
9
Please remember that only 13 million people in the Republican party voted for Trump. Of that, some are leaving to vote for Hillary. There are approximately 65 million voters in this country. 13 million is not half of 65 million.
Demographic differences are fine so long as there's a unifying principle, and there is: belief that the government has a role in improving society, in this case by creating policies that tend to reduce wealth inequality. Democrats must begin to make progress in this area, however; continued lip service will not be enough.
15
Those whose wealth is forcibly diminished in the name of addressing "wealth inequality" will not agree with you. Those who would rob Peter to pay Paul can count on infuriating Peter.
White upper middle and upper class liberals may be segregated by class in wealthy east coast liberal enclaves but they don't politically stand against the progressive policies advocated to help all Americans including middle, working and lower income groups. Wealthy liberal areas tend to support more money for affordable housing, food insecurity, education and healthcare. I do not see wealthy liberals engaging in class wars to pressure Clinton to forget the needs of the "other half" as the author suggests. That sounds a lot more like the Republican party.
26
"But Clinton is crushing him among college graduates (57-34) and among those making $50,000 or more (55-37)."
With education one develops a broader world wide perspective that embraces progressive social attitudes. And reasonableness in regards gun control.
With education one begins to see no point in restricting a person's use of bathroom or a woman's right to choose.
Need i say more?
With education one develops a broader world wide perspective that embraces progressive social attitudes. And reasonableness in regards gun control.
With education one begins to see no point in restricting a person's use of bathroom or a woman's right to choose.
Need i say more?
25
No, you can go back to your cell now until I blow this special "You're Educated?" whistle, then it will be your turn again.
2
If Clinton wins, she must convince her affluent supporters that it is ultimately in their best interest to address the problem of inequality. She must emphasize that the country dodged a bullet with Trump and that worse demagogues are out there to take his place. There is plenty of infrastructure work which will generate good paying jobs for non-college men and women but the upper classes must look past their gated communities, Hampton tear downs, and Bentleys and cough up the money to fund them.
25
From the very beginning of societal groups with the assignment of power came wealth and having wealth meant we had to have poor. Until we rethink that alignment we will never change. The wealthy make themselves feel good by participating in charity and by enacting government social programs but they never disturb the social strata and remove the poor. We justify it in so many ways but we never truly confront it as an issue. When the political balance threats to tip the wrong way we find ways to push it back. Isn't it time to look at the real problem before it's too late?
5
The Repulican Party is wrecking the middle class and the poor. Trump supports that - tax cuts for the wealthy (including himself) and business (including himself). His inflammatory rhrtoric deflects questions about his bankruptcies, his wife's immigration status, his taxes, and his dislike of Europe. Maybe they turned down his golf courses. Trump's wild insinuations are mind-numbing. Yet his face is everywhere -.free publicity for those who spend their
I've tuned in to the ircreasingly inane news broadcasts.
I've tuned in to the ircreasingly inane news broadcasts.
3
Mr Edsall's observations here are hardly novel. He notes that the process started back with Wallace and Nixon, so the Clinton 1992 election would seem to have been a reversal of the trend, though it may have been a one-off. However, his characterization of "working and middle class voters seeking to move up the ladder" seems overly charitable to me since a large proportion of the protestations I hear from people claiming to represent that group more closely resemble kicking the faces of people below them on the ladder than trying to move up it.
3
I don't understand the misconception that wealthy Americans are concerned only with their own self-interests. There are as many liberal Democrats in my adopted community as there are in my childhood Queens neighborhood. Caring deeply about our fellow humans and other creatures, and the future of our planet is a natural human instinct. It's dependent upon awareness, compassion, and kindness, and not on the size of one's bank account.
I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will serve Americans of all economic backgrounds with equal ability.
I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will serve Americans of all economic backgrounds with equal ability.
13
The misconception about the wealthy started with the identity politics class division strategy that Obama started in 2008 and accelerated agonist Romney in 2012. Now that the D opponent has major support from the middle class, the wealthy are suddenly wonderful?
2
This analysis is spot-on. But Trump is just a symptom. The media treat him as a new phenomenon, but in both style and lack-of-substance he would fit comfortably into the right-wing media echo chamber of the last 20 years. The only discord between him and hundreds of lower-rank national Republican politicians is his vulgarity and disdain for Christian norms. But, as we have seen, the Christian right votes on faith rather than the evidence of its senses.
It is not only the Democrats who have abandoned their positions for identity politics. The Republicans run on their own form of identity politics--that of the ''persecuted'' Christian or the white male heterosexual who wants his status back. Identity politics is just market politics: the politics that sells, rather than the politics that represents peoples' interests. On the Right, it quickly becomes prejudice and xenophobia. On the Left, it shifts from aspiring to a more equitable system to aspiring to a system where the inequities are racially balanced. In so doing it affirms, by default, the injustices of the ''free-market'' capitalism it once opposed.
It is not only the Democrats who have abandoned their positions for identity politics. The Republicans run on their own form of identity politics--that of the ''persecuted'' Christian or the white male heterosexual who wants his status back. Identity politics is just market politics: the politics that sells, rather than the politics that represents peoples' interests. On the Right, it quickly becomes prejudice and xenophobia. On the Left, it shifts from aspiring to a more equitable system to aspiring to a system where the inequities are racially balanced. In so doing it affirms, by default, the injustices of the ''free-market'' capitalism it once opposed.
3
No, I would say Hillary bears most of the responsibility for the schisms in the democratic party this election cycle, but, Democrats never pull together. We are famous for it.
Hillary is a business-friendly economic-moderate. She and Susan Collins have more in common than Hillary has in common with Bernie Sanders and that angers a lot of liberals. I am old enough that I am used to it, and, in general, economically liberal democrats don't win the presidency even when they manage to win the nomination.
Don't let perfection be the enemy of adequacy. Besides, is compromise really such a horrible thing?
Hillary is a business-friendly economic-moderate. She and Susan Collins have more in common than Hillary has in common with Bernie Sanders and that angers a lot of liberals. I am old enough that I am used to it, and, in general, economically liberal democrats don't win the presidency even when they manage to win the nomination.
Don't let perfection be the enemy of adequacy. Besides, is compromise really such a horrible thing?
7
Depends on whether Congress goes Dem, whether we get into more ME wars, whether we look forward and rebuild our infrastructure or backward with 4 more years of stonewalling. What kinds of compromise are we talking about?
1
The democratic party should promote employee ownership of private companies.
They could do this very simply by reforming the business tax so that companies which were owned 50% by their employees paid the lowest effective rate. Those owned 25% a bit higher and those not owned by employees the current rate. They could have very simple rules for rewarding employees who worked for the company for three years or so with stock. The beauty of this is it would be entirely voluntary. Companies could choose how much ownership they would give up.
By making employees owners we could start to lower the income gap and bring working class people back into the party.
They could do this very simply by reforming the business tax so that companies which were owned 50% by their employees paid the lowest effective rate. Those owned 25% a bit higher and those not owned by employees the current rate. They could have very simple rules for rewarding employees who worked for the company for three years or so with stock. The beauty of this is it would be entirely voluntary. Companies could choose how much ownership they would give up.
By making employees owners we could start to lower the income gap and bring working class people back into the party.
7
As a first response, Bernie Sanders obviously would have been the remedy to the kind of Clintonite Democratic Party you are describing.
Because there is a path toward a social, economic and cultural justice coalition that appeals to the working class and the casts swaths of college-educated who, due to financial pressures, are effectively working-class themselves.
So close this year. Will we have another chance?
Because there is a path toward a social, economic and cultural justice coalition that appeals to the working class and the casts swaths of college-educated who, due to financial pressures, are effectively working-class themselves.
So close this year. Will we have another chance?
11
Sorry - "vast swaths"
There is an inconsistency in this argument, exemplified in the last sentence: How well will Clinton be able to govern with a base that is split between the well-to-do and the low-to-moderate income African-Americans and Hispanics and the poor.
Isn't that a definition of a coalition? Are the two branches further apart than the branches of the New Deal coalition, conservative Southern Democrats and progressives? It didn't last, but it did hold through President Roosevelt's first term.
The Democratic Party's and certainly Hillary Clinton's most loyal supporters have been African-Americans and Hispanics. She probably would not have been nominated without their support in the South and middle states. On the other hand, she was able to raise the necessary funds from well-to-do and wealthy professionals, most of whom are white.
She will have to work hard to keep this coalition together in crafting legislation and getting it passed, but isn't that what FDR and LBJ did more or less successfully?
Isn't that a definition of a coalition? Are the two branches further apart than the branches of the New Deal coalition, conservative Southern Democrats and progressives? It didn't last, but it did hold through President Roosevelt's first term.
The Democratic Party's and certainly Hillary Clinton's most loyal supporters have been African-Americans and Hispanics. She probably would not have been nominated without their support in the South and middle states. On the other hand, she was able to raise the necessary funds from well-to-do and wealthy professionals, most of whom are white.
She will have to work hard to keep this coalition together in crafting legislation and getting it passed, but isn't that what FDR and LBJ did more or less successfully?
5
Depends on how much Clinton policies ignore or shaft the African-Americans and Hispanics as they favor Wall St and the military industrial complex.
1
That doesn't make sense, Blue State. All successful American politicians build and depend on coalitions. This includes Nixon, Reagan, and Bush as well as FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, LBJ, and Bill Clinton.
Given that she won her Party's nomination and that she is leading Trump in the polls so far, you would havew to judge Hillary Clinton a successful politician, adept at building coalitions.
Why would she sabotage all that hard work, by dissing African-Americans and Hispanics, her most loyal constituencies?
Given that she won her Party's nomination and that she is leading Trump in the polls so far, you would havew to judge Hillary Clinton a successful politician, adept at building coalitions.
Why would she sabotage all that hard work, by dissing African-Americans and Hispanics, her most loyal constituencies?
2
The Democratic Party today is largely the same Democratic Party of 1932 - people who need help working with people who [often begrudgingly] want to offer help.
The Republican Party today is also largely the same as the Republican Party of 1932 - people who oppose the idea of the government helping anyone [who isn't them].
The main thing that has changed over the past 80 years is that Southern whites have gone from seeking government help to scorning the very idea of it, more or less at the same time and in the same proportion that said help began to flow to racial minorities.
I'm sure Lind's essay is very interesting but it completely fails to agree with reality. The modern Republican Party stands so far against "universal, contributory social insurance systems" that it has voted to repeal the most recent one more than thirty times. The last Republican president tried to privatize Social Security and their Party leadership still fairly salivates over the prospect. Meanwhile the same Democrats who Lind imagine "equat[e] nationalism and patriotism with racism and fascism" have wrapped themselves more tightly in the flag than any time since 2001.
The Democratic base has been split between cosmopolitan elites and poor strivers as well as between whites and racial minorities since the New Deal. Just as the Republican base has been split between Big Business and evangelical culture warriors for almost as long. There really isn't anything new to see here.
The Republican Party today is also largely the same as the Republican Party of 1932 - people who oppose the idea of the government helping anyone [who isn't them].
The main thing that has changed over the past 80 years is that Southern whites have gone from seeking government help to scorning the very idea of it, more or less at the same time and in the same proportion that said help began to flow to racial minorities.
I'm sure Lind's essay is very interesting but it completely fails to agree with reality. The modern Republican Party stands so far against "universal, contributory social insurance systems" that it has voted to repeal the most recent one more than thirty times. The last Republican president tried to privatize Social Security and their Party leadership still fairly salivates over the prospect. Meanwhile the same Democrats who Lind imagine "equat[e] nationalism and patriotism with racism and fascism" have wrapped themselves more tightly in the flag than any time since 2001.
The Democratic base has been split between cosmopolitan elites and poor strivers as well as between whites and racial minorities since the New Deal. Just as the Republican base has been split between Big Business and evangelical culture warriors for almost as long. There really isn't anything new to see here.
5
Ironically, the southern states have always received more in federal benefits than they pay in taxes, while the blue states pay in more than they receive.
10
Greetings,
The title tells it all. The minority of political elitists, confident in their knowledge that imposing their will on us is far better than allowing the public to evolve on its own, cannot see that - they themselves - are the reason that Trump is succeeding.
Throughout the nation (spoiler alert: there is more to the US than Manhattan), people are very angry with imposed political correctness, imposed health insurance, imposed taxation without representation (a case can be made, that not a single member of the House of Representatives acts in accord with the will of the majority of their constituents), imposed (and entirely irrational) diversity quotas.... etc.
People are fed up with the the Anti-Federalist Republican, New Progressive, the Corporatist, the Religious Right, the Islamist Threat deniers, the Climate Fanatics, the Racist President, and the Immigration Abusers. Period. Fed up.
The Democrats are four years behind the Republicans. The Republican elitists are out. The Democrat elitists will not make it through the next election. Not after everyone watched how Hillary's money machine crushed all who oppose her, and not after yet another series of corrupt acts, skillfully crafted half-truths and deceptive behavior. Still, and to her credit, her continued presence in the political arena shows that there is an advantage to pursuing a law degree; one can lie with impunity if the lie is well crafted.
No, Trump is not the cause. Trump is the response.
The title tells it all. The minority of political elitists, confident in their knowledge that imposing their will on us is far better than allowing the public to evolve on its own, cannot see that - they themselves - are the reason that Trump is succeeding.
Throughout the nation (spoiler alert: there is more to the US than Manhattan), people are very angry with imposed political correctness, imposed health insurance, imposed taxation without representation (a case can be made, that not a single member of the House of Representatives acts in accord with the will of the majority of their constituents), imposed (and entirely irrational) diversity quotas.... etc.
People are fed up with the the Anti-Federalist Republican, New Progressive, the Corporatist, the Religious Right, the Islamist Threat deniers, the Climate Fanatics, the Racist President, and the Immigration Abusers. Period. Fed up.
The Democrats are four years behind the Republicans. The Republican elitists are out. The Democrat elitists will not make it through the next election. Not after everyone watched how Hillary's money machine crushed all who oppose her, and not after yet another series of corrupt acts, skillfully crafted half-truths and deceptive behavior. Still, and to her credit, her continued presence in the political arena shows that there is an advantage to pursuing a law degree; one can lie with impunity if the lie is well crafted.
No, Trump is not the cause. Trump is the response.
5
It seems to me that Mr. Edsall and the analysts he cites are confusing tactics with long-term goals and policy. The message of a campaign, or even the past decade of campaigns, is all about reaching that part of the electorate that is undecided. It's never the whole story. The Democratic Party has hardly abandoned its decades-long policy of seeking effective solutions for those displaced by globalization and economic upheavals. The party has done what it can, while being gerrymandered out of power and politically outmaneuvered by the political right. And as for the working class angry whites who support Trump, it's ridiculous to talk about what's influencing them without taking a hard look at right-wing talk radio and its constant "we vs them" message (and its constant ridicule of government programs). And the added corrosive effect of fundamentally biased news outlets such as Fox News.
6
Globalism is inevitable and a fact of life. No wall no matter how high changes that reality. The issue is dealing with the consequences of labor disruptions as the have not country labor forces catch up with the haves. Our laissez faire western economies cannot adequately handle the new realities. More flexible labor practices , increased governement sponsored safety net and educational / workforce training activities are necessary.
5
The unions, other than the Teamsters, are a central part of the new Democratic coalition. They are foot soldiers in campaigns who work to stifle innovation from within the party and maintain the contours of the coalition. Interestingly, their leadership may be out of touch with the working class rank-and-file who might well have sympathies for the nativism of a Trump candidacy. And the racial composition of unions vary, so that we might well see a split between public employee unions and trade unions, whose white ethnic working class members may look for protection for their jobs from immigrants and minorities. So, a further split in the Democratic coalition may be just down the road, since Trump has let a genie out of the American bottle that won't be put back very easily.
2
Why is there such a strong impetus among right-leaning thinkers to blame Trump on the democrats? Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Also, what a paternalistic "elite" way to describe the problem. You go out of your way to excuse the racism and xenophobia of trump supporters and try to make it seem like it's just upper class cosmopolitan elites mistaking economic concerns of the rural poor. No, these people are not children, they are adults with agency. If they act racist, they are racist. If the Democratic Party needs to embrace some of their racists ideas to "welcome them into the coalition", then no thank you. Again, if the whole problem were economic insecurity, why do low income minorities not respond the same way low income whites do. Because it's not about income insecurity, it's about racism and xenophobia. We should still push for policies that help the lower classes, but that does not mean ceding ground on our gains in social justice. Perhaps if one of the parties in this country ceased fighting battles to strip away the rights of every minority group in this country, we could have an actual intellectual argument about right vs left fiscal policy.
11
If Trump is wrecking both parties, then I say, good for him. That is cause enough for me to voter for him. Neither of the dominant parties serve the public. They only serve themselves and the power they seek. The popularity of Trump and Sanders goes to the overall dissatisfaction that so many feel with the status quo. Hillary represents the status quo. She also represents the worst features that a bureaucratic government will produce - malfeasance, mendacity, cronyism, and corruption. Trump is a know-nothing buffoon, but Hillary is a toxic vortex of poison that will entrap all who allow themselves to enter that maelstrom. She is far more dangerous to our Republic than Trump could ever hope to be.
6
As someone who supported and still supports Sanders and his ongoing Revolution, I disagree that Trump is the less dangerous of the two. It's not only his racism and xenophobia that are dangerous but his attitude towards foreign affairs, NATO, Russia, the Middle East, and his unstable, narcissistic personality. His words incite anger, fear, violence. A Trump presidency will return this country to fight old battles we had already won, destablilize our role in the world, and return us to unhealthy conflicts about race, the rights of women, and minorities, conflicts on our trailing edge. A Clinton presidency will allow us to focus on the very things you care about: corruption, cronyism, bureaucracy, and perhaps most important, money in politics. The Bernie revolution isn't over. Bernie has done something magnificent, creating perhaps the first American-style coalition of Democrats and progressives, the latter who wish to undo the corruption and reduce the influence of money in politics. But Bernie's and his followers' issues cannot be engaged, if Trump is president. Instead we will be fighting over immigration, nativism, misogyny, xenophobia and power. Trump is no representative of the people, but only a one-man branding, who cares not about the people, but about himself. I only hope the working class whites who endorse him come to understand this.
1
This is bunk.
Your fog argument that being "a know nothing buffoon" is better than being "a vortex of poison" is ridiculous. Trump can do a great deal of harm to Americans in the everyday sense. He is promising right wing Supreme Court justices to the religious right, and he is promising tax cuts for the millionth time to rich people like himself.
Clinton has said she will continue with the ACA which is helping a lot of people.
Your fog argument that being "a know nothing buffoon" is better than being "a vortex of poison" is ridiculous. Trump can do a great deal of harm to Americans in the everyday sense. He is promising right wing Supreme Court justices to the religious right, and he is promising tax cuts for the millionth time to rich people like himself.
Clinton has said she will continue with the ACA which is helping a lot of people.
Is Trump wrecking both parties? Is he merely a disturbing symptom of something much deeper? Much as I dislike him--his calls for suspicion of "others" and innuendos towards violence represent a fascist strain--, he is a reflection of some deeply disturbing trends in the USA. It is inconceivable that Trump has single-handedly engineered this mess.
Why do the most polarized 9% of our population choose the nominees for the major parties? Is "one person one vote" an antidote, or merely a magnifier for the problems? Have we become too dependent on visual media celebrity and appeal in our candidates (recalling that in the Nixon / Kennedy debates those who listened on radio thought Nixon had won).
We've known the primary system has been dysfunctional for a long time, for any number of reasons. At some level, we the people are responsible for a good bit of what we get, albeit no one--including our political leaders--appear able to to facilitate repairs. Is the gerrymandering that gives Republicans disproportionate local advantage responsible for their being unable to win the White House? Will Bush 43, as he ruminated, be the last modern Republican president?
It is evident from our history and modern worldwide trends that representational governments have any number of problems. Does our embedded reverence for our Constitution blind us to fixes? Is it feasible to spot one or two overarching problems amenable to bipartisan fixes? Polls cannot answer all this.
Why do the most polarized 9% of our population choose the nominees for the major parties? Is "one person one vote" an antidote, or merely a magnifier for the problems? Have we become too dependent on visual media celebrity and appeal in our candidates (recalling that in the Nixon / Kennedy debates those who listened on radio thought Nixon had won).
We've known the primary system has been dysfunctional for a long time, for any number of reasons. At some level, we the people are responsible for a good bit of what we get, albeit no one--including our political leaders--appear able to to facilitate repairs. Is the gerrymandering that gives Republicans disproportionate local advantage responsible for their being unable to win the White House? Will Bush 43, as he ruminated, be the last modern Republican president?
It is evident from our history and modern worldwide trends that representational governments have any number of problems. Does our embedded reverence for our Constitution blind us to fixes? Is it feasible to spot one or two overarching problems amenable to bipartisan fixes? Polls cannot answer all this.
Trump is wrecking the Republican Party but he poses a threat to the stability of the entire country.
Trump's children, Eric, Ivanka and Donald Jr., must convince their father to leave the race. If they love him and care what happens to him, they must convince him he will only harm himself - and his family - if he continues. At the very least (and this is the charitable way to look at this) Trump is exhausted and needs medical attention.
The Trump campaign needs to stop now. His family must step in and try to convince Trump to withdraw immediately. For their father's sake and for the good of the country.
Trump's children, Eric, Ivanka and Donald Jr., must convince their father to leave the race. If they love him and care what happens to him, they must convince him he will only harm himself - and his family - if he continues. At the very least (and this is the charitable way to look at this) Trump is exhausted and needs medical attention.
The Trump campaign needs to stop now. His family must step in and try to convince Trump to withdraw immediately. For their father's sake and for the good of the country.
3
I would add for the good of their business too. If you look at the decline in hotel bookings and problems with tenants and investors, Trump appears to be harming it.
Well-educated, career-oriented women are repelled by the Republican party. A major element of the GOP agenda, reflected in the party’s platform, is limiting women’s freedom and opportunity through forced pregnancy and denial of crucial rights such as equal pay. Trump’s overt, crude misogyny is a vivid reminder that conservatives do not respect women as full-fledged, equal human beings. They see us as a lower form of life, lower even than the fetuses, embryos and zygotes whose “rights” they think should take precedence over ours. In their eyes, we are valued primarily as sex objects (see: Fox News) and as economically dependent, powerless, unpaid domestic labor.
Republican “reformocons” like New York Times columnist Ross Douthat advocate policies that would benefit the working class only to attract votes. It is a means to an end. Their true priority is to implement a regressive social agenda, especially when it comes to women’s roles in society.
Dismissing the concerns of the female half of the population as “identity politics” is not only insulting; it badly skews and limits the scope of Edsall’s analysis.
Republican “reformocons” like New York Times columnist Ross Douthat advocate policies that would benefit the working class only to attract votes. It is a means to an end. Their true priority is to implement a regressive social agenda, especially when it comes to women’s roles in society.
Dismissing the concerns of the female half of the population as “identity politics” is not only insulting; it badly skews and limits the scope of Edsall’s analysis.
10
This and the quoted analyses seem to me to have a huge hole in them.
To define Trump's movement as "populism" driven by the economic interests of the white working class forgets that it's Clinton who wants to increase access to college, to raise taxes on the 1%, and to shore up Obamacare, perhaps with a public option that could finally lead to single-payer.
No, Trump's movement is white identity politics, pure and simple. It's only driven by class interests in a muddled and finally self-defeating way. How else could his supporters swallow an economic plan heavily tilted toward the rich?
As white identity politics, it's the same politics, of a different color, as that of the Democratic party. The frustration of Trump voters may finally have a basis in class demoralization, but this basis is so distorted in the white working-class imagination that they will end up voting against their interests.
The liberal welfare state is not a victim of its own success because it hasn't succeeded yet. Health care, job security, and college for everybody!
The Trump followers
To define Trump's movement as "populism" driven by the economic interests of the white working class forgets that it's Clinton who wants to increase access to college, to raise taxes on the 1%, and to shore up Obamacare, perhaps with a public option that could finally lead to single-payer.
No, Trump's movement is white identity politics, pure and simple. It's only driven by class interests in a muddled and finally self-defeating way. How else could his supporters swallow an economic plan heavily tilted toward the rich?
As white identity politics, it's the same politics, of a different color, as that of the Democratic party. The frustration of Trump voters may finally have a basis in class demoralization, but this basis is so distorted in the white working-class imagination that they will end up voting against their interests.
The liberal welfare state is not a victim of its own success because it hasn't succeeded yet. Health care, job security, and college for everybody!
The Trump followers
7
As an "elite cosmopolitan liberal" living in NYC, I am sympathetic to the plight of the great unwashed white masses up to a point. That point is precisely the same point Republicans have been making for years: I am supportive of job re-training, of a social safety net if you truly need help, and other such measures. But as Republicans of been ceaselessly bleating for years about minorities, I have no sympathy for hand-outs, for entitlement programs that lead nowhere, and most importantly for cultivating a sense of laziness and shiftlessness based on nothing but skin color. But when I talk with or look at Trump supporters, I see obese, ignorant, shrill white folk, many on drugs (prescription drugs), furious because they have to compete hard to earn a living. And after decades of coasting on US global supremacy, they are not really so good at competing, it turns out. Well, as they themselves used to say: "Stop whining and get a job." Karma, yeah. Sorry about that.
2
Not that we want to blame victims, but... my white southern cousins always have an excuse for why they can't hold a job: the boss hates them, the blacks or Hispanics don't want them there, the world is rigged against them, their cars 'just up and died' on them so they couldn't get to work, etc. I have as little patience with them as I do with newly-minted graduates from black studies departments, who see every office memo or interaction as holding a racist message that somehow demeans them.
Well you are certainly confirming the point that Edsall is making.
1
@HS - the contempt you exhibit towards working class whites is one of the reasons I am repelled by the present day Democratic Party.
1
I find it odd that Judis and Norris make reference to the Democratic Party's abandonment of the "working class," and inveigh against its ostensible "embrace of the educated upper middle class whites." This election is unique in many respects, in no small measure because the abandonment of a party by "educated upper middle class whites" has been on the right, by millions who simply cannot tolerate the bigotry, hatred, misogyny, infantile and petulant temperament, reckless bombast, and dangerous ignorance of Donald Drumpf. The "playing field" for both parties has been severely strained and tilted by decades of GOTP gerrymandering and aggressive voter suppression, by the introduction of billions of dollars of dark money, by deliberate and thinly-veiled racist dog whistles, fear mongering, and by decades of hard right wing hate media. There is no question that the Democrats have, in fact, moved further to the right than we true liberals would ever have wanted, and I am heartened that at long last, the arc of our party pendulum is finally moving back to the left. It is preposterous to suggest that "reformacons" have any greater interest in the struggles of the working class, never mind the deeply impoverished, than their GOTP brethren ever have. It is Democratic programs, policies, and economic stewardship under which the nation has consistently done best. That there is a crying need for further leftward swing is incontrovertible - but the right offers nothing except fear.
7
This analysis suggest to me that in our large and and pluralistic country, a two party system is not sufficient to give voice to so many disparate parts. A system that would allow more voices a share of political power would be more democratic.
2
The problem is that we still elect just one person to the White House while all the chronic malcontents blame "rigged" systems when their particular candidate is rejected by the majority.
So educated whites in conjunction with oppressed minorities constitute the core democratic constituency - good! Let republicans be the party of stupid - let them reap the demographic whirlwind.
2
This column echoes the information put forth by Thomas Frank in his infuriating (At least for me.) and revealing new book, "Listen Liberal", which is aimed at Democrats, of whom I am one. It made me so angry that if I ever went to a rally for Hillary Clinton, I'd show up waving a copy of that book in one hand and brandishing a pitchfork in the other.
To answer the question posed in the title of this column, I don't think Trump is "wrecking" either party. The Republicans created him, and now he's there, for all the world to be appalled by.
The Democrats deliberately retooled their party by switching their collective loyalty to the professional upper-middle class, which Frank calls "the 10%", while arrogantly turning their backs on the blue collar working class. They did it deliberately and deceitfully, and now, with the movement started by Bernie Sanders, they are facing the consequences of this betrayal.
I don't know if the Democratic Party has what it takes to return to the New Deal roots that for a time made this country the strongest and most prosperous in the world. The new Democratic elite - personified by the Clintons, Barack Obama, and Debby Wasserman Schultz, seems to me to be so smug, so arrogant, and so out of touch that it has made itself stupid.
I highly recommend Frank's book.
To answer the question posed in the title of this column, I don't think Trump is "wrecking" either party. The Republicans created him, and now he's there, for all the world to be appalled by.
The Democrats deliberately retooled their party by switching their collective loyalty to the professional upper-middle class, which Frank calls "the 10%", while arrogantly turning their backs on the blue collar working class. They did it deliberately and deceitfully, and now, with the movement started by Bernie Sanders, they are facing the consequences of this betrayal.
I don't know if the Democratic Party has what it takes to return to the New Deal roots that for a time made this country the strongest and most prosperous in the world. The new Democratic elite - personified by the Clintons, Barack Obama, and Debby Wasserman Schultz, seems to me to be so smug, so arrogant, and so out of touch that it has made itself stupid.
I highly recommend Frank's book.
6
"Final Solution 2060" film synopsis:
In an overpopulated, environmentally wasted, destructive weaponry filled world with increasingly authoritarian states locked in stalemate (authoritarian to control both their populations and to rally their populations in largely showpiece displays against other nations), the cosmopolitan elites within especially the most advanced and nuclear weaponized states come to a secret agreement: Fully realize the trend that has been occurring for decades of robotic development to replace human labor, and not only put robots of I.Q. equivalent functioning of 110 or so fully on line, but put a population of elite humans in some secure area while the rest of the human race is subjected to a variety of biological weapons...
The plan of course to have a cosmopolitan and elite population to inherit the earth to overcome human overpopulation, destructive weapon tendencies, environmental degradation...A Final Solution not pitted against religion or race or ethnic group or particular nationality, but one simply against apish and overbreeding and destructive humanity...A Final Solution truly dreadful because neither obviously evil nor obviously good...Obviously not good because so many humans will perish. Obviously not evil because apparently the human race cannot figure out its problems and people in power could well find themselves desperate and impatient to save at least something of the human race in this world. "Final Solution 2060", a film by Howie.
In an overpopulated, environmentally wasted, destructive weaponry filled world with increasingly authoritarian states locked in stalemate (authoritarian to control both their populations and to rally their populations in largely showpiece displays against other nations), the cosmopolitan elites within especially the most advanced and nuclear weaponized states come to a secret agreement: Fully realize the trend that has been occurring for decades of robotic development to replace human labor, and not only put robots of I.Q. equivalent functioning of 110 or so fully on line, but put a population of elite humans in some secure area while the rest of the human race is subjected to a variety of biological weapons...
The plan of course to have a cosmopolitan and elite population to inherit the earth to overcome human overpopulation, destructive weapon tendencies, environmental degradation...A Final Solution not pitted against religion or race or ethnic group or particular nationality, but one simply against apish and overbreeding and destructive humanity...A Final Solution truly dreadful because neither obviously evil nor obviously good...Obviously not good because so many humans will perish. Obviously not evil because apparently the human race cannot figure out its problems and people in power could well find themselves desperate and impatient to save at least something of the human race in this world. "Final Solution 2060", a film by Howie.
Really original Howie/ Daniel, now go get that truck unloaded.
A while ago Lindsey Graham called Trump a wrecking ball. I am no fan of Mr. Graham. However, Donald Trump is a detriment to American politics, civility, and human decency. The list of his affronts is long.
It causes me to wonder, looking at his popularity, what is wrong with that segment of U.S. citizens? Are my worst misanthropic leanings being validated? The mentality of the 10-year-old child who shouted "Take that b***** down"
at one of Trump's gatherings seems to be the mentality of most all of those who attend these rallies. They relish the crude, horrible rhetoric and ignore the lack of truth. They respond subconsciously to the dog whistle and the manipulative linguistic techniques. I am sadly left to conclude that too many uneducated Americans are mean-spirited and respond to fear and anger from both within and without. Trump is tearing us apart.
It causes me to wonder, looking at his popularity, what is wrong with that segment of U.S. citizens? Are my worst misanthropic leanings being validated? The mentality of the 10-year-old child who shouted "Take that b***** down"
at one of Trump's gatherings seems to be the mentality of most all of those who attend these rallies. They relish the crude, horrible rhetoric and ignore the lack of truth. They respond subconsciously to the dog whistle and the manipulative linguistic techniques. I am sadly left to conclude that too many uneducated Americans are mean-spirited and respond to fear and anger from both within and without. Trump is tearing us apart.
19
Edsall claims that "Instead of serving as the political arm of working and middle class voters seeking to move up the ladder, the Democratic Party faces the prospect of becoming the party of the winners," and characterized "Trump as a direct descendant of George Wallace, Richard Nixon, Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan."
The trouble with his analysis is that he repeatedly conflates the working class with working class WHITES at a time when the working class has itself become increasingly multi-racial. Indeed, America's working class has always been multi-ethnic (and since the Civil War, Democratic) as its members have striven to move up the ladder into the middle classes. In fact, this process has always been fueled by immigration, along with a measure of mobility borne by economic growth. From the Know-Nothings to Wallace's followers, there has always been a pool of nativist losers, but they've been left behind (isolated in the hollows of Appalachia, for instance) as America's economic engine has moved the country forward.
Now, however -- as growth stagnates and wealth concentrates, undercutting mobility -- the pool of outright losers has grown, and has come to include a significant white component. The elites have maintained their power as the losers remain divided and, in frustration, move toward outright race war.
Such an order is both ugly and unsustainable. In such a situation, Clinton can succeed in governing only by taking her cues from Bernie Sanders.
The trouble with his analysis is that he repeatedly conflates the working class with working class WHITES at a time when the working class has itself become increasingly multi-racial. Indeed, America's working class has always been multi-ethnic (and since the Civil War, Democratic) as its members have striven to move up the ladder into the middle classes. In fact, this process has always been fueled by immigration, along with a measure of mobility borne by economic growth. From the Know-Nothings to Wallace's followers, there has always been a pool of nativist losers, but they've been left behind (isolated in the hollows of Appalachia, for instance) as America's economic engine has moved the country forward.
Now, however -- as growth stagnates and wealth concentrates, undercutting mobility -- the pool of outright losers has grown, and has come to include a significant white component. The elites have maintained their power as the losers remain divided and, in frustration, move toward outright race war.
Such an order is both ugly and unsustainable. In such a situation, Clinton can succeed in governing only by taking her cues from Bernie Sanders.
2
My parents and grandparents came out of the Depression solidly Democratic. Since then, we have used education to climb out of blue collar work to all become hard working professionals. We carried our allegiance to the Democratic party along with us. We know our immigrant, working class roots. We do not see ourselves as cosmopolitan or elite. The system gave us the opportunity to prosper and we want this available to all Americans. That is why we remain Democrats..
27
I am also puzzled by this column. The young want a New Deal type society. Also, it seems to me the much vaunted self-interest of the newly affluent Democrats would include shoring up the fortunes of the working class so as to increase the tax base to finance a more comfortable infrastructure and also to avoid having their own heads blown off by the mob.
11
rareyolds--ya' think? ;-)
1
Regarding the question in the last paragraph: Do not the educated, Democratic elites sacrifice for the good of the poor (and the middle classes), like in Europe?
Of course it hurts when the middle classes don't always know what's best for them. But this is progress.
When Hillary becomes elected the Tea Party Republicans will become a thing of the past. The middle-class resentment of urban elites will decline, and more people will eat organic. In a couple decades though, the children of the Hispanics will trend conservative, and mix things up.
Of course it hurts when the middle classes don't always know what's best for them. But this is progress.
When Hillary becomes elected the Tea Party Republicans will become a thing of the past. The middle-class resentment of urban elites will decline, and more people will eat organic. In a couple decades though, the children of the Hispanics will trend conservative, and mix things up.
2
Do we need a refresher on campaign promises?
Ultimately both parties will be judged on what they do. The monkey wrench, as illustrated by the last 7 years, has been the obstructionist mindset in Congress which has largely gutted what could have been an outstanding presidency.
Obama's recent rise in popularity, or at least acceptance, seems to be a reflection of both a growing awareness among many of the unreasonableness and effects of the obstructionism and an increased appreciation of the basic decency of Mr. Obama as contrasted with many in the array of presidential candidates.
If we look beyond the stentorian roar of Mr. Trump's supporters, I think there are many who just want better alternatives than what's been offered.
Assuming Hillary's elected, she'll have a chance to redeem her image and prove herself. She has knowledge, toughness and determination. Her administration will have to be proactive.
What she does will be what the Democratic party stands for in the foreseeable future.
Ultimately both parties will be judged on what they do. The monkey wrench, as illustrated by the last 7 years, has been the obstructionist mindset in Congress which has largely gutted what could have been an outstanding presidency.
Obama's recent rise in popularity, or at least acceptance, seems to be a reflection of both a growing awareness among many of the unreasonableness and effects of the obstructionism and an increased appreciation of the basic decency of Mr. Obama as contrasted with many in the array of presidential candidates.
If we look beyond the stentorian roar of Mr. Trump's supporters, I think there are many who just want better alternatives than what's been offered.
Assuming Hillary's elected, she'll have a chance to redeem her image and prove herself. She has knowledge, toughness and determination. Her administration will have to be proactive.
What she does will be what the Democratic party stands for in the foreseeable future.
6
The rejection of business as usual in both parties did not need Donald Trump as a facilitator. In the Republican Party, if there was widespread support for the gridlock tactics the party resorted to, Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio would have been the beneficiaries. In the Democratic Party, were there widespread support for President Obama's lack of fire in responding to both Republican tactics and the neoliberal free-market elites, we would not have seen the amazing support for Bernie Sanders. Both parties rendered themselves irrelevant and impotent in their failure to respond to the needs of the American people. Support for Trump, like Brexit in England, is driven most importantly by the desire to send a message to Democrats and Republicans alike who believe that they can offer up more of the same, and, to some extent, clearly also by a desire for revenge. The acceptance by the American people of a contest between the Clinton (Hillary) and Bush (Jeb) "dynasties" was the dream scenario for the powerful. Either candidate would have secured the prerogatives of their constituency, the one percent who must now realize that their party is in danger of ending.
5
What are the demographics here? Is anyone looking at the structure of age - place and trends - n the white working class discussed in this essay? I remember reading about a very resentful group of similar voters in Minnesota's Iron Range, a place that in the current environment - very low energy prices - will not be producing much from its exhausted, increasingly automated mines. But they are aging. Maybe some policies of increased economic support would help this area. If the young women in this "white working class" group have a declining birthrate - which they do - that will change the dynamics a great deal, as these women will be freed up to be more mobile and more active "agents." In short, if this group is significantly declining, then policy remedies become more possible. A better alignment of workers with available jobs will take place. The twin forces of automation and globalization are not going to stop.
2
I agree.
https://larrylittlefield.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/hey-woodstock-generati...
But the discussion is incomplete without generational equity. The richest generations in U.S. history have left those to follow worse off, in the economy, in public policy, even in many families. To the point where life expectancy is falling.
And while the damage is worse among those who used to be in the middle class (or their parents were middle class) but are now working poor, it extends pretty far up the education ladder among those younger.
To mainsteam rich business Republicans these increasingly less well off people are deserving losers and failures, and they now use the same language about these Whites that they once used about Blacks and immigrants. To Democrats these losers are ignorant bigots. No empathy for them at all.
Thus Trump, who provide simple solutions and scapegoats. The Democrats and Republicans are shocked because they are insulated from how much worse off so many people actually are.
https://larrylittlefield.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/hey-woodstock-generati...
But the discussion is incomplete without generational equity. The richest generations in U.S. history have left those to follow worse off, in the economy, in public policy, even in many families. To the point where life expectancy is falling.
And while the damage is worse among those who used to be in the middle class (or their parents were middle class) but are now working poor, it extends pretty far up the education ladder among those younger.
To mainsteam rich business Republicans these increasingly less well off people are deserving losers and failures, and they now use the same language about these Whites that they once used about Blacks and immigrants. To Democrats these losers are ignorant bigots. No empathy for them at all.
Thus Trump, who provide simple solutions and scapegoats. The Democrats and Republicans are shocked because they are insulated from how much worse off so many people actually are.
3
Like many, Thomas Edsall seeks to explain Donald Trump’s support in economic terms, rather than face the real problem. In fact, Trump supporters have a much higher median income than most Americans, $77,000 vs $53,000 (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-clas.... The Republican Party has been happily playing the dog whistle of racism since Nixon’s Southern Strategy, but has dressed it up in “Guns, God, anti-Gay” and “small government” window dressing. This strategy was clearly exposed by the execrable Lee Atwater in 1981. The text of his statement is too disgusting to repeat but can be found at https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-i...
By voting Republican, working class whites have consistently voted against their own economic self-interest for the last 40 years. Their anger is not based on economic factors, but rather on racism in all its ugly forms, including xenophobia, religious intolerance, and misogyny. Attempts to ascribe this development to economic factors only server to give justification to the unjustifiable: the raw hatred that Republicans have exploited for so many years, but thought they could control. The Republican Party had decided to ride the tiger of hatred, but now finds it difficult to dismount.
By voting Republican, working class whites have consistently voted against their own economic self-interest for the last 40 years. Their anger is not based on economic factors, but rather on racism in all its ugly forms, including xenophobia, religious intolerance, and misogyny. Attempts to ascribe this development to economic factors only server to give justification to the unjustifiable: the raw hatred that Republicans have exploited for so many years, but thought they could control. The Republican Party had decided to ride the tiger of hatred, but now finds it difficult to dismount.
14
Both parties were beset by populist insurrections in the recently concluded primaries. The Democratic Party repulsed insurrectionist Sanders and dispatched him to the wilds of Vermont, never to be heard from again. But insurrectionist Trump stormed the Republican Party gates and now takes his insurrection into the general election contest.
My point is, powerful populist movements attacked both parties from below. That could only happen because both parties were out of touch with a significant portion of the electorate. If Clinton wins in November, the establishment wins again and the populists will be sent away to brood. But this disconnection from the political establishment will surface again.
My point is, powerful populist movements attacked both parties from below. That could only happen because both parties were out of touch with a significant portion of the electorate. If Clinton wins in November, the establishment wins again and the populists will be sent away to brood. But this disconnection from the political establishment will surface again.
8
"A pox on both their houses." What we have seen over the past 30 years is the end of the social balance between Big Business, Big Government and Big Labor. Today it we have one force--that of the corporate goliaths--in control of government through their funding of politicians who have worked to eliminate labor as a force. If their is one critique on the Bernie Sanders left and the Donald Trump right, it's been the almost total disenfranchisement of working Americans. While the focus is on trade agreement written in secret by corporations, it needs to focus of workers who can bargain collectively to ensure they share in their productivity gains and whose rights are protected from the "race-to-the-bottom" trade agreements. Both political parties have failed here and neither the new Trump right nor the Sanders left have put forward a real pro-worker, pro-Big Labor agenda. If workers are left behind, as we've seen in the rise of communism in the past, we have immense social unrest. And, until we remove the corporate choke-hold on Big Government by getting money out of politics, we will continue to move away from the balance of social forces essential to a viable democracy toward an oligarchy either by an autocratic Trump or a Wall Street corporate Clinton.
167
@Paul Wortman: "Both political parties have failed here and neither the new Trump right nor the Sanders left have put forward a real pro-worker, pro-Big Labor agenda." Actually, although not covered anywhere as extensively as The Donald's twisted comments, Hillary has come out with a pro Labor platform, including investing in infrastructure and opposition o the TPP partially based on its lack of worker protections. It is difficult sorting through all The Donald coverage (which he counts on) to find the salient points of Hillary's campaign as it might effect the working class, but it's there. Perhaps she should tweet more and 'the news' might pick it up.
1
Hillary Clinton has come out in support of unions, wants to restore collective bargaining rights and defend against partisan attacks on workers’ rights. She has pledged to appoint SCOTUS judges who will overturn Citizens United.
But never mind.
But never mind.
2
Surface appearances of voting trends would support the theme in this article. However, the democrats, those liberal elites, are open to policies that provide the policy infrastructure for safety net/social welfare programs that would address the consequences of globalization. Unless the Republican establishment is totally overthrown (Paul Ryan, et. al.) and their policies totally disavowed (lower taxes, privatization of social security, etc.) I see no permanent home for individuals left out of our global economy.
120
I'm a bit puzzled by this article. I don't think it mentions the Sanders supporters at all, the young people who recognize that they are being undermined by neoliberalism and who are pushing back against what understand to be a corrupt system. They are a powerful part of the Democrats equation. While they might be well-educated, they are not rich and they share many of the concerns of the working class whites who support Trump, minus the nativism. This concern with social justice, expansion of the social safety net, and redistribution of wealth from the 1% to everyone else has been a mainstay of "liberal" politics for decades. This is something that the Democratic Party is now beginning to grasp. Doesn't this all open up the possibility that the DP can reach out to working class whites too? If not, then it is the toxic influence of race in American politics that needs to be taken into account.
8
Yes, Donald Trump is wrecking both parties.
The Republican Party for obvious reasons, but they've had it coming for a long time and deserve and need to be crushed.
The Democratic Party almost got crushed as well in 2016, equally deserved, and only survived by rigging the nomination process for the status quo candidate, quelling the populist reform movement. The military industrial complex and Wall Street have now completely moved over to the traditional blue collar Democratic Party.
There is a good chance the traditional Republican Party will not recover from the 2016 election, becoming a long-time minority party at the presidential election level.
The base of the Democratic Party, Latinos, Blacks and young people might finally realize that electing Wall Street, elite Democrats is not the answer to the critical issues facing the nation.
Once white working class people, equally disaffected with trade deals that ship their jobs overseas, with endless wars and military conflicts that are supported by both parties, join forces with the democratic base in 2020, there is a real prospect for a political realignment that could revolutionize American politics for decades to come.
Thank you, Mr.Edsall, for this this very perceptive analysis of what is happening in the 2016 election.
The Republican Party for obvious reasons, but they've had it coming for a long time and deserve and need to be crushed.
The Democratic Party almost got crushed as well in 2016, equally deserved, and only survived by rigging the nomination process for the status quo candidate, quelling the populist reform movement. The military industrial complex and Wall Street have now completely moved over to the traditional blue collar Democratic Party.
There is a good chance the traditional Republican Party will not recover from the 2016 election, becoming a long-time minority party at the presidential election level.
The base of the Democratic Party, Latinos, Blacks and young people might finally realize that electing Wall Street, elite Democrats is not the answer to the critical issues facing the nation.
Once white working class people, equally disaffected with trade deals that ship their jobs overseas, with endless wars and military conflicts that are supported by both parties, join forces with the democratic base in 2020, there is a real prospect for a political realignment that could revolutionize American politics for decades to come.
Thank you, Mr.Edsall, for this this very perceptive analysis of what is happening in the 2016 election.
10
What the opinion omits mentioning is the impact of state and municipal government on the everyday lives of the population. While massive federal social programs have a profound impact, often the administration of these programs is at the behest of the individual states who also have an interest in their impact. Social legislation is often defaulted to the states to interpret using the slant of their individual ideologies. This can be seen in the patchwork implementation of abortion (and women's health in general)services, education, welfare and infrastructure maintenance and improvement, to name a few.
An analogy can be drawn by looking at the Catholic church, although a much more autocratic, hierarchical institution. It is all well and good to admire and follow the current pope's subtle attempts to move the church into the 20th century but where the rubber meets the road it is run as a collection of individual fiefdoms very dependant on the inclinations of the local hierarchy. The outcome is a hodgepodge of results.
I suspect a liberal New England democrat transplanted to say, Alabama, might be very surprised at their fellow Southern Democrats interpretation of the very philosophy both take pains to espouse, especially at the state and municipal level.
These marginalized whites are more victims of localized practises than federal policies and should save their vitriol for the state sin rather than the perceived national sinner.
An analogy can be drawn by looking at the Catholic church, although a much more autocratic, hierarchical institution. It is all well and good to admire and follow the current pope's subtle attempts to move the church into the 20th century but where the rubber meets the road it is run as a collection of individual fiefdoms very dependant on the inclinations of the local hierarchy. The outcome is a hodgepodge of results.
I suspect a liberal New England democrat transplanted to say, Alabama, might be very surprised at their fellow Southern Democrats interpretation of the very philosophy both take pains to espouse, especially at the state and municipal level.
These marginalized whites are more victims of localized practises than federal policies and should save their vitriol for the state sin rather than the perceived national sinner.
I claim spurious causation. Elites did not abandon the working class; the latter abandoned unions in favor of xenophobia. The democrats/intellectual elites have not forgotten that all groups are important, but unfortunately the working class abandoned the key policy position the democratic party used to lift their standard of living: union membership. We "democratic elites" you write of still care about the plight of blue-collar workers, but those workers have chosen to abandon collective bargaining and instead blame minorities for their problems. Moreover, the reason minorities are still under the democrat's tent is because they trust the solution proposed and followed by democratic politicians: means-tested programs that benefit them directly.
We "upscale, progressive whites" are actually trying to help people, both poor and middle class, both minority and white alike. Yet helping different groups often requires different solutions, and not every program benefits all people equally. The slow-motion hemorrhaging of white workers began under Nixon, intensified under Reagan, and hopefully will reach its zenith during a failed Trump presidential bid. We can only hope that this same group will eventually realize that race-blaming will earn them nothing but anger, and that their best hope for an improving future is to return to the policies that grew the middle class in the first place: cooperation via an inclusive unionization that encompasses people of all ethnicities.
We "upscale, progressive whites" are actually trying to help people, both poor and middle class, both minority and white alike. Yet helping different groups often requires different solutions, and not every program benefits all people equally. The slow-motion hemorrhaging of white workers began under Nixon, intensified under Reagan, and hopefully will reach its zenith during a failed Trump presidential bid. We can only hope that this same group will eventually realize that race-blaming will earn them nothing but anger, and that their best hope for an improving future is to return to the policies that grew the middle class in the first place: cooperation via an inclusive unionization that encompasses people of all ethnicities.
9
We certainly hope so. Neither party represents the vast majority of citizens. Instead both major parties represent the interests of the elite, the financial elite, which populate the spectrum of what passes for political thought from extreme liberals, such as Soros, Holloywood and Ivy League tax-free endowments to extreme conservatives, such as Kochs and Limbaugh. From taxation, to trade policies to criminal justice applications to protection of banksters, the major parties are complicit in and responsible for the appalling state of our affairs. A wreck of an election that tarnishes their brands and ushers in alternatives is perhaps too much to expect; it is not however too much to hope for.
77
The idea that Mr. Trump's supporters are overwhelmingly poor or, at any rate, poorer than Mrs. Clinton's is bogus. The median Trump supporter makes 72000 while the same figure for Clinton supporters is something like 50000. Analysis by fivethirtyeight shows those making less than 30000 breaking for Clinton since January. We need to take the right lessons from this campaign if it is to be instructive. Unfortunately, the media, mainstream or otherwise, is more interested in peddling narratives, stories and myths than doing any real journalism, i.e., reporting facts and using them to paint an accurate picture of the state of affairs in the country.
Too often, news organisations seem to think that their responsibilities end at making sure individual facts are correct. They appear to think that using those facts to create misleading narratives is totally acceptable.
Examples of this include myths like Mr. Trump being a "successful businessman", a "real estate developer" or even a "billionaire". He's a reality TV personality. Nothing more (pending tangible evidence to the contrary). A more general but poisonous example is this notion that politicians are "liars" or otherwise dishonest. American politicians keep something like 70% of their promises.
Mr. Trump's campaign is clearly driven by racial animosity. To pretend otherwise is delusional.
Too often, news organisations seem to think that their responsibilities end at making sure individual facts are correct. They appear to think that using those facts to create misleading narratives is totally acceptable.
Examples of this include myths like Mr. Trump being a "successful businessman", a "real estate developer" or even a "billionaire". He's a reality TV personality. Nothing more (pending tangible evidence to the contrary). A more general but poisonous example is this notion that politicians are "liars" or otherwise dishonest. American politicians keep something like 70% of their promises.
Mr. Trump's campaign is clearly driven by racial animosity. To pretend otherwise is delusional.
9
There are big parallels here with what has happened to politics in England in recent years. The Labour Party has been abandoned by a large slice of the white working class - who voted for the right-wing UK Independence Party in record numbers at the general election last year because the liked the UKIP's anti-immigrant line. As in the US, the leadership of Labour (whether centre-left or far-left) are increasingly urban and educated.
One difference between the UK and US, however, is that the Conservative Party in Britain has not tied itself to a divisive leader like Donald Trump. Its policy prescription looks familiar though - a hard line on immigration and a more interventionist social policy.
One difference between the UK and US, however, is that the Conservative Party in Britain has not tied itself to a divisive leader like Donald Trump. Its policy prescription looks familiar though - a hard line on immigration and a more interventionist social policy.
As a relatively "well to do" and "educated" liberal, my self-interests are supported by a social progressive agenda.
I sum it up in this simple way: "If there are too few people that can afford the products I make or services I render, then too few people will buy the product and services that make me wealthy."
Similarly: "The fact that there are people that are willing to sweep the streets or pursue the arts for a decent compensation makes my life more enjoyable".
This selfish view is the reason I am a liberal. That is why I vote to eradicate poverty. This is why I support equal education for all. This is why I support early childhood support for the poor. Because these people will be my customers and create the diversity of a society that makes life enjoyable.
I sum it up in this simple way: "If there are too few people that can afford the products I make or services I render, then too few people will buy the product and services that make me wealthy."
Similarly: "The fact that there are people that are willing to sweep the streets or pursue the arts for a decent compensation makes my life more enjoyable".
This selfish view is the reason I am a liberal. That is why I vote to eradicate poverty. This is why I support equal education for all. This is why I support early childhood support for the poor. Because these people will be my customers and create the diversity of a society that makes life enjoyable.
10
Hey are those cardboard cutouts really just window dressing for your fabulous life? The Big Brother culture you're advocating thinks you're a selfish counter-revolutionary twit and has decided to send you to a re-education camp so your nose can be broken and you can sweep the streets for real or whatever else they tell you to do, or else. The party is art. The party is history. The party is your future.The party is your self interest. Enjoy yourself.
1
Historically the Democratic coalition always included a component of the well-educated and well off, sometimes described as "patricians" such as FDR and the Kennedy family, who were committed to improving the lot of workers and the poor. Their numbers have grown as the numbers of highly educated Americans has grown. This is not wrecking the Democratic Party; it is improving it.
The Democratic Party remains a coalition of individuals and groups who want change in order to make things better, and who believe that change is possible. In contrast, Republicans largely fear change and hope to hang on to what they have. This is the basic difference between the parties. Trends in the economy (globalization, technology) and in society (sexual mores, gender identity) have for some time now caused a realignment of who is hopeful and who is fearful. Trump only reinforces the shift because he bluntly expresses the fears of the Gathering Of Pessimists, while the educated and optimistic find him repulsive.
The Democratic Party remains a coalition of individuals and groups who want change in order to make things better, and who believe that change is possible. In contrast, Republicans largely fear change and hope to hang on to what they have. This is the basic difference between the parties. Trends in the economy (globalization, technology) and in society (sexual mores, gender identity) have for some time now caused a realignment of who is hopeful and who is fearful. Trump only reinforces the shift because he bluntly expresses the fears of the Gathering Of Pessimists, while the educated and optimistic find him repulsive.
6
This isn't hard to figure out. Both Dems and Reps are dealing with populous uprisings tied to economic stasis. The solution offered by Trump is to somehow turn back the clock, a dubious plan suggesting he has no real plan or explanation for what has transpired over the last 3 decades. The solution is in JFK's phrase to "get this country moving again." It won't happen with rollbacks but could with investments in our productive capacities. Clinton is making those sounds regarding to massive investment in people and infrastructure which is the logical move given the circumstances. The real elites will protest especially as it affects their tax burdens and this is why the movement between parties, or the so-called realignment, will be minimal.
60
the white working class of either party struggles in identical ways with the economics is globalism. One part however is stuck in a racist cul de sac. Similarly the left is united in its concern for income ineqaulity and both the moderate and extreme left agree on practical solutions. there is no room liberalism except in the competition between the two factions. The end is near for the 1%. The only open question is were they will go once racist anger is bled from our politics. The article fails to note much of the reforms of the early 20th century are a blend of the populist and progressive agitation of the late 19th century. Political scientist get lost in verbiage that makes academic careers but has little to do with reality.
There's nothing particularly "bewildering" about the effects of the global economy. It is being structured heavily in favor of the rich and their multinational corporations, without regard for the economic well-being of the hundreds of millions of Americans being victimized. It's not difficult to understand the psychology of people being robbed with nowhere to turn because the perpetrators are both political parties using our government as their instrument. How does this article explain the Senator Bernie Sanders phenomenon? Bernie was a low profile, social democrat who received 46% of the Democratic vote. The Republicans are owned lock, stock and barrel by Organized Money and the only real hope is to recapture the Democratic Party.
8
Edsall's inclination is to give Trump too much credit for the tectonic shifts taking place in the American political system. At best, the Donald is the embodiment of deep, long term currents in the American demographic, giving rise to a political eruption in much the same fashion that a thin spot in the earth's crust gives rise to a volcanic eruption. Both parties have become untethered from their traditional demographic bases by urban/rural gerrymandering and by the Citizens-United tsunami of corporate money and influence. As a result, neither party gives much voice to its constituencies at the local and state levels, leading directly to the Trump/Sanders phenomena this campaign season. The hopeful edge to the current rebellion is that it may give rise to better representation through non-partisan redistricting and getting corporate and foreign money out of local politics.
3
The Southern Strategy which has from Obama's inauguration has created a narrative wherein economic collapse and war were blamed on him. Southern traditionalists, racists have always sought the allegiance of poor, illiterate whites by promoting white privilege. This racism has permeated the poor white vote all over the country. Religious intolerance supports racism. Religion has always provided as a justification of racism and privilege. Trump will exploit any weakness to make the sale, to win. Trump has no plan to govern.
Working class whites based in the south and west have always acted and voted against their own interests. How else can one explain their fervent devotion to the Confederacy in the past and their support of "Conservative" Republicans that sustain white privilege while demanding the end of the social safety net upon which poor whites rely?
Clinton's gender is similar to Obama's Blackness. Any good fundamentalist or poor white male knows this is wrong: "Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak,". Having a woman lead is anathema to white evangelists. This theme of opposition has always impaired women in America. Clinton's election will enrage America's most crazy. Trump will exploit this more explicitly as the campaign continues. Gender will replace race, class only permits and exploits hatred. Democrats lost the south with the Civil Rights Act because they lost the poor whites everywhere. Clinton is a new threat.
Working class whites based in the south and west have always acted and voted against their own interests. How else can one explain their fervent devotion to the Confederacy in the past and their support of "Conservative" Republicans that sustain white privilege while demanding the end of the social safety net upon which poor whites rely?
Clinton's gender is similar to Obama's Blackness. Any good fundamentalist or poor white male knows this is wrong: "Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak,". Having a woman lead is anathema to white evangelists. This theme of opposition has always impaired women in America. Clinton's election will enrage America's most crazy. Trump will exploit this more explicitly as the campaign continues. Gender will replace race, class only permits and exploits hatred. Democrats lost the south with the Civil Rights Act because they lost the poor whites everywhere. Clinton is a new threat.
1
How can Edsal write an entire long-form piece on the future of the Democratic Party without once mentioning Bernie Sanders? Once again, readers are more perceptive in their comments than a Times writer.
The Democratic Party's swing away from blue-collar issues started years before Trump came on the scene, and Sanders ran to restore some balance. He reminded the Democratic brass of the party's FDR roots, which it will ignore at its peril.
The Democratic Party's swing away from blue-collar issues started years before Trump came on the scene, and Sanders ran to restore some balance. He reminded the Democratic brass of the party's FDR roots, which it will ignore at its peril.
5
In a system where campaigns are funded by private donors and increasingly depend on barely regulated huge contributions, it's inevitable that both parties will reflect the interests of economic elites. Here in Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the ultimate Democratic Party insider, diverts money that could be helping to save the city's starving public schools to wealthy corporations through Tax Increment Financing. Meanwhile he feuds with the teachers union and privatizes as many jobs as possible throughout the city. Cutting taxes for the well-heeled and degrading the quality of good middle class jobs? No that doesn't sound like the Democrats of my youth.
What bonded the white working class to the Democrats were labor unions which helped spread broad prosperity in the country. But doing away with that was part of the price for corporate funding of political activity. And in both parties. There are only a handful of Dems who will speak up for the last unionized sector in our economy, public employees. Back to the Gilded Age we go. Maybe we can hope some of our overlords will develop a conscience in old age and build a library or two.
What bonded the white working class to the Democrats were labor unions which helped spread broad prosperity in the country. But doing away with that was part of the price for corporate funding of political activity. And in both parties. There are only a handful of Dems who will speak up for the last unionized sector in our economy, public employees. Back to the Gilded Age we go. Maybe we can hope some of our overlords will develop a conscience in old age and build a library or two.
5
Maybe when that union gets enough power at the controls of a coercive central government there won't be any need for a library or books either.
The Trump phenomenon - a major party Trumpeting racism, nativism and anti-immigration rhetoric - is having a powerful effect on both parties. Michael Lind has it about right. Decades of culture war campaigning have had a much greater effect on the realignment of the parties than the Trump phenomenon.
If Hillary Clinton wins, then what? Her reliance on the support of wealthy donors means that protecting the economic interests of the wealthy donors will become the imperative of her administration. That will please college educated, cosmopolitan segment of the Democratic Party but do little for the poor and minorities. The Democratic Party may then take on the role that the Republican Party has played for the past fifty years - campaigning on wedge issues to prevent lower class white voters, minority voters and the poor from forming a coalition to advance the economic interests of the overwhelming majority of voters.
If Hillary Clinton wins, then what? Her reliance on the support of wealthy donors means that protecting the economic interests of the wealthy donors will become the imperative of her administration. That will please college educated, cosmopolitan segment of the Democratic Party but do little for the poor and minorities. The Democratic Party may then take on the role that the Republican Party has played for the past fifty years - campaigning on wedge issues to prevent lower class white voters, minority voters and the poor from forming a coalition to advance the economic interests of the overwhelming majority of voters.
50
Have you actually read the party platform and researched Clinton's public service record?
I realize it's less work and far more comfy to say, "They both suck," but the facts do not support that statement.
I realize it's less work and far more comfy to say, "They both suck," but the facts do not support that statement.
2
The more simple explanation is the self-selecting nature of people who through birth or genetics are more intelligent and more importantly able to think in a logical, unemotional fashion. These folks are less impulsive and less likely to be swayed by doctrine, emotion, and non-science. These traits lead to college degrees and higher incomes which used to align with the Republican party, i.e., lower taxes directed at the monied. However, these folks, me included, have moved to the Democratic party because we cannot tolerate the Democratic craziness. We are less scared of minorities than the working-class poor who drip low class. These are the guys who wolf whistle and have no manners, and most educated women want no part of it. The Democrats are feeling much more civilized. Smart people with college degrees usually "think." Anyone who thinks at all would be horribly repelled by Donald J. Trump and his minions, including his "beautiful Stepford" wives and children.
2
Trump is refocusing each party back to an earlier phase of their evolution. Interestingly, by attracting the "populist" angry base, he is making the Republicans appear more populist to a lowest common denominator, forcing the staid Republican membership to seek fresh ground. The conflict between the Tea Party right and the historical base may well lead to a new third party when the dust settles.
On the Democratic side, there may be a left of center tilt, forced by Sanders for this election but basically changing the pendulum swing will not be dramatic and their party can return to more comfortable center and center right positions easily.
So yes, Trump is altering the arc of each party, one with possible permanent consequences and the other party with maneuverable space.
On the Democratic side, there may be a left of center tilt, forced by Sanders for this election but basically changing the pendulum swing will not be dramatic and their party can return to more comfortable center and center right positions easily.
So yes, Trump is altering the arc of each party, one with possible permanent consequences and the other party with maneuverable space.
26
Recking? More like exposing. No secret the Dems' all-inclusive rhetoric is just that RHETORIC. The party has abandoned the working class. Once American "middle class" was the pride of the world. But what was that "middle class"? It was working class with good jobs and homes, and with the opportunity of yet better life for their children. The only thing lacking was universal health care and inclusion of POC.
But it never happened. After achieving this amazing success of turning working class into middle class, US has been steadily moving away from that ideal. Both parties have abandoned the working class. Even if the cue came from Reps, Democratic Leadership Council associated Dems (such as Clintons) have been outdoing Reps in the area of "free trade"(=losing manufacturing jobs), dismantling safety net in form of welfare, to make things worse reforming foster care to make taking children away from impoverished working class biological families easier. Dems have been paying lip service to idea of universal healthcare, affordable medications, affordable college, yet rely on the money from these industries. While Democratic rhetoric is inclusive of minorities, and they sponsor special programs for minorities, still not enough to offset the effect their policies on minorities ho are disproportionately represented in the working class. Externally Dems have been pursuing same imperialistic politics as Republicans. Clinton asking Kissinger for endorsement puts a seal on that.
But it never happened. After achieving this amazing success of turning working class into middle class, US has been steadily moving away from that ideal. Both parties have abandoned the working class. Even if the cue came from Reps, Democratic Leadership Council associated Dems (such as Clintons) have been outdoing Reps in the area of "free trade"(=losing manufacturing jobs), dismantling safety net in form of welfare, to make things worse reforming foster care to make taking children away from impoverished working class biological families easier. Dems have been paying lip service to idea of universal healthcare, affordable medications, affordable college, yet rely on the money from these industries. While Democratic rhetoric is inclusive of minorities, and they sponsor special programs for minorities, still not enough to offset the effect their policies on minorities ho are disproportionately represented in the working class. Externally Dems have been pursuing same imperialistic politics as Republicans. Clinton asking Kissinger for endorsement puts a seal on that.
61
I have a suspicion that the really significant trend is the growing obsolescence of work. We have seen the way scientific and technological advances have radically reduced the need for human input in agriculture, which was once the most labor-intensive of enterprises. The same thing is happening on the assembly line, where the repetitive and robot-like human workers re being replaced by actual robots. In the next generations (assuming that global warming does not completely disrupt our societies) more and more people are born for whom there is no way to be productive --- pace Tom Friedman but not everyone can become a computer programmer. If there is to be a solution, it will mean a radical revision of our understanding of work, a revision I fear is unlikely to come about. What will happen to our entire system of morality when it becomes necessary to provide a minimum of income to all with or without work, since there is not enough of the latter to employ everyone?
2
Interesting column, but inconclusive because the strands of argument it brings together are each fundamentally flawed by their exclusions of plain evidence, so the fabric here woven together has conspicuous holes in it. Trump's campaign is unintentionally clarifying, not wrecking, the Democratic Party, by siphoning off the malcontented, poorly educated white male remnants of the Republican Party's slow political suicide since Nixon—harnessing cultural divisive phobias as camouflage for its real agenda, which is not "conservative" but simply plutocratic. The Democrats' synthesis of the inexorable technologically-driven globalism and an increasingly IT economy, with New- Deal-rooted social safety-net support for disadvantaged ethnic minorities in our increasingly pluralistic populace is in no way a reaction to Trumpism, but a simple recognition of inevitable and problematic trends as challenges to be resolved by public policies that will restore vitality to a redefined middle class. Yes there are unreconstructed liberals who fail to see how technology has transformed the playing field, and remonstrate against the new political scene, but they're wrong. Yes there are a few surviving but ineffectual Republican conservatives who are today wandering around mystified by the Trumpian limbo, but perhaps when the deck is cleared by this election, they will be forced to rethink conservatism constructively.
3
This is a weird column.
First, because it uses our present election season to draw large-scale conclusions about political demographics, and uses as primary evidence a Twitter poll!
Second, because it concludes, without evidence, that the Democratic party will have difficulty appealing to poor and working class voters because it appeals to middle class voters.
Third, because it claims to see something new in the talking points of modern right-wing populists. He quotes Inglehart and Norris:
"They see right populism as a loose political ideology emphasizing faith in the “decent,” “ordinary” or “little” people over the corrupt political and corporate establishment; nationalist interests (Us) over cosmopolitanism cooperation across borders (Them); protectionist policies regulating the movement of trade, people and finance over global free trade; xenophobia over tolerance of multiculturalism; strong individual leadership over diplomatic bargaining and flexible negotiations; isolationism in foreign and defense policies over international engagement; traditional sex roles for women and men over more fluid gender identities and roles, and traditional over progressive values."
I see no argument against that; in fact, it's a standard description of the political base for American demagogues going back 200 years. All demagogues appeal entirely to emotional issues, which are precisely what Inglehart and Norris describe.
I enjoy Edsall's commentaries. But this one is weird.
First, because it uses our present election season to draw large-scale conclusions about political demographics, and uses as primary evidence a Twitter poll!
Second, because it concludes, without evidence, that the Democratic party will have difficulty appealing to poor and working class voters because it appeals to middle class voters.
Third, because it claims to see something new in the talking points of modern right-wing populists. He quotes Inglehart and Norris:
"They see right populism as a loose political ideology emphasizing faith in the “decent,” “ordinary” or “little” people over the corrupt political and corporate establishment; nationalist interests (Us) over cosmopolitanism cooperation across borders (Them); protectionist policies regulating the movement of trade, people and finance over global free trade; xenophobia over tolerance of multiculturalism; strong individual leadership over diplomatic bargaining and flexible negotiations; isolationism in foreign and defense policies over international engagement; traditional sex roles for women and men over more fluid gender identities and roles, and traditional over progressive values."
I see no argument against that; in fact, it's a standard description of the political base for American demagogues going back 200 years. All demagogues appeal entirely to emotional issues, which are precisely what Inglehart and Norris describe.
I enjoy Edsall's commentaries. But this one is weird.
6
It wasn’t Trump’s candidacy that forged the current VERY chancy alliances within the Democratic Party. It was the need to nominate Mrs. Clinton, not by several galaxies as flawed a human being as Donald Trump but decidedly not Mother Teresa, either.
The reaction to a far-right wave of legislators elected by Republicans in response to the progressive excesses of the 111th Congress and undivided Democratic government had a FAR greater impact on those alliances than a Trump who at best has been on the national political radar for about one year. The Democratic establishment, if not Democrats generally, veered decidedly left when Mrs. Clinton basically adopted the policy frameworks of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, abandoning her own policy preferences of just a few months ago. Undoubtedly, she figures that even an excess on the left so long as it appears coherent will be preferable to the squishy half-liberal, half-conservative convictions of Trump. She could be very wrong.
The Democratic Party indeed could be damaged seriously, as Americans are nowhere near as far left in their wildest flights of drunken delirium as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. But they did that to themselves, without help from Trump.
Yet far from ”wrecking” the Republican Party, Trump may offer the catalyst needed to return it to responsible governance after years of simple resistance to change, and of Sarah Palin and Barbara Bachmann.
The reaction to a far-right wave of legislators elected by Republicans in response to the progressive excesses of the 111th Congress and undivided Democratic government had a FAR greater impact on those alliances than a Trump who at best has been on the national political radar for about one year. The Democratic establishment, if not Democrats generally, veered decidedly left when Mrs. Clinton basically adopted the policy frameworks of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, abandoning her own policy preferences of just a few months ago. Undoubtedly, she figures that even an excess on the left so long as it appears coherent will be preferable to the squishy half-liberal, half-conservative convictions of Trump. She could be very wrong.
The Democratic Party indeed could be damaged seriously, as Americans are nowhere near as far left in their wildest flights of drunken delirium as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. But they did that to themselves, without help from Trump.
Yet far from ”wrecking” the Republican Party, Trump may offer the catalyst needed to return it to responsible governance after years of simple resistance to change, and of Sarah Palin and Barbara Bachmann.
5
Hi, Richard -
From my perch in southern California, I disagree with you in that I think a good many Americans are farther to the left than today's Republicans or Democrats believe they are. There is a good deal of data out there showing that certain so-called (But not really.) "far left" ideas are very popular; single-payer healthcare, for one.
In order for your position to be valid, I would have to believe that the majority of Americans were both aware, and approved, of the country being pulled farther to the right for the last 36 years, and I don't think that's the case. Republicans have always sounded like populists when they run for office. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama also campaigned sounding like populists and champions of the working and middle classes. That's how they got elected.
We're no longer a working democratic republic, as a number of studies have now proved. We have become an oligarchy, and this transformation did not come about with the knowledge or the approval of the American people. They were hoodwinked by both parties, and are now reacting with such power that Mrs. Clinton has had to run on a platform largely not of her choosing.
Time will tell if we're a center-right country as you seem to think, or if we are center-left as I believe.
From my perch in southern California, I disagree with you in that I think a good many Americans are farther to the left than today's Republicans or Democrats believe they are. There is a good deal of data out there showing that certain so-called (But not really.) "far left" ideas are very popular; single-payer healthcare, for one.
In order for your position to be valid, I would have to believe that the majority of Americans were both aware, and approved, of the country being pulled farther to the right for the last 36 years, and I don't think that's the case. Republicans have always sounded like populists when they run for office. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama also campaigned sounding like populists and champions of the working and middle classes. That's how they got elected.
We're no longer a working democratic republic, as a number of studies have now proved. We have become an oligarchy, and this transformation did not come about with the knowledge or the approval of the American people. They were hoodwinked by both parties, and are now reacting with such power that Mrs. Clinton has had to run on a platform largely not of her choosing.
Time will tell if we're a center-right country as you seem to think, or if we are center-left as I believe.
2
Vesuviano:
I think you're quite wrong. What we're seeing from a big chunk of Republicans, as well as by a lot of the Bernie Sanders supporters, is a rejection of establishment elites on BOTH sides that have failed miserably at improving the lots in life of millions of regular Americans ... for YEARS.
But that doesn't suggest a general affinity for leftish solutions, outside of California, that is. I support single-payer myself, so long as that component of a holistic healthcare system focuses on BASIC healthcare, and so long as in implementing it we ALSO get rid of ALL our other healthcare programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, the HC components of SS, the asic part of employer-provided. Everything. And that could be made to be a Republican solution, not a Democratic one, that would seek a completely unsustainable "Medicare for all".
Your "data" are highly questionable, when, instead of having a more balanced Congress, statehouses, governors chairs and a preponderance of Republican electoral victories at city, county and state levels, what we see in fact are Republicans everywhere and the rapidly disappearing Democrat in our governance, Except in CA, of course, where Smelt is king, public sector unions own BOTH chambers of your statehouse, and you really NEED that "train to nowhere".
I think you're quite wrong. What we're seeing from a big chunk of Republicans, as well as by a lot of the Bernie Sanders supporters, is a rejection of establishment elites on BOTH sides that have failed miserably at improving the lots in life of millions of regular Americans ... for YEARS.
But that doesn't suggest a general affinity for leftish solutions, outside of California, that is. I support single-payer myself, so long as that component of a holistic healthcare system focuses on BASIC healthcare, and so long as in implementing it we ALSO get rid of ALL our other healthcare programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, the HC components of SS, the asic part of employer-provided. Everything. And that could be made to be a Republican solution, not a Democratic one, that would seek a completely unsustainable "Medicare for all".
Your "data" are highly questionable, when, instead of having a more balanced Congress, statehouses, governors chairs and a preponderance of Republican electoral victories at city, county and state levels, what we see in fact are Republicans everywhere and the rapidly disappearing Democrat in our governance, Except in CA, of course, where Smelt is king, public sector unions own BOTH chambers of your statehouse, and you really NEED that "train to nowhere".
1
Hi, Richard -
As reasonable men of good will, we are free to disagree.
I believe that more people are paying attention, and realizing that the country has been moved to the right over time by stealth. I've seen more commentary, in both columns and letters, referring to corporate tax rates during the Eisenhower years, as well as how activist government was once much more bipartisan. Granted, columns and letters do not a movement make, but I believe the narrative is shifting.
The big "tell" will be whether the movement started by Senator Sanders will continue in any kind of tangible way. We should have an idea based on Mrs. Clinton's cabinet and other appointments. At this point, I simply don't see Trump winning.
You are correct in your assertion that at the more local level, Republicans are much more prevalent than Democrats, but I don't know that this reflects anything more than the GOP's better understanding that "all politics is local", and the relative apathy of the Democrats at the local level. Sometimes, Republican occupancy of a statehouse or governor's mansion simply makes no sense, as with Governor Brownback's recent re-election in Kansas, which through his policies is now a basket case.
In any event, I don't think my data are "highly questionable" at all. Awareness of the need to change is the first step in realizing change, at least according to the Prosci ADKAR model. That's where I think we are now. As I said - time will tell.
As reasonable men of good will, we are free to disagree.
I believe that more people are paying attention, and realizing that the country has been moved to the right over time by stealth. I've seen more commentary, in both columns and letters, referring to corporate tax rates during the Eisenhower years, as well as how activist government was once much more bipartisan. Granted, columns and letters do not a movement make, but I believe the narrative is shifting.
The big "tell" will be whether the movement started by Senator Sanders will continue in any kind of tangible way. We should have an idea based on Mrs. Clinton's cabinet and other appointments. At this point, I simply don't see Trump winning.
You are correct in your assertion that at the more local level, Republicans are much more prevalent than Democrats, but I don't know that this reflects anything more than the GOP's better understanding that "all politics is local", and the relative apathy of the Democrats at the local level. Sometimes, Republican occupancy of a statehouse or governor's mansion simply makes no sense, as with Governor Brownback's recent re-election in Kansas, which through his policies is now a basket case.
In any event, I don't think my data are "highly questionable" at all. Awareness of the need to change is the first step in realizing change, at least according to the Prosci ADKAR model. That's where I think we are now. As I said - time will tell.
1
All a highly suspect proposition based upon the opinions of what appear to be mainly far left wing Democrats (?) who spend a lot of time trashing the current agenda of the Democratic party. The sort of whom nothing has always been preferable to not enough. In fact Trump is strictly a Republican problem. The modern progressive, pragmatic, center left Democratic coalition that elected Obama twice (the first Democrat since FDR to win over 50% of the popular vote in two successive elections) seems to be exactly the same one that will probably elect Clinton. Millenials, minorities, women and well educated urban whites. This is not particularly surprising since Clinton is essentially seen as an extension of Obama's presidency. The essential silliness of Edsall's whole thesis is summed up by this statement:
"working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families and reward work effort — programs like Social Security and Medicare."
This represents a huge problem for the Republican party who are ideologically deeply opposed to such programs whereas Democrats are seen as their defenders. Edsall, or the guy he quotes in support of his argument, seems to believe there is going to be a sudden Republican conversion on the road to Damascus. Republicans for Medicaid! It doesn't seem very likely does it?
"working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families and reward work effort — programs like Social Security and Medicare."
This represents a huge problem for the Republican party who are ideologically deeply opposed to such programs whereas Democrats are seen as their defenders. Edsall, or the guy he quotes in support of his argument, seems to believe there is going to be a sudden Republican conversion on the road to Damascus. Republicans for Medicaid! It doesn't seem very likely does it?
64
"As Trump flails in every self-destructive fashion conceivable, the odds increasingly point to a Clinton victory. But if she wins, how well will Clinton be able to govern with a base split between the well-to-do, many of whom seek to protect their enclaves against the interests, needs and classically American ambitions of the other half of the party — low-to-moderate income African-Americans and Hispanics and the truly poor?"
This is truly the essential question. How do we as a country care for the poor, look after the needs of the indigent? It is crucial because without an answer which addresses every segment of that indigent population we are left with a palpable feeling of anger and helplessness.
This is truly the essential question. How do we as a country care for the poor, look after the needs of the indigent? It is crucial because without an answer which addresses every segment of that indigent population we are left with a palpable feeling of anger and helplessness.
27
If Clinton wins Republicans will instantly move to block everything she proposes. Why? Because a large part of the Republican party has given up on democracy. What they want, as embodied by Trump, is a dictatorship with the dictator on their side. They have come to this point over many years of Republican teachings that you can have it all and not have to pay for it. It has had great impact because people want to believe this. They want the good old days of America dominating the world. Starting with Reagan the concept of self sacrifice began to die. In this vein George Bush said Americans elected him to put them into gas guzzling SUV's, so he will make it happen.
When times are hard Trump followers turn to a tyrant to make them "great" again. This mind set has been a cancer eating away at our politics for a long time culminating with Trump. His followers are willing to risk it all, tear it all down, to "get rich quick." Of course Trump won't be able to deliver this, so as president he will continue to poison our politics by blaming Obama for his own failures.
The real answer to renew America is for us to realize we are in this together and our system cannot work if it becomes the tyranny of the minority. Politics falls apart if their is no working together and compromise. This requires a sense of self sacrifice. Trump works to destroy any hope of this by promoting American "exceptionalism" which is really the delusional belief of total American domination of the world.
When times are hard Trump followers turn to a tyrant to make them "great" again. This mind set has been a cancer eating away at our politics for a long time culminating with Trump. His followers are willing to risk it all, tear it all down, to "get rich quick." Of course Trump won't be able to deliver this, so as president he will continue to poison our politics by blaming Obama for his own failures.
The real answer to renew America is for us to realize we are in this together and our system cannot work if it becomes the tyranny of the minority. Politics falls apart if their is no working together and compromise. This requires a sense of self sacrifice. Trump works to destroy any hope of this by promoting American "exceptionalism" which is really the delusional belief of total American domination of the world.
1
What's needed is not so much that we care for the indigent (though, indeed, we must), but that we rekindle their hope of becoming middle-class. The absence of that hope -- and of a reasonable prospect of its fulfillment -- is truly what's been breeding anger and hopelessness.
1
Ultimately, what Edsall describes are the effects of 8 years of Dubya after the Clinton years and the financial collapse brought on by unbridled GOP'er economic voodoo - 8 years of Obama were a reaction to that, and the continuing evolution of the Dem coalition to counteract the huge wealth/income disparities that GOP'ers celebrate is a further effect.
Drumpf just capitalizes on the trend, he is no more the cause of the trend than the rooster's crowing causes the sun to rise in the east each new day.
Drumpf just capitalizes on the trend, he is no more the cause of the trend than the rooster's crowing causes the sun to rise in the east each new day.
55
Regarding your contention that the financial collapse was all about Bush's voodoo, please note that the door was opened towards that fiscal catastrophe by the Clinton repeal of Glass-Steagall and the asleep at the switch behavior of Alan Greenspan. Once that door was opened it was money for nuthin' and chicks for free for both REPs and DEMs. Are you really making this a partisan issue? Yikes!!
2
jonathan - Not being fans of the Glass/Steagall repeal, it is too often forgotten that lax regulation and deliberate underfunding of government watch dogs under Dubya's Republicans is what led to the S.E.C. in 2004 approving Wall Street's lobbying for outrageous debt limits:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html
that eventually crashed the system - Dubya appointees at SEC raised those limits in the spring of a campaign year.
The ' greed is good ' crowd had been held in abeyance in the Clinton years by the ' trust but verify ' regulators.
As for Greenspan, remember he's been a GOP'er and Ayn Rander his entire professional life, and the Fed's raising of rates in the 1999-2000 Gore-Bush contest helped GOP'ers in November 2000, followed by the Fed's inauguration gift to Dubya of 2 rate cuts in Jan. 2001 - one cut before Dubya took the oath, and yet another rate cut afterwards, before the end of that Jan.
Greenspan's role was more activist than ' asleep at the switch '.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html
that eventually crashed the system - Dubya appointees at SEC raised those limits in the spring of a campaign year.
The ' greed is good ' crowd had been held in abeyance in the Clinton years by the ' trust but verify ' regulators.
As for Greenspan, remember he's been a GOP'er and Ayn Rander his entire professional life, and the Fed's raising of rates in the 1999-2000 Gore-Bush contest helped GOP'ers in November 2000, followed by the Fed's inauguration gift to Dubya of 2 rate cuts in Jan. 2001 - one cut before Dubya took the oath, and yet another rate cut afterwards, before the end of that Jan.
Greenspan's role was more activist than ' asleep at the switch '.
2
You see the tragedy - low-to-moderate income African-Americans and Hispanics and the truly poor and the low-to-moderate income working whites have the same economic interests, and the same economic policies will benefit all these groups, and yet they are divided by party.
It is almost as though this is by design, the stoking of the differences and resentments is deliberate.
It is almost as though this is by design, the stoking of the differences and resentments is deliberate.
127
True enough, though whether by accident or design is up for grabs. The Sanders campaign had the chance to unite these various beleaguered groups but seemed unable to really penetrate Trump's realm. If Bernie had spent more time in the South and Midwest instead of on college campuses, he might have cemented a new coalition, perhaps our last flickering hope for something better.
1
Plutocrats rule by setting the people against each other.
3
It is astounding that those groups, including the Hispanics, are not uniformly aligned with their own economic interests, which in America today, means deporting the illegal aliens who reduce wages and lawfulness at the bottom rung of the economic ladder.
1
The biggest flaw in America's applied thinking is its refusal to use the disciple of political economy; by its rejection, America's thinkers continually attach make believe conclusions to real statistics. For example, in American politics and economics, race is an unattached radical, moving about through social thought in conflicting ways and often with conflicting views. The power and role of race is greater than its demographic; it is a measure of social cohesion; it influences policy perception and weighs on its evaluation and support.
To move demographic pieces around without looking at how race and ethnicity is shaping and influencing the cultural and political narrative is to think inauthentically and ultimately reinforce inaccurate conclusions. It leads to a parallel universe devoid of the driving forces of America's political history: today we easily find it in Flint, in education, in community policing, in community development; in Silicon Valley, (in Guiliani!); we see its privilege when Bernie Sanders campaigns with rapper “Killer Mike” (imagine him with Obama on the campaign trail!).
Trump has shown race is still the litmus test of conservatives more so than policy or ideological orthodoxy. Many still have not forgiven the federal government for freeing the enslaved; even more resent programs that improved the opportunities of people of color; some are now hoping to share in the benefits. The Wall and The Round-Up reinforce its role.
To move demographic pieces around without looking at how race and ethnicity is shaping and influencing the cultural and political narrative is to think inauthentically and ultimately reinforce inaccurate conclusions. It leads to a parallel universe devoid of the driving forces of America's political history: today we easily find it in Flint, in education, in community policing, in community development; in Silicon Valley, (in Guiliani!); we see its privilege when Bernie Sanders campaigns with rapper “Killer Mike” (imagine him with Obama on the campaign trail!).
Trump has shown race is still the litmus test of conservatives more so than policy or ideological orthodoxy. Many still have not forgiven the federal government for freeing the enslaved; even more resent programs that improved the opportunities of people of color; some are now hoping to share in the benefits. The Wall and The Round-Up reinforce its role.
71
If Obama showed up with Killer Mike in 2008, conservatives would go ballistic.
1
Drumpf is continuing GOPers' wrecking of politics as a whole more than he is wrecking both parties.
The key finding was in Baruma's quote:
" More and more people feel unrepresented. "
a sense which has been reinforced over the last 16 years as GOP'ers have engaged in ever increasingly egregious gerrymandering, then tried to foment dissent and division that they could fundraise and capitalize from politically.
The result has been non-responsive Congresses that GOP'ers have turned into nothing but glorified party fund-raising arms, where nothing of substance is passed except in grand end-of-year catchall bills; Congresses run by Dems have not had the same propensities in the last 16 years.
And, voters coming of age in the last 16 years - since the end of Bill Clinton's term - were born since 1979, and easily swayed by GOP'er economic voodoo wrapped in St. Ronnie dogma; it has taken the financial crash caused by that voodoo, and the years of widening inequality to begin to un-do that voodoo.
Drumpf's corrosive antics and a campaign theme song by Meghan Trainor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaveinO4_vs
help un-do that voodoo each and every minute.
Ultimately, this paper's Bruce Bartlett explained what is needed to solve the feeling of being un-represented:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/enlarging-the-house-of-repr...
a problem caused as our population has doubled over 60 years, so that each D.C. legislator is representing more constituents.
The key finding was in Baruma's quote:
" More and more people feel unrepresented. "
a sense which has been reinforced over the last 16 years as GOP'ers have engaged in ever increasingly egregious gerrymandering, then tried to foment dissent and division that they could fundraise and capitalize from politically.
The result has been non-responsive Congresses that GOP'ers have turned into nothing but glorified party fund-raising arms, where nothing of substance is passed except in grand end-of-year catchall bills; Congresses run by Dems have not had the same propensities in the last 16 years.
And, voters coming of age in the last 16 years - since the end of Bill Clinton's term - were born since 1979, and easily swayed by GOP'er economic voodoo wrapped in St. Ronnie dogma; it has taken the financial crash caused by that voodoo, and the years of widening inequality to begin to un-do that voodoo.
Drumpf's corrosive antics and a campaign theme song by Meghan Trainor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaveinO4_vs
help un-do that voodoo each and every minute.
Ultimately, this paper's Bruce Bartlett explained what is needed to solve the feeling of being un-represented:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/enlarging-the-house-of-repr...
a problem caused as our population has doubled over 60 years, so that each D.C. legislator is representing more constituents.
14
Why Trump, and GOP, supporters, vote against their economic interest? From Regan through Romney, all GOP leaders support trickle down economy. It is unclear if trickle down produces faster growth but it exacerbates income inequality favoring the rich. The reduction of entitlement programs by both parties further tilt the scale although Democrats advocates reform instead of abolishment as Republicans. Clearly, regardless of who is supporting which party, the question is why white males without higher education vote GOP against their economic interest? Trump economics is still a rich-friendly trickle down policy just without free trade. The only conclusion is that people are not only, or even primarily, motivated by economy. There is also cultural conservatism, i.e. "taking the country back." Back to what? Back to a time in the 1940-1960s when white, males were still in charge. I would argue that cultural conservatism is the primary driver of the political divide today. It explains the tremendous hatred of the Trump supporters for President Obama. It explains the urban-rural divide, the education level divide, and the age divide between the two parties. Calling it racism is too harsh because people naturally feel safe with the familiar. As an urban immigrant, I am naturally a "globalist," but realize that the unification of the country requires addressing both issues: eliminate trickle-down reducing income inequality and slow down immigration giving time for adjustment.
35
Unfortunately there is no way that working class white males can vote in favor of their economic interests. Both parties recommend the economic interests of the 0.1 percent. So voting is driven by non-economic issues, social and emotional issues, religious beliefs, and fear.
2
PeterS, the former Senator from NY, Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously observed that 'culture trumps politics' (no pun intended!) When people feel that their way of life, and their beliefs, are being attacked, they will ignore economic realities and vote for people and parties that promise to defend what is 'normal' to them: white, Christian, heterosexual, patriotic, etc. Tom Franks wrote a good book about this a few years back, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Joan Walsh of the Nation also delved into this phenomena with "What's the Matter with White People?" These two books were instrumental in my understanding of this phenomena. Finally, may I suggest Charles Murray's "Coming Apart" as a thoughtful and sane conservative view of this issue.
Peace.
Peace.
True, the Trumplethinskin "economic speech" the other day was a compendium of long discredited Republicant Plutocratic cant writ large.
1
Instead of looking at people's opinions of the parties, which are driven by a very effective propaganda campaign by the likes of the disgusting Limbaugh and Ailes, you should focus at the actual policies of the two parties and the votes of their elected representatives in Congress.
Republicans opposed Social Security, Medicare, universal health care, Dodd- Frank, programs to invest in communities hurt by trade, refinancing student debt (paid for by getting rid of tax giveaways to oil companies) from the start and continue to do so. Social Security and Medicare have become so popular that Republicans have to wrap their destructive plans in rhetoric that they want to "save" these programs, but the fact is that they want to privatize and destroy them.
The only reason that these programs and so many others survive is that Democrats continue to fight, and, when sent to Congress, vote for them. These meme that the Democrats have "abandoned" people with low incomes has no relationship to the facts when you look at policy choices, something political reporters almost never cover
Republicans opposed Social Security, Medicare, universal health care, Dodd- Frank, programs to invest in communities hurt by trade, refinancing student debt (paid for by getting rid of tax giveaways to oil companies) from the start and continue to do so. Social Security and Medicare have become so popular that Republicans have to wrap their destructive plans in rhetoric that they want to "save" these programs, but the fact is that they want to privatize and destroy them.
The only reason that these programs and so many others survive is that Democrats continue to fight, and, when sent to Congress, vote for them. These meme that the Democrats have "abandoned" people with low incomes has no relationship to the facts when you look at policy choices, something political reporters almost never cover
658
Oh, I get it . There's no propaganda on the left. Every word they say is true. The NYT editorial board told me so. The DNC told them. Hillary told the DNC. Gotta be the truth.
2
I have found this NY Times opinion page writer to be uninformative and dull. Your post nails why I spend little time considering his opinions.
1
Lynn, you're right. Today ALL political reporters only cover the horse race; no discussion of programs and policy which is what ultimately impacts people's lives.
No wonder the electorate is so ill informed and prey to emotional appeals.
No wonder the electorate is so ill informed and prey to emotional appeals.
2
The main conclusion of the studies cited by Professor Edsall seems to center on the inability of either political party to mobilize the long-term support of the white working class. The Republicans remain in thrall to corporate America, as reflected in Paul Ryan's stubborn attachment to discredited supply-side nostrums. The Democrats, although still committed to a higher minimum wage and the social safety net, focus their policies on helping the middle and professional classes.
The main responsibility for this situation falls on the Democrats. The GOP never represented the interests of the working class, but FDR's party had achieved political dominance by doing so. In the 1960s, LBJ made the momentous decision to stake his party's future on support of the civil right's revolution, a choice he believed would alienate the white south for a generation.
At the same time, however, he launched his war on poverty, a program with the potential to unite the interests of black Americans with those of the white working class, in the south as well as elsewhere. The failure of that ambitious initiative, caused in part by the diversion of resources and political energy to the war in Vietnam, soured the Democratic leadership after 1968 on expensive programs designed to help the very groups gloabalization would threaten.
The Clintons won in 1992 by jettisoning their party's social democratic agenda. Even Bernie Sanders paid attention mainly to the needs of the middle class.
The main responsibility for this situation falls on the Democrats. The GOP never represented the interests of the working class, but FDR's party had achieved political dominance by doing so. In the 1960s, LBJ made the momentous decision to stake his party's future on support of the civil right's revolution, a choice he believed would alienate the white south for a generation.
At the same time, however, he launched his war on poverty, a program with the potential to unite the interests of black Americans with those of the white working class, in the south as well as elsewhere. The failure of that ambitious initiative, caused in part by the diversion of resources and political energy to the war in Vietnam, soured the Democratic leadership after 1968 on expensive programs designed to help the very groups gloabalization would threaten.
The Clintons won in 1992 by jettisoning their party's social democratic agenda. Even Bernie Sanders paid attention mainly to the needs of the middle class.
38
Yes. The influence of decades of nearly continuous war on foreign soil has disrupted social cohesion. This militarism has been driven by an ethos of limitless capitalism and opportunism in quest of dominion over natural and human resources, and hegemony over currencies and international trade.
A comparison of policies of current Republican and Democratic presidential candidates with prescriptions of the Council on Foreign Relations is relevant, especially among those conscious of the limits to growth on this third rock of our sun.
A comparison of policies of current Republican and Democratic presidential candidates with prescriptions of the Council on Foreign Relations is relevant, especially among those conscious of the limits to growth on this third rock of our sun.
1
An insightful comment. I've often wondered about the effect of the economic and political hangover of squandering lives, resolve, and treasure in Vietnam on such seemingly unrelated issues as 1970s stagflation, the decline of unions, the defection of working-class whites to the GOP, and the rise of far-right ideology as the preeminent governing practice beginning with Reagan.
LBJ failed to run with the ball because he became obsessed with winning in Vietnam, then walked away from public life in despair when he couldn't achieve that, leaving his remarkable domestic legacy to flounder.
LBJ failed to run with the ball because he became obsessed with winning in Vietnam, then walked away from public life in despair when he couldn't achieve that, leaving his remarkable domestic legacy to flounder.
1
By accepting Mr. Trump's bile as their core value the Republican leadership is showing a complete lack of principle... and any Republican who endorses Mr. Trump is also endorsing his world view. Here's hoping the Democrats can use Mr. Trump's divisiveness to unify those who are tolerant, peace-loving, and open to new ideas.
20
Gerson, self-righteous scolding is a losing strategy. It will only further alienate your ostensibly benighted fellow-citizens.
I (partially) retract my criticism. I thought you were admonishing Trump supporters for their anger, and I was objecting to that. OTOH, GOP functionaries don't deserve any further understanding.
Now, if only the Democratic Party were more open to new ideas!
Now, if only the Democratic Party were more open to new ideas!
We return soon abroad to disasters created by Donald Trump and fully involved corruption of the Republican Party, the poisonous American right wing media and various tendrils of evil abroad.
American politics are adequately covered by the European media. The Fox News cable has no European equivalent. Yet significant events in the US are more than adequately. Murdoch hate spewing is no where as pervasive - perhaps because they broke the far to often and caused major uphevil when the basic truth became public.
In. In the US, who propagate near treason hate speech are rewarded by those who believe it completely.
Friends and admirers and adnmirers of the United States - most of are passionate about Obama and Mrs. Obama. the worry about llunatic Donald Trump - and the GOO.
It would be a serious mistake to believe anyone has missed the total disaster of the GOP has created in Congress. They recognize that our Congress conducts "investigate" hearings for only political purposes.
Congress now seems only to smear Democratic candidates and do nothing else. I've lost track of the number of Beghazi. The other is to provide Fifth Amendment protection to its criminals.138 convictions under Reagan.
The Democrats are not without sin. But nothing approaches recent GOP ADMINISTRATION.
But it is dead wrong to craft a moral equivalence between the Democrats and a GOP political organization intended to effect and complete a last takeover of government AT EVERY LEVEL.
American politics are adequately covered by the European media. The Fox News cable has no European equivalent. Yet significant events in the US are more than adequately. Murdoch hate spewing is no where as pervasive - perhaps because they broke the far to often and caused major uphevil when the basic truth became public.
In. In the US, who propagate near treason hate speech are rewarded by those who believe it completely.
Friends and admirers and adnmirers of the United States - most of are passionate about Obama and Mrs. Obama. the worry about llunatic Donald Trump - and the GOO.
It would be a serious mistake to believe anyone has missed the total disaster of the GOP has created in Congress. They recognize that our Congress conducts "investigate" hearings for only political purposes.
Congress now seems only to smear Democratic candidates and do nothing else. I've lost track of the number of Beghazi. The other is to provide Fifth Amendment protection to its criminals.138 convictions under Reagan.
The Democrats are not without sin. But nothing approaches recent GOP ADMINISTRATION.
But it is dead wrong to craft a moral equivalence between the Democrats and a GOP political organization intended to effect and complete a last takeover of government AT EVERY LEVEL.
8
This is a superb analysis. It is a clear presentation of the real and dangerous forces fueling Mr. Trump.
And of the smug self-satisfied impotence of the Democrat party in the face of these forces.
And of the smug self-satisfied impotence of the Democrat party in the face of these forces.
25
Millions of Democratic voters are neither "smug" nor "self-satisfied". Thanks to the 85% of Sanders supporters who are committed to voting for Clinton, thanks to their pressuring the party to liberalize the platform (and ensure its implementation), and (with mixed feelings), thanks to the Trump campaign for their efforts to destroy the republican party and bring about a Democratic landslide, there is an excellent chance that many of the platform's progressive policies will be implemented.
1
Bologna.
It wasn't liberal "identity politics" that hurt working men and women in the US, as conservatives and radical Lefties claim. It was the Republican union busters, like Scott Walker and John Kasich, who undercut workers' security in this country, since they understood their golf buddies didn't want to hire expensive American workers anymore to do the jobs that robots and cheap Chinese labor could accomplish for less than half the price. (See: Walmart.).
At the same time, a general, rapid, uncontrolled expansion of global trade was picking up speed. Who cares about the TPP? Any thirty-year-old designer worth his salt these days who has generated a 3-D model of a new hubcap or spatula or wingnut knows to shoot that plan straight to China for fabrication. My son does it all the time.
And what is this impatience with "identity politics"? Yes, identity politics grew out of the 1960s revolts, and those rebellions required great courage. Gays, women, and African-Americans, over the years, as a result, have found themselves (almost) recognized as full citizens, with rights. Not as specialty items.
I love identity politics. In my opinion, they reaffirm the evolution of America as a nation built by a motley crew of determined people ... male and female, black and white, gay and straight, home brewed and immigrant.
It wasn't liberal "identity politics" that hurt working men and women in the US, as conservatives and radical Lefties claim. It was the Republican union busters, like Scott Walker and John Kasich, who undercut workers' security in this country, since they understood their golf buddies didn't want to hire expensive American workers anymore to do the jobs that robots and cheap Chinese labor could accomplish for less than half the price. (See: Walmart.).
At the same time, a general, rapid, uncontrolled expansion of global trade was picking up speed. Who cares about the TPP? Any thirty-year-old designer worth his salt these days who has generated a 3-D model of a new hubcap or spatula or wingnut knows to shoot that plan straight to China for fabrication. My son does it all the time.
And what is this impatience with "identity politics"? Yes, identity politics grew out of the 1960s revolts, and those rebellions required great courage. Gays, women, and African-Americans, over the years, as a result, have found themselves (almost) recognized as full citizens, with rights. Not as specialty items.
I love identity politics. In my opinion, they reaffirm the evolution of America as a nation built by a motley crew of determined people ... male and female, black and white, gay and straight, home brewed and immigrant.
221
Identity politics undermine unity. Contrast our current plethora of political "identities" with, say, the concept of the One Big Union or "An injury to one is an injury to all."
2
I wished that were so but if it were, Paul Ryan would not of won in a crushing defeat of the democrat opponent. What is wrong in Wisconsin that they did not throw Ryan out of office?
Deborah, the issue isn't "identity politics" per se. No one, except for a racist, misogynist or homophobe, would deny that advancement of civil rights, women's rights and LGBT rights is and has been a good thing. The issue is whether the Democratic Party, in its push to embrace "identity politics," abandoned its pursuit of expanded economic opportunity for the working class and the less fortunate along the way. The Democratic Party has been accused by many of willfully making this trade-off over the past 40-50 years.
Many commenters, to similar articles and columns if not to this one specifically, have said that they want both ("identity politics" plus expanded economic opportunity) and have asked why we can't strive for both at the same time. Perhaps that question should be asked of those who formulated Democratic Party policies over the past 40-50 years. Many would say that the Democratic Party, for some reason, decided that they couldn't have both. I don't have the link to it, but there was an NYT article earlier this year in which Barney Frank, to his chagrin, tacitly admitted as much.
Many commenters, to similar articles and columns if not to this one specifically, have said that they want both ("identity politics" plus expanded economic opportunity) and have asked why we can't strive for both at the same time. Perhaps that question should be asked of those who formulated Democratic Party policies over the past 40-50 years. Many would say that the Democratic Party, for some reason, decided that they couldn't have both. I don't have the link to it, but there was an NYT article earlier this year in which Barney Frank, to his chagrin, tacitly admitted as much.
4
The Times has reverted to its previous position of pretending that Bernie Sanders and his millions of supporters don't exist. This article pretends all Democrats are willful Clinton supporters and that Republicans are forced between choosing Donald Trump's Republican Party or Hillary Clinton's Democratic Party.
The Times' editors' refusal to give credibility to the Sanders campaign actually shows their complicity in making the Democratic Party more elitist, more corporate and Wall St. oriented, and less involved with the needs of the poor and lower middle classes. Now they are bequeathing that emphasis to Trump, still refusing to acknowledge the impact of the Sanders campaign and its supporters.
What's even odder is that the article points out the Republican 'Reformocons', a group that made a far less significant impact on this election than did Bernie Sanders.
The good points made in this article are lost by painting the American political scene with such a broad brush. The Times needs to pay more attention to what's really happening in this country.
The Times' editors' refusal to give credibility to the Sanders campaign actually shows their complicity in making the Democratic Party more elitist, more corporate and Wall St. oriented, and less involved with the needs of the poor and lower middle classes. Now they are bequeathing that emphasis to Trump, still refusing to acknowledge the impact of the Sanders campaign and its supporters.
What's even odder is that the article points out the Republican 'Reformocons', a group that made a far less significant impact on this election than did Bernie Sanders.
The good points made in this article are lost by painting the American political scene with such a broad brush. The Times needs to pay more attention to what's really happening in this country.
257
You make some good points, especially about The Times needing to pay more attention to what's really happening in the country.
I often wonder if Mr. Edsall and the other Times columnists ever get outside the concentrations of wealth and power such as Manhattan and Washington, DC.? Do they ever leave these bubbles? It might help if they spent some time in decaying mill towns where the factory jobs have left over the past several decades. Seeing poverty, substance abuse, and despair up close and personal can open your eyes. It sure has opened mine.
Quoting authors and statistics in columns is all well and good, but why not try writing from direct personal experience for a change?
I often wonder if Mr. Edsall and the other Times columnists ever get outside the concentrations of wealth and power such as Manhattan and Washington, DC.? Do they ever leave these bubbles? It might help if they spent some time in decaying mill towns where the factory jobs have left over the past several decades. Seeing poverty, substance abuse, and despair up close and personal can open your eyes. It sure has opened mine.
Quoting authors and statistics in columns is all well and good, but why not try writing from direct personal experience for a change?
4
Well said! How can someone publish an article speculating about the future of the Democratic party and not talk about Sanders? He won young Democrats in a landslide. It was an even bigger margin than Obama's in the 2008 primary. These young voters are the future, and next time there will be even more of them. Why would these young people suddenly become supporters of the corporate wing of the party? They would only do it if democratic corporatism improves their fortunes, and it won't. Sanders may not be able to run again, but there will be someone new who supports both economic and social justice.
4
You would think, given the DWS and friends' emails dissing Sanders, that the NYT would admit that the deck was stacked from the beginning. Sanders tapped into my own enthusiasm and so many others'. I still can't believe he seems to be ignored and forgotten by the NYT
4
I believe Mr. Edsall, in determining the lack of working class whites in the Democratic Party forgot about the role of racism.
69
Very interesting story but the headline puts the cart pulling the horse.
Trump is the result of the gop shaping it's electorate base not the cause. The cause is the gop. On the one hand pulling a cohort together by cultivating bigotry, fear, intimidation, few alternatives to get those Trump is now appealing to with his recent nodding to gun nuts. Pence his running mate to cultivate those who are easily led through unquestioning authoritarian demands speaking to the religious right in particular. Their ceaseless tax policies pull to them the business cohort that wants as few regulations and restrictions as possible with no moral or ethical qualms about the effect on others and to stockpile wealth whether or not it is used at all let alone to promote productivity and growth as efficiently as is good for the country or even the businesses being lazy with their wealth.
This last cohort reinforces the prior two through science denial. ignorance in general and rather than the underdog, the snarling mob.
But this is not Trump's doing. He's the monster created by these social forces unchecked since the John Birch Society, the McCarthy era mentality, even the rigid religious judgment of the founding Puritans that has been here for a long time. The only thing new is appealing to rather than moderating these threads running through the country by the gop for cheap votes.
Trump is the result of the gop shaping it's electorate base not the cause. The cause is the gop. On the one hand pulling a cohort together by cultivating bigotry, fear, intimidation, few alternatives to get those Trump is now appealing to with his recent nodding to gun nuts. Pence his running mate to cultivate those who are easily led through unquestioning authoritarian demands speaking to the religious right in particular. Their ceaseless tax policies pull to them the business cohort that wants as few regulations and restrictions as possible with no moral or ethical qualms about the effect on others and to stockpile wealth whether or not it is used at all let alone to promote productivity and growth as efficiently as is good for the country or even the businesses being lazy with their wealth.
This last cohort reinforces the prior two through science denial. ignorance in general and rather than the underdog, the snarling mob.
But this is not Trump's doing. He's the monster created by these social forces unchecked since the John Birch Society, the McCarthy era mentality, even the rigid religious judgment of the founding Puritans that has been here for a long time. The only thing new is appealing to rather than moderating these threads running through the country by the gop for cheap votes.
15
I would not malign the Founding Puritans for the rigid religious judgment. Read Colin Woodard's book, "The American Nations." The Puritans (or "Yankees," as Woodard calls them) are the bedrock of liberalism. The modern day religious descendants of the Puritans are the Congregationalists and the Universal Unitarians. It's the Appalachians and the Deep South that have created modern "conservatism."
1
You're trying to cover too much ground. The Yankees may be in the bedrock of liberalism, but the Puritans were quite rigid ideologues. By contrast, Thomas Jefferson wasn't a Yankee but certainly played a role in the development of liberalism as we know it.
2
Have you taken a look at how the Puritans self policed themselves? Women were particularly treated harshly. And what about Puritan treatment of Quakers. Not to mention Salem. No, even if the congregationalists are the distant descendants of the Puritans, they are a universe apart in their treatment of people and sense of entitlement to judge. There are some good reasons why they attracted particularly strong distaste in England. There is little to defend even taking into account the era.
1
Another day, another outright LIE from Trump.
He contends that President Obama 'created ISIS'.
Even a third grader knows that BUSH, in his zeal to ban the Baathist Party of Iraq, created ISIS.
But to idiots like Trump? Facts do not matter.
He contends that President Obama 'created ISIS'.
Even a third grader knows that BUSH, in his zeal to ban the Baathist Party of Iraq, created ISIS.
But to idiots like Trump? Facts do not matter.
147
You could say that about the media! facts do not matter. The latest is that Hillary wants to take your guns. Not one of the media countered that statement with the facts that neither Hillary nor Obama wanted to take your right away to own a gun if you were of sound mind. They want saner gun regulations.
The media is the problem just as much as Trump.
The media is the problem just as much as Trump.
5
Both political parties are courting donor class political contributions and have abandoned the vast majority of Americans - namely the middle and working classes. We need a Labor Party to fill this void and represent the interests of working people who have been left in a tenuous place financially at the same time that the social safety net has been fraying and job security and benefits declining.
14
Nature hates a vacuum. I'm glad someone gave Hillary competition in the primary and that we'll have an election and not a coronation. How will she govern? As a good Methodist should.
We're no longer an agrarian society and industry is here to stay. There will always be class and identity politics, but we need each other.
We're no longer an agrarian society and industry is here to stay. There will always be class and identity politics, but we need each other.
5
The United Methodist Church does not support abortion.
The United Metodist Church does not support abortion.
Perhaps being pro-choice makes one a "good" Methodist. It certainly works among Catholics, where the Church (ie members) and its leadership have very different takes on reproduction, sexuality and gender issues.
4
In his cartoon "Cracks in the Foundation," Andy Warner notes that the average political alignment lasts only 32 years. The present configuration has been in place for 51 years. Change seems to be happening.
https://thenib.com/cracks-in-the-foundation
https://thenib.com/cracks-in-the-foundation
1
I would date the current political alignment as beginning in 1980 with the election of Reagan. That election marked the end of the New Deal coalition which had dominated American politics since 1932. That realignment was a bit later than others, and indeed there was a lot of talk in political science departments during the 1970's about whether realignment was a concept whose applicability to American politics had come to an end.
It's an open question as to whether Barack Obama's election in 2008 marked the end of the Reagan alignment or not. I'm a bit surprised Mr. Edsall doesn't mention the Obama elections at all. Surely they, too, reflected the "top-bottom" coalition that constitutes the modern Democratic party. (This "top-bottom" characterization comes from the distinguished political scientist Walter Dean Burnham who saw the beginnings of these developments in the 1972 election and its aftermath.)
If Clinton wins in 2016, and a Democrat wins again in 2020, it will probably be safe to say that a realignment occurred in 2008.
It's an open question as to whether Barack Obama's election in 2008 marked the end of the Reagan alignment or not. I'm a bit surprised Mr. Edsall doesn't mention the Obama elections at all. Surely they, too, reflected the "top-bottom" coalition that constitutes the modern Democratic party. (This "top-bottom" characterization comes from the distinguished political scientist Walter Dean Burnham who saw the beginnings of these developments in the 1972 election and its aftermath.)
If Clinton wins in 2016, and a Democrat wins again in 2020, it will probably be safe to say that a realignment occurred in 2008.
3
The Democratic party did not leave working class whites, working class whites left the Democratic party. You say we can't blame everything on racism, but I think that - and bias against women and minorities in general - is at the heart of a lot of right-wing populism.
Working class whites, especially men, have voted against their own economic interests for several decades, not because Democrats abandoned them but because they want to continue oppressing women and minorities. Call it "identity politics" if you will, call it "political correctness," but it's at base a mean-spirited refusal to accept or respect people of different races, genders, religions or cultural traditions.
Working class whites, especially men, have voted against their own economic interests for several decades, not because Democrats abandoned them but because they want to continue oppressing women and minorities. Call it "identity politics" if you will, call it "political correctness," but it's at base a mean-spirited refusal to accept or respect people of different races, genders, religions or cultural traditions.
590
But, Glasseyed, if you read the the data in this column, affluent but not rich voters (doctors, lawyers, architects, et. al.) are voting against their own interests by voting democratic, because they will pay high taxes on earned income. Megarich Wallstreeters pay lower capital gains rates.
Call it "What's Wrong With Locust Valley?"
Call it "What's Wrong With Locust Valley?"
4
"The Democratic party did not leave working class whites, working class whites left the Democratic party."
Consider (or study) the impact NAFTA had on the working class whites of, say, the Rust Belt, & ask yourself if you truly believe this.
Consider (or study) the impact NAFTA had on the working class whites of, say, the Rust Belt, & ask yourself if you truly believe this.
4
"Working class whites, especially men... want to continue oppressing women and minorities"?
Nonsense! I'm gay, and some of my best friends are working class whites. Many of them would have voted for Bernie -- and lest you call them misogynist, at least as many would vote for Elizabeth Warren.
Maybe it's time you learned some humility, and stopped being a self-righteous scold (i.e., a snob), before it's too late.
Nonsense! I'm gay, and some of my best friends are working class whites. Many of them would have voted for Bernie -- and lest you call them misogynist, at least as many would vote for Elizabeth Warren.
Maybe it's time you learned some humility, and stopped being a self-righteous scold (i.e., a snob), before it's too late.
8
"... his single term - and he would only get 1...". Wrong: He'll be our first President-for-Life. Republican 'elites' will fall into line as quickly as the German elites fell into line in 1933. Trump will control the Justice Department, FBI, the Military. He will follow the Putin/Erdogan playbook and figure out how to suspend or rig subsequent elections (Marshal Law anyone? conjured external threat?) and the new Trumpist Party (Nationalistic Association of Zealots and Imbeciles) will reign supreme.
10
Pete, study the history of the Weimar Republic. It had existed all of 13 years when Hitler came to power - and those 13 years had been a living hell.
Our Republic has existed now for some 240 years - and there are many conservatives who revere the Constitution as passionately as do Democrats.
Our roots run deep, and the opposition to Drumpf will be intense, immediate and likely bipartisan.
Our Republic has existed now for some 240 years - and there are many conservatives who revere the Constitution as passionately as do Democrats.
Our roots run deep, and the opposition to Drumpf will be intense, immediate and likely bipartisan.
2
This strikes me as a convoluted way of saying that the GOP is becoming the party of angry old white men, leaving all other constituencies to the dems. We know this already.
220
Yes, but a lot of us angry old (74) white men are revolted by the whole Trump spectacle.
4
There are a lot of angry younger white men in that coalition. And some angry white women as well.
1
And angry young white men, too. Look at the pictures - a sea of backward baseball caps!
4
Trump has won support, and attention, because he appears human, despite the Archie Bunker type while Clinton is too calculated and too plastic.
7
Say: Nay! Archie Bunker was a curmudgeon but a sort of nice guy. Trump is a vicious, mean hater.
8
Trump is darkly brilliant in his method of capturing the mood of the electorate regarding the massive failure of Great Society-era entitlement programs. The current of racial tension has existed in North America since the 17th century saw the first importation of Africans for slave labor and we Americans in this time are still incapable of dealing positively with their descendants. Hence the existence of Title VII (affirmative action) and all the racial-based programs. Those who support their curtailment, as well as a xenophobic program worthy of Tsar Alexander I to prevent foreigners from gaining a further hold, will also be those who applaud further curtailments of Americans' civil liberties. The Constitution will be the loser if Trump is elected, as it's already under siege by such GOP initiatives as our Patriot Act of 2001...
10
Hillary Clinton won 50% of the vote in the primaries among those with an income of $150,000+, while Sanders got just 17%.
Among those with incomes of $100,000-$149,000, however, Sanders won 50% to Clinton's 33%.
Among those with incomes of $75,000 to $99,000, he won 45% to her 30%. For those making $50,000-$74,999, he got 41% to her 36%.
But among those making $0-$24,999, Clinton got 48% to Sanders 28%.
It's clear that the Democratic party can appeal to those middle-income voters that Trump is attracting--with the right message.
The question is, does it even care enough about these voters to reach out to them? Or will it dismiss them, as this article so clearly points out they have done?
Among those with incomes of $100,000-$149,000, however, Sanders won 50% to Clinton's 33%.
Among those with incomes of $75,000 to $99,000, he won 45% to her 30%. For those making $50,000-$74,999, he got 41% to her 36%.
But among those making $0-$24,999, Clinton got 48% to Sanders 28%.
It's clear that the Democratic party can appeal to those middle-income voters that Trump is attracting--with the right message.
The question is, does it even care enough about these voters to reach out to them? Or will it dismiss them, as this article so clearly points out they have done?
53
"The question is, does it even care enough about these voters to reach out to them? Or will it dismiss them, as this article so clearly points out they have done?"
No, that's not correct. This article does not point out that the Democratic Party has "dismissed" middle class voters. It points out that it has become more dependent on "white upper class middle class" voters. It also points out that, "Over decades, socially conservative working-class whites migrated from the Democratic Party to join the Republican Party, especially in the South."
In fact, if you compare the platforms of the two major parties, it's clear which party represents the economic interests of not only the poor but also the middle class. If you compare the legislation and executive actions of the two major parties, it's crystal clear which party represents the interests of not only the poor but also the middle class.
Similarly, it's pretty clear that we're not going back to having millions of well paid coal mining, logging, and car manufacturing jobs. Presumably, you're not arguing that dems should promote fifties-style industrialization, or that the dems should move to the right to capture more social conservatives.
You may think that the Democratic Party is not doing enough, but please remember that it's difficult to implement policies to improve their lot when there is a well-funded determined reactionary party.
No, that's not correct. This article does not point out that the Democratic Party has "dismissed" middle class voters. It points out that it has become more dependent on "white upper class middle class" voters. It also points out that, "Over decades, socially conservative working-class whites migrated from the Democratic Party to join the Republican Party, especially in the South."
In fact, if you compare the platforms of the two major parties, it's clear which party represents the economic interests of not only the poor but also the middle class. If you compare the legislation and executive actions of the two major parties, it's crystal clear which party represents the interests of not only the poor but also the middle class.
Similarly, it's pretty clear that we're not going back to having millions of well paid coal mining, logging, and car manufacturing jobs. Presumably, you're not arguing that dems should promote fifties-style industrialization, or that the dems should move to the right to capture more social conservatives.
You may think that the Democratic Party is not doing enough, but please remember that it's difficult to implement policies to improve their lot when there is a well-funded determined reactionary party.
4
My point is, there were plenty of white working class voters who went for Sanders, and many were independents. And he didn't promise a return to coal mining.
It cannot simply be that the millions of voters who thought he had a message were delusional. Democrats have to reach out to this group in a way they haven't done.
And if they did reach out, and the message didn't resonate--that's not the fault of the people who were listening. The message needs to be improved.
It cannot simply be that the millions of voters who thought he had a message were delusional. Democrats have to reach out to this group in a way they haven't done.
And if they did reach out, and the message didn't resonate--that's not the fault of the people who were listening. The message needs to be improved.
5
Hillary crushed Sanders with minorities and she's doing the same against Trump.
Nice omission though.
Nice omission though.
4
Michael Gerson wrote that liberals have come to represent "the organized appeasement of resentments." Clearly, though, they've ignored the working people of the rust belt whose jobs have been moved to China...or who, just prior to being laid off, train their successors who arrive from India on HB1 visas. Wringing hands or academically pontificating about why these people support Trump ignores that simple fact. They are overlooked by the Democrats whose emotions are bound up in racial, gender and disability matters. Beltway pundits need to recreate John Howard Griffin's "Black Like Me"...except in this case spending some real time as an out of work white, blue collar man in Toledo.
8
Trump does not wreck parties. Parties wreck themselves. The GOP allowed Trump to hijack it and now is enabling its presidential candidate to take it to very low places. It is a severe case of a Stockholm syndrome.
We are experimenting new territories in politics that will have a paragraph or two in history books in one hundred years from now.
The democratic party should reflect on this new order of extreme political divide in order to avoid its own "wrecking".
President Clinton will have a long difficult road ahead of her but I doubt she was expecting something easy.
We are experimenting new territories in politics that will have a paragraph or two in history books in one hundred years from now.
The democratic party should reflect on this new order of extreme political divide in order to avoid its own "wrecking".
President Clinton will have a long difficult road ahead of her but I doubt she was expecting something easy.
385
Trump is wrecking both parties. He has made himself the big issue of the campaign. The Democrats need to be focused on job creation, stagnant wages, and all of the factors impeding economic growth. They can't get any time in the media to talk about these issues because you guys are all about Mr. Trump.
I am hoping that as we move into September, we will hear more from Senators Sanders, Warren and Booker and will return the campaign to real issues, not the latest thing Mr. Trump has done.
I am hoping that as we move into September, we will hear more from Senators Sanders, Warren and Booker and will return the campaign to real issues, not the latest thing Mr. Trump has done.
25
''working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families and reward work effort — programs like Social Security and Medicare. But they will tend to oppose means-tested programs for the poor whose benefits they and their families cannot enjoy''
If the Republican party would just stick with that message, and get rid of the false religiosity, antiscience, homophobia,and racism it could be the party of the majority.
But the aforementioned are basic beliefs of the todays's Republican party.
If the Republican party would just stick with that message, and get rid of the false religiosity, antiscience, homophobia,and racism it could be the party of the majority.
But the aforementioned are basic beliefs of the todays's Republican party.
5
Sorta Agree
The clintons are supposedly blue dog democrats
They're really moderate democrats that further the goals of the well heeled. They are social liberals on gender, homosexuality, abortion and the environment. You can see how Wall Street and the tech industry would be drawn to this. They mostly give lip service to the working poor and minorities. Under both Clinton and Obama there has been some regression for the poor and minorities, who tend to be working class. They say the right things about helping those groups but they haven't really delivered much for working poor whites or minorities. Republican obstruction during the Obama years plays a key role. The clintons did welfare reform and sparked the expansion of aggressive policing
The Democratic Party functions to aid upper income Americans and progressive industries like tech. If you are libertarian leaning and willing to compromise on taxes the the dnc is for you.
The problem is that there aren't enough voters to win by targeting just that group. Hence the mostly empty overtures to minorities and the working class. Will the dnc continue to gain those voters without delivering?
Eg trade bills favor wealthy capitalists. Would the dnc scrap them or tilt them to favor unions and the working class? It's a conflict of interest between the dnc's capitalist class vs working class. A progressive tax policy is another conflict. Race issues don't easily fit this paradigm but it's basically white establishment vs the poor
The clintons are supposedly blue dog democrats
They're really moderate democrats that further the goals of the well heeled. They are social liberals on gender, homosexuality, abortion and the environment. You can see how Wall Street and the tech industry would be drawn to this. They mostly give lip service to the working poor and minorities. Under both Clinton and Obama there has been some regression for the poor and minorities, who tend to be working class. They say the right things about helping those groups but they haven't really delivered much for working poor whites or minorities. Republican obstruction during the Obama years plays a key role. The clintons did welfare reform and sparked the expansion of aggressive policing
The Democratic Party functions to aid upper income Americans and progressive industries like tech. If you are libertarian leaning and willing to compromise on taxes the the dnc is for you.
The problem is that there aren't enough voters to win by targeting just that group. Hence the mostly empty overtures to minorities and the working class. Will the dnc continue to gain those voters without delivering?
Eg trade bills favor wealthy capitalists. Would the dnc scrap them or tilt them to favor unions and the working class? It's a conflict of interest between the dnc's capitalist class vs working class. A progressive tax policy is another conflict. Race issues don't easily fit this paradigm but it's basically white establishment vs the poor
11
These comments about the DNC are probably correct, but I have a hard time facing the reality that the party of Roosevelt was hijacked by the likes of Bill Clinton who accelerated the loss of US manufacturing jobs with NAFTA and repealed the Glass Steagall Act. The DNC needs to go back and find its roots.
A good start would be to end degrading means testing and make welfare benefits universal. And go to back to a very high marginal tax rate such we had in the prosperous times of the 1950's and early 1960's.
A good start would be to end degrading means testing and make welfare benefits universal. And go to back to a very high marginal tax rate such we had in the prosperous times of the 1950's and early 1960's.
2
I don't doubt Edsall's premise, even if I flinch at a line where $50,000 a year makes anyone "elite." But to what extent is Trump playing to working class whites in ways that no Democrat with a conscience could?
4
I see this distinction "with/without a college degree".
Does that include Trump University?
Does that include Trump University?
20
This just sneering, adding nothing to the discussion.
3
As an initial Bernie supporter, there is no doubt that Clinton has a challenge bringing together Democrats. Our party does have elites, they are perceived as snotty, and there are competing interests.
The difference between us and Republicans is that by and large, those of us in the democratic 99% don't think the solution to all our problems is to scapegoat gays, muslims, blacks, latinos and to deny basic science. If we err, it is generally on the side of empathy.
But those differences aside, few of us are stupid enough to vote for a blowhard hate monger with an oversized ego and the attention span of a child.
The difference between us and Republicans is that by and large, those of us in the democratic 99% don't think the solution to all our problems is to scapegoat gays, muslims, blacks, latinos and to deny basic science. If we err, it is generally on the side of empathy.
But those differences aside, few of us are stupid enough to vote for a blowhard hate monger with an oversized ego and the attention span of a child.
412
Bernie. man of the people, just bought a $600,000 vacation home. Certainly he's a man of irony.
5
How then to explain that the Trump base has an estimated annual income of $70,000?
No, this election was fueled by the Fox bloviators and the endless campaign against our first Black president. If anti-cosmopolitan meant anti-Semitism in the 1930s, today it equates with racism.
The wild card is the conflagration in the Middle East, but the GOP chips are on race hatred.
No, this election was fueled by the Fox bloviators and the endless campaign against our first Black president. If anti-cosmopolitan meant anti-Semitism in the 1930s, today it equates with racism.
The wild card is the conflagration in the Middle East, but the GOP chips are on race hatred.
183
You think a $70,000 income is, what, wealthy or even middle class?
1
Seventy thousand dollars per year in much of the country- read rural midwest and south- would be considered upper middle class. Maybe not here in New Hampshire or in a mid-sized to large city, but where I lived for 7 years in SW Ohio, that would have been considered a fortune by many people.
10
As usual Edsall has provided mountains of material for those of us he get into water cooler or coffee house debates. Either way both major parties have sold us out for greed and power. Prediction, within two months of being elected by a landslide vote Hillary Clinton flips and supports both TPP and the deal that brings Canadian oil through the US. Second, it is a 2/1 she will support "re vamping" of Dodd-Frank regulation on the Financial Service sector to remove barriers so they can expand. Not saying it makes her a bad person just one who likes the perks of the Neo-Liberal Party. Trump, good riddance.
15
She is one of the moderate Republicans who joined the Democrats over social issues. Republican war mongering and elitist thinking (young people just "want free stuff" parroted by her daughter who was raised in public housing and has a boat-load of social and economic capital) is in Hillary's DNA.
5
Too many don't vote, so parties become instruments of those who do. This isn't rocket science.
Labor once supported Reagan, then he hurt it. Is this the fault of the Democratic Party, or is it the voters not comprehending who or what they vote for?
It's true that the Democrats are hardly the party of FDR anymore, but the GOP has changed too, as Trump amply demonstrates.
There are no easy answers or explanations, but maybe voters should learn more history, then stay as informed as they can be. This suggestion isn't rocket science either.
Labor once supported Reagan, then he hurt it. Is this the fault of the Democratic Party, or is it the voters not comprehending who or what they vote for?
It's true that the Democrats are hardly the party of FDR anymore, but the GOP has changed too, as Trump amply demonstrates.
There are no easy answers or explanations, but maybe voters should learn more history, then stay as informed as they can be. This suggestion isn't rocket science either.
9
No. One party has embraced governing, science, facts, math
diversity and equality. The other has embraced reactionary
venom.
One party has embraced the country's highest ideals
and one has rjected them in favor of hatred bigotry
and intolerance
One party sees the country as it is. the Other sees the
country as it never was.
diversity and equality. The other has embraced reactionary
venom.
One party has embraced the country's highest ideals
and one has rjected them in favor of hatred bigotry
and intolerance
One party sees the country as it is. the Other sees the
country as it never was.
433
Please tell me where I can find the party that "has embraced the country's highest ideals". As someone who is leaving the Democratic Party, I would consider it a favor to be pointed in the direction you mention. I have not found it in the party I have been a member of for 40 years. In fact, the Democrats have left the real liberals and progressives in the dust as they hurry along trying to catch up with the well-heeled Republicans.
9
To bill b:
You have touted one political party as having "embraced math." Would that be the party that has grossly miscalculated the costs and extent of coverage of Obamacare? Would that be the party that has mis-governed Illinois to the fiscal brink?
Would the party that has "rejected bigotry" be the one that is putting the hammer to Christian bakers/florists/photographers who do not wish to provide services for same-sex weddings? (Not to be confused with denial of services to lgbt patrons generally.)
If you think that either party has a monopoly on virtue, you are myopic and a partisan.
jasper
You have touted one political party as having "embraced math." Would that be the party that has grossly miscalculated the costs and extent of coverage of Obamacare? Would that be the party that has mis-governed Illinois to the fiscal brink?
Would the party that has "rejected bigotry" be the one that is putting the hammer to Christian bakers/florists/photographers who do not wish to provide services for same-sex weddings? (Not to be confused with denial of services to lgbt patrons generally.)
If you think that either party has a monopoly on virtue, you are myopic and a partisan.
jasper
6
"There are, however, major hurdles for anyone determined to capitalize on the Trump campaign in order to force an internal realignment of the Republican Party. Trump has already demonstrated the ability to leap over one of those hurdles: the social conservatism of the Christian Right."
If we can cut right to the chase, the Trump movement is race-based. Game, set and match. The Bible Belt is as invested in racial division as it ever was. Groups like the Southern Baptist Convention were founded upon the back of slavery and the Southern hegemonic commercial enterprise in which black labor was appropriated for the benefit of a planter class that would cement its domination by strictly demarcating politicians along their narrow lines.
Mr. Edsall, any comparison between the rightward trends here and in Europe do not mesh. European countries were commercially invested in the slave trade but did not, geographically, for obvious reasons, have to deal with it as anything more than an abstraction.
Trump's base is descended from the Dixiecrats of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace and all the other race-mongering governors and senators and, yes, presidents. These disaffected workers, the soldiers in the war against black liberation and integration, reaped, for a time, the grudging benefits of the GOP hierarchy which soon abandoned them after using them.
They would sooner see an America ruined than continue its trajectory towards a humanism they were raised to hate without surcease.
If we can cut right to the chase, the Trump movement is race-based. Game, set and match. The Bible Belt is as invested in racial division as it ever was. Groups like the Southern Baptist Convention were founded upon the back of slavery and the Southern hegemonic commercial enterprise in which black labor was appropriated for the benefit of a planter class that would cement its domination by strictly demarcating politicians along their narrow lines.
Mr. Edsall, any comparison between the rightward trends here and in Europe do not mesh. European countries were commercially invested in the slave trade but did not, geographically, for obvious reasons, have to deal with it as anything more than an abstraction.
Trump's base is descended from the Dixiecrats of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace and all the other race-mongering governors and senators and, yes, presidents. These disaffected workers, the soldiers in the war against black liberation and integration, reaped, for a time, the grudging benefits of the GOP hierarchy which soon abandoned them after using them.
They would sooner see an America ruined than continue its trajectory towards a humanism they were raised to hate without surcease.
192
We sometimes play a little game while watching the video clips of Trump rallies: Spot the Nonwhite People. Harder to find than Waldo.
That says a lot. In a country that will soon be majority-nonwhite, one party is a blended palette of humanity and the other is nearly all-white.
That says a lot. In a country that will soon be majority-nonwhite, one party is a blended palette of humanity and the other is nearly all-white.
5
Tom, I keep reading these elite analyses of the political restructuring that the Drumpf campaign is allegedly ushering in - and yet fail to see where the actual institutional support for these policies will come from within the Republican Party.
Paul Ryan is still talking down Social Security and Medicare, and he is considered the GOP's intellectual leader. Drumpf was recently quoted as agreeing with Ryan's critique of Social Security.
The conservative think tanks like AEI and Heritage still have Social Security and Medicare within their crosshairs - and are still peddling the same old supply side snake oil, as is Drumpf with his tax plan. And Drumpf's plan can only be paid for by savage cuts in every other area of the Federal budget.
The problem with this entire argument is that Drumpf believes in nothing but "winning" - and will say absolutely anything to win, anything at all, even if it has a snowball's chance of hell of finding support with the Republican Party.
If Drumpf managed to win the Presidency, his single term (and he would only get one) would either be the mother of all political train wrecks - or a complete and utter repudiation of everything he ran on as a candidate, aside from the racism, xenophobia, and collective insanity that has overtaken the right.
As a person far more comfortable parsing zeitgeist, let me suggest that it's a terrible idea to draw conclusions while in the middle of a wave that you've yet to even identify.
Paul Ryan is still talking down Social Security and Medicare, and he is considered the GOP's intellectual leader. Drumpf was recently quoted as agreeing with Ryan's critique of Social Security.
The conservative think tanks like AEI and Heritage still have Social Security and Medicare within their crosshairs - and are still peddling the same old supply side snake oil, as is Drumpf with his tax plan. And Drumpf's plan can only be paid for by savage cuts in every other area of the Federal budget.
The problem with this entire argument is that Drumpf believes in nothing but "winning" - and will say absolutely anything to win, anything at all, even if it has a snowball's chance of hell of finding support with the Republican Party.
If Drumpf managed to win the Presidency, his single term (and he would only get one) would either be the mother of all political train wrecks - or a complete and utter repudiation of everything he ran on as a candidate, aside from the racism, xenophobia, and collective insanity that has overtaken the right.
As a person far more comfortable parsing zeitgeist, let me suggest that it's a terrible idea to draw conclusions while in the middle of a wave that you've yet to even identify.
440
Winning and doing anything to win is a more interesting take than the one Tom has chosen in this column although I do admire that Tom selects thought provoking slants on important topics week after week.
But it is fair to say that Trump is only the logical extreme of the gop's own scorched earth winning at all costs philosophy going back to bring us Nixon's Silent Majority that became the Moral Majority, both absolute fabrications in support of a win for the sake of winning strategy that once won, the winners did as they pleased then sold themselves to the highest bidder--so that they could still win.
You are correct though to highlight winning leadership and power that has no purpose (other than self gain). It is a headless power that will appeal to the lowest common denominator.
The question remains, just because the democratic party appeals to those who have achieved higher than a high school education, is there anything wrong with appealing to the HIGHEST common denominator?
The term alone jars so unfamiliar after the gop race to the bottom. It's time to replace race to the bottom lowest with a deliberate construction of the highest common denominator.
Such a consensus would include the uneducated AND the most educated working to common cause.
But it is fair to say that Trump is only the logical extreme of the gop's own scorched earth winning at all costs philosophy going back to bring us Nixon's Silent Majority that became the Moral Majority, both absolute fabrications in support of a win for the sake of winning strategy that once won, the winners did as they pleased then sold themselves to the highest bidder--so that they could still win.
You are correct though to highlight winning leadership and power that has no purpose (other than self gain). It is a headless power that will appeal to the lowest common denominator.
The question remains, just because the democratic party appeals to those who have achieved higher than a high school education, is there anything wrong with appealing to the HIGHEST common denominator?
The term alone jars so unfamiliar after the gop race to the bottom. It's time to replace race to the bottom lowest with a deliberate construction of the highest common denominator.
Such a consensus would include the uneducated AND the most educated working to common cause.
4
But with the election of Hillary Clinton, I hope we will see more optimism. With a woman in the White House, women and men will be encouraged to rise up in the workplace and in society. Thus, I believe that our first woman president will stimulate the economy, psychologically.
(I suggest that the Clinton people push the W card to the max. They can make the sign of a "W" by bringing both hands together with "V" signs.)
We put a man on the moon. Why not a woman in the White House?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------