Trump's game is simply his use of his OK sign, again and again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is the decider. He decides what is OK and what is not OK.
Trump Tweets what is to be done and what is true or false.
(For example, he keeps saying he wants a wall, again and again.)
When Trump decides, he sets off a wave of media attention.
Then, the media responds, with endless rambling protest.
I think one way to reveal Trump's game is to tease him about it.
We could copy his OK sign, repeatedly, with one or both hands.
And we could simply use the OK sign, again and again in writing.
OK, OK, OK?
----------------
When will the NY Times get Trump's OK game?
3
"..., polarize the American electorate along racial, cultural and economic lines..."
I think you are confused. These are common Democrat tactics.
3
Trump and his handlers had the insight that the core of the Republican Party had been culled to such an extent as to remove the need for dog whistles. Dog whistles have been the default method for going on the record in the primary on matters of race, while providing plausible deniability in the general. Lee Atwater’s thoughts on the subject are available on YouTube for anyone who doubts this.
But dog whistles can sound indecisive. I think this is as important to understanding Trump as anything else. Though his detractors perceive his public statements to be fickle and arbitrary, his base hears his speech patterns as decisive, as a push back against the deep state despite the short term costs. His actions reaffirm a perception of strength among a den of thieves. His promise to drain the swamp is a rhetorical tautology that keeps on giving, no matter what the pin-heads say about it. Maybe because of it. Steve Bannon loves nothing more than opinionated policy wonks running their mouths about the damage being done to civil society.
We can explain some of this by looking back to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of the alt right media. Trump is said to listen to television personalities instead of his advisors.
But it struck me when I heard his scripted grammatical errors in his State of the union speech, that something more primitive is at work in his rhetoric. Something that reminds me of the Khmer Rouge, who jailed men with soft hands or who wore glasses.
2
Please, America, let's not give Individual-1 all of the credit he definitely doesn't deserve since he's never been able to achieve any semblance of the attention span or strategic thinking required to pull off anything of such magnitude. He always has and always will be nothing more and nothing less than a grifter born on third base who finally got caught stealing home by selling out his country to its most nefarious sworn enemies. Back in the day, before 'political correctness,' his behavior would have been called out by all of the media of all stripes for exactly what was: Treason. And while I support the law and due process as well as the truth, the whole and nothing but the truth, now is the time to hold this amoral, illegitimately elected leader fully accountable for the egregious behavior that has threatened the very future of our democracy.
9
There is honestly nothing as stupid as "waiting for the old people to die off so that the Glorious Revolution can Be Accomplished. The "Old people" are today mostly boomers - in our youth, we were the revolution, and SHAZAMMMMM now we are the Counter-Reformation. It's always like that - as a youth, you are on grass, and as an old person its "get off my grass". We old people do not want a tidal wave of illegals here destroying this country. Fix that, and maybe we'll vote D.
"declining communities of the left-behinds” "
The elites among the economically raptured may be overwhelmed by the left-behinds gilet jaune.
Trump is also a big fan of 'breaking something' and then attributing the breakdown to be a "crisis" that "only I can fix." Call it 'government by self-sabotage', with Trump constantly painting himself as the savior to salve his gigantic ego. The "crisis at the border" is a prime example. Trump's "saving the world from nuclear war by North Korea" is another.
5
Hmm, so Edsall castigates Trump for divisive politics. And then immediately divides us into the righteous progressives and the evil cave dwellers.
Is this double-feint genius or bottom of rhetoric class failure?
3
Look, some of us just care about consistency. If the racist democrats in virginia, as well as the guy accused of two sexual assaults, don't resign or aren't impeached, then yes I will be voting Republican.
The Republican Party and Trumpists are a minority as was shown in 2016 and in 2018. Only systematic GOP gerrymandering and voter suppression coupled with massive Russian electoral interference put Trump in the Oval Office. Only huge voter turnout of the majority who detest Trump as the ignorant racist and con artist he is, as well as his Republican lackeys can restore our democracy.
4
It is not Trump's political magic for those who can overlook the more than 8000 documented lies Trump has told since in office, his self-confessed sexual predatory behavior, his willingness to separate immigrant children from their mothers, his Trump U fraud, his Trump Foundation fraud, etc., etc, Trump supporters are racists, uninformed or religious fundamentalists who think Trump is sent by their god.
5
"When THEY go low, WE go high."
Us vs. Them?
1
If you believe inciting hatred and discord among Americans is dishonorable and treasonous, the obvious conclusion is that Trump is the enemy. An exaggeration? Remember that law enforcement investigated the possibility that the president was working for Russia so they didn't think it was farfetched.
Sooner or later people will realize the enemy is not their next door neighbor, whatever that person's beliefs may be.
3
The Economist, organ of the UK elite, inadvertently explained Brexit in its current edition
"the new flows of Indian migrants will probably continue to grow. It will still be cheaper for firms to import a rotating cast of it contractors rather than train the native population."
The native population revolted,
===
https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/02/09/europeans-in-britain-are-packing-up-the-rest-of-the-world-is-moving-in
1
Authoritarian Populism? summed up as--
1) foreigners stealing our jobs, immigrants attacking our women, terrorists threatening our safety
2) defending “Us” against threats to “European values”);
3) strong leaders who protect customs (“I alone can fix it," “Believe me,” )
1 is xenophobia--internal (immigrants) and external (terrorists). "...immigrants attacking our women..."
Did Pippa write this? It implies women are owned by men (contrast "immigrants attacking our men"?!!). It implies that immigrants attacking their women is OK!
2 is also xenophobia. US vs THEM is a biologically deep rooted bias--love/help US; hate/harm THEM. It's the basis of all competition--from reproduction to sports, to business to politics and war (Darwin). The political U/T evolves from family to tribe to village, town city, state, country. Coincidentally it evolves from sticks and stones to nuclear weapons.
But Trump does not include Europe in US! It's THEM--just less so than Iran. So too Democrats, the Educated and truth lovers. US includes the rich, Saudis and the god-story righteous.
3 is xenophobia based--Big Brother will save you from THEM.
Civilization replaces zero/sum competition with underlying cooperation--agreements to compete according to rules--as in all games--and help for all losers. That's called "progress"--all progressives aim for it. The UN is just another Trumpie THEM
Authoritarian Populism is irrational fear, exploited by market con artists undermining progress.
2
What has happened in the days of Trump is not a movement away from Class Conflict but a flowering of that conflict where in the American case in was never a factor. Trump just has successfully kept it from so far appearing directing anger at ‘those people’ as he defines them. The swing in the Democratic Party leftward will ‘clarify’ that issue.
‘Who has benefited and who were their allies?’ will roar into place even though resisted by the purchased media.
Globalization and Inequality are real.
What the world needs today...in the words of the Dalai Lama, Nobel Laureate...he expresses his deep hope that Obama will continue his legacy of getting the world rid of nuclear arms.
Fresh interview of the Dalai Lama who wishes in the 21st century we get past us versus them and consider each of us as part of 7 billion humanity strong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W9Y8WY9IK8
2
Being educationally behind and economically in decline is hardly the ticket to success for the many Trump voters that blame their problems on the cosmopolitan and liberal.
There are real economic problems in rural areas that stem from globalization and the poor responses taken by the political leaders in these areas. Unfortunately, instead of working to get rational policies that would enable them to reorient their economies, they lash out at the urban, coastal residents who are paying most of the bills these days.
Trump entrenches their sense of victimhood, but cannot really reverse their decline. He can nibble around the edges by jawboning against the cultural liberalism and blaming foreigners and immigrants for the problem, but none of what he says or does will reverse the decline. That will take change in those regions.
They can hate us all they want, but it won’t change the economic path we’re on. Coal, steel, and 20th century approaches to manufacturing will not get them a 21st century standard of living. Like most populists, Trump can exploit the anger but he can’t fix the underlying problem.
8
@Jazz Paw - You are 100% on target and describe the town I live in. Wonderful folks that want solutions to sustaining this way cool place (if yer' a hick, anyway), but they don't want to venture too far out of their narrow, traditional lane. It's easier to blame "them". A conundrum.
1
I like Edsall's columns.
But whether they know it or not, the "Academic Elite," whom rural America distrusts----even those who are not racist--- makes their own problems with their narrowed outlook. It's pretty repulsive. An example:
Listening to a PBS pledge drive, they constantly refer to their giveaway items as "great for when you are going to the office!" As if the only people whom a neat water bottle appeals to are office workers!
This is gross. Most Americans don't do mindless and bean counting office work. And most of these "office workers" are just glorified Middle men. They are all worried about AI, when physical workers have lost their jobs and dignity to machines starting with John Henry. (if you know who he was in folk lore)
Democrats are helping with these societal divisions by being so removed from real life that they forget that this country is actually held together by manual labor. Big mistake.
And this was KQED in the SF Bay area.
12
@Nelly Thank you! I hope people read your comment.
1
We are in the middle of world change. People seem to be more interested in their personal well being and comfort than in the good of the whole. They certainly put less value on individual liberty than they do wealth. We who grew up in a different era feel that our freedom was everything and that working hard could get us anything we wanted. We now know that is wrong and no young person feels this way or cares. We will need a world conversation and understand that the people of India and China have a very different world view. The answer may not be blowing in the wind after all. There may be no answer.
1
We can't change the Republican worldview. They want to hole up in their gated communities and white nationalist enclaves . . .
What we *can* do is decide who is going to represent us. The leadership of the Democratic Party has been wa-ay behind the rank and file for at least the last half a dozen electoral cycles. They seem to be fixated on negotiating the least bad terms of surrender with right-wingers. This has been a losing strategy since Newt Gingrich and continues to be a losing strategy in the age of Trump. I'd rather lose fighting for the values I believe in than negotiate some right-wing "compromise."
If you are honest with yourself, we are now living in
The Un-united States. Ruled by oligarchs we can see (Trump and Co, Koch brother, Sheldon Adelson, Murdock, Mercer, et al) and --worse-- those we can't see. We are living in a rapidly fragmenting failed state that will need to be fundamentally restructured in order to survive the coming political, economic, and natural chaos. I'd far rather see the country break into regional self-governing entities rather than continue to be blocked at every turn by Christian bigots.
4
The single biggest divisive force in America is cable so called news. And. I am talking about all three of them - Fox, CNN and MSNBC. Each one of them is built on a business model of keeping us divided. They figure out what their viewers want to hear, then give it to them. Each one of them fabricates issues in a way designed to rile up its audience, and to get them in so much of a frenzy that they keep coming back for more. The bigger the audience, the more the advertising revenue, the bigger the profits.
Don’t ever forget that they are businesses that really have no principles other than making money. And they fool us into thinking that they have ideals. Trump is only a catalyst who provides these channels with a golden, literally, opportunity.
That’s why I am terrified when I hear people repeating, verbatim whatever they heard on their cable channel of choice, as if it were fact. The three cable news channels are essentially the same. Whip ‘em to a frenzy and they’ll want more.
Please for your own sake and for the future of this country, do not blindly follow what younhear, no matter how much you like it. Spend the time and effort to independently find out all the facts about any issue and then, only then, make up your mind.
If we all did that, I suspect we wouldn’t be that far apart after all.
5
When I saw the headline of Thomas Edsall's opinion piece, I allowed myself to think "By Jove, he's got it." For a nanosecond, I thought to myself, Edsall is finally going to call out the Democrats for decades of polarizing the country along racial and gender lines for their electoral profit.
Silly me. I should have known better. No prizes for guessing -- it is of course TRUMP who (according to Edsall) has pioneered "encouraging and exploiting division."
But I have two questions for Edsall. Hasn't the Democratic party espoused the narrative that the biggest problem facing black Americans is white Americans? Haven't Democrats endorsed the feminist narrative that virtually all professional or economic disparities between men and women (except those that favor women) is the result of male discrimination?
And a few follow up questions: If that view of white males is part of the official ideology of the Democratic party, why does it take "white nationalism" to drive them into the Republican party? Where else did they have to go?
Let's be fair: What Democrats call white nationalism is a direct result (or at least a byproduct) of a Democratic electoral strategy of deliberately inflaming minorities against the Americans formerly known as the "majority." Who taught America to see politics (and almost everything else) through the lens of our identities?
Let's place the lame where it belongs.
9
@Ian Maitland Yep. True. Thank you.
1
Wow, that's a whole lotta words without a single mention of the actual ruling class, who are the enemy of all workers and the health of the planet. The "schisms that have supplanted the class divisions that were once central..." have not supplanted them but are just distractions from them. There have only ever been 2 classes. There is always class war. Those who don't know it are all on the losing side. But that can change.
2
@Dan Coleman
And in the interest of clarity, please tell us if you think that the French yellow vest protesters who temporarily shut down Paris to protest conservation measures aimed at reducing pollution are members of the working class or the ruling class. They deemed themselves members of the former.
2
Dems should become wary of the Never Trumpe's like Bill Kristol, Max Boot and Joe Scarborough's who like to talk about "the Loony left." The general voter, urban or rural knows when things are unfair and morally wrong. Money in politics, tax breaks for the uber wealthy and lobbyists writing our laws is the "swamp." The media refusing to cover issues like net neutrality and accurately report what is and is not in the New Green Deal adds to the problem of divisions. We must become better citizens and make sure we understand these things when we support a candidate.
3
What is needed here is a kind of New Deal for America which will put everyone to work, whether it is in green energy, and infrastructure, or rebuilding America. Until and unless we do that which can in part address the inequality in our country we will devolve into a banana republic. We must put all of our efforts into education, into job creation and into reducing the vast inequality in our country. Unless and until that is done we will not survive. And make no mistake, the "cold war" currently happening between China and the United States is but a symptom of what is wrong with our country. We lash out at the most forward looking country in the world and seek to blame it for everything when what we should be doing it looking at how we can be better.
28
@Jordan Davies
"Work" implies that people can produce a product or service that someone else is willing to pay for (and at a mutually agreeable exchange rate). Creating jobs with public money might foster work, but might also simply create the illusion of work. And of course, there is the funding issue. Maybe some of these new jobs could be printing more money.
1
@Bob Krantz
We have MORE job openings posted than people receiving unemployment compensation. That has ONLY happened under The Jobs President, Donald Trump.
The far-left progressives call themselves fixing a problem that doesn't exist. It WILL exist whenever Democrats run the country because control over people and concentrating power in the federal gov't are the priorities of the Democratic Party.
1
@The Observer
And how many of those jobs pay a livable wage, are full-time, and come with health insurance and other benefits? Unemployment numbers don't tell the whole story because they leave out those who are underemployed in part-time, minimum-wage, no benefits "gigs." Additionally, how many of those jobs are at companies that will hire people over 50 or 60 years old, or those with limited education? How many are in rural areas?
10
Not all of us love or hate Trump, but sense a void, an absence, where the Nation is functioning uneasily on semi automatic pilot.
There will be Americans who will profit from this state of affairs, while for others it will be sheer good luck if we land on our feet. There is a lot of venom and spite to be found in our comments during this era in our history where we are still in the 20th century.
Earlier when reading what the New York Times Editorial Board had to write of the latest weather in France, I forwarded the above to a friend in Paris, adding 'We are no longer living in Cranford'.
And then I indulged in a bit of nostalgia for I saw standing next to the French President, deemed arrogant towards the Workers, a tall man with his sleeves rolled up addressing The People. It is the most curious matter, Mr. Edsall, but his name is Barack Obama.
We may be seeing Our Last President.
2
Last night I started reading Jung's "The Undiscovered Self" (1957). It was eerily on target for us today. Except that he did not know how easy it is now with the internet "for doctrinaire and authoritarian tyranny" to spread its influence.
"Rational argument can be conducted with some prospect of success only so long as the emotionality...does not exceed a certain critical degree. If the affective temperature rises above this level, the possibility of reason's having any effect ceases and its place is taken by slogans and chimerical wish-fantasies." This can result in a influential segment of society whose "mental state is that of a collectively excited group ruled by affective judgments and wish-fantasies." No kidding.
44
@onlein: It is a waste of time to negotiate with people like Trump because they play exclusively on emotions and deny or ignore facts.
3
Which side do you consider guilty of that - bc I think both sides think that of each other right now. Conservatives think that an irrational and unfair and unconsidered hate for Trump, perpetuated by the media, has effectively shut down all rational conversation. He’s done a lot of very caring things for minorities that are never discussed - such as exposing the racism in Palm Beach society and suing country clubs for not allowing black people and Jewish people to join. I feel like if Obama has done that it would be the feel good story of the year. Other things he’s done - jobs. This myth that conservatives are racist is what is making conversation irrational
4
@First Gen: Trump took a loss by 3 million popular votes as a mandate for revolution. Would you do that?
The Democrats are reaping the result of decades of identity politics. The Democratic party doesn't stand for equality. It stands for increasing the power of particular groups, but it has no commitment to doing so in any fair or objective way.
Affirmative action is racial discrimination that primarily helps affluent African Americans and Latinos due solely to their membership in a group rather than personal obstacles overcome, and it does so at the expense of whites and Asians who may have had less actual privilege but punished for being in a particular group that is deemed to deserve to be held back.
Or what about the BDS movement that rails against the Israeli state on questionable grounds while completely ignoring the egregious human rights abuses by Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia. Indeed the entire region has a rotten record on everything from the treatment of foreign workers to basic freedoms like speech and of the press.
There's also a troubling tendency to reduce any disagreement on policy to "racism" - a loaded accusation that instantly kills any chance at productive dialogue. For example, if you don't support a de facto open borders policy you are a "racist xenophobe." And yes trying to deny the government both the ability to send people home (ICE deportations) and the ability to keep them from crossing the border is support for open borders.
Those types of positions are inherently an Us vs Them mindset. Trump just capitalized on it.
8
Trump has achieved one thing: the increased polarization and intolerance of others' opinions that we have seen rise exponentially since Trump announced his candidacy.
Trump has a negative, bullying charisma that his base seems to take vicarious pleasure in watching.
This has happened at the same time as the targeted, degrading uses of social media platforms have multiplied. We have Trump, the polarizer, added to the outrage platforms of the internet. And we are all affected by it; we are all triggered.
The center will have to fight to be heard in this climate, but fight we must. Don't believe anyone of EITHER party when they tell you what you must stand for. Social Security and Medicare have not turned us into a socialistic society. Most Democrats are not on board with the Green New Deal, which is exactly why Senator McConnell wants to bring it to a vote in the Senate. He wants to tag all Democrats with it. Democrats, the choices we face are not between a 70% tax on the wealthy or no increase in their taxes.
And are we going to reject every single person who has an ugly skeleton in their closet? Or are we going to use our judgment to consider which persons have demonstrated positive change in their behavior?
I am a well-educated, fairly liberal, fairly progressive person, but there are a number of cultural and technological changes in our society that sometimes make me feel:
"Stop the world; I want to get off."
But it is still my world, too.
2
There’s no real mystery to this. It’s a classic strategy used by authoritarian leaders on their followers. In exchange for total loyalty and obedience, the ‘strong leader’ promises his followers a simple view of the world: them against their enemies, who are to blame for everything wrong in the world, and only he can protect them from those enemies.
Most of these leaders are power-hungry manipulators with little to no empathy. They will say and do anything to take and hold power, say any lie. Their followers suspend any critical thought processes - what matters is loyalty to the leader (who typically is loyal only to himself) and standing firm against the “other”.
You can talk about class, race, populism - but this is the underlying dynamic. It’s a world view shaped by personality and habit, and it’s difficult for a follower to escape from it. Only something they see as a betrayal can shake their faith in their leader.
Go take a look at John Dean’s “Conservatives Without Conscience” for a look at it in depth.
As long as we do not find a better way to cope with authoritarian mindsets, this will be a problem.
3
Do we include in the category of authoritarian impulses the provisions of AOC's Green Deal calling for the near-elimination of an entire industry (commercial air transport)?
5
Yes, of course, Trump is using the "divide and conquer" approach used forever by Republicans, but he's placed it on steroids. He and the Republicans are counting on the opposition to be fractured along demographic bounds to beat them.
Up until recently the Dem's Third Way approach, relying on identity politics and "litmus tests" played right into that trap, but we're seeing signs that this is changing. While Democrats might be moving left, it's only after decades of moving right, and while this may push some of the moderates out, they were a drag on the party's commitment to their former base, the working and middle class. And while there may be what was once considered a more radical agenda being pursued, there is also pragmatism in the recognition that when all is said and done, defeating Trump and winning back Congressional control is the #1 priority around all Democrats must rally, regardless of any differences.
Trump will try to scare the voters by smearing Dems as "socialists", and using Venezuela as a "boogeyman", but the Democrats should embrace their SOCIALLY-based agenda, not run from it. They won't win over the voters who buy Trump's swill anyway.
One thing I wish the MSM would stop doing is equating populism with the right - it is neither right nor left. It's a philosophy based on helping the common people. The New Deal was populist. Using it as a right wing synonym only serves to further divide the 99% and help the 1% maintain control.
Unite vs. Trump!
2
I am not an American. I live where the majority have little ability to believe in the God in your pledge of allegiance. Many of us believe you are headed for a collision with the 21st century and we may all be destroyed by the tsunami.
We know when AOC said we had 12 years to turn the ship around that those that measure weigh and count 12 years is maximum and it may already be too late.
America doesn't need a president as much as it needs a psychiatrist. Your reality and your perception are out of sync. You need to shrink your economy not grow it; we already have too much and growth beyond sustainability seems to dictate only one conclusion.
7
91 per cent of American teenagers strongly support putting Trump on a rocket to Mars.
4
First there was alarm and disbelief, then a sense of relief that the institutions of democracy are holding up. Now repeated lies and incompetence are getting tiresome. Can Trump survive being boring?
1
Missing entirely here is any mention of the Identitarian Left, who have not only divided the Dems and left leaning from the right, but also sown poisonous seeds of discord among those on the left. The Identitarian Left presents as intersectional victims who cry oppression at any opportunity, and try to out-victim each other, tearing apart potential alliances that may form to take on the right. They see problems with anyone who is not them. For example, if you are a black, female, trans, Muslim you have all kinds of status over someone who doesn't have all those victim badges. If you are a white, cis gendered male, you are the oppressor, even though you might be a left leaning potential ally . They should be on the same team but because one identifies as the victim and sees the other the oppressor, they are enemies. So, it's not just the right who are dividers, it's the left and it's Identitarian wing. The extremes on both sides are to blame.
8
@Andio....While there is a measure of truth too what you say it is like comparing a mouse with an elephant. The both sides are to blame is nothing but a sorry excuse for supporting a President who is a vulgar bigoted narcissist .
2
@W.A. Spitzer To use your analogy, the left will die by 1000 mice tearing each other apart while the elephant keeps dancing. My point is to bring up the obvious omission in the article, one which those of us on the left often overlook: far left divisiveness can be just as damaging as Trump's divisiveness. If you need proof then look no further than the fracture that's already weakening the Dems, the new progressives vs the centrists.
1
I took an Uber ride the other morning (no choice, as I have stage 4 cancer, needed to go to treatments and had to other ride). The driver was listening tot he news, which as usual featured the "shutdown." He sighed and turned to me to say, "Why don't we just give him what he wants so this doesn't happen?" When I tried to explain, he shook his head to stop me and said, "I guess I don't know that much about economics and all that. I had a public school education." End of discussion.
There's your answer ... we are raising dumber and dumber kids across a wealth divide. Too poor for a "good" school? Just go sit somewhere to be babysat until you're either old enough for the military or prison. Or another gig economy job.
5
Various studies with their numbers, groups of polled people, derived information and created understandings are presented with a tone of certitude. In which reality's ever-present dimensions are absent. Uncertainties. Unpredictabilities. Randomness. Lack of total control over any parameters, notwithstanding the types, levels, and qualities of efforts made by any stakeholder individual and system. These numbers, presented in a culture in which many "suffer" from innumeracy, are not helpful. At the very least they can be misleading. Consider: after reading this article, whatever one's beliefs-"why bother?" What is the Index of Complacency in this divided nation, with its diverse populations, today? How many of those polled behave, daily, as well as in the polling booth, with willful blindness about what is but should not be? Are wilfully deaf to experienced, voiced existential pains? And unaffected by muted anguish? Are ignorant by choice to available, accessible, generalizable facts, unmixed with fictions, fantasies garbed as "alt-facts?"
Numbers, just like words, are not the IT that they are created to represent. To describe. To explain. To question. To answer.
They are no more than tools to be used as accurately as possible, acknowledging their limitations, as each of us acknowledges our own flawed BE ing. The quality of predictable-"evidence," is not likely to be much better in our scientific statisticalized age than it was during the times of the Biblical prophets.
Two points on this important discussion: Hillary's negatives were the result of propaganda, both from the Republicans and from the Russians. She was eminently qualified and never charged with any crime. But her "negatives" allowed Donald to win.
The other point is more nebulous. Unless there is a fascist gene that some people inherit, it's grossly unlikely that Donald just picked all this up by observation and research. Nobody would confuse Trump with an academic.
But the party of division and the party of inclusion will have another test. I suspect the big tent kumbaya democrats will win out in the cultural wars.
The problem is, what do we do about Donald's core support: the racists, sexists, chauvinists, religious oppressors and the people who just don't care about anybody else?
6
Picture the look on Trump's face at the moment he is told Elizabeth Warren is the nominee. Does it bother you that he is smiling? Why is he smiling. Should the Democratic party select a nominee who he is so happy to face?
1
In other words, people disagree about things.
3
Sincere opponents of Trump (i.e., anyone with at least half a brain) are well advised to keep the discourse measured. Perspective. Feet on the ground. Priority.
For example, the crusade against anyone who ever posed in "blackface" is a dangerous boomerang. Or, a runaway locomotive. Don't let it catch the train as lead engine.
3
@Carling - Those born in "blackface" who still face the prospect of implicit and/or explicit discrimination on a daily basis probably see the danger somewhat differently.
In 2016, Trump represented something new to alienaated middle class voters. I attended a middle class high school and he captured the mood of the majority. But contrary to popular belief, the middle class is a diverse group. Some are broadly dissatisfied, but some have found the road to happiness. And those who are doing well have largely abandoned Trump. The middle class of 2016 is not the middle class of 2020, and Trump's strategy of alienation is losing sway with many of his supporters of 2016.
Trump's pervasive anger speaks to the angry middle class. But the middle class is no longer united against liberal ideas. Hope is now part of their agenda, and hope lies with the Democrats.
2
I think we are in this situation because elites decided to pursue two things at once: neoliberal globalization and multiculturalism. The first undermined economic security. The second rocked cultural and social identities. Having both these happen at once created populist authoritarian resistance. It has been shown in many studies that tolerance is related to prosperity. If you remove prosperity, people get anxious and many look for someone to blame. If the liberal order goes down, this toxic combination of goals will be the reason. The elites will have themselves to blame.
7
@lucidbee "E Puribus Unum" means "Out of many, One". The US is one of the most pluralistic of countries in a pluralistic and shrinking world. If we can't all get along here, we're going to destroy the world.
2
@lucidbee You suggest that there is a group of individuals who have the power to "decide" and to "pursue" a particular course (globalization, multiculturalism) for our society and that the "non-elites" are mere sheep, powerless to resist the "decision" of the elites.
Next time you "decide" to buy the cheapest watch or clothing and not necessarily something that is produced domestically, are you being forced to do so by the "elites" or are you just buying the cheapest offering in the global market?
If you eat tofu are you being forced to by the "elites" or are you just experiencing something new? At such times, do you feel the "elites" pressuring you into accepting "multiculturalism"?
Or are we all members of a society that is merely trying to lower prices and broaden our experiences? I try not to blame others for the decisions I make even if the collective outcome of such decisions is "globalism or multiculturalism."
1
Maybe in selling their "extremist" stances, for example returning to a high tax rate, Democrats should campaign along the lines that, in order to Make America Great Again, we should return to the top tax that we had then, for example the 91% tax rate that was in place in 1962, a year in which our GDP was over 6% after deficit spending by the Democrats brought America out of a recession.
Make America Great Again - bring back the 91% top tax rate!
@John In 1962 there were restrictions on capital movement and the USA had very few economic threats. It's a very different world now and extremely high tax rates would have a negative impact overall.
2
@Abbott Hall: The US is on the low end of public sector contribution to the total economy among first world nations, even with its astronomical military expenditures.
4
The groupings cited to distinguish between Trump’s supporters and those who oppose him in terms of authoritarian verses liberal are not well identified. We know that authoritarians and liberal preferences are rarely mutually exclusive and they change as circumstances change. What we do know is that liberal democracy is founded upon mutual trust and autocracy upon mistrust and a strong charismatic leader to act for one faction by compelling all others to conform with their preferences.
1
@Casual Observer: Liberals liberate. Authoritarians bully people.
"Economic distress, they argue, reinforces cultural alienation to produce fertile terrain for Trump."
Edsall's glossing over the fact this narrative, despite being often repeated since 2016, is not supported by any evidence. In fact, much of the data (including some by Nate Silver, who is a NYT contributor) has debunked the "economic distress" narrative. Exit polling shows median income of Trump voters to be not only above median income of both Clinton and Sanders voters but above the national median. Consistent with previous elections, white voters with income below $30k tend not to vote but when they do tend to vote Democrat. Clear preference for Republican starts at $60k.
The people pushing the "economic distress" narrative tend to conflate the fact that areas dominated by Trump voters are poor with the notion that the Trump voters themselves are poor. However, my own experience living in a conservative rural area (as well data that have emerged since 2016) shows that Trump voters tend to be the relatively well off people in those areas. They tend to be small business owners or managers, factory forepersons, law enforcement or corrections officers, etc. These are not actually people struggling to get by. There are poor people around them but, as I mentioned, those folks don't actually vote in significant numbers.
If Mr. Edsall is going to write about Trump's divisive politics, he should casually toss in a bit about economic distress when it has been largely debunked.
2
There are tow kinds of voters in the United States: Those that continue to support Donald Trump and those who respect this nation and everything it has fought and died for. There is no overlap between these groups whatsoever. Every other political division is minor by comparison.
4
@Jefflz - how simple your life must be, being able to only see things in such terms.
Good for the rest of us that you're wrong.
4
Oh my. Follow the money
The division is between the urban elite - enjoying their $ 460 , 55" TV from China - and the former lower middle class - that lost the jobs making TVs'
The very poor, always, hat nothing left to lose.
The financial elite got uber rich moving jobs to China.
8
If the white, mainly male Christians, who see Donald Trump as their bastion against people of color – whether immigrants or not – hold firm for Trump, he has an unshakeable minority which gives him freedom to lie shamelessly to the rest of the electorate.
A large majority of the electorate opposes Trump, and they want a re-affirmation of the liberal democracy upon which our nation was founded. Trump, however, can whittle down the liberals and moderates to a very thin majority by aggressive voter suppression.
Mainstream Republicans, to the extent any remain, have shown a willingness to play along with Donald Trump in his deal with the devil. As long as Trump appears to be succeeding in his divide-and-conquer campaign, G.O.P. leaders will back him.
One serious slip by the grifter at the helm of the ship, and the opportunistic Republican rats will abandon the whole crooked enterprise quickly.
2
Nailed it. Trump doesn't care about rural working-class voters. He just identified the best group that would fall for his message.
3
@Wilson Do Democrats care about rural working class voters ? Doesn't seem that way from comments here....
4
Good piece, but the author buried the truth about the meaning of recent changes in the Democratic party. Left wing extremism, as touted by pols and the press for its baiting antagonistic potential, is liberalism, and reflects humanistic, democratic values. Few liberals want a socialist government; they are open to democratic socialist principles and policies that promote and preserve a healthy egalitarian society with far less economic polarization.
4
So, it is bad to be liberal, and even worse to be social, on the "Them" side, as seen from my perspective.
1
The great happiness we were promised by the instigators of that “silent revolution,” which liberated us from the strictures of religion, tradition, family, marriage, authority – as well as many injustices and stupidities - has not panned out. The statistics on divorce, addiction, depression, suicide, etc., tell us that.
We are coarser, meaner, less generous, less disciplined, less happy. Our "let it all hang out" culture is ugly.
Everything since has been about mitigating the damage, about finding new civilizational bulwarks to replace the ones which have been torn down.
This is our Brave New World. Good government is necessary. Policies, programs and the politics that create it are necessary. But they are not going to save us. To quote Sting, “there is no political solution.” It’s going to take unofficial, home-grown, community and interpersonal efforts to pull us out of our civilizational slide.
Vote wisely. Reject utopians and reactionaries alike this election.
4
@Livonian Bingo! What a brave comment - how dare anyone suggest that there's an emotional downside to doing away with marriage, family, community, lasting friendships, religion or any of our old fashioned grandparents' "bourgeois" confinements.
4
@Livonian
Not so sure people in earlier eras were happier -- there was a lot that wasn't talked about or admitted to, but it was there. My grandmother was molested as a child, and her mother was an alcoholic -- in 1918. Less divorce was largely because it wasn't an option for women who had no means of supporting themselves without a husband and no family who would carry them. Suicides always happened, they just weren't talked about, in part because Catholic (and I think Jewish but I'm not 100% sure?) cemeteries would not accept suicides for burial. I'm not convinced that the average person today is so much less happy without authority telling them what to do. They may just be more open about that unhappiness.
5
@Nikki
I don't want to over-romanticize the "good ol' days," but I think it's incumbent upon us to take measure of the enormous cost of our liberation. and to possibly rescue some value from the ashes.
2
As a former libertarian not unsympathetic to this ethical view, I found it interesting that Trump uses libertarian rhetoric in his SOTU speech to attack "socialism."
Thomas B. Edsall quotes Trump, "America was founded on liberty and independence — not government coercion, domination, and control." Completely overlooking generations of slavery, Trump sounds libertarian.
The central libertarian idea is the non aggression principle prohibiting initiation of force and using fraud against others. This is vague since aggression depends on a theory of rights. Libertarians accept the rights of life liberty and justly acquired property.
Of course, Trump is no libertarian. He is trying to outlaw abortion; he has used coercion, domination and control of immigrants; he threatened to exterminate 26 million North Koreans, and has exterminated innocent people in the Middle East. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/middle-east-civilian-deaths-have-soared-under-trump-and-the-media-mostly-shrug/2018/03/16/fc344968-2932-11e8-874b-d517e912f125_story.html?utm_term=.4a5f5c9b2fc7
In his business dealings, he allegedly engaged in fraud.
Don't get hornswoggled -- Republicans are as statist as Democrats, but in quite different ways. That Republicans utilize libertarian rhetoric is due to lacking principles to unify their agenda.
12
"Americans are evenly divided in their assessment of Trump’s repeated denials that neither he nor his campaign ever coordinated with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton."
Hilary Clinton defeated Hilary Clinton.
1. As Secretary of State, she put an email server in her home for SOS emails instead of using the official state.gov email.
2. When subpoenaed by Congress for her over 30,000 emails on that server, she hired a firm to use special disk wiping software to totally delete those subpoenaed emails.
3. She gave 3 talks to Goldman, the icon of Wall Street and the 2008 financial crisis for $675,000 in secret -- the media wasn't invited.
4. She called Trump supporters who by and large had been suffering from their working class jobs sent to China and Mexico, "deplorables."
Clinton handed Trump a victory by losing industrial Blue States Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by small margins.
Clinton was purchased by wealthy donors. By contrast, Trump received a far lower proportion of money from wealthy donors. If Clinton had only used the state.gov email servers, not given secret talks to Goldman, and had empathy for people instead of calling them deplorables, she most certainly would have won.
I don't like a Democratic Party that elects two candidates that are so anti-Israel.
I don't like Democrats who are against Amazon creating 25,000 jobs in NYC.
Edsall needs to *focus on issues such as these* and less on Trump bashing
11
This article mixes up the direction of causation here. The divide between the "haves" and "have nots" in our progressively complex and unforgiving society was present well before Trump recognized it and appealed to those that have long known the system is rigged against them. While those that have benefitted from the rigging are clearly less aware of it.
Just as MLK came to appreciate, ECONOMIC justice is the key to social justice. Econonic liberal reforms are PREVENTED by the Democratic party and establishment, who prefer to considate their own power usings SOCIAL liberal agendas (using "us vs. them" tactics against conservatives.) Democrats, in general (as well as Independents, who are far more numerous), are actually MORE liberal where it counts, i.e. economically, than the democratic primary voters. Notice in this article that all comparisons made between these two groups involve social measures of liberalism - and not economic. Had they considered questions about 'economic fairness', like, redistributing access to wealth or higher education they would see that the Democratic party faithful are MORE conservative than the Democrat-leaning public (and Independents); they protect their position of affluence within the establishment. Whenever this misperception comes up, the democratic party faithful villainize Trump or the Republicans, like an octopus squirting out an ink cloud as it flees.
6
@carl bumba
Yet I love how nobody in Congress, including the Democrats, brings up the real way to discourage illegal immigration: lock up the employers who hire illegals. Hitting a corporation with a fine is not good enough. They either consider it a cost of doing business, or declare bankruptcy and open up under a new name. Human beings who make the decisions to hire illegals (knowingly or implicitly by having lax verification practices) need to go to jail. Stop the hiring, you will stop the immigration. But of course, nobody in our bought-and-paid for Congress would advocate that.
6
Both parties have expertly polarized the electorate with social issues, abortion, guns etc., because they both follow the same general economic agenda: the primacy of the corporate economic agenda.
Edsall's claim that "class divisions that were once central to" the US political arena is ridiculous. If it were true, the class warfare the rich have been waging against the rest of us would have been the main topic of every economic news report.
Instead, the only references to class warfare are when the rich complain about taxation and social programs representing wealth redistribution downward. Even liberal corporate-media such as the Times refuse to acknowledge that the lion's share of wealth redistribution flows upward.
7
Given the divisive and divergent political attitudes, so crisply outlined in this opinion piece, it seems to me obvious that vesting so much power in one person/president (especially one unwilling or incapable of understanding or carefully navigating complex and dynamic social / economic / geopolitical issues) is a tradition we can no longer tolerate without more proactive and public regulation by Congress.
But it seems far too may actors are infecting the Achilles Heel of our limping democracy. Even the appropriation of "Socialist" models for much needed reform is unlikely be our undoing; the contentious "us" and "them" schisms -- emerging in every sector of our social structure and fueled by authoritarian rhetoric (demonstrating some of "human nature" at its worst) -- offer much greater, existential risks.
2
@DoneBitingMyTongue: There is no integrity of language on the right wing side of this divide. They project their own tyrannical dispositions on liberals and their own sociopathies on socialists.
What Edsell ignores is that a lot of culturally conservative Democrats - and Republicans - are economically liberal - supporting government responsibility for healthcare, for example.
The Democratic Party's problem isn't its declared cultural tolerance, but that it has long soft pedaled and outright abandoned economic policies supported by the vast majority of poor, working class and middle class people.
As a recent study showed, Sanders was supported by many conservative Democrats in primaries, who later voted for Trump in the general.
Lesson? Sanders' unapologetic fulminations against a politics that benefits the rich - and calls for government run healthcare for all - was supported by "populists" over a) the right liberal Democrat, and b) the right wing "populist"...
...until the choice became a right liberal or the ring wing populist.
Then, those conservative Dem's who went for Trump were more susceptible to his right wing themes - and, also, susceptible to his anti-Washington rhetoric because of a justified sense that Washington DC had long sold them out:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16194086/bernie-trump-voters-study
8
I believe in environmentalism, gender equality, and human rights but think that cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism threaten those things.
An overly heterogeneous society is a society that can't get along with itself. This is what the left misses. At every turn history subverts the idea of too much diversity being a good thing. Rodney King famously asked whether we all could just get along. The answer is no. We are bands of warring apes, all we ever were and all we ever will be. Believe that.
The right misses the fact that authoritarian regimes are unstable and prone to violence and are destructive of human happiness.
I can't stand the Democrats. They make me sick to my stomach. I can't stand the Republicans. They make me want to get sick and then emigrate.
6
@vbering
I'm with you, but I would quibble a bit: the left loves "diversity," as defined by multiple colors, languages, genders and lifestyles.
But they are utterly intolerant of different values and ideas. Just drop by the average college nowadays.
They dropped promoting "tolerance" a long time ago. Now it's celebrate X, be 100% Woke, or you're ex-communicated from society.
3
@vbering: The whole world has shrunken to the point that it is cosmopolitan and multicultural.
1
Reminds me of a former president who liked to inveigh against, "millionaires, billionaires, and corporate jet owners." I recall him attacking Supreme Court Justices sitting in front of him during the SOTU address. Then, he invited the Speaker of the House to discuss health care plans, only to accuse him of being un-American on national tv. His party even did a political ad showing the Speaker pushing a woman in a wheelchair off a cliff.
Ah, I pine for the good old days before Trump, when the country was much more unified.
5
@Liberty hound: I recall Samuel Alito mouthing the words "That's not so!" when Obama noted that the "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling turned the entire political process over to corporate bribery. Is that what you call an "attack"?
3
Trump is in power because Democrats have difficulty in focusing on actually defeating Trump.
Diversity in Congress is good, but not in an absolute sense.
We don't need to diversify Congress by putting more antisemites in the Congress. That is the wrong kind of diversity.
This newly elected Congresswoman is a refugee from Arab chaos in her country of birth.
She has a long history of antisemitic views. That was well known.
Why would the Democratic House leadership put this known antisemitic Congresswoman on the prestigious House Foreign Relations Committee immediate upon her arrival in the House?
What did she do to earn a seat on the House Foreign Relations Committee?
This was absolutely perfect for Trump.
This plays directly into Trump's hand and he is of course using it against the Democrats quite effectively.
6
Donald D. Trump is a fool and a racist. Unlike his counterparts in the House and the Senate, Trump didn't bother to lie and smile at the same time.
President Trumps isn't the first nor will he the last white racist who's occupies the White House. Mr. Edsall you speak as if Mr. Trump is anomaly when historical Mr. Trump isn't an exception, he's been the rule. Stop acting as if this is something new in the body politic in the United States of America.
Racism will be the downfall of the United States. It's been 4 centuries of "Us vs Them". What clueless Trump and his voters don't understand, it's over. If you can't deal with a recession, I doubt you'll be able to deal with pain that's to come. Life for the strong... buck up.
3
"...exploit the schisms that have supplanted the class divisions that were once central to both American and European partisan politics."
So, how did that happen?
The elite (and I'm not talking about college professors or the media or any of the tropes thrown out by the right) are pretty slick. Get everyone all het up about identity politics, race, immigration, crime - all of which are not of real concern when you're of the elite - and they will miss the truth. Which is, that all of those things actually have much less effect on one's life, day to day, than the huge wealth disparity between the upper and lower classes.
Some of those things are caused, or exacerbated, by the wealth gap. Others don't get addressed because of the gap; the wealthy are the loudest squeaky wheel in any room.
Donald Trump is the living embodiment of this. Ironic, because he's a fake member of that elite. He had to lie, cheat, and steal, and probably sell out his country, to stay there (or, at least, maintain the charade), after blowing the family fortune his father left him.
3
The article makes the below key point:
“Most Democrats will have as their prime goal — far more important than positions taken by the candidates — making sure Trump does not have a second term.”
So, which candidate(s) have the best chance of beating Trump? Will the primaries achieve this goal? How does one evaluate the candidates on the this basis?
To me, the candidate needs to continually point out how much a liar Trump is. He/she during the presidential debates must pound away on this matter. Eg, Donald, you said that.... Well, that was a complete lie. The truth is....
Also, attacking him on his three promises: maga, wall, and the swamp. Showing how he has failed on these.
And maybe we will get to see his income tax returns which might also be a powerful issue to raise against him.
1
We typically blame Washington D.C. in general and politicians in particular for our polarization problems. But they’re just conduits, significant and consequential though they may be. The real source, truth be told, is us. For we are the ones who directly and indirectly shape their opinions and thus their legislative actions (or inactions). The gridlock on Capitol Hill is our gridlock. The polarization is ours.
This is, however, no easy truth. For even though partisans on both sides of a hotly debated issue may be willing to admit the polarization problem and address it, there may be uncompromising moral values at stake for both sides.
Take the deeply divided opinions concerning our sitting President. While I, for one, am willing to admit and take responsibility for my role in the polarization, at the same time I can not change the fact that I count myself among those who morally loathe the racist, misogynistic, fraudulent, mendacious and deeply divisive actions of the man currently occupying the Oval Office. And I will continue to act and speak and vote commensurate with that loathing.
That’s why I personally see no way out of the present us-vs.-them morass, because our rhetorical battles ultimately boil down to propositions that function like immovable moral citadels. Nonetheless I hope, however naively, that truth and love will prevail, that truth and love will win the day against dishonesty and hate, against obfuscation and apathy, against ignorance and discord.
4
Just how very low have we sunk in America when "encouraging and exploiting division" is praised as a working tool for "electoral prospects'.
What a corrupt, back-biting nation we have become.
70
@JM
Amen! And the most divisive issues now are the Green New Deal, Virginia political leadership disgrace and infanticide abortions. McConnell will get Dems on the record for Green Deal, especially those running in 2020. The top three Dems in my state are mired in scandals with Northampton and Fairfax in the most peril. The "at birth" abortion legislation starting in NY and Virginia is spreading now to six other states. All three of these will be major issues in the 2020 election.
An outstanding article which explains what is really going on. I have been waiting for this information for over two years.
Everyone, including both sides of the ideological divide, should read this!
Thank you, Mr. Edsall and the New York Times! The Times, with its efforts to help maintain the country's democratic values, is one of the best elements of American life.
2
The division is really only a battle between capitalism and socialism. Everything else is only a ploy to rally voters against Trump. Hence the following rally cries from the left: "Trump's a racist." "Trump's xenophobic." "Trump's misogynist." "Trump's homophobic." He's none of these things. In fact, here's the holy grail in case you don't buy any of the above mantras: "Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election. He didn't, and we all knew it. All of these statements are used to galvanize different groups to vote against Trump. Thus, the rallies against Trump by women's groups, black lives matter, antifa, etc; they are used to remind the Dem's voting base to vote against Trump and the evil that he represents.
All of these marches are put together with the help of individuals or groups that would like to see socialism take hold in America. So remember the manufactured divisions don't really exist. They are only falsehoods put forth by Trump detractors to advance socialism in America.
4
@Mark: Trump lies, double down lies, and triple lies for good measure. It is all of a kind with Trump's lies about the impact of border fencing on the El Paso violent crime rate. This kind of person is a complete waste of time to negotiate with at all.
6
Wow. Pot meet kettle. The left wing is absolutely blind to how dogmatic and authoritarian they have become. Far more than the right these days. Their hypocrisy in excusing their own behavior while criticizing the right is truly extraordinary. The fear that you project might be far better scrutinized by yourself and reflecting your own subverted and twisted democratic principles. The hysteria is turning into a witch hunt.
6
When dealing with Trump, you rely on polls of emotional response. When dealing with the Dems (particularly Progressives), you rely on polls of ideology and then confuse or conflate them with polls on policy positions. From all this, it is rather easy to see that the Democratic establishment will stir as much anti-Trump sentiment as possible without committing to anything remotely substantive. That progressive policy positions are, and have been, widely popular only scares them more. Trump is an idiot, but he's not the bogeyman they make him seem. As a strategy, it failed miserably in 2016, and will do so again in 2020.
3
What is most crucial about the statistics cited is that they show that roughly two-thirds of all voters support key Democratic initiatives such as raising the minimum wage. That means that policies the right wing (and even some mainstream press) treat as extreme are actually quite centrist and in tune with what most of the people want. If Democrats focus their platform on bread-and-butter issues such as fair wages, access to health care, jobs, and infrastructure, and downplay hot-button issues like abortion, they can win.
4
@Nikki: Democrats consider abortion to be a private matter with too many variables to nail down in legislation. We are not the people conducting a political religious war and court-biasing campaign to impose theocracy via legislation to micro-manage pregnancy. They are.
6
@Steve Bolger
True, but if we let them make that a central issue, they win by firing up single-issue voters and taking airtime away from our less divisive messages. I'm not saying the Democrats shouldn't be pro-choice, I'm saying they should not allow the focus to be drawn to that issue rather than raising the minimum wage, healthcare, Social Security, etc.
1
I agree the extremes are more extreme than anytime I can remember. I think the Democrats need to tone down the socialist stuff, but I don't think socialism is worse than corruption.
Trump tapped into the Anger and Resentment movement I first saw as a group in the Tea Party. They screamed about a lot of things, but their platform was anger, resentment. And they railed on about the budget. The GOP embraced this anger and resentment because they wanted those votes. I said then, embracing those emotions is STUPID, because you do not know where they will go.
We've seen where it goes now. It gets a completely incapable man elected. It gets a completely amoral man supported by the Christian Right. It leads to raising the temperature to keep the anger and resentment flowing.
Is that America?
7
@Lock Him Up
Great comment and brilliant article...makes people think, whoever reads one...
But let''s not repeat socialism, people get scared...how about variations, like Nordic model: "The Nordic model is the economic and social models of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland). During most of the post-war era, Sweden was governed by the Swedish Social Democratic Party largely in cooperation with trade unions and industry.
So far they're pretty much intact in spite of them going dark for months in a winter.
2
Trump's life has never, is not, and never will be "our" way of life.
He will never win the vote in his home state, abd ge never win the popular vote nationally.
Trump's announcement of his candidacy was while he rode on an escalator, descending...
... physically as well as culturally.
His "cluster" of values are the values of a dying breed...
... also physically as well as culturally.
3
It sickens me that presently an American President cares most about dividing—not about uniting!—Americans.
He also cares most about dividing and distancing us from friendships and cooperation with other nations....except maybe Russia.
Cockamamie.
5
It is quoted in the article that:’ “The debate over whether the rise of right-wing populism is driven by cultural anxiety, racism, ethnocentricity or economic deprivation may “be somewhat artificial”.
Indeed. History is replete with rabble rousing based upon “Us versus Them”. The glaring recent example is the rise of Fascism and WW II.
Today in the USA we have Trump as front man for the billionaire backers of the GOP, busy inflaming the reptile portion of the brain and submerging common sense. He is assisted by a billionaire backed brainwashing propaganda machine unequaled since Goebbels during the rise of Fascism.
Without this disinformation apparatus that creates “reality” based upon “alternative facts” and inflaming buried animosities, rationality would prevail. It is this machinery that drowns out all reason.
It must be disassembled.
2
Trump lies freely and folks have become numb to his constant distortion of reality to fit his beliefs. Dividing the country to keep his base Trump has done from day one while he placed incompetent lobbyists to head agencies they lobbied as Wheeler coal lobbyist now decimating the EPA as favored by the GOP beholden to the fossil fuel industry . The NRA also married to the GOP keeps guns and high capacity clips available to mass shooters anxious to become famous,no other country has this problem. Pulling the USA out of treaties that would curb climate change,enhance our ability to compete in the far east and using immigration to foster racist hostility . Our national debt soars to pay for windfalls for the rich and powerful as the GOP sells its never proven trickle down ploy . Trump is erratic, ignorant and corrupt and will eventually cost the country a crises brought on by his lies and pandering to dictators that own him in order to help his family's personal financial interests .
1
Uh, yeah, Tom. All the “us vs them” is on the GOP side.
5
Reading the comments, I'm realizing that divide in two country might not be enough, two many different visions and views which is completely normal considering that we're humans after all.
The only thing is, I don't think we can have a government à la carte...maybe more like a buffet.
3
Can he keep it up? Yes. It is far easier to be a victim than a person working at being a good citizen. Will the Dems scare off the centrists? Yes, if they continue to let perfect be the enemy of good. And a lame duck Trump for four years will be infinitely worse than this version.
2
30 percent of this nation will always want to embrace a fascist authoritarianism if they feel it benefits themselves. Trump and Russia are cashing that check.
2
@Mixiplix - another 30% will embrace whatever they're told because they can't or won't think for themselves.
4
To me, one of those "communists" or "socialists" in the United States, it is like watching a war from a distance. Every time someone from my ranks goes off to battle, my own side kills them off before they can even get to the front line. The inability to parse out the isms on my own side is telling. There is no hierarchy of isms even as parsing them would help develop coherent policy. As a result any infraction of an ism is treated the same knee jerk off with their heads. No criticism is acceptable from my lefty perch because we're "bad" "commie pinkos" while Republicans who promote killing off liberals can walk among us, head held high. What did the "socialists" ever do to deserve this constant browbeating, diminishing, and ultimately fear mongering boogey man status? Ask everyone to share? Is that so hard? Is that which we teach little children just for little children? Once you grow up you get your complete Ayn Rand and move on with destroying the planet? From where I sit I think this country is entirely controlled by the rich with money through the media. You want to parse this out into us and them. I think that is funny because I've never in this country been one of the "us" of the Democratic Party. And here we go again, my interests marginalized by the very party which takes my votes for granted year after year for my entire life. These "Third Way Democrats" they really need to just become Republicans instead of ruining the process for "our" side.
1
@Joseph what did socialists and communists ever do? 50 million dead in the USSR. 40 million dead in Mao’s famine in China. One-third of the population killed in Cambodia. Children starving in Venezuela today. Is this enough to justify a little humility, perhaps?A little rethinking of your views? A little apology?
3
@Joseph
If the Republican party had the "complete" Ayn Rand, they'd be aware that she filed for Social Security and Medicare once she was stricken with lung cancer.
3
@Mor I personally am responsible for no deaths. Zero deaths. I also will not apologize for FDR, as close to socialist policies as the United States ever got. I would point out that millions of Americans enjoy the program called Social Security each and every day. Those examples you cite are dictatorships in the guise of an ideology. Trump for instance is very much a dictator in that mold only of the capitalist ideology. Pol Pot and Trump are but 2 sides of the same coin. Dictatorship. You have allowed yourself to become confused or do not have the inner curiosity to comprehend or learn. Your bringing up these dictators in response to my writing is a prime example of the success of the rich in their propaganda. Humility is something I have in the face of nature and the earth itself, as we now hurtle toward climate disaster for our species. I have developed my views through reading and observation. I feel no need to rethink them at all. As for an apology? I did not have anything to do with this mess since my very existence out on the fringe of the left for 50 years has been ignored. I'm sitting on a bench with Noam, indigenous peoples, people of color, women of all races, looking out at the vastness of crazy on the right.
2
It's the economy, stupid, remember? The winning formula for any Democrat who hopes to unseat the incumbent POTUS is to stress economically liberal but socially conservative policies. This is where the majority of the population is, regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion or generation. So, yes, think big on taxing the super rich, job creating green dreams and health care for all. The POTUS and the GOP have long shown the American electorate that they don't care about the 99% of us who aren't billionaires or the puppets of the wealthy elite.
1
Quotations from Norris and Inglehart made me think I was reading an analysis of 1930s Germany and the rise of fascism.. What is neglected is the cult of personality. Deplorable as he is in every way, his voice and gestures are reminiscent of those of Hitler and Mussolini, ideal for the mass electronic media. Except perhaps for the witty, elegant and articulate Nancy Pelosi, there is no Democrat who can contend with him in this way. Half of his effectiveness, however, would be neutralized if the propaganda disseminated though his Twitter account was stopped..
2
To me, "Us" is people who see nature as an unfeeling and completely impartial physical process, and "Them" is people who project a human personality onto its randomness and pray for its attention, relief, love, or whatever.
We find meaning in life interacting and understanding each other, not by obedience to make-believe beings who watch us as if we were goldfish in a bowl.
1
Re: Left wing of Democrats
The left wing of the Democrats is where the Democratic Party OUGHT be, if it is serious of helping working Americans
The current Democratic Party is NOT.
Q: Who is controlling the current Democratic Party ?
A: Those who finance the party’s leader election
Top campaign contributors, Nance Pelosi, Leader House
Campaign Committee Fundraising, 2017 - 2018
Top Contributors
1. Facebook Inc
2. Salesforce.Com
3. Amazon.com
4. American Hospital Assn
5. Alphabet Inc (Google)
Charles E Schumer, Leader, Senate
Top Contributors, 1989 - 2018
1. Goldman Sachs
2. Citigroup Inc
3. Paul, Weiss et al
4. JPMorgan Chase & Co
5. Credit Suisse Group
Many working Americans have long concluded that it makes no difference for whom they vote - both parties being in the pocket of the rich. Wall Street and Silicon Valley
They talk differently, but if you look at what they are doing, they walk the same walk. See the NY Times on how Schumer worked on lowering the taxes on the uber-rich
NY Times 2007
"Mr. Schumer has been busy with hedge fund and private equity managers, an important part of his constituency in New York. He has been reassuring them that he will resist an effort led by members of his own party to single out the industry with a plan that would more than double the taxes on the enormous profits reaped by its executives."
Since then, when he was 3rd ranked in the D leadership of the Senate, Mr. Schumer moved to number one.
9
The United States was always a polarized country (or, at least, since the generation from the Revolution died).
Many documents from the Civil War illustrate families whose members fought on opposite sides. Before that, bitter civil fighting, with many deaths, occured in the new Western Territories. Fight was intestine; the Reconstruction was bitter.
In the 60s, there was the Civil Rights Movement. Polarization was so intense its main leader -- Martin Luther King -- was simply murdered on daylight.
So, the USA has a history of sustaining prolonged periods of polarization.
What's different now is that, contrary to the past, the economy is not there to keep the family united anymore. During the Civil War, the USA had the West -- with its new gold source, California -- to make up for the devastation. During the 60s, the USA was at its apex of strength and beauty. Besides, whatever the political polarization, both sides were always staunchingly capitalist: whatever political fight there was, it was only a fight for direction, not an existential one.
Today, we have an economic depression (since 2008) and the USA is in decline. For the first time since the Red Scare period, the word "socialism" is being openly used in the political arena (Trump had even to bother remembering the USA would never be socialist -- something past POTUS didn't have to state because it was master of the obvious). There's no new economic flourishing at sight. Hope gave way to desperation.
2
Founding Father John Dickinson, 1768: "The brave Americans all! By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall!"
Race has always been the most powerful and destructive tool in both Putin's and Trump's strategies to sow division and discord among Americans. They are succeeding in exploiting it to tear apart our national social fabric. How can a country so massively at odds with itself from within recover its unity before it begins to fall?
Dickinson didn't offer a playbook for how to heal and return to a healthy democracy of strength in the 18th century. Can we write one in the 21st century or is too late?
1
In the 1930s the world was riven by the clash of extreme conservative (fascist) and liberal (socialist) ideologically driven politics. We feel the rising reverberations of that same conflict today - globally, not just in the U.S. Once again “simple slogans” amplify the xenophobic world view of the authoritarian leaning right and goad them into blame-someone-else isolationism and discrimination. On the left, globalists and progressives embrace anew the inclusivity of socialist aspirations and harden in their resolve to resist nationalist tendencies. Neither side is averse to confrontation. And it is escalating. In the 30’s, the forces of fascist authoritarianism were temporarily ascendant - until the depredations of corrupt regimes resulted in the paroxysm of a world war...
1
"According to Seib [WSJ columnist], 'Democrats face this question: Could they manage to scare off that center just as it has become so available?' The risk, Seib wrote, 'is that centrist voters will think they see that an angry left wing taking charge. Democrats could appear to be succumbing to the national mood of anger, when the better image might be of hope.'"
Left-vs-center is not the dichotomy the Dems need to worry about this election cycle. Trump has provoked a leftward drift among many if not most potential Democratic voters.
The dichotomy that will decide 2020 for the Democrats is identity-vs-economy. Too much of the former—the Virginia imbroglio for example—will sink all hopes for the Democrats. They must avoid identity politics like the plague that it is, and hew strictly to the economy. Only by such tough discipline can they attract the broad cross-section of voters they need to win the Electoral College.
7
"Can he keep it up?" Of course, he can! And he will. and he will win! Especially when politicians like Stacey Abrams advocate identity politics as a way to unify the nation. Identity politics, which is essentially what President Trump is doing, serves only to divide the nation. Same as playing the race card. Until a politician can deliver a message that speaks to all Americans, us vs. them will be politics as usual. Edsall pointed out, that the unity fostered by the New Deal ended in the 1970s, when the New Deal coalition splintered along lines of race, privilege, and opportunity. I honestly don't think that chasm can be fused back together, especially now when the liberal opposition promotes identity politics. Thank you.
7
@Southern Boy: "Justice for all" is not a divisive policy. Neither is "an injustice to one is an injustice to all." Stacy Abrams does not offend anyone who is not already committed to being offended by a black woman.
3
So, all these words are to tell us what every despot since biblical times has understood. Find a people, a place, a belief that can be considered a "lesser" and you have the authority to kill, maim, oppress.
Lyndon Johnson noticed that “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” He wasn't being sensitive, he was just stating the fact as he observed it.
1
The 2018 mid-term election results show how anti-Trump sentiment can coalesce to defeat the demagogic, authoritarian strain within the Republican Party. Can that be sustained through 2020? I want to think so but have doubts.
The roll-out of the Green New Deal, along with the now notorious FAQ that accompanied it, shows how Trump and his supporters will exploit division within the Democratic Party, between those with a more centrist appeal (Biden, Klobuchar, Bloomberg) and those who push a more left-leaning movement (something that I'm not unsympathetic to).
The trouble is that, if we agree Trumpism must be defeated (it will take years beyond Trump's time in office), then Democrats must appeal to independents who don't approve of Trump but are fearful of socialist talk, democratic or otherwise. Already Trump has made comparisons between A.O.C.'s rhetoric and Venezuela. So has Michael Bloomberg. Howard Schultz's candidacy, if he decides to run as an independent, makes Democrats fearful for similar reasons.
Trump, so gifted at creating division, will continue to exploit divisions inherent within the Democratic Party. Will Democrats succumb to intra-party squabbling or see the bigger picture of defeating Trumpism? Two years of Trump-led national unrest and agitation may keep Democrats together, but don't underestimate Republicans' abilities to divide and conquer. They know how to sell fear; they've been doing it for decades.
1
Environmental degradation is the most serious problem we are facing. If we don't support and elect a candidate for president whose major concern is environmental protection, then we will be leaving an ecological wasteland for future generations.
3
"Economic distress, they argue, reinforces cultural alienation to produce fertile terrain for Trump."
This, and this alone, explains nearly all Trump policies, and in fact the GOP's general direction over the last several decades. When we progressives wonder, "How can they advocate these policies that obviously hurt Americans?" the answer is this: They *want* Americans to hurt. It is in their best interest. Economic chaos and economic hardship breeds anger and a need to place blame. And while the GOP is terrible at governing for the masses it is very good, in times of chaos, at directing blame towards convenient targets: immigrants, outsiders, socialists, communists, foreign nations, anyone except the actual source of the problem: the narcissistic rich and powerful in their endless quest to transfer more wealth and power from the masses, to the 1%.
2
The divisiveness is the inevitable result of rule by political party. The Constitution assigns political parties no role in government. In his farewell address, George Washington warned America against political parties. He said: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”
Not all Americans have acquiesced to rule by political parties. There are more Americans without political party affiliation than there are Republicans or Democrats. A good start would be to prohibit politic party affiliation designations on ballots. We also should prohibit seating by party affiliation in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Senators and representatives are supposed to represent states, not political parties.
Unaffiliated Americans should petition state and federal courts to declare all parliamentary rules designed to give political party hacks power over the flow of legislation in state legislatures and Congress unconstitutional. We should get rid of the Senate’s 60-vote rule and the House’s Hastert Rule. (Yes. I know the Constitution grants Congress permission to enact parliamentary rules, but it does not grant them permission to devise rules that override the Constitution.)
1
@William Case
"There are more Americans without political party affiliation than there are Republicans or Democrats."
For my money, Edsall is the best op-ed columnist around these parts. And yet with all of the prodigious research he uses to make his points, it alwaysseemsto comedown to D vs.R, ignoring the 40% of us who identify as neither. And yet we're the ones who decide elections. Go figure.
I have to laugh at the Immigration dilemma of the Republicans. On the one hand they don’t like brown skinned immigrants because they’re likely future Democrats and trump wants to wall off our borders from them, but on the other hand all kinds of factories, farms, small and large businesses depend on them for cheap labor. Oh, yes and we mustn’t forget their value to country club owners, too. Quite a pickle the owners are in. And poor trump having to get rid of the nice lady who makes his bed. But sacrifices must be made.
3
Blessed are the peacemakers. What about wonder about the wedge-drivers?
Liberal identity politics made it easy for Trump. It is hard to deplore deplorable "Us vs Them" politics when you do it yourself.
3
Divide and conquer only works once. Trump has become a wished-for has-been. Sure, his base will stick with him. The deplorables are always with us. But this has been the worst presidency in the history of America. Those who thought they were going to get something different, and thus better, when they voted for Trump have now learned that what they got was certainly different but definitely not better.
1
Trump never strays from his methods. When it seems like he's acting rationally, it is to give his base the means to write off his irrational behavior as unimportant, and confuses everyone else. Confusion is progenitor to submission; it's part of the plan.
On Progressive versus Conservative, it's as if we've politicized the control levers of a complex machine. One side is all brakes, the other all gas pedal. One side makes right turns, the other side left turns. Anyone arguing to use all the controls rationally, is shouted down and labeled a milquetoasty centrist - if not kicked completely off the island.
Expect backlash. We have not yet re-learned how to get along.
I am sick to death of the media, even intelligent decent men such as Mr. Edsall continuing to allow Trump to control the dialogue. As this article points out, all of the policies that Trump is loudly demonizing as "socialism" are policies that have been popular for a long long time with most Americans, even Americans who are not Democrats (eg stricter background checks on gun buyers, ban or at least strictly limit assault rifles, higher minimum wage, a more equitable tax system etc).
Yet I note that even "liberal" columnists & analysts are bellowing out warnings that sound exactly like Trump's lies & scare-tactics, eg the Democrats are moving "too far left", that the younger Democrats want to destroy democracy because they are proposing "radical" "socialist" ideas that have actually been quite popular for decades. These alleged pundits scream that the Democrats cannot possibly defeat Trump if they move "too far left" ("too far left" being defined by both Trump and the media as anything that Trump's wealthy white base is afraid of).
STOP IT PLEASE. Stop parroting Trump's lies. When you use his labels & repeat his lies regarding other people's motivations & ideas - whether you agree with Trump or not - you buy in to what he is saying, give it validity & fuel his influence. STOP. Let's hear more about what the opposition has to say, from the opposition itself, not from Trump's lying mouth.
4
a 2 party system is by its vey nature very divisive (octagonal). We desperately need strong 3 party representation to act as buffers to a 2 party dysfunctional present system. That's the prob IMHO
2
So, why not drop all the pretense of unity where we have none, and do split in two countries.
One would rejoice in monolithic Fox News, Sinclair Broadcast, America One, with their Hannity, Ingram, O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and the whole gang of so called Freedom Caucus, translation: uncontrollable.
The other part will stick with their usual menu of Rachel Maddow, Morning Joe, Nicole Wallace, Ari Melber, Chris Hayes, Fareed Zakaria (not to ignore CNN) preferences of Social Media, Podcasts, NYTimes op-ed section, WAPO and the rest of not so immovable press.
Each part will vote for their president, and there wont be anymore screaming "NOT MY PRESIDENT" since everyone is in agreement in each country.
Can we be civil and reasonable enough to separate peacefully...everyone's well-being could be greatly beneficial for both.
Chose your own, so to speak...no more TV screaming, no Social Media bullying...oh, living in harmonious universe.
BTW, call it whatever you like... maybe America with different tag line, oh we can definitely decide this little thing for newborns.
So, as "me" said in her/his comment "why not dissolve the US into two countries?"
Can't be easy, but seems like common sense for the welfare of all the people.
3
@faivel1
Great in the ideal.
What would this divorce look like? How would it be implemented.
Moving 100s of millions of people to other areas of the country against their will??
@wc
I can't even imagine the complexity of this inevitable and long process right now, thousand things could be done and approve by each part, all considering the will of the people, new government should be created, etc...
Right now it seems like the most reasonable idea, that could definitely take decades to be implemented.
No one said it will be easy...feel free to contribute your vision of ideal.
1
I am a conservative, not always a fan of Trump. For the record, I am a Christian, pro-Life, not pro-birth (there's a difference) and I have a gay son. I love the New York Times because I appreciate thoughtful effort and excellent writing. I am alarmed by many of the comments here because it's plain to me that left-wingers do not understand conservatives at all. We are far less fearful than you believe (since we know God is in control), but we understand human nature far better than you and know its limitations. You "educated" (indoctrinated) people do not have the answers, but the fact that you think you do makes you dangerous. Please stop dehumanizing your fellow human beings who lean Trump's way. Dehumanization is the first brick on the road to unspeakable atrocities.
38
@T&F
I (and many others) have no problem with anyone of faith, but do have a problem with faith (along with morals) being projected onto the overall populace through laws. (especially when they take away anyone's human rights- especially a woman's sole dominion over her own body)
Furthermore (and along with separation of church and state guaranteed in the Constitution), a person of faith has just that - faith - which is a belief system and not based on factual and empirical evidence that can be debated or proved in a scientific manner. (further reason why there is separation of church and state)
I understand people (wherever they may fall on the political spectrum). Most people want their lives to be good and easy, and when threatened, want to protect what they have. (especially for their children) That is simple human nature - we all do it.
However, where there is a massive divergence, is that (for the most part) Progressive policies are to include the most amount of people, the most fairly, while not trampling on or taking away human rights.
What we have now is an administration that is CLEARLY working for only a select group of people, AND to the detriment of many people's human rights - specifically life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (let alone having a planet to survive on in the future for our kids)
To be educated is to be enlightened, and that means freedom for all to make their own choices and votes.
That we must respect. Regards.
86
@Truth&FreedomWhen are you a fan and when are you not a fan?
4
@Truth&Freedom Beautiful post, and accurate. (And I'm not an Evangelical.)
5
Self-serving analysis, as always, where conservative positions are framed as the result of negative emotions and motives, and liberal ones are purely positive expressions of equality.
Just speaking for myself, its exactly this sort of exaggerated self-regard and self-righteousness that has driven me away from today's democrats. A complete refusal to even view what the other side is doing with any respect at all, instead dismissing it entirely as a loser mentality.
In the end, in my perspective, you get downtrodden groups preferring the party that at least acknowledges its issues and concerns - on the left African-Americans, on teh right our rural population - maybe their problems aren't addressed or resolved, but at least there is a party that seems to listen and care at a minimum.
3
The solutions lie with how to effectively reduce income and wealth inequality before (like the crisis with climate change) it's too late. I see two compelling reasons politically that argues for say a Joe Biden vs say an Elizabeth Warren (whose policies inspire me more) are:
1. As your article lays out, the general public is not nearly as progressive as a whole as they are for what may be considered reasonable and decent approaches toward slowly addressing inequality and climate change, our two biggest near and longterm threats.
2. Mr Starbucks, Howard Shultz, if as he says, runs as an independent should a more progressive candidate be nominated for the democratic party, the republican likely wins. Perhaps, being a billionaire is a form of occupational hazard, believing himself a god, why not just run as a democrat if you are so confident you can win?
3. (My math is bad) but I also think of something David Brooks has said in the past, arguing for slow, accumulative policy change, not massive fits and starts in wildly different directions. Forgive me, David, for mangling your words but i think that's the essence there.
The question I continue ask is why does the single biggest issue behind the current malaise of the American middle class -- automation -- never seem to be part of this conversation. I'd hate to think that it's because our political leaders find it easier to make a lot of noise about a few largely irrelevant scapegoats (immigration, "bad" trade deals, outsourcing) so as to deflect attention from the real issue, because they have no idea how to address the real issue. But I'm at a loss to think of any alternate explanation.
7
In reading this, it is SO interesting to see how ships that pushed out decades ago have been returning to port .... the shift in Democrats beginning in the 1970s to support more multicultural values, and the Gingrich revolution in the 90s (or, Regan in the 80s). All of these trajectories intersected in the 2016 election of D.T.
That said, I think the left of center politics we are seeing resurgent in the Democrats now is not going to play well in the 2020 election -- it's a trajectory that will leave many of us behind. Fro example, if Amazon does not materialize in NYC I think that will also be seen as evidence that they can't deliver in the economy.
In all of this, Mitch McConnell must go home at night and dream of all the lost opportunities. Granted he managed to move through a tax cut and is busily stacking the courts. In the front of his mind he must thinking, "What we could have done if we had a regular president instead of a reality president."
@richard weisner: He did. Except that he was from the wrong party; and he was the wrong color.
The only failed opportunity McConnell had, was in making Barack Obama a one-tern POTUS.
Our democracy is lost when the Electoral College refuses to do it's one stated function,
Our democracy is lost when the legislative branch of this government kowtows to the executive branch, as was the first 2 years of this "administration',
Our democracy is lost when the Senate leader can, unilaterally, over rule the POTUS and the Constitution, by blocking a nomination to the SCPTUS, and NO ONE does anything about it. McConnell should be in jail,
Our democracy is lost when politicians are responsive to their corporate and 1% donors, not the people whom they are suppose to represent,
Our democracy is lost when civics is no longer taught in school. A majority of people cannot name the 3 branches of government, their representative to congress, or one of their Senators, yet they vote,
Our democracy is lost when the populace is dumbed down from lack of education, critical thinking skills, and the ability to separate fact from lies,
Our democracy is lost when people spend the majority of their time working to put food on the table and a roof over their heads; with no time for anything else.
It's long past time to turn this around. The America I was born into in the early 1950's is now a myth. We rank first in nothing, 29th I math, 187th in child mortality.
4
Assuming Trump runs for reelection in 2020 (which is all but guaranteed), that election will, in my opinion, define America for the first half of the 21st century.
I hope it will show that America has a bigger heart, is smarter, is wiser, and is much less provincial than was indicated by the 2016 election.
But if it doesn't turn out that way, I fear that America will have shown itself to be an inconsequential country populated by little people with the minds and emotions of bullies.
It's extremely saddening to feel contempt for the people of my own birth nation, and wishing that I'd moved to Canada, Australia or Chile when I was young enough to do it.
4
Other than for the fanatics, from whom he draws his rally crowds, I can see his support eroding.
People can only watch Groundhog Day so many times before boredom sets in.
6
Just as cultural insecurity is orthogonal to older political divisions, so is populism across GOP and Democrat party lines. Look back to 2016: do you really have any doubt that Sanders would’ve won the nomination, except for the superdelegates and other rules that kept the choice from the people?
NB: I was not, and I am not, a Sanders supporter. But I see him in 2016 as the flipside of the Trump coin — populist, working outside the system (as an “independent socialist“, albeit a Senator), offering a radical break with the standard policies of his party. He was clearly the Democratic candidate of the moment.
Of course, the flipside of THAT coin is that Clinton occupied the dead center and almost won. I think a charismatic Democrat, without baggage, who can co-opt or adapt some of the more radical proposals floating out there now can beat Trump in 2020.
I very much enjoy reading Mr. Edsall's columns; they are instructive, informative and referenced. In some respects
our current situation seems more like the period between the great wars of the twentieth century than it does any time
any of us has actually experienced. I find the fear, dissatisfaction, scapegoating, rashness, and violence of
our time to be like a regenerative dynamo that powers and expands itself. It is, as always, the impulse of the right to
embrace militarism, patriotism and unilateralism to counter
the threat. "The only way I can be free is to eliminate you."
might replace MAGA for 2020.
Trump won his election and governs almost exclusively by slogans, purposely not articulating rational plans or strategies. The only plan to build a wall were slogans, 'build the Wall' and 'Mexico will pay'. There never was a detailed assessment regarding the imposition of tariffs, or the deleterious economic effects of imposing them, just raucous assertions that tariffs provide a level of protectionism to American business and keep American jobs here. Even during the push to enact the reckless tax reform, Trump never outlined or detailed understanding of tax code intricacies or what rationally might result from the shocks resulting from severe short-term decreases in tax revenue. It was all 'tax cut for the middle class' (a bold lie even then with the proof of the lie becoming more evident each day). Declaiming the Clintons as crooks and immigrants as responsible for most perceived ills solidified a solid based of unhappy voters behind him in a way candidates seeking to entice support spend tens of millions trying to replicate.
Trump knows American voters respond to rhetoric, not policy details when deciding whom to vote for. He understands that ramifications of policy, not only are for someone else to worry about (e.g. the Heritage Foundation) but speaking those details lead voters into weeds with no exit. Fear, division, stacking the deck, uncertainty are Trump's calling cards, like despots who manage to get elected at least once and leave a shambles in their wake.
1
TRump supporters got sold out in the early 2000's when all of American industry was being shipped out , (whole plants), on ships and set up in China because republicans signed off on the tax advantages to do that.
It was part of the "most favored nation agreement" that was bestowed on China by the GOP.
I was still working then and BEGGED congress to stop , we had delegations to DC from my industry to try and stop it.
TOO LATE , GOP reps were lining their pockets with campaign contributions from all the heavy industry base, they were not about to change that.
Im retired, I fought the fight back then for my sector of heavy industry.
All those $16 an hour to $24 dollar, to ($35 an hour for pattern makers) , foundry worker jobs have gone. They will not return, and we will not be the proud steel producing country we were again.
1
After looking up orthogonal I still don't know what it means, but have figured out it does not mean opposed. And that means there is hope that Populists and Cosmopolitan Liberals could flow together.
Progressive ideas are both populist and liberal. The People just need time to adjust their thinking.
It seems social scientists and political observations keep trying to find reasons to explain the voters behavior -- economic stress, racism, racial identity, global changes, etc. Maybe some or all of these different factors played a role. But ultimately, just as God put serpent into the Garden of Eden so Adam and Eve had a choice, the choice is ours.
All the campaigning, all the misinformation, all the political advertisement and rhetoric -- what were they for but to make us give them our votes? The decision to vote for a certain person is, in the end, an individual ones.
The customer is not always right, neither is voters. It's time we take responsibility for our political choices. We may have awful politicians, but we as voters are equally awful. The mess we are in is our making, the politicians are our conduits.
The information to make right choices are available. It may take some time to find them and sort through them, but it is our duty as citizen of a democracy that we do. Otherwise, when our country slides into autocratic and corrupt state like Venezuela, we will have only ourselves to blame.
One unpleasant aspect of Trump’s genius for fear- and hate-mongering: even for those of us ‘on the other side’, it’s fun! Embarrassing to admit, but we love the self-righteousness and the charge from fighting for the Right and the Good. So in our perverse (“can you believe what he did today!?”) way, we participate in Trumpism. The solution is for us to focus on issues and policies that make the world and the US a better place. To the best of our limited human ability, forget Trump as a main target. We have important hard work to do. Eyes on the prizes. Voting rights. Inequality. The environment.
2
Revealing and deeply instructive piece by Mr Edsail.
Trump looms larger than ever as the primary definer of American political dialogue. This despite all of the extremely negative connotations of that profound insidious effect.
Hyperbole and deepening polarization hold profound sway over the national political dialogue.
It seems very likely that the Democratic opposition will in a dogged effort to seize the initiative take the party towards the more extreme left and as noted in this column alienate the more centrist contingent of the party — this with disastrous consequences for the outcome of the 2020 election and the future of the republic.
1
“Encouraging and exploiting division has worked for Trump, as far as his own electoral prospects are concerned. Can he keep it up?”
American History says “Yes”.
1
Despite all the pearl clutching about a trump re-election, recall that Hillary Clinton did receive 3 million more votes and that's with a number of democrats sitting the election out. It is to far fetched to believe that after this debacle of a presidency that those democrats will once again find something better to do on election day!
The core of the problem is that there are actually people who believe Trump when he says, "believe me." The other day he called fact checkers "false news." I just don't understand these people.
1
The 2016 Presidential election featured two of the most polarizing candidates in my political memory, which goes back to the 1950s. Two parties going into a court litigation with two extreme opposite positions can work out, either by negotiation or the Judge dismissing the most outlandish extreme claims of each party against the other.
But it doesn't work that way in elections. Voters must choose one, or the other, lock stock and barrel. When both choices are bad, it often boils down to which one is "least bad". And in 2016, in our election system, that turned out to be Trump.
The Democrats are as much to blame for this as the Republicans. By attempting to force someone down our throats because it was "her turn", they gave us Trump instead. That should be a lesson for 2020, an election we go into with the lowest unemployment rate in over a generation, where practically anyone who wants a job can get one, including ex convicts. Think about that.
5
America is divided by class. Working people, the vast majority, must accept unpleasant, boring, dead end labor consuming their lives, just to survive. For the lucky few rich, on the other hand, life is one long shopping spree. All political power & knowledge is in the hands of the latter class, the wealthy.
Every few years, the workers, blessed with freedom here in God's Country, are allowed to choose between two representatives of the rich to rule over them. This is the tragic farce we call American democracy . . .
4
It's crucial that Democrats get this right, or we will be stuck with the unthinkable prospect of Trump for another term.
We need to STOP with the politically correct overkill. Even when it is merited, it seems like that's all we talk about, and there are more urgent issues. It makes us sound like hysterical scolds.
We need to STOP sounding like we approve of ILLEGAL immigration, open boarders, and no enforcement. It is one thing to support Dreamers, and another thing to admit everyone. And it shouldn't take precedence over economic concerns during negotiation time.
We need to spend more time talking about the economic plight of the working and middle class. Even when proposals (like expanded Medicare) are on the table, we need to make it clear we understand the anger and stuggle of those left behind. Because they are angry.
Make it clear we are not talking about outlawing most guns, i.e., hunting guns. I am serious; too many progressives say exactly that.
We have got to take the thing OFF the table about taking people's private insurance away--that affects too many people and will make them furious, plus they won't understand complex arguments. Make the expanded Medicare optional. And first fix Obamacare while we are on the way. Even if we do something perfect, the transition will take 10 years.
8
Sorry, there's no room in the democratic party for moderates. Remember when you become a conservative...you did not leave the democratic party, the democratic party left you.
1
Thank you Thomas B. Edsall!
This was so clarifying to many things.
Clearly you have done a lot of work and study and have great experience with this subject. Well written!
Trump & the Media are on the same team... "Follow The Money."
2
“Identity politics” didn’t exist until other groups demanded equal treatment under the law. When the established preference was for white, heterosexual, Christian, males it was called business as usual in America.
2
@PMD
And that was condemned. So should be present day identity politics.
The picture tells it all - Two sides to the head - the left side is not right, and the right side has nothing left.
Us vs them isn’t excluse to Trump. Us vs Them is the very foundation of today’s partisan politics. It is the core value of both the Liberal and Xonservative media.
Us vs Them is the cornerstone of Identity politics. It is the entirety of Capitalism and Nationalism.
To claim Trump is exploiting this ideal is to iignore the millennia that it has been similarly exploited by ecery poktitician who has ever been born.
A fine article, yet again, when the author seeks to find out whether Democrat ideas are working, the first two sources he cites are the National Journal and the Wall Street Journal, two conservative sources that are obviously and a priori hostile to Democrat ideas.
The problem in this country is not that the Democratic party is out of touch or radical, it's that we refuse to stand loud and proud for what we believe in, and constantly allow the racist GOP to define the terms of the debate.
The only radicals at play in American politics are the racist, fascist, and most importantly, one-percenter GOP. Unless and until we stand up for what we believe in, and summarily dismiss their hateful ideology, they will continue to undermine our success and the health and happiness of all Americans.
2
Compromise and incrementalism have been swept aside by quests for absolute and final domination. The hard Right indulge in fantasies of a second Civil War in which they turn their multitude of guns on neighbors for real or imagined hurts. The hard Left fantasize of a demographic holocaust in which all of the useless and troublesome proles have finally died off and the entire country is then left to pursue Progressive Arugula Festivals (in a just and inclusive way, of course). All this presupposes national sovereignty and personal autonomy, which allows for a “happily ever after” once the Big Hammer falls on the Enemy. Don’t worry, none of this will matter. While we tiny mortals are debating trivialities and Making A Statement about this or that injustice, there are unfathomably massive forces gathering strength and headed our way. Global corporations now have economic and political power that outstrip most nations. They are at the pointy end of fundamental research into such things as CRISPR and AI which, though our little minds can now barely perceive or understand them, could fundamentally change (and maybe end) our lives as we know them. We may see the day when the corporations consolidate their power and assert their will through armed might. That’s one. There are more, but I’m sure you get the point.
1
@George
Both funny and true.
Your headline begs the question "Can he keep it up?" An unfortunate word choice concerning Mr. Trump, that is froth with humor.
As for the negative, attack-dog, authoritarian tactics, as a historian I would argue emphatically "No." One cursory glance at our history demonstrates that demagogues in the American past have ultimately failed, though they have surely made people's lives miserable.
Two years into his so-called "administration," a majority of Americans are already exhausted from the lies, the distortions and the abject stupidity (correct word) of an ostensible "president" who does not read, who obsessively watches television for his big "ideas," and who cannot manage to articulate clearly in the English language, all the time collecting a $400,000 paycheck and exercising graft in plain sight in terms of his businesses.
He has hurt all but the very top of the top echelon of voters, and even among the latter, there is discontent over his manners and morals.
So to answer the question from the perspective of history. No, he cannot "keep it up."
(I suspect you will not publish this, but it was fun to write it.)
mlouisemarkle
State College, PA
2
Trump has succeeded in converting the Republican party from a party of thinking conservatives into a mindless cadre of brown-shirted, goose-stepping thugs.
2
The day this becomes a fair and just world is when the first sperm steps aside and says to the one behind him, Après vous, mon cher Pierre.
It is strange that Edsall is so biased that he can't see !!
The tax policies of AOC & Lizzy Warren are much more divisive.
3
Trump certainly splits into "us" and "them", and RIGHTFULLY SO! That is the key. And NOT doing so is a devastating indictment of the Democrats.
"Us" = citizens of the USA and legal immigrants.
"Them" = illegal immigrants
Its that simple!
When the Democrats fail to see that, they start going into silliness. Trump is not tappping racism, he is tapping desire of many people for law and order, as opposed to the Democrat's "by any means" mindset.
The NYT recently had a piece, on this very subject ... in the form of "girls in school aim to please, boys just want to get by, by cheating if necessary". Its the same thing here. Republicans believe in law and order, Democrats believe in
race-baiting as a simple expedient to achieve power.
Until the NYT realizes that, it will continue silly pieces like this.
5
So a beached whale of a Democratic Party won nearly forty seats up because he's effective?
Thomas, your focus in this fine and very insightful Opinion piece, from head-line, to sub head-line, and throughout your own text, logic, and those you quote, certainly very strongly targets President Trump (or faux-Emperor Trumpius, as I describe him) with being a consummate ‘divider’ — and when I think of ‘dividing’, I just can’t stop thinking of “divide and conquer”, which is the key weapon of all Empires through all history.
So, I can’t help wonder what you think of Kamala Harris’s leading head-line attempt to focus on the same ‘division’ that you and she call attention to — and why the serious media didn’t put the attention on this factor that you, Kamala, and many other students of history put on “dividing” people.
I comment this to the “Times” at the time (Feb. 4) she made her strangely insightful comment:
“As Kamala Harris boldly said in her announcement, but was somehow and strangely never mentioned in any media reporting, “The wealthy seek to divide America”.
I can’t say that she meant what I hope she meant, but if she did, then she is moving beyond Bernie’s mere “Political Revolution” (and beyond OWS’s inequality), and into the arena of the same short full description of the real problem that has always plagued ‘we the people’, and which our founders addressed with their attempt at a reasoned Declaration for a peaceful “Revolution Against Empire” [Justin du Rivage’s definitive history]”
1
To exploit divisions, you must have a division
What is it ?
To an economist it the increasing income inequality between the middle class, that has seen their wages stuck for decades, and the upper classes whose income increased.
How did it come about ?
Since NAFTA was signed and later China admitted to the WTO wages of US workers exposed to global competition have been nailed down.
Union and demands for salary increases were killed by
ability of employers to respond to wage increase demands by moving the factory to Mexico.
As an example, Mr Edsall should study how GM's Fisher plant, Carrier Air Conditioning, and New Process Gear, all left Syracuse sending Syracuse, once a prosperous city on a down spiral of increasing poverty
But until journalists see their own jobs outsourced to people willing to work for 1/6th, they will continue to be unaware of the economic cause - free tariff free trade with low wage countries - that resulted in the rise of populism in the West
6
@Woof - If by the upper classes you mean the affluent professionals who earn between $125K and $500K, then Edsall has covered this problem extensively.
But the Democrats can't mention this, because these people are the core of their party.
1
My takeaway here is that the new so-called "socialist" agenda entering the political conversation is not toxic to voters (see the survey results), but the main thing to avoid in order to win against Trump is a negative campaign. I wholeheartedly agree! We all want to stop the economic bleeding of depressed wages, skyrocketing medical and college costs, etc. Create a positive program to move forward on these issues, and avoid the mud fight, and Trump's support will diminish. Choose to fight over ideologies, and it will grow.
1
No he can't keep it up, but the machine can keep up the smokescreen to hide what they brief him to play.
The machine lead by assorted oligarchs like Murdoch, the Koch bros, Adelson, the Mercers, the National Perspirer, the hate radio, the WSJ, the Kremlin bots, the undisclosed unlimited SuperPAC money, covered by the rigged Senate and the stolen Scotus, will keep the dense disinformation screen up.
If Clinton had been rewarded the Presidency in accordance with her popular majority, she was bound to lose this majority to the effectiveness of the smoke machine (and the Senate would have refused her judges a hearing, casting sly smears and lies on her legitimacy), which makes it a blessing in disguise that people get shocked awake by the extreme we got.
Popular awareness of the cruel nature of Greedy Oligarchic Predation is finally on the rise. That those who ruthlessly exploit and abuse their market power and buy the politicians to receive ultrawealthy welfare, deregulation, tax cuts for themselves only, and to bless off their tax evasion vehicles and sandwiches, were gonna have a field day with the fall-out of overpopulation and the devastation and deprivation that they themselves spread everywhere, to deflect and throw it on the poor of different ethnic and religious roots, looks and rites, was always clear.
The positive awareness shift is mostly due though to the input of awareness leaders like Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and press like the Times, not just to Trump backlash.
1
Perhaps if journalists were to report that what the Democratic Party is promoting is really not very different from FDR's New Deal less people would stop being frightened by the republicans' use of the word socialism to generate fear.
I sincerely believe that had the 4th Estate not allowed McConnell's lies and obfuscations the same weight as Obama's facts and accomplishments we would not be in this mess today.
The article says to me, without really saying it, that the majority of US are in favor of a 70% tax on the very rich; we are in favor of Medicare for All (at least as one option); and we do favor broad infrastructure investments. Among other "socialist" memes.
Perhaps the next poll should ask two questions: Do you heavily support t rump? And do you believe the Earth is flat? I think we would see those numbers pretty close to one another.
1
For as long as I can remember, the GOP has opposed any restrictions on campaign contributions because they had a steady base of wealthier and older donors. Recent changes suggest that is changing. Wealthier suburban voters and higher educated voters (and therefore higher income) are moving towards more progressive views and candidates.
As a consequence, while the GOP may continue to rely on older voters and now lower income less educated voters, the impact likely will be felt most in the GOP campaign coffers. Their candidates will be out-marketed and outspent (unless, of course, those candidates rely on assistance from certain foreign governments...). Once that occurs, what will be the new reversed GOP position:
1. Campaign spending limits are essential?
2. Foreign contributions are acceptable?
The new hypocrisy dance will be fascinating to watch.
1
How many realized that so many Americans would respond to these types of authoritarian messages? Was it really "Trump", or could any willing politician have come along, seized the moment and recognized the void that our political system had grown?
But as bad as Trump is, I don't believe he's willing to become a dictator. Too much responsibility for him. What really needs to be solved, and before it's too late, is how to reach the people Trump is misusing while promoting himself as President.
If we can't figure out what's going on then post Trump will eventually give rise to a true dictator.
2
this has been a constant in America at least since the early 19th Century and the waves of Protestant revivals: around a third of the voters (mostly white Proestant males, and exclusively male prior to women's sufferage) have been the fearful, insular, religious type now recognized as Trump's base, fearful of losing their status and privilege, no matter how tenuous their grasp on the top rung of society actually may be. Trump and his minions glommed onto this strain and, with help, rode it to victory in one of its own devices, the Electoral College. yes,it could have been anyone, but Trump had the extra advantages of celebrity and bombast going for him. For more, read the 60 year old essays in The Paranoid Style in American Politics.
how about this: the Democrats issue Trump his wall building permit, contingent on his securing the Mexican financing he promised when he floated his deal. that will show how the King of Debt and world's greatest dealmaker can come through for them. and, Mexico, if you're listening, require Trump's tax returns in order to process his loan app.
What ever happened to the beautiful "E Pluribus Unum?" (Out of many, one). Such a beautiful sentiment. That's the America that I think of.
1
The phenomena that we are experiencing continues to puzzle me. This explanation is another clue that makes sense. Racism is an imperfect explanation. Cultural change and loss of privilege mimics racism and xenophobia, the yang of racism's yin. The liberals are clinging to their symbols as well; there is a yin and yang in that paradigm too. The devil is the division itself, and perhaps no longer left and right, but a common anxiety with different responses. The fact is that the change is coming and it won't stop any more than the renaissance stopped or abolition or liberal democracy etc. Trump has been a disaster for preparation for the future. The groups that support him may weaken if fear is lessened. We need a strong voice for hope and optimism, not dread and retribution, another Lincoln. A glowering dark mean presence may seem to be fighting against the "liberal, globalizing" menace, but only if you live in fear; we don't hate the internet now do we.
55
@William Trainor
Left and Right ideologies are both based on fear: the Right fears disorder and the Left fears suppression. In my 78 years, this observation has never been shown to be wrong.
7
@John
Maybe you cling to your 78 year old analysis out of fear, the fear that you may be wrong!
4
@John
Speaking as an old leftist, I can assure you that despite the (historically justified) fear of repression, "the Left" is primarily motivated not by fear but by hope.
15
The Republicans spent years building odd coalitions--anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-immigrant, evangelical, and largely white. The Democrats are still trying to forge comparable coalitions of their own.
While it should be of concern that other countries are having more trouble with authoritarian behaviors, it strikes me as far too soon to write off the Democrats. Some of those other countries are far less heterogeneous than the USA. Our citizens are still trying to figure this out. And then there are the so-called independents.
Maybe I'll be alive to see all this play out. Like many here, I hope the rightward shift stops--2018 gave some clue that it might. It depends on the vote. It depends on whether Trump can keep up his nonstop, reflexive mendacity. Maybe he can't.
69
@JSK
Those Democratic Party elites sanctimoniously lead Democrats to believe that Trump's base are racist "deplorables" because it takes the focus off their elite values and the policies they have supported and continue to support, that enable their elite status.
If those elite Democrats choose to support policies that really help the poor and working class citizens who have been left behind by globalization, those citizens might acknowledge what political party really helps them.
A majority of citizens support a top tax rate of at least 70%.
But, you can bet, that a majority of the best Congress money can buy does not support that, and dealing with the time bomb of the huge and growing wealth/income inequality is something the majority of Congress will try to ignore...
There is, of course, the terrible danger of Russia to focus on.
Promoting fear is a wonderful tool for herding people, and the elite know how to use it.
The Democratic elite use the wedge issues of social division as glibly as Trump.
If anyone in Democratic Party leadership wanted to open their arms to a wider constituency, they would show respect for people who are not comfortable with abortion, or gay marriage, transgenders or whatever. People are raised differently and change takes time.
Just give people who think differently some space and respect, and focus on issues that we all have in common, health care for all, better education, infrastructure...
4
the Republicans seem to realize, like the actuaries they are at heart,that demographics are not in their favor. GOP efforts to lower the age of their supporters and broaden their enthnic components have been unsuccessful. that's one reason they are terrified of Hispanic immigrants of childbearing age or younger. they are swimming against the tide and they dimly know it, hence stands on guns, abortion, and programs to steal everything they can before the party is over. we have seen this movie before.
6
@Lucy Cooke
I have a general problem as to who is an elite. The word has different meanings for different people.
I doubt all Trump supporters can remotely be defined as deplorable, but they are tribal, just like the far left. And either group can be brainwashed to believe what select leaders (not all) emphasize.
Maybe it is best to vote, to wait and see how this all plays out. Maybe it is best to avoid so many labels (that may be difficult).
2
"Can he keep it up?" He obviously can, and will.
One thing this article omits is role of the Republican party in facilitating Trump's increasing authoritarianism.
Their silence, encouragement, complicity, and protection has enabled Donald Trump to push the boundaries of moral decency, separation of powers, and independence of judiciary and free press. They murmur in the corridors of power but do nothing on the respective floors of their chambers.
The Senate leader is the worst because he knows better but is consumed with power to the detriment of democracy.
Also not mentioned is the role of FOX News, now almost a state-run propaganda machine, supporting the president pretty much no matter what he does.
All the seeds of authoritarianism are present in our government; not enough are concerned. They rail against Trump's antics and demonstrated corruption, but how will they feel when a compliant Congress enables this president to invoke "emergency power" to bypass Congress when he doesn't get his way?
Unless the Democrats unite under a strong candidate to counter the presidential megaphone of hate, I think we can kiss democracy good-bye.
198
@ChristineMcM: As always, very well-said, Christine. Thank you.
21
@ChristineMcM
I see Balkanization—more poor, more bread and circus, more climate refugees, more downward spiral. It takes vision and energy to punch up and build up, and there’s a big chunk of this country with no vision at all.
6
@ChristineMcM
Do you think choosing McConnell's wife as a cabinet member had anything to do with keeping him compliant?
7
"However often President Trump strays from his favored political strategy, he faithfully returns to it like a dog to a bone: first, polarize the American electorate along racial, cultural and economic lines, then exploit the schisms..."
The reason Trump "returns to it like a dog to a bone" is because it works; "the base" keep falling for it. Trump did not invent this strategy; it has been the GOP's game plan of decades. If fact, "divide and conquer" is the only move the GOP has left.
Edsall wastes a lot of ink writing about the political horse race without ever mentioning Why? Polarize the electorate to win elections for what? What is so important to the GOP that it justifies tearing the country apart?
Illegal immigration? terrorism? smaller government and fiscal responsibility?
No. None of this matters to the GOP leadership. The Republican party is wholly, completely, in the thrall of the 1% er's, the wealthy elite, the plutocracy. Protecting and further enriching them is the only reason the GOP exists. Tax cuts for the rich today, and tomorrow; tax cuts for the rich forever. It is the saps who fall for the GOP racial, cultural and economic lies that keep the plutocracy in power, with a little help from writers, like Edsall, who write about the political horse race instead of speaking truth to power.
3
Trump won because Hillary shot herself in the foot by declaring for open borders. All well and good to have international associations that gradually move towards something like so much similarity and trade entanglement that borders become meaningless over time, but going, "I want an EU of the Americas" was a death sentence. Not a good campaign move. Might have been critical.
2
Trump won partly because his supporters believed this kind of nonsense, and still cling to it.
After 50 years, the GOP has the ability to divide people against themselves along gender, racial, religious, educational, regional, etc. lines to advance the interests of the wealthy and powerful down to a science. And for the last 20 years they've even had their very own 'News' channel to help them. When you think about it, it's almost like shooting fish in a barrel.
When enough people wake up, look around, and figure out that they're being played for fools - most of them for their entire adult lives - things will change. If it's not too late.
Will this actually happen? I wouldn't bet on it.
Donald Trump came of age during Nixon, whose brilliance at creating division (The Silent Majority) was well known. Nixon and his attack dog Spiro Agnew excelled in equating hate with patriotism. The president learned at the foot of the master.
Trump is older than you think. he came of age during McCarthy, and learned at ghe knee of McCarthy's henchman, Roy Cohn. he was born with a silver foot in his mouth and always celebrated his superiority as a rich guy. he's a piece of work, but en more profoundly backward than you allow.
So much of the analysis of Trump is hypocritical. Yes he attempts to exploit racial and ethnic divides. Democratic appeals to minorities are very different in tone, in substance not so much
2
Wait Tom, you're talking about the Democrats; right? The Dems already have twelve candidates with another eleven warming up in the bullpen. Last, but certainly not least, is the Democrat Howard Schultz, who's running as an independent. If there's any party that encourages and exploits it's candidates it's the Democrats.
2
Trump is following the republican ploy they have used since 1968 which is known as the "Nixon Southern Strategy". Appeal to the white superiority sentiment of white people, and scare them with made up threats of the "others".
There are fewer of these credulous individuals today then before (around 3.5 of 10 people) but their ignorance still causes problems.
It's demonstrably foolhardy to think trump won't be reelected with essentially the same vote tally and electoral map as 2016. His deplorable are solidly with him and his politics of division is designed to discourage voters.
It CAN happen again!
4
Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar. Maybe Sherrod Brown and Beto O'Rourke. But you get my point: Sherrod Brown. He is the candidate in the wings who has the ability and the seasoned credibility to break through the divide that Thomas Edsall aptly describes in his editorial, appealing to the middle and working classes in their language. He can lead a progressive Democratic ticket that will win back PA, WI and MI, maybe OH, IA and FL as well, maybe NC, AZ and TX. Let's unite behind him.
1
It is working for his opponents too.
Trump knows he must win with a plurality or 45% of the popular vote. Without it he is sunk. The Dems have victory in their grasp but probably blow it by nominating someone who will turn off enough voters - Warrne, Booker et ceteri (and the rest of the persons) - to hand the election to him. They and the Dem voters have one year to wake up. Biden and the woman senator from Mn, Biden and Swalwell.
Globalism and the Internet has revealed the world to everyone. Everyone see America as a birdnest on the ground. Their countries are awful so they now know of all the benefits America offers. What Trump sees (correctly) is that by welcoming these people, we are opening the door to their beliefs and habits which clearly failed. Yet, our laws protect them. It’s like watching a child do something that we know from our own experience simply will not work. There is no reason why these new-comers should chsnge their behavior.
3
It’s astonishing how often Trumpists project Trump’s behavior everywhere.
1
Mr. Edsall needs to smell the coffee. The Democrats are the Masters of indentity politics. They don't any chance to divide America around race or gender. The fact that Trump has done this to white people is an inevitable consequence of the US demographics. As the white population moves towards minority status, they will in fact act like other minorities. Donald Trump is just the first to capitalize on this fact. The cat is out of the box and it won't be going back even if the Democrats win in 2020. The GOP will increasingly dominate white and male politics in increasing percentages in the. Will this be overtaken by the growth in the Hispanic population? Or will the inclusion of Hispanics into "White" society destroy the Democrats? It all remains to be seen. FYI - The growth of the imperial American Presidency has occurred under Democrats and Republicans. It's about the US institutions not really Trump.
3
@Pat - 'White' is an ever-expanding term. If you are a non-black, and have a job and earn a living, you will generally be considered white by most people. As 'Hispanics' gradually stop speaking Spanish, there will be nothing to distinguish them from everyone else. Their ancestors mostly came from Europe, they now speak English, so they're as white as anyone else.
Black Americans, descended from slaves, will remain.
If we could find a way to get everyone educated and earning a decent living, 'race' would not be much of a problem. So far, that hans't happened.
1
I am 71 plus a history major in college. Can't even recall a President who intentionally worked on dividing the country. Trump cannot be called President of the United States. He is President of 35% of the United States, which is what he wants to be.
4
Thomas Edsall deserves credit for writing editorials that are highly nuanced and well informed. As the responses to this editorial that have accumulated suggest, however, even the most fair-minded look into the mechanics of our dysfunctional political system will occasion angry responses. Edsall may not put as much emphasis on race as the factor that allowed for Trump's splitting of the electorate (Birthers, anyone?), but he is correct to show that there are a broad economic and cultural differences between educated/ financially secure cultural elites and those less-well educated, older Americans (mostly white) who feel betrayed by the governing political class. Yes, these people have been massively bamboozled by Trump, but they were perhaps not as well served by the previous president as good liberals would like to admit. "Build the Wall" is clearly racist code for "keep out the brown people", but did Obama spend as much time/money/energy on the opioid crises or the housing collapse -- both which ultimately had their origins in elite institutions (pharma, banks) –- as he might have? Did Trump slit the electorate with a cleaver of hate, or had the scalpel of indifference and laissez-faire capitalism already done the job??
5
@Michele M. Obama instigated the opium crisis, when his health care of health care tsar, Emanuel, said that old people were a waste of medical resources therefore should just "take a pill" for severe orthopedic pain, instead of more expensive surgery. He also threw seniors under the bus with repeated attempts to cut SS benefits. And let's not forget TPP..
I guess another way of looking at this intergenerational divide is which groups or segments of Americans are best ready to manage the 24/7 barrage of information and can use skills taught in school to examine what is real and fake.
My generation, boomer was brought up on the politics of muddling through, compromise, get a little, give a little.
New generations have no taste for this kind of change; brought up on the internet and smart phones, with technology changes that make older generations befuddled.
This new generation also can see the writing on the wall. Our muddling through on the environment, energy, safety net. racism,poverty etc., etc., has reached some tipping points; the status quo won't do for their generation or the next.
2
Donald Trump is unfit to be President not because he created these divisions, but because he is willing to exploit them for political gain. To the extent polarization threatens our democracy--and Republican attempts to undermine free and fair elections by disenfranchising Democratic-leaning voters prove that it does--he is actively undermining the Constitution. Whether the Russians are helping him do it is really beside the point.
5
While Trump plays the media and leftists like an old worn violin the Democrats demonstrate little if any awareness or understanding of basic human psychology 101. The left actually knows less than they think and because they cater to the "globalist" and "change just for the sake of change" and "Being different"- they miss an awful lot of chances. One psychological aspect they miss is that of reverse psychology- the more they hold up illegal immigrants and support the welfare state the more working citizens they alienate. Its very curious that they actually believe and subscribe to "if we can just let as many illegal immigrants in as possible" we'll be winners. "if we can just turn the country that became the greatest country in a little over 200 short years due to capitalism and American ingenuity into a socialist country - people will support us". This approach polarizes more and more people against what used to be the most fair political party. Democrats were the party of the unions and working class - now they are the party of illegal immigration and socialism. It's not gonna fly people- its a regressive strategy.
7
@Dixon Duval
Except all of this is just made up. Democrats don’t believe in open boarders but we have seen trump kidnap children for his racist base although I would love to see socialist forces work for middle and working class and not just the extremely wealthy.
3
Unlike some, I actually took Psych 101. Reverse psychology was never mentioned, probably because it’s just a bit of folk wisdom about raising little kids.
@Dixon Duval,
You may be right on the psychology side, but every one of those tropes you cite displays almost total ignorance of the realities of American history, especially of the 20th century.
Some of us can rememberwhat America was like in the 60's and 70's.
One major difference is homogeneity. The vast majority of Americans were white and Christian, and values were shared.
America has become divided into many groups. Edsall focuses on division between the old white majority and the minorities, which have come to dominate many communities. But there are further divisions between blacks and Hispanics. And there is a divide between those who use the authority of the Word of God as the method for acquiring knowledge, others who are more secular and think of science as providing the gold standard of truth.
The combinations are endless. We live not in one culture but many, and they are in conflict.
I try to adopt a scientific approach, although many would disagree with my conclusions. One of the issues that is seldom discussed is population growth.
In past centuries the cycle of overpopulation, followed by running out of resources, followed by disintegration of institutions due to overcrowding, followed by wars over resources, followed by a higher death rate, followed by lower population and an increase in resources, followed by the growth of civilizations has been repeated over and over.
US population has increased by 36% since 1986. Most of this is due to immigration. The immigration has increased diversity. Liberals see this as an advantage.
But it also destroys the possibility of shared values and contributes to the decline of democracy.
4
Trump is not a deep thinker nor a scholar of our nation. He gets his political messages from other people’s messages. He understands what his base enacts because the right wing media spells it out and polls confirm these views. The professors are trying to obtain cause and effect explanations from what are basically correlations of preferences to voting choices.
1
One key idea in this is that "the debate over whether the rise of right-wing populism is driven by cultural anxiety, racism, ethnocentricity or economic deprivation may “be somewhat artificial”. I agree, but think this misses a key point. The Republican Party has been assembling its base by appealing to one form of fear or bigotry for decades: anti-communism in the '50s, racism in the 60's, economic and status loss in the '70s, abortion, gay, and trans stuff throughout, and now immigration. With her characteristic tin ear, Hillary called them "deplorables". She was right, but unwise to say it out loud. This is the group that elected Donald Trump who was the first Republican of note to agree with their prejudices. We are not going to change this group; we have to wait for them to die. The best we can hope for is to peal off the marginal and independents who sided with them for various reasons, and outvote them. If we don't, we are in serious trouble.
3
In litigation, many plaintiffs' attorneys employ what is called the "Reptile Theory."
The “scientific” core of Reptile Theory is that it there is a latent, “reptile” portion of the human brain. It is fearful and bent on survival.
It stays dormant most of the time, thanks to evolution and the relative safety afforded by human civilization. However, it is ready to “awaken” to respond to perceived threats.
In litigation, the plaintiff’s counsel will attempt to paint the defendant as a menace to the community, or perhaps even a threat to the jurors themselves.
The jurors, as the defenders of community safety, must punish defendants who violate “safety rules,” to protect society and loved ones.
Many courts preclude the use of "reptile theory" arguments because they are contrary to the rule that a jury's verdict must be based on the law and the evidence, not an emotional response by jurors who, motivated by fear, impose their own "safety rules" not found in the law.
Our President, Republicans, and their Russian allies are skillful users of the "Reptile Theory" to the extent that their victims can be convinced of a reality that does not independently exist.
The "threat on the Southern border" is but one example of this fear-mongering technique.
In next year's elections, we will see an unprecedented use of the "Reptile Theory," and it is essential for those tethered to the truth to understand it and combat it.
4
both my wife and I read Edsall regularly and find him an excellent source of info. he has helped raise our comprehensiveness of American politics Many thanks. Peter and Lorraine Watson.
2
President Trump is a modern day snake oil salesman. A fraud, charlatan, a con man. And his supporters and base eat up all the filth he spews. And while President Trump goes along his merry way to purposefully divide and polarize America, our enemies and adversaries are paying extremely close attention to these actions and seeking every opportunity to use them to destabilize and cause harm and injury to our country. Our commander in chief is helping to do the dirty work of people and organizations that would be thrilled to see America be reduced to nothing. God help America if this man is elected again.
8
An interesting article. Though it focuses mostly on cultural backlash over loss of what had been a birthright of privilege and prestige, a followup might look at where does the new cultural divide leave the rich? Where does it leave corporate power over things like anti-trust, environmental protection, economic democracy?
In other words, how much does either side of the new cultural divide need the rich, and how much does either side need to cater to them?
3
It is unfortunate that so many of these commentaries neglect the primary reason Trump won-his use of the evangelical vote. So-called "moral" Christians happily boarded the Trump Train, ignoring the obvious hypocrisy for the goal of getting "their" judges onto SCOTUS. It's all about abortion and gays to them, and they really don't care if it took electing someone as unfit for the job as Trump. And they will stick with him until abortion is banned and gays are forced back into the closet, knowing full well that RBG can't live forever-and the next far-right SCOTUS justice will push their agenda for the next 30 years.
197
@Gary Sharp
The most divisive now is The Green New Deal, dragging the left to the extreme and splitting the Democratic Party. McConnell will ask for a vote on it next week, getting Dems on the record, especially those running in 2020. Senator Cotton just exposed the MSM conspiring to bury the controversial Q&A white paper suggesting government help for "those NOT working." Many of the current front-runners say they will vote for it, making it a real issue in the next election.
What isn't divisive is Trumps 52% voter approval rating (Rasmussen) despite the shutdown. With the wall completion some suggest it might reach close to 60% which would present a real problem for those running against him in 2020. Prior to shutdown and SOU address, criticized by many on the left, his favorability was 43%.
5
@OldTimer The Rasmussen poll you mention shows 50%, but that is just one poll among many. It is the only poll that shows Trump at 50% (not 52% as you state). Trumps popularity rating, when averaged between many polls, as opposed to cherry picking from just one poll, is 40.8%, and his disapproval rating is 54.5%. Getting the facts straight matters.
29
@Gary Sharp
It is interesting to note that Trump's divisive nature has led to a division among evangelicals. So, once enough conservative judges are seated, the moral evangelicals will be looking for a more qualified leader; perhaps Mike Pence?
2
It’s always strange to see the white working class described as “once socially and politically dominant” - a persistent trope aligned with the idea of “white privilege”.
Certainly, the workers have always been dominant if one bases the concept of “dominance” on population. And, one way a tiny elite has always directed and managed large civilizations is to keep the majority (especially once they labored in industry rather than agriculture) divided among themselves.
White privilege (worthy of the name) certainly exists as the result of relative affluence, of “inheritance” given that blacks were (and still are) indisputably inhibited by policy, practice (including deadly violence) in their efforts to accumulate wealth. Inherited “privilege” also operates indirectly through the effects of segregation as it differentially conveys neighborhoods and school systems etc.
But it is not only lack of education or historical awareness that keeps so many whites oblivious to the concrete institutional effects of racism. Unfortunately far too many white people have lived and labored for generations without accumulating wealth or the educational and social networks that facilitate upward mobility. Unfortunately too many white people have lived and labored for generations while suffering through many of the insults and malignancies of poverty.
The resentments and anger associated with insecurity (and worse) should not be discounted when trying to understand trimpulism.
3
The US is going back to majority rule starting in 2020. Good riddance, Mr. Trump.
3
An analysis of rabble rousing that omits the id and the role of propaganda in submerging the rational and common sense. Fox, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, radical fundamentalist pulpits, all generate a clamor that makes thought, calm, reason impossible for 45% of voters submerged in alternative facts, paranoia, and belief in some Messiah to lead them to paradise — Trump.
5
Memo to America: Have we finally a
learned a lesson from the political travesty that is Donald J. Trump?
We won't know until 2020, but let's hope so.
2
The “Us versus Them” battle is being waged among titans, billionaires with different views about their obligations to society. In countries where government is ostensibly selected by a voting public, the opposing factions engage in voter manipulation by limiting the choice of candidates and by plain old propaganda.
This kind of struggle is as old as humanity, but it is being won today by the me-me-only-me faction.
In the USA, somehow the regressive billionaires have managed to assemble an unparalleled propaganda machine not seen since Goebbels and the rise of Fascism. With Trump as their front man they have hornswoggled almost half of Americans who will follow Trump as Messiah wherever he leads.
Until this brainwashing apparatus is disassembled, these folks will remain beyond reach of common sense, and this contagion will spread further.
5
Amazing how Edsall and his acolytes in these comments manage to focus on Trump and to ignore the Democrats (Gillibrand appealing only to women, etc. etc.). Keep it up for your faithful and put Trump back in the White House in 2020.
7
Trump is unquestionably divisive and plays off the fears and desires of working class white voters. But the Progressives are literally doing the same things and leading with war chants aimed at capitalism, people who have achieved success and putting forth a series of tax policies aimed at cutting off the top of trees not encouraging trees to grow. The two sides have become highly adept at riling up their bases with one sided policies. The only difference is that fox news and breitbart goose step the Trump tune while the Nytimes and MSNBC repeat the tropes of the Progressives. What is even worse is that the middle has become poison ground
5
FDR: "All we have to fear is fear itself!"
DJT and the GOP: All we have to use is fear itself!
3
As I read this kind of column I often feel as if my oxygen is being cut off. Take this: "the new division cuts across and splits the old economic class solidarity." Maybe I have a different sense of what is "old." 19th C worker solidarity--where--in mining communities or on Delancey? 19th C middle class solidarity--where--in Dixie or Staten Island? Northern Ireland has had two working classes and two middle classes since it was established. Glasgow, Scotland, had perhaps the nastiest inter-club fights in soccer with Glasgow Celtic (Catholic) and Rangers (Protestant). A few years back, we went to see the Scottish Day parade in Manhattan. A glistening visitor from Scotland asked us: "What is New York?" My wife asked: "How do you mean?" His answer: "Is New York Catholic or Protestant?" Edsall's columns seem to be progressively fueled by "scholars" who need to travel more. Oh, and to be sure, rural-city divides are so old that some associated designations have become almost invisible with usage: civilized? Heathen?
3
Authoritarian Populism is an euphemisms for Facism. Unlike 1933 we, the west, do not have bolshevism as a greater threat than Nationalist Socialism. We choose not to see the danger in the current situation.
2
It’s all about white racial fear and resentment.
Trump did not create that fear and resentment; it’s been growing for decades—with school integration and the bussing of little white children to schools in black neighborhoods, to civil rights laws that gave equal employment opportunity to people of color, deposing the white man from his privileged place in the pecking order, to the browning of America with the increasing tide of refugees and immigrants from the south. But he fanned it into a frenzy from the minute he rode down that escalator railing about Mexican rapists. And he joined it with economic discontent, giving those with economic grievance someone to blame: you didn’t lose your job to a microchip, you lost it to a Mexican; it wasn’t relative lack of qualifications that kept you from getting that new job or your kid out of that college, you were gypped out of them by “political correctness.”
“Can he keep it up?” He not only can, he assuredly will. The mouthpieces of his base—Hannity, Coulter, far-right radio—have made that clear: it he does not give them their wall—that quintessential symbol of protection of their white privilege—his presidency is effectively over.
That makes it imperative that Democrats fashion policies and messages of inclusion, of raising all boats, of fairness for all. The most effective answer to the divisiveness of Trump’s appeal to white racial resentment is proof that America is not a zero sum game.
2
An old saying goes “You can get used to anything if you do it long enough.” I no longer notice Trump’s hair; I know that if his lips are moving, he is lying; his administration is a cesspool for worse-than-swamp people; he has reptilian intelligence and moral sensitivity. Etc.
I have held out hope that “the base” would come to its senses. However, what if these qualities and behaviors have become the new normal.
Is this the new greatest generation!
3
To Trump, this country is not the U.S. It’s US period.
2
Tom, your research, essay, and serious “democracy-thinking”, IMHO, exposes the existential danger in America and the world of magical “Empire-thinking” (which I believe George Lakoff would call it).
Your quote of Norris and Inglehart regarding an inflection point being reached among “dominant groups” around the world — “a tipping point at which their hegemonic status, power and privilege is fading“ — causes my “analogy-thinking” to bring together several points:
First, I define Empire (rather than hegemony) as the accurate name of this seminal meta-causal cancer, not only for all political/economic ‘issues’, “symptom problems”, but also our entire “ailing social order” [Zygmunt Bauman, Morris Berman].
Second, the list of factors which “Empire-thinking” has employed over millennia of history to ‘divide and conquer’ seems to start with ‘magic’ (magical-thinking), myth, tribalism, race, religion, nationalism ... etc. and perhaps ends with economic ideology.
Third, Prof. Robinson’s diagnosis and exposure of our 21st century metastasis of the cancer of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire seems more accurate to me than merely the current ‘symtom problem’ of faux-Emperor Trumpius being the first to sit in the Oval Office:
“The U.S. state is a key point of condensation for pressures from
dominant groups around the world to resolve problems of global
capitalism ...
Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity, 2014 Robinson, William
[Full quote to follow in reply]
2
@Alan MacDonald
Full quote:
“The U.S. state is a key point of condensation for pressures from dominant groups around the world to resolve problems of global capitalism and to secure the legitimacy of the system overall. In this regard, “U.S.” imperialism refers to the use by transnational elites of the U.S. state apparatus (soft and hard) to continue to attempt to expand, defend, and stabilize the global capitalist system. We are witness less to a “U.S.” imperialism per se than to a global capitalist imperialism. We face an EMPIRE OF GLOBAL CAPITAL, headquartered, for evident historical reasons, in Washington.” [Caps added]
Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity, 2014 Robinson, William
Cambridge University Press.
1
The professors ought to do some more research into social psychology. They are reenforcing the tendency of people who have affiliated with some group to categorize people as us or them. Trump does play one group against another because they already see others in terms of what makes them different from themselves instead of what they really do share. In effect the professors are stereotyping people, turning statistically significant preferences into absolute and defining characteristics. In other words, they are being intellectually careless and perpetuating the problems.
4
Us and Them ... The Hatfields and McCoys .. Republicans and Democrats .. Northern California and Southern California. Division is alive and well and it works!
I cringe when I see the crowded field of Democratic candidates, I'm not impressed by any of them. Trump will plow right through them and deservedly so.. They are using the same playbook as Hillary and we all know how that ended.
8
It's hard to miss the irony of how here in this country, the GOP, led by Trump and McConnell, rely on religion and fear to stay in power, even as the party rails against those groups in the middle east who do the same thing: try as hard as they can to stop progress and remain in power through their use of oppression, relying on the close-mindedness of their supporters to hold on to the chambers of power. (“The interwar generation, non-college graduates, the working class, white Europeans, the more religious, men and residents of rural communities” have come to feel “estranged from the silent revolution in social and moral values, left behind by cultural tides that they deeply reject.” )The days of rich, white wing (see photo of republican party at the State of the Union speech) are numbered--but for this white woman in her sixties, too many of those days are left. Change is inevitable and inexorable, no matter how much fear and loathing is applied by the GOP.
“The interwar generation, non-college graduates, the working class, white Europeans, the more religious, men and residents of rural communities” have come to feel “estranged from the silent revolution in social and moral values, left behind by cultural tides that they deeply reject.”
2
If it's political magic, it's only because the mainstream press allows it. I know you're in stiff competition for readers, but an editor's job is to decide what to cover. I'd say more than half the things this president says and does shouldn't get any press coverage. Sure, his antics will be covered by other media, including your rivals, but let *them* carry water for him. If your publisher can tell the president privately to tone down his rhetoric demonizing the press, you can show it by parsing out what's substantive and what the people should know. Those in the media with any integrity will follow your lead. You're the paper of record.
1
@AlNewman - How could the Trump-haters in the press attack him without mentioning him, or saying what he does that they don't agree with? CNN is 100% Donald Trump all day and all night.
Now, may be an actual moment of social progress. Intolerance of “them” appeals within the Democratic Party as a means of broadening their popular support to win elections has the outsized effect of combating the entire concept of the “them” emotional trops that are the currency of Fox, the right wing oligarchs, and the Republican Party. Is it possible that people are figuring out the ‘fear the other’ con?
Shorter version: Trump and the Republicans exploit racism to get out their "vote white" base, so they can comfort the rich and afflict the middle class and poor. The GOP seeks effective government for the rich, while they shaft the rest. They play blameless defenders of fetuses and religious righteousness. The GOP seeks a social coherence in their base by blaming all societal ills, real or fictional, on minorities, immigrants and Democrats, while their policy is to obstruct real solutions to the nation's issues, giving an enduring campaign issue they seek only to aggravate, and use over and over.
1
Trump is a man of division and chaos. They can't catch you if don't stop the disruptions. Regardless of this, he became our president legitimately or not. Now we are faced with the problem of getting him out as soon as possible while the Republicans hold on for their political lives. Trump is bad enough without the help of the Republicans in the House and Senate. They act like he can do no wrong. They too lie and cheat, so it is possible that he gets re-elected in 2020. That is why we need a Democrat who is most likely to beat Trump at his own game while not being anything like Trump. Tough but not impossible.
1
“Us versus Them” is the basic principle of rabble rousing. It serves to inflame tribal instincts and the id, and make the rational part of the brain irrelevant.
It also has little to do with the accuracy of the inflaming claims. With Trump as Messiah, the lemmings will follow him right off the cliff, and advice from nay sayers will go nowhere.
2
In the first half of this column, Edsall convincingly demonstrates that Americans are polarized into two tribes; authoritarian populists versus cosmopolitan multicultural progressives.
If this is so (and I believe it is), then why all the gnashing of teeth over actual public policy and whether Republicans will be able to easily slander Democrats as wild-eyed communists?
Of course Republicans will slander Democrats as naive, spendthrift fruitcakes who will turn over the country to Central American gangs and ISIS terrorists. The authoritarian populist base needs this fear to motivate turnout at the polls.
And of course Democrats will make the case of Republican fascism, xenophobia, incompetence and greed, in contrast to Democratic equality, fairness, and quality of life for all. The progressive base needs this contrast and hope for a brighter future to motivate turnout at the polls.
See, it's not about convincing a person to join one tribe or the other. Nearly everyone is already in a tribe. The political challenge is getting your tribe members to turn out and vote.
Hopefully, the Democrat who is nominated in 2020 is one who understands that the job is to turn out Democratic voters. We know Trump will not shrink from his turnout job - he's only kept at it during his term.
The Republican voters will inevitably loathe the Democratic nominee, just as they did HRC, Obama, Kerry, Gore, WJC, Dukakis, and Mondale. Accept that.
3
Prior to Trump, we were on the path toward a theocratic oligarchy courtesy of 25 years worth of GOP policies, combined with marketing/messaging from the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter, Jones, Levin and Fox News.
Enter Trump, a known charlatan, con man and grifter. Indifferent and openly hostile to those that are not 100% personally loyal (and sychophantic). Ignorant of our nation's history, our form of government and our Constitution.
Trump's rise correlates with an acceleration of the decline of our nation as a global power, leaving us (maybe not tomorrow, but in the next 20 years) as a 2nd rate nation longing for our glory days. He was always the wrong person at the wrong time, proving it each and every day.
2
I remember when President George W. Bush said "You're either with us or against us" when suggesting that Americans who were with him on going to war were actual Americans and the rest of us were un-American.
How far to the right - to the foolish belief that trump is part of the religious, righteous right - can this country manage? Mr. "I make the best deals" suggests daily that half of the country are not true Americans. Like the spewing Ann Coulter, hate and fear is the name of their game.
Dems are not perfect, but they can bring inclusion, reason, intelligence, and care back to the norm. Please!!!
2
All these articles talk about the hatred of Trump yet never go into why that is. It is presented as some emotional response - no different than why he is loved. This allows Trump and his supporters to discount these feelings as some sort of bad loser, derangement syndrome, liberal brainwashing that renders the haters incapable of seeing the man for what he is.
For once I would like them to explain that the visceral emotions come from actual, documented, recorded events that offend not just our sensibility but the job we understood the presidency to be. These events include the constant lying to the American people without consequence, the name-calling and disrespect shown to others, the disregard and arrogance demonstrated when dealing with experts in various fields because their facts don't align with his gut, his absolute misunderstanding of the Constitution and the role of the President of the United States, and his refusal to see the American public that doesn't agree with him as fellow patriotic Americans. That his past is filled with bankruptcy and scams and sexual improprieties, and mistreatment of others and more lies only compound the reality that he does not belong in the position he holds.
This is still only the tip of the iceberg and yet we feel he is given a pass - as if it is more important to maintain the illusion of American wisdom than proclaim loudly to the world that we made an enormous mistake - a fact they too know but are too wary to express aloud.
2
Norris and Inglehart: “It remains to be seen how resilient liberal democracy will be in Western societies, or whether it will be damaged irreparably by authoritarian populist forces” ...
Liberal democracy can limit the damage by being truly "liberal" in its outlook, that is, listening to, seeking to understand, and willing to engage politely with voters who do not see the world in the same way.
"Liberal" used to mean open-minded, but it has lately been overlaid with a fierce and angry tint of dogma.
Responding nastily to Trump supporters -- or Trump himself --serves only to harden the divisions. He is a master at polarizing vast swathes of the electorate but when liberals emulate him, attributing non-negotiable labels to the opposition, all dialogue stops. Unity and harmony get pushed to the back burner or immolated in their entirety.
Liberal democracy needs to be resilient but also flexible enough to honor the life experiences and opinions of its opposition.
Liberalism has always been a stretch beyond one's comfort zones -- and it must resist the temptation to tighten, harden or withdraw back into itself when faced with a rigid, recalcitrant foe. It must avoid also becoming dogmatic and authoritarian even though fighting back in kind will undoubtedly feel viscerally pleasing ... but in the long run, counterproductive.
6
@Gluscabi
I commend your thinking even though I am probably far to your right. A mark of the American spirit has historically been to simply mind one's business and let others do the same. This attitude fosters community and open dialogue because it respects one another's life choices.
One can argue what, or who, caused a breakdown in this kind of community dialogue, but it is clearly broken. Personally, I blame self righteous Baby Boomer leftists (Is there any cultural tradition they won't attack?), but you may have another source.
I don't watch Fox or MSNBC. National Review and the Times give me an opportunity to quickly assess issues from thoughtful people on opposing sides of our political universe.
Having been around for awhile, I am far less troubled by political turmoil than I was in my youth. The pendulum swings and the zealous overreach of one party is swept away by the winners of the next election. So it is, and so it shall be.
With this in mind, we might remember that being respectful of, and kind to, others is the best way. After all, my victory of today may be undone by yours tomorrow!
After the shock of 2016, many Democrats reacted like four-year olds told "No." Many Republicans reacted like arrogant soccer fans whose team just won. It is good to see that, finally, that bitter wave is subsiding. May we all remember that we are in this together and our similarities outweigh our differences.
3
"Us vs. Them": it worked for Pres. Obama and Hillary Clinton attempted to do it, too. We need new blood, people who actually know the Constitution, love it, and wish to foster its principles. Not the principles of some other land or philosophy.
2
The democrats propose a "green new deal" which would effectively nationalize the energy industry. Proposal includes dictating Americans reduce consumption of beef, effectively telling us what we can and cannot eat.
The "green new deal" would concentrate economic and political power in Washington DC, and could not be more authoritarian. Claiming that Trump and his supporters support authoritarianism is one of the most hypocritical arguments I have ever seen.
6
It’s funny how many of these free, independent types say exactly what Hannity tells them to say, and buys what corporations tell them to buy, and vote how Trump tells them to vote, and never, ever, actually look at the information presented.
There’s no cheering for the Socialistic Gulag going on in Edsall’s interesting article about polarization. He’s just looking at what’s actually going on.
But possibly, he should’ve looked at the gap between those who don’t want to know anything real, and the world as it actually is, on every topic from evolution to global warming.
3
I think you make it too complex, trump is a despicable human being, trump “human interaction skills” are lying, bullying, threatening, and making vile cruel personal attacks. His “business model” was getting investor money, moving it around in holding companies and declaring bankruptcy.
35% of America support this despicable human being as president .
Oil made a few people on earth very wealthy, in the west it made a middle class, and it reinforced geo-political states with massive weapons and ideologies of national sovereignty. Most people on earth did not really know how poor they were until electronic media told them and now they realize they are poor simply because of where they were born.
For 400,000 years humans have been migrating in search of better life and in spite of nation states, people will continue. The non leadership of authoritarian demagogues will lead to massive violent confrontations as the world makes its way to some standard of acceptable behavior for all, but it is going there, in spite of trump and his 35%.
3
Trump is a symptom of the polarization in our politics, as the author eventually notes with his point that the Democratic Party has been bleeding working class white support since the Wallace/Nixon/Reagan era. That said, Trump is the first President I recall to shamelessly amplify those divisions. Bush 43 ran as "a uniter, not a divider"; Obama talked about Purple state, not Red and Blue ones.
But since shoes come in pairs, there ought to be one for the other foot. If Trump is the most polarizing President ever, Hillary surely ranks high as one of the most polarizing non-winners. Her rhetoric about half of Trump's supporters belonging in a basket of deplorables and irreedeemables was not exactly a "bring us together, heal our divisions" moment.
As to the 2020 race, a sad truth is that the Democratic Party cannot compete for the Presidency without energized and nearly monolithic African-American support. This gives them a structural imperative to scream "Racist Republicans" at any opportunity.
Some of those opportunities( such as Steve King of Iowa) are real. The attacks on the racism of George Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney were less far credible. Sadly, that prompted people to tune out the attacks on whomever Republicans nominate, including Trump.
But without the racial division the Democrats have no hope at all on the national level.
3
Yeah, that Hillary....there she went again, remarking on what’s true. How dare she. As for your charming remarks about race, here’s a thought: the evidence of the years since Reagan pretty much tells anybody who looks that Republicans can’t compete on any level without whomping up white fears and hatreds.
Any society is a cauldron at the best of times, so many class/ethnic/racial tensions simmering under the surface. To exploit those tensions is the worst sort of selfishness and irresponsibility. The divide-and-conquer strategy is rock bottom for any individual or party that presumes to national leadership. Maybe one day there can be a mature and rational discussion about what works best, guided by pragmatism not blind ideology, the most worthy ideas whether from left or right considered strictly on their merits. For the time being, we're governed by scoundrels -- and even worse, the reigning superpower by a blustery tycoon who plays with it like a toy.
1
" first, polarize the American electorate along racial, cultural and economic lines, then exploit the schisms " the top get it all and we get scraps; our ancestors came as slaves, now it is our turn; women are paid less and have fewer jobs at top levels.
It seems that these were there before Trump and are now nearly identical to the next presidential race. Medicare for ALL; free college....income leveling; woman's time to be President, Hillary now most candidates are women; too many old white men on those committees.
Mr. Edsall, you are right that Trump highlights these kind of divisive issues, but he didn't create the Democrat party drift that was highlighted by the Sanders campaign...and effectively so ....The Burn had a real shot at the Presidency had not the Democrat Party decided it was a WOMANs turn.
4
Actually Edsall’s point is that new racial and gender divides are cutting across the older class lines; it’s a point that the misogynist attacks from Berniebros beautifully illustrate.
History will show Trump to be a fool, and his supporters to have been foolish, but I think the one individual who will be viewed in the long term as the most singularly treasonous American in U.S. history will be Mitch McConnell.
4
False premise. Keep what up? Trump is the least popular first term president in a century. Unfit for office, he sticks to campaign "rallies," so desperate is he for applause. Racism and division may hold most of the base, yet some have already peeled off. The truth that the tax cut was a con, meant to enrich the wealthiest, will come home with each completed tax return. Fox "Newz" wouldn't tell of the tax scam, but even the base will see the bottom line.
A crowded Democratic field is a good thing. Even the least among them reads, discusses, listens, considers, and learns. They are all light years more qualified than the Baby King. Most of the investigations will be completed in time for someone to challenge trump for the GOP nomination. Criminal charges will arrive eventually. It will take a generation to sponge away the stain on the nation that is trumpism, yet so very many Americans will display scrubbing skills few believe we still possess.
Trump is an unprincipled man. There are not enough racists to reelect this nightmare of a human being.
3
What the usually astute Mr. Edsall ignores is the fact that identity politics is inevitably the promotion, and the exploitation, of us vs. them.
And, in fairness to Mr. Trump, identity politics was initiated, was promoted and continues to be extolled by the Progressive Democrats, or as they now prefer to be called the Socialist Democrats. Mr. Obama excelled at highlighting identity politics and then profiting politically from them ("If they bring a knife, we bring a gun"). Joe Biden tired to pit black against white by telling blacks that whites "want to put you back in chains." And who can forget the exquisite statement of the divisiveness of identity politics made by Hillary as she described the hated "deplorable" which she estimated made up half the country (she was, as usual, wrong: they made up the majority of the electoral college votes).
To complain that Trump is using the Progressives divisive tactics against them is hypocritical. And the only thing sweeter is the albatross of the Green New Deal, now permanently draped around the necks of so many Democrat 2020 candidates.
4
I’d suggest that this kind of willfully-ignorant chanting of whatever was on Hannity last night, and total refusal to actually listen to what anybody else is actually saying, makes the kinds of divisions Edsall’s talking about worse, and more intractable.
Among other things, it encourages the same old mistake of believing that anybody who informs you of something you don’t want to be informed about is your enemy, a bad guy who’s on the side they’re describing.
Someone on Quora asked "Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?" Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote this magnificent response.
"A few things spring to mind.
Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.
For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.
So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.
Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing - not once, ever.
I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility - for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.
But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.
Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.
And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness."
(more to come. I'll add it as a reply.)
3
@Thomas Payne - They should talk - they're stuck with Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Jacob Rees-Mogg. And the opposition is led by that 70s parlour pink, Jeremy Corbyn.
Maybe Trump isn't so bad?
@Thomas Payne The quote you cite seems to think superficial things are crucial to a President and that is how we got Obama, a man clearly more charming and likable than our current President but to whom many, if not most, of his policies were less than wonderful. Trump is an unlikable boorish person but to me and many others his policies have been much better.
I loathe Trump and everything that has to do with him. I am encouraged by stories and polls that indicate he’ll be impeached, imprisoned, won’t run again, be defeated in the primary, or voted out of office. However, I won’t believe it until I see it. If I recall, Hillary Clinton was supposed to win in a rout.
2
The keyword is "Pre-Existing Condition".
The Patient is USA. The deformed body type is American Democracy. Several cancerous conditions cause body cells to attack each other, like racism, partisanship, identity politics, income disparity, etc. The infected areas are numerous, from head to toe. The trigger for the present outbreak: Trump. Immediate outlook: critical.
Why spend so much time on just the trigger when the patient needs radiation right away? Oh yes. Pre-existing conditions are not covered.
1
Trump doesn't need to exploit racial division in the country to fire up his base and some swing voters - the left is very ably doing it for him thank you. The recent outrageous article "I'm watching you white boy" in the Yale Daily news being a prime example.
5
Yes he can and he will - to our detriment. NRA, right- wing extremists, disenchanted people, evangelicals and Trump have combined in a “perfect storm” to rock the foundations of our society. Trump and company will continue their damage because they don’t have any constructive agenda other than constantly raising adrenaline levels on the basis of imaginary threats. 2020 cannot come soon enough.
1
Democratic progress is achieved when we stop idolizing the 'original intent of the Founding Fathers'. Freedom & opportunity & real property rights for native Americans, European colonialists and newly arriving immigrants meant freedom and opportunity for white males from England and Northern Europe; not Africa, Latin America or Asia. The original intent of the Founding Fathers did not include being multicultural with no gender biases. This point can be driven home by reviewing thousands of real estate deals & legislative actions during our Civil War & the Reconstruction Period in the West, border States & the South.
1
I have nothing to add to this column. I'm writing simply to say that it was another superb analysis from Mr. Edsall. That's no big surprise.
"As we saw in 2016, negative reactions to Hillary Clinton contributed to the outcome of that election..."
Clinton won the popular vote by more than 3 million and lost the Electoral College by 77,000 votes over three states. Those states had numerous election abnormalities. You don't need a long dissertation on voting proclivities based on post-election polling to draw your own conclusions.
@Etienne
Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton lost the only popular vote that matters in America Presidential elections to Mr. Melania Knavs Trump.
The only popular vote that matters in our divided limited different power constitutional republic of united states that allocates meaningful Electoral College votes takes place in each sovereign state.
The 4 million more votes that Hillary won in California over Trump did not count nor matter in any other state. And the only " dissertation" that matters was the known 2016 election results.
4
There is no " us" that matters more meaningfully and powerfully than the heirs of white European American Judeo- Christian majority.
There is no " them" that matters less than the heirs of brown aboriginal Native American pioneers and the heirs of enslaved and separate and unequal black African Americans in America.
1
The gist of all this is that Republicans have created the inequity they themselves feed upon. Any return to a more progressive tax structure, which is at the heart of any return to wealth disparity, will be smeared as “radical”, “socialist” and “Unamerican”. And money is the biggest megaphone.
2
On a Q such as do you favor citizenship for people here illegally, Trump is clever in exploiting the distinctions. I suspect a lot of folks might share my views: Yes, for the Dreamers and the people here for years w/o no serious criminal record, BUT, I don't favor a policy of, "as soon as you get into the US illegally or as soon as you overstay your visa, you are automatically entitled to a path to citizenship if you behave." I believe Trump's emphasis on the wall is designed to appeal to a spectrum of folks, including the folks with the view I just wrote. And when Pelosi says a wall is immoral, it feeds into a narrative that Dems favor open borders.
3
It's hard to imagine a modern U.S. president more exploitative when it comes to dividing the nation than Donald Trump -- but it's more than a mere modus operandi, it's a sign of weakness.
To "divide and conquer" has to be one of the oldest tricks in the book when it comes to governance, and in a nation as wildly diverse as this one, it offers fertile ground to exercise its maxim to the ultimate effect, and Trump is a master at it.
Not only does he excel at reviving the old demons of fear and hatred to drive a deeper wedge between the races and social classes, he's proven himself capable of creating avenues for new ones.
And it's not just a matter of the Democrats, Progressives, or "Left-wing extremists" who are to blame.
It's we, all of us, ourselves.
2
When Robert Mueller‘s report comes out, and it most certainly will before the 2020 election, it will change everything ,including the size of Donald Trump’s base . The word is out that the results on Mr. Mueller‘s findings will be overwhelmingly bad for the current occupant of the Oval Office so that if he runs in 2020, he is going to be running for reelection with a rather dark cloud hanging over him . That makes all of the predictions of how Donald Trump will fare in 2020 irrelevant until the time that the findings of Mr. Mueller are released .
1
The only way to move forward is to provide for and pacify the groups that will be left behind. Universal basic income could provide a buffer to changing economic forces for both the urban and rural poor. It may be expensive, but it would be less disastrous than authoritarian dictators assuming control of the White House on a regular basis moving forward.
2
So the problems we are having don't stem from primaries, but from GOP primaries.
I think we need to recognize there is a substantial gap between Party voters and the voting population in general. Primary voters are indicative of their Party in general. However, dropping 20 or 30 points on every issue between Party and population suggests a significant difference between the two positions.
In other words: Parties mostly agree with themselves however that doesn't mean anything for the general population. I would politely suggest the average American hates both Parties. However, they are slightly more likely to support Democrats if they choose to vote at all.
I don't mean to suggest non-affiliated voters are centrist though. This is a myth both sides like to promote. Split governments necessarily compromise on certain issues. Western governments are generally split more often than not. It makes the politician's job easier to pretend the average voter wants compromise when compromise is all the politician can provide.
In truth, most voters disengage with the Parties because they find them unrepresentative. I don't mean demographics either. Republicans are already over the cliff on a generational basis; we'll leave them aside. However, Democrats have not exactly provided a welcoming home to people who otherwise want to support them.
The Hillary Clinton debacle is a case in point. The Party wanted what the Party wanted. That's not what voters wanted though. The difference in opinion was more than 20 points. Only 9 percent of America chose Trump or Clinton.
1
In 2016, Hillary Clinton, having narrowly defeated Sanders, far to her left, presented herself as the centre-left establishment candidate with support from Wall Street. Trump, rhetorically, presented himself as the anti-globalist radical, determined to defeat the establishment of both parties and "drain the swamp" in Washington. Who won the election (via the Electoral College)? The candidate advocating radical, system-wide, change.
Americans, across the political spectrum are looking for fundamental change. Trump has that vote wrapped up on the (far or alt) right. Is there anyone among conventional centre-left Democrats who can convince a clear majority of young voters, and heretofore non-voters, that they can lead the country in grass-roots democratic renewal? How would they propose to reverse decades of rising inequality of wealth and income and wage stagnation?
It is not only a question of winning the election, but what systemic difference a Democratic candidate would make as President. That's why FDR's New Deal is the best reference point now for Democratic candidates. The right, at the time, swore FDR was a socialist, and his New Deal was a socialist program. In the end, he actually saved capitalism from the destructive free market policies of the greedy self-absorbed capitalists.
1
@Wally
Great point.. There wasn't much daylight separating Sanders and Trump on a lot of issues .. That should have been the contest .. Instead the DNC preordained Hillary and we know the ending..
2
I cringe when the Democratic half of the electorate is described as "post-materialist". The American public, including most Democrats, is intensely materialist. They care a great deal about their houses, and cars, and they oppose anything that might, for instance, reduce their house price. Don't ever assume that disposable income and how much stuff they own doesn't matter more than anything else to Americans of both political parties. The Democratic party likes to spend time on transgender bathrooms and third trimester abortions precisely because they don't trust their voters to stand with them if progressive reforms lead to middle class tax increases. Sure everyone is for Medicare for all and defeating climate change -- that's because nobody has presented them with the bill to pay for it. But that will happen. The Republicans are going to put a cost on every vague proposal in the "Green New Deal" or "Medicare for All", and present the cost to the American public, and that vagueness will make the cost huge. Democrats had better get their stories straight, and decide what their priorities are, or Republicans will crucify them on the cross of the cost of our progressive pretensions. And no, taxing the rich more won't pay for everything. Not even close.
5
Racism is a factor, but it is not an important factor.
Those Democratic Party elites sanctimoniously lead Democrats to believe that Trump's base are racist "deplorables" because it takes the focus off their elite values and the policies they have supported and continue to support, that enable their elite status.
If those elite Democrats choose to support policies that really help the poor and working class citizens who have been left behind by globalization, those citizens might acknowledge what political party really helps them.
A majority of citizens support a top tax rate of at least 70%.
But, you can bet, that a majority of the best Congress money can buy does not support that, and dealing with the time bomb of the huge and growing wealth/income inequality is something the majority of Congress will try to ignore...
There is, of course, the terrible danger of Russia to focus on.
Promoting fear is a wonderful tool for herding people, and the elite know how to use it.
The Democratic elite use the wedge issues of social division as glibly as Trump.
If anyone in Democratic Party leadership wanted to open their arms to a wider constituency, they would show respect for people who are not comfortable with abortion, or gay marriage, transgenders or whatever. People are raised differently and change takes time.
Just give people who think differently some space and respect, and focus on issues that we all have in common, health care for all, better education, infrastructure...
2
@Lucy Cooke "A majority of citizens support a top tax rate of at least 70%."
Yeah, provided it doesn't apply to them personally, no matter how high their income. "Go tax somebody else!" is their cry.
1
The pundits and politicians who characterize some Democrats' reasonable policy proposals as "far left" may be as divisive as Trump, even though their platforms are smaller. Railing against injustices, accompanied by proposals to fix those injustices, cannot justifiably be dismissed as mere anger.
Use of divisiveness in pursuit of power has a history of at least decades in our modern politics. There was Nixon's Southern Strategy, Reagan's welfare queens in white Cadillacs, GHW Bush's Willie Horton commercials, etc. No Russians are needed. While the Mueller investigation should proceed to its conclusion, and foreign interests should not be allowed to influence our elections, too much emphasis on the involvement of foreign actors can serve as a distraction, to avoid the national introspection that is needed to solve our problems.
1
Trump is getting a tremendous boost from the Democrats. Do you like white people, are you heterosexual, do you want to drive a car and heat your house? Do you think everyone should obey the law? If so, the GOP welcomes you, but apparently the new progressive Democrats do not.
Of course, the Dems will walk everything back in the general election, and may nominate a centrist candidate. But the damage has been done. Normal people will decide they should stick together, and push their interests.
3
Trump's warns of "socialism" in his State of the Union address,
"...we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country.",
This ignores the success of our home grown socialist institutions: the public education system, the postal service, the public library system, social security, unemployment and disability insurance, medicare and medicaid.
"America was founded on liberty and independence - not government coercion, domination and control."
This dependable Republican smear tactic, conflating "socialism" with authoritarianism, falsely implies that "socialism" is inherently coercive. Socialism, by freeing so many from ignorance, fear of destitution, and the disasters of accident and illness, offers us tangible personal freedoms.
"We are born free, and we will stay free."
Sounds good, but is meaningless. We are, from birth, bound by circumstances and obligations that limit personal freedom. The automobile gives us freedom, but is necessarily constrained by actively enforced laws.
"Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country."
We are, and have been, a country with many socialist institutions. By smearing "socialism" the Republicans define the terms of the debate. Social justice, social conscience, social cohesion are what make society work. Without "social" values we become little more than a pack of snarling adversaries asserting our individual liberties above the benefits of a just and equitable society.
9
@Reed. When you have to resort to examples of ‘successful’ home-grown socialism that includes the post office (broke), social security (broke) and the public education system (broken), you might need to rethink your position.
4
@William
Post office: working every day
Social Security: paying out reliably every day
Education System: educating our children of every social and economic class through public support
You didn't mention: the FDA, protecting you from diseased or poisonous food
the Public Library System, the Centers of Disease Control, or countless other 'socialistic' agencies that better your life or relieve you from disaster.
@Reed Erskine
Social justice is an admirable ideal, but it can never be imposed from the outside, as Democrats are wont to do. It starts from within each person's heart and spreads from one to another. That's what conservatives understand and liberals don't.
It is naive to ignore inevitable conflicts of interest and the inevitable need to choose sides on issues. As a lifelong democrat I think that the party has not taken the side of ordinary working people for a long time. One indication: In 2000 a Human Rights Watch report found U.S. labor laws in violation of international standards of freedom of assembly. Periodically I get a survey from the local Democratic party seeking my opinion on abortion and marijuana and corporation taxes. Other than issues dear to journalists, Democratic politicians seem unaware of what is happening in peoples' lives.
This paragraph perfectly encapsulates the platform of the Democratic party
..."Most Democrats will have as their prime goal — far more important than positions taken by the candidates — making sure Trump does not have a second term."
The other major position of Democrats is to have "other" people pay for their equality of outcome socialist agenda. Get Trump put of office, and get other people to pay...
The problem is, it doesnt take a genius to figure out that after the first wave of tax hikes, it will be everyone, all of us, who pay for their socialist agenda of intolerance for anyone and anything not Leftist. Be careful what you wish for Democrats. God help us if we get it.
3
The greatest work we have ahead is to use what resources we have to feed and shelter humanity. Once people have these needs met they can deliberate more clearly about policies. It does not matter so much which method we use to do this, Robin Hood style, or Capitalistic style. What matters is that people can live in peace and security, with enough to eat and shelter with dignity. It is not so much how we bring this about, as that we do it. Migration will ease, the " left behind" will be included, the poor will not need to beg. HOW that is done is less important than getting it done.
If American politics continue down this path of recriminations and ‘resentiment’, it will be Friedrich Nietzsche’s laughter which eternally haunts our national psyche.
Donald Trump is the cause of our problems like television is the cause of bad parenting. The medium is the message.
4
Thanks to TBE for an insightful OpEd, complete with data! What puzzles me is that a few commenters try diligently to equate left/liberal ideas with the far right, suggesting that both are authoritarian. That's simply false, nor can I find that anywhere in the OpEd.
Right now we have an obscene level of inequality in this country with regard to accumulated wealth, wages and salaries, access to health care, life expectancies, taxes paid, fair treatment in the criminal justice system, access to good schools, the list goes on. This was brought to us by increasingly conservative governments. Why should anyone be afraid of righting these wrongs?
2
@Michelle E - Because in order to do that, you'd have to use force to take things away from the affluent and give them to the poor. The wealthy people in the rich suburbs are not going to voluntarily give up their good life to benefit the poor, and can only be made to pay high taxes under the threat of being sent to jail or losing their houses if they don't pay.
1
Simple answer is yes, it has worked for Republicans for decades.
The reason being, so long has we have heavily gerrymandered districts, rampant voter suppression efforts, Republicans will always have the upper hand.
Just think about the demographic changes that has taken place in states like South Carolina, Florida and Texas. If you go by the numbers there is no reason why people like McConnell and Trump should ever get elected (in fact Republicans have lost the popular vote in the last 12 years, Trump winning the least amount of any president in modern history).
5
Us vs. them. The divide and conquer strategy has worked for centuries. What has changed is how comfortable conservatives, and the far right, have become living in this environment. I blame the Evangelical Christian movement of the last 30 years. They hear it every Sunday from their ministers, and it is ingrained in their daily lives.
8
@Scott
Which party wishes to divide ...the Democrats.
The AOC & Warren tax plans seek to pit the rich vs poor.
Open your eyes.
Because we loathe the President, we can’t sufficiently estimate his chances of actually winning in 2020. He has never been the root problem, and directing our attention toward him will prevent us from getting to a solution. Trump voters are anxious. We need to address that anxiety and we must win many of them over. We can’t afford a “maybe we can squeeze out a win” scenario. We need a sensible, centrist voice. We need proposals that enjoy broad support and look like they could pass a split Congress. We need to prove again that we can govern together. Hillary Clinton thought deeply about sensible solutions to problems, but she couldn’t escape the characterization that she wouldn’t be inclusive, even though that was clearly an incorrect assessment. That should be profoundly instructive to the Democrats.
2
I have 2 words for Mr. Edsall: McGovern and Mondale. Both ran against unpopular Republican presidents and were nominated as the Democratic party took a swing to the left. They both lost in landslides.
Furthermore, the Democrats are already on the wrong side of Trump's signature issue--illegal immigration (legal immigration is another issue). By opposing the border wall, democratic candidates are putting themselves firmly on the side of illegal immigration, or at least they can be portrayed as such. The green new deal, wealth taxes, tax increases, and medicare for all, just add other issues that the majority of Americans oppose. This makes Mr. Trump's reelection increasingly likely.
One other fallacy of Mr. Edsall's analysis is that voting demographics are static, they aren't. The older, whiter baby boom voters in today's electorate, were once the young liberals who actually nominated George McGovern. As people age, they tend to get more conservative, and no doubt the same will happen to our current generation of young people.
I do agree, that the middle of the road is open to Democrats this year. I believe that a socially liberal but economically middle of the road candidate (eg. Michael Bloomberg) might find broad appeal among Independents and Republicans who dislike Mr.Trump. The question is whether that candidate can appeal to Democrats. There is a landslide up there for the taking, the question is who will take it.
4
@chip - I suspect the millenials are dropping out of liberalism at a much younger age as they get jobs and discover how difficult it is to earn a living and get ahead. After experiencing four years of Trump, a substantial number of them may hold their nose and vote for him in 2020.
2
Well said! hear! hear!
For me Trump is not the scary part. The scary part is 35-40% of our population that are willing to stay with him no matter what he does or how he fails.
15
This essay correctly notes the polarizing rhetoric on the right but is silent about equally polarizing rhetoric on the left. Raving against the “rich” who are imagined as some sinsiter unified force, antisemtism, virtue purges, and defense of socialism are as dangerous as immigrant-bashing on the right. A dehumanizing language against the Trump base is now de rigeur in certain left- wing circles. The idea that radical left is popular with the broad swath of voters is a false narrative, based on carefully chosen statistics. Why wouldn’t most reasonable people agree with raising the minimum wage or fighting climate change? There is nothing “left” about these ideas. But ask voters how many are in favor of socialism, nationalizing all industries, making it illegal to own property above a certain level, or any other truly left ideas. The numbers dwindle to about as many as want the return to the Confederacy. Polarization is the result of having the radical margins consume al the oxygen in the room while the rational center is silent.
5
@Mor
Yet more false equivalence.
"Yeah, that's it, knock him around... You know folks, back in the old days they would've taken him out on a stretcher!"
I rest my case.
Taking on global warming isn't socialism. It is a question of survival of life on the planet. David Brooks tried to equate facing up to the environmental destruction of the planet with elitism. Who was it that removed solar collectors from the White House? Who was it that mocked global warming with snowballs? Who pulled out of the Paris agreement, put oil lobbyists in charge of the environment, and pushed through oil pipelines? The Republican party.
7
@TimToomey - Well, we could all live in caves, eat organic carrots, and use candles, but unless China, India, and Russia cut their emissions, global warming will continue.
2
Judeo-Christian civilizations always look for a Messiah. Like most political leaders, Trump knows how to use this fundamental weakness.
3
Very true. I have worn a "Gandalf For President" button at election time to try & point this out.
identity politics is what divides us- every group/tribe/sex is out to gain power, often at the expense of others. the proponents of this ideology use speech codes and public shaming to achieve their goals.
for example, why would feminists tell us to vote for a woman, instead of the best person running for the job? doesn't that hurt qualified men? they don't care? exactly-they don't care. the identity is what is paramount. i'm a jew- you think i care if a candidate is jewish????
us vs them predated trump by a decade at least, and comes from the Left. thank god for trump for pushing back on this nefarious, unamerican ideology, no matter how ugly or distasteful his methods are. maybe, after trump, this whole identity politics nightmare will go away.
the fact the those on the Left blame trump for all this shows how deluded they are. they blame trump for everything. everything.
4
It may work in this political arena but it has consequences. For reference, James (the brother of Jesus) wrote:
I will not slander other believers. Anyone who slanders his brother or judges his brother slanders the law [of God] and judges the law [of God]. When I judge the law [of God], I am not a doer of the law [of God], but a judge. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy. Who am I to judge my neighbor? (James 4:11–12)
Exploitation, division, slander, lies, etc. are against THE Law.
1
Liberals who have been guzzling the cultural relativism cool aid like to bring all of their unfavorite ideas back to Trump and his oh so flawed and stupid voters! In reality, Trump and his voters are a throwback to traditional American values. His ideology is a combination of Harvard professor of political science Samuel Huntington’s “Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity” and Yale professor of political philosophy Allan Bloom’s “the Closing if the American Mind”. Twenty years ago the association would have been so obvious. Today, the very obvious idea that American political civilization is superior (why does everyone want to come here if it’s such a bigoted society?) is regarded as so out of bounds that not even tenure will save you from being fired.
5
IT'S TOO BAD That Nikita Khrushchev is not around to tell us that he's going to bury us, then pound a table at the UN with his shoe. Such pearls of statesmanship were not to be found any more. Until Trump. All right, so he doesn't pound his shoe on the table. Not yet! Trump claims he'll revive coal. Coal miners have to go underground working in a close space. Like a coffin? Never mind that the Museum of Coal is powered by solar panels on the roof, and that natural gas sales have increased, leaving a shrinking market for coal. Trump is touting authoritarianism? Like the televised tearing apart of families at the US Mexico border? With that, he turned the US into going in the direction of the Nazis, who tore families apart. All right, so the kids were in cages, under plastic blankets. But some toddlers, and perhaps others, were unable to speak. So the only way they can be reunited with family is using genetic tests. Current numbers notwithstanding, it's clear that there is massive review of Trump's documents. With further indictments in the offing, perhaps involving Trump, his popularity may slump dramatically. But there will always be Purple Kool Aid bunch, leftovers from the Jonestown massacre in Guyana, who will stand by their man. At the time of his resignation, Nixon left office with a job approval rating of 24%. Trump may see the wisdom in making a hasty exit. But will the letter of resignation require an entire blank page for Trump to slather ink?
1
To Trump's base: next time, don't go with bluster, go with brains.
3
@farhorizons - But an intelligent implementation of Trump's policies would wipe the Democrats off the map. Even blacks and Hispanics would desert them.
We wouldn't want that, would we?
Racial division, cruelty, dishonesty, and corruption are all that he has to offer.
Unfortunately, racial discrimination and deliberate cruelty are _exactly_ what 62 million Trump voters want. They are willing to see the country go down in flames, as long as immigrants, minorities, and liberals are punished at the same time.
It is the mentality of a doomsday cult.
4
"felt abandoned by a Democratic Party that shed its pre-civil rights, segregationist southern wing"
Here's an outcome of that swing to the liberal utopia.
In 1972... In a desegregation order to the Detroit Public Schools, forced busing was implemented in Detroit, Judge Roth (JFK appointee), who ruled on the case wrote in part:
“Transportation of kindergarten children for upwards of 45 minutes, one way, does not appear unreasonable, harmful, or unsafe in any way. ...kindergarten children should be included in the final plan of desegregation.”
This was a weaponized judiciary aimed at working class folks by liberals who for the most part had no skin in the game.
This was also long before Betsy Devos or the mortgage meltdown. Fortunately Roth's attempt to force non-Detroit public schools to take part was overruled by the SCOTUS. Unfortunately the DPSs were forced to take part and it helped destroy that school system. And at the time the DPS system was about 25% white.
Now fast forward to today. Show of hands out there... how many liberals have their children attending public schools with an appreciable number of African-Americans?
Now how many have pulled your children out of public schools because..., well anyway, how many?
How many NYC residents are fighting to desegregate NYC's racially segregated school system?
That's what I thought.
5
Why do you avoid the observation that we are tumbling toward fascism.
5
Fascism is defined as authoritarian state control of private enterprise. In other words, government control of private industry for the purpose of furthering government agendas. Can you think of a party today that is advocating this? its not republicans. Fascism was conveniently labeled as being on the right by left leaning academics in the late 1940s. But in reality, it looks an awful lot like the machinery required to implement leftist socialism. Fascism is primarily an Authoritarian (central power, big government) Socialist regime of the left.
3
@RD not true. Go read a book about fascism.
the republicans offer nothing for anyone but the 1% and their friend putin.
5
"Encouraging and exploiting divisions"???? Are you serious? That is the very definition of Intersectionality and Identity politics, the two most corrosive and dangerous concepts to surface in the USA in 200 years ... and both being clutched to the bosom of mainstream democrats.
I really feel like I am living in 1984 when I peruse some opinion pieces in the Times. The double think of this piece is one example, the idea of people who would restrict speech and expression and association calling others "Fascist" is another example right out of MiniTrue.
Amazing.
5
@Michael James Cobb
Oh, you mean those 'identities' (a.k.a. American people who happen to be black, gay, women, trans, etc...) who want the same legal rights/ protections and opportunities as white males (like you and I) have?
For almost 200 years of our history they were ignored, if not outright actively targeted for oppression, by both parties. At least now there's one party that's standing up for them.
1
Us vs. Them is the main tactic of the left.
Race, class, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, legal status, religion, education...
You name it, the left will use it as a divisive tool.
4
@Randy Science and facts versus lies and gibberish. Inclusiveness vs racism. You name it and the right will choose the wrong path.
2
There are a lot of short term memories in these posts. Let’s get one thing straight, Donald Trump isn’t the reason this country is screwed up and on the wrong track. We’ve been on the wrong track for close to decades. Trump got elected b/c both political parties have failed and the Democrats nominated the only person Trump could beat in the electoral college. Don’t get me wrong, Trump is a buffoon and is making things worse, but the country is on a path to overcorrect by electing an extreme left wing President in 2020. Lurching back and forth from extreme to extreme is beyond dangerous. The solution? We need to reject both major political parties - they are incompetent, corrupt, and run by extremists. We need to form a new party in this country that rejects the 20% on both the far right and left. The sensible majority of people in this country are not far right or left, and they don’t believe compromise is a dirty word. A new political party is the only way out of this mess
3
start reading conservative publications and then see how you feel.
Trump doesn’t consider himself an American.
He aspires to be part of the rich global elite, which he is not because he’s just not rich enough.
Which is why he’d rather hang with Putin and China in Mara largo than actually do work in DC.
Because he really doesn’t care, he’s able to say anything to anyone to get what he wants.
He found the uneducated, trod upon, middle American white an easy group to weaponize, already controlled by foxnews.
He cares little for them, but finds them useful to lock in a third of the country.
Religious issues, abortion, gun ownership, factory workers... he could care less. Just tell him what to say.
Those things don’t touch his bottom line.
He’s the most blatantly “doesn’t care about anything but his own business” president the nation has ever had.
Not only the worst president, he may actually be the worst human.
He just doesn’t care about anything ...
He just wants to be part of the global rich club.
And as he is really just a New York real estate guy, and minor tv performer, with a very very costly family and lifestyle, he’s very very far from the real truly rich of the world.
A fraud, who doesn’t care, in it for himself, and failing to get there... he’s just awful.
And getting older and more out of it.
Really really need to get our country out of his sweaty dumb hands.
2
THIS right here is the key:
"...Conversely, minorities, ***many of whom face the same economic hardships as working class whites***..."
In the late 1960s, two men saw this and worked to break down racial divides and unify Americans along economic lines - MLK and Robert Kennedy.
Unfortunately both these men's lives were tragically cut short. Oh what might have been...
I am wondering why there is no mention of Karl Marx in this article.
1
If it was only trump and the right. Read the letters here in the nyts. America is the worst place with the worst people on earth. All Americans, ok only white people, are all racist xenophobes. Anybody who disagrees with the left is: stupid, uninformed, and of coarse, a racist. If you don't live on the coasts? Same thing. Politics has now become name calling and denigration. The smug, cocky, arrogant attitude of the left has given us 4 years (maybe) of trump. They may give us 4 more.
4
Democracy takes a lot of work!
We are lazy bigoted voters
Shame in America since Reagan
No one is showing us the true way to be as a nation any longer.
I call my reps every week.
They send me form letters.
And behave by votes against their constituents or passively avoid conflict and ...... ????
Lots of largely white poor folks love Trump because he annoys liberals. They love getting in an jab at the likes of Hillary (deplorables). I supported Hilary, financially and at the ballot box. Her distain for lower income white voters was painful to observe.
The lefts failure to address the horrible impact of illegal workers on wages for poor people is deplorable. The left cries racism at every turn, but now focuses on “Black and Brown” racism, completely ignoring the amazing success of Asian-Americans. How does that population succeed in the face of the supposedly overwhelming presence of white racism? Crickets.
5
@Michael Haddon - Not only that, now that illegal immigration has been reduce, black American citizens are getting jobs. Don't think they haven't noticed.
1
There will come a time when the complex challenges we face demand action. When that time comes all the players whose only playbook is "divide and conquer" will fall by the wayside and America can get back to the business of innovation and prosperity.
I'm excited for that future; I hope you are too.
5
The information presented by Mr. Edsall suggests at least several things:
1. The divisions and trends that helped to elect Trump are likely to remain well after his term, or terms, end.
2. While the majority of voters may support many Democratic positions in a generic sense, that support tends to drop once these positions are tied to specific Democratic candidates or leaders in a campaign.
3. It will take a truly special leader to get people to look beyond what divides them to focus on their common interests. Maybe it will prove otherwise next year but, as of now, no such leader is visible in either party.
4. We are in a time when some people are reluctant to admit to pollsters what they really think and feel, or to talk with them at all.
@Want2know Dems won the midterms by the biggest vote margin in history. Don't see that shifting significantly in 20 months.
"policy proposals that are easy for Republicans to caricature as left-wing extremism"
The Republicans are so far off to the extreme right that anything sane or responsible would be easy to call leftist.
So how do we define "center?"
Does that mean "almost as right wing as Republicans, but not quite?" They'll still call that left wing, and still have some percentage of the electorate agreeing with that.
Edsall here quotes, "negative reactions to Hillary Clinton contributed to the outcome of that election."
Those were reactions to Her being far too out on the right, chasing after Goldman Sachs and the Republicans, and openly dismissive of those to Her left like Bernie and his multitude of followers who put their small money donations behind the strength of their concern.
Don't do it again.
That version of a "center" has already lost to Trump. As H.L. Mencken notes a hundred years ago, given the choice of the real right and those faking it to position for votes, voters will go with the real thing.
Democrats can win by being what they really are, not by being Republican-Lite, not quite as bad as Trump.
4
We’ve had almost 40 years controlled by right-wing extremists with a few years of split control thrown in. It is time the pendulum swung the other way.
4
Trump's ability to divide and conquer did work in 2016; however, I believe that was a one -off event, not likely to repeat. Reasons being that many voters who voted for Trump, or sat out, will be energized to vote against him in 2020. Also, he won due to the highly undemocratic and archaic electoral college, and lost decisively in the popular vote. He will not get 46% of the vote next time, and should easily lose PA, WI, and MI.
4
@alank - If you think the Democratic nominee will not play a role, you are wrong. The Dems will have to pick a particular candidate, whom the voters may possibly consider worse than Trump.
It has happened before....
Caution needs to be exercised when interpreting the results of the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study survey that are cited.
The policies reviewed (legal status to immigrants, minimum amounts of renewable energy, banning assault rifles, eliminating mandatory sentences for nonviolent offenders, and raising the minimum wage to $12) are only a whiff of the far left's actual stated agenda. Those are pretty standard liberal Democratkc positions.
A survey on the far left's actual positions would not show the same results. Look at how many Democrats crossed over and voted for Trump. There are many centrists Democrats who know that they have, over the years, made this country a better and kinder place to live. They also value orderliness, and the far left's views don't fit that basic psychology.
As seen in the opposition to Amazon in NYC, disadvantaged people favor bringing Amazon there. It is the wealthy liberal leftists who don't. Regular Democrats, people who have advocated for minorities for decades, will be horrified at what they see in these leftists who clearly favor their political views over the actual lives of vulnerable people.
4
@Dan, on the contrary, even unified government control by Democrats under a far-left President will have only limited scope for revolutionary change, given the inherent respect that Democrats seem to have for Congressional checks and balances, unlike their Trumpian Republican counterparts.
Therefore, all Americans will benefit from that unified control immeasurably compared to a Trumpian government of any kind. I think there is an excellent chance that whoever wins the Democratic primaries in the end will waste no time or energy while destroying Trump's prospects in the general election. And they will gather their own enthusiastic support, if anything, because unlike Trump, they will not claim they are perfect.
@Dan Your radical far-right views are off the mark. By a yooge" margin.
@William Park - Yeah, those evil radical right-wingers - they actually care about jobs and opportunity for poor people!
Us vs. Them will change by April 15th. I neglected to change my W4 after the new law went in, luckily I own home. So, instead of owing, I am getting a refund. Smaller than usual ($1000 less), but getting one.
As Trump voters work on their returns, they will discover they are not excluded from his policies.
2
Some thoughts:
This column does a good job of defining Authoritarian Values. Hopefully the Presidential contenders will define American Value.
Presidential candidates exploit identity politics differences to a certain degree. But when they become President, they try to unify rather than continue to exploit.
Cultural divisiveness is a political tactic that benefits a President in trouble. Both Nixon and Trump exploited cultural divisions for their own selfish benefit. Just think what might have happened if the same energy devoted to bashing anti-war protestors had been turned instead to insuring that trade with China (Nixon’s signature foreign policy achievement) was fair and equitable for the workers as well as the multi-nationals.
Given that Mueller has been quite close-lipped and the media coverage spotty and usually dependent on narrative-shifting leaks from Trump lawyers, it is amazing how much support Mueller has. What will happen when we get the complete picture?
"1) the importance of security against risks of instability and disorder... 2) the value of group conformity... and 3) the need for loyal obedience toward strong leaders..."
I've left out the second parts of these three "defining values" of authoritarianism, as quoted in the article. It's clear that what we "debate", what differentiates us, are the second halves of the sentences - what exactly provides for security, what group to conform to and which leaders to obey and which customs to protect (see June's comment regarding Elizabeth Warren if you need confirmation that "liberals" want strong leadership).
@mijosc: False equivalency. A strong leader can be democratic and inclusive (e.g, Nelson Mandela), or authoritarian and racist (e.g., Vladimir Putin). Trump is also racist and authoritarian, but fortunately not a strong leader... Nancy Pelosi however, is an example of a strong, democratic, leader.
@Anna: That's exactly what I'm saying. People debate the second half of the statement - what makes for security, etc., - not whether or not we want to be secure. I'm critiquing the authors of the study, not the idea that people generally want security.
Most interesting and disturbing. The extreme authoritarianism Trump engenders means yes that he "...reshapes the Republican Party in his white nationalist image..." as Edsall quotes Jacodbon as writing. The most salient point to me is the last sentence from two other writers in this article: "The problem is not just Trump, nor is it just America. It reflects pervasive economic and cultural changes, for which there are no easy answers." Yet Democrats and progressives suggest it is economics and cultural changes needed that they offer. I'm for getting Trump out and know it's going to be a very tough fight. The Democratic Party needs to move the needle from those who still support Trump to the person who runs against him. Trump took over the GOP, or transcended it. Too close to call yet before Mueller and more news to come, before Democrats choose strong candidates, too soon before the bell to call it.
I very much hope that Norris and Inglehart wrote about previous iterations of the cleavage between Populists and Cosmopolitan Liberals. It's been used as a wedge issue since before black people were a regular part of the regular wage workforce--consider previous invective against Chinese, Irish, Italian and Jewish workers, as well as that against black slaves and freemen.
All of this has been used to keep cutting across economic class solidarity and keep people from coming together against the very wealthy. Far more often than not, it has been successful. We cannot rise above it until we willingly accord a full measure of human dignity to every person in our country.
That is part of what Democrats are fighting for: dignity for the downtrodden black woman, dignity for the disabled veteran, dignity for people who have non-traditional sexuality or gender, dignity for atheists and theists--dignity for all, regardless of race or gender or profession or economic status.
What I wish many conservatives and right-wingers would understand is that more dignity for other people does not mean less dignity for them--in many cases it might well mean more dignity for them as well. Unfortunately, we have people like Trump who obscure this.
Many people call Trump a populist because he connects with some people who are not wealthy. When you look at his actual policies, though, he's no populist. It would be more accurate to call him a demagogic orator, or demagogue for short.
3
@Jacob Sommer
Your third paragraph is stirring, but I do not see it being put into practice by many Democrats. White men, the white working class in general, males (at least those who are not properly contrite about their ancestors' deeds) and residents of flyover states have felt their scorn, even contempt.
I'm not a staunch Trump supporter--underline the word staunch--and could fairly easily see myself supporting some modern day incarnation of Scoop Jackson. But Kirsten Gillibrand's "the future is female" just does not cut it.
Take politics out of the equation, and it's fair to say that most Americans would prefer to get along with their fellow Americans over living in a state of angry opposition to one another. Most understand that an open wound is simply not healthy. Despite the many historical threats to our union, we are a people who fundamentally value unity over division. Trump's constant stirring of the pot is already becoming stale, if not exhausting. The party that can dismantle the us vs. them paradigm will eventually prevail. And, yes, that means finding ways to appeal to BOTH the idealistic haves and the disgruntled have-nots, focusing on what we all want in common, rather than harping on who has more and who has less.
2
How about this (instead): The political eliets that have run this country for decades allowed serious problems to fester and reach a critical point. They no longer represented the people who were impacted by these problems. President Trump has not stoke fear or division or anything else. What he has done is seriously address the problems that both democrat and republican have shoved under the rug for too long.
The whole nonsense about divisions and race and all sorts of inequalities are the invention of people the likes of you, Mr. Edsall.
Well, also the invention of the political eliets who can stand the fact that the problems are now being addressed.
6
I am not a political scientist. But, the essence of what happened is that the Republican party and to some extent the Democrats too converted the politics to a team sport. If one side wins the other side must lose. This turned the political world upside down. Politicians, the members of the Congress, the President are supposed to be public servants. But, they have become self-servants! The real winner was supposed to be the nation, the general population that would benefit from the debate of issues from different perspectives and to find what was better for the nation and the public.
This team mentality must stop. We need to return to the honorable days of the members of the Congress of the past. Respecting each other, even becoming friends while debating for what is best for the people of the USA should become the model once more.
Remember, the nation elected you to do their business, not your own!
3
Two competing philosophies exist in this country and perhaps in the thinking of us as a whole. The first represented by Trump and the GOP so well says that we are islands to ourselves, that the fit and lucky survive and you are fortunate if you are one of those. The other says that we are not only responsible for ourselves but our society in general, that everyone deserves a chance for happiness and society is there to help you achieve it. Democrats see this as health care for all, infrastructure that will not poison you or leave you in the lurch and voting rights for everyone eligible among so many things.
Personally, I would like to live in a society that believes in the latter, that we are all interconnected as humans. It is the way of caring and helping your fellow beings. The former is the way of suspicion and hatred. Perhaps the choice is not always so stark as we are all caring and hating beings, suspicious and accepting at the same time. It takes courage to stand for unselfishness in a world that seems intent on condemning and and hating. Our society needs to wake up to what we are choosing in our media and politics and if you are a Democrat or Republican it is important to find a way to honor your fellow man as yourself. Perhaps in this way healing can begin.
5
@just Robert
addendum Perhaps in the crush of these other fine comments, it does not mean anything, but my wife correctly pointed out that 'man' in this comment should be the more inclusive 'human' and my wife is almost always correct.
@just Robert - Actually, in proto-Germanic, 'man' was a sex-neutral word, and it is still used that way in the Scandinavian languages. The traditional male-specific Germanic words were 'guma', 'beorn', 'were' and 'haleth', which have all unfortunately dropped out of the English language....although 'guma' persists in the fossilized 'bridegroom'.
Trump’s governing strength fundamentally relies not upon his relationship with a vocal minority of the electorate which is blindly willing to overlook all the falsehoods and contradictions he embodies to advancing their actual interests, but upon his relationship with Republicans in Congress. This relationship is fraying and the separation of those officeholders from their titular leader will only accelerate as the 2020 elections approach. The devastating results of the 2018 midterms for Republicans, historic losses in the House and also in statehouses around the country in an election that Trump “personalized”, dramatically revealed to them that they hitched wagons to this extremely polarizing individual at their own great political peril. Going forward there will be more distancing and defections by Republicans as they look to spare their own political futures. The reality is sinking in that adherence to Trump is toxic.
4
Before Trump was elected in 2016, most unexpectedly on all sides, and by a razor-thin electoral margin, most voters underestimated the possibility, having concluded Trump was either too extreme or otherwise unfit for most Americans to elect. Trump's (and Putin's) successful campaign to sow doubt about Secretary Clinton's candidacy led to just enough complacency in just enough politically sensitive places to dampen turnout at those polls, hence the seemingly unlikely became reality.
Most Americans from all parties and persuasions by now clearly see the damage this complacency has caused, as the polling responses reported in the article show. Among the candidates so far advanced on the Democratic side, there are enough on both the left and center-left with impeccable credentials from which to choose.
There is every reason to believe that Trump's continued behavior in office will only deepen the conviction among most voters that he must not even lose a close election, but must suffer an overwhelming defeat. And there is clearly enough time to identify a Democratic candidate that most Americans can get behind enthusiastically compared to anyone else, whether it be Trump or a Trump ally that might likely take his place if he is somehow unable to run.
Unlike the perceptions of 2016, the stakes, and most voters' perception of them, could not be higher right now, and will likely be even higher in 2020, especially with Trump's continued damage to our nation.
1
@Daniel Rose
Actually, Trump's electoral margin was very far from razor thin. He won in the Electoral College decisively and lost, not won, the popular vote nationwide.
@Wine Country Dude, yes, Clinton won the popular vote, but still lost a relatively close electoral vote. Yes, Trump took many more states electorally, but the elections in many of those states were won by narrow margins.
Many of those winning votes came from people who really did not know Trump, and would never vote for him ever again. His base is simply too small to hand him another national election by itself, and that is largely what he is left with going into 2020.
@Wine Country Dude He won the electoral college by a combined 77,000 votes in three states. That's razor thin.
I just can't take these columns anymore. The onslaught of data reminds me of my senior year thesis and my long lists of relevant articles. Lots of sourcing with little conclusion. Edsall is a faithful student of political science, but his editors should tell him to stop the diving and start condensing, extracting, and integrating. It's just too much.
5
Most troubling to me is the percentage of poll takers who had no opinion... That is the apathy which has led us to Trump’s ascendency and the ongoing dumbing down of Americans, in general...
6
You rightly suggest that the religious right is keeping an immoral, lying, tyrant, despot in power and ruining our country. The irony and hypocrisy of the religious right is amazing. I can’t understand why they support Trump. Does it boil down to racism and anti-immigration? The religious right is a mask for racism? What religion do they follow? Last time I checked, Christianity supports inclusion for the poor and immigrants and says nothing about wealth and prosperity being only for people of white skin nor admittance to heaven being dependent on one’s skin color. Trump is like the blind leading the blind. It has been reported that Catholics overall do not support Trump. The religious right means the Protestant Christians.
6
@Chocolate: It’s all about a woman’s right to choose with the religious right, and the right to discriminate against those who are not heterosexual. I think conservative Catholics do support Trump.
Yes, he will and can keep up encouraging divisiveness because he is aided by the Republican Party, which refuses to counter him in any way. As long as it's working for them, why would they want him to stop? Trump and the Republicans are a cynical bunch, and don't care about the long-term implications of their policies. Whatever works today is fine with them. Trump epitomized this outlook when he said he didn't care about environmental concerns or the threat the environment poses to our children's futures because he won't be around to see it. That completely sums up Trump--only that which affects him is important. Not even lip service to the idea of public service--it's always and only Trump that matters.
10
In other words, it's about fear and hatred of the designated "other."
9
We can blame Trump for a lot, but he didn't invent the sick political ideology that now consumes the Republican Party. But this ideology would be meaningless if not for the tens of millions of simple-minded Americans who listen and believe Republican lies. And this really isn't about the 1%, though they are the chief beneficiaries. This is about dumb Americans who could care less about objective reasoning; who claim to be Christians and then vote against helping people in need; who would believe a bumbling fool like Trump, with no qualifications to be president, over an educated, experienced woman like Hillary Clinton. It isn't the political magic of Us vs Them. It's the brilliance of selling stupid people something that's actually bad for them.
10
How real are these divisions and how much is created by the media? Small opinions start to become divisions when one person informs another that they are different, but their opinion is wrong. The media does this every day. Social relief became linked with an insignificant handful of scofflaws years ago (starting with "Saint Reagan") and then linked to the poor (and mostly of one race). Media then created a "false narrative", suggesting a relationship between all social programs and scofflaws. It then allowed a narrative suggesting that social problems could be solved by gutting the entire social safety, including government institutions. Immigration is now becoming associated with racism. Can media use facts to fix this mess ? There are legitimate divisions in this country, but these should not be linked to other problems with innuendo. When media does this it creates divisions. Lazy reporters must stop repeating political spin. Social media should be blamed for rising divisions, too. Media must be truthful all the time. The owners and stockholder of major media outlets need to become patriotic and stop airing extreme opinionated talk "shows" during regular news hours. Relegate "non news" to very late night hours along with pornography, where it belongs. Stop making mountains out of mole hills for the sake of ratings.
2
Us vs Them is demeaning to both the presidency and to each of us as American citizens. I want off this Trump train to nowhere.
5
While I enjoy columns like this. After 2016, the use of stats and polls to make a point about elections is curious. And the this column is FULL of stats!!!
They are fun sure!!! But as this Clinton voter will tell you-- they don't matter much. Trump is a different animal, and everything depends on who the Democrats elect. Everything.
3
“However often President Trump strays from his favored political strategy, he faithfully returns to it like a dog to a bone”.
This is a rather striking sentence. It wasn’t all that long ago that those of us who don’t support Trump considered him to be totally erratic, even to the point of being psychotic.
1
Mr. Trump has used - us versus them.
Can the opposition win with only - us versus him?
@Christopher Cavello: Irrelevant! I see no Dem hopeful who does not have broad policies.
1
"According to Seib, 'Democrats face this question: Could they manage to scare off that center just as it has become so available?'” This is a shining example of both the reflexive impulse of the chattering class to identify and suggest speaking for the proposed "center" of American politics, and the gross distortion in our politics regarding how the "left" and "right" are considered. Couldn't Mr. Seib's question just have easily been, "Could Democrats manage to not sufficiently embrace that alleged 'center" that has become so available given the GOP's embrace of a habitually lying, traitorous, bullying, self-confessed sexual predator as a leader, and its wholesale abandonment of nearly every value that for decades it has professed it stands for?"
3
Aren't you all a little tired of the notion that Dems (liberals) engage in "identity politics?" Even after years of hearing the term, I'm still not quite sure what it means and why it's such an effective weapon against Dems? Even down this thread, writers throw the term out, but fail to explain it.
3
@mrfreeze6 There's an article in the Times today on the challenges facing Virginia Democrats that explains it pretty well.
White feminist Democrats want Fairfax to resign based on the idea that all women must be believed. Black women Democrats want him to stay, at least while the allegations are investigated, because they do not want to lose a black Lt Governor.
So which is the higher priority--women must be believed, Fairfax is out, or support black politicians, Fairfax stays?That's identity politics--and the problem it presents-- in a nutshell.
4
Trump is a symptom, not a cause,
The cause is the hegemony of the meritocracy, which has created the most economically unequal societies in 125 years, and which uses identity politics as a distraction.
Case in point -- arguably the worst-off demographic group in the U.S. today are black men. They are the most incarcerated, the least employed, the least educated.
The meritocrats use gender politics and educational politics to emphasize the superiority of black women over black men, and to reinforce the single motherhood culture that separates black boys from their fathers, guaranteeing more generations of under-valued black males and under-resourced black families.
The public schools, overwhelmingly run by white women meritocrats, maintain the school-to-prison pipeline for black boys, and systematically discriminate against black boys in the classroom.
When Obama tried to set up My Brother's Keeper the meritocrat feminists immediately attacked it for not focusing on black girls.
Professor Janet Haley at Harvard Law School, among others, has noted the disproportionate targeting of black men by the Title IX campus sex police, in a context where already only 2% of black men will receive a college diploma.
And the evidence is growing that the tools used by the meritocratic elite to put down black men are being turned on white and Latino working class men and boys.
The elite are careful to preserve marriage, family, and male educational opportunity for themselves.
1
@Frank - Well, if there were no illegal immigrants, many of these black men would find jobs. Employers would have to use them if no one else was available.
As things are, employers see no reason to hire unskilled black men.
This is a bunch of big word gobblygook.
Trump supporters have embraced lies and hate with open eyes and open arms.
Let me bottom line it. Good vs evil.
Yes, the divide is pretty stark.
4
As much as I despise Trump, I think McConnell is worse. He has single handedly destroyed the role of Congress by failing to allow votes on legislation with bipartisan support, this in order to force fidelity to the party and the oligarchs that finance it. He has destroyed the rule of law by ignoring the constitution in the appointment of judges, and changing rules arbitrarily when they interfere with his goals. He has used Trump and held him out as the supreme ruler by refusing to consider legislation that Trump does not like. As to the voters, those who support Trump are reveling in the defeat of those people they resent. But Trump is so incompetent that, as unleashed by McConnell, he is imposing higher taxes, driving small companies out of business, impoverishing farmers and the middle class and encouraging violence with the destructive use of guns. At some point, Republicans must wake up to the fact that he is more dangerous to them than to the people they resent.
7
Please don’t forget he was briefed on Russian election interference before the election and effectively blocked Obama from going public. How about treason?
Worked for Reagan and Nixon and the Bush family, should keep working for him.
The former slave states, by and large, will vote for anyone who rings the bell of white male supremacy.
They didn't care that Nixon was a traitor, who killed the 1968 Peace Talks just so he could strut about the White House, and George W. Bush got reelected even though...well, it hurts to even remember.
It is mostly about white power politics, and divide and conquer rhetoric, and the Republicans are in a class by themselves when it comes to that. There is no such thing as a good Republican in the time of Trump. He has corrupted it all.
Of course, Trump has had a lot of help. McConnell in the Senate vowed to destroy the (African American) Barack Obama, and look what he accomplished as far as letting guns kill American poor and helping Trump stack the Supreme Court.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
4
Give me a break - It'e the Democrats who brought Identity Politics to the US and who continue to exploit it.
3
@Amy
Elizabeth Warren declares "race matters!", as though that were some benign command that should underlie our policy. John Roberts had it much better when he declared that the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
@Amy
Which "identity" is represented by Republican policies? I see only one. That makes the Republicans the ones guilty of using identify as a political weapon.
The problem with this approach. Once you throw enough on the wall you eventually wind up in it to your knees.
Divisiveness never works except for his followers. The rest of us have never supported him. We did not put him in the White House, Russia did. His policies are as ugly as his soul which is reflected in his hard-to-look-at face. Republicans have propped him up to their detriment. We will soon be rid of him and hopefully them. Once again lightness and intelligence will be part of our world. His supporters will finally just be the punchline of a sick joke.
2
Perhaps the elephant in the room is the additional divide...that of gender. As a male, the writer may not be aware of the subtle ways in which gender expectations have played against women in politics in the past. But the 2018 election as well as the number of women running for president indicate the blow back from a president who brags about his conquests and demeans his female opponents. His flagrant lack of respect for women seems to be an energizing force.
force.
2
If Trump and the GOP didn't get the Stupid Vote, they'd get no votes other than a portion of the 600 billionaires and millionaires in the population, the ones who are very worried about going broke due to paying a dime in taxes. Us V. Them, demagoguery, pathological, chronic, and compulsive lying simply do not work on reasonably intelligent people. What does that tell us about the electorate? The real national emergency is how stunningly stupid, ignorant, pliable, and thoroughly lacking in critical thinking skills, intellectual honesty, and information processing ability tens of millions of Americans are now. And it seems to be growing. Hillary's biggest problem was her gender; her second biggest is that she spoke in full sentences with actual arguments and talked to us like we were intelligent adults. And it might have actually been the other way around. What I see when I see clips of Trump's "Praise Amazing Moi!" rallies are grown adults in onesies kicking their legs and shrieking with glee at every jangle of the shiny keys. It's pathetic. And no one wants to talk about it.
5
Nothing divides and conquers like the 'identity politics' movement embraced by Democrats....
2
Imagine if Hillary had used the term “Left Behinds” instead of “Deplorables” to describe those who embraced fascists and authoritarians who promise to restore them to a never was greatness.
The issue before us is a political belief system resultant from almost two generations of wage stagnation, globalization, and cynical exploitation. The drivers of economics and politics is what drives the things we believe.
Historian Timothy Snyder puts this into a political context described as the “inevitability” (where society is always destined to get better) and “eternity” (where society is defined by a yearning for a mythic past that was tragically lost)
Radical fascist loving billionaires have fueled the ideologies of “free markets” and White Anglo SaxonChristian superiority with hundreds of millions to influence the American people.
Their ascendency is at hand and we have perhaps a decade to turn it back.
I for one, am deeply concerned the era of fascist, oligarchy is upon us.
2
Mr Edsall is invariably terrific. Too bad that so many who post here seem to spend less time digesting his ideas and those of the people that he quotes than indulging in their own ad hoc disquisitions.
4
excellent piece.
1
Trump is incompetent and unread and no doubt owes any financial success to his wealthy father. He appears to know little or nothing about history or government and is apparently not all that bright. To me, the only factor that explains Trump's political success is that there are far more racists in America than I ever thought possible. Of course, when you think about it, the South voted against Lincoln's party for a hundred years after he freed the slaves. Then they stopped supporting the Democrats after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.
4
"first, polarize the American electorate along racial, cultural and economic lines" - you think Trump is good at that.
The dems are the masters at it! Did you listen to the Kavanaugh hearings?
Only problem for dems is when something like Virginia happens and they have collisions amongst many of their groups! Then what they do - oh yeah, nothing. Never mind about MeToo. Never mind about racism, sexism, etc.
2
you mean he is doing what the Dems have been doing for 60 years.
Trump's base first started supporting him when he promoted the Birther myth.
These hard core racists were appalled that an African American could become president, and Slave State Conservative racists from Mitch McConnell to Lindsey Graham (who won Strom Thurmond's senate seat) worked at every turn to make Obama a one term president. They couldn't do it.
When LBJ forced through the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, Slave State Conservatives fled from the Democratic Party and joined the Republicans where they fester and hate with an undisguised racist outlook.
Trump's supporters now have to use the Brown Menace instead of the Black Menace, but it's the racist approach to our country that they have promoted since before the Civil War, aka the Culture War.
They lost the Civil War - they will lose the Culture War.
3
There are distinct political issues that require completely separate strategies, economic issues and social issues.
The Republican political strategy is to couch economic strategy in terms of social issues. The Republicans argue that It is the black and brown people, especially those poor people trying to cross our southern border, who are stealing your jobs; and, your quality of life.
The social issue, how do we survive and thrive in the multi-cultural society that America is and will always be, is not tied in any way to economics, it is all individual psychology and cultural norms and values. But the GOP has convinced their voters otherwise and used their voters economic insecurity to create racial animosity.
The Democrats political strategy has been to focus on the social issues and avoid the economic issues where they are attacked mightily by the wealthy and their communication machines. Social issues are important and must be addressed if we want to live in peace and harmony amongst ourselves. But fixing social issues will not address the most significant problem facing America today, the economic insecurity of the masses.
No wonder the voters are confused.
6
@Ronny
I think I understand your points but today we have no fixed issue that we can ALL get around like rebuilding the south after the civil war or industrial explosion after WWII. Today's number one issue is, like you say, economic inequality, or "the economic insecurity of the masses", and that issue is simply one-sided. But, how you convince those folks you saw at the El Paso rally Monday night cheering and clapping behind Trump that he is the problem, I don't know but there has to be a way.
@willw
The first "New Deal" focused on economics, helping the American people recover from the Great Recession. When you fill people's pocketbooks they become less resentful of "the others."
The Green New Deal should be promoted first and foremost as a way for millions of Americans to get good paying jobs NOW. The fact that those good paying jobs will be working to save the planet is just a bonus.
@Ronny
Just to confirm, we need to return to progressive taxation as experienced during the Eisenhower years. I don't see anything like the Green New Deal working without "leveling" the playing field. By leveling it means everyone has to believe they really do have a fair shot and those changes are going to be hard to come by.
Trump's us-vs-them tactics may appeal to his besotted base, but they are alienating Republicans as well as Democrats. As the latest Economist points out, "The more remarkable thing about Mr Trump’s wishlist is how anathema its items, all signature promises of his election campaign, remain to the Republican establishment he has presided over for more than two years. In domestic policy, at least, the makeover of conservatism he promised, with his disdain for orthodoxy, flexible view of government and professed concern for the losers of globalization who flocked to his rallies, has not happened. He needs Democrats to fulfil his heterodox promises mainly because the Republicans would not." Hardly a winning strategy for 2020.
1
@Christy
Calling them "besotted" is an excellent way to win them over. You can't make this stuff up.
1
If the 2020 election is a referendum on Trump, as this column suggests it will inevitably be, Democrats are in good shape. The monster can be defeated--so long, that is, as Democrats don't shoot themselves in the foot.
There are myriad ways they can do this, of course, but to avoid this catastrophe they need to remember that elections are won primarily on emotions, not reason. In other words, first and foremost we need a likable candidate.
To huge swaths of the American electorate, Trump has more charisma in his little finger than all the Democratic candidates in the field so far put together. We can win with a far duller candidate than Trump--Jimmy Carter won the presidency, after all--but we cannot win with an unlikeable candidate.
It's still too early to say who is likable, and the strange thing about likability is that it's not so easy to figure out until well into an actual campaign. At this point, I happen to like Sherrod Brown, and I think he's electable. But I admit he seems kind of dull and maybe unlikable even. This is counterbalanced by seeing that he's likable to enough voters that he won Ohio.
Of course, my judgement is worthless. I was one who actually found Hillary Clinton quite likable, but I sure got my comeuppance.
1
All this with no mention that the actors on both sides, the policies enacted and under consideration, the processes of policy making, the messages forming public opinion, and the conditions under which the population lives--these are all strongly influenced by, where they are not under the direct control of a small group of extremely wealthy corporations and individuals. While they may or may not collude and conspire, they are as effective as they are because they share the same goal: amass, consolidate and solidify power and wealth.
Should we be surprised that the same few overlords who control capital also exert outsized control over government policy, media, cultural institutions and our paychecks? Perhaps not surprised, but at least we could stop ignoring the phenomenon in our public discourse.
Materialist consumer culture confers benefits on powerful financial interests to such a degree that it is just another cost of doing business to shape political and cultural outcomes. The ascendence of right-wing authoritarian leaders, including Trump, and the resulting inflamed class divisions, suits the ambitions of the financiers of politics, media and popular culture. It is all well and good to keep track of what percentage of voters think which ways, but voters do not have much control of the outcomes--capital has much more control. So why not scrutinize capital? Again, it is not in the interests of the men who wear suits in the daytime.
4
@William Romp
Well said.
1
Mr. Edsall characterizes the debate within the Democratic Party as one over policies and priorities while portraying the GOP as captive to primal forces.
To a centrist like myself, both parties are equally guilty of fostering division and chaos. Both sides like to fertilize their grassroots with endless rhetoric against their favorite villains. I get it - people are more ready to get involved in politics through fear and loathing rather than wonkish policy discussions. It is also true that we have a two-party system that is actually designed for the kind of right vs. wrong, moral vs. immoral kind of politicking. This is not to say there are no serious discussions within the parties.
There are smart and serious people working for both parties, but the machines they keep animated are on a collision course with history.
In the end, the real question is how do Democrats get back the white working class voters--as well as those who don't vote--who from the New Deal on were pretty much a part of their coalition due to their Depression era recognition that oligarchs were not economically healthy for them.
The biggest triumph for Republicans from the 60's on has been in cleaving these voters from those Democrats those voters used to support for economic reasons. This has kept the GOP in power far more often than demographics would predict--there are always fewer affluent people than not--and the propaganda tactic used--of characterizing black/brown/female/immigrant/"elite" groups as threatening both "American" culture AND working class economic security has been highly successful at distracting the white working class from continuing and even furthering a natural alliance with the many non-white and immigrant people who are also economically precarious.
When Democrats are thought of as allied with the working class--in other words, not as aligned with the deck-stacking oligarchs (and Hillary was thought of that way, irrespective of actual policy positions) they can win, and the 2018 House elections showed that. The key for Democrats: get just as good as messaging "we're all in this together to make the place fairer" as Republicans have been at the "they're coming for your job/church/children/spouses" messaging. (And avoid the moral judgment message, even--and especially--when warranted.)
5
Wayne Gretzky famously said that the secret to his success was skating to where the puck was going to be. Perhaps Trump has taken a page out of Gretzky's formula.
The forces and trends described in the column focus on Trump and Republicans to the largest extent, but interestingly, it is the very same types of sentiment that drove Bernie Sanders to within striking distance of winning the Democratic presidential nomination in the last election cycle. They speak of increasing alienation from the establishment on so many levels, and a sense that government has left so many behind. Trump may just have his eye on the puck.
While masquerading as a man of the people, Trump has shrewdly governed more for the benefit of the wealthy and corporations, while brilliantly choosing wedge issues to divide and conquer his less financially privileged base. They are, apparently, willing to overlook the things about him that might have ruined other candidates and presidents, in return for promises, however undeliverable, that tip a hat toward their particular brand of resentment.
Since so many politicians, in their view, have delivered so little, they are willing to place their bets on someone who denigrates their nemeses, while elevating their own interests and resentment to the pinnacle of power.
In the end, a compelling and sobering analysis, Mr. Edsall. It should be required reading for every student of history, political science, economics, talking head and elected official.
4
I am heartened by some of the data that Edsall points to. In particular, the surveys/questions regarding the degree to which people are hot/cold to Trump, the question regarding the Mueller investigation, and the question regarding the Swamp.
Here, the silver lining isn't in the numbers that don't favor Trump but rather in the number that strongly favors Trump.
All three questions came in at 28% who have unwavering and blind support for Trump. That number suggests to me that his base has shrunk dramatically from the 38-33% level not that long ago. Of all the data points that Edsall provides us, these three clearly indicate that the base has contracted in size.
While this should come as no surprise, it is uplifting to know that some fellow Americans are seeing through the smoke screen.
2
Democrats ran on health care as the major issue in the 2016 midterm election and retook control of the House with a record number of women and diverse candidates. If they run on this and other progressive issues noted here, they should defeat Trump. People seem to have caught on to the politics of fear and the authoritarian behavior of Trump. Now it's up to the Democrats to unite the party, which Hillary Clinton did not, with a candidate that will energize young voters and the Obama coalition to turn out. That means someone with a progressive, but not shrill, voice who has the charisma that Clinton also lacked as well as the media savvy to sell their policies to the American people. It also means a ticket that reflects the diversity of the party and America. My ticket is Sen. Sherrod Brown and Stacey Abrams.
1
"Us vs. Them" might be political magic, but it is absolutely atrocious leadership. Such is what we have come to expect from the misrule of president Donald J. Trump.
We should expect more of the same as long as he remains in office. The question is whether the American people, eyes even wider open than in 2016, will perpetuate this decimation of all that is decent and constructive about our own country.
15
It is not too far-fetched to anticipate that Donald Trump will again be president in 2020. The Democrats crowding the candidates’ field are much less interested in the welfare of their fellow citizens than they are in their individual political careers. What else is new?
And then, after Donald Trump, the bar has been dropped as close to the ground as it possibly can that we can say in the United States anyone, anyone at all, can be president.
103
@citizennotconsumer
What reality do you live in?
Senator Bernie Sanders has a lifelong record of working to improve the lives of all working people.
He seems to have a very satisfying personal life.
My guess is, that he accepts the stress of his constant campaigning for his ideas, and the stress that would come in gaining the Presidency, as necessary to endure in order to bring about the changes in lives of ordinary people that he has always worked for
52
@citizennotconsumer. There will be only one candidate vying for the presidency against Trump, unless Schultz runs, or some other third-party candidate. In that case, yes, we should probably save a lot of money and skip campaigning altogether and just hand Trump a second term.
6
@citizennotconsumer The bigger problem , whomever the candidate ends up being chosen, is how to get jaded or apathetic democratic voters to actually vote. This was the biggest difficulty in 2016. Too many millennials and others sit out elections because either the GOP (in particular) has taught them to hate/distrust all gov't or they are just too preoccupied with themselves and disdain the importance of politics. Yet these non-voters are the ones who now are complaining most vociferously about Trump and his policies. Such people must vote next time even if their "perfect" candidate is not running. Worry about retrieving utopia in the future, a future beyond Trump and "his" GOP we hope.
13
Both parties have enacted policies that favor their richest donors. Both parties have made decisions that have hurt a majority of Americans when it comes to work, education, health care, affordable housing, and the hope for a better life for themselves and their children. However, the Republicans have pursued a particularly repellent sort of politics, that of demeaning and degrading those who are not willing to accept their broadly racist statements and their highly discriminatory policies.
Reagan's years in office were the catalyst for economic policies favoring the richest. Nixon started this with Watergate. In fact, for people who were just becoming politically aware in the early to mid 1970s, Watergate was a major event. It affected how we perceived our political leaders no matter which party they were from.
In this reader's opinion what voters have failed to understand is that voting in a political outsider to run the country does not lead to better policies. It often leads to serious blunders in foreign policy, domestic policies, and in relations between Congress and the executive branch. Trump is merely another step along that road.
We did put a con artist in the White House. He does not know the first thing about good government. For all the dislike people had for Hillary Clinton, she was the most qualified candidate. She won the popular vote. It's unfortunate for the country that the Electoral College determined who won.
7
@hen3ry,
You wrote: "Both parties have enacted policies that favor their richest donors."
That is a lie!
George Soros wants his taxes raised to help his country.
The kochs want their taxes lowered even more regardless of how that hurts their country.
Equating the two sides is the stuff crafty russian trolls do because it works on the kindergartners who watch fox news.
3
@hen3ry
Sadly, Trump's win was necessary because it set the stage for the Democratic Party to reconsider its values.
Most of the Democratic Party Hillary-types have chosen to spend their time whining that Russia did it.
Despite what the NYT and all the other Establishment media say, the idea of Russia tipping the election to Trump is dumber than the idea of Iraqi WMD.
Unfortunately, most NYT readers are too busy to think for themselves.
If they did think for themselves, they would notice that the amount of money Russia spent on really silly social media postings, was just making mischief for the overly sanctimonious US, and was a minuscule pittance compared to what US influencers spent.
Overlooking the Russian whining by Democrats, Trump's victory has been responsible for some lively
soul searching about what the Democratic Party values.
However, Bernie Sanders is more responsible than Trump for the refreshing flux in the Democratic Party
Bernie Sanders 2020!
@Victorious Yankee - Yes, but the Democrats will never raise taxes on the affluent professionals who form the core of the party. In fact, when the GOP eliminated the SALT tax deduction, forcing the wealthy to pay more, the Democrats were furious.
1
Trump is the zenith (or nadir) of Republican Party politics since the Great Depression. The hatred of FDR by the right has never really subsided among a certain segment of the population (our landed gentry), and, except for World War II, the divisions caused by FDR's "New Deal" have lingered in American society ever since.
Reagan was the first to successfully poke these resentments by asserting that government (i.e. New Deal-type public interventions) is the problem, and his solutions have held sway in the GOP ever since. What's changed is that these objections to government have metastasized into outright hatred of government, taxes, the welfare state, and the poor.
Trump has exacerbated these tensions. He has reached out to the wealthy with tax breaks and praise, while encouraging those who feel "left behind" to blame "others" for their problems, specifically, the government, the "takers," immigrants and multi-cultural liberal-socialists who make up today's Democratic Party.
The phenomenon of Trump, in other words, is rooted in century-old divides over the role of government and individual freedom in a just society. Trump's primary contribution to the Republican Party is a toxic level of mindless nihilism, in which chaos and de-construction of the pillars of society are seen as legitimate solutions.
Yes, our country is broken and divided. But only one Party has stoked fear and proposed extreme solutions. That would be Trump and the GOP.
8
@Paul Bernish "...immigrants and multi-cultural liberal-socialists who make up today's Democratic Party." But to be accurate, the majority of today's Dems are white, and the vast majority of Independents are white...and excluding Native Americans, almost all of both groups are 1st-4th generation immigrants. Not too many of us have ancestors who came here on the Mayflower, or roots going back to the American Revolution.
@Cowboy Marine: I agree completely. I was stating what I think Republicans think is the Democratic Party.
The country was going in the right direction with President Carter, finally directing itself towards civilised status, then took a hard-right turn to oligarchy with Reagan. It has not recovered from this. While we do have more renewable energy development, we still don't have single payer, universal health care; and war profiteers and school privatizers still loot and leech off the public sector. That these articles still maintain that progressive systems which enable health care for all and a strong social safety net in general, as well as gun violence reduction, etc. are 'far-left' is still a measure of how 'far-right' certain forces have moved the political measuring stick since 1980. I hope 2020 will produce a 'far-left' (that is, a civilised) United States Senate and Presidency at long last.
551
@Eugene Debs thank you. A 'like' on your comment is insufficient so i will foot stomp here what you said. The New York Times and most of its columnists still don't get it. They still want to portray concepts like universal healthcare, a green new deal, and taxing the wealthy in proportion to what they have gained as extreme. In reality these ideas are simply fair, and long overdue to become policy. Keep the faith.
215
@Eugene Debs James Earl Carter was the beginning of the neoliberal onslaught in the USA. His deregulate everything approach to transportation set the stage for Reagan and generated the atmosphere necessary to marginalize unions.
Carter's humanitarian awakening came as he left office, no longer on the string of the moneyed class, c.f. Eisenhower and his recognition of the military, industrial, Congressional complex.
9
@Eugene Debs
"The country was going in the right direction with President Carter..."
Eugene....Under President Carter we saw the prime rate reach 21%. The construction, auto and other manufacturing industries, along with consumer confidence, were tanking rapidly. Under President Carter Americans we held hostage in Iran and there was no end in sight. The feeling in the country, by 1980, was that the US was in decline at home and abroad and Mr. Carter seemed overwhelmed and confused by it all.
8
Trump uses the strategy of polarization on racial and religious lines but this has been used by Republicans for over fifty years, for example by Ronald Reagan. Trump added racial xenophobia which had not been emphasized before by Republicans because mass immigration reduces wages, and this may have given him the edge in primaries. But the main thing he did which Republicans had not generally done was make phony "populistic" economic promises. Trump may self-destruct because of his general incompetence, but smarter rightist demagogues in the future may pose a major threat if Democrats do not make it clear that they support the people and not big banks, Wall Street and corporate CEO's.
6
I cannot understand why so many pundits either fail to recognize or refuse to admit the overwhelming significance of racism in American politics. Trump's success lies in his ability to tap into racial animosity-towards Blacks and Latinos. MAGA clearly represents make America White again. Economic issues, other social concerns and environmental positions pale when weighed against racial hatred. I am certain that if Trump maintained every single political policy he has supported, but became an avid supporter of Black and Latino minority issues (Black lives matter, affirmative action, DACA, no wall, paths to citizenship, etc.) his support would vanish instantly. His core wants a White America, nation where Whites are in the majority and retain all White privilege.
486
@Disillusioned. The Hispanic population of the U.S. has gone up by 7x since 1970. Would you be saying the same thing if the number of swedes coming in the country had gone up by the same amount? The U.S. has routinely taken in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined. This, at a time when the need for labor in general and unskilled in particular is going down and will continue to do so. The truth is, the world is in a permanent over supply of people. There are certainly racists in this country, but the huge unvoted on demographic changes their country is going thru are causing problems that simply blaming on racism won't solve.
30
@Disillusioned
While I agree that race is a pervasive factor in much of the support for Trump, I find the idea of "racial anxiety" offered by Abromowitz and others as more useful. Racial anxiety infects even most white liberals, who have mostly superficial contact with racial minorities (especially blacks) but remains mostly dormant among the more affluent. It turns to resentment (or "animosity") among the less affluent, especially smalltown and rural, when stoked by threats of further diminution of their status and influence.
35
@Al
Trump and the rest of the Republican party wants to stop immigration from our southern borders because the are deathly afraid of more potential Democrats coming into this country. If they were voting Republican we wouldn't be even talking about the immigration "problem".
50
The writer says that the electorate is polarized under the shadow of Trump and what he represents. The moderate middle voters are rapidly diminishing. Therefore we cannot expect a candidate to appeal solely to the middle, rapidly diminishing voters. He or she can appeal to the intellectual and moral attributes of the electorate. The question is whether the voters will be enticed by a decent reasonable person or by a simplistic autocrat.
3
Trump bamboozled poor people into believing he was one of them. He gave them the license and freedom to hate out in the open anyone they didn't deem American or human. The wedge issues he rallies his base with he himself doesn't personally care about. They are merely political weapons and cudgels he can use against the democrats to 'win' with. Even if Trump is founded to collude or conspire with russia to win an election, his base will still be onboard. At this point Trump could sell his base free oxygen and they would still pay top dollar.
407
@damon walton
Of course they do not care about Russian collusion. At Trump rallys, his cult is seen wearing tee shirts that read, "I'd rather be Red than a Democrat." These are Fox News ill-informed, closed minded, under-educated people who are not going to see the light in time for the next election. Forget about them. We have to move forward with progressive ideas to survive.
110
@Phil M I like most getting rid of planes. I don't fly personally but an extra day to get to LA by train seems like a small price to pay.
4
@damon walton
Yes. Pathetic. Lack of critical thinking on the part of the American electorate. RR destroyed public education - California had one of the best public school systems before he advance Proposition 13. Paul Krugman takes down the economics behind the RR machine. Trump is hopefully the last and pathetic gasp of the old and affluent white men regime.
31
Wealth inequality and lack of financial security are the result of 40 years of policy decisions. These decisions have transferred wealth from the middle-class to the already rich. These decisions have provided little to no support for the middle-class for the global economic assaults which affect their jobs, education, housing and medical care.
Elizabeth Warren is the only Democrat who has studied this issue for decades. She understands the causes and can explain them to the general public. She also develops policies to combat them.
It was Elizabeth Warren who helped develop the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which did great work under President Obama. But as usual, anything that helps consumers fight business is gutted by the GOP who are solely concerned with corporate profits.
579
@June
Elizabeth Warren cannot (and does not) appeal to the majority of the American people. Her "fight" with business and her singular issue of consumer vs. corporation and the US government is a small slice of what is needed to combat Trump's racism and divisiveness.
Did you read the op-ed? Do you get that there is no "fight" that Warren wants to have because her "fight" is not even a topic of conversation?
17
@Mimi
Racism is the main topic and it has been exacerbated because that is the Republican strategy - it is how they win elections. Democrats have failed trying to fight the battle on lines chosen by Republicans. The majority of the country can only be united on economic lines.
32
@June - June - you parrot a trope from the left that wealth inequality is a transfer for wealth from the middle class to the wealthy. It is simply factually incorrect. Income inequity exists but it has not been because the middle class had resources and they were transferred. The economy is not some zero sum game. Wealth is created and yes, when Mark Zuckerberg started FB, he became wealthy but not because he took something from you. Opportunity for all will come when it's not based on a Leninist view of the evils of capitalism and when it is focused policies that lift opportunity
10
As both parties move to extreme they should be mindful that there are more independents than democrats or republicans. Independents decide elections.
4
@Roger Turnout decides elections as in getting your likely voters to be more motivated to vote than the opponents' likely voters. The independent voter was invented by Democrats to provide cover for their move to the corporate centre. After all, that's where the money is and if there is one thing consultants have a nose for, it is money.
@Roger. You mean ruin elections?
"divide et impera" or "divide and conquer" ~ Julius Caesar
3
Sharply divided? The poll numbers presented here paint a different picture, one in which a solid majority supports right down the list policies espoused by Democrats. The GOP can literally jump the tracks to the right, yet it's the Democratic Party that is seen as confronting its Waterloo? Give me a break. But none of that matters, because what we are suffering is the result of several strong factors - 1) latent racism; 2) the undemocratic structure of our political process due to the electoral college, extreme gerrymandering, and the obscene amount of money tolerated in that process; and 3) the well-developed propaganda machine of right-wing media. You want to know which policies will be adopted by this congress? Forget polls, all you have to do is follow the money. And, as far as the 2020 election, which candidate would Putin prefer to win? That's a no-brainer. So you can bet that no matter which Democrat is nominated we will once again see a highly successful social media smear campaign, because absolutely nothing has been done to stop it. That this is even expected to be close says all there is to say about the state of the American electorate, and of our democracy.
29
Trump would rather watch Fox News than read the intelligence reports prepared by America's national security agencies. That's all he needs to do, because the audience to whom he speaks doesn't know how the world works, either.
It's like finding out that you don't need to do any homework because the teacher never grades.
80
Old
that is what his one trick pony show is
America is tired of his inability to govern.
Remember governing?
All this clown dies is campaign
Tired
America wants fresh ideas on what TO do , not UNdo.
He is a lame duck who can’t see the forest for the trees
The trump party aka white supremacists, is toast
See you in nov 2020
looking forward to frying him and them in burning hot oil. Just like the fires down below.
11
If the world can really be divided up in the way offered by Norris et al., how do you explain that neither political party in the U.S. is on the "escalator" toward progressive change?
"Us versus them", in a deranged political culture in which neither party represents the interests of either side, progressive or reactionary, will necessarily take bizarre forms, hence phonies like Trump on one side and phonies like Cory Booker on the other.
@jrd If you really think that the Republican and Democratic parties are the same, or that Cory Booker is the same as Trump, you are a significant part of the problem.
6
@RMS
If you're of adult age and think the obvious truth that neither party represents the interests of most Americans is tantamount to saying there's no difference between them, I think it's safe to say you *are* the problem.
Run Cory Booker against Trump, the same way the party establishment insisted on Hillary last time, and see what happens. Of course, it takes a crisis (not a village) to elect a Democrat these days , so it's always possible Booker could squeak through. Then we can look forward to another Trump in 2024.
What's going on is nothing new, and I doubt that there is anything new to be written about the sort of thing that's going on.
For anyone who wants to understand Trump's appeal, look no farther than a short, eminently readable book by Eric Hoffer called "The True Believer", written in 1951. Here are just two quotes from it. See if they remind you of anyone:
“Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all the unifying agents. Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a god, but never without a belief in a devil.”
“The quality of ideas seems to play a minor role in mass movement leadership."
What is true, and what we have a chance to get right, is also essential: Trump simply must be a one-term president. The fire he has lit must be put out. That simply must happen.
62
@Vesuviano - Most Trump voters were NOT anything like True Believers. They saw him as the best of a bad lot, and held their nose and voted for him.
There is no Trump Party, and there is no Trump Movement. Even Trump doesn't know what he thinks, so how can his followers support his program?
@Jonathan
Sorry, but I'll trust Hoffer's book over your opinion. I've read the book. Have you?
Trump is the effect of identity politics in place for decades and used successfully for political gain.
He is the backlash. Democrats continuing to use those same arguments to push policy that benefits some but not others by race, gender....is a loser and will deepen divisions all the name calling in the world will not change.
Sow tribalism. Reap tribalism. Let's figure out what benefits us all as a country.
5
@CNNNNC What Republicans call "identity politics" is nothing more that trying to ensure that ALL citizens - not just straight white males - have the same rights. You know, the right to marry, the right to vote, the right to not be discriminated against because of who you are. This benefits us as a country. Republicans appear to believe that rights are pie - if someone else has a slice, they have less. It actually doesn't work like that.
4
The authoritarian impulses that DJT and the Republicans have tapped into is baked into the DNA of about a third of the populace at any given time, and happens in every country. The conditions in 2016 were perfect for electing someone, anyone, that could tap into the anger and feeling of disenfranchisement swirling in the atmosphere. DJT played the con man masterfully, and used a bullhorn instead of a dog whistle to work his followers into a frenzy. There is always more passion in anger, and DJT acted his part. And acting is what it is because he has no belief system other than me, me, me. Hopefully this is just temporary insanity on the part of the electorate. DJT's lies, incompetence, corruption, and greed will be his undoing. If he is re-elected the fall of America will be complete and we will return to a monarchy at best, and a dictatorship at worst.
14
Polarize, divide and conquer, define a playbook used successfully by both Trump and Putin.
Coincidence is no accident.
5
Mr. Edsall wonders if Trump, in attempting to exploit the divisions he has sown and benefited from, ultimately "Can keep it up"? I am certain Trump also wonders about that. The day after the 2016 election when he was surprised by his political stamina, put his superior intellect to use and decided the only way to maintain his political edge would be to take Viagra every day. Then he looks in the mirror and points to his temple with an index finger and nods and winks at the image he sees.
Two comments. First, Trump or an even worse person can easily win because of our ridiculous electoral system. It's set up like a popularity contest TV show with weekly episodes, then the person at the end with the most votes is declared the loser.
Second, look at the results of the Cooperative Congressional Election Study. A solid majority of the voters, even Republican, approve of all those so-called "liberal" policies. Yet our elected representatives have taken action on none of them because their donors oppose them.
30
One reads Mr. Edsall's columns and then hardly knows where to begin. "Encouraging and exploiting division" is the initial charge against President Trump. Could anyone, anywhere, been more contemptuous toward huge swaths of the American electorate than Hilary Clinton and her advisors? Identity politics is the standard fare of the Democratic party morning, noon and night - who is engaged in polarization? "Inexorable cultural escalators" are the preposterous and self-parodying phrases of academics who haven't talked to anyone outside their narrow intellectual silos in 20 years. Nonsensical academic babbling isn't a political position, not even when you use colorful phrases like "retro backlash." The NYT will not give me enough space in this post to ridicule all the empty (and loaded) phraseology that is supposed to be the supporting data for this op-ed. Nowhere is there discussion of religious faith, abortion, the current level of the stock market, the current level of interest rates, or unemployment rates. If "group conformity" is a sin, then this op-ed ought to be burned at the stake- it genuflects in the direction of every liberal cliche, stated in the most condescending and intellectually patronizing way possible. Edsall doesn't want to dialogue with anyone, not even his own party - he wants to hide under an academic rock. People who use language like "a tipping point for their hegemonic status" really have no way to relate or persuade at all.
4
The picture of the president showing only one half of him is indeed "worth the article's thousand words." It simply says "he is halfway there in bringing out the worst possible instincts of Americans that has occurred in this country since its inception or at least since the presidency of Andrew Jackson." This article coincides with the article on El Chapo about our neighbor to the south which has all but given up in their efforts to save their own country. If the U.S. continues to lose its way for the next two years and the president is re-elected who knows where it will end. The "con" is working so well he may attempt to repeal the 22nd Amendment (term limit 8 years).
He is likely already thinking "President for LIfe." He has had a 50 year career of conning every one and every thing, living a life to bring the attention of the world unto himself. Putin would have loved to live such a life.
If this country really does belong to the people, then this article explains that we the people are the ones responsible for bringing our country to the brink of losing its way forever. Who knows but "that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth" will have perished.
With all the expert commentary by within this article, the one thing that will be decided over the next two years is whether the Declaration of Independence and our beloved Constitution -"We the people of the United States" will still have any meaning.
3
But our voice is ignored by the men and women who are supposed to represent us in Congress. the will of the American people is of absolutely no interest to the congressmen and senators with R behind their names. One of ours refuses to face his constituents; the other refuses to reply to correspondence.
1
Morals matter and Trump has none. Impeachment is pending.
4
Needless to say Edsall and his preferred sources see those with "traditional" values as unenlightened subhuman troglodytes. Insulting and condesending and so typical of the "liberal" press. But not divisive? No the Times would never go there. I can't see how anyone can make a case that Trump is authoritarian. Repetition does not turn fiction into fact. Trump resisting Neocons on the Left and the Right and the entrenched security apparatus are far more dangerous that he is. As for the Neo Socialist Left who want all power to be vested in the Sate. What do you call that? Trump won the election because more than enough of what he pointed out was plainly true to anyone outside of the bubble that encloses Edsall and his like.
4
@Daphne - C'mom - men marrying women and having families - that's so 20th century! Working, driving cars, heating your house - obsolete!
Get with the program.....
The thrall is gone!
After 3 years of rants and lies, Trump's outrages have become boring. He needs better writers and new material.
3
Trump's true talent is to make less intelligent ignored white people feel important for the first time in their lives. They will not relinquish this feeling, It is a rush. Just witness the people standing behind him at his rallies.
He's a devious expert at pushing their buttons on all sorts of levels.
People who have been mocked by elites their whole lives, finally have their revenge and it is Trump.
8
Here's a mystery.
If so many people in the media, persons on the street, and citizens of other countries can plainly see the dysfunction, hatred, pettiness, lies, and cruelty of this administration, then how is it that many of the GOP politicians and many Americans either can not or will not demand better of trump and his band of thieves?
2
Trump's presidency brings home two really ugly truths about the United States, which jeopardize our future as the kind of smart democracy we like to think we have had.
1. The curtain is pulled back and shows that the GOP as a party does not really care about what were supposedly their core issues: national security, law and order, morality, fiscal responsibility, and the Constitution. They. Do. Not. Care. All they want are tax cuts for the rich and racism for the masses. With a wink and nudge to those who value guns and oppressing women (no birth control) above all else.
2. We have 30% to 40% of voters who have embraced Trump as no other president has ever been embraced. They love his lies, hatreds, ignorance, and bullying. They are unmoved by facts and evidence. They will be with us until they age out.
37
@Bob Garcia Thanks. I posted the suggestion that the US should just break into two different countries, and your comment illustrates why I made that suggestion.
3
The topic at hand here is extraordinarily painful due to the man and the method those in the "retro backlash" (not a good characterization I think, but as it is used here, I'll use it as RB) have chosen.
The economic plight of rural america and the the "rust belt" is obvious. That something needs be done is obvious ditto, but so far nothing is working on any broad scale. Worse, the exceptions (like Pittsburgh PA) cannot be easily replicated. Pittsburgh had Carnegie Mellon, and strong medical, banking, and other higher-education institutions, and the nucleus of a highly-trained workforce.
The cultural anger of declining America has backed the ugliest and least competent political movement since the Reconstruction was defeated and Jim Crow reinstituted. Wallace's AIP was more competent, less corrupt, and less of a fascistic personality cult than Trump; though more overtly racist against blacks.
Trump has substituted a new minority to demonize, and won the Presidency. The result is kakistocracy and lying on an Orwellian scale.
This is a moment of existential crisis for our Constitutional democracy. I am now confident that constitutional process will prevail ... albeit somewhat dented.
But the country will be stuck with the Trumpers, and also the backlash against them. I find it next to impossible to find any sympathy for those who have backed Trump. It will be very hard to muster the help these people do need.
6
@Lee Harrison So, do you agree that the US should just break apart? We clearly have irreconcilable differences, and clearly HATE each other - so why continue as one country? The coastal states with some liberal gems like Detroit, Chicago, Houston and St. Louis could be one country, while OK, KS, the Dakotas, WY, west TX could be another free to enjoy its own culture and values. Why not?
@me - Well, you could do that by just returning to traditional Federalism, where the central government handles the Post Office, the currency, and foreign policy, and the states take care of everything else.
@Jonathan Just returning to Federalism wouldn't address the rural vs urban cultural clashes, and national identity, though.
Put me in the 60% who loath the man. I agree with Wilson "Everything Trump Touches Dies". I'm praying that America is the exception to that rule.
20
Yes, there are pervasive forces world-wide to trample on democratic values; and Trump's institutionalized violence based on 'fear, hate and division' is one of them. But, given that 'we' knew what we were buying (a well known crook and 'natural' liar all his life) didn't deter us from voting for him, perhaps we the people deserve a share of guilt in it. As Pogo said: "We found the enemy, and it is Us". By being too passive, or contrarian, or uneducated, or with a malevolent trait, or unwilling to contribute to society's ethical needs, perhaps we deserve this charlatan and the iniquities that come with it. A moment of reflection, and then urgent action to reverse this klepto-plutocratic administration may be just what the doctor ordered.
1
Most GOP regular elected officials, members, and voters probably are sincere people - good people. Good neighbors - hard workers - accomplished - intelligent - polite. Few are really at the despicable fringe.
And so were a lot of officials and ordinary citizens in Italy and Germany circa 1930!
These normally good people ended up doing and supporting atrocities. Why? How could they?
Fear of punishment/death if they bucked? Of course but way less than you think.
A real hatred of others - a crazed level of racism, xenophobia, etc.? Not really for most part.
They degraded themselves (became evil-like) because they were unlucky enough to have propensity to follow authoritarian leaders.
To buy into propaganda that strummed cords of fear, righteousness, order, patriotism, and heroism.
Cords that drowned out real critical thinking, fanned flames of obedience/emotionally driven loyalty to leaders and their causes.
They became members of the cult. Their wiring/programming "made them" - they were played well.
This is why the GOP is so so so dangerous. They are a cult. Their leaders are bent on authoritarian Plutocracy; they play cords shrewdly; their members are enamored by their order, sense of superiority, promises, strength, etc.
What makes the D Party way less existentially dangerous is they are not a cult. Indeed their laughable weakness is their strength. A Party of cats all avoiding being herded!
Luckily the non-culters voted in 2018 to start the liberation.
5
@MegaDucks - Gee, I don't see any atrocities.
You do understand the difference between criticizing newspaper reporters, and torturing and killing them, right?
@Jonathan
Seems obvious that the sentences "These normally good people ended up doing and supporting atrocities. Why? How could they?" were in reference to the otherwise good people in Europe circa 1930/40 that ended up being supportive directly or indirectly of fascist atrocities.
As to more modern atrocities - especially those being instigated in our name by the leaders of our great Nation - yes they exist, just perhaps they do not include gas chambers.
You see I think it is atrocious to officially deny science, distort truth, and lose enormous opportunities and benefits for humankind as we are in regard to going greener.
Or to subvert universal heath care coverage when such universal programs prove themselves elsewhere and would save us about 7% of our GDP for other things and perhaps extend good life for about 100,000 plus a year.
Or to purposely and obliviously act to divide us as a Nation, ignore the things that really made us great and admired, and act like life is a boorish zero sum when it has always proven to be best played as win-win exercise.
Or to purposely act to favor the already favored at the expense of ordinary people - like the tax cut.
You may think I am "misusing" the word atrocities - think it has no place applied to Trump/GOP. Fine. I just hope others are woke and see it the way this old veteran does.
I think they do based on 2018 elections BTW.
It's not divisive to want the U.S. to remain a sovereign nation state with borders that are respected by foreign powers. Nor is it divisive to value a common language and culture, laws that are respected, schools and hospitals that aren't overrun by immigrants, and the ability to fly our nation's flag without being called racist.
2
@Grunt
Borders respected by foreign powers??
Citizens of Guatemala, El Salvador, etc. are coming to our border because they're frightened to death for their lives and the lives of their children.
Last I checked it wasn't the Guatemalan army rolling up with armed troops.
2
@Grunt
"Sovereignty?" "Laws that are respected"? Seriously? Trump is a criminal and a traitor, who is openly using his office for personal financial gain while selling out our country to foreign governments.
2
It IS divisive to lie without consequence.
1
At the end of the day, Trump plays the voters for fools. They are kept distracted while he picks their pockets.
3
The rapture took place and the left behinds cannot abide its occurrence. Trump’s high school-esque pep rallies allow the left behinds to put others down and feel good about themselves. It’s an effective Republican strategy to whip up the base with hate and guns but to what end? Why should we coddle the Trump base? Let them make pilgrimages to the Trump Wall and ponder the return of coal and manufacturing jobs.
3
Trump will keep it up as long as he can.
No pun intended.
He has nothing else.
He has no real plans or ideas for the betterment of our society.
2
We don't understand it, but, grotesque inequality demonizes those without. And, we're kind of okay with that. So, we 'elect' Trump.
Yes, us vs. them is old as the hills and examples can come from American race-baiting to dictators of long past. It's an effective tool to say, 'You are great! And our problems come from those devils!' (raucous applause - 'Lock them up! Wall them off! All hail us!'
Not political magic; lost souls, demon magic. We're reaping the harvest of greed and billionaires, bots and trolls, Russians and Trump. Hate is certainly a value here (or, at least of value).
Only equality, only compassion, only love washes us clean. That's the way it's always been, always will be. We can lust for selfish gain (with hate of others thrown in as reasoning or as tactic to hide wealthy tax cuts, corruptions, etc.) or we can love: still, always, our call.
Gosh, what a long article to ask such a silly question -- can Trump keep encouraging and exploiting division? of course he can. It's how he lives. How he does business. No effort at all.
Democrats can't make well-paid blue-collar jobs come back. Neither can Trump and his Republican conspirators.
No matter how glossy the deceptive slogan "make America great again," Trumpublicans can't turn back time and the wheels of progress. What Trumpublicans do turn back are minds: they lie, attack the truth, deny reality and make false promises. What can Democrats do?
Democrats must embrace the future and progress, and they must assure all Americans they CAN be part of and share in America's Greatness.
Democrats should roll out a New Deal program to rebuild America's "communities of the left-behinds.” Democrats should commit to incentivizing economic development in targeted rural communities (e.g., build new (repair old) Interstate roadways to facilitate commerce/connection with urban areas having medical services, job opportunities and cultural venues; establish call-centers and attract small specialized manufacturing in rural areas; promote rural offerings for tourism; etc.).
Democrats should claim Jesus. Not Christianity, but Jesus the prophet, the person of flesh and blood who showed love to ALL "other" children of God. Let Trumpublicans sing their siren song to "Christians." Organized Christian Churches have failed America; they have left Jesus out of their ministries. Let Democrats claim Jesus as their own. Democrats are the people who would take the shirt off their back to clothe a stranger. Democrats offer care to the ill and downtrodden. Jesus IS a Democrat.
@JABarry - There would still be plenty of blue-collar jobs if there were no illegal immigrants. In fact, a shortage of workers would force wages to rise, and employers would have to offer benefits and better working conditions. You can't offshore cleaning the men's room, raking leaves, and maintaining the furnace, and somebody would have to do it.
Still comical, if tiresome, that a failed rich kid is seen as the champion of the little guy he routinely cheated. The old white constituency will inevitably fade. Presumably young people will not choose to be obsolete, as the older working class has become. One has to be optimistic about the long run. ... Right?
3
What is so interesting is how effective Trump is at exploiting “us” vs. “them” politics without actually believing in it. He constantly warns that illegal immigrants are stealing American jobs, but he has also been proven to have hired illegal immigrants for construction and staff on his own properties. He wants to build a wall precisely because it is an in-your-face symbol of hard-line immigration policies without being effective, probably just so he can put his name on it.
Similarly, he exploits the sincere religious beliefs of many of his followers without adhering to any of them himself. He is beloved by evangelicals even though he has been married three times and cheated on all of his wives. He got caught paying a porn star and a Playboy model to silence them about his affairs with them, but he plays up his “Christianity” when it suits him.
It’s bad enough to exploit these tactics for votes, but it’s depressing that his supporters fall for his hypocrisy.
4
Thank you for laying out arguments. It is easy and satisfying to characterize the 30-40% of your fellow citizens who disagree with you as completely foreign and inferior but consider.
The part about trump sowing division is rich coming from the times. Have any of you read this paper?
Identity politics is racism.
I think an argument could be made that offshoring manufacturing was not beneficial for US citizens.
There are people who think open borders and low skill immigrants are a bad idea on non racial grounds. You really don't think they suppress wages on the low end?
Trump is monstrous on many levels. But seen from a certain angle he's better than you.
4
@Brian Have YOU read this paper on a daily basis? It has presented both sides for as long as I have been a reader ( 40 years) and has pointedly laid out the ways the wealthy have undercut the middle class since the early 80’s. Don’t believe everything you hear.
2
@It's About Time - Actually, I have never seen an article in the NY Times saying that if their were no illegal immigrants, unskilled black men who are US citizens would be able to get jobs with higher pay and better working conditions. But it is obviously true, and the Trump administration is proving the case.
1
Democrats can walk past thousands of people living on the sidewalk in their city and think that they and the city are doing well and need more of whatever it is the Dems are selling.
1
@Liz Not really. The cities non-profits, both here and in many parts of Florida, are supported by a large contingent of “ Dems” who contribute as donors and serve on Boards of Trustees.
Since taxes have been cut to the bone and services reduced around the country, many services, including those for the homeless, have been supplemented by private funds. These folks do amazing work.
In your neck of the woods, check on The Lord’s Place, an award winning nonprofit in Palm Beach County that most successfully serves those previously homeless...men, women, families, victims of domestic abuse, former sex slaves, former inmates and drug and alcohol abusers among others.They are provided with every service including psychological, housing, job training, employment services, education, and much more.
This is one of many doing outstanding work. One only has to open their eyes to find them.
Often the chronically homeless one finds on the streets are difficult to get in to programs for a variety of reasons. Most agencies and non-profits have outreach workers who often work for years to gain their trust and encourage them to obtain services. It is a difficult endeavor.
A lot of empathy and compassion goes a long way. It is not just a “ Dem” problem in large cities. Look around.
@It's About Time I see some homeless here and there but nothing comparable to what is going on in, for example, California, where I used to live. I used to visit San Francisco when it was a beautiful elegant city. Now they call it San Franfeces.
I would not dare move to any area governed by the Dems. They are not the places for anyone with a moderate or retirement income. They are no friend of the working class. I am now living in an area where people flee those areas and curse them loudly in public, Connecticut in particular.
We begin to resemble South America, another place I used to live. When I was a child, under Eisenhower, we taxed the rich at 90% and restricted immigration. We had a great middle class. Dem policies kill the middle class with taxes and sponsor floods of low skill immigration, which, according to Barbara Jordan, economically kills our lower skill workers.
I was born in Massachusetts. Never would attempt to live there now.
For crying out loud, Dems, take a look at yourselves.
Breaking and entering also works for a small-time crook, until it doesn't.
Promise us once this nightmare administration is over, the media's Trump navel-gazing will also cease. Forever.
2
Divide and conquer - oldest strategy in the world. When one makes it a battle between parties rather than a discussion of ideas, this tactic works. It is especially effective in a society which is dedicated to attention deficit disorder aka smartphones. Under those circumstances no one has the patience nor the time to listen to ideas that are contrary to ones own. Hence the transformation of the Republican Party from Rockefeller to Nixon to Reagan to Bush to Trump. These men all went to the best universities in the country; only one was willing to apply the lessons he learned to the society at large. The others, learned the lesson of getting and grabbing all you can.
We talk about the loss of well-paying blue-collar jobs as if they were replaced by slightly less well paying service jobs. Most were not- they were just lost jobs.
Millions of people have slid into poverty in this country. They are devastated. Their families and communities are devastated. They are a warning to others- a walking reminder that our society has no safety-net. A warning of what is coming for those that still have a future. That anyone in the United States is replaceable.
Things will never get better. We are entering an era of man-made scarcity and environmental devastation. Let's keep importing people into this country by the millions until life becomes terrible for everyone. Something sounds terribly appealing to me to have to compete against the entire planet for dead-end, slave wage, jobs.
Equality in destitution, desperation, and privation. But think of the diversity!
2
Education. The biggest problem is voters thinking that problems are simple, easily solved by the leader of choice if only the other side would just cave. The group identity demands that "we" win, and just as importantly, "they" lose. Once you are educated to the reality that social structures (we live together, in societies after all) demand some compromise - that you can't "win" - you understand problems are complex, you agree to work together, and achieve solutions. Authoritarians always seek to keep the populace under-educated ("I love the uneducated"...) so they are easily manipulated. I think that's what drives me nuts the most about these times, that people either can't see they're being conned, or can see it and accept it because they think sticking with the polarizer-in-chief will allow them to "win."
3
@Greg - I would say most of the heated political arguments are between two groups of highly-educated people.
Most ordinary people don't know or care about these issues.
I do wish the media treated the liberal leanings of the democratic party more fairly. For at least two decades the GOP has been supporting a right wing agenda with taxing and regulatory policies that are clearly enriching those at the very top and gutting the middle class---yet, the media in general appears to accept this march back to the Gilded Age as normal. When democrats, however, talk of a Green New Deal or restoring a progressive tax system or medical care for all---the media piles on with warnings of going too far left..Really..What I see is an effort on the part of the democratic party is bringing our policy agenda back to center.
7
In the past, people who voted for candidates I opposed were just “people”. They were friends, family, co-workers, neighbors, etc... But Trump has changed that. People who support this president - TODAY - knowing what we know TODAY about his corruption, racism,, greed, duplicity, ignorance, narcissism, lies and willingness to destroy our country for personal gain - well those people cannot be part of my circle anymore. I can’t talk with them, I won’t hire them, I can’t socialize with them, I unfriended a few and unfollowed many.
21
@Deirdre although I agree with your views on trump ,you are violating the law by refusing to hire people based on their political views.
1
@Deirdre No big loss for them...
1
@Roger He isn't violating the law by not hiring them. Stupid isn't a protected class.
2
The last line sums it up: “The problem is not just Trump, nor is it just America. It reflects pervasive economic and cultural changes, for which there are no easy answers.”
The longstanding trends and divisions that allowed Trump to win are not going away after he leaves. Getting rid of him will not solve the problem.
The core issue is the erosion of well-paying blue collar jobs due to technology, outsourcing, globalization and, yes, to a degree, immigrant. Thanks to AI, that phenomenon is now spreading into white collar jobs and will soon decimate the livelihoods of millions more. Witness what has already happened to the news business. Since the early 2000s. about half the jobs have been whipped out, and the losses are only accelerating.
AOC's Green New Deal and Kamala Harris' tax cut for the less wealthy do nothing to tame these destructive economic forces. To stop Trumpism, you need to talk first and foremost about jobs. An excellent first step would to be lay down a marker to Silicon Valley, billionaires and corporations: We will not allow AI to cause massive job losses. If driverless cars, for example, are going to cost millions their jobs, we will restrict, even outlaw them. Simply saying that will force Silicon Valley to slow down and actually consider the larger societal consequences of its actions. Until you address the looming employment apocalypse, you are not getting at the trends threatening to undermine our democracy.
3
Sadly the techniques of persuasion used by POTUS effectively motivate his supporters.
2
Donald Trump may have exploited the division, but it was the years of work of Ruppert Murdock, the Kochs and Vladimir Putin that resulted in the election of a grifting con artist and possibly the destruction of the American democracy.
There is a tribal element to human behavior that is fanned by those who accrue profit and power through division. They know that minority rule demands division of the majority.
To understand why the stage was set for a Trump to take advantage of the power of fear and hate, just answer the question: What would the highest individual and corporate tax rate be if religious, race, guns, and social issue conflict were not dividing America?
12
The experts tell us there are “no easy answers.” Why, then, write another article pointing out what we know—the divide is wide, motivated by fear and anger on one side, along with entitlement and a blind insistence on a return to a fantasy yesteryear—and leave us, once again, without any solutions or any hope?
4
“Encouraging and exploiting division has worked for Trump, as far as his own electoral prospects are concerned. Can he keep it up?” Let us hope Mr. Edsell, that Trump will no longer be around in 2020. Otherwise you already know the answer to your question: he can do nothing else but ‘keep it up’. God spare us all.
2
The majority of Americans yearn for the policies now being pushed forward by Democrats. Trump is the most shocking disgrace in U.S. presidential history, in so many ways. The combination of these 2 factors and how much they each weigh in the voting process will be determined by the upcoming (fascinating) Democratic primary process, with lots of good choices. But in any case these factors are repelling "the middle" from trump, not attracting to him. Trump, the fluke, is handing himself a defeat. America's flirtation with fascism is ending.
3
"Us vs. Them" is the underlying foundation or our political party system and exploiting division has been a central theme running through the history of American politics. Trump is certainly not the first and he will not be the last. Trump is the best I've seen at this since Clinton, however neither can hold a candle to FDR when it comes to "Us vs. Them".
Mr Edsal,
a thoughtful article on the division Trump exploited and used to win the presidency (after a bit of help from Mr. Comey).
I believe we may be misinterpreting the division that is here now. It isn't us versus them (although the GOP really wants it to be that way).
The new division is about poor versus rich.
About tje GOP representing billionaire donors, and the Democrats that want to improve life for ordinary Americans with access to affordable health care, food, a decent job, a clean environment.
Trump nor the GOP have anything substantial to say about this, and that will be a big reason why they will lose elections. And there is the corruption, lying, fear-mongering, racism, and trying to govern without a vision for the country except giving tax breaks to billionaires. That is why I believe they will lose.
1
We can either attempt to enlighten the people on the true picture of us vs them, or we can continue to blow smoke with the centrists. As long as the 1% is in charge as they have been all along, they will buy elections and judges and try to re-elect Trump. He has given them carte blanche to trash regulations and make out like bandits. Of course he can say he's making America great again. But viewed as us vs them (them being the 1%,) he has removed the last vestiges of our democratic right to a say in our governance.
Only a candidate who can convince the voters that us vs them means making our country great by returning to fair taxation, less military spending, and more funding for clean energy, free or affordable healthcare and education (in other words less money for them and more money for us,) will begin to change the system for the benefit of the majority of the American people.
We can make a revolution at the ballot box if we are awake to our best interests.
1
The Democratic political rhetoric has increasingly become that "anybody else's money is our money." And that "we are going to take it any way they can get it."
Somewhere along the line liberals lost the idea that hard work is their way to success in America.
Now liberals believe that somebody else's hard work is the key to their enjoyment of life. I suppose it all started with the idea that ever fewer people should participate in our federal income tax system. When you get half of them never paying anything, they increasingly believe they have the right to whatever the other half has, too.
1
That's a typical comment from a Slave State Conservative; the Confederate states of the South were solidly Democrat until 1965, when LBJ pushed through the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts. Then the Slave State Conservatives fled to the Republican party, and with the guidance of people looking like Lee Atwater, began a mythical narrative about the Democrats.
So - why is the deficit rising by nearly a trillion dollars every year under Trump?
Why was the deficit falling under Clinton?
11
@UTBG - Myrtle Beach is a resort area full of Northerners. Their ancestors may have fought for the North and helped free the slaves, but the Democrats have driven them South with high state income and property taxes.
What's wrong with the Democrats in Congress thinking big? Why not a Green New Deal? Why not ask for a lot instead of what we've been doing for the past 30 years which is ask for crumbs and then say thank you when we get nothing?
None of the ideas the "socialists" in the Democratic Party are that odd. We should be exploring alternative energy sources because if the sun is free why are we paying for electricity? We should be talking about universal income because as automation is eliminating jobs what are we going to do with the millions of workers who no longer have a job nor are qualified for a job in the new economy? We should be asking why do we pay so much for our health insurance and get so little or why do people go bankrupt because of their medical costs. Someone is reaping the benefits from the current system and it's not the little people paying for insurance.
When nearly 40% of Republicans agree with raising taxes on the wealthy then that idea is not some crazy, liberal idea. The obscenely wealthy have made their money by privatizing their gains and making their losses public. They didn't make it by being smarter or working harder. They made it by taking advantage of a system that rewards them more than the everyday people who work for a living.
So let's find a Democrat with big ideas who wants to help the regular people. And you know what maybe a few Trump voters who have been getting the short end of the stick under his administration will join us.
12
@Jennifer - The Republicans just raised taxes on the wealthy by eliminating the SALT tax deduction. Millions of rich people in New York and California are now paying more tax to Uncle Sam.
Instead of thanking them, the Democrats are complaining. That shows that may say they want higher taxes, but they don't like it when somebody actually does it.
@Jennifer - yes!
"Norris and Inglehart suggest that the dependence of the populist right on older voters may lead to its steady decline as those voters die off, but they are not confident that this will happen. “It remains to be seen how resilient liberal democracy will be in Western societies, or whether it will be damaged irreparably by authoritarian populist forces”
----------
This statement as much as any of Trump's exacerbates class division problems by insinuating that "liberal democracy" cannot and should not embrace populists, i.e. the working class, in effect extending the cultural notion that they are not only expendable but deplorable.
Regardless of one's view of the qualities of the working class, it's wise to recall that Mrs. Clinton's loss was in no small part attributable to her adoption of that meme.
Until Democrats accept the fact that economic security drives politics, that their neo-con policies and cultural denigration are subject to legitimate complaint and have measurably contributed to working class disaffection, populists and populism will remain.
4
@Sam
Mrs. Clinton lost because a quirk of the obsolete Electoral College permitted a tiny minority of people in three states to outweigh the wishes of the majority of the population of the United States.
2
@John The debate about the Electoral System aside, the fact remains that Ms. Clinton's loss was attributable to her denigration of the working class in her "firewall" states.
Diverting from that reality suggests a lesson not yet learned by Democrats, which bodes ill for 2020.
us vs. them is very powerful, but Trump will likely be on the receiving end of the next iteration. The people vs. the billionaires. Billionaires are a far better and more blameworthy group to blame than any others. It basically unites everyone, because they are the true elites, and they have corrupted our politics. They fuel the anti-immigration paradigm, because they insist on acquiring cheap labor at the expense of domestic labor and paying people in this country a decent wage.
Trump is going to be remembered as the final stand for billionaires. Would you rather have Trump be your president, or would you rather take 95% of his fortune and divide it up for the entire state of West Virginia's new Green Energy sector. I think that Trump can have a lot more power to do good as a private citizen. Take away his money and invest it in the people.
He knows he cannot argue against that rhetorically. Everyone would choose to have 50K in their pocket than have him as president. It's a non-issue. Problem is places like CNN give him the perfect backdrop on which to counter. They clearly want Howard Schultz to win the election and would clearly rather have Donald Trump than Bernie Sanders running the country. They have lost all faith of the people, and enable Trump by providing him with such shockingly bad alternatives. They are part of the billionaire class and they are a huge part of the problem along with Trump. Like Trump, they should be shut down.
1
The comments are well based in fact and experience, with one exception: that those responsible for the divide in our country being from the generation between the wars.
Huh? Between wars?
I was born in 1951, and by my calculation, we have been at war in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile (democratically elected president overthrown and murdered), Panama, Grenada, Kuwait, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan. I'm sure that there are other covert invasions to overthrow "unfriendly" governments that are not public knowlege.
I have never known a time when we were not at war.
Eisenhower was prescient in his warning to beware of the military/industrial complex. Unfortunately, by then it was too powerful.
10
Trump has made a political and personal decision that his primary interest is pleasing 30% of the population at the expense of the remaining 70%. This base can only reelect Trump if Trump can pull undecided voters into his mix. This can only be accomplished if the Democrats cannot pull together with a uniform message and platform.
Many will side with Trump if the market and unemployment stays favorable. The Democrats have to counter this with a strong financial message of their own. We had a strong economy for 8 years under Bill Clinton and President Obama directed this country through what could have been the second Great Depression.
This country cannot survive as a democracy with another 6 years of Trump so the Democratic party needs to get it's act together and finish 2019 with a strong unified message and candidate.
6
Edsal is the best. This is real analysis. I do note a discrepancy, I think: Edsal's sources conflate moving to the left on economic policy and moving to the left on identity politics, both of which have avatars in the democratic primary contest. It seems clear from the data here that a move to the left on economic issues is not polarizing along the same fault lines as race/gender/sexuality/tribe. Virginia raises a warning flag on the potential self-destructiveness of symbolic race and gender politics crowding out real solutions to economic and even race and gender problems. Yes Dems need to address real race and gender issues, but without engaging in useless battles that rile up each tribe but do not change the realities.
Let's hope the troubles in VA amount to an early flu vaccine here. Keep in concrete and Dems win on ALL the issues.
4
He certainly could if the dems nominate an identity obsessed, east coast liberal, never met a war, trade agreement, wall st banker I did not like, elect me president because I am a woman like Hillary in 2020.
Nominate a progressive American black, white, male, female, other who will stress progressive issues that a majority of Americans can agree upon like a national, affordable, quality health plan, no corporate welfare, etc, etc,
Do not run on identity obsessed, social engineering issues that either are wrong or that even right a majority of Americans are not ready for.
6
Increasing the marginal tax rate on the very wealthy is a centrist position in the Democratic Party. The Pregressives are also for it but the moderates are strongly in favor.
This is important to remember. We cannot let moderate positions be lumped in with election loosing radical ideas, like the Green New Deal.
3
@Lefthalfbach - But if you remember the tax reform act of 2012, Obama wanted to increase taxes on households making over $200K from 35% to 39.8%. Schumer wouldn't allow it, saying let's make it $400K.
At the time, the top 5% of household income started at $175K. So the Democrats are very careful in taxing the wealthy, so as not to alienate the affluent professionals they rely on for support.
@Jonathan
Yes- there is some truth to that. A ;lot of truth in fact. Of course, Schumer has a bit of a point in that many Blue States are high cost of living places, where a high salary doesn't necessarily mean all that much, especially during your kids' college years.
LOL, I had some good years when my kids were younger but I didn't save anything!
1
I think Trump’s support is more about identity politics than it is about opinions about often complex issues. I can’t believe that most Trump supporters have a serious understanding of most of these issues.
Trump’s supporters are really just dedicated to the man and his “burn down the house” approach to politics.
His reign will end when someone says “sir, have you no decency” and it is finally undeniably clear to all that he does not.
18
@WDP
"I think Trump’s support is more about identity politics than it is about opinions about often complex issues".
Well, when man in the Oval Office doesn't read and doesn't understand "complex issues" and logical thinking the vast majority of those that elected him fall into the same category.
It was never about the economy, stupid, it is the education, stupid.
5
The political black magic of Us v. Them was born in Congress and thrives there to this day. Obama and Trump were elected by the same people for the same reason and that was to end the stagnation of the government. Both presidents were elected to kick-start Congress into taking action on pressing needs of the nation. Neither were elected as a mandate for radical ideological change. Americans want cooperation, compromise and incremental change, not a continuation of the war of inactivity that has gripped Congress for decades. Obama used persuasion to get elected and Trump used division but both failed to kick-start Congress and therefore both ruled by executive order. Our singular problem is the inability of Congress to set aside us v. them for the good of the nation.
3
No doubt our country has very diverse and opposite view points. Change is always a challenge for those who do not want to change (whether trying something new or back tracking to what worked in the past). The bigger the change the bigger the protest becomes.
In my opinion, I believe the author missed or did not place enough emphasis of Trump's true support and power base. The religious right. As long as they believe he is championing their agenda, he will have their unwavering support regardless of his moral shortcomings (adultery, lying, gambling, etc.). Once (if) this supports leaves Trump, he will crumble like a house of cards.
10
Why is extremism such a political liability for Democrats but not Republicans?
Denial of climate change is extreme.
Repealing the estate tax at a time of unparalleled income inequality is extreme.
Accepting the laissez faire advocacy of the NRA on gun control is extreme.
Stacking the courts with corporatists hostile to Roe v Wade and separation of church and state is extreme. (As is breaking the Senate to do so.)
Health care, foreign policy, regulation of industry, education, environmental stewardship, immigration reform, voter rights, criminal justice reform, tax policy—mainstream Republican views on these issues and more strike me as extreme. But they keep doubling down and currently have control of the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court to show for it.
152
@RIPIrony
Yes yes yes. This is exactly the case. The GOP are extreme, and support positions a majority of Americans do not. So why do they keep getting elected? They do not reflect the Real America. They represent the tyranny of a minority, and I don't see how it can hold. That is why I hope every day the GOP gets what they want, because then most of their voters will abandon them.
8
@MJ
The Republicans have anti-People policies yet they keep getting elected in what should be a democracy. Doesn't make sense.
But they have the Establishment and status quo (with organized power and money) and the macro media on their side, so they win and we lose.
Studies also show there's some funny business going on with the voting machines. I consider it very strange that the Democratic leadership has not secured the integrity of those all important machines on which we base our democracy. You'd think that would be a priority. Probably because it's not just the GOP that jumps to the tune of the rich and their corporations.
1
@RIPIrony
Exactly, and a few more things that are extreme: for-profit schools, colleges, prisons and healthcare; the elimination of consumer, environmental, and endangered species protections; subsidies to fossil fuel industries; the elimination of regulations that ensure a competitive marketplace, prevent concentrations of economic wealth and power, and ensure a level playing field.
Great screen name, by the way.
5
The mid terms as noted in the essay were about Trump. I know the aphorism that all politics is local but that does not hold true as it used to in the internet and cable news age. What happens in all parts of the country are almost immediately available to the citizens.
We live in what was Bernie country in the Democratic primary and Trump country in the general election.
People here are anxious about the future of their children and know post high school education education is essential and then see most never coming back from the metro areas.
So in our town there is an aging White population made up of middle to lower class people with a small minority of retired professionals. The latter are very progressive the former are not. A professional class, middle class, working poor and unemployed make up the population.
There are far fewer children than two generations ago, more out of wedlock births and a small hard drug culture.
The working middle and lower classes look down on the people on welfare who are almost all white and resent their benefits.
The middle class is receptive to populist rants but is also very receptive to the very progressive ideas that Bernie Sanders put forth. So there is no middle ground here anymore and very progressive, practical policies as free education, certain health insurance, fairer taxation, subsidized day care to name a few can win here.
6
I am not looking for a left-wing platform to come as a result of Trump, I am looking for a return to hope, to vision, to truth, to common sense, to data-driven discussions and practical solutions, to empathy for the needs of ALL citizens not just the "base" and, yes, to compromise as a democratic value. Any candidate who has a positive and practical vision for the future, emphasizing truth and facts, would not need to call out Trump overtly. The downside of Trumpism would be obvious. Please Democrats don't push for someone who comes across to everyone but yourselves as just the flip side of Trump.
7
"Democrats Are Boosting Trump’s Re-election Prospects,” read the headline of a National Journal article last week by Josh Kraushaar:
Their top 2020 presidential hopefuls are embracing socialist-minded economic policy, from a Green New Deal to single-payer health insurance. It’s playing right into the president's hands".
The constant repetition of Trump's canard about "socialism" being Hannibal ante portas in his SOTU address is wearing thin.
The fact that all other advanced nations - be they governed by a center right or center left - do have universal healthcare and other goodies like free higher education, are still in compliance with the Paris Climate accord, means nothing else but having a social conscience for their peoples.
The birthfather of universal healthcare was none other than the Iron Chancellor of Germany, Otto von Bismarck, albeit for political reasons at that time.
Bismarck took the first ever baby step in the mid 1880s by putting into law universal healthcare, accident insurance and Social Security for blue collar workers. In the early 1900s other countries followed and it ultimately lead to universal healthcare across Europe.
My, my, that Bismarck really was quite a socialist, wasn't he?
30
"Trump has pushed the authoritarian envelope further than any president (or major party presidential candidate) in recent memory."
I found this article chilling because of the level of intense polarization that swirls around this man and his ability to exploit it.
That he holds sway over his groupies through easily verifiable lies and an alternate view of reality ("what you see and hear isn't true") should give every free-thinker pause.
But not only that--that authoritarianism could even enter the American consciousness just blows my mind. Since our founding, our main theme has been freedom (individual and collective) and rugged individualism.
Is it just me that wonders how the party (and it's extreme leader) that so despises "socialism" would eagerly embrace a strongman?
Authoritarians control people through fear and hate. We know where that goes, and it appears to be growing. As Trump "matures" in office, he's become ever more brazen, using his rallies as venues of genuine incitement.
That a BBC camera man was roughed up by angry Trump supporters in El Paso should give us all pause.
I don't recognize this country any more.
20
The only logical outcome of stoking civil divisions is civil conflict. While, for Trump and many of his followers, this is a feature and not a bug, the GOP and their donors should exercise caution. The price of power and wealth may be the whirlwind.
5
Trump wants to encourage and exploit division in America? Well, what do you know, that also happens to be the Kremlin’s desire, a desire it implements through the GRU and the Internet Research Agency. I can readily see why Trump was the Kremlin’s choice for president of the United States.
41
@Mark Why is slavophobia, or hatred of Russians so acceptable to the left? Isn't it just another racism?
2
@me: not hatred of Russians. Dislike of the oligarch-KGB-soviet-totalitarian-brute regime of Putin. TrumPutin is a regime not a government.
5
@me
My response would be threefold:
1. Russia is not a race.
2. To dislike Russia is not to dislike Slavs in general. Russians are a subset of Slavs.
3. Waging (dis)information warfare on the United States with the aim of influencing its presidential election tends to make one disliked.
On the individual issues, it seems that a majority agrees with the progressive position.
However, the problem is that when these issues are put together in a package, the support for the whole is less than the support for the parts.
On the other hand, the GOP voters are basically motivated by single issues (abortion, immigration, race) to the exclusion of all other concerns.
And, whomever wins in 2020 it appears that at least 40% of the nation will believe that she or he did not win legitimately.
10
"To the extent that he reshapes the Republican Party in his white nationalist image, these divisions will deepen further and every election, like the 2018 midterms, will be fought with both sides convinced that nothing less than the future of American democracy is at stake."
Trump's holding a losing hand - so is the Republican party as he has reshaped it. While his supporters are attracted to the racism, religiosity, xenophobia, islamophobia, homophobia that is on the surface, they are fundamentally advocates of America's liberal democracy.
The key to Democratic success in 2020 is to appeal to their better angels - to remind them of the hope and unity of America. Those who have decided to run for the presidency so far ought not mimic Trump in his anger and divisiveness. They have to avoid identity politics and never single out race, gender, religion, class, or citizenship.
We are all Americans - including Trump supporters - and that will put a Democrat in the White House as well as control of Congress.
19
Doesn't the Democrats' focus on identity politics also encourage and exploit division--us vs them?
21
No. The whole point of identity politics is us and them.
4
@Talbot
I see it as including everyone, "big tent" sort of thing, and just the opposite of Trump's divisiveness.
5
Perhaps academics are overthinking this. Trump's disapproval at Gallup on Jan 27th was 59%. A majority of Americans don't like him. Additionally, everyday trump illustrates to us how unfit he is the be president, so that number has grown across his two years in office. (I can hardly say the two words, Trump and president, in the same sentence.) In two more years, more of those frightened elderly people will expire, and more young people will be eligible to vote. Progress marches on. Trump's investigations march on. Richard Nixon still had a 25% approval rating the day he got on the helicopter to resign in shame, so Trump will still have some support, but not enough to salvage his damaged reputation or possible criminal behavior. There are more of us, than there are of them.
86
@PRRH
You mean to assure us all that there is a 95% chance that Clinton would win, if she'd run in 2020, and that there is no path for Trump whosoever will run against him anyway?
3
@PRRH I keep wondering who's being polled, 'cause there's a Silent Mass/Majority that's just holding fire for the time being as well....
1
@PRRH All to be shunted aside in the name of gerrymandering and extreme voter suppression.
6
This article captures well the notion that the extreme right-wing of American politics (a.k.a. the Republican Party), consummated in the election of Donald J. Trump, represents something most Americans reject, authoritarianism.
Trump's labeling the rejection of authoritarianism as socialism is no different than his efforts to undermine the laws and institutions of the nation, to diminish the importance of a free press or to destroy the American-created world order that has ensured the well-being of the United States (e.g., NATO, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, treaties that reduced trade barriers — a.k.a. tariffs, etc.).
Fundamentally, Trump's efforts to make liberal democracy into something evil is an effort to distract Americans from the evils of his style of authoritarianism.
One should never forget that Trump is a transactional character with limited knowledge of how the world works, and who has no desire to learn how the world works. Trump is a person who would rather watch Fox "news" than read the intelligence reports prepared by America's national security agencies. Then again, he is the smartest person in the room.
146
@John S. Trump is aided and abetted by the obsequious Republican Party and the much smarter and more strategic Mitch McConnell.
6
This is the best piece I have read to explain the motivations of Trump supporters. Readers may also find interesting the book “The Benedict Option” by Rod Dreher which explains best why Evangelicals consider themselves among that group. The book outlines how Christian conservatives seek traditional shared cohesiveness among their own while liberal, social norms cause that cohesiveness to break apart due to centrifugal forces of independent self-identity. Though the book is not fully endorsing of Trump’s behaviors, he is viewed by the author as someone willing to address the lamentations of those Christians losing their sense of religious community, and therefore model the resentment that they feel.
And in the end, isn’t resentment one of the driving motivations underpinning most Trump support?
25
The politics of "we" vs "they" are standard battle cry across human history. Think Catholics vs Protestants or Communists vs capitalist or even those that belong to the country club and those that don't. To me it is inappropriate to use as a form of governing but it is extremely effective - perhaps required - form of winning, belonging and progressing. People love to / need to associate themselves with a group. Marketers didn't invent segmentation; people segment themselves quite naturally.
Those that have the warmest temperature toward Trump have finally found a group which embraces them and they feel powerful. Same for those that love Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders in the last election.
The US has sufficient checks and balances to resist authoritative leanings on either side, though Mr. Trump has been able to exploit these more than I would have expected. The lack of Congressional oversight has helped. Don't expect that to continue though.
12
@deedubs: Overpopulation exacerbates all divisions.
1
World War II had a long-lasting unifying effect on our country, as we came together and made sacrifices to fight our common enemies. The Viet Nam War divided us. 9/11 might have united us, as we got strong support from other countries. But those attacks also unleashed troubling divisions, as some sought to gain political power through exploiting bigotry against minorities.
Diversity plus tolerance strengthens our country; intolerance of diversity weakens it.
45
Exploiting bigotry has smoothed a path to election for far too many in the US ever since the Civil War. Trump made the most of that fact and here we are. However Trump could not have been as damaging as he's been in so many ways had it not been for Mitch McConnell's slavish enabling of him, something that's seldom sufficiently emphasized in analyses of Trump's damage to the rule of law, the environment and just about everything else.
9
@Richard Waugaman I see no tolerance of white men on the left.
2
@Theodore
You forgot the overriding goal was to make the world safe so corporations could make billions without having to pay taxes.
It may well be true the Democratic primary voters are no more liberal than Democratic voters in a general election, but the fact that most of these primaries are confined to registered Democrats is in itself often enough to create a more liberal candidate than may be viable in the general election. One solution is to open more primaries to Republicans and independents, but this threatens party control of this preliminary selection process.
4
@G C B: Crossover voters often support the weakest candidates of their disfavored party.
It’s strange to me that conventional wisdom says that the Right in the US is succumbing to “authoritarianism” while the Left is resisting it. With the significant exception of the fraught issue of abortion (in which the rights of two individuals are in conflict), I don’t see any ideas coming from the Right that would significantly limit individual rights & I see a whole bunch being enthusiastically advocated by the Left. Is there currently anything more authoritarian being proposed than The Green New Deal, which would cede absurdly vast powers to federal bureaucracies, which appear to me to already have far too many? Trump is an eccentric guy & a flawed president, but he and the GOP look to me like the ones who are the most interested in preserving individual freedom, so for now they have my vote.
10
@Charles Woods
The GOP welcomes your vote as it tries to stop those who do not vote like you, from voting.
46
@Charles Woods
You have an extremely cramped concept of freedom and individual rights, one based on appearances and rhetoric it seems.
One is not 'free' when confronted with a world of zero opportunities in which those who would rob you of your labor and pay a pittance in return control the process.
One is not free when good health is beyond economic reach, when one has no control over one's reproductive choices, when the cost of life-changing medication is treated like a stock market.
One is not free when the idea of education has become just one more entitlement for the relatively wealthy.
One is not even close to free when the air, the water, food are subject to corporations encouraged to be irresponsible with no consequence.
One is nowhere near free when people like you characterize abortion as a sad standoff between two individuals with equal rights. When anyone can speak of this wholly-owned, artificially trumped up abortion controversy as if it originated in the age of Christ as if it is even 'a thing' in the bible.
One is never going to be free in an economic system that defines freedom as the ability of corporations to do what they choose unobserved and unchecked, with impunity, and be rewarded in ways that pervert the economy and prevent individuals from reaping the rewards of their labor.
"Get government off my..." are words prefacing the exact opposite of personal or social freedom.
200
@Charles Woods I guess it depends on what your definition of "individual freedom" is. IMO, America is suffering now from pathological selfishness, the complete lack of community and care for anyone other than the self. I think too many Americans now confuse "individual freedom" with a right to have what they want, no matter the societal cost. Individual freedom comes with responsibility, and it is the responsibility part we are lacking now in American culture. As the GOP and Trump continue to redirect all the wealth and income to a tiny percentage of the population, while also working hard to lessen their burdens, (ie: taxes - again, individual freedom with no responsibility), that costs you your individual freedom - to affordable health care, education, etc. and concentrates more and more over in the hands of a few where Congress is owned and the presidency is bought. How that translates to individual freedom to you, I do not know. But you might want to read some history on how cultures have fared when power, wealth and income have been concentrated in the hands of a few and the effects that has always had on the greater population. Btw, calling Trump 'flawed' is like calling a cat 5 hurricane a "breeze". Trump isn't flawed. We're flawed, you and me and every person on the planet. Trump is twisted, mentally ill with severe personality disorders, and has a profoundly toxic personality.
16
Corrupt Donnie lost the popular vote and has done nothing to expand his base. His efforts to keep his base, as well as many of the actual policies his administration has tried to implement has driven away some of the voters he received.
He will receive fewer votes in 2020 than he did in 2016 and lose, even if his buddy Vlad finds another way to help him. It won't even be close, no matter who runs for the Dem's. Party Hack Mitch is starting to realize he will lose his Majority Leadership role as well.
The Dem's have to play offense. The policy specifics will work themselves out. As in 2018, get folks to register and vote.
43
The dependence of the Republican Party on older voters is not well understood. Is it a weakness and is it fatal seem like fair questions. I doubt that it is a weakness much less a fatal weakness. Though I suppose the answer may depend on where you draw the line between older and younger.
The first half of the baby boomers have already reached retirement age or will in 2020. The second half will reach retirement age beginning in 2021. Social Security and Medicare predict that the percentage of the population who have reached retirement age will increase for at least the next twenty years. That aging of the population defines the Medicare and Social Security funding crises.
That does not define an electoral disadvantage.
The Republican strategy of polarizing the electorate along racial, cultural and religious lines is likely to be effective for the next twenty years if its success depends only on an aging electorate.
1
@OldBoatMan You assume that the newly aged-in over 65 cohort has the same political allegiances as the current cohort. I think it is entirely possible that my 'boomer' generation is less aligned with Trumpism than the current over-65's and that the die-off of nationalistic Repubicanism will accelerate.
75
@OldBoatMan... you need to talk with more Boomers.
I’m 69 and cannot see a day when I would vote republican. There are many like me. Just because my generation is aging doesn’t mean we are oblivious to the damage being done to our nation by another Boomer who happens to dwell in the White House. You may be a Boomer, too, and be happy with having a dishonest wannabe authoritarian strongman as president. But there are a lot of us who came of age in the ‘60s and early ‘70s who remember the importance of freedom, the dangers of scoundrels in office, and still have a vision of an America that is inclusive and forward looking. The Dems are far from perfect, but they are at least looking ahead and not behind.
6
@OldBoatMan In 2020 I expect that Republicans will double down on their strategy of polarizing the electorate along racial, cultural and religious lines. It has worked for 50 years because it has appealed older voters and white voters. It has appealed to other demographic segments as well.
The Republican strategy appeals to baby boomers as well. The second half of the baby boom generation, particularly males, are solidly conservative and lean Republican.
There is no real reason to expect individual voters to change their opinions and party allegiance just because they reach retirement age. So I don't expect the Republican strategy to fail soon if age is the only factor or even the dominant factor.
3
As you point out, the economic troubles of both extremes are similar. The division comes in determining the cause of the situation and even more, how to improve such socio-economic conditions.
It seems to me that the divisive Trumpian rhetoric is backfiring as the numbers you shared about impeachment, corruption and the Russian investigation.
When you have a first son calling teachers losers because they demand better pay at the same time that the president continues to play a right-wing Evita, many voters will feel like the masses in the pre-French revolution.
12
@Aurace Rengifo
Trump as Evita...
Aurace, you're brilliant.
2
@Aurace Rengifo
ERRATA should read: "...as the numbers you shared about impeachment, corruption and the Russian investigation suggest."
The unfavorable polling numbers for Trump indicate that he can be beaten by any democrat. The consistency of his repugnance should be enough to insure that a majority of voters overlook any zany proposals adopted by the democratic nominee.
10
Trump is awful. But when a large group of people sense their "inexorable decline," fighting against that hardly seems irrational.
Who would not fight against loss of your job, your town, your way of life? Reporters at Buzzfeed are trying to unionize to prevent just that. Are we going to tell them to get with the program and learn to code?
The Democrats have to see them as allies, with reasonable fears. Not a rock in the road on the path to a Better Tomorrow.
Hatred of Trump has translated into hatred of those who saw him as the only person--as they saw it--who did not tell them to go the way of the dinosaur.
I loarhe Trump. But I also don't hate people who reject the notion that they must accept their decline.
54
@Talbot
How to you feel about people who reject an change? Who slap away any helping hand? How do you feel about people who will have it their way or no way?
Almost everybody knows that coal is a dead industry (last coal burning plant in CT shuts down next year, the coal museum use solar). Yet the people in coal country demand the industry be artificially kept going so they can still work in the mines. If you are on a boat that is sinking and the water is up around your knees: get off the boat!
20
@Talbot
Trump not only tells these people to accept their decline, he makes clear there will be no help when it comes.
If you like Charles Dickens, you're going to love Trump's America.
How do you get that Democrats tell people to go the way of the dinosaur? They're the ones offering education, financial support, job-search aid for those in industries on the edge of oblivion.
Now, despite Trump's idiotic side show, coal is going and burning-up oil to charge your laptop is nearly gone, and all those workers are going to be out on their ear, alone, without resources. Just the way Trump likes it.
But you ain't seen nothing.
Owners of everything, corporate titans and the disreputable rich, make clear over and over their desire to rid themselves of human employees as completely and as quickly as possible.
Twenty years is the goal many have spoken of to be running their operations with next-to-no-employees.
Trump loves the idea. Just set up a new Commission to speed things up.
You hear any plans for the thousands thrown out of work for the sake of cheaper laundry baskets, cut-rate shoes?
Noble corporations plan to eliminate jobs and create a tsunami of the unemployed that will never, ever be absorbed by our newly robotic economy.
Any idea what to do with all those workers intentionally made unemployed and indigent for the greater good?
Other than blaming them and abandoning them to the fortunes of the street?
No? Neither does Trump. Neither do Republicans.
18
@oogada Wow, and so correct.
7
The Democrats are using the same strategy , just different tactics.
For them, intolerance built on identity politics is their winning MO.
After all, the voters must be divided, how else can one party win?
We need a third and independent “Party”.
12
@Kara Ben Nemsi No we don't. A third party candidate will ensure 4 more hideous and disastrous years under the regime of Donald Trump, Ann Coulter, and Russ Limbaugh. No thank you. By the time these four nightmarish years are over, few of us will recognize the country we once called America, home of the free and the brave.
5
@RMW
Yes, we do!
There are lots of rational Republicans who are just dying to vote for a rational candidate and who cannot get it over them to vote for one of Trump's mirror images in the Democratic Party.
Just be honest with yourself and look what the Democratic candidates are doing. They also pit one American against the other. Not even the sheen of an effort to unite the country.
Sorry, only an independent party can drive out the fringe fanatics on either side that have gotten a hold of what once were two great parties.
First, the Dems do themselves a big favor by talking about things the GOP scorns because they’re talking about solutions to serious issues. For instance, building a wall solves nothing while addressing healthcare affects every person, even and especially, poor white Trump supporters. At the same time, Green New Deal is not as useful as discussing how to generate blue collar construction jobs. Generally, talking about solutions is inclusive and gives voters a vision of a better future and keeps their minds open. Talking fear closes minds and makes no progress. It gets old. Second, Dems need to educate people about the Constitution, about rights and responsibilities. Confusionin these areas helps the GOP and fear mongering.
64
@Denis
A connection can and must be made between a green New Deal and jobs. Infrastructure is a connection between jobs and a new direction in how we build, repair, and maintain critical infrastructure. Voting rights requires new machines and on line voting which can be monitored against hacks. More teachers, paid well. Service jobs which offer benefits and decent wages. Corporations took over Congress because we have not made public financing a Federal law; there is no reason to have turned over our electoral process to those who seek to profit by electing those who best serve their interests. Strengthen consumer protections against predatory lenders who destroy lives. Government is not a business; it is not expected to turn a profit. We pay taxes to support an government independent from corporate power. Both Parties have to take candidate nominations seriously, what are policies and social points of view; those things matter. There were no "both sides" in Charlottesville; there were protesters, and there were thugs. A young woman died when a thug drove his car at her. Many people died in a dance hall. National Guard boys were murdered on a peaceful deployment. People were murdered in a synagogue. I am waiting for a candidate to take on these issues, win or lose.
7
I can't tolerate Trump's politics. The phony populism that masks a reckless plutocrat. But the neo McCarthyism of the Democrats just disgusts me. The probability of nuclear war is going up with Trump's dangerous idea that smaller nuclear weapons can be used in a major war. Then you have the Democrats who think it is treason to talk to the Russians. Much has been made of the hate filled non sense spewed on social media which fueled the wickedly stupid upset victory of Trump. But then you have the Never Trump wing of the FBI and the Justice Dept. whitewashing Clinton's unbelievably dumb mismanagement of her State Dept. emails. The election produced an outrageously bigoted braggart who falsely ran on the phony notion that he was a superstar dealmaker. But he defeated a corporatist democrat who ushered in the wing that created a nihilistic anti Russia hysteria. This unsettling mess is left to the experts to try to explain a confused angry electorate.
17
@c harris You can talk to the Russian once elected. No prior candidate for president ever talked to the Russians to gain leverage over over political opponent to win the presidency which may be grounds for conspiracy or collusion. See the difference.
172
@damon walton Well, there is some evidence that Regan talked to Iran before he became President.
11
@Marc thanks for the reminder...... if ever there was a president less worthy of his "legacy"? it is Reagan.
13
What a difference a political party makes. Obama ran his entire re-election campaign on identity divisiveness. He had taken note that the lone success in that horrible midterm his party had suffered was a democrat who had run an identity-driven campaign. It was no coincidence his "Dear Colleague" letter came out the same day he announced his re-election bid.
By now the country is well aware that identity politics has been a primary divider, and Americans are sick of it. To write about Trump's divisiveness is too little too late.
21
@AACNY always with the liberals/obama/clintons did it first.... please recognize that doing this is not an argument. it is school yard chatter.
9
@AACNY
Obama’s entire re-election campaign was centered around the theme of “We’re better off than we were four years ago.” And rightly so. Because in 2012, we were much better off than we were when he took office.
7
How does these numbers add up to “deeply divided”? It looks like strong majorities back positions taken by Democrats and these are overwhelmingly backed by Democrats themselves. The Trump supporters are outliers. Why can’t the media say that? Maybe “Small faction of vocal Americans” seek to pull the rest of us over the cliff” would grab clicks.
316
@Beachbum
Not divided? Reread the article.
“Americans are evenly divided in their assessment of Trump’s repeated denials that neither he nor his campaign ever coordinated with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton. According to the survey, 49.9 percent agreed with the statement “Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign probably coordinated with the Russians,” while 50.1 percent said the campaign “probably did not coordinate.”
Despite promising majorities on some issues, 2020 will come down to the statistics cited above. We are divided and once again tiny margins in swing states will rule the day. If we Democrats lose the moderates, Donald J. Trump will get re-elected no matter how much we get out the vote.
9
@Beachbum, you are correct. Republicans are the ever shrinking minority. That is why they cannot get elected without cheating. They know it, which is why they have to work so hard against a national voting day or voting rights in general. Mitch McConnel know this and abhors increasing voting rights. Who could be against voting rights? The people who need to cheat to win.
56
“Outliers” representing half the electorate who managed to get their man into office while the Democratic candidate slinked home after the 2016 election.
3