The NYT’s Timothy Egan nails it:
“Donald Trump’s supporters know exactly what he stands for: hatred of immigrants, racial superiority, a sneering disregard of the basic civility that binds a society. Educated and poorly educated alike, men and women — they know what they’re getting from him….
Trump may start to tone it down to appear “mainstream,” says Egan.
“But it’s not mainstream to toss aside longstanding American policy against war crimes, advocating torture “even if it doesn’t work.” It’s not mainstream to approvingly pass on quotes from the Fascist Benito Mussolini. It’s not mainstream to be ‘everything we teach our kids not to do in kindergarten,’ as Gov. Nikki Haley, the Republican governor of South Carolina, said.
“The German magazine Der Spiegel called Trump ‘the world’s most dangerous man.’ The Germans know a thing or two about the topic.”
Following up on a recent article in Vox, the problem is not Trump; it is the growing authoritarian tendency in our country. Authoritarianism is on the upswing. If Trump weren’t around to ride that wave, someone else would sooner or later.
The Vox article is here.
The study of authoritarianism has grown quite a bit since the studies in the fifties about how Hitler rose to power. There’s been an improvement in survey instruments that detect authoritarianism. Further, political scientists now have a model whereby authoritarianism is something that is activated — especially by threat and even more especially by physical threat.
The law-and-order emphasis of the Republicans from 1966 into the nineties, followed by the fear stoked by Islamists and social changes like immigration and same sex marriage contributes to authoritarianism being activated.
One of the article’s conclusions:
he is the Fascist voice of the Faustian bargain Republicans made years ago with the white racist devil.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Even MSNBC seemed more willing to break into programming to cover his rallies live than they were for other candidates.
they sold their soul long ago.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
That’s the business they’re in. Now, I suppose you could describe all profit-seeking behavior as a species of whoring. For example, we could include dentists, broccoli growers, and tax preparers just as readily.
What you are hearing is the voice of the people the Democrats claim to represent.
he’s all yours.
Forevermore, Trump will always be synonymous with the Republican brand.
And there’s nothing you can say or do to ever wipe that stain off.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
and here I thought that was a conservative characteristic.
For 40 years, this particular groups gets “you are stupid evil and racist. You have offensive religion and drink bad beer and coffee. Things would be better without you.” from Dems and useless pandering on abortion from the GOP. They have been represented by no one, for decades. Of course when a Trump comes along there is a flash in the pan. When Trump fades they will return to being ignored by the GOP and vilified by Dems (who will then wonder why they can’t get a majority when their policies would be such a boon to the working class)
It’s hard to think of any elected Democrat anywhere who has told us segments of the white population are stupid, evil, or racist, or are afflicted with bad taste in brews. There exist liberals — not very many — who express such opinions though. It’s remarkable how sensitivity to insult, to feeling looked down upon so easily paints the entire liberal enterprise as a result of a mere sprinkling of churlishness.
I’m trying to understand what, beside mere churlishness, is behind Fred’s downrating here.
I am not criticizing either of you here but it seems like a disagreement between you two. Your wrote
and after FRLR downrated this he wrote
But “maybe the perception” was something any partisan Democrat is likely to agree with. It is not part of the “not Trump” vs “yes Trump” thing. And in fact, “not Trump” doesn’t even necessarily disagree with Fred’s comment.
I suspect, in fact, that only portion of the comment that Fred read was the comment’s attribution.
The sentiment is far more overt among party activists than politicians. And I think it is far more of these than you think. One would think that back-country outdoor enthusiasts would be able to unite behind environmental policies that protect those wild spaces, regardless of whether they purchase their outdoor equipment at REI, in neon colors, or at Cabela’s, in camo (and with a gun). And yet they can’t even begin to do so.
Among the politicians, this usually manifests itself in the form of a Democrat making an awkward photo op at a NASCAR event, or college football game, or hunting. Those appearances are always transparently fake, and always do more harm than good.
I reject your attempt to paint all angry voters with the same color.
In my view, there has been a flagrant, explicit, and nauseating purpose in the GOP propaganda and pandering for as long as there has been Fox News — the GOP explicitly inflames and panders to hatred, bigotry, racism, prejudice, and xenophobia. Bernie Sanders correctly articulated this very early in the campaign. The GOP has spent decades fomenting divisions among our least affluent, so that it is consumed with vitriol against “immigrants”, “gays”, “blacks”, “liberals”, “atheists” or whomever else is the scapegoat of the hour.
I’m sorry, but the Democrats HAVE NOT done that.
We Democrats have rejected such scapegoating and flagrantly racist and sexist “policy” since we ejected our Southern racists in 1968 (which the GOP eagerly welcomed). We have rejected that in our candidates, we have rejected that in the GOP candidates, we have rejected that in the statements of GOP officials, and we have rejected that in the GOP base.
I categorically reject your claim that supporters of Donald Trump are “the people the Democrats claim to represent”. Sorry, but that’s wrong.
What’s happening, in my view, is that the mob that the GOP spent decades stirring up has turned on those who created it. The ugly passions that the GOP has been feeding for decades are now turning on those who created them. The GOP owns the Senate and the House, and so those passions are directed at those who control the Senate and House.
This is the GOP mob, not ours. In my view, America’s only hope that is there are enough sane people left to push these ugly, ignorant, and anti-American back under the rocks where they like to hide.
I will not stand here after listening to DECADES of lies and scapegoating from opportunistic GOP haters like Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rush Limbaugh, Mitch McConnell, and literally ALL the rest and then — when the “strange fruit” appears on the boughs and the awful harvest of what the GOP has been sowing for decades comes to view — respectfully listen while I’m accused of “claiming to represent” these people.
Nope. This is a GOP problem that the GOP has now turned into an American problem. That’s the primary meaning of this week’s “no Trump” movement from the GOP — the GOP created this monster and, like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, is now utterly unable to control it.
This is an expression of hatred, bigotry, xenophobia, misogyny, prejudice, ignorance, and anti-intellectualism fanned and fed by the GOP for generations.
This mob is an ugly, rancid, rabid, and dying elephant wearing a bright red jacket. It is THE clear symbol of today’s GOP.
I believe Thomas Frank and others have demonstrated how these are in fact, our constituency. These are union members, blue collar workers, and displaced economic victims of globalization and automation. Neither party has bothered to address their economic anxieties, one party did fairly well for 40 years addressing their anxieties about cultural change. Trump is the first candidate to successfully address both in easy to understand dichotomies with simple solutions appealing to low information voters who make up this bloc.
It’s the perfect message for a culture brought up on Springer civility and reality tv elimination contests. Is it fair? Is it what America should be about? No. But to paint this anxiety as racism and misogyny and dismiss these blocs of voters as low brow morons is to make the same mistake the Republican establishment and it’s candidates and talking heads did throughout this primary.
If Hillary runs that kind of campaign, which she appears to be doing, by reaching out to suburban Republicans, moderates, and neocons outraged at the politically incorrect frontrunner she will lose. There are simply not enough of them to carry the states Trump could carry if he continues to be a blue collar champion. He truly forged a Republican majority against tax cuts, for entitlements, agnostic about social issues and against immigration and free trade. This is shocking to anyone who has studied the conservative movement and its rejection of all of Trumps values. He is building something new and dangerous.
Perhaps I’m being unclear about my posture.
I’m not talking about demographics or statistics. I see this as a group that is comprised of some who have already embraced the lies of the GOP, and others who recognize and reject those lies. In my view, the best stance towards the former group is pastoral empathy for the symptoms of suffering. I do NOT agree that we should alter our strategy or posture to encourage their delusions.
I’m not suggesting that Ms. Clinton or Mr. Sanders ignore or reject the entire group. I’m suggesting, instead, that Ms. Clinton or Mr. Sanders make the same appeal to this group that they make to any other group.
In my view, angry and unhappy blue-collar workers are just as able to respond to actual truth about actual facts as any other demographic.
I’m not sure that Mr. Trump is building anything. My sense is that he is instead simply harvesting and redirecting the bitter fruits of the lies that the GOP and Fox news have been spreading for generations.
The target of those angry and disgruntled blue-collar workers should, in my view, be the 1% that have been plundering them for decades — specifically including Mr. Trump — and NOT liberals, gays, blacks, immigrants, women, atheists, and all the other scapegoats the GOP has been blaming.
In my view, simple respect for the demographic we’re describing demands that we assume that if our team lays out for them the FACTS of, for example, how Mr. Trump has made (and lost) his wealth — WHO he has collected his money from — they will be as responsive as any other demographic.
When Mr. Trump was promoting the Trump Network (his pyramid scheme promoting the worthless wares of Ideal Health), the “dealers” or “distributors” or whatever that he preyed on were NOT the 1%. He played desperately suffering blue-collar people for chumps in the Trump Network con-game, just like he is today playing them for chumps in his Presidential campaign.
I am not ready to assume that blue-collar America — even angry blue-collar America — is so ignorant, racist, prejudiced, and blinded by hatred that Mr. Trump’s tactics are the only ones that work.
We Democrats do not seek to represent racists, bigots, homophobes, xenophobes, and so on. The GOP does. We Democrats do NOT pander to those base passions in our campaigns and marketing. The GOP does.
The demographic we are speaking of is comprised of both those who do and those who do not cling to their baseless hatred towards various scapegoats. In my view, our best path is to reach out to and welcome home those in the latter group willing to leave those passions behind. For those who remain stuck in their hatred, I think our best policy is to express our pastoral empathy for their mistake.
That’s all I mean.
Would go a long way. As I see it, the tone has for my adult life has ranged between “stain” vilification and condescending dismissal. This is the Old Left that is and remains an obstacle to rather than a constituency of the New Left Democratic Party. It is not necessarily a bad thing that they are beginning to recognize that the GOP has long given them the bait and switch; it is an opportunity for Democrats, which I am not sure they will be able to take.
No one is suggesting appealing to economically and culturally displaced white workers by appealing to their cultural resentments. I am saying, a campaign waged solely on that turf is a losing one. “We are tolerant they are intolerant” utterly failed the GOP establishment, and without a minority on the ticket it is unlikely in my view that we can simply sit down and say demographics is destiny.
Clinton is killing Sanders with black voters as a percentage of the primary electorate, but overall black turnout in this primary is down substantially from 2008 which is troubling for a general election. And we are losing the very white working class voters who turned on Romney after the 47% video in OH, WI, MI and PA. All states Trump would be projected to win in a general election against Clinton were it held tomorrow. I am not saying embrace his message or his tactics, but he has shown far more empathy towards white blue collar voters than either Democrat this primary. And that’s leaving him a dangerous opening, no shaming over un-PC comments will close.
I enthusiastically agree that we MUST keep the focus on wealth and income concentration, and on showing empathy with blue collar voters who are in enormous pain.
In my view, we are uniquely able to do that while simultaneously being clear about how offensive his long list of abuses are. We will not raise Hispanic turnout in this election by ignoring Mr. Trump’s relentless bigoted remarks.
It isn’t that hard to both articulate what we believe and also articulate the disgust we have towards GOP hate-speech.
While I can’t disagree with the idea that Democrats can and should have outreach to “economically and culturally displaced white workers,” the fact is that the ship has sailed on this demographic being an important part of the Democratic coalition.
It’s sort of like Republicans who keep saying: “but African-American voters should vote Republican because they are religious and culturally conservative!” The fact is that the Republicans can’t construct a coalition by stoking white voters’ racial resentment on the one hand and then appealing to black voters’ cultural conservatism and expect that both groups will operate under the same banner (the Democrats did this briefly in the beginning/middle of the 20th century, but it didn’t last long).
Similarly, the Democrats’ can unite a coalition of white, culturally liberal professionals and minority voters but can’t then realistically expect that working class white voters will stay as a key part of the coalition for long. Even if white working class voters agree with minimum wage hikes, not cutting Social Security, etc., it does not mean that they will vote for Democrats — much in the same way culturally conservative black and Latino voters were not going to move to the Republicans. The shift here is clear: you mention Romney’s 47% comments as turning off the white working class, but actually Romney did considerably better than McCain among white voters (including the white working class) in 2012. It’s a trend long in the making.
Long story short: the white working class was a crucial part of the New Deal Democratic coalition. That coalition is no more, and the sooner Democrats come to grips with it, the better. Still conduct outreach to working class white voters, of course. But realize that the older New Deal Democratic coalition won’t be coming back anytime soon. The Democratic Party is now a multi-racial party consisting largely of minority voters and culturally liberal white professionals. That’s the Democratic Party not only of the future, but it’s what we already have right now.
First when my Republican friends talked about getting religious people of color votes I almost laughed out loud. I know well-off African Americans that wouldn’t dream of voting Republican. It’s just not how people vote, you can switch over time, but there’s a lot of factors.
I don’t know why some people don’t think Democrats can harbor racial, ethnic or social class biases. Maybe not the BMG crowd, but it’s out there. Homophobia as well. That Trump gets Democratic votes is no surprise.
To add to your coalition thoughts, I would suggest there is a sizable chunk of the population that is connected to government spending. Not just public sector employees, but everyone that is connected to a social service agency, all those that sell the government anything, anyone in their household. When you add it up it’s a decent number. I believe they are a very reliable part of the coalition. PS I got this idea looking at groups holding signs at a Brown-Warren debate.
This is an interesting point. As you suggest, “connected to government spending” does not necessarily mean “getting welfare checks” or something, but rather involves a close connection between a person’s occupation and the operation of government.
This is why I think we’ve seen a big shift of professionals to the Democratic Party. For example, lawyers used to be a conservative profession, and some of FDR’s biggest critics. Now, while of course there are still conservative lawyers, the legal profession as a whole has moved pretty firmly into the Democratic camp (looking at campaign contributions, etc.). Doctors and medical professionals are similar. Why? Well, it’s hard to think of two professions that have benefited more from the growth of the federal government than the legal and health care professions.
I’d suggest too that Virginia illustrates the broader coalition shifts in microcosm…it’s been professionals connected to the government, living mostly in northern VA, that are responsible for the dramatic political shift in VA from deep red to leaning blue.
and it’s not only the usual suspects. The government buys huge amount of technology for example, so there’s a whole new constituency. You see all the names on the buildings in suburban DC. I think this is one way all the “shutdowns” are bad PR. The people that work with the government know that consistent funding of projects is better than cutting just to score symbolic victories that the base applauds, even if they might lean towards the Republican side.
Harry Truman put it this way : ” When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal … he is sure to lose. The people don’t want a phony Democrat. If it’s a choice between a genuine Republican and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time.”
Fred Rich LaRiccia
And you should understand that statements such as, “This is the GOP mob, not ours. In my view, America’s only hope that is there are enough sane people left to push these ugly, ignorant, and anti-American back under the rocks where they like to hide.” serve only bolster the fervor of Trump supporters. I have had this conversation with you before: there is enough evil and incompetence to go around; no political party or group of people is blameless.
I reject your attempt to paint today’s Democrats with the same brush as today’s GOP. There is a world of difference between “blameless” and “no difference”.
I stand by my characterization of the GOP mob.
it was the same argument the cons made during Nixon’s Watergate. You know, ‘they’re all crooks but Nixon was the only one that got caught’, yada, yada, yada. That’s bull !
” Balance does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.” ANON
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I completely agree that dismissing the Trumpenproliteriat as stupid, racist or a misled mob is not the way to win over the persuadable ones. It’s a Venn diagram not a binary line. And some of these voters can be persuaded by a populist economic program.
I largely think arguing about which party is worse is a race to the bottom discussion. Anyone who lived through the last two decades with even a base level tolerance for minorities, gays, and women and a base level disgust at Iraq, Katrina and the housing bubble can articulate which driver deserves the set of keys. But the worthier by default driver also decimated industrial America via NAFTA and was an equal contributor to the subprime crisis by deregulating banks.
As a blue stater with gay friends, about to enter an interracial marriage with a non-native born citizen, it’s easy for me to pick one party to loathe more than the other. But I have empathy for red stayed whose town lost all its prosperity after NAFTA and is anxious about what happens when the Wal Mart closes and there’s nothing left. They are already living out the reality of inequality in a way we never will in the Boston area, and it ain’t a pretty sight.
… Thomas Frank wrote about Kansas and tried to a paint a rather blunt picture. It’s certainly worth a read, but it’s polemic and not scholarship. Frank’s thesis was that Kansas was once a ‘hot bed’ of liberalism and progressive idealism and that this near-utopia was wholly upended and undone by mustachio twirling conservatives. This is not completely true. Admitted to the union just prior to the Civil War under color of ‘popular sovereignty’ Kansas became a focal point for both pro- and anti- slavery forces: people actually emigrated to the state in order to have a vote. Anti-slavery forces ultimately won the vote and Kansas fought for the Union in the war…. but that didn’t excise the pro-slavery tendencies and Kansas was willing participant in the Jim Crow era. This can be seen in the full name of the famous Supreme Court Case “Brown versus the Board of Education of Topeka.” Kansas has, in fact, gone back and forth many times over the course of it’s history not just the once that Thomas Frank scrutinizes.
Actually they have. Railing against Mexicans coming to steal your jobs (and your women) is an attempt to address economic anxieties. Threatening to Impose trade sanctions on partners is also such an attempt. Blaming welfare queens for living high on the public dime is also such an attempt to deal with economic anxiety. As is the perennial and continual efforts to cut taxes. That they are wrong, or that they’re not very good ideas, nor are they are likely to have the affect desired, doesn’t mean they aren’t aimed squarely at economic anxieties. They are, however boneheaded and shortsighted, indeed attempts to address economic concerns. The fact that some people are receptive to these blisteringly stupid notions of economics, whatever the hue to their collar or union membership, means they may not, in fact, be our constituency. Stupid is as stupid does.
Ask Jeb or Marco or Hillary in the next few months how beating Trump on the identity politics angle works. It’s time the Democratic party went back to class, Bernie and Warren show us partly how to do that. Whats the 21st century version of the New Deal that can galvanize a broad constituency that cuts across racial and class divisions? This is the single most important question for the progressive movement to answer.
I mentioned something similar in another comment, but I do think the Democrats are already in the process of doing this by joining together wealthy and middle-class professionals (many of whom are white) and minority voters of all classes. This coalition cuts across racial and class divisions, but I think in a different way from what you are discussing.
Broad enough to win the presidency, too narrow to maintain control of Congress and swing back state legislature control, which is the lowest level ever in the modern era for the Democratic party. This is largely due to the exodus of white working class voters to the ranks of the unenrolled and the GOP. Again, I am not suggesting we appeal to their prejudices to win them over.
I do say offering them something more substantial than the arcane 20 point plans of a Clinton that mitigate their pain rather than alleviate it, or the pie in the sky proposals of a Sanders is something to think about. America is unwilling to tax itself and surrender it’s military leadership like a Denmark, but we can do a lot more than the last two Democratic presidents at really solving this problem and not just rhetorically pointing at it. We don’t need 100% of them, but we need far more than 0% to win an enduring majority.
… in the contest for their votes, appeals to prejudice are far likelier to win them over than logic and even facts. That’s what ‘prejudice’ means. That’s why amoral people do it: it works for them.
I fear you think that their prejudices are mere character flaws that can be circumvented with sound rhetoric and good intentions. They are not.
The choice is not between maiking an effort persuade them logically or making appeals to their prejudices. The choice is simply to confront them with their own prejudices or write them off.
of stupid things to argue about since we’ve given up on the primary.
Trump is a demagogue capitalizing primarily on the fear of people with authoritarian preferences, We are living in a fearful time. The GOP has stoked those fears and capitalized on them to the point that the party can no longer control them. Matthew McWilliams a PhD student at UMass and a political consultant writes at Vox:
To be clear, all Republicans are not authoritarians, but they have catered to them for decades. And to be sure, all Trump supporters are not authoritarian, but as McWilliams points out, there is a strong correlation between authoritarianism and his supporters.
morally superior:”They tend to see the world in black-and-white terms. They are by definition attitudinally inflexible and rigid. And once they have identified friend from foe, they hold tight to their conclusions.” Whom are we describing here? Methinks both parties.))))
The authoritarian take on Iran is that is this evil place. It’s power must be smashed. Tear up the treaty. Bomb Teheran.
Liberals, at least of the sort that visit here and don’t title their comments in all caps, tend to have a more nuanced view. The Iranian government is different from its citizens. Public opinion in Iran is going to colored by past U.S. history with Iran. Negotiations with Iran can indeed bring mutually beneficial results. Iran does support the awful Syrian regime, dangerous militias in Iraq, and questionable factions in Lebanon.
disagree with what I’ve quoted. However, I’m not talking about parties, but the followers of Trump. A number of Trump supporters probably don’t think that deeply about things (like most people).
As the GOP shifted completely to the right, it made a home for these folks.
Geek or wonk that I am, I’ve done a decent amount of reading on the subject. There’s an extensive amount of psychological research on conservatives, but it sprang from research on authoritarians which came about after World War II.
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism