Yves here. Tom Neuburger looks at the failed promise of Obama as a “change” president, and questions whether Trump will manage to deliver. Will US politics devolve to increasingly tired promises of major shifts that never come about?
As much as Neuburger makes some important observations, IMHO he misses some key ones. He doubts whether Republicans will do any better with improving the economic condition of the working class given that both parties are loyal to the super rich, who do better when they keep the poors down. However, Trump has some cred due to the fact that he DID improve the condition of middle and lower income cohorts with the massive Covid spending (from which, let us not kid ourselves, business benefitted handsomely). Moreover, there is an open question about how far Trump goes in restricting immigration. If he really does clamp down on the border, succeeds in deporting criminals and those who have been cleared by the Immigration Court for deportation (1.3 million!!!) and does some showy employer raids, he’ll probably get more credit for helping workers than the impact on pay levels would warrant.
In other words, Neuburger posits that all of Trump’s possible moves would amount to a zero sum game. I’m not so sure.
For starters, they can be a negative sum game. Trump is fixated on imposing more tariffs (mind you, Biden was going down that path too, but not as fiercely). If he goes very far, it will increase costs to Americans, as in add to inflation.
However, Trump is the vanguard of an intended class realignment. Trump may not have to deliver improved material benefits to be perceived to have won. The professional managerial class that rallied behind Hillary and Kamala is clearly besides itself over a second Trump victory, to much schadenfraude of Trump enthusiasts. The Democratic elites are the epitome of sore losers, making make clear that they continue to loathe Trump backers (or more accurately, their funhouse stereotypes of them). So the battle is joined!
Weakening or abandoning DEI initiatives and collegiate correct-think practices like policing micro-aggressions, if that goes anywhere, will reduce employment among university and corporate nanny-scolds and their consultant hired hands. Mind you, yours truly is not opposed to DEI; many studies have found that real and unconscious bias is widespread. But there seem to be too many cases when it’s become close to a fetish. RFK, Jr. threatening a mass firing of 600 at the NIH is a statement that knowing something (like how the relevant statutes and regulations impact grant decisions) is of little import. Chas Freeman depicted the Trump win as a war on expertise (Freeman laments the devaluing of diplomacy as a form of expertise. While true, a covert war started when Biden appointed well-spoken hacks, starting with Blinken and Sullivan, to his foreign policy team).
This may also explain the pugnacity of many (most?) of Trump’s nominations so far. What is the point of picking a Matt Gaetz where Trump must know he does not have the votes to get him out of the Senate Judiciary Committee? Of a RFK, Jr. who also seems very unlikely to be confirmed? Maybe it actually is not a demonstration of untrammeled ego and does not accept that the President is subject to constraints. Maybe the point is the combat, that unlike Team Dem, he does not talk about “fighting” but actually fights, even ones he is bound to lose.
By Thomas Neuburger. Originally published at God’s Spies
A still from the 1936 classic film “Things to Come”
Like others, I’ve been trying to make sense of the last election. A lot of obvious things can be said about it, and many have said them. But what does it all add up to?
Is this truly an era of transformed coalitions, or serial “change candidates,” each replacing the last?
Note: The following analysis relates to domestic economics. Consideration of Trump’s foreign policy will come later. It looks like the pro-empire Atlanticists are in for a fight. Pro-genocide folks, on the other hand, are in for a treat.
What Does the Data Say?
Harris supporters were motivated by protecting democracy and abortion, while Trump supporters voted to fix the economy and slow immigration:
And there were many more votes for Trump and his pitch than for Harris and hers:
(Latest popular vote numbers here.)
In addition, the stay-at-home count was higher. Though more than 150 million votes have been tallied so far, the 2020 total was larger: 158 million. Harris lost about 10 million Biden voters. Some went to Trump (we don’t know how many), and some went into the wind. Very few votes — about 1.5% — went to third parties.
Trump’s total increased by about one million votes and he gained some unhappy Democrats. It would be good to know who switched, who stayed home and why, but this is thus far unknown.
Things That Are True
What can we conclude from this data? Quite a bit, but first we must acknowledge that the following statements are true:
1. The Democratic Party has less and less represented workers since Bill Clinton’s first term — as Jaime Harrison put it, “abandoned the working class” — and voters appear to know it.
Thomas Frank in 2016 talking to the National Book Review on Democrats’ change in who they represent:
Does the Democratic Party have a vested interest in perpetuating income inequality?
…[W]hile they know inequality is bad and while it makes them sad, they aren’t deeply concerned about it. And that’s because, as a party, they are committed to the winners in the inequality sweepstakes: the “creative class,” the innovative professionals in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street. The people who are doing really well in this new gilded age. That’s simply who the Democrats are nowadays.
On the other side of the coin, they are not structurally aligned with the organizations of working people any longer, and as a result they aren’t terribly concerned with working people’s issues.
Most voters aren’t political junkies, but they know when they’re hurting, and most are hurting now.
2. Democratic Party leaders reject that analysis. All of their statements say so. For example:
- Nancy Pelosi: “The election was not a rebuke of Democrats.”
- DNC Chair Jamie Harrison: “Bernie is wrong. Democrats didn’t abandon the working class.”
Will they come around later? Perhaps but unlikely, in my view. There’s just too much donor money at stake these days, and both parties, including the Democrats, won’t wean themselves off it.
Note that it’s not just the parties getting rich off the flow. Politicians get personally quite wealthy off it as well. Pelosi, quoted above, is both personally wealthy from her husband’s stock portfolio and also a fundraising powerhouse for others. From CNN in 2020:
By the end of 2019, Pelosi’s office said she has collected $815.5 million for House Democrats since becoming part of the party leadership in 2002 – including $87 million last year alone. Consider that: A single person, who is not the president of the United States, has raised nearly a BILLION dollars for her colleagues and the party’s broader efforts to win or keep the House majority over the last 17 years.
Don’t expect of any this to change anytime soon.
A Coalitional Shift
If the above things are true, we now have something new, what Ryan Grim called “a coalition of the working class and the super rich in the Republican party.” Republicans can’t please both of these constituencies, and like Democrats, institutionally don’t want to, at least not on economic issues. The super-rich prey on their workers. One has to pick sides, and I think both parties have, though their coping strategies are different.
Republican appeal to workers is ultimately cultural and religious. Look at what they’ve done to the Court. When Republican justices aren’t serving their party’s interests — by killing the Voting Rights Act, for example — they’re selling religious control and calling it “freedom,” a move that appeals to and pleases much of their base.
National Democrats, on the other hand, appeal to workers by making things marginally better (or trying to), while also keeping their predatory donors well pleased. This sets up a contradiction they can never resolve.
Democrats Make Republicans Look Right
Republicans have a secret partner in their recent rise. Their appeal is enhanced by national Democrats themselves, by their insincere or ineffective adherence to their often-good stated beliefs. This point should not be lost, but it too often is.
Take the issue of climate: Democrats say they want to stop climate change. Harris has called it “an existential threat” as did both Biden and Obama. Yet Barack Obama bragged about turning America into the largest oil producer in the world:
Under each of the three most recent presidencies, Republican and Democratic alike, U.S. oil and gas production was higher at the end of the administration’s term than at the beginning.
Most people still don’t care about climate yet. But most do care about the economy, their personal security, and a possible descent to the streets. By that measure Dems don’t deliver, and claiming they do makes it worse. They too serve Money, not people, too much of the time. The fact that they think they don’t is not a good look.
Economic Relief
The people need relief — that’s one of the messages of this surprising election. Will it come from the Trumpist Republicans? Not unless they change their stripes, marks they acquired back in the 1800s, when they surrendered support for Blacks in exchange for industrial backing and wealth inequality. Trump talks a good game, but the odds that he’ll deliver seem low.
Will relief come from modern national Democrats? Many believe so, but not enough to win, at least not this year.
Will Democrats change after this loss is absorbed? Forgive my cynical bones, but I can’t imagine a party so wedded to money making that change. Turn off the spigot from Bloomberg, Bezos, Reid Hoffman, Netflix’s Reed Hastings, Starbucks’ Howard Schulz and all of those other fine souls? They’d laugh at the suggestion. As times get tougher, both parties will disappoint.
Things to Come
Where does this leave us? I see two alternatives.
• The least likely one, but possible, is that this is a generational change (see Ryan Grim’s thoughts on the coalitional shift above). This means Republicans will keep workers under their tent, at least until climate drowns all the other conversations.
If that happens, Democrats could shrink to a permanent minority, like Republicans mostly were between 1932 and 1968 — and would have continued to be had Johnson not frog-marched into the Vietnamese jungle.
That could leave Democrats vulnerable to being replaced by a well-funded — meaning union-funded — third party. If a few important and progressive labor organizations, like Sara Nelson’s International Flight Attendants-CWA, were to switch their funding and create a national third party, it would cause an actual sea change.
Playing “how like Republicans can we be and still get your vote?” is a dangerous game if you care about results. Democrats lost the last round big, and aren’t a great bet for the next if they don’t change their course.
• The more likely alternative recognizes the following fact:
Every presidential election since 2008, minus one, has been about change.
The biggest “change election” in post-Reagan times was Barack Obama’s in 2008. He, a hard neoliberal and self-styled Republican, let himself be sold as Your Hope for Change, surfing the wave of 2008 suffering. Look above at the popular vote chart to see how effective that was.
Romney had no chance in 2012, but every election since has booted the old party out. Trump beat Clinton (barely) in 2016, Biden beat Trump (by more) in 2020, Trump won (decisively) in 2024. Notice a pattern?
I fully expect Trump to run into that grinder again and disappoint economically. That could make Democrats the next new “party of change.”
Rinse and repeat. If no party fixes the country, stops the decline, the parties might trade ineffective populists until something collapses or a real third party is born.
If this happens, this constant switching of roles, it won’t last forever. Climate’s just on the cusp of remaking the world.
Maybe the point is the combat, that unlike Team Dem, he does not talk about “fighting” but actually fights
Bernie Sanders jumped to the fore of my brain when I read this…I just substituted “Team Dem” with his name and it rings loud and true.
I do not understand this persistent picking on Sanders. He said from the beginning that he could not lead a revolution on his own. As I have said REPEATEDLY, the reason he had to fold after the Weekend of the Long Knives is that his STAFF betrayed him. Over half voted not to continue the campaign (many for selfish career reasons, they wanted posts with Team Biden). He could not continue after that. Many of that half would leave right away, which would gut the campaign and create disorder. The others of that half who stayed would merely go through the motions.
Would you rather have him continue to “fight” in the style of Harris, who was running blanket YouTube ads the day before and the day of the election, asking for money on the clearly bogus pretense that it would make a difference at that late hour?
Well said. Bernie always knew what Dems are capable of. He’s worked along side them for decades.
Politics is a blood sport. That should not be news.
Politics is a blood sport, but I still think signing on to a campaign, and then deliberately betraying the candidate, is an evil act; people capable of doing such should be marked and ostracized from political activism at the very least. If you can betray people in such a manner, you cannot be trusted in anything, I believe.
Moreover, that the Democratic Party was okay with this is one of the reasons I am no longer a Democrat.
He betrayed millions of people (a lot of young ones too), twice. He was a true sheepdog.
Where did my Sanders donations,which, by my standards were record breaking, go? I thought I saw somewhere they went to Biden and Hillary respectively. Maybe Act Blue needs to have a disclaimer stating that if the candidate or his staff decide to bail out even if it appears they could win or be a kingmaker or start a third party my money will be refunded. I do believe that campaign workers and staff to include Kamala treated the Kamala election funds like unlimited candy. The 62000 Tiffany necklace she was wearing while trying to get funds is so symbolic. I doubt she or Dougie put a dime of their own substantial funds in the campaign. When they stacked it against him in South Carolina he should have gone third party. Now we have enough states that have Green party options that such a strategy could work. Maybe that was not the case in 2020. And now my inbox is clogged with three times a day exhortations from Kamala to send money.
Here here. Those bashing “not me,us” as weak fail to grasp the degree of organizing and struggle needed. There is no great man/women coming to save us while we sit back.
As much as I respect Bernie for delineating an alternative to mainstream Democrat policy, he is not a leader. He’s a gadfly. He was able to find a core group of people to advance his message (popular to many), but unwilling to lead the uphill charge.
Bernie’s staff did what Bernie himself did: endorse Joe Biden!
Bernie, over two election cycles, built a large and enthusiastic movement. He raised millions in small dollar donations from hard pressed working class voters. He easily filled stadiums and inspired other progressives to run. A large percentage of voters (a majority?) supported his M4A and other initiatives. He was a powerful force within the Democratic Party–so powerful they pulled out all stops to block his nomination.
So what did he do with all that clout and influence? (1) He endorsed a guy who was opposed to nearly everything he claimed he stood for. (2) He was able to extract a promise from Joe Biden to raise the minimum wage. We are still waiting.
As a counter point, Joe Manchin used his critical one Senate vote to force Biden to accept his terms. Sanders never even tried.
Bernie was not a Democrat. He would have found it impossible to get ballot access in enough states if he had run as a third party candidate. To run as a party candidate, he had agreed, both times, to endorse the winning candidate if it was not him. This was part of the deal.
So you approve of cheating and lying? That is your position.
Who forced Bernie to agree to endorse the winning candidate though? Pretty sure that isnt a rule for running in a primary but I could be wrong.
Regardless though, after Wikileaks showed that Bernie wasnt actually running in a primary but was actually taking part in a fraud on the people who voted for him and gave him many millions of dollars they didnt have it seems like someone who didnt approve of cheating and lying wouldnt might have spoken up then and there. At the bare minimum he could have modified the agreement for 2020 that he was only endorsing a candidate who won the primary without the neoliberal Dems putting their thumb on the scale.
I agree that Bernie couldnt have won as a third party candidate but as someone who has followed your work since the late 1990s I have to say I am absolutely shocked that you characterize people pointing out that Bernie has been a lifelong backstabber for the workers he claims to love as “picking on” him.
Alexander Cockburn wrote about what a snake Bernie was many decades ago and would still be doing so if he was still alive. He was calling him the Birkenstock Bomber in the late 90s and I think he wrote critical articles about Bernie right after Bernie ran for mayor of Burlington. Interestingly enough, his staff revolted then too, because Bernie immediately became a sell out and betrayed the people who put him into office. There are many, many, many, many, many legitimate criticisms of Bernie the Bootlicker and honestly I havent seen a single one on here that I would characterize as “picking on” him.
Bernie agreed to that. What about a deal don’t you understand? Do you think everyone should lie and cheat? If our system devolved to no one honoring their commitments unless they were forced to by gun or threat of court-enforced confiscation of assets, our society would break down.
I remember an interview with Lloyd Blankfein, recent CEO of Goldman Sachs, and he was asked about Bernie. It might have been quoted in the Times if my memory serves. His answer, “If they nominate Bernie we will have to support Trump.” The democrat leadership listens.
Surely this is an indication of either failure or faint-heartedness on the Part of Saunders? Could he not have picked more radical and therefore trustworthy staff?
Saying that, Jeremy Corbyn over here in the UK did no better, although he should have known what he was up against – the right-wing of the so-called ‘Labour’ (hollow laugh) Party has done the same dance many times before.
No.
You need experienced operatives for most elements of a campaign. Look at the contrast with Trump appointments, of loyalists who have no ability to do the job and will do poorly if they manage to get appointed (with some selective exceptions; some do have good backgrounds). Admittedly more demanding roles but the same principles apply.
I’m no expert on the “Sanders team strategy” in 2016 but Iowa caucus was when things began to implode. Democratic Party stalwarts who wanted real change had the chance to do it. But they folded.
It’s ironic that the changes to the voting system that did so badly this time round but was flavour of the month 8 years ago would have easily put Sanders in pole position…. or at the very least not given it to HRC straightaway.
Same story in UK: we’d rather lose than win under PR. Nobody even wants to learn about other Arrow- incompatibility systems that might benefit the majority on key issues.
Progressives are consistently behind the curve. We get the democracy we deserve.
Also, why reward the party for that kind of working class betrayal by continuing to support it by voting for its candidates? Too many still do.
I had been a fan of Sanders since my DSOC days in the 1980s. I know about all the positive contributions Bernie has made over the years, including those made through working behind the scenes and, yes, compromising with other legislators. I don’t fault him for that.
I do not blame Sanders for losing in 2016. But I do question him for refusing to use what was revealed in “the damn e-mails” and other sources during the primary campaign to highlight what he was fighting for (and against in the case of Clinton and the DNC). But what devastated me was what he did afterwards. I’m not talking about supporting the Democratic nominee (Clinton) which might be expected. I’m talking about going all out, over and over, on the Russiagate narrative and thus providing progressive cover for the all the destructive crap to follow, not just the partisan campaign against Trump, but the much more important proxy war with Russia and all the related propaganda.
What could he have done differently in 2016? Well, he could have done what he did last week after the Harris loss: provide a strong statement (however tardy) about the failures of the Democratic Party. The same issues he outlined the other day applied even more to Clinton and the Clinton controlled DNC. Or he could have followed the example of Tulsi Gabbard, who resigned a top position at the DNC and called out the Democrats because of *what they did to Bernie*, sabotaging her political career and setting off years of vicious Establishment attacks that continue to the present. She later went on to speak the truth about Syria, and about the Ukraine war. What did Bernie do? .
I supported Bernie in 2020 but his campaign never seemed quite the same to me. And anyway by primary time in NY he had already been sabotaged, again, and it was over.
Bernie is not a party leader. He’s an independent who caucuses with the Democrats due to their traditional alignment with some of his causes. The Democrats who should be fighting are the President (when a Democrat) and the Congressional leadership.
And fighting includes doing a hard sell to the public and having the ability to turn the criticism of the Wall Street focused media into a positive. Remember how one successful fighter did that? “We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.” Yes!
And, as the article says, they even have to be willing to fight for the initiatives they are bound to lose. Because that still moves the Overton window, and you never get anywhere if you aren’t willing to take a loss at times. In fact, sometimes a tactical loss now turns into a strategic win later. The Republicans have been much better than the Democrats at recognizing that over the last half century. As the article says, the Democrats really don’t believe in any of the diminishing number of popular issues they claim to be fighting for, so of course they don’t really fight, they just talk. They’re “New Democrats” who no longer have the old base, by design.
I still think someone needs to use Patreon or GoFundMe or one of those newfangled internet things to start a Real Democratic Party and try to get unions interested in it. For expansion of Medicare (not advertising “for all” as the initial goal), high (like, very high) taxes on the billionaire/centimillionaire class, end “foreign aid” and meddling in other countries’ politics, shorter work week, higher minimum wage, very limited legal immigration, tax the hell out of excess profits and executive compensation, break up big tech monopolies, strengthen legal protections for union organizing, tariffs where they align with industrial policy, fair trade policies and bringing manufacturing back onshore where possible; meanwhile throwing woke identity politics and critical theory nonsense overboard, dropping any talk about “reparations” or “defund the police”, and ending the constant hunt for enemies to justify fattening the military industrial complex. Let the New Democrats sue you and benefit from the Streisand Effect.
Of course, the problem would be the wealthy donors buying their way in again, plus the danger of leadership figures falling victim to CIA/MI6/Mossad blackmail compromise. Would need a way to stay bottom-up driven.
I still appreciate Bernie’s attempt to upset the apple cart. It can be argued he was just a sheepdog but, I think he opened the eyes of a number of folks to see that the DNC is rotten and must have a stake driven through it. I do wish he had more of the spirit of Mike Gravel.
I don’t think USians are actually willing to vote for a party that stands for those things. They may say they do in polls, but when push comes to shove they will vote D or R, because that other party “can’t win”.
How many votes did the PSL and GP get again?
I don’t know why Piketty’s paper doesn’t get more attention where the realignment debate is concerned, especially since it is not unique to the US — this betrayal of its erstwhile working class base by the Democratic Party is of a piece with similar shifts across the West over the past 70 years or so
Brahmin Left Versus Merchant Right: Changing Political Cleavages in 21 Western Democracies, 1948–2020
https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/137/1/1/6383014
the rise in inequality from the 1970’s-1993 was not so steep that it could not be reversed. not saying it was ok for the inequality from 1970’s-1993. i am saying it could have been reversed with the tools on hand.
it was 1993-2001, almost all of those tools were destroyed, and almost all of the outrageous polices from that era, are left intact, even made worse there after.
look at piketty’s graph, the steep rise upwards was 1993, the year of nafta. nafta was the signal that fascism was back.
Thanks for reminding us about this one. I’d read it at the time, but had forgotten.
Is the whole realignment thing real or is it just churning? Give you an example. Trump promised that the neocons would not be running his government as President and people believed him. So he gets elected and a week or two later fills his cabinet picks with some really rabid Neocons wanting to pick a fight with Russia, China, Iran or all three at once plus a few others like Venezuela. Different faces but the neocons continue to run things.
So what if you looked at the US the past thirty years but deliberately wiped any mention of Presidents, political parties, public figures, elections, etc. and pretended that they did not exist but were only window-dressing (I know, I know). Then if you looked at the policies over the same time period, I think that you would see a steady lineal progress of neoliberal/neocon policies.
So you would have confronting China, weakening Russia, stacking the courts with business-friendly judges, reducing workers rights and conditions, gutting such ideas as public health, etc. The policies continue and it does not matter which President you have or which party is in power – the policies remain the same and the general pop has no say in the matter. Trump’s second term is already confirming this idea and he has not even been sworn in yet.
>”So what if you looked at the US the past thirty years but deliberately wiped any mention of Presidents, political parties, public figures, elections, etc. and pretended that they did not exist but were only window-dressing (I know, I know). Then if you looked at the policies over the same time period, I think that you would see a steady lineal progress of neoliberal/neocon policies.”
exactly.
Replacing the campaign “change!” team with old guard golems isn’t unique to Trump 2024. Obama did the same thing in 2008.
Yes. For me this is the key observation. The trajectory of policy, both foreign and domestic, has been lineal since the 1970s. What conclusions can we draw from that observation?
I actually think Neuburger’s discussion of political alignment is pretty accurate. The thing is, I’ve been reading articles like this for forty years. The Republican strategy to focus on social issues and target the “silent majority” with a pseudo-populist appeal can be traced back at least to Nixon’s 1968 campaign. By 1976 we had our first neoliberal Democratic President in Carter. Reagan easily pulled off the Republican con job, but preppie Bush couldn’t quite do it against Clinton’s good ol’ boy act. We all know the trajectory of policy under Clinton. And so on.
So this is a well-documented path. The problem is what to do about it. As Yves suggests in her concluding comment, at least Trump has interrupted the dominant narrative; there’s a glitch in the Force. Whether it leads to anything,
I said yesterday McConnell still controls the Senate with the election of Thune, who detests T. The uniparty, aka neoliberal GOP Senators with uniparty neoliberal Dems will be T’s chief obstacle to getting his appointments through. The uniparty is circling the wagons. This is the uniparty vs the outsiders, imo, not the GOP vs Dems.
From Reuters:
Republican Senator Cornyn ‘absolutely’ wants to see Matt Gaetz ethics report
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republican-senator-cornyn-absolutely-wants-to-see-matt-gaetz-ethics-report/ar-AA1u5w4J
Rumour has it that Thune is actually a clone whose DNA come from McConnell. :)
Links to Trump and Project 2025 also floating possible recess appointments or appointments to “acting” positions: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/11/200pm-water-cooler-11-13-2024.html#comment-4132227
Just an observation – during the entire 2024 campaign, did a single GOP Senator lift a finger to campaign for Donald Trump?
I saw M T-G at some rallies, and Gaetz was probably a participant. Other than that, these guys were no-shows.
Rinse and repeat. If no party fixes the country, stops the decline, the parties might trade ineffective populists until something collapses or a real third party is born.
Additional food for thought: It’s the System, Stupid….
Thanks for the link.
From your link: “But to be white rather than Black, male rather than female, straight rather than gay, gives straight white males only relative advantages over the members of more oppressed groups. It clearly does not relieve them of oppression by far more powerful elites. In fact, their relative superiority over other groups is part of a sleazy divide-and-conquer game used by those with oligarchical power to keep them in line. “
Yves: “Trump may not have to deliver improved material benefits to be perceived to have won.”
But… but… I thought this was class war. *jerking movements*
The talk about this election is going strongly to economic concerns, and supposedly supported by the Trump voters’ graph above and the surveys indicating that Trump voters are working class. But, if asked what my number one concern is, I might say the economy also. The survey would then mask the fact that my number two and three issues would be Gaza and abortion, and that those two issues would be my deal breaker issues. I almost didn’t vote against Trump because of the Gaza issue alone, although that would not be my number one issue – probably democracy but really an array of issues. The fact is that voters are social animals above all. They are willing to die for others. They are not willing to die for money. Solitary confinement is a form of torture as much as infliction of pain. A fine does not reach the level of either. The most important issues are social – health care, educational opportunities, civil rights, social security, etc. The economic issues are being used to mask the fact that quality of life and social values are the foundation of a society. Unfortunately, we are seeing that white, male superiority are social issues and cultural values also. Sanders talks about economic, working class issues too much and needs to stress social security needs and values more (he is the best we have right now). The real issue is people and values, not demographics, parties, or economics. I am not meaning to minimize the importance of economic issues, or the other issues. But, people and values are at the top.
“not opposed to DEI”
Nor should we be. However it’s not the “D” or the “I” but the “E” that is problematic and highlights the persistent Dem feature of promoting virtuous sounding ends–“save democracy”–via dubious means. Is it any wonder that the public questions their sincerity about everything?
And so Trump’s job is less to accomplish his stated goals than to bring down the Dems. Realignment is exactly what we need and without la guillotine, however much Chicken Little Dems may harp on that last. The much talked about Overton Window has to be shoved in a saner direction. No more Hitler or treason talk please from people claiming to be reasonable. It’s not just wrong, it’s silly
The failure of our meritocracy is less the idea than the fact that the people who are rising lack merit. How does someone like Pelosi become so prominent in the first place? It’s appropriate that Hollywood is involved in this. Our fake back lot facades are ready to topple over,.
DEI needs to include a ‘C’ and reformed into DICE: Diversity, Inclusion, Competence, Equity.
The use of equity is what empires such as the British used to divide and rule over their subjects. Equality is the enemy of empires and is what democracies need.
“The Democratic elites are the epitome of sore losers . . ..”
Really!! I carry no brief for Ds nor their PMC ringmasters, but come on. As I recall Trump and the Trumpeteers did not go gently nor quietly after 2020.
That said, my Kamalite friends are vacillating between panicking and petulant pouting.
The more devoted Trump fans in 2020 attacked the vote counts, as in comparatively small number of allegedly-corrupt Dem officials doing the counting.
The Dem elites are attacking the entirety of Trump voters and depicting them as racist, misogynistic knuckle-draggers.
Blaming the voters for not eating your bad policy cooking is a worse case of sore-loserdom. Particularly if the idea is not to lose again.
How Dems treat “deplorable” Trump supporters is downright kind compared to how VBNMW rank-and-file Dems treat leftists (Dem or not) who dare ask questions or critique policies or party actions.
Dems fight the left with much more (religious) fervor than they have ever (and I mean ever- 1860s) fought Trump, MAGA, or the GOP.
Leftists have been dem enemy #1 since Clinton. And in gb, too, remember Corbyn.
It’s all about the Benjamins.
That has additional meaning given Gaza.
Hi Yves,
My recollection of the post-2020 Trump supporters’ discourse was “the Democrats did it”. I don’t recall much disambiguation between Democrats at large and “allegedly-corrupt Dem officials”. Smearing Democrats with a very broad brush has been going on since long before Trump. Of course that door swings both ways.
Anyone looking at the popular vote totals from 2020, compared to earlier elections, has to wonder how Joe Biden was able to get more than 81 million votes. Far more than either of Obama’s elections, or HRC’s run against Trump.
Joe Biden was already showing signs of dementia during that 2020 race, and largely campaigned from his basement in Delaware (because Covid). As for Trump, he had a fairly decent economy up to the Covid crisis, had no foreign policy crises, and was able to campaign vigorously.
So how did Biden get millions of more votes than say, Obama? If this makes me sound like some loony conspiracist, so be it.
A few hypotheses on Trump and “fighting”:
Trump fights for Trump. That motive dwarfs all others. The rest is pretext or afterthought.
Trump “fights” for policies the way Hulk Hogan “fights” for titles. Kayfabe. Circus without bread. Spectacle.
Trump is a troll, a griefer, an insult comic. He’s the proverbial wrestling pig. He gets down in the mud because he likes it. It’s native to him, a cluster B superpower.
Trump played on executive on TV. In real life he ran an inherited business with a small staff into multiple bankruptcies. He’s not a successful executive or businessman. He is a successful salesman. His product is Donald Trump.
Trump says a lot of stuff, from “fire and fury” to “stop the killing.” He knows how to push buttons and exploit weak spots. He doesn’t care about plans or policies except as vehicles for attention. He doesn’t care about what he’s selling. He cares about image.
Trump isn’t interested in plans and policies. Because he isn’t interested, he doesn’t know much about them. Because he doesn’t know much about them, he’s superficial and impulsive. What he is interested in is Trump. He will fight for Trump. If that coincides with some version of a public benefit, well and good. But it will be coincidental.
I’ll leave it at that to keep to a promised few. I’m not saying they’re correct. I’m saying these are my working assumptions.
Please, forgotten in the corrupt soup is the cost of the “democratic elections” in this country:
The Harris Campaign is said to have cost $2B. Small donors didn’t provide the sinful “donations”, it was the hedge fund fraudsters and not for nothing. Thomas Frank and others have been saying as much for years. OpenSecrets estimates the cost of the 2024 presidential elections at $5.5B (38.68%), and the Congressional Races in 2024 at $10B (64.67%)
https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/cost-of-election
While the Democratic Party establishment is blaming the defeat on “identity politics, the “Big Board” shows that the economy is the #1 issue negatively impacting American families.
Yet as pointed out:
Nancy Pelosi: “The election was not a rebuke of Democrats.” —– Oh?
DNC Chair Jamie Harrison: “Bernie is wrong. Democrats didn’t abandon the working class.”…. Oh?
James Carville/ Joe Scarborough and his Cable Show guests such as genocide supporter, Donny Deutch: Identity politics and abandoning the center – though, Harris meek allusions to price gauging was tone deaf, and the oligarchical donation base paints a different story.
Trump could denounce the monopolies gauging consumers, as he did with the Fed and interest rates during his first term. But, given the money he raised, who knows?
Cross border illegal entry will have to be dealt with, probably as Yves suggests – makes sense. But, Trump will have to do something significant. When reliable Democratic Party Texas border towns and counties go MAGA, Houston, we have a problem. Consider that even in NYC, the number of voter support in borough of the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens was higher for Trump than in 2016. An issue fully ignored by somnambulant Biden.
Agree with the “Note: The following analysis relates to domestic economics. Consideration of Trump’s foreign policy will come later. It looks like the pro-empire Atlanticists are in for a fight. Pro-genocide folks, on the other hand, are in for a treat.” The latter more immediately true: Miriam Adelson’s $100M “donation” will be felt. One the first calls by Trump after learning of his victory, apparently was to Miriam.
As a transactional individual, a $1B from Putin and another $1B from Xi, Ukraine goes to Putin and Taiwan leans to China. Trump lacks an iota of ideology, unless it’s money.
If there’s a ray of light in the dangerous elections, it may be that the Democratic Party self destructs and reconstructs as the true party of the people. A tall order, to be sure…
The decline of the D’s in NYC has many hyper-local sources, in addition to the Democrats general annoying awfulness. There’s a significant Bible Belt in the Bronx, comprised primarily of working class, Spanish-speaking evangelicals. Many of the pastors in these churches are highly politicized, and their congregants have repeatedly elected Right-leaning pols. In Brooklyn and Queens, Asian-American voters and Chinese-Americans in particular were motivated against the D’s by efforts of the Identitarian Left and De Blasio administration to eliminate the exams governing entry into the city’s specialized high schools, which many working Asian-American families spend years and thousands of dollars pushing their kids through. It also should be noted that this population has a heavy small-business owner/Petit Bourgeois component, which I saw expressed by my students – I taught ESL in a 100% recent-immigrant high school in Queens for over twenty years – who would complain about “taxes” in their essays and homework; these were 16 year-olds who literally had been in the country for less than six months; I could only asssume they were parroting what they were hearing at the dinner table among relatives who’d been here longer.
I’ve long hated the term People of Color, with its fatuous and patronizing undertones, and its ignoring of the wide class and social disparities among different ethnic and racial groups. The folly of Demography Is Destiny politics is now on full display, and I don’t see the D’s having an effective response to its collapse.
Great discussion, thanks.
Seems unlikely we’ll see much change, but it is trump’s 2nd term, he might throw the working class a bone. Maybe more infra and less Ukraine. Plus, Vance maybe smart enough to realize if working class hopes are dashed his hopes to follow trump are dim.
Pretty clear elites on both sides are all in on genocide. If change comes it’ll be from the resistance.
While Trump has a history of being a antagonistic, petty, non-educated, grifting, loud-mouth; he is already a lame duck, as a second-term President.
The next four years will be a wild ride.
The first chart shows that Trump voters are materialists and Democrat voters are idealists. It will be difficult for Trump to please his materialist voters enough to vote for JD Vance in 2028. On the other had proper Democratic candidate may easily motivate idealistic voters to vote for him. What can go wrong for Trump/Vance voters? Many things including FED keeping rates at current level for longer time is inflation is not dead, tariffs would cause inflation spike and Trump loves debt which leads to inflation sooner or later. Or the rates go down and inflation comes back. Soft econmy leading to higher unemployment of low skilled people. Trade conflict with China leading to higher prices. And so on.
John Kiriakou on Gabbard
Gabbard Could Help Change US Foreign Policy
https://consortiumnews.com/2024/11/15/john-kiriakou-gabbard-could-help-change-us-foreign-policy/
“Rubio and Gabbard have some clashing views, but Gabbard is as much a seasoned bureaucratic fighter as Rubio is. The question, then, will be who can more successfully get Trump’s ear.”
“The bottom line in my view is that Trump appears to be serious in his desire to change the country’s foreign and intelligence policy. He appears to be serious about shaking up the intelligence community. He appears to be serious about bringing foreign conflicts in which the U.S. is involved to a close.
Those are all good things for those of us who support a change to the pro-war status quo that is the military-industrial complex. We can certainly disagree with Donald Trump on a thousand other issues. But on Tulsi Gabbard, he got it right.”
The USA is a relatively short-lived experiment that has failed. As for what happens next, we shall see but it will most likely not include a significant contributon from the US.
I personally can’t wait for the experiment to end, and for the “United” States to break up, as Joel Garreau and others have suggested. The world will be a better place for it.
If USians wanted REAL change, they would not en masse keep voting R or D.
👍
Highly recommended: the last volume of Robert Caro’s LBJ biography (Master of the Senate) for a real look at the “inside baseball” of politics in our so-called democracy. It should be obvious that genuine democracy requires compromise, or, the flip side, a betrayal of principles. It also requires alliances and loyalty, otherwise nothing gets done. LBJ was masterful in building such alliances.
LBJ’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, chose loyalty to LBJ over winning the election against Nixon, that principle is so deeply ingrained in the political process. It’s especially interesting to read Caro’s account of how Humphrey was recruited into LBJ’s circle. No bigger civil rights fan than Humphrey at the time, and no bigger bigot than LBJ, but they still managed to form a friendship.
I’ll also add that everything Trump (and Clinton, and JFK) did to women, LBJ did in spades. He had multiple mistresses. It’s also clear that he stole his Senate seat (see Caro’s Means of Ascent), had the vulgarity to conduct press interviews while on the toilet, etc. etc. There is NOTHING new in Trumps vulgarity.
IMHO, the general public doesn’t understand this. My imagination conjured up the image of a dog sniffing around a park while the B-52s armed with nukes fly at 30,000 ft. Most voters have the awareness of that dog sniffing around, while the B-52s are the public policy about to exterminate them and many others.
Anyway, it’s important to remember that even someone as vulgar as LBJ also had the political savvy to pass Medicare, the “war on poverty” and civil rights legislation (that 80% of the R’s supported!).
Although LBJ grew up poor, and Trump grew up rich, I’m willing to have Trump surprise people similarly, and certainly don’t believe we can expect ideological purity from either party, especially while big money is in the driver’s seat (as it was for LBJ…the “congressman from Brown and Root”…now Kellog, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton)