The sneering response to Trump’s victory reveals exactly why he won(blogs.spectator.co.uk)
blogs.spectator.co.uk
The sneering response to Trump’s victory reveals exactly why he won
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/sneering-response-trumps-victory-reveals-exactly-won/
71 comments
We've had 8 years of Obama being called that on top of being a 'secret Muslim' and not a US citizen, which was a claim that was pressed by Trump himself for years (amongst other claims like climate change being a conspiracy).
The left handled it well enough. I think the idea that the right are these gentlesirs and the left the hysterics is fairly faulty. If anything, its the other way around. I can't remember the last time a Democrat claimed the GOP President wasn't a citizen of the US and spent years building a movement based solely on that claim. I'm fairly certain it never happened.
The right's treatment of Obama both socially (ridiculous personal claims long proven false) and politically (massive obstruction by the GOP congress) are not forgotten and pretending they didn't exist is silly. Criticisms against Trump are rooted in reality: his birtherism, his denial of climate change, his far-right social agenda, his comments about women and minorities, etc. Protesters bringing that up is fair game and frankly, how democracies should work.
The left handled it well enough. I think the idea that the right are these gentlesirs and the left the hysterics is fairly faulty. If anything, its the other way around. I can't remember the last time a Democrat claimed the GOP President wasn't a citizen of the US and spent years building a movement based solely on that claim. I'm fairly certain it never happened.
The right's treatment of Obama both socially (ridiculous personal claims long proven false) and politically (massive obstruction by the GOP congress) are not forgotten and pretending they didn't exist is silly. Criticisms against Trump are rooted in reality: his birtherism, his denial of climate change, his far-right social agenda, his comments about women and minorities, etc. Protesters bringing that up is fair game and frankly, how democracies should work.
I don't recall people demonstrating and burning garbage cans and burning his effigy and chanting #notmypresident. Do they mean it, do they have another president somewhere else?
The response has been very vitriolic and visceral. It's not the way to seek common ground and find a way forward. This is the recipe to antagonize and seek distance and further fracturing.
The response has been very vitriolic and visceral. It's not the way to seek common ground and find a way forward. This is the recipe to antagonize and seek distance and further fracturing.
> I don't recall people demonstrating and burning garbage cans and burning his effigy and chanting #nomypresident.
The left and right express themselves in different ways. Instead of burning garbage cans, burning effigies, and #notmypresident, the reaction to Obama was racist cartoons[1], years of "Where's the birth certificate?" nonsense, and a sharp rise in the number of right wing militia groups[2].
[1] http://media.npr.org/programs/newsnotes/features/2008/10/oba...
[2] http://media.salon.com/2013/03/militiagraph.jpg
That said, I agree the reaction from the left has been... unfortunate. It's demonstrating just how badly the left has succumbed to the politics of fear. The growing anti-establishment, anti-globalism/technocrat, "tired of the same old crap" sentiment has been obvious for years, but the left is acting surprised that their traditional establishment, "incremental change", corporate sellout candidate wasn't popular. Instead of recognizing the problem and changing tactics, far too many people want to give up and leave. /sigh/
The left and right express themselves in different ways. Instead of burning garbage cans, burning effigies, and #notmypresident, the reaction to Obama was racist cartoons[1], years of "Where's the birth certificate?" nonsense, and a sharp rise in the number of right wing militia groups[2].
[1] http://media.npr.org/programs/newsnotes/features/2008/10/oba...
[2] http://media.salon.com/2013/03/militiagraph.jpg
That said, I agree the reaction from the left has been... unfortunate. It's demonstrating just how badly the left has succumbed to the politics of fear. The growing anti-establishment, anti-globalism/technocrat, "tired of the same old crap" sentiment has been obvious for years, but the left is acting surprised that their traditional establishment, "incremental change", corporate sellout candidate wasn't popular. Instead of recognizing the problem and changing tactics, far too many people want to give up and leave. /sigh/
I agree with you completely. I do see the right reacting in unfortunate ways as well. The militia groups especially, it's a very unproductive response and increases fear and escalates tensions, very unnecessarily.
But also, on the left, this is ridiculous. They accused Trump of peddling fear --but then turn right around and do exactly that same thing they furiously were denouncing!
But also, on the left, this is ridiculous. They accused Trump of peddling fear --but then turn right around and do exactly that same thing they furiously were denouncing!
>The growing anti-establishment, anti-globalism/technocrat, "tired of the same old crap" sentiment has been obvious for years
When isn't this true when people are fed such positions by demagogues? A lot of Trump voters are middle class and upper middle class people with relatively cushy lives making decent salaries, have healthcare, and have never been drafted to war, never begged for food, etc.
Yet somehow these people have been taught that they're country isn't "great" and that only a radical restyling of things via a strict conservative agenda will "fix" things. I recall Bush having the same sentiment and tell me, were you or any of these voters better off after 8 years of Bush?
I also want to point out that right now the unemployment rate is at a historic low of 4.9% and was nearly double that in 2009. The GDP per capita in the US is $53,000, literally 8x that in China and 4x that in Russia.
The reality here is that you can have a rational and nuanced view of politics, society, your country, your economy, etc. Or you can engage in negative politics and tell people who own homes and two cars that they've been "shafted by liberals" and that if they only implement various crazy schemes, including undoing precious regulations that keep our environment safe, that only then will they be "great."
Do you think, that perhaps, this kind of rhetoric convinces people to vote against their own interests and the kinds of people who actually will benefit from a Trump presidency might be the kinds of people who benefited from a Bush presidency, that's to say the connected upper class? Because that's what it looks like to me.
edit: I can't reply below but there's a big difference between encouraging economic growth via traditional methods and a radical restructuring and an anti-globalization promise that will 'bring factory jobs' back to the heartland that is literally impossible unless you start paying people $1 and hour. The former is what every politician promises and latter is what Trump promises. These are stark differences in how to speak to the electorate and how to make realistic promises a government can carry out.
When isn't this true when people are fed such positions by demagogues? A lot of Trump voters are middle class and upper middle class people with relatively cushy lives making decent salaries, have healthcare, and have never been drafted to war, never begged for food, etc.
Yet somehow these people have been taught that they're country isn't "great" and that only a radical restyling of things via a strict conservative agenda will "fix" things. I recall Bush having the same sentiment and tell me, were you or any of these voters better off after 8 years of Bush?
I also want to point out that right now the unemployment rate is at a historic low of 4.9% and was nearly double that in 2009. The GDP per capita in the US is $53,000, literally 8x that in China and 4x that in Russia.
The reality here is that you can have a rational and nuanced view of politics, society, your country, your economy, etc. Or you can engage in negative politics and tell people who own homes and two cars that they've been "shafted by liberals" and that if they only implement various crazy schemes, including undoing precious regulations that keep our environment safe, that only then will they be "great."
Do you think, that perhaps, this kind of rhetoric convinces people to vote against their own interests and the kinds of people who actually will benefit from a Trump presidency might be the kinds of people who benefited from a Bush presidency, that's to say the connected upper class? Because that's what it looks like to me.
edit: I can't reply below but there's a big difference between encouraging economic growth via traditional methods and a radical restructuring and an anti-globalization promise that will 'bring factory jobs' back to the heartland that is literally impossible unless you start paying people $1 and hour. The former is what every politician promises and latter is what Trump promises. These are stark differences in how to speak to the electorate and how to make realistic promises a government can carry out.
Maybe you didn't notice, but Hillary had the same take on the economy as Trump --we need jobs, we need to create well paying jobs --people cannot afford an American lifestyle, etc.
So, at least in appearances, she bought in to the same line of thought --and no one more so than Bernie!
So, at least in appearances, she bought in to the same line of thought --and no one more so than Bernie!
In 2008, people didn't demonstrate or burn garbage cans because McCain refused to run a racist campaign because that had been done to him by Bush+Rove in 2000.
This was why McCain lost South Carolina. McCain has an adopted Bangladeshi daughter, Bridget, and the Bush people ran a whisper campaign that she was black as if that mattered but it did in South Carolina.
So in 2008, McCain instead ran pretty much straight up against Obama and since that essentially meant running as a third Bush term, he got buried.
Romney ran a pretty clean campaign only obliquely mentioning the Birther nonsense.
I don't even have to tell you what kind of campaign Trump ran since you just lived through it.
This was why McCain lost South Carolina. McCain has an adopted Bangladeshi daughter, Bridget, and the Bush people ran a whisper campaign that she was black as if that mattered but it did in South Carolina.
So in 2008, McCain instead ran pretty much straight up against Obama and since that essentially meant running as a third Bush term, he got buried.
Romney ran a pretty clean campaign only obliquely mentioning the Birther nonsense.
I don't even have to tell you what kind of campaign Trump ran since you just lived through it.
>I don't recall people demonstrating and burning garbage cans and burning his effigy and chanting #notmypresident.
Then you weren't paying attention. A quick google of "obama not my president -trump" or "obama effigy" will show you plenty of examples, with the bonus racism of hanging the effigy from a tree like they did back in the day. Here [1] is a 2009 Psychology Today article about the "not my president" phenomenon. In the late '90s there were anti-Clinton "My President is Charlton Heston" bumper stickers [2], referring to his position in the NRA.
I'm not justifying people's actions today, and I don't think it's a productive way to move forward, but it's also definitely not a new development.
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-meaning-in-life/200... [2] https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-bumper-sticker-charlton-he...
Then you weren't paying attention. A quick google of "obama not my president -trump" or "obama effigy" will show you plenty of examples, with the bonus racism of hanging the effigy from a tree like they did back in the day. Here [1] is a 2009 Psychology Today article about the "not my president" phenomenon. In the late '90s there were anti-Clinton "My President is Charlton Heston" bumper stickers [2], referring to his position in the NRA.
I'm not justifying people's actions today, and I don't think it's a productive way to move forward, but it's also definitely not a new development.
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-meaning-in-life/200... [2] https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-bumper-sticker-charlton-he...
I think there is a difference. Those were more isolated incidents --they were not mass protests on the day after the election. I mean in the least it shows them in no better light than the worst form the far-right.
Is that how they want to show the rest of America the way forward?
Is that how they want to show the rest of America the way forward?
>Is that how they want to show the rest of America the way forward?
Just because you win an election doesn't mean suddenly everyone is forced to agree with your odious views.
The way forward for them is to protest and point out the flaws in the Trump policies and his presidency. To pressure the electorate and politicians that, no we aren't on board with a radical conservative restructuring of our society. Don't expect to suppress dissent with some kind of bullshit "respect the office" argument. Democracies thrive on disagreement and political change. These people are engaging in their right to self-assembly and protest. It will not go away. Trump supporters will need to deal with this. Its clear that you're trying to legitimize a novelty protest vote via this kind of 'concern troll' attitude and it just won't work. People aren't going to suddenly roll with the Trump agenda because you want everyone to play nice.
I think you have to realize that political change isn't about winning one election. The process involves and endless push back via many mechanisms, including protest.
Just because you win an election doesn't mean suddenly everyone is forced to agree with your odious views.
The way forward for them is to protest and point out the flaws in the Trump policies and his presidency. To pressure the electorate and politicians that, no we aren't on board with a radical conservative restructuring of our society. Don't expect to suppress dissent with some kind of bullshit "respect the office" argument. Democracies thrive on disagreement and political change. These people are engaging in their right to self-assembly and protest. It will not go away. Trump supporters will need to deal with this. Its clear that you're trying to legitimize a novelty protest vote via this kind of 'concern troll' attitude and it just won't work. People aren't going to suddenly roll with the Trump agenda because you want everyone to play nice.
I think you have to realize that political change isn't about winning one election. The process involves and endless push back via many mechanisms, including protest.
Definitely protest and voice difference in opinion, engage your representatives. But this kind of visceral reaction goes both ways. I really have to disagree when people think violence is the way out (whether it's far-right militias of far-left destructive demonstrations). It's _counter-productive_, it obscures your point of view. You cannot do things in a vacuum. You have the rest of the people to contend with. What, 53% of white women voted for him, ~30% of Hispanics voted for him, more blacks voted for him than Romney --so despite all the negativity thrown his way and how people lean naturally politically, he won greater percentages of those constituencies. Obviously they don't see him as much as a devil as you do.
You may have a particular issue you have dear to your heart, and I accept that, but you have to have other people see your point of view rather then fear your point of view.
You may have a particular issue you have dear to your heart, and I accept that, but you have to have other people see your point of view rather then fear your point of view.
> Obviously they don't see him as much as a devil as you do.
He didn't position himself as a threat to white people, especially white men, to the degree that he did to minorities, the LBGT community, and other groups.
He didn't position himself as a threat to white people, especially white men, to the degree that he did to minorities, the LBGT community, and other groups.
I didn't hear anti-LGBTQ rhetoric from him, if anything he showed the opposite inviting Thiel and Jenner. More white women voted for him than Hillary, ~30% Hispanics voted for him despite doomsday rhetoric from Spanish language media and his very light campaigning in LatAm dominant neighborhoods, so many people you imply would /should see him as a threat did not. More blacks voted for him than Romney, etc.
> I didn't hear anti-LGBTQ rhetoric from him
Here's a good summary of his position on the topic: http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/aug/14/se...
In addition, Pence has a history of anti-LGBT behavior as well.
Here's a good summary of his position on the topic: http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/aug/14/se...
In addition, Pence has a history of anti-LGBT behavior as well.
Pence is the real LGBTQ scare factor for this new administration. In 2000 he ran on the platform of redirecting HIV/AIDS treatment funding to conversion therapy [1], among many many other anti-LGBT comments and promises, and continued during his governorship to attempt to legislate bigotry against LGBT people (like banning gay marriage and promoting "religious freedom" to discriminate).
When taken in consideration of how much leeway to decide domestic policy that Trump has promised to give him, Pence is a seriously scary VP for queer people everywhere in the US.
--
[1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20010408125427/http://mikepence.c...
When taken in consideration of how much leeway to decide domestic policy that Trump has promised to give him, Pence is a seriously scary VP for queer people everywhere in the US.
--
[1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20010408125427/http://mikepence.c...
I agree that Pence is a concern. His influence on this topic on the admin remains to be seen. I strongly hope he does not have enough say to take us backward.
Trump's answers in those interviews don't sound much different from the ones we heard from Hillary or Obama back when they could not favor gay marriage either --but they've moved on and it looks like Trump has moved on (still, what he might do as policy is unknown, for now).
Trump's answers in those interviews don't sound much different from the ones we heard from Hillary or Obama back when they could not favor gay marriage either --but they've moved on and it looks like Trump has moved on (still, what he might do as policy is unknown, for now).
Obama didn't lose the popular vote when he was elected though. That seems to make a huge difference.
Maybe.. maybe, but it's not secret this is how the system works. It was front and center in 2000 --a year of utmost disappointment to me --I even blamed good old Nader. But I know it was truly Gore's fault. He just didn't convince enough people --that was _his_ job to do. And he failed.
So, here, it is no surprise. We know how the system works --there is no reason to cry when you know how the system works but it goes against you. It's sour grapes.
So, here, it is no surprise. We know how the system works --there is no reason to cry when you know how the system works but it goes against you. It's sour grapes.
> but it's not secret this is how the system works.
But what do you expect people to do when they're unhappy with how it works? Do you expect them to calmly organize and use lobbying to affect change?
No. You do not. Nobody does. People don't know how to do that. People do know how to complain loudly though. So that's what is happening.
> there is no reason to cry when you know how the system works but it goes against you.
There absolutely is a reason. That's how change starts.
> So, here, it is no surprise.
And neither should you be surprised at people crying about it, IMO.
But what do you expect people to do when they're unhappy with how it works? Do you expect them to calmly organize and use lobbying to affect change?
No. You do not. Nobody does. People don't know how to do that. People do know how to complain loudly though. So that's what is happening.
> there is no reason to cry when you know how the system works but it goes against you.
There absolutely is a reason. That's how change starts.
> So, here, it is no surprise.
And neither should you be surprised at people crying about it, IMO.
The electorate changes, its demographics change, people need to adjust.
Hispanics are more naturally conservative and mostly align with Dems at the moment because of immigration policies and social issues. But as they Americanize, LatAms, at least so far, tend to not care about immigration issues as much and tend toward the view of a fair visa system and rely less on state services, as they integrate. As this happens, Hispanics eventually are likely to break even just like the rest of the population. Then people on one side or the other will prefer electoral votes over pop votes again.
So, you see, a gen or so, we're likely to see Hispanics move to the right, and then the Dems will find a reason to antagonize their new views (like they now antagonize their previous pet group, the working class union workers who abandoned them).
Hispanics are more naturally conservative and mostly align with Dems at the moment because of immigration policies and social issues. But as they Americanize, LatAms, at least so far, tend to not care about immigration issues as much and tend toward the view of a fair visa system and rely less on state services, as they integrate. As this happens, Hispanics eventually are likely to break even just like the rest of the population. Then people on one side or the other will prefer electoral votes over pop votes again.
So, you see, a gen or so, we're likely to see Hispanics move to the right, and then the Dems will find a reason to antagonize their new views (like they now antagonize their previous pet group, the working class union workers who abandoned them).
Still a lot of uncounted votes. Plenty of sites projecting Trump to win popular vote, including CNN.
[deleted]
> Trump, like him or not, be he good or not, won 30% of the Hispanic vote --despite all the negativity their community spoke against him... He had more black votes than Romney and won more white women than Hillary.
Be it because of Trump qualities, or because Hillary is so bad, it would be interesting if reasons can be explained.
Be it because of Trump qualities, or because Hillary is so bad, it would be interesting if reasons can be explained.
It might have something to do with Hispanics being regular human beings that are capable of independent thought. They voted for Trump for the same reasons as everyone else.
> same reasons as everyone else.
Which are?.. Can somebody explain those reasons in the manner that wouldn't immediately invoke "but that's wrong" or "the other side has more of it" or "it's relatively irrelevant" etc.?
Which are?.. Can somebody explain those reasons in the manner that wouldn't immediately invoke "but that's wrong" or "the other side has more of it" or "it's relatively irrelevant" etc.?
I'm seeing very dangerous rhetoric from the media right now. Namely, that Trump's "surprise" win was because ... get ready for this ... "white" people. Unless I'm mistaken, there are more whites in this country than any other type.
I was so honored to see our nation have a black president. I was so honored when he suffered no violence. I'm talking about being absolutely proud of my country here.
I am not going to apologize for being "black" or "white" or any color and I don't expect others to either.
I was so honored to see our nation have a black president. I was so honored when he suffered no violence. I'm talking about being absolutely proud of my country here.
I am not going to apologize for being "black" or "white" or any color and I don't expect others to either.
I think the complaint is less than the fact that there is a majority white populace, and more shock that this group voted in a way that is feared to disenfranchise minority groups.
That said, I think a large lesson can be learned here for the next race and by the Democrats. I'm an Asian who grew up in the Midwest. I encountered some racism growing up, but overall have fond memories, and I have a lot of friends who aren't "open-minded" by some standards, but if I'm only more "open-minded", it's through circumstance of being in a minority group of <3% of where I lived.
So I don't see those fellow Midwesterners as "racist" even if they might be considered that out on the coasts, and they don't see themselves as that either. While I might prioritize how a candidate seems to view minorities, a whole lot of people won't, and I can sure sympathize for folks who put the hope of American jobs over a candidate's perceived viewpoints.
Looking at the electoral map and all the surprise wins for Trump, people seemed to prioritize their hope in a revitalized American economy over misgivings of Trump's behaviors. That doesn't mean everyone who voted for Trump is a bigot or racist. Unemployment is usually a more pressing concern for people.
That said, I think a large lesson can be learned here for the next race and by the Democrats. I'm an Asian who grew up in the Midwest. I encountered some racism growing up, but overall have fond memories, and I have a lot of friends who aren't "open-minded" by some standards, but if I'm only more "open-minded", it's through circumstance of being in a minority group of <3% of where I lived.
So I don't see those fellow Midwesterners as "racist" even if they might be considered that out on the coasts, and they don't see themselves as that either. While I might prioritize how a candidate seems to view minorities, a whole lot of people won't, and I can sure sympathize for folks who put the hope of American jobs over a candidate's perceived viewpoints.
Looking at the electoral map and all the surprise wins for Trump, people seemed to prioritize their hope in a revitalized American economy over misgivings of Trump's behaviors. That doesn't mean everyone who voted for Trump is a bigot or racist. Unemployment is usually a more pressing concern for people.
Except of course Trump has no ability to revitalize any thing. Considering that the US economy has been on a steady recovery during the Obama years Republicans will as usually just magically declare their election is the cause.
Trump is a con man so any attempt to attribute his election to some sort of optimistic view of "revitalization" is sheer nonsense. The combination of the normal Republican elite voting, the ill informed Hillary fearful and the general "White folks that have the chance to reverse their self-viewed powerlessness" was the combination that defeated Clinton.
As usually people voted against their own logical needs in a US society because showing their power was more important than electing someone with any experience in complex government operations.
Trump is a con man so any attempt to attribute his election to some sort of optimistic view of "revitalization" is sheer nonsense. The combination of the normal Republican elite voting, the ill informed Hillary fearful and the general "White folks that have the chance to reverse their self-viewed powerlessness" was the combination that defeated Clinton.
As usually people voted against their own logical needs in a US society because showing their power was more important than electing someone with any experience in complex government operations.
>Except of course Trump has no ability to revitalize any thing.
>Trump is a con man...
We don't know that yet. We have to wait and see. What happens every time we vote for a politician is that we vote in hope that they will be able to accomplish what they set out to do. Hillary supporters place their hope in Hillary because they don't believe Trump can do what he said he will do. And Trump supporters place their hope in Trump because they don't believe Hillary can do what she said she'll do. We just won't know who can actually accomplish their goals until 4 years later.
>Considering that the US economy has been on a steady recovery during the Obama...
This is irrelevant for Trump supporters who lost their jobs, their livelihood. Obama (campaigning for Hillary), kept telling them the economy is good. "Well, if the economy is so good, then where did all the jobs go?" It's a bad argument, and can not win any Trump supporter over. Because at the end of the day, they still have no jobs, and they want jobs, and Trump is the only one talking about bringing jobs back, creating jobs, making the economy better, etc.
>Trump is a con man...
We don't know that yet. We have to wait and see. What happens every time we vote for a politician is that we vote in hope that they will be able to accomplish what they set out to do. Hillary supporters place their hope in Hillary because they don't believe Trump can do what he said he will do. And Trump supporters place their hope in Trump because they don't believe Hillary can do what she said she'll do. We just won't know who can actually accomplish their goals until 4 years later.
>Considering that the US economy has been on a steady recovery during the Obama...
This is irrelevant for Trump supporters who lost their jobs, their livelihood. Obama (campaigning for Hillary), kept telling them the economy is good. "Well, if the economy is so good, then where did all the jobs go?" It's a bad argument, and can not win any Trump supporter over. Because at the end of the day, they still have no jobs, and they want jobs, and Trump is the only one talking about bringing jobs back, creating jobs, making the economy better, etc.
But the thing is people believed in it. And the media, as Thiel pointed out in a speech, thought that people would dismiss Trump on literal grounds, as in, they don't require him to literally build a wall. But they know that he's prioritized immigration (and theoretically, protecting American jobs) in a way that Clinton and none of the other Republican candidates did.
(Whether he imposes trade tariffs will be interesting though...)
The other part of it is that the ruling party rarely holds on for more than 2 terms in the presidency. If you feel the economy is going humdrum, you might desire the prospect of change that comes with a different party.
(Whether he imposes trade tariffs will be interesting though...)
The other part of it is that the ruling party rarely holds on for more than 2 terms in the presidency. If you feel the economy is going humdrum, you might desire the prospect of change that comes with a different party.
More blacks and hispanics voted for Trump than Romney. They just weren't vocal before the election.
"Trump claimed 29 percent of the Hispanic vote on Tuesday compared to Romney's 27 percent in 2012. With blacks, exit polls show Trump claimed 8 percent of the vote to the previous Republican nominee's 6 percent." [1]
[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/trump-did...
"Trump claimed 29 percent of the Hispanic vote on Tuesday compared to Romney's 27 percent in 2012. With blacks, exit polls show Trump claimed 8 percent of the vote to the previous Republican nominee's 6 percent." [1]
[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/trump-did...
[deleted]
[deleted]
In a truly egalitarian, post-racial America, there would be very little difference between how a black or hispanic person voted, and how a white person voted. In a truly egalitarian, post-sexism America, there would be very little difference between how women and men voted.
Democracy won. Middle America made their choice based on a hope that Trump will bring back jobs to America, especially manufacturing to the Middle American Industrial heartland. What they failed to see was that the dream is, just that, a dream! One that can almost never (never say never?) come true.
This is so much easier to explain than to convince people that globalization is a reality and that the only option in many of these cases is to retrain for a high skilled economy that the US always was, and must continue be in order to be an economic superpower. No matter which party won, this section of people would be anti-establishment and unhappy with the present because nobody can break this bad news to them.
A software engineering analogy is to convince leadership that you have to refactor your stack in order for it to scale, during which new products would suffer. BUT, its easier to convince them to hire 10 more engineers who can build new product on an aging stack, which may not solve the problem, but is relatively easier to sell.
In 5-10 years, who will explain to the millions of automobile drivers (taxis/trucks/uber/lyft/..) that their jobs are dying as well? Nobody. Wait for another anti-establishment election!
This is so much easier to explain than to convince people that globalization is a reality and that the only option in many of these cases is to retrain for a high skilled economy that the US always was, and must continue be in order to be an economic superpower. No matter which party won, this section of people would be anti-establishment and unhappy with the present because nobody can break this bad news to them.
A software engineering analogy is to convince leadership that you have to refactor your stack in order for it to scale, during which new products would suffer. BUT, its easier to convince them to hire 10 more engineers who can build new product on an aging stack, which may not solve the problem, but is relatively easier to sell.
In 5-10 years, who will explain to the millions of automobile drivers (taxis/trucks/uber/lyft/..) that their jobs are dying as well? Nobody. Wait for another anti-establishment election!
Thanks for this. I've been looking for something that sums up how I'm feeling, and this pretty much hits the nail on the head.
I'm sick of both the "Liberal Smugness" and the "Uneducated Peasants" talk. Never blame the people; blame the system.
I'm sick of both the "Liberal Smugness" and the "Uneducated Peasants" talk. Never blame the people; blame the system.
Its certainly doable. The monthly Vietnamese wage in manufacturing is $145 a month. Middle America would have to learn to live on $145 a month to compete against them. Oh, did they think factory work with big six figure salaries was possible here? Gee, I wonder who could have possibly misled them about this?
That will not even meet min. wage requirements.
We'll just get rid of that regulation.
As a progressive democrat I think the protesting is abhorrent behavior. If the right burnt Hillary effigies has she won, it would be all about sexism... I voted for Bernie in the primaries AND the general. I picked my President last fall when I saw the inspirational message that Bernie Sanders brought.
Trump won, get over it. Don't blame the #bernieorbust crowd, if you want to blame someone - blame the DNC for giving us a lame racehorse. Hillary lost because SHE is a Clinton. She lost because of corruption and illegal activity prosecuted or not. She is a liar, a cheat, and nobody can discount that. She might as well be a reincarnation of Marie Antoinette. The people do not want to give more power to the establishment, unfortunately the nationalists won out over the egalitarianists, hopefully though egalitarianism can find it's way back into America.
The article mentions us 'sheep' being 'stupid' -- but we're not stupid enough to NOT see through the lies and falsity that is Clinton.. I honestly think Trump simply said what he knew Republicans wanted to hear to anger them and get elected. He might temper and actually be an okay President... or he might be stunted by congress every step of the way and be the 'break' we need from Dem control to regroup and put a more progressive front up in 2020.
I know for one thing - change is in the air, that change can be in the style of Hitler, or the style of FDR, sadly we didn't pick the FDR candidate, but we'll have another chance in 2020.
Trump won, get over it. Don't blame the #bernieorbust crowd, if you want to blame someone - blame the DNC for giving us a lame racehorse. Hillary lost because SHE is a Clinton. She lost because of corruption and illegal activity prosecuted or not. She is a liar, a cheat, and nobody can discount that. She might as well be a reincarnation of Marie Antoinette. The people do not want to give more power to the establishment, unfortunately the nationalists won out over the egalitarianists, hopefully though egalitarianism can find it's way back into America.
The article mentions us 'sheep' being 'stupid' -- but we're not stupid enough to NOT see through the lies and falsity that is Clinton.. I honestly think Trump simply said what he knew Republicans wanted to hear to anger them and get elected. He might temper and actually be an okay President... or he might be stunted by congress every step of the way and be the 'break' we need from Dem control to regroup and put a more progressive front up in 2020.
I know for one thing - change is in the air, that change can be in the style of Hitler, or the style of FDR, sadly we didn't pick the FDR candidate, but we'll have another chance in 2020.
> I know for one thing - change is in the air,
This is basically my take on it. I preferred Trump over Hilary even though I think both candidates were terrible, and the reason is because we know what we're getting with Hilary, we have no idea what we're getting with Trump.
You hope for the best and prepare for the worst, but atleast it's a change. Obama ran on change and ended up not being the change people voted him in to be. Maybe Trump will be it, maybe not. We'll find out.
This is basically my take on it. I preferred Trump over Hilary even though I think both candidates were terrible, and the reason is because we know what we're getting with Hilary, we have no idea what we're getting with Trump.
You hope for the best and prepare for the worst, but atleast it's a change. Obama ran on change and ended up not being the change people voted him in to be. Maybe Trump will be it, maybe not. We'll find out.
> She lost because of corruption and illegal activity prosecuted or not. She is a liar, a cheat, and nobody can discount that.
I can discount that: if the issue was her being a liar and a cheat, then we wouldn't have elected a liar and a cheat—but we did. So apparently it isn't the stumbling block you think it is.
I can discount that: if the issue was her being a liar and a cheat, then we wouldn't have elected a liar and a cheat—but we did. So apparently it isn't the stumbling block you think it is.
I personally find Thomas Frank's way of looking at it quite interesting and entertaining, and, so far, convincing.
Short article for Guardian post Trump victory: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald...
Longer article in Harpers about establishment response to Sanders, not directly relevant but uses the same class-based analysis: http://harpers.org/archive/2016/11/swat-team-2/
Talk about his most recent book "Listen, Liberal": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibDX92b5cnY
Short article for Guardian post Trump victory: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald...
Longer article in Harpers about establishment response to Sanders, not directly relevant but uses the same class-based analysis: http://harpers.org/archive/2016/11/swat-team-2/
Talk about his most recent book "Listen, Liberal": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibDX92b5cnY
> The respectable set’s allergy to Trump is fundamentally an allergy to the idea of democracy itself.
What those explainers why Trump win don't seem to understand is that the disgust isn't about changing status quo - it's about the person who offers to improve that.
Unless you're going to blindly go after whoever just seems different enough, it seems to be reasonable to think what are the changes proposed - and what's the person proposing them. If some changes seem irrational after evaluating them and the person himself leaves the feeling of urge to check one's wallet, perhaps it's not too un-democratic to wonder if this person should be seriously trusted.
What those explainers why Trump win don't seem to understand is that the disgust isn't about changing status quo - it's about the person who offers to improve that.
Unless you're going to blindly go after whoever just seems different enough, it seems to be reasonable to think what are the changes proposed - and what's the person proposing them. If some changes seem irrational after evaluating them and the person himself leaves the feeling of urge to check one's wallet, perhaps it's not too un-democratic to wonder if this person should be seriously trusted.
The meta-problem here is that the united states is a country without a nation. There is no underlying unity, pre-rational commitments, history, moral axioms or ideals. No matter who won this election, nearly half the country, many very good folks, were going to be irate, depressed and/or scared.
The devolution of sovereignty and peaceful secession is the only solution that offers hope for all of us to live as we wish. The California secession movement is perhaps a start in normalizing this idea on the left.
I have sincere sympathy for all people who wish to live under a government that represents them. I hope we find a way through this.
The devolution of sovereignty and peaceful secession is the only solution that offers hope for all of us to live as we wish. The California secession movement is perhaps a start in normalizing this idea on the left.
I have sincere sympathy for all people who wish to live under a government that represents them. I hope we find a way through this.
> The devolution of sovereignty and peaceful secession is the only solution that offers hope for all of us to live as we wish.
That seems right in theory - the past few decades pretty much the same states have voted for the exact same side. But there have been plenty elections where that wasn't the case.
For example, pretty much everyone voted for Reagan, and Kennedy. There have been times when the country was very much for one candidate. So I wouldn't say we're completely divided all of the time, just in the past few decades.
That seems right in theory - the past few decades pretty much the same states have voted for the exact same side. But there have been plenty elections where that wasn't the case.
For example, pretty much everyone voted for Reagan, and Kennedy. There have been times when the country was very much for one candidate. So I wouldn't say we're completely divided all of the time, just in the past few decades.
I'm already sick of this analysis: the rubes got tired of being looked down on by the swells, and golly, showed them good.
Not to say that there isn't something to it, it's just that I've read multiple versions of the past two days. It's just not an interesting analysis.
It masks the fact that there is a pathology of "know nothingism," that runs deep in the US. Antagonism against marginalized members of society. Nihilistic acting out has been normalized by the election of a callow narcissist who cares not a whit for anyone besides himself.
These are the same type of people who grew up hazing fags, mocking black people, and glorifying mysoginist, rapey behavior behavior by "bros" of all stripe.
A lot of focus has been put on the economic dislocation experienced by the working class in the middle of the country. This doesn't ring true to me. I've seen references to the economic demographics of Trump supporters, and overall they have have higher incomes, on average, than Clinton supporters.
(Can't find the article right now, this is an article from May that takes a look)
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-...
This reinforces that this is really a cultural divide. It gets around to that sophomoric question of whether being intolerant of "intolerant people" is intolerant.
It's of a pieces with religious conservatives adopting the language of victimhood to, justify their right to discriminate against gays.
When it comes to being annoyingly self righteous, no demographic has a monopoly on that. It doesn't mean that the core beliefs of foes in the culture wars are morally equivalent.
Not to say that there isn't something to it, it's just that I've read multiple versions of the past two days. It's just not an interesting analysis.
It masks the fact that there is a pathology of "know nothingism," that runs deep in the US. Antagonism against marginalized members of society. Nihilistic acting out has been normalized by the election of a callow narcissist who cares not a whit for anyone besides himself.
These are the same type of people who grew up hazing fags, mocking black people, and glorifying mysoginist, rapey behavior behavior by "bros" of all stripe.
A lot of focus has been put on the economic dislocation experienced by the working class in the middle of the country. This doesn't ring true to me. I've seen references to the economic demographics of Trump supporters, and overall they have have higher incomes, on average, than Clinton supporters.
(Can't find the article right now, this is an article from May that takes a look)
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-...
This reinforces that this is really a cultural divide. It gets around to that sophomoric question of whether being intolerant of "intolerant people" is intolerant.
It's of a pieces with religious conservatives adopting the language of victimhood to, justify their right to discriminate against gays.
When it comes to being annoyingly self righteous, no demographic has a monopoly on that. It doesn't mean that the core beliefs of foes in the culture wars are morally equivalent.
And swoosh it seems someone wants to flag it off the front page.
Not exactly surprising, HN is heavily people in CA, which is a huge echo chamber.
...Except that the US political system was never a democracy and never would be with the electoral college.
Democratic republic(what the USA has) does not equal democracy(what the Swiss have).
waterphone(5)
People would be going nuts calling them misogynists, bigots, racists, etc. but because it's Trump and he's nominally republican, it's alright. This kind of response only acts to further antagonize and prove his supporters right --they don't like us and act against us when things don't go their way, why should I support them when things don't go my way.
Trump, like him or not, be he good or not, won 30% of the Hispanic vote --despite all the negativity their community spoke against him -and he himself only lukewarmly campaigning in areas heavily Hispanic... He had more black votes than Romney and won more white women than Hillary --53% to 43%, according to Nate Silver, that's astounding, despite her actually using the "women's" card.