Perhaps I've come to rely on this formulation too much, but I really think we need to look at the Reagan Coalition and try to determine if it is coming apart at the seams.
Broadly speaking, the Reagan Coalition embraced three main groups: Paleo-Cons, Neo-Cons and Theo-Cons.
Paleo-Cons are your Main Street and Wall Street business men. They have been the heart and soul of the GOP since Teddy Roosevelt led the Progressives out in 1912. Their main focus is on reducing the role of the state, primarily by starving the state of funds through massive tax cuts that redistribute wealth to the investor class. Their standard bearers are Jeb! Bush and Scott Walker. Maybe Marco Rubio.
The Neo-Cons are aggressive foreign policy hawks. They see an America beset by enemies and therefore see necessity in an aggressive militaristic foreign policy. Their standard bearer is Lindsey Graham, although there is a small element of this in Trump's appeal.
The Theo-Cons are the religious fundamentalists. They speak of a "Christian Nation" and want to maintain the old social order. Their standard bearers are Carson and Huckabee.
Finally, there are actual Republican voters. And what is fascinating about the Trump phenomenon is how he exposes the absence of a standard bearer for a third of the Republican electorate. Trump's basic appeal is his personality, and his personality is basically that of a huge suppurating hemorrhoid. And it precisely this combative, assholish personality that is his appeal.
Cleek's Law only goes so far in explaining this. Yes, if Obama came out in favor of breathing, hundreds of thousands of Americans would asphyxiate. It seems to me that there is a large portion of the Republican Party electorate that has Oppositional Defiance Disorder. The more you tell them X the more adamantly they will do Y. There is no ideological consistency to this. Obamacare - as you have been reminded a thousand times - was originally a Republican idea to counteract the Clinton plan for a single-payer system back in '94. Now, only because it's a Democratic policy, it's the death of liberty.
Except, whatever. Trump has praised a single-payer system as being probably the most efficient. Because IT IS. The data is overwhelmingly clear on this. This is the position of Bernie Sanders, but Trump suffers no blowback from his 30%, because policy and ideology really don't matter.
What matters is that you oppose THEM. THEM are a loosely connected group of people who aren't US. THEM are the media, which can include Megyn Kelly. THEM are pointed headed academics and minorities and scientists and Harry Reid AND Mitch McConnell.
THEM is the force that exists outside plan sight and makes US miserable. THEM is the reason I got laid off from my factory job and have to work retail. THEM is the reason my kid is doing poorly in school and the reason I can't afford college tuition. THEM is everywhere and nowhere. THEM is inchoate and pervasive.
For decades these ODD-cons voted Republican because the Republicans were closest to their sense of grievance. It was William F. Buckley who said a conservative was someone who stood athwart history and yelled, "stop!" While there was rarely anyone to perfectly channel their grievance - Pat Buchanan came closest - they could remain safely within the fold. Trump has laid bare their existence and their anger.
These voters were the people who voted for George Wallace. They were Southerners and people around the country who related to Southerners. I see more than my fair share of Confederate flags on pickup trucks here in Connecticut. And the Wallace voter used to be a Democrat (as Wallace himself was).
But race sundered the New Deal coalition and the ODD-cons left the Party of Jackson when it became the Party of Kennedy/Johnson. They briefly alighted on Wallace before moving to the GOP. The question is - will they bolt again? Can they stomach another flaccid Paleo-Con like Jeb!?
The Democratic primary is mostly about the direction of the party. Sanders sits only marginally to the left of Clinton on the issues, with the exception of the extent of his redistributive ambitions. Clinton represents the DLC past in the minds of many liberal voters and they want a fresh, more left leaning direction. But as Clinton herself moves to the left, I have a hunch that when she wins, the Democratic party will have little trouble rallying around her.
Can we say that about Trump or Bush?
Saturday, September 12, 2015
Friday, September 11, 2015
Things Get...Tense
Over a week ago, I marveled at the fact that Kim Davis was not resonating with the Wingnut Wurlitzer.
I guess I should have waited. (Or simply ignored Amanda Marcotte's prediction. She's a fine writer, but a lousy prognosticator.)
I do still think that the Money in conservative circles still doesn't give a damn about God bothering bigots, outside of having them show up on election day. But the Davis saga - along with the Trumpen Proletariat - shows that the mass of conservative voters is tired of being catered to around election time, while once in office, the GOP returns to doing what they always do (see Jeb! Bush's egregious tax cut policies.)
However, things just took a turn for the scarier in Kentucky. The Oath Keepers showed up. These are law enforcement and ex-military types who hold really fucking nutso opinions about common law, posse comitas and the Constitution. Mostly they are a form of cover for white supremacists and, basically, domestic terrorism.
They are armed and ready to "protect" Kim Davis from US Marshals and presumably any other law enforcement that might come to throw her back into jail for breaking repeated court orders to do her freaking job.
I suppose they are counting on another Bundy Ranch scenario, where they can intimidate state and federal officials into not enforcing the law. No one, the presumption must be, wants another Waco.
Except, maybe, sort of, why not?
We kill people every day in America pretty much for being black and lippy. For selling loose cigarettes. For running away from police.
Why wouldn't we gun down some of these heavily armed thugs who are preventing the execution of the laws of the United States?
What could possibly be the difference between the Oath Keepers and Michael Brown?
I guess I should have waited. (Or simply ignored Amanda Marcotte's prediction. She's a fine writer, but a lousy prognosticator.)
I do still think that the Money in conservative circles still doesn't give a damn about God bothering bigots, outside of having them show up on election day. But the Davis saga - along with the Trumpen Proletariat - shows that the mass of conservative voters is tired of being catered to around election time, while once in office, the GOP returns to doing what they always do (see Jeb! Bush's egregious tax cut policies.)
However, things just took a turn for the scarier in Kentucky. The Oath Keepers showed up. These are law enforcement and ex-military types who hold really fucking nutso opinions about common law, posse comitas and the Constitution. Mostly they are a form of cover for white supremacists and, basically, domestic terrorism.
They are armed and ready to "protect" Kim Davis from US Marshals and presumably any other law enforcement that might come to throw her back into jail for breaking repeated court orders to do her freaking job.
I suppose they are counting on another Bundy Ranch scenario, where they can intimidate state and federal officials into not enforcing the law. No one, the presumption must be, wants another Waco.
Except, maybe, sort of, why not?
We kill people every day in America pretty much for being black and lippy. For selling loose cigarettes. For running away from police.
Why wouldn't we gun down some of these heavily armed thugs who are preventing the execution of the laws of the United States?
What could possibly be the difference between the Oath Keepers and Michael Brown?
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Cleek's Law
Cleek's Law says that conservatives believe the opposite of what liberals believe. Updated daily.
This means that as soon as Democrats endorse a position, Republicans will oppose it, even if it is a good idea that conforms with what they might otherwise believe.
So, Christians who are commanded to take in their impoverished neighbor will turn their backs on Syrian refugees.
And small government Libertarians will turn their back on criminal justice reform.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Their Own Reality
I saw a cartoon in the local rag - a very conservative paper - that held the following images/captions:
Iranian nuclear cloud/a mountain of debt/Uncle Sam saying a "Will work for work" sign/ISIS/Russia with a tank/China with a computer...and then Obama saying global warming is the greatest threat. It was implicit that Obama was nuts for thinking global warming was our gravest threat because of these other issues.
Except....
The Iranian deal prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon - a weapon the Bush Administration's policies put them on a clear path to acquiring (even Chris Wallace at Fox gets that). The real opposition to the Iranian deal is not that it gives Iran a nuclear weapon, but that it doesn't end the Iranian regime. The Neo-Cons were hoping the threat of a nuclear Iran might prompt a military response and overthrow of the regime.
So, no. Iranian nukes are not a threat.
The deficit has been falling for several years now, despite the inability of Democrats to implement their preferred reduction strategy of raising taxes on the very wealthy. The deficit was a byproduct of Bush's unpaid-for wars, his reckless tax cuts and the Great Recession.
So, no. The deficit is not a rising threat.
Unemployment in the United States is lower now than it has been than it EVER was under Reagan. While wages have not caught up, unemployment has fallen precipitously from the heights of the Great Recession. Soon, we should start to see some rising wages.
So, no. Unemployment is not a threat.
ISIS is a regional problem that is exporting - to a certain degree - its misery via the refugee crisis. But ISIS exists within the framework of a crumbling Syria and a destabilized Iraq (thanks, Cheney!). ISIS presents almost no threat to the United States, beyond the regional instability is creates. Normally this would manifest itself in rising oil prices. That isn't happening.
So, no. ISIS is not a threat.
Russia is teetering on the edge of insolvency. Its offensives in Ukraine have stalled. Putin saw his popularity skyrocket when he invaded Crimea, but it has been falling to earth recently as conditions worsen in Russia.
So, no. Russia is not a threat.
China's economy is also reeling, as their markets are struggling to reconcile market forces with state sponsored cronyism. The Chinese regime has bought legitimacy by sustaining 8% growth. That is no longer possible. And the environmental damage wrought by this growth is outraging middle class Chinese.
So, no. China is not a threat.
But for millions of Americans who get their news from Fox and Glenn Beck and the WSJ editorial page, or even for those who tune into the more sensational nightly news from the major networks, the world seems on the precipice of disaster.
But really, it's not.
Except, you know, climate change. In fact, the refugee crisis in Europe has its roots in drought and famine in Syria, Libya, Egypt and Saharan Africa. Ask Californians about the climate these days.
It is this rank lack of perspective and faulty information that creates the Trump voter who "wants to make America great again." America is actually doing pretty damned good at the moment, except for climate issues (although we are making progress there) and the gun culture that leads to indiscriminate slaughter (no progress there).
Fear may get you viewers and clicks, but it creates a woefully ignorant electorate.
Iranian nuclear cloud/a mountain of debt/Uncle Sam saying a "Will work for work" sign/ISIS/Russia with a tank/China with a computer...and then Obama saying global warming is the greatest threat. It was implicit that Obama was nuts for thinking global warming was our gravest threat because of these other issues.
Except....
The Iranian deal prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon - a weapon the Bush Administration's policies put them on a clear path to acquiring (even Chris Wallace at Fox gets that). The real opposition to the Iranian deal is not that it gives Iran a nuclear weapon, but that it doesn't end the Iranian regime. The Neo-Cons were hoping the threat of a nuclear Iran might prompt a military response and overthrow of the regime.
So, no. Iranian nukes are not a threat.
The deficit has been falling for several years now, despite the inability of Democrats to implement their preferred reduction strategy of raising taxes on the very wealthy. The deficit was a byproduct of Bush's unpaid-for wars, his reckless tax cuts and the Great Recession.
So, no. The deficit is not a rising threat.
Unemployment in the United States is lower now than it has been than it EVER was under Reagan. While wages have not caught up, unemployment has fallen precipitously from the heights of the Great Recession. Soon, we should start to see some rising wages.
So, no. Unemployment is not a threat.
ISIS is a regional problem that is exporting - to a certain degree - its misery via the refugee crisis. But ISIS exists within the framework of a crumbling Syria and a destabilized Iraq (thanks, Cheney!). ISIS presents almost no threat to the United States, beyond the regional instability is creates. Normally this would manifest itself in rising oil prices. That isn't happening.
So, no. ISIS is not a threat.
Russia is teetering on the edge of insolvency. Its offensives in Ukraine have stalled. Putin saw his popularity skyrocket when he invaded Crimea, but it has been falling to earth recently as conditions worsen in Russia.
So, no. Russia is not a threat.
China's economy is also reeling, as their markets are struggling to reconcile market forces with state sponsored cronyism. The Chinese regime has bought legitimacy by sustaining 8% growth. That is no longer possible. And the environmental damage wrought by this growth is outraging middle class Chinese.
So, no. China is not a threat.
But for millions of Americans who get their news from Fox and Glenn Beck and the WSJ editorial page, or even for those who tune into the more sensational nightly news from the major networks, the world seems on the precipice of disaster.
But really, it's not.
Except, you know, climate change. In fact, the refugee crisis in Europe has its roots in drought and famine in Syria, Libya, Egypt and Saharan Africa. Ask Californians about the climate these days.
It is this rank lack of perspective and faulty information that creates the Trump voter who "wants to make America great again." America is actually doing pretty damned good at the moment, except for climate issues (although we are making progress there) and the gun culture that leads to indiscriminate slaughter (no progress there).
Fear may get you viewers and clicks, but it creates a woefully ignorant electorate.
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
The Clinton Conundrum
HRC came out and made the sort of apology she should have made months ago.
But, the damage - which is pretty ridiculous - is done. And what's more, people will assume that this is all done for the cameras, that she doesn't really mean it.
On the other side, she's doing everything we - the Democratic constituency - are asking her to do. She's embracing more economic populism. She's being feisty against the GOP. She's downplaying her hawkishness. She's reaching out well to minorities.
And now she's apologizing for the email nontroversy. Which we asked her to do.
What more do you want?
But, the damage - which is pretty ridiculous - is done. And what's more, people will assume that this is all done for the cameras, that she doesn't really mean it.
On the other side, she's doing everything we - the Democratic constituency - are asking her to do. She's embracing more economic populism. She's being feisty against the GOP. She's downplaying her hawkishness. She's reaching out well to minorities.
And now she's apologizing for the email nontroversy. Which we asked her to do.
What more do you want?
More On Carson
I don't think my last post was all that clear, despite the fact I've been thinking about Carson for a week now.
Carson has captured the interest of the evangelical voters. That was Huckabee's base and Santorum's, but Cruz had a shot at them, too. They're moving to Carson. And that could propel him to second place in Iowa or maybe even a win. Carson currently polls poorly in New Hampshire, but he could vault ahead if he takes second in Iowa. South Carolina has a fair number of evangelicals, and they could help him there, too.
That makes him pretty well positioned to be the Not-Trump.
It would behoove the Democrats to make sure he's seen as a spittle-flecked whackaloon rather than an esteemed neurosurgeon. They need to "define him" by his nutso beliefs in Biblical creation and religious supremacy to the Constitution rather than let him define himself with his biography.
Rubio and Carson are the only too feasible nominees that can give Clinton a run for her money, I think. Carson should be the main target, because Rubio has his own issues to deal with.
Carson has captured the interest of the evangelical voters. That was Huckabee's base and Santorum's, but Cruz had a shot at them, too. They're moving to Carson. And that could propel him to second place in Iowa or maybe even a win. Carson currently polls poorly in New Hampshire, but he could vault ahead if he takes second in Iowa. South Carolina has a fair number of evangelicals, and they could help him there, too.
That makes him pretty well positioned to be the Not-Trump.
It would behoove the Democrats to make sure he's seen as a spittle-flecked whackaloon rather than an esteemed neurosurgeon. They need to "define him" by his nutso beliefs in Biblical creation and religious supremacy to the Constitution rather than let him define himself with his biography.
Rubio and Carson are the only too feasible nominees that can give Clinton a run for her money, I think. Carson should be the main target, because Rubio has his own issues to deal with.
Monday, September 7, 2015
The Quiet Nutjob
I have no idea who will win the GOP nomination. I don't think it will be Donald Trump, because I'm not sure he has hired the sort of people who know how to corral the most delegates during a caucus. I'm not sure he has the people who know which rings to kiss in South Carolina. He has obviously hit a nerve, but candidates like that rarely succeed simply by hitting a nerve.
Which brings me to the guy who has come to scare me the most of all the potential GOP nominees: Ben Carson.
First off, let's eliminate the various Beltway Darlings. Jeb! isn't doing jackshit. He's lackluster, he's soft of character and soft of mind. He's fading like, well, Scott Walker. I had Walker pegged as the Dark Horse favorite, but he's simply so damned stupid and uncharismatic, he doesn't stand a chance. John Kasich is just a new way to spell John Huntsman.
That leaves a few possible outcomes that take down Trump:
1) Bush or Walker experience a renaissance. They rise from the dead like McCain in 2008.
2) Rubio breaks through. Probably the most likely scenario, providing the alleged skeletons in his closet don't come out.
3) Fiorina somehow makes a race of it. Perfect! Mitt Romney without the charisma or record of public service.
4) Carson rides his momentum out of a strong Iowa showing to vault himself into the "Not Trump" candidate.
Carson has a lot of support amongst evangelicals. He's a Bible Thumper through and through. When Chuck Todd asked him if the Bible had supremacy over the Constitution, Carson couldn't answer. His policy positions are lunatic.
But Trump is demonstrating something very important: the GOP electorate is sick and tired of GOP politicians. After decades of GOP elites motivating the rubes to vote against abortion and the gays and so on, those rubes have noticed that no matter who they send to DC, those people wind up voting down tax rates for the rich while failing to end abortion, gay rights and on and on. In fact, Trump supporters actually LIKE that Trump denigrates Wall Street.
But Trump is a suppurating asshole. His act cannot help but wear thin.
Carson, on the other hand, speaks in the calm, measured tones of a surgeon talking to a patient before she goes under the knife. The words themselves are bonkers, just like the rest of the GOP. But he's so smooth in delivering them, he comes across as more reasonable than he is. Plus, he has the single most inspirational life story of any candidate. He's handsome, accomplished and not a complete overbearing dick. And he is not a creature of Washington DC. Additionally, he would allow all those Republicans who want to deny services to "those people" a chance to demonstrate that, "See, we really AREN'T racists. We voted for the black guy."
He has some of the same liabilities as Trump. When you actually unpack his policy statements, they don't make sense. He has no experience running a campaign. He will make gaffes, and unlike Trump, I'm not sure he has the temperament to bull his way through them.
But Carson is kind of a scary candidate, if you're looking at him from the point of view of the Democratic Party. They would be wise to take him seriously.
Which brings me to the guy who has come to scare me the most of all the potential GOP nominees: Ben Carson.
First off, let's eliminate the various Beltway Darlings. Jeb! isn't doing jackshit. He's lackluster, he's soft of character and soft of mind. He's fading like, well, Scott Walker. I had Walker pegged as the Dark Horse favorite, but he's simply so damned stupid and uncharismatic, he doesn't stand a chance. John Kasich is just a new way to spell John Huntsman.
That leaves a few possible outcomes that take down Trump:
1) Bush or Walker experience a renaissance. They rise from the dead like McCain in 2008.
2) Rubio breaks through. Probably the most likely scenario, providing the alleged skeletons in his closet don't come out.
3) Fiorina somehow makes a race of it. Perfect! Mitt Romney without the charisma or record of public service.
4) Carson rides his momentum out of a strong Iowa showing to vault himself into the "Not Trump" candidate.
Carson has a lot of support amongst evangelicals. He's a Bible Thumper through and through. When Chuck Todd asked him if the Bible had supremacy over the Constitution, Carson couldn't answer. His policy positions are lunatic.
But Trump is demonstrating something very important: the GOP electorate is sick and tired of GOP politicians. After decades of GOP elites motivating the rubes to vote against abortion and the gays and so on, those rubes have noticed that no matter who they send to DC, those people wind up voting down tax rates for the rich while failing to end abortion, gay rights and on and on. In fact, Trump supporters actually LIKE that Trump denigrates Wall Street.
But Trump is a suppurating asshole. His act cannot help but wear thin.
Carson, on the other hand, speaks in the calm, measured tones of a surgeon talking to a patient before she goes under the knife. The words themselves are bonkers, just like the rest of the GOP. But he's so smooth in delivering them, he comes across as more reasonable than he is. Plus, he has the single most inspirational life story of any candidate. He's handsome, accomplished and not a complete overbearing dick. And he is not a creature of Washington DC. Additionally, he would allow all those Republicans who want to deny services to "those people" a chance to demonstrate that, "See, we really AREN'T racists. We voted for the black guy."
He has some of the same liabilities as Trump. When you actually unpack his policy statements, they don't make sense. He has no experience running a campaign. He will make gaffes, and unlike Trump, I'm not sure he has the temperament to bull his way through them.
But Carson is kind of a scary candidate, if you're looking at him from the point of view of the Democratic Party. They would be wise to take him seriously.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
The Donald's Supporters
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/donald-trump-supporters-political-campaign
Don't know if that will load, but sweet Jeebus what a bunch of maroons.
Their fundamental conception of how the world works is rooted in the idea that bluster and hot air will correct the decline that Fox News tells them exists but really doesn't. The decline exists in their own lives, as white middle class Americans.
Someone should introduce them to Bernie Sanders.
Saturday, September 5, 2015
Migrants
Having been in Europe during the early stages of the crisis, I can attest that this is straining Europe's vision of itself. Europe sees itself as the seat of true civilization, having ceded power to the US about 70 years ago (no matter what DeGaulle thought).
But Europe isn't immune to the same fractious racial identity politics that the US has. Donald Trump would be quite at home in the UK Independence Party or perhaps even the Tories, given Cameron's position on migrants.
The fact is it is far simpler and safer to oppose migration, because the people who vote for you are already in the country that you are a politician in. It can hurt you with those citizens who were once immigrants (or whose recent relatives were), but it's pretty clear the GOP, to take an example, is trying to maximize its share of the white vote, rather than reach out to Hispanics, African Americans or Asians.
But the Nativists have a point, which is that a country has a right to secure its own borders and determine its own immigration policies. That's a little harder in Europe with the EU, but it's still an issue.
It is not at all surprising it took an especially heartbreaking photo to change the tenor of the conversation. Nativist demagoguery depends on us denying the humanity of the migrants. Once you see them as that small, lifeless body in the surf, you can't easily deny their humanity without denigrating your own.
But it will only take one Syrian emigre to shoot a police officer, or a Libyan refugee to commit an act of terrorism for the voices of nativism to drown out those whispers of shared humanity again.
But Europe isn't immune to the same fractious racial identity politics that the US has. Donald Trump would be quite at home in the UK Independence Party or perhaps even the Tories, given Cameron's position on migrants.
The fact is it is far simpler and safer to oppose migration, because the people who vote for you are already in the country that you are a politician in. It can hurt you with those citizens who were once immigrants (or whose recent relatives were), but it's pretty clear the GOP, to take an example, is trying to maximize its share of the white vote, rather than reach out to Hispanics, African Americans or Asians.
But the Nativists have a point, which is that a country has a right to secure its own borders and determine its own immigration policies. That's a little harder in Europe with the EU, but it's still an issue.
It is not at all surprising it took an especially heartbreaking photo to change the tenor of the conversation. Nativist demagoguery depends on us denying the humanity of the migrants. Once you see them as that small, lifeless body in the surf, you can't easily deny their humanity without denigrating your own.
But it will only take one Syrian emigre to shoot a police officer, or a Libyan refugee to commit an act of terrorism for the voices of nativism to drown out those whispers of shared humanity again.
Friday, September 4, 2015
Don't Go To War With The Gays
They and their friends are much more clever than you.
Another good example:
Thursday, September 3, 2015
I Hate Huckabee
Huckabee was always the likable conservative. He was warmly funny, had an ear for working class problems and seemed like a nice guy.
Now he's become a venom spitting hate monster with no demonstrable understanding of how American laws work.
Of course, it's fashionable to simply say that he's playing to his base. But I really think it's important to listen to what politicians say. They may not be able to deliver on their promises, but they always at least TRY to deliver.
Now he's become a venom spitting hate monster with no demonstrable understanding of how American laws work.
Of course, it's fashionable to simply say that he's playing to his base. But I really think it's important to listen to what politicians say. They may not be able to deliver on their promises, but they always at least TRY to deliver.
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
The Trump Coalition
Jon Chait has hit on something here. He notes that Trump is to the right of the GOP elites on immigration, but to their left on taxes.
And the 25-30% of the GOP base who are devoted to Trump are perfectly cool with that.
One of the enduring political truths of the modern GOP is that the elites mobilize culture warriors on issues like affirmative action, abortion, gay rights and immigration, but once in office, they pretty much pursue fiscal policies that redistribute wealth upwards.
Trump has exposed a major fault line in the GOP coalition: white working class voters really don't want taxes on the rich cut. They want hedge fund managers taxed at higher than 15%.
The question that Chait leaves begging is why do those GOP voters who are flocking to Trump vote for guys like Reagan, the Bushes and Romney? It has always mystified earnest liberals why working class whites vote against their economic self-interest when they vote for a guy who will cut taxes on the rich and gut programs that these voters really like: think Bush's plan to privatize Social Security.
Given their movement towards Trump, it's not religion. It's not taxes. It's not a mantra of small government libertarianism.
It's racism.
We've all known this, since Nixon launched the Southern Strategy and Reagan spoke of state's rights at Philadelphia, Mississippi in 1980. Lee Atwater made it perfectly clear on his deathbed.
There are a lot of white working class voters who simply hate "them" so much that they have been willing to vote for economic royalists like the Bushes and the Romney, rather than for the black guy who is giving them health care.
The poobahs who run the GOP have been struck dumb by Trump's ascendancy. Everyone has noted that he is a monster of their own making. But what is terrifying to them most of all is how he is forcing them to come face to face with the racism that they have been exploiting to win elections for the past 40 years.
And the 25-30% of the GOP base who are devoted to Trump are perfectly cool with that.
One of the enduring political truths of the modern GOP is that the elites mobilize culture warriors on issues like affirmative action, abortion, gay rights and immigration, but once in office, they pretty much pursue fiscal policies that redistribute wealth upwards.
Trump has exposed a major fault line in the GOP coalition: white working class voters really don't want taxes on the rich cut. They want hedge fund managers taxed at higher than 15%.
The question that Chait leaves begging is why do those GOP voters who are flocking to Trump vote for guys like Reagan, the Bushes and Romney? It has always mystified earnest liberals why working class whites vote against their economic self-interest when they vote for a guy who will cut taxes on the rich and gut programs that these voters really like: think Bush's plan to privatize Social Security.
Given their movement towards Trump, it's not religion. It's not taxes. It's not a mantra of small government libertarianism.
It's racism.
We've all known this, since Nixon launched the Southern Strategy and Reagan spoke of state's rights at Philadelphia, Mississippi in 1980. Lee Atwater made it perfectly clear on his deathbed.
There are a lot of white working class voters who simply hate "them" so much that they have been willing to vote for economic royalists like the Bushes and the Romney, rather than for the black guy who is giving them health care.
The poobahs who run the GOP have been struck dumb by Trump's ascendancy. Everyone has noted that he is a monster of their own making. But what is terrifying to them most of all is how he is forcing them to come face to face with the racism that they have been exploiting to win elections for the past 40 years.
Finding A Hill To Die On
The saga of god-bothering, Jesus-freak Kim Davis - the George Wallace of fabulous marriages - is really interesting, as Amanda Marcotte points out.
For whatever reason, the main chords of the Wingnut Wurlitzer have not included her aria of uncivil disobedience. Conservatives are more outraged at Obama calling Denali by it's right name than by pretty much every court that's been asked about this issue telling Davis to quit being a tool and do her damned job.
Unlike the anti-gay pizza parlor owner, there does not appear to be much of a groundswell of support for Davis, which might have surprised her. Perhaps it was the Indiana fight of earlier this year - where corporate America firmly informed Mike Pence that anti-gay bigotry was unacceptable - that broke the fever.
Perhaps this opposition has simply been driven under ground, as Marcotte suggests, only to reappear in ten years. More likely the manifest absurdity of preventing some people from getting married because....Leviticus? has become apparent to many conservatives.
Or perhaps Trump has simply focused right wing rage at Messicans and they don't have the energy to hate on the Ghey right now.
For whatever reason, the main chords of the Wingnut Wurlitzer have not included her aria of uncivil disobedience. Conservatives are more outraged at Obama calling Denali by it's right name than by pretty much every court that's been asked about this issue telling Davis to quit being a tool and do her damned job.
Unlike the anti-gay pizza parlor owner, there does not appear to be much of a groundswell of support for Davis, which might have surprised her. Perhaps it was the Indiana fight of earlier this year - where corporate America firmly informed Mike Pence that anti-gay bigotry was unacceptable - that broke the fever.
Perhaps this opposition has simply been driven under ground, as Marcotte suggests, only to reappear in ten years. More likely the manifest absurdity of preventing some people from getting married because....Leviticus? has become apparent to many conservatives.
Or perhaps Trump has simply focused right wing rage at Messicans and they don't have the energy to hate on the Ghey right now.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Saving Your Job
The Democratic House members who voted against Obamacare pretty much all lost their re-election bids.
Some of this is because they represented swing districts who have swung to the right. Some were likely swing districts that were re-districted as "redder" districts. Some retired.
But the idea that voting against your party's main policy goal will save your job assumes that voters see beyond partisan labels.
They don't.
Vote your conscience. It's much simpler that way.
Some of this is because they represented swing districts who have swung to the right. Some were likely swing districts that were re-districted as "redder" districts. Some retired.
But the idea that voting against your party's main policy goal will save your job assumes that voters see beyond partisan labels.
They don't.
Vote your conscience. It's much simpler that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)