2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTrading Places: If the Democrats Are Now a Coastal Elite Party and the GOP Are the Populists....
Trading Places: If the Democrats Are Now a Coastal Elite Party and the GOP Are the Populists, Trump Is Only the Beginning
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/trading-places-if-democrats-are-now-coastal-elite-party-and-gop-are-populists-trump
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bluedye33139
(1,474 posts)The Republican party is a party of white grievance, sometimes formulated as economic but generally formulated as cultural. It will never be a true populists party ever.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,043 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)and also often on surrogate, more accessible targets for their anger, like Jews, immigrants, Hillary Clinton, etc. That first is a basic defining characteristic of populist movements.
Agree about what the Republican Party has largely shrunk to, instead of developing with the nation, but even people whose sole issue was losing their white majority advantages (there aren't any) very definitely could also be populists -- just for themselves.
duncang
(1,907 posts)And that can be anybody at any level. The Dem's are just picking up some of the repub's.
forgotmylogin
(7,531 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)In fact its quite the opposite. The GOP is the party of white people angry that populism is threatening their dominance. Democrats represent minorities, immigrants, women, lgbt folks, and others who have been treated unfairly in this country in the past and are now finally making some progress in equality. Many whites feel threatened by that and Trump has tapped into their fear, anger, racism and misogyny.
modrepub
(3,503 posts)Anyone with some basic economic training and/or reasoning can see through the supply-side (tinkle down) economic BS. The anti-science (intellectual) bent doesn't help either. Add the evangelical/hard-core christian thinking and you've pretty much driven away 60% of the voting-age population. Not a great strategy but as most of us know you can't think logically when you're angry ALL the friggen time.
tblue37
(65,488 posts)are often socially liberal, and although they are Republicans, they oftern express dismay over the direction their party has taken.
In addition to their fiscal conservatism, such younger conservatives also tend toward small-government libertarianism, so the fact that fundamentalist Christianist reactionaries have captured the GOP and for decades used the party to promote the Christianist version of sharia law--to extend the reach of government power into citizens' private lives, including their bedrooms--really turns a lot of them off.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)College educated blue.. Very blue.
paleotn
(17,963 posts)...just one look at Trumps campaign stops and it becomes pretty obvious he isn't about populism.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,043 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,713 posts)it was neither then, and it is neither now.
One of the great LIES of modern faux-conservatism...
1. It's divisive.....generally because they don't like it, regardless of real majority opinion.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)IronLionZion
(45,532 posts)in the upper midwest, and mountain states,
Any party is going to have some elitists and lots of regular people. This article actually highlights the need for the big tent to welcome all types of Democrats, while the Republicans are the ones who exclude and purge and generally behave like assholes.
BlueCollar
(3,859 posts)But I still think the current GOP are the Guardians of the Privileged.
After the dust settles they will dump the hourly white workers and get back to their Corporate and Fundamentalist Christian agenda.
The Democratic Party would be foolish to rest on their laurels if Hillary wins.
The next four years should be an exercise in voter education. Pull the covers back and expose. "Tax cuts" and "privatization" for what they are...
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Labor will take their votes elsewhere.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Conservative labor will mostly vote Republican. Most Americans do not belong to labor organizations, and even of those that do, most do not vote the union endorsement.
Study after study have found that most people vote their values, not their personal interests.
UCmeNdc
(9,601 posts)So populists are only the poor white voters? The poor black, women, latino, voters are not populists? I think a better argument would be the GOP has become the party of Racists. The label should be racists not populists party.
The unspoken message is that people of color do not matter.
George Eliot
(701 posts)sometimes they vote Republican. As our society becomes more polarized, they, too, will wonder why their opportunities and wealth are still not rising. Then, they will move right as well. You've got to see them as being just like the rest of us wondering why all the wealth is going up. They are not stupid but are depending on a legacy that Clinton has with them. Time can undermine that if she doesn't follow through. I agree there is a lot of racism on the right. But I think you can't blame it all on racism and expect that to be a "forever" label.
In my opinion, the true populists on the right would have voted for Sanders. But, now I don't know who they are voting for. I say that only because the polling seems to show Trump with more support than I would have expected. He is grossly wrong for the country and yet his numbers seem to stay pretty even on many polls. Blacks, women and latinos are just like the rest of us. They want opportunities and if the democrats don't make them available, out of bitterness these people will move right as well. That's the nature of bitterness. It becomes mean and finds its home with the GOP. Granted, that's thinking long term. I hope it doesn't come to that.
caquillo
(521 posts)But the majority do.
George Eliot
(701 posts)
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)finding a home in the GOP.
George Eliot
(701 posts)You think all people will forever be loyal as you are to one party. Some people move - flexibility I guess. They move with their emotions. So you cannot say that when regarding a future possibility unless of course you're rigid in your thinking and believe "never" is possible.
And that they are "us" is my point. They are just like all of us, even those who moved to the right.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)Demsrule86
(68,689 posts)We saw in WVA how they voted for Sanders but planned to vote for the GOP in November...all this talk of a marriage between the far right populist and the far left populist is total nonsense.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)types -- determined by genetic code and then acted on by environment -- that strongly influence political orientation.
Populism, a belief in power for ordinary people (but not the only one), is neither intrinsically liberal nor conservative, and this year we have both left- and right-wing populist movements.
Conservatives do tend to believe in a natural order that rewards industry and goodness and punishes lack, leading to a natural hierarchy. That doesn't mean conservatives don't recognize that greed and power in leaders can get out of hand, however.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)George Eliot
(701 posts)on which way she governs. I still have faith she will win this election largely with the help of Latinos and Blacks and coastal whites. But long term she will either bring back the average voter to the Democratic Party or alienate them for good. Then it's anybody's guess which side will prevail in the future.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/the-perfect-gop-nominee.html?_r=0
Fareed Zacharias on CNN today credited Reagan with the thirty-year movement to the right and it was finally nice to see that noted in main stream media. Rarely does anyone in msm credit Reagan with anything negative.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)George Eliot
(701 posts)and those who were Eisenhower Republicans. All those Democrats who became Reagan Democrats (now Republicans). All those voters who used to believe in our democratic socialism and believed in government. That's who.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Of our party?
George Eliot
(701 posts)I don't know your age Reagan took a lot of middle class workers to the right. I'd prefer to know why you ask. Are you testing me? Or are you younger and really don't know? I have talked to many young people who think they understand politics but without institutional memory, they do not. Today I listened to Chris Wallace who questioned McCaskill(sp?) on Hillary's plan to raise taxes never once mentioning it would be on the top only and yet when he spoke with his right-wing panel, he knew very well her plan was to raise only on the top earners. McCaskill did not pick up on that and let the meme than Hillary would raise taxes sit there for all to take in. And Trump promises to lower taxes. Many low information voters who were wooed by Reagan's "government is the problem" continue to believe that. They are stuck in a meme that has little real substance but the message became truth and we will forever be digging our way out of that storyteller's propaganda.
The Democrats are not smart about their messaging. After FDR and Francis Perkins, the majority of Americans became Democrats. And even Republicans were staunchly in favor of democratic ideals as witnessed by the Republican platform and letters from Eisenhower to his brother in teh fifties.
Of course, Reagan's southern strategy further divided Democrats.
Surely you know these things and surely your view of "the average voter" goes back beyond 1982? Those were benchmark years of change in American politics. Given my age, "the average voter" is probably a little different than your "average voter" may be. I still like to think the average voter wants to vote his/her interests which is definitely not happening currently.
Now, if you have something to contribute, I'd love to hear it.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Yet you want to harken back to a time when the democratic base was just white working class. We do have black and Latino and other POC working class voters, educated voters of color, women, and now even white women with a college degree.
It seems that you think broader just means white, and I really don't understand why.
George Eliot
(701 posts)civil rights? now we have voter suppression . . . working class voted Dem almost entirely. Who cares what color they were - we were all in it together. Business was Republican and working people were Democrats. White at one time, diverse now? Of course, that's the flow of history. And thank goodness for that. But do you think the general public is pro labor union as it was in the fifties and sixties and seventies? No. You see through one lens only. The dogma of Reagan has infected even those who used to be true FDR Democrats. But memories fail about what once was and meanness, pettiness and greed eventually infects a society of people who once believed in the common good but now put self-interest first. That's what propaganda can do. That's too bad.
Try to put history in perspective and be grateful for the good that came out of the sixties and the civil rights era. Women? They, too, benefited from the sixties push for civil rights. Handicapped, gay and lesbian, same. But don't think for moment this is the sixties or seventies. We are losing ground, not gaining it. And if we don't get back to prioritizing the common welfare, we will continue to lose ground. We need those Reagan Democrats back and many, many others who simply stopped voting. Wouldn't you like to keep the crowds who turned out for Sanders? I want to keep them all.
You might take a look at standard of living charts and happiness charts created by various polling agencies like Gallup and others. Our country no longer occupies positions at the top of these charts. You can love your country but still be cognizant of its faults. Then try to change them. Blind loyalty benefits no one.
Yes, I want the Democratic Party to rein supreme once again by going back to its heritage and attracting those voters who used to be FDR Democrats and those who quit voting or never started because no one represented them. The party of the NLRB. The party of fairness in broadcasting. The party that represented working class citizens. The party that should have been enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. That's what I want.
If you think we've already got it, I disagree. This is much bigger than minorities and women. See beyond . . . see the bigger picture.
I'm done. I'll read whatever you choose to respond, but I'm done.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Sounds like you are harkening back to the days when the current base of the party had to "stay in their place". Your insults toward Pri are misplaced due to your own ignorance of our priorities. You imagined they always align with the educated white man and they do not. Is that the reason you supposed their Dem support is flimsy and can turn?
We know better than to vote for those who try and curtail our civil rights- but thanks for the patronizing clap trap that we are "just like you".
George Eliot
(701 posts)Sorry. Your post makes no sense to me.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And you do get that the GOP is behind ninety percent of that shit, don't you? Hillary lost loads of Brooklyn voters and people foolishly think she did it.
Crazy stuff.
George Eliot
(701 posts)I don't think you are but let's let it go.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Issues for some of us?
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)Was surprised to find that the Times allows viewing of 10 articles per month without charge.
Good to know.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Is this supposed to be serious?
The Republican party is the party of the rich who use racial hatred to keep easily led whites voting against the best interests of themselves and their families.
Far from poor and downtrodden these people live on rage that middle class white privilege is losing its preeminent place in american society.
George Eliot
(701 posts)There's no one answer to a complex problem. Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania are hardly pots boiling over with white privilege. They want their jobs back. Your take is very divisive and fails to understand what is at the heart of the American working class. People who have lost homes, jobs, families . . . It is much more than white, middle-class privilege.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)People are very upset as you say, and for the reason you say. Not everyone who worked in the plants was white. Those were decent jobs, and the workplaces were largely integrated by the '90s when the plants started moving to Mexico, and then in the 2000's when everything moved to China.
A lot of younger people left the state, but the older people are still here, and they remember. My favorite uncle who was a second father to me retired in the '80s and died a few years ago. He had nothing good to say about the jobs moving outside our borders.
I can't believe that he was the only one who saw the connection.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)That's the claim, but honestly, the idea that all those jobs would still exist if it weren't for "outsourcing" is just plain wrong. The idea that someone like Trump or Sanders and just go all protectionist and those jobs will "come back" is pure fantasy.
Locally, a huge new factory opened a few years ago. It's a factory that builds train locomotives (largely for export, btw). Many speculated that it would employ THOUSANDS. After all, the building it's in used to house a transformer factory that employed 2000 up until the late-90's. How many people work there? 400. The place is full of robotic machines. THAT is the source of most middle-class blue-collar jobs. That will not change. We are not going to get millions of high-paying blue collar jobs. They are gone. Done.
Just like coal. We are not going to reopen a shitload of coal mines. And even is we did, they use technologies required many fewer miners. Welcome to the 21st century. We need to find different kinds of jobs for those folks. The old ones are gone for good.
George Eliot
(701 posts)same people. Perception is reality and reality is that their jobs are disappearing for whatever reason. Some of it is outsourcing. Romney closed businesses to sell assets. Carrier moved to Mexico. Companies are insourcing by bringing workers from India and elsewhere. The fact is that Americans are being replaced and not rehired except in service industries at very low wages.
caquillo
(521 posts)And was pro-Sanders during the primaries. They have an ax to grind with the Dems, it seems.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)I think she is trying to build the party's strength for the future.
Marthe48
(17,027 posts)When I look at the map the 538 site, the Red States seem to be the 'rugged individualist' states (the interior West) and the 'eternally pissed off because they lost the War between the States' Southern states. Some of the interior swing states, such as Ohio, are all about the economy. The United States has relied on transportation, construction and industry to become the world power that it is. People built roads, they built houses and cities, and they made things. Now, we can't keep the roads we have inherited passable, sometimes it seems as if the only entities with money to build are churches and government, and our CEOs sent the industrial jobs to countries with a work force who earn way less than Americans.
While the tripod of transportation, construction and industry got us where we are, nobody planned into the future. We needed the roads to get to places to build and to get manufactured goods to markets. When unions became the workers' voice, and average Americans started getting a wage that allowed them to buy the things they built or made, the rich, who owned the corporations, property, raw materials, etc. did not want a unified work force competing for the profits. So we have this seemingly endless battle between the CEOs and employees. Many of the CEOs did not want to share, and outsourced their work to other countries, or in the case of WV, Indiana, and others, pushed for right-to-work laws. So in about 25 states, even if employees work their butts off for their company, they earn less, have less health insurance, less pensions, poorer schools and so on. We all still have choices about where we live and how we live. I've had a chance to drive across the interior of the U.S. a few times. There are a lot more poor neighborhoods than rich ones. But it isn't fair to say all poor are Republicans or all rich are Democratic, because in my own town, that isn't the only aspect. And as post #12 says, populists are not just poor whites. Many people are in the party of their parents. I thought my own parents were Democratic, until years after they passed away. My sister told me they were Republicans all the way.
From what I notice as time goes on, as Americans continue to move and resettle, the individual states do seem to be getting homogenized, so states such as Georgia, Florida, New Mexico are going to swing, and there will be changes in their election outcomes as tradition wrestles with economics. At the end of the day, it isn't just who is elected President. From city and county elections on up through the state houses, to the U.S House and Senate, we have to elect people who are more than pretty faces, who have no plans. We have to elect people who are going to lead, who understand that the past isn't going to sustain our future. We need more than service jobs, because how many fast food hamburgers are we going to eat? How many flipflops do we need? The bad thing about capitalism is that people have to buy things to keep it going. That means jobs. Or it means living with less. And until we have a plan, Americans will live with divisiveness. If we are content with less, then that solves a lot of struggle, but if we want the material things, then CEOs must share the wealth.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Populism in America is inherently, and has been inherently, racist. It's what led to the rise of George Wallace and now Donald Trump - but with Trump, it's less about economics and more solely the racial aspect of what dominated the movement throughout the 30s to the 60s.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)the common man. BULLSHIT!!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Republicans are the same as they were in 1988-2012--the party of the rich and the racist dumb fucks. Trump supporters are not downtrodden--they're just assholes.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"Are Republicans becoming a populist party of the downtrodden and disenfranchised"
Has to be.
Demsrule86
(68,689 posts)Demsrule86
(68,689 posts)They hate labor and have done their best to wipe it out...remember all the right to work crap...this is a bull shit article that is a pack of lies. Again the so called far far far left (mostly Greens) attempts to help the right in their quest to defeat Democrats who are the only hope for this country. How could they want to help elect a scumbag like Trump?
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)is a populist right-wing facist. They are questioning elections now. The only thing that can come after that is the forceful disregard of election results.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)If you subscribe to those ideals regardless of your race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, income et cetera you're welcome into my party,
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The author seems to consider only white voters. News Flash!!! Trump loses BIG among non-white voters. And EXTRA! many of them are poor.
Yeah, I'm an upper-middle-class white "elite," (though I live in "fly-over country"
, but just look at the fecking numbers? Trump is losing black folks by mind-boggling margins. He's losing by 2-1 among latinos. He's losing among asian-americans.
Just a disgruntled Bernie-bro looking to lash out. Fuck him.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Republicans hate the people.
