Can Democrats make America great again? And if so, how?

[stevenkesslar]

Below are two articles that I view as two sides of the Make America Great Again coin.  

I agree with the prognosis of the first article, from The American Conservative.  As I read it, it's the voice of pre-Tea Party Ronald Reagan/George Will "principled" conservatism.  The article  predicts that the MAGA effort is doomed to end in failure. 

The second article talks about the challenge facing Democrats and Biden if we win, as seems likely.  If the Republicans couldn't make America great again, can Democrats?  And is there any hope that some of the people who voted for President Toxic can be nudged into the Democratic Party - if not in 2020 then further down the line?  Or will they view Democrats as a permanent existential threat, as the conservative author of the first article portrays them?

After Trump Loss, ‘Deplorables’ Will Be The Democrats’ First Target

Blame the president for leaving his core supporters at the mercy of the opposition's cultural and economic revolution.

Quote

They see the Democratic Party lurching to the left and know that, should the Dems take complete power over the federal government in January, it will go even worse for them than it has over the past quarter century. U.S. borders will become more porous, largely through executive action. Asylum policies will be loosened up. Pro-immigrant legislation, such as free medical care for illegals, will serve as an enticement for greater illegal entry. A path to legal status, or even citizenship, will be pushed through. All this will devastate wage rates, thus harming the economic wellbeing of the Trump constituency. It also will serve over time to generate millions of new Democratic voters who will overwhelm the beleaguered white middle class. 

The Democratic elite will resuscitate the free-trade policies of recent decades, thus reviving the deterioration of industrial America that Trump sought to reverse. The further evaporation of working-class industrial jobs will deliver another financial blow to his constituency. A likely return to humanitarian interventionism, meanwhile, will lead to new foreign wars, sap the nation’s resources, stir internal frictions, and pull the sons and daughters of Middle America into the maw of conflict. 

Then there is the cultural onslaught in store for Trump voters when the Democrats take over. The brutal enforcement of political correctness has escaped the campus and invaded everyday America. This poses ominous implications for Trump voters, whose political leanings, though largely defensive in nature, are widely equated with racism, the most dangerous epithet that can be hurled at anyone in today’s America. 

What went wrong? Trump went wrong. He built his constituency by exposing to America the fundamental political reality of 2016—namely, the widening chasm between Middle America and its bicoastal elites of big media, government officials, think tanks, big tech, burgeoning financial institutions, the federal deep state, and mavens of popular culture. He pulled his voters together into a tight knot of political support born of fear and intimidation and self-interest. But then he couldn’t build on it. He could never take his 43 percent support and find a way to add another 10 percent by devising policies designed to operate on the political margin. 

Bill Clinton had a word for it—“triangulation,” meaning the art of building coalitions of people and institutions that constitute majority sentiment on well-chosen issues. A well-crafted grand strategy on immigration probably could have served the purpose, had there been sufficient compromise involved. A success on the health care issue would have helped. A big factor could have been a foreign policy success fulfilling the president’s promise of reducing America’s military footprint overseas. A use of language and a comportment signifying a sense of national unity, at least to the point of creating a majority coalition, could have helped tremendously—and would have been easy to do.  

 

Two reactions before I cite the second article.

First, I agree with the prognosis that triangulation could have saved President Toxic.  That said, it is far easier said than done for President Toxic.  Let's forget that he seems to completely lack Bill Clinton's skills in governing and political deal making .... ironically.  Even if he was a master at the art of political deals, the kind of bipartisan immigration reform the Senate passed 2-1 in 2013, only to be killed by the House Freedom Caucus, surely would have been seen as a worse betrayal than H.W. Bush's "no new taxes" pledge.  I always figured the reason President Toxic got away with trashing McCain's war heroism is that many Trumpians saw McCain as a RINO.  And while it's true that lots of Trump supporters say they don't like the tweets, it's also true that President Toxic basically ran against everything that makes Washington work at its best.  Like compromise on good public policy.  The most flattering thing I can say about President Toxic is he does have reptilian survival instincts.  He probably feels, not incorrectly, that if he betrayed his base they would eat him alive.  

Second, this article deeply resonates with what I've heard from "principled" conservatives for years and years.  Like the author, they don't have much regard for the Tea Party/MAGA types.  They view them as an unstable and potentially corrupting influence on the Grand Old Party they've been loyal members of for life.  Yet going back to the W. years, as I listened to the "principled" conservatives' arguments, it sounded pretty much just like the Tea Party's arguments to me. 

This author seems to almost completely agree with the Tea Party/MAGA definition of the problem:  Democrats who are out to destroy America.  He just doesn't agree that President Toxic was the proper solution to the problem.  Regardless, the dreaded Democratic "cultural and economic revolution" is proceeding apace.  Like the plague, it's apparently coming soon to a bucolic rural hamlet near you.

In light of Bob Woodward's hardly shocking tapes of President Toxic, there's mountains of tragic irony here.  Trump played down an existential threat because he didn't want to create panic.  Which resulted in a deep recession/depression that has killed 200,000 Americans so far.  And yet the bigger existential threat is the Democrats?  Huh?  It's not exactly news that as far back as the 1980's, Reagan won by appealing to blue collar union families who were conservative on issues like guns and abortion and law and order.  But how exactly is the so-called Democratic economic revolution worse than COVID-19 and a recession?  Are unions more deadly than COVID-19?

In fact, there's plenty of evidence that Democratic successes in the midterms and state races weren't simply driven by affluent suburbanites.  Polls suggest that lots of working class voters abandoned President Toxic over bread and butter economic issues.  Like the high cost of health insurance.  Or unexpected medical expenses that are one of the leading contributors to poverty.  Even with a recession and COVID-19, Trump's highest disapproval rating this year (56 % in July) hasn't reached his 58 % disapproval rating in 2017 when he tried to kill Obamacare, breaking his "repeal and replace" vow.  

‘A tale of 2 recessions’: As rich Americans get richer, the bottom half struggles

Quote

"The economic inequities that began before the downturn have only worsened under this failed presidency," Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said Friday. "No one thought they'd lose their job for good or see small businesses shut down en masse. But that kind of recovery requires leadership — leadership we didn't have, and still don't have."

Recent economic data and surveys have laid bare the growing divide. Americans saved a stunning $3.2 trillion in July, the same month that more than 1 in 7 households with children told the U.S. Census Bureau they sometimes or often didn’t have enough food. More than a quarter of adults surveyed have reported paying down debt faster than usual, according to a new AP-NORC poll, while the same proportion said they have been unable to make rent or mortgage payments or pay a bill.

And while the employment rate for high-wage workers has almost entirely recovered — by mid-July it was down just 1 percent from January — it remains down 15.4 percent for low-wage workers, according to Harvard’s Opportunity Insights economic tracker.

“What that’s created is this tale of two recessions,” said Beth Akers, a labor economist with the Manhattan Institute who worked on the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush. “There are so obviously complete communities that have been almost entirely unscathed by Covid, while others are entirely devastated.”

We've now had two election cycle in a row where income inequality, Bernie and democratic socialism, Medicare For All, and Elizabeth and wealth taxes on Jeff Bezos are a major driver.  The fact that income inequality only got worse under President Toxic's government is hardly a surprise.

What is a surprise is the pandemic made income inequality worse still.  Those unemployment numbers really are surprising to me.  Home values in parts of California and Portland are spiking, even as we read that Portland is ablaze.  So somebody out there isn't poor.

Meanwhile, what's not stated in the first article I posted is that a lot of President Toxic's supporters are feeling the pain.  I get that many, maybe even most of them blame it on Democrats who want to close your Main Street, slap a mask on you, and take whatever livelihood you have left away.  That's the Trumpian rant, at least.  But the polls also suggest that the majority of Americans fear COVID-19 more than they fear the temporary damage to the economy of protecting the health of ourselves and our loved ones.

I'm relatively confident that the people who judge the flow of history like Lichtman and Jon Meaham and now Bob Woodward are right.  President Toxic was not the man for the job.  The American people will agree and fire him, I think.  He has not made America great again.

So the question is:  are Democrats, if empowered, up to the task?  Is there any possibility of pulling some of these Trump supporters back our way - on these bread and butter issues like jobs and health care?  Or are Democrats, as defined in the first article, simply going to be viewed as a permanent existential threat to the cultures and economic well being of those who voted for President Toxic?

I'll add one other point that spoke to me about this question.  Michael Moore has been loudly warning that 2016 could happen all over again, because the intensity of Trump supporters is through the roof.  But he's also saying something very different than 2016.  When reminded how he portrayed Biden in 2019, as an overly moderate political hack, Moore pointed out that it almost doesn't matter anymore.  Maybe some of it was Moore having to find a way to spin Biden, now that he's the nominee.  But his points made sense. 

Remember all those people opposed to Medicare For All because they liked their employer health insurance?  They're unemployed and without health insurance now, Moore said.  Remember all those people saying that Andrew Yang's $1000 freedom benefit was unaffordable and un-American?  They survived COVID-19 because of Nancy Pelosi insisting on $600 a week unemployment payments.  Of course, not everyone did.  We don't have an accurate picture of who the losers in this recession are yet.  But we know its tens of millions of Americans.  And I'm pretty sure lots of those tens of millions who are hurting have been President Toxic supporters.

My premise in posting this thread is that Biden and Democrats are going to take power.  If we do, given how the entire deck has been reshuffled by the plague, is there a way to co-opt some of the Make America Great Again message and coalition?  Or are they going to circle the wagons around their vanquished savior, and harden their minds around the idea that Democrats are now going to destroy America for good?

Edited September 10, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[TotallyOz]

Steven,

As always an excellent post and take on things. I get building coalitions and trying to work with everyone. But, I hope that is not necessary. If elected and if we take the Senate (by we, I mean normal people aka Democrats), then I hope they just push everything through. I'm tired of the Democrats playing nice and easy and never getting reciprocation. I liked Obama but he was nuts for trying to reach over the isle when he had big leads. If that happens again, I'll be fucking pissed! They had better ram everything through in the first 100 days or I may not give them another vote ever (pissy and not true but it felt good saying it).

[AdamSmith]

2 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

Steven,

As always an excellent post and take on things. I get building coalitions and trying to work with everyone. But, I hope that is not necessary. If elected and if we take the Senate (by we, I mean normal people aka Democrats), then I hope they just push everything through. I'm tired of the Democrats playing nice and easy and never getting reciprocation. I liked Obama but he was nuts for trying to reach over the isle when he had big leads. If that happens again, I'll be fucking pissed! They had better ram everything through in the first 100 days or I may not give them another vote ever (pissy and not true but it felt good saying it).

Maybe Uncle Joe will grease the path to Kamala becoming our next LBJ.

[TotallyOz]

3 minutes ago, AdamSmith said:

Maybe Uncle Joe will grease the path to Kamala becoming our next LBJ.

I have been quite impressed with her and the way she is carrying herself.

[JKane]

 

 

[AdamSmith]

8 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

I have been quite impressed with her and the way she is carrying herself.

She has iron balls. What we need right now.

[stevenkesslar]

10 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

Maybe Uncle Joe will grease the path to Kamala becoming our next LBJ.

If we're comparing to LBJ, I think Biden wins that over Kamala hands down.  And I say that as a California boy who voted for Kamala for Senator, respects her, and thinks she'd make a good Prez.

The precedent from both The New Deal and The Great Society is that is started out more moderate and then grew more liberal.  It's true that FDR got a lot of legislation passed right out of the gate.  But my read of history is that he gradually lost faith in corporate America as the New Deal went along.  The more incendiary anti-business comments he made were from 1936, not 1932.  The Great Society was similar.  That was bubbling up for years before JFK was elected, in an election in which civil rights was more background than top issue.  So to get to the point where LBJ cut the deals and signed the landmark laws took maybe a decade.

If I had to bet, history will repeat itself somehow.  What happens in 2021, even assuming a Democratic majority, will be a first step that sets the tone and focuses more on immediate relief.  If there are going to be huge landmark bills, they'll come later.

What the Republicans do when President Toxics loses will be a big driver in which way this goes.  The easy guess would be that the Never Trumpers who helped elect Biden will be a force of moderation in whatever happens right out of the gate.  Biden will triangulate.  And if he does he'll probably have the majority support President Toxic never did.

13 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

I'm tired of the Democrats playing nice and easy and never getting reciprocation. I liked Obama but he was nuts for trying to reach over the isle when he had big leads. If that happens again, I'll be fucking pissed! They had better ram everything through in the first 100 days or I may not give them another vote ever (pissy and not true but it felt good saying it).

The Toxic Trump Republicans can claim success in one thing.  They made Democrats a lot more like them when it comes to compromise.  

The last time I looked at Pew's poll findings on that issue was several years ago.  And as the graph shows, back then an overwhelming majority of Democrats put compromise ahead of the idea of "sticking to your principles."  So when I just Googled it for this post I hadn't seen the recent big change.  But I'm not surprised.  Now people who favor compromise are just less than a majority in both parties. 

This poll tracks the timing of my change.  It was around 2018 that I hit my breaking point.  And the Justice Rapist fiasco was my straw that broke the camel's back.  So I'm okay with where Democrats are.  But this is not necessarily good news for President Biden.  He is at heart a deal maker.  Now Democrats are cooler on that idea.

So I'm with you, @TotallyOz.   That's of course obvious from my tone.  I'm certainly done with the idea that the Toxic Trump Republican Party is going to work with us.  Or that it even makes sense to have a conversation with them.  Since the feelings of contempt (or something approaching it) seem to be mutual, that probably will help determine the direction things go.

When this has played out before, long periods of "time out"  (I love that phrase, which is what newly activist Moms say the national/Trump Republicans need now)  have actually resulted in moderation.  It took 20 years to get from Hoover's defeat to Ike's election.  It took 12 years, and multiple landslides, to get from Carter's defeat to Bill Clinton's election. 

So as much as it sounds mean, or maybe even undemocratic, I think the best thing to do for people who like the idea of compromise and moderation is to tell the Tea Party and Toxic Trump types to just go fuck themselves.  If we have the votes, we can get away with it.  But that means Biden managing a circus that includes some people who would really prefer President Bernie, and others who would really prefer President Kasich. 

I would not want to guess what that could mean for 2024.  Will Biden run again?  If not, will Harris be a shoo-in to replace him?  Will Berniecrats revolt?   All of those challenges can happily get in line and wait a long time for the immediate and urgent calamities to be addressed.

i do think @lookin is right that all these Trumpians won't go away.  If they double down and we have a Toxic Trump TV station for them to watch, then they'll decide for themselves that they'd rather go off and plot revenge for a while.

The more important issue to me is what happens with what I'll call the Kasich Republicans, or what Rahm called the "Biden Republicans" .  Some of these Obama-Obama-Trump voters are going to be Obama-Obama-Trump-Biden voters this year.  And others will vote for President Toxic, but will notice if some of the jobs and Rust Belt decline issues Trump won on,  and then pretty much ignored, are actually addressed by Democrats.  That's how we can build a sustainable coalition that will allow us to ignore the remnants of the Toxic Trump Party.

That's where I was going with my question. 

Emotionally, I can't wait to look many Trump voters in the face for the next several years and say, "You people lost because you completely deserved to lose.  Go the hell away."

 

Edited September 11, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[tassojunior]

On 9/10/2020 at 10:57 AM, TotallyOz said:

I have been quite impressed with her and the way she is carrying herself.

 

18 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

She has iron balls. What we need right now.

That is quite an admiration for someone who wants to put many of us in prison for life for being on escort-discussing websites like this and has made her reputation by doing so to others and of people who hire escorts. Of course Trump signed her SESTA bill,  even though he hasn't prosecuted under it. (Sometimes there's something to be said for incompetence). You could think it was just a crusade as Attorney General of CA but as soon as she got to the Senate she co-authored SESTA to remove section 230 protections for  escort-discussing websites.  I hope going after sex sites and escort clients doesn't continue to be her crusade as VP. But it would be a great stepping stone to the presidency unfortunately and it's certainly "her big thing". I can't imagine this is not where she intends to show her "conservative moral" bonafides to prepare against Nikki Haley. 

Those of us in the US have some reason to be a little cautious of Kamala. It takes more than slipping on a pair of Converses for a photo opp at an airport to be "cool". 

Kamala insisted the Backpage defendants be put in a cage during their hearings.   

18 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

She has iron balls. What we need right now.

 

 

 

 

[AdamSmith]

4 hours ago, tassojunior said:

 

That is quite an admiration for someone who wants to put many of us in prison for life for being on escort-discussing websites like this and has made her reputation by doing so to others and of people who hire escorts. Of course Trump signed her SESTA bill,  even though he hasn't prosecuted under it. (Sometimes there's something to be said for incompetence). You could think it was just a crusade as Attorney General of CA but as soon as she got to the Senate she co-authored SESTA to remove section 230 protections for  escort-discussing websites.  I hope going after sex sites and escort clients doesn't continue to be her crusade as VP. But it would be a great stepping stone to the presidency unfortunately and it's certainly "her big thing". I can't imagine this is not where she intends to show her "conservative moral" bonafides to prepare against Nikki Haley. 

Those of us in the US have some reason to be a little cautious of Kamala. It takes more than slipping on a pair of Converses for a photo opp at an airport to be "cool". 

Kamala insisted the Backpage defendants be put in a cage during their hearings.   

 

 

 

 

History is complicated right now.

I think you take what you got.

And then fight with it later, if need be.

[JKane]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pete1111]

The conservative piece refers to Deep State as a real threat.   I don't need to explore his opinions much beyond that, do I?

Deep State was a conspiracy invented by Cambridge Analytica.

To spend time discussing that POV gives credence to it.  Then why not give Q a fair shake?  Everyone deserves their opinion, right?  Let's give Q a seat at the table.  <--This is sarcasm.  But really, Republicans are already going there.

Edited September 13, 2020 by Pete1111
Fic

[JKane]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JKane]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Buddy2]

On 9/11/2020 at 2:43 PM, tassojunior said:

 

That is quite an admiration for someone who wants to put many of us in prison for life for being on escort-discussing websites like this and has made her reputation by doing so to others and of people who hire escorts. Of course Trump signed her SESTA bill,  even though he hasn't prosecuted under it. (Sometimes there's something to be said for incompetence). You could think it was just a crusade as Attorney General of CA but as soon as she got to the Senate she co-authored SESTA to remove section 230 protections for  escort-discussing websites.  I hope going after sex sites and escort clients doesn't continue to be her crusade as VP. But it would be a great stepping stone to the presidency unfortunately and it's certainly "her big thing". I can't imagine this is not where she intends to show her "conservative moral" bonafides to prepare against Nikki Haley. 

Those of us in the US have some reason to be a little cautious of Kamala. It takes more than slipping on a pair of Converses for a photo opp at an airport to be "cool". 

Kamala insisted the Backpage defendants be put in a cage during their hearings.   

 

 

 

 

Same objections you had on the other site to any Demoratic Party  candidate not named Sanders, Yang or Gabbard. Could you please try to get over it when the only other real option is Trump and Pence.

Sanders didn't have a chance after praising Fidel Castro. Both Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang were decent candidates, but with  little  executive experience. And Tulsi Gabbard stressed "no more regime change wars" without explaining how the United States would react to another Cuban Missile Crisis. Or  armed  Fascist governments in Germany, Italy and Sprain (as happened before World War Two).

Strange since Gabbard is actually in the reserves and a quite often praised soldier.

 

 

[lookin]

As I've belabored in another thread, I think our main problem is a large destabilizing minority of authoritarian followers.  I think they're somewhere around a third of the population, have latched on to Trump as their "leader", and are motivated primarily by fear - which Trump knows how to stoke.  And I believe such authoritarian followers have been with us since the beginning of time and that they will be with us till the end of time.

By definition, these authoritarian followers want simple answers, so "debate" is not something they want to engage in.  I'm coming to the conclusion, reluctantly, that the best way to reach them is to provide them with the authoritarian leadership they require while redirecting their fear toward something more useful.

As Hitler and his propagandists taught German authoritarian followers to fear the Jews and communists, Trump and his propagandists have taught their authoritarian followers to fear brown-skinned folks and "leftists".  In hindsight, what the German authoritarian followers should have been fearing was Hitler's willingness to sacrifice their lives in pursuit of Aryan world dominance.  And, with a bit of foresight, what American authoritarian followers should be fearing is Trump's willingness to sacrifice their lives in pursuit of primarily white American world dominance.  Or, as he calls it, "Make America Great Again".

For the average Trump follower, Trump's focus on world dominance has not improved their lives, security, or wellbeing in any meaningful way.  As a result of his so-called leadership, fewer of them have jobs or health insurance and they are less welcome in other parts of the world.  With nearly 200,000 Americans dead since March, we are nearly halfway to the number of lives lost in World War II and, without a miracle, I expect we'll reach that grim milestone within another few months of Trump's "leadership".

So, my stab at answering the OP's question would be to reach out to the authoritarian followers among us and help them realize that what they should be fearing is Trump and his enablers who are leading them to a loss of life greater than during World War II, to a financial meltdown worse than the Great Depression, and to a loss of world political status that took their ancestors a century or more to build.  Like Hitler, Trump is leading them day-after-day toward death and destruction.

I think the Democrats need to put forward a government modeled after that of Konrad Adenauer, one that can de-Trump America, one that makes life better for even the most down-and-out Americans and one that can, through skilled diplomacy, return our country to a place of influence - rather than "domination" - in the world.  Germany's authoritarian followers didn't disappear overnight and neither will ours.  So, as long as they're with us, I think they need to become part of the solution and not part of the problem.

While it won't be a piece of cake, I take some comfort in that fact that every time authoritarian followers have been co-opted to bring down a society, they have subsequently been co-opted to help restore it.  Assuming they remain alive to do so.
 

[tassojunior]

59 minutes ago, Buddy2 said:

Same objections you had on the other site to any Demoratic Party  candidate not named Sanders, Yang or Gabbard. Could you please try to get over it when the only other real option is Trump and Pence.

Sanders didn't have a chance after praising Fidel Castro. Both Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang were decent candidates, but with  little  executive experience. And Tulsi Gabbard stressed "no more regime change wars" without explaining how the United States would react to another Cuban Missile Crisis. Or  armed  Fascist governments in Germany, Italy and Sprain (as happened before World War Two).

Strange since Gabbard is actually in the reserves and a quite often praised soldier.

 

 

It's entirely possible to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils without becoming a pollyanna for someone who crusades to put people in prison for discussing escorts on a website. Of course Germany chose Hitler as the lesser of two evils over the Socialist/Communists thinking he would never follow through on his more controversial ideas. We may think Harris will never follow through on her goals to imprison people on sites like this but since it would be extremely politically popular to keep doing, it's worth keeping an eye out for and keeping pressure on to head off. Pograms are hard to stop once started.  

[Buddy2]

You turned against Sanders, Yang and Gabbard when they endorsed Biden.  And you accuse almost every United States president, secretary of state and secretary of defense of genocide. Essentially  accusing Secretary of State Clinton of enjoying sexually to watch foreign enemies put to death.

 

Now it is another woman, Kamala Harris.

[tassojunior]

1 hour ago, Buddy2 said:

You turned against Sanders, Yang and Gabbard when they endorsed Biden.  And you accuse almost every United States president, secretary of state and secretary of defense of genocide. Essentially  accusing Secretary of State Clinton of enjoying sexually to watch foreign enemies put to death.

 

Now it is another woman, Kamala Harris.

LOL. First you call me a Tulsi bot then you claim I'm against women. Make up your mind.

I'm against killing thousands, or millions, of people because of the color of their skin. Extermination. Genocide. Normal US foreign policy. Which rebounds on us when those troops come home and become police and keep killing Black people as they've been trained.

[Buddy2]

28 minutes ago, tassojunior said:

LOL. First you call me a Tulsi bot then you claim I'm against women. Make up your mind.

I'm against killing thousands, or millions, of people because of the color of their skin. Extermination. Genocide. Normal US foreign policy. Which rebounds on us when those troops come home and become police and keep killing Black people as they've been trained.

Yes, I know.

I served in the United States Army from  1967 to 1969. So I know many of the  troops in wars are black. My time in a light infantry brigade in Vietnam: almost a year.

[tassojunior]

2 minutes ago, Buddy2 said:

Yes, I know.

I served in the United States Army from  1967 to 1969. So I know many of the  troops in wars are black. My time in a light infantry brigade in Vietnam: almost a year.

What I meant was we kill Blacks in N.Africa/MidEast. 

[Buddy2]

Black United States soldiers kill blacks in the Middle East and North Africa?

[tassojunior]

30 minutes ago, Buddy2 said:

Black United States soldiers kill blacks in the Middle East and North Africa?

Yup. Black American soldiers aren't too keen on killing Blacks for the US anymore and they don't enlist as much since they figured out that was our military's mission in the world. 

[Buddy2]

8 minutes ago, tassojunior said:

Yup. Black American soldiers aren't too keen on killing Blacks for the US anymore and they don't enlist as much since they figured out that was our military's mission in the world. 

The war in Vietnam was about 50 years ago. Many of the so-called grunts were Black and a few Latino. Therefore, why did it take so long to find out.

And I don't agree it was "our military's  mission in the world." And I hated being part of a stupid war in the late 1960s.

 

 

[stevenkesslar]

So, back on topic.  Great article by Ron Brownstein that zeroes in as culture wars and racism, sexism, and "identity politics" as the deepest dividing line in American politics today.

Why the stability of the 2020 race promises more volatility ahead

Quote

The durability of both support and opposition to Trump shows how the motivation for voters' choices is shifting from transitory measures of performance, such as the traditional metrics of peace and prosperity, toward bedrock attitudes about demographic, cultural and economic change. The immovability of the battle lines in 2020 captures how thoroughly the two parties are now unified -- and separated -- by their contrasting attitudes toward these fundamental changes, with Trump mobilizing overwhelming support from the voters who are hostile to them, no matter what else happens, and the contrasting coalition of Americans who welcome this evolution flocking toward the Democrats.

 

In the near term, this alignment has produced a campaign dynamic in which Trump consistently trails Biden, but not so severely that despite all the controversies that might have capsized an earlier incumbent, he cannot squeeze out another narrow win in the Electoral College.

 

Over the long term, the durability of attitudes toward Trump spotlights the likelihood of a widening rift between two Americas fundamentally diverging in both their exposure to and attitudes about such fundamental dynamics as the nation's growing racial and religious diversity, rising demands for greater racial equality, changing gender roles and the transition from an industrial to an information age economy.

 

In a poll released last week, Pew asked voters if Whites have advantages in society that Blacks do not. It found that the share of Democratic voters and all registered voters who agree has increased since 2016 (to 9 in 10 of the former and almost 6 in 10 of the latter), but three-fourths of Trump supporters still reject that idea, slightly more than in 2016.

 

Further detail on the results provided to CNN underscore how powerfully attitudes on such questions now drive allegiance to the two parties. Even among voters in the same demographic group, Pew found, there's an enormous gulf in views on these questions between those supporting Biden and those supporting Trump.

 

But given all that's happened -- from impeachment to the pandemic -- the most striking thing about the demographic and geographic patterns of support for Biden and Trump is how similar they look to the partisan dynamics in the 2016 and 2018 elections. If Biden holds his national lead, Democrats will win the popular vote in November for the seventh time in the past eight presidential elections -- something no party has done since the formation of the modern party system in 1828. That underscores the reality that the groups drawn toward the Democrats in this cultural resorting of the electorate -- what I've called the "coalition of transformation" -- are clearly larger at this point than the competing "coalition of restoration" aligning with the GOP.

 

With the Democratic Party identifying much more unreservedly than even 10 or 20 years ago with the demands for change, and Trump so clearly stamping the GOP in opposition to all of them, the grinding trench warfare between these competing coalitions in the 2020 race probably only previews the struggle looming through the 2020s.

Pastor isn't alone when he grimly predicts, "We're really getting ready for a very deep culture war coming."

 

A lot of this is the same old, same old that we've been debating since Hillary lost.  Was it the economy, stupid?  Or was it the racism, stupid?  Or was it the authoritarianism, stupid?  I like Brownstein because his data and political judgment do a better job than most integrating how all these factors meld together.  

It's not a shocker that the states that President Toxic barely won the "Slavery Matters" Electoral College with were Rust Belt states that suffered from the deindustrialization of America.  Even if it's racism and ranting about immigrants,  it also mdoes have something to do with the economy, stupid.  There was a good article recently about Bucks County, PA as a suburban bellwether.  Here's a line that jumped out at me:

Quote

In Lower Bucks, working-class Democrats support Trump. These Obama-to-Trump voters are descended from Catholic Philadelphians who, after World War II, settled in places like Levittown -- a symbol of 50s-era suburban growth -- to work in the area’s industrial base. They resent their now decades-long decline, and they see Trump as a defender of their economic interests.

As I've said several times, for whatever reason Pennsylvania has been worse off than Michigan or Wisconsin in terms of the loss of manufacturing jobs.  When Biden was in Detroit and interviewed by Jake Tapper I thought he  did a very good job of hammering on the specific numbers of factory jobs that were created in Michigan by Obama/Biden.  And the auto bailout, which was an effort that Biden led.  Meanwhile, all three states have LOST tens of thousands of factory jobs since President Toxic was inaugurated. 

I suspect Biden will be all over numbers like that during the debates, when President Toxic tries to pin NAFTA on him like he pinned it on Hillary.  President Toxic is, in fact, President.  What has he done?  He failed.  That's what I suspect Biden will say.  But that said, Pennsylvania is for some reason the worst of the three.  During the good times, they simply don't lose more factory jobs.  During the bad times, factory jobs evaporate.  Unlike both Michigan and Wisconsin, there have never been these recoveries where tens of thousands of factory jobs come back.  That's true going back to Clinton and the 90's.

So the phrase "decades-long decline" captures the economic reality.  And it's understandable that you can throw in lots of theories now.  This explains why they blame it on immigrants.  This explains why they want to go back to the glory days of the White working class.  Even if they don't think they are racist, and some of the Trumpians are in fact Black and Hispanic.

The really interesting question, I think, is why do they STILL feel President Toxic is "a defender of their economic interests"?  Even if you stop the clock at February 2020, Obama/Biden simply did a better job of restoring factory jobs than President Toxic has in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  If you stop the clock at August 2020, there's no comparison.  Trump has shredded factory jobs.  And, yes, you can say some of that is not President Toxic's fault.  But you have to suspend a hell of a lot of disbelief and ignore a hell of a lot of facts to really buy that. 

So I think Brownstein is right.  All of this has gelled together into a new form of civil war.  There were an estimated 215,000 combat casualties in the Civil War.  By election day, we will clearly top that with COVID-19 deaths.  So we don't have a Confederate Army carrying muskets around.  But we do have President Toxic rallies that may have killed Herman Cain.  And lots of Trumpians who define "freedom" as "not having to wear a damn mask".  So we're deep into a culture war which is not tethered to fact or logic all that tightly.  And it is turning out to be quite deadly, as well.

Here's an interesting Pew survey that confirms how far apart the bases of the two political parties are.   

For Republicans, these are the issues that over 70 % think are "most important":  1)  the economy (88 %), and 2) violent crime  (74 %).  Meanwhile, income inequality, race inequality, and climate changes are priorities to very few of them.  And I'm quite sure that just because they don't care about race inequality, and they buy President Toxic's message of panic about Blacks invading suburbs and violent crime, that doesn't make them a racist.

Here's the issues at least 70 % of Democrats see as most important:  1)  health care (84%),  2)  coronavirus  (82 %), 3) race and ethnic inequality (76 %),  4) the economy (72 %).  Other than the economy, stupid, Democrats and Republicans are not even on the same page.  And I think these "identity politics" and economic issues are layered on top of each other.  Racism is a health issue for Blacks dying of Coronavirus.  And it's an economic issue because they are disproportionately on the losing end of the economy.  Mostly White Trump supporters just don't see it that way.

I think all of this makes Brownstein's prediction sound right:  no matter who wins, the divide is more likely to get worse.  It is interesting that both Democrats and Republicans seem to be saying that.  The side that loses is just going to be angry, and bitter, and dig in more.

The data about why Democrats seem to be gradually overcoming the obstruction of the Tea Party/Trump decade is also telling.  This New York Times article on voter preferences is encouraging.  Based on mountains of polling, Biden seems to be doing measurably better than Hillary and better than 2018 preferences with two of three key groups in what Brownstein calls the coalition of transformation:  suburban voters, and young voters.   Young voters may not like Biden.  But most despise President Toxic.   The article doesn't focus on Blacks.  I assume that's because for the most part they are not a swing group.  There's no evidence so far that Blacks plan to sleep through this election.  I won't be surprised if Black turnout beats what it was for Obama.  And is one of the nails in President Toxic's coffin - not only in states like Michigan, but also states like North Carolina and possibly even Georgia.

Where Biden is weakest is with the third group, Hispanics.  Although that depends a lot.  There's a good chance he may blow President Toxic away in Arizona, partly thanks to mostly Mexican American Hispanics.  In Florida, it's a whole different story.  Some of it, I think, is that Biden is as bad as Sen. Bill Nelson was in 2018.  Rick Scott is saying he has won repeatedly with Hispanics in Florida because he "shows up".  I think that's a fair assessment.  That said, it's pretty clear that Biden is hurting in Democratic Dade County because the President Toxic hate and panic machine is trashing Biden with lies and lies and lies and lies about how The Deep State will probably put somebody worse than Castro and Chavez in charge if Puppet Biden wins.  The goal has to be to just get Demoratic-leaning Hispanics to not vote.  But, no, the hateful and racist and evil President Toxic would never want to actually panic Americans, would he?  

This leads me to a final point about why I think Brownstein is right, and the divides are more likely to deepen after the election.  

Bernie Sanders had a great opportunity in 2016 and 2020 to redefine America around class.  In 2016 his messages about income inequality resonated more than even he expected.  So there was every reason to think that 2020 could be the year when Sanders (or Warren, or Sanders/Warren) became the Democratic nominee.  It just didn't happen.  Those people in Michigan that voted for Bernie rather than Hillary in 2016 and were supposed to respond to messages about the working glass and jobs and a rigged economic system just didn't vote as Berniecrats hoped.  They voted for Biden.  And a lot of those working class White former Democrats were, and will remain, the base of Trumpism.  In fact, the part of Bernie's base that seems most rock solid is built around identity politics.  It's the Millennials, stupid.

Again, I'll argue that all these issues - identity politics, the economy, racism, and also authoritarianism - are intertwined.  The signs people are carrying say "Black Lives Matter".  But what the polls and interviews all say is that the young Black, Hispanic, and White protesters carrying those signs all grew up sharing the experience of an America riddled with income inequality.  So their movement is about police and the safety of Blacks, for sure.   But as we move forward I suspect it will become clearer and clearer that it's a whole bunch of stuff all bundled together.  Just like for the Trumpists, it's a whole bunch of identity and economics bundled together, too.

The thing that is surprising about Bernie 2020 is there is one area I think he can accurately be described as having overachieved:  outreach to Hispanics.  That is why he won Nevada.  It helped Bernie in Iowa and also Texas, even though Biden ultimately rode an organic wave that helped him win Texas.   The very smart national Hispanic organizers that worked with Bernie to do what he did are all pushing the panic buttons about Biden right now.  They're essentially saying the same thing Rick Scott is.  If you want to turn this constituency into loyal and stable voters, you have to show up.  And not just once.  You have to show up consistently.  Hopefully, Bernie 2020 will in part be remembered as an example of how it helps you on Election Day if you do that.  Again, it wasn't enough for Bernie.  But his success as "Tio Bernie" also suggests that he made more inroads in states like Nevada with identity politics aimed at Latinos than he did in states like Michigan with class rhetoric aimed at White working class voters.

Here's one other Pew analysis of the 2018 midterms that just adds more weight to the idea that the two sides of this "culture war" are digging their trenches deeper.  Only 3 % of 2016 Hillary voters voted for a Republican House candidate in 2018.  Only 5 % of 2016 Trump voters voted for a Democratic House candidate in 2018.  The biggest shift was people who DID NOT vote in 2016:  they voted for Democrats by an over 2 to 1 margin.  Another table shows 2018 voting preferences based on ideology.  2016 Trump voters who are Republican conservatives were even MORE likely to vote Republican in 2018:  it was 94/3 in 2016 and 96/2 in 2018.  That's President Toxic's rabid base politics at work.  Sadly, the verdict is in that in 2018 it HURT President Toxic with everyone else.  Moderate to liberal Republicans and moderate to conservative Democrats were all more likely to vote Democratic in 2018 than 2016.  President Toxic has his rabid base.  But he's losing everyone else.

So there is a group of people in the middle who leaned Democratic in 2018 and for much of 2020 have looked like they may be getting ready to lean Democratic again.  And if 2020 is like 2018, there is also a group of people who didn't vote in 2016 or 2018 who will vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

My guess is the Lincoln Project's goal is probably to replicate 2018.  At the end of the day, if 5 % of President Toxic's 2016 voters vote for Biden, and every other trend I've described here holds, that is probably more than enough for Biden to win.  Possibly in a landslide.

But it also means the other 95 % of Trump Republicans will have doubled down.  They are not going to come out of their trenches, I don't think.  They'll feel bitter, and start digging deeper.

[AdamSmith]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

So, back on topic.  Great article by Ron Brownstein that zeroes in as culture wars and racism, sexism, and "identity politics" as the deepest dividing line in American politics today.

Why the stability of the 2020 race promises more volatility ahead

A lot of this is the same old, same old that we've been debating since Hillary lost.  Was it the economy, stupid?  Or was it the racism, stupid?  Or was it the authoritarianism, stupid?  I like Brownstein because his data and political judgment do a better job than most integrating how all these factors meld together.  

It's not a shocker that the states that President Toxic barely won the "Slavery Matters" Electoral College with were Rust Belt states that suffered from the deindustrialization of America.  Even if it's racism and ranting about immigrants,  it also mdoes have something to do with the economy, stupid.  There was a good article recently about Bucks County, PA as a suburban bellwether.  Here's a line that jumped out at me:

As I've said several times, for whatever reason Pennsylvania has been worse off than Michigan or Wisconsin in terms of the loss of manufacturing jobs.  When Biden was in Detroit and interviewed by Jake Tapper I thought he  did a very good job of hammering on the specific numbers of factory jobs that were created in Michigan by Obama/Biden.  And the auto bailout, which was an effort that Biden led.  Meanwhile, all three states have LOST tens of thousands of factory jobs since President Toxic was inaugurated. 

I suspect Biden will be all over numbers like that during the debates, when President Toxic tries to pin NAFTA on him like he pinned it on Hillary.  President Toxic is, in fact, President.  What has he done?  He failed.  That's what I suspect Biden will say.  But that said, Pennsylvania is for some reason the worst of the three.  During the good times, they simply don't lose more factory jobs.  During the bad times, factory jobs evaporate.  Unlike both Michigan and Wisconsin, there have never been these recoveries where tens of thousands of factory jobs come back.  That's true going back to Clinton and the 90's.

So the phrase "decades-long decline" captures the economic reality.  And it's understandable that you can throw in lots of theories now.  This explains why they blame it on immigrants.  This explains why they want to go back to the glory days of the White working class.  Even if they don't think they are racist, and some of the Trumpians are in fact Black and Hispanic.

The really interesting question, I think, is why do they STILL feel President Toxic is "a defender of their economic interests"?  Even if you stop the clock at February 2020, Obama/Biden simply did a better job of restoring factory jobs than President Toxic has in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  If you stop the clock at August 2020, there's no comparison.  Trump has shredded factory jobs.  And, yes, you can say some of that is not President Toxic's fault.  But you have to suspend a hell of a lot of disbelief and ignore a hell of a lot of facts to really buy that. 

So I think Brownstein is right.  All of this has gelled together into a new form of civil war.  There were an estimated 215,000 combat casualties in the Civil War.  By election day, we will clearly top that with COVID-19 deaths.  So we don't have a Confederate Army carrying muskets around.  But we do have President Toxic rallies that may have killed Herman Cain.  And lots of Trumpians who define "freedom" as "not having to wear a damn mask".  So we're deep into a culture war which is not tethered to fact or logic all that tightly.  And it is turning out to be quite deadly, as well.

Here's an interesting Pew survey that confirms how far apart the bases of the two political parties are.   

For Republicans, these are the issues that over 70 % think are "most important":  1)  the economy (88 %), and 2) violent crime  (74 %).  Meanwhile, income inequality, race inequality, and climate changes are priorities to very few of them.  And I'm quite sure that just because they don't care about race inequality, and they buy President Toxic's message of panic about Blacks invading suburbs and violent crime, that doesn't make them a racist.

Here's the issues at least 70 % of Democrats see as most important:  1)  health care (84%),  2)  coronavirus  (82 %), 3) race and ethnic inequality (76 %),  4) the economy (72 %).  Other than the economy, stupid, Democrats and Republicans are not even on the same page.  And I think these "identity politics" and economic issues are layered on top of each other.  Racism is a health issue for Blacks dying of Coronavirus.  And it's an economic issue because they are disproportionately on the losing end of the economy.  Mostly White Trump supporters just don't see it that way.

I think all of this makes Brownstein's prediction sound right:  no matter who wins, the divide is more likely to get worse.  It is interesting that both Democrats and Republicans seem to be saying that.  The side that loses is just going to be angry, and bitter, and dig in more.

The data about why Democrats seem to be gradually overcoming the obstruction of the Tea Party/Trump decade is also telling.  This New York Times article on voter preferences is encouraging.  Based on mountains of polling, Biden seems to be doing measurably better than Hillary and better than 2018 preferences with two of three key groups in what Brownstein calls the coalition of transformation:  suburban voters, and young voters.   Young voters may not like Biden.  But most despise President Toxic.   The article doesn't focus on Blacks.  I assume that's because for the most part they are not a swing group.  There's no evidence so far that Blacks plan to sleep through this election.  I won't be surprised if Black turnout beats what it was for Obama.  And is one of the nails in President Toxic's coffin - not only in states like Michigan, but also states like North Carolina and possibly even Georgia.

Where Biden is weakest is with the third group, Hispanics.  Although that depends a lot.  There's a good chance he may blow President Toxic away in Arizona, partly thanks to mostly Mexican American Hispanics.  In Florida, it's a whole different story.  Some of it, I think, is that Biden is as bad as Sen. Bill Nelson was in 2018.  Rick Scott is saying he has won repeatedly with Hispanics in Florida because he "shows up".  I think that's a fair assessment.  That said, it's pretty clear that Biden is hurting in Democratic Dade County because the President Toxic hate and panic machine is trashing Biden with lies and lies and lies and lies about how The Deep State will probably put somebody worse than Castro and Chavez in charge if Puppet Biden wins.  The goal has to be to just get Demoratic-leaning Hispanics to not vote.  But, no, the hateful and racist and evil President Toxic would never want to actually panic Americans, would he?  

This leads me to a final point about why I think Brownstein is right, and the divides are more likely to deepen after the election.  

Bernie Sanders had a great opportunity in 2016 and 2020 to redefine America around class.  In 2016 his messages about income inequality resonated more than even he expected.  So there was every reason to think that 2020 could be the year when Sanders (or Warren, or Sanders/Warren) became the Democratic nominee.  It just didn't happen.  Those people in Michigan that voted for Bernie rather than Hillary in 2016 and were supposed to respond to messages about the working glass and jobs and a rigged economic system just didn't vote as Berniecrats hoped.  They voted for Biden.  And a lot of those working class White former Democrats were, and will remain, the base of Trumpism.  In fact, the part of Bernie's base that seems most rock solid is built around identity politics.  It's the Millennials, stupid.

Again, I'll argue that all these issues - identity politics, the economy, racism, and also authoritarianism - are intertwined.  The signs people are carrying say "Black Lives Matter".  But what the polls and interviews all say is that the young Black, Hispanic, and White protesters carrying those signs all grew up sharing the experience of an America riddled with income inequality.  So their movement is about police and the safety of Blacks, for sure.   But as we move forward I suspect it will become clearer and clearer that it's a whole bunch of stuff all bundled together.  Just like for the Trumpists, it's a whole bunch of identity and economics bundled together, too.

The thing that is surprising about Bernie 2020 is there is one area I think he can accurately be described as having overachieved:  outreach to Hispanics.  That is why he won Nevada.  It helped Bernie in Iowa and also Texas, even though Biden ultimately rode an organic wave that helped him win Texas.   The very smart national Hispanic organizers that worked with Bernie to do what he did are all pushing the panic buttons about Biden right now.  They're essentially saying the same thing Rick Scott is.  If you want to turn this constituency into loyal and stable voters, you have to show up.  And not just once.  You have to show up consistently.  Hopefully, Bernie 2020 will in part be remembered as an example of how it helps you on Election Day if you do that.  Again, it wasn't enough for Bernie.  But his success as "Tio Bernie" also suggests that he made more inroads in states like Nevada with identity politics aimed at Latinos than he did in states like Michigan with class rhetoric aimed at White working class voters.

Here's one other Pew analysis of the 2018 midterms that just adds more weight to the idea that the two sides of this "culture war" are digging their trenches deeper.  Only 3 % of 2016 Hillary voters voted for a Republican House candidate in 2018.  Only 5 % of 2016 Trump voters voted for a Democratic House candidate in 2018.  The biggest shift was people who DID NOT vote in 2016:  they voted for Democrats by an over 2 to 1 margin.  Another table shows 2018 voting preferences based on ideology.  2016 Trump voters who are Republican conservatives were even MORE likely to vote Republican in 2018:  it was 94/3 in 2016 and 96/2 in 2018.  That's President Toxic's rabid base politics at work.  Sadly, the verdict is in that in 2018 it HURT President Toxic with everyone else.  Moderate to liberal Republicans and moderate to conservative Democrats were all more likely to vote Democratic in 2018 than 2016.  President Toxic has his rabid base.  But he's losing everyone else.

So there is a group of people in the middle who leaned Democratic in 2018 and for much of 2020 have looked like they may be getting ready to lean Democratic again.  And if 2020 is like 2018, there is also a group of people who didn't vote in 2016 or 2018 who will vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

My guess is the Lincoln Project's goal is probably to replicate 2018.  At the end of the day, if 5 % of President Toxic's 2016 voters vote for Biden, and every other trend I've described here holds, that is probably more than enough for Biden to win.  Possibly in a landslide.

But it also means the other 95 % of Trump Republicans will have doubled down.  They are not going to come out of their trenches, I don't think.  They'll feel bitter, and start digging deeper.

There is a shorter ( LOL  ) summation of your reply:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty#Research