What the Democrats Did to Create a Trump Candidacy

[Sunstone]

This is possibly the single most informative article on American politics that I've read all election season:

How Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul

I know you're busy, I know you're tired of reading about politics, but you owe it to yourself to read this article by Matt Stoller. The article explains when and why the Democrats abandoned the white, working class voters who now make up so many of Trump's supporters. It provides insights into the political views that created the huge disparity between rich and poor that we have in the country today. Moreover, if you read between the lines, it tells you why there will be more Trumps in the future if things are not fixed, and what the fix must be.

 

[Laika]

This is possibly the single most informative article on American politics that I've read all election season:

How Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul

I know you're busy, I know you're tired of reading about politics, but you owe it to yourself to read this article by Matt Stoller. The article explains when and why the Democrats abandoned the white, working class voters who now make up so many of Trump's supporters. It provides insights into the political views that created the huge disparity between rich and poor that we have in the country today. Moreover, if you read between the lines, it tells you why there will be more Trumps in the future if things are not fixed, and what the fix must be.

Hey. Thanks for the article Sunstone.

This isn't my politics DIR but I felt it worth mentioning that the articles understanding of J.K.Galbraith grossly misrepresents his views and under-estimates his radicalism as a critic of neo-classical economics.

He did not try to justify the development of private monopolies but was actually debunking the illusions of "perfectly competitive markets" and inherent efficiency of market economies given the degree of planning within corporations. The assumptions of perfect competition and perfect rationality went (and continue to be) largely unchallanged in the economics profession who pioneered the market in "fact-free" and "low-fact" defences of capitalism on which their employment depends. Or as Galbraith put it "In economics, hope and faith coexist with deep scientific precision and a desire for respectability".

Galbraith also did forsee the apathy and surging in populism in his book "The Culture of Contentment" written in the 90's.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kenneth_Galbraith

P.s. Galbraiths book "The Great Crash, 1929" is well worth the read for left leaning liberals if you get the chance. (Though most of his book are worth reading if only for their insight, ability for making economy theory accessible to an audience and subversive wit.)

 

[Sunstone]

Hey. Thanks for the article Sunstone.

This isn't my politics DIR but I felt it worth mentioning that the articles understanding of J.K.Galbraith grossly misrepresents his views and under-estimates his radicalism as a critic of neo-classical economics.

He did not try to justify the development of private monopolies but was actually debunking the illusions of "perfectly competitive markets" and inherent efficiency of market economies given the degree of planning within corporations. The assumptions of perfect competition and perfect rationality went (and continue to be) largely unchallanged in the economics profession who pioneered the market in "fact-free" and "low-fact" defences of capitalism on which their employment depends. Or as Galbraith put it "In economics, hope and faith coexist with deep scientific precision and a desire for respectability".

Galbraith also did forsee the apathy and surging in populism in his book "The Culture of Contentment" written in the 90's.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kenneth_Galbraith

P.s. Galbraiths book "The Great Crash, 1929" is well worth the read for left leaning liberals if you get the chance. (Though most of his book are worth reading if only for their insight, ability for making economy theory accessible to an audience and subversive wit.)

Thanks for the qualifications, Laika! Much appreciated.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

At the same time the Dems were abandoning the less-educated white voter, that is EXACTLY who the GOP was pursuing, through Nixon's "Southern Strategy" to Reaganism, the Contract with America and the rise of Fox News.

Demographically, the Republicans chose a declining position--it was obvious even in the early 70s that Whites were eventually going to be a minority, even if a plurality of the vote; it's just happened a little bit faster than projected at that time (at least as I recall).

The Dems, however, choose to ensure that the delegates to their national conventions would reflect the demographic distribution of the population. The problem for the Dems is that, as a political institution, while they want to ensure this demographic reflection of the nation, they also want to ensure control of the party--hence the Superdelegates at the convention. The GOP, lacking such a built-in veto, gets what they've got...

In both cases, in my opinion, the country does not get well-served...it just gets more and more polarized until some small group believes that the Constitution no longer serves the country (because it isn't serving them the way they want) and declare a revolution against it...

Frankly, it doesn't look a whole lot different to me than the situation in the second half of the 1st Century BCE in Rome, and we all know how that turned out...