My response to Run’s and Barkley Rosser’s analogies to the 1980 election
Run’s post here discusses and elaborates on a comment by Barkley Rosser in the Comments thread to this post of mine. I posted the following reply to Barkley’s comment, and reposted that comment as a comment to Run’s post:
Barkley, I certainly share your fear that Trump actually could pull this off, but I don’t think your analogy to Carter-Reagan works. Key here is the generational change. Reagan had been a two-term governor of California, and although even back in 1980 I had only a pretty general idea of what he’d done as governor, I read a detailed article recently discussing his actions during the Free Speech Movement (that’s what it was called, right?) at Berkeley. It was pretty aggressive, rough stuff.
I don’t think I realized back in 1980—or at least I don’t remember doing so—that apparently a part of Reagan’s appeal to blue-collar whites and I guess to some WWII and Korean War generation, and Silent Generation voters was an anti-counterculture persona, which still mattered, a lot, in 1980.
After all, the Vietnam War had ended only six years earlier. And the Cold War was still very much raging.
What I remember about the 1980 election was a dog-whistle racist appeal to blue-collar whites, coupled with inflation that seemingly could not be brought under control and for what unions (along with the oil cartel) was given substantial blame. The unions would incorporate anticipated high inflation into their three-year wage contracts, providing part of the inflation spiral—so Reagan’s anti-union schtik didn’t have the normal effect on union members.
But more than anything else, there was the Iran hostage situation—which, it later was reported, continued past the election because Reagan somehow quietly was able to communicate with Iran’s powers-that-be that they should hold out until after the election and that Reagan, as president, would negotiate better terms with them. (Like Nixon’s secret plan to end the war!!)
The reason that the “There you go again” line was so effective was that a key thing that Carter had going for him was something similar to a key thing that Johnson had going for him against Goldwater: a real fear that he could start a nuclear confrontation or actual war. So “There you go again” was a promise that he was not Goldwater on the issue of confrontation with the Soviet Union, and would instead use other means against it. It was, in other words, a promise that Reagan would avoid nuclear war, not precipitate it. And although Reagan, like Trump, was a pathological liar, he was not so obvious a one.
Nor did Reagan gyrate wildly between opposite policy positions, nor come off as clueless about policy and the workings of government, nor seem care about policy. To the contrary, Reagan was all about ideology and therefore policy proposals.
So while it’s not inconceivable that Trump could beat Hillary Clinton, I guess the bottom line on that is: I knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was no friend of mine. And, Donald Trump, you’re no Ronald Reagan. Nor is today’s electorate the 1980 electorate.
As for the possibility of a Clinton indictment, I think it’s virtually nil. But if something major happens before the Convention, then as long as Sanders manages to keep Clinton from clinching with pledged delegates, I think that there would be a consensus draft of Warren or (possibly but less likely, in my opinion) Biden, now that the story was published that he would ask Warren to be his running mate.
One thing that I think matters in whether Trump can get a sizable vote among blue-collar workers in Rust Belt states—I don’t know how his vote total compares with Clinton’s in those states, but remember: Kasich beat Trump in Ohio—is that Build the Wall doesn’t have even nearly the same appeal to Rust Belt blue-collar workers as it does to Southern and Southwestern older and middle-aged white voters.
Another is the critical allegiance of blue-collar Rust Belt voters to the idea of unionization. Suffice it to say that few blue collar workers in the Rust Belt these days fear an inflationary spiral caused by generous union-negotiated contracts, as, I noted above, was the case in 1980.
Nor do most blue-collar Rust Belters worry that a raise in the federal minimum wage would cause them to lose their Walmart or fast-food jobs because of competition from Chinese or Indian or Vietnamese workers. Most Walmart and fast-food customers in the Rust Belt don’t commute to Asia to shop or dine. Not often, anyway.
And as for Michiganders, I can attest that fear of Muslims living in their midst is no widespread. Southeast Michigan has the largest population of Middle Eastern immigrants and descendants in this country, and make up a large percentage of small-business owners in the area. Only once did I hear a derogatory comment about—as this man put it to me—“AY-rabs”, from a Michigander. Only once.
Clinton makes a mistake if she opts to focus mainly on Trump’s misogyny, racism, xenophobia, meanness, vulgarity, physically aggressive language. Everyone already knows these things. She needs to focus, in addition to her own policy proposals, on two things about Trump: that he is openly demonstrating that he will be a tool of the Club for Growth and Ayn Ryan, and that this is especially so because he has no ability to understand actual policy; that because he is a pathological liar, and prides himself on it, they cannot ever actually rely on any promise he makes, any more than they could rely on a promise by a typical four-year-old.
I don’t think there can be any real doubt that Trump suffers from severe, untreated mental illness—severe bipolar disease or non-hallucinatory schizophrenia, is my guess, but I’m certainly no expert in the field. But I think Clinton should expect that that is something that most voters will see for themselves by November; they will not need her to tell them this.
Not that Clinton normally refrains from telling people the obvious or the already-widely known, a point I made in a recent post here, but ….
She needs to educate the public about what the Ayn Ryan policy agenda is. I mean, the actual specifics of it. Not in her usual singsong soundbite cliché manner, which is likely to be as effective in informing the public as her rotating string of vapid campaign slogans (“Breaking down barriers!” is the current one, I think, although that might be out-of-date) has been in generating excitement.
No, actual specifics, enunciated in normal conversational sentences. Nothing cutesy, no sleights of hand, no non sequiturs, no seminar-speak like “the energy sector,” a phrase she used when campaigning in West Virginia because she confused her audience (many of them former energy-sector workers) with members of the finance sector. Just the facts, Ma’am. And just in normal-speak.
She needs, in other words, to give herself–and us–some breathing room.
Neither are the relative size or involvement levels of the black and Hispanic communities the same as they were in 1980.
As to counter-culture appeal, that was certainly the case, maybe the biggest under-current of Reagan’s campaign. George Meany, AFL-CIO President, hated the counter-culture, so he was no help with union members against Reagan that I recall. Don’t forget, either, that Reagan launched his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, known solely as the place where the three civil rights workers were murdered.
Yes. Exactly.
I disagree to a certain extent, but perhaps in what she says and when she says it. I believe almost every single attack ad should mention that Trump is a racist liar who treats women like they are possessions, and has been for decades.
In the debates, she should have his comments during the entire primary on different subjects known, and then reiterate his many stances on many topics and constantly repeat how the voters have no idea what they are getting cause Trump has no idea what he is going to do. He wears hats in the wind to keep his hair(sic) from flying all over the place, unfortunately those hats do not keep his brain in place.
I would run an aggressive campaign and attack him whenever possible. Most people remember sound bytes, not policy positions. Anyone thinking of voting for Trump is all about sound bytes.
EMichael, it’s not a question of whether people will remember policy positions. It’s a matter of informing them of the nature of the other side’s agenda. Privatization of Social Security and Medicare is an example of this. Huge tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations is another.
The real reason Carter was defeated and Reagan won is very simple: “It’s the economy stupid.”
The Iranian Revolution disrupted the oil markets resulting in doubling of oil prices overnight and huge price spikes and lines at the gas pump. No President is going to get re-elected when there are people standing in line at the gas pump — end of story.
But Carter made things worse by the mistake of appointing Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Volcker raised interest rates by 7 points overnight, throwing millions of people out of their jobs and plunging the economy into recession right before the election.
Sure the hostages and the racism that occupied the pundits were factors, but it really boiled down to the economy. It was gas lines and a Volcker’s deliberate recession that did Carter in.
Oh, and regarding Clinton vs Trump, if gas prices remain stable and the economy stays out of recession until November, then Clinton will win. If not, then Trump will win.
Not this election Bill.
Gas prices and the economy will have no effect whatsoever. And while I agree to a point about Volcker, Carter was toast when the hostages were taken.
People forget just how weak a candidate Carter was in 76. Barely beating a man who pardoned Nixon. And then an incumbent having to struggle through the primaries, as even the party knew he was toast.
Basically Bill nails it without to much thought. Most of the “cultural” stuff I ignore. It all comes down to the economy. Hillary has a head start on Carter with that one, who was in the grasp of a self-made recession. The economy began to rebound in the 3rd quarter, but it was to late. Hell, in March of 1983, people thought Reagan was toast.
Sure, the CIA lied to Carter about the Soviet Union and he came off as wishy washy, but if unemployment was down to 5% by the election, he gets a 2nd term. Been that way, always been that way. Democrats also come out during the general more and have a bigger base to play with.
Geez,
Yeah, two percentage points of UE turns around a 440 electoral vote margin.
Bev:
There is a reason I use Run75441 as my moniker when posting or commenting. It is older than dirt and goes all the way back to Slate’s Moneybox and BOTF. I would prefer you stick to such as it is common and keeps me out of the limelight also for my own reasons. Thanks Bev!
Sure. Just picked up on the masthead listing and figured I’d use that. Sorry.
Bev:
NP, Thanks. I will explain later
“She needs to focus…. that he is a pathological liar”
That’s hilarious. Hillary calling Trump a liar is about as mind-blowing as Bill calling out Donald’s philandering!
Bill does not have to call Donald philandering as Donald admits to it freely in boasting of his conquests. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/from-playboy-to-president-trumps-past-behavior-collides-with-his-white-house-bid/2016/05/09/46bed6f8-12fe-11e6-93ae-50921721165d_story.html and : http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/crossing-the-line-how-donald-trump-behaved-with-women-in-private/ar-BBt2G1a?li=BBnbcA1
At the risk of repeating myself, “A stated position can only be “walked back” if opponents of that position allow the original statement to drift out of existence. That’s what political campaigns are all about. The stuff said by all candidates is now on record, whether later denied or claimed as only a suggestion. Play the tapes. Play the original statements of policy, position or intention regardless of the walk back. Ignore the walk back. Disregard the apologias. Play the tapes as they exist. Play the tapes of the Repub. primary opponents speaking their first reactions to Trump. Rand Paul’s first reactions to Trump are priceless and would be of significant value as campaign material in both the Presidential and Kentucky Senatorial races. So too the many other Republicans’ first responses to the Donald.
Just play the tapes. They are now public record. They cannot be denied. They can only be explained in Trump’s own inimitable manner of explanation of reality. Just play the tapes. It’s all on record and the sources are the Republican’s themselves.”
That’s right, play the tapes. Don’t sit around arguing policy with the Republican base or with so called independents. They barely understand the relationship between the branches of government. Just play the tapes of Republicans responding to Trump’s earliest comments about his intentions and his remarks about each of them. Play the tapes. What better way to present the reality of Trump than allowing his fellow conservatives to be seen and heard castigating him for the buffoonish he’s made all along the way. There is no walking back what’s been said unless the Democrats allow the most recent past to evaporate in a cloud of excuses and lies about what has been laid out before the public for all to see. Just play the tapes. Let Clinton or Sanders discuss their policy positions. Let the PACs pick up the ball and play the tapes.
I have replied to Bev’s original reply to my original comment on that thread, but a few points here.
One is that the economy can go bad. It is currently growing barely above zero, parts of the world economy are not doing well, the markets are weak, it has been some time since the Great Recession technically ended. Let unemployment start rising and have a market crash this fall? Hillary will be hurting, and do not forget that a mostly still pretty good economy with peace did not get Al Gore elected in 2000. Bad eonomy, Trump will be in.
Foreigners may well want to mess with us. The period of short term memory is two weeks. Anything big happening in the two weeks before the election will be very much on peoples’ minds, anything. So, how about several dirty nukes blown up in several US cities by ISIS or their pals? Oh, Trump will be in.
On the matte of Reagan’s winning wisecrack, “There you go again,” Trump is very good at exactly that sort of thing, and it was not people thinking he was going to make nuclear deals, although he was sort of signaling “I am no Barry Goldwater.” But in many ways he was, and as last weeks “The Americans” reminds us, we came very very close to having a nuclear war with USSR in fall 1983, only prevented by a Soviet nuclear office disobeying orders to fire at us.
And, frankly, I think indeed the nuclear war issue, about which Trump has made a lot of dangerous and loose remarks, is far more important than any of these other issues, indeed all of them. My views on that can be found at econospeak.blogspot.com/2016/05/neo-bonapartism-in-nuclear-age.html .
As a further note, assuming we do not have something really dramatic, it may come down to Hillary being able to make a comeback to any wisecracks Trump makes. Because he has already made some that seem to be getting repeated, and there have been polls showing her behind in all-crucial Ohio (yes, midwestern white male workers will be key). She will have to be able to have some really smart and cutting comebacks. She has shown an ability to do this at times, both in 2008 and also during this primary season, but she will be facing a real test with Trump on this, and will certainly have to be able to do better than the hapless Jimmy Carter, although he probably was doomed anyway by his bad economy and the Iran hostage crisis.
Looking a a very tiny amount of state polls does not make a lot of sense. You need many more polls of many more states before you can get a feel for the election. Especially since this is not a two person race just yet.