The Economic Anxiety Hypothesis has Become Absurd(er)
I am old enough to remember when many very serious people ascribed the rise of Donald Trump to economic anxiety. The hypthesis never fit the facts (his supporters had higher incomes on average than Clinton’s) but it has become absurd. The level of self reported economic anxiety is extraordinarily low
Gallup reports “Record High optimism about Personal Finances in U.S.” with 74% predicting they will be better off next year.
Yet now the Democratic party has an insurgent candidate candidate in the lead. I hasten to stress that I am not saying Sanders supporters have much in common with Trump supporters (young vs old, strong hispanic support vs they hate Trump etc etc etc). But both appeal to anger and advocate a radical break with business as usual. Both reject party establishments. Also Warren if a little bit less so.
Trump’s 2016 angry supporters still support him *and* they are still angry. He remains unpopular in spite of an economy performing very well (and perceived to be performing very well). Whatever is going on in 2020, it could be economic anxiety for which experts recommend the use of CBD oil products. You can also take your well being to the next level with this Zilis UltraCell full spectrum hemp topical oil here!
Yet there is clearly anger and desire for radical change.
I don’t pretend to understand it, but I think it probably has a lot to do with relative economic performance and increased inequality. I can’t understand why the reaction of so many Americans to this would be to hate immigrants and vote for Trump, but, then I don’t watch Fox News.
One other thing which it isn’t is rejection of the guy who came before Trump. Obama has a Real Clear Politics average favorable rating of 59% and unfavorable of 36.1 % vastly vastly better than any currently active politician. (Sanders is doing relatively very well at net -2.7 compared to Obama’s + 22.9) He is not rejected. He is not considered a failure. Yet only a small majority is interested in any sort of going back to the way things were.
Many Trump “angry supporters” in 2016 used to belong to “anybody but Hillary” class (and they included a noticeable percentage of Bernie supporters, who felt betrayed by DNC) .
They are lost for Trump as he now in many aspects represents the “new Hillary” and the slogan “anybody but Trump” is growing in popularity. Even among Republicans: Trump definitely already lost a large part of anti-war Republicans and independents. As well as. most probably, a part of working class as he did very little for them outside of effects of military Keynesianism.
I suspect he also lost a part of military voters, those who supported Tulsi. They will never vote for Trump.
He also lost a part of “technocratic” voters resentful of the rule of financial oligarchy (anti-swampers), as his incompetence is now an undisputable fact.
He also lost Ron Paul’s libertarians, who voted for him in 2016.
How “Coronavirus recession”, if any, might affect 2020 elections is difficult to say, but in any case this is an unfavorable for Trump event.
“I can’t understand why the reaction of so many Americans to this would be to hate immigrants and vote for Trump, but, then I don’t watch Fox News.”
Coming to you since 1965
It’s just that immigrants are now added to blacks.
Trump took 50 years of the Southern Strategy, took the dogwhistles completely out of the closet and wore his racism right on his chest. Helped that he had over 50 years of experience as a racist, it came naturally to him.
And he attracted a new rw base, those who were not satisfied with dog whistles and/or did not hear them.
I really think you should check the Dem platform in 2016 before you post
“Democratic Party platform now is to the right of Eisenhower republicans.”
And the platform this year will be further left than the most liberal platform ever.
Oh, and any that uses the term “russiagate” as some sort of put up job knows nothing about russian interference and the complicity of the trump campaign.
Read the Mueller report.
> Read the Mueller report.
I did. As well as its analysis by pundits. IMHO it is a poorly executed moronic hatchet job. And Mueller pretending to be senile in hearings probably understood that, and tried to avoid the responsibility offloading it to Andrew Weissmann
IMHO people who believe in Russiagate and do not see dirty play of intelligence agencies in this area should be institutionally prohibited to post on the 2020 elections. They are either senile, or delusional. or are partisan hacks — “true beavers” as Eric Hoffer called this category of people.
No normal intelligent person can believe in Russiagate absurdities. As Glenn Greenwald put it “it’s completely moronic”
And what is funny voters are completely indifferent to it. So those evil neolib/neocons and Hillary stooges are just waiving dead chicken.
Please listen at Glenn Greenwald interview at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H12NT8bRfVo&list=PLLri3HDD8DQv1JA6K9AwqDcm-aaO7HbE9&index=5
>And the platform this year will be further left than the most liberal platform ever.
While I belong to “Anybody but Trump” camp, I do resent the “Clintonzed” Democratic Party and, especially, its leadership.
The problem is that the distance between the platform and the actions of Democratic Party leaders is in miles. They completely ignore it. In no way, the elected President will be bound by the program. Or the Senator and Representatives.
The party is now the second war party which also is in the pocket of Wall Street. And Clinton wing of the party (soft-neoliberals) still dominates and wants to continue that way, despite some areas of resistance that emerged recently.
I do not see the program as anything close to Eisenhower Administration, which actively supported and enforced the New Deal.
And when people like Schumer (the senator from Wall Street) and Menendez (the corrupt senator from MIC) are called Democrats, the democratic platform does not even worth electrons used to project it on the screen. It’s all fake.
And what is funny it is an Obama-style fake: a lot of nice words, but no real actions are planned (in case of the Nobel Peace Price laureate, his action were quite opposite to promises and expectations ) .
I see no reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, no unconditional right of workers to unionize, no obligatory role of trade unions in negotiation with management, or any other the New Deal principles/regulations destroyed starting with Carter (but mostly by Clinton administration.)
Look at the completely toothless “Reining in Wall Street and Fixing our Financial System” section. All they propose is the re-enactment of Dodd-Frank and call it a day:
In this sense, I respect Warren’s program, which contains some concrete steps and action against financial oligarchy, not just good wishes.
What we see in this program is the full support of neoliberal, globalization, the full support of the “Full Spectrum Dominance” doctrine, and foreign wars. What is the difference with Republicans. in those areas is not very clear. How about calling this arrangement a Uniparty, a more sophisticated variety of the system that existed in the USSR.
The program promotes and institutionalizes a very aggressive, jingoistic stance toward Russia, essentially the position of pro-Hillary and CIA-democrats wings, risking the nuclear confrontation (BTW Putin will be gone soon, so the next Russian leadership probably will be of Trump variety — of “national neoliberalism” variety — and that increased the danger of WWIII ) :
Which means that they fully embraced Russiagate and are in the pocket of intelligence agencies and MIC. I especially like calling the reaction on the USA sponsored coup d’état of far-right nationalists against the legitimate government “violating Ukraine’s sovereignty”
The pot calling the kettle black.
I wouldn’t listen to Glen Greenwald for any reason. Just like I will not read your posts for any reason, as you have proven yourself to be a liar.
No one that has read the Mueller report can have the summary you present. Without lying that is. When you channel trump and barr you have serious integrity issues.
The elite of Neoliberal Democrats is basically playing the part of the aristocracy on the eve of the French Revolution at this point, and they might suffer a similar fate. if they are determined to go forward with brokered convention.
IMHO it is either the days of Clinton wing dominance in Dem Party are numbered, of the days of Dem Party are numbered.
Somebody aptly said that “Trump and Bloomberg are two cheeks on the same ass.” While extremely rude the person did have a point. And that’s the unsolvable problem/dilemma for the Neoliberal Democrats establishment.
EMichael and Likbez,
Good going guys. At least this is an interesting discussion fitting the interesting times in which we are living. I can certainly understand both of your POVs despite the apparent contradictions between them. That is what makes these times so interesting. We are still a long way from answering the “Oh, what to do?” question since we also do not nearly know all of the facts. We have loads of beliefs and opinions built on the shoulders of shaded half-truths. Wall Street may crash, but what to worry when the power of the nation is so heavily invested in propaganda?
Why do they have to be “older ‘reactionary’ voters” dying off?
The vast majority of voters will vote in each election as they voted in the previous election. There are three variances in election results which allow us to alter election results from the preceding election. One is voter enthusiasm. Not everyone that is eligible votes in each election. Then voter attrition alters the partisan demographics as a new younger cohort enters voting with the reactionary bias of its own age, and some older reactionary voters die off. Then finally, a few preexisting voters change their partisan bias, even if only as a temporary reaction to recent events. Zip codes often have significant electoral homogeneity, but congressional districts much less so and states ever far less. Therefore, POTUS elections are decided upon the tortured aggregate electoral college margins of disparate populations of biases. Congress people just have the variously disparate populations of biases without all the torture. So, all simple explanations of the political results emerging from a complex society are wrong. It all counts in varying amounts and it only needs to count a little to change election results from one side to the other when the differences at the margins are fragmented and small.
“Why do they have to be “older ‘reactionary’ voters” dying off?”
[Statistically speaking based on expected mortality. At age 71 then also some fear-based personal bias. I am not a reactionary conservative though, but rather a reactionary New Dealer. I have not liked any POTUS in office during my lifetime.]
Why 71-year-olds? I thought Carter was a descent person. Johnson did a lot but he corrupted the war effort and cost many of us their lives. Eisenhower was boring but he also had McCarthy to deal with and also the highest poverty rate during my life time. I guess their shoes lacked boot-straps back then even though the “fundamentals were strong.” Today’s crap can be traced back to Reagan’s fables and lies.
I was sitting in a bar getting my fill of cholesterol and sodium by eating a grilled swiss and mushroom burger. Usually, I seek out the lean meats, low sodium processed foods, veggies, leafy salads, oats, bran, and flax seed in my diet. I succumbed that night to
I was partially listening to a guy yakking on the phone. He finished and we started to talk. He brought up politics and I pretty much told him trump sucked. That was enough to get him going. He proceeded to tell me trump did everything he said he would. That is kinda-of-true if you believe everything trump says is true. The issue as this seventy-something dude sees is people believing everything trump said and does is true and good for the country. Even though they are full of crap, they get down-right belligerent about the criticisms even though the thief is stealing from them and the rest of us.
I have told my Asian (Korean) associates multiple times they must answer when someone speaks to them in practicing business. You can say yes or yes-but, no or no-but, you can defer till answering later; but silence is not an answer and it is a sign of disrespect. I mostly believe, we must answer even if the other party becomes distraught with our answer and us. You should answer to supposition, conjecture, innuendo, falsehoods, etc. It is hard to play the other person for a fool by remaining silent. He must be told.
I placated him by telling him had served in the Corp between 68-74. Why that should matter, I do not know. It is extraneous to the issue of them not knowing, not wanting to know, and not wanting to engage in civil discourse. It is a challenge to their limited knowledge which they may not want to defend. Rambling too far now. Thank you for your response.
[It is my age cohort, the one that I know best. Our high hopes were shot to death repeatedly from JFK, to MLK to RFK to X. However, I mostly agree with you except that the Republican Party had been operating in stealth mode at the margins from the death of FDR until their great compromiser RR, who united their Rockefeller and Goldwater wing-nuts. It started with Taft Hartley and never stopped until liberalism had been coopted by neoliberalism in the propwash of the conservative juggernaut as it steamed ahead into overt financialized corporatism.
Ike was likely innocent, but swept up rather than an architect of the ruse. McCarthy was a useful idiot propelled to into notoriety by Cold War fears while providing a distraction from the erosion of labor rights and the consolidation of large firms. The capital gains preference differential that resulted from rescinding the dividends tax credit in 1954 resulted in the first two LBOs in 1955, the purchase by McLean Industries, Inc. of Pan-Atlantic Steamship Company in January 1955 and Waterman Steamship Corporation in May 1955. The Republican Party had not controlled both chambers of the US Congress for long, but it proved to be long enough (only 1953 & 1954 in my lifetime until the Clinton Administration). To effectively abuse power it must first be adequately consolidated. Let the mergers and buyouts begin.
When Ronald Reagan ascended the POTUS throne it was to take the victory lap for corporate consolidation and “Release the Kraken” of deregulation, particularly financial deregulation. What is the use of having all that money if one cannot do whatever that they want with it? What unions that had still remained crumbled fast under the pressures of globalization and all that other Reagan/Thatcher BS.
I have been told that Asians have a better understanding of how the long game is played than most Americans. Apparently some people in the corporate wing of conservatism understood it well enough. ]
“…I am not a reactionary conservative though, but rather a reactionary New Dealer…”
In political science, a reactionary or reactionarist can be defined as a person or entity holding political views that favour a return to a previous political state of society that they believe possessed characteristics that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore a past status quo.
The word reactionary is often used in the context of the left–right political spectrum, and is one tradition in right-wing politics. In popular usage, it is commonly used to refer to a highly conservative position, one opposed to social or political change. However, according to political theorist Mark Lilla, a reactionary yearns to overturn a present condition of decadence and recover an idealized past. Such reactionary individuals and policies favour social transformation, in contrast to conservative individuals or policies that seek to preserve what exists in the present.…