There are all sorts of theories as to what gave rise to Donald Trump. The NY Post’s Kyle Smith argues that this was a long time in coming, as Democrats abandoned the working class
The elite professional class, in the 1950s one of the Republican party’s most reliable constituencies, became the very heart of the Democrats by the 1990s. The party of labor morphed into the party of lawyers. This didn’t happen by accident.
In his new book “Listen, Liberal, Or Whatever Happened to the Party of the People,†progressive commentator Thomas Frank (author of “What’s the Matter With Kansas?â€) says Democrats need to take a good long look in the mirror if they want answers to why blue-collar workers are feeling abandoned and even infuriated by what used to be their party.
Many such voters are now backing Donald Trump, who is sketching out the problem with America in exactly the terms they agree with: Jobs are either going to Mexico, or going to Mexicans. Unchecked illegal immigration on the one hand and free trade on the other hand are driving down the wages of working-class Americans, or costing them their jobs outright.
Let’s think about this. Democrats have been calling themselves elites for decades. They imply that they are better than everyone else. They patronize the working class, and call for things like a $15 minimum wage, but, so much of what they actually implement is aimed for the betterment of the Professional Class at the expense of the working class, be it from the loss of jobs to raising the cost of living for the working class through various initiatives, such as ‘climate change’ policy. Donald Trump has tapped into this anger, sorrow, and concern in the working class.
This isn’t racism: angry Americans told they were losing their jobs at a doomed air-conditioner factory in Indiana wouldn’t have applauded if told production was moving to Canada instead of Mexico. Either way, they’re losing their jobs.
Of course it isn’t raaaaacism, but, this is the default position of the Democrats, to throw out smears designed to put people on the defensive when Dems have no legitimate argument.
In Frank’s analysis, around 1972 the Democrats started to suspect their lunch-bucket workers were warmongering dinosaurs doomed by their reliance on dying Rust Belt industries. The party placed its future in the hands of groovy technocrats in non-union fields and wrote off the workers, who soon defected to the Republican party even though Republicans didn’t and don’t apologize for being the party of capital.
The Republican Party stands for giving people a hand up. Democrats stand for a handout. A handout keeps people where they are, and beholden to the government, while the intelligentsia of the Democratic Party sip champagne in their hoity toity parties. And Donald Trump is here to exploit the woes of people who feel unprotected.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Yes! What has been true of Republicans for decades has become largely true for Democrats since the conservative revolution. The trade deals, policies on taxes, immigration, unions, fiscal, monetary and regulations benefit the wealthy at the expense of the working classes! This is part of Trump’s appeal and all of Sanders’.
We limit competition of doctors, lawyers and executives but “invite” roofers, farm workers, food processors and house cleaners in at low wagers. We ship manufacturing jobs overseas, but protect doctors, lawyers, architects and executives. We insist on cutting benefits for Social Security recipients but refuse to ask doctors, lawyers, architects, roadbuilders, executives and drug developers to pay a bit more.
The biggest difference between Trump and Sanders is that Senator Sanders’ policy prescriptions will help the working classes.
This part of Trump’s appeal is not racist. The magic of The Donald is he uses the inherent racism of the far-right – anti-Black, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim – as part of his overall message of “fear”. The fear of violent Negroes, job stealing rapists from Mexico and exploding Muslims intersects with the genuine fear that the working classes are being left behind. Donald will solve all your problems because he is STRONG.
How does the value of the USD impact US exports and manufacturing?
By the way, the conservative economic prescriptions of Cruz, Kasich and Rubio will make things worse for the working classes.
The GOP candidates have pushed Ovama’s approval numbers into the plus side
About 400% higher than the numbers for the GOP controlled congress
The Electonic markets where you must wager real money have dropped showing a GOP White House win of only 30%
The GOP is seen as just too extreme
Hillary 2016!
Barking for Us!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5wWl57AtKGY
“Sanders’ policy prescriptions will help the working classes.”
Well, if you don’t understand science, you’re probably not too good with math…
…or history.
zamfir,
I agree. What is it you don’t understand about science? Perhaps I can help. And math? Same thing.
…or reading comprehension
Oooh, you’ll tutor me? Lovely. How much hard science or advanced mathematics do you have at the college or graduate level? Do you have a hard science degree at the bachelors or graduate level? Do you work in an occupation or in the trades where you use applied math on a daily basis?
Jeffrey wrote:
That “we” would be the American consumer, who has chosen, over time, to buy more and more imports.
Oh, and you believe that such professionals should be unlicensed?
The truth is simple, in economic terms: doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc, are in professions which must be done locally. Such positions can’t be outsourced.
Since we also set a maximum Social Security benefit, why shouldn’t there be a maximum Social Security tax level? If you believe that Bill Gates ought to pay $10 million in Social Security taxes, then shouldn’t he also get a Social Security benefit of $100,000 a month?
I remember how Senatrix Elizabeth Warren, who so strongly advocates higher taxes on the top producers, had the option of paying her own Massachusetts state taxes at an older, higher rate, but did not choose to do so, proving herself to be a Democrite. Well, as an advocate of higher taxes on the top earners, something you have previously told us that you are, you should go ahead and pay those higher taxes, voluntarily, and put your money where your mouth is. You can follow this link to the Treasury Department, and donate those higher taxes you believe you ought to be paying. And, after you do so, please, tell us how much additional tax you chose to pay, so that we may all appreciate your leadership-by-example.
Why have the Democrats lost the white working class voter? It’s simple: you cannot be both the party of the working man and the party of the
non-working man. By choosing to become the party of welfare, they have concomitantly chosen to become the enemy of the people who have to give up more and more of their paychecks to support the malingerers.I fouled up a code in the previous comment: instead of “
non-working man”, it should read “non-working man”.Oh, you mean the liberal need to license everything? Or, how liberal health policies, especially Obamacare, are driving doctors out of the business?
Perhaps you should finally rethink your support of illegal aliens.
Huh, that’s weird. Lawyers and doctors guilds tend to vote D. Why do you protect them? Oh, right, money. But, are you saying we should ship doctors and architects overseas?
Aren’t you a drug developer? Are you paying a bit more?
The medical profession and state boards limit the number of physicians, not “liberals”. Do we all agree that the US would be better off with a larger number of competent physicians?
Yes, I advocate higher taxes for my tax bracket and higher.
The flat wages of the working classes is not just an unfortunate accident. As Teach pointed out, policies enacted by Congress and signed by Presidents have protected the wealthy at the expense of the working classes.
What are the policies that have brutalized the middle class? International trade deals. Union busting. Policies that reduce taxes on the wealthy and increase taxes and/or decrease services for the less wealthy. Monetary policies that fight inflation but increase unemployment. Fiscal policies that fight deficits but increase unemployment and stunt economic growth. Patent and trademark policies that create unneeded monopolies for pharmaceutical, device and tech companies (we spend about 200 billion extra EVERY YEAR on overpriced pharmaceuticals).
It’s not surprising that conservatives defend the failed 35 year experiment in income tax cuts and business deregulation that has left us where we are today. This by no means excuses the so-called liberals who went along with these policies and even creating some – i.e., trade deals. The conflict is not between Republicans and Democrats but between those that reward the wealthy at the expense of the working classes and those that want the working classes to be rewarded for their work.
You mean that state boards have no liberals on them? Who knew that?
The fact of the matter is that licensing in any profession is a barrier to entrance into a profession. People who support those exclusionary rules are generally left leaning not those who support free and open markets (like conservatives.)
Yet you won’t voluntarily pay them. So while you scream and yell about social injustices and how the government isn’t doing enough to help people, you won’t do anything unless forced.
We’ve been down this road before as well. In your mind “union busting” is allowing people to make a choice as to whether or not to join a union. It is simply mind boggling that in one breath you decry barriers into a profession and then in the next say that eliminating those barriers is evil.
There are federal workers whose jobs are to promote union interests and who work only on union business. Do you support taxpayers paying for such work? There are also regulations that require federal, state and municipal governments to deduct union dues from workers’ pay. Do you think that the government should be forced to take money from workers like that? If unions are so great, why aren’t the unions collecting the dues themselves instead of having governments do it for them?
Right. Because the 45 percent of people who won’t pay federal taxes this year need to have their taxes decreased even more.
Except for the fact that Obama and the left loves increases in regulations that never do anything except cost money. Conservatives are against regulations that make no sense, don’t solve an issue, and simply punish businesses with more work.
Liberals love regulations because it makes it look like they are doing something.
As usual, your arguments fail on every level.
Jeffrey proudly wrote:
OK, fine. So, have you followed the link I gave you previously, and made a voluntary contribution to the Treasury above and beyond the taxes you owe; have you led by example, have you put your money where your mouth is? It’s time for you to man up!
I absolutely support your right to pay more in taxes, if you believe that is the right thing to do; I just don’t want you to try to make me pay more in taxes!
gc,
As usual, your arguments fail on every level.
As usual, confronted with your own lack of logic and critical thinking, you fail to respond.
“The medical profession and state boards limit the number of physicians, not “liberalsâ€.”
Well there’s a twisted statement if I ever heard one. By the same reasoning, it is the army that sent troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, not “conservatives”. It is the border patrol that admits foreigners into the country, not “immigration law”. It is lynch mobs that killed black people, not “racists”. Etc.
What is the political position of people who believe that someone should have a license from the government to be able to practice a profession, and who gives government agencies and quasi-public organizations the power to control these licenses? Is it libertarians? No. Anarachists? No. It’s liberals. By definition.
“The magic of The Donald is he uses the inherent racism of the far-right – anti-Black, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim …”
I guess you’re talking about anti-Black Republicans, like Ben Carson and his supporters. Or anti-immigrant Republicans, like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and their supporters.
Liberals attack Republicans for being anti-immigrant, and then in the next sentence they attack Republicans for allowing too many immigrants into the country. You really need to make up your mind. Nonsense, you say? Jeffery did exactly that, right here. Read it yourself.
Obligatory disclaimer: Donald Trump is not my favorite candidate by a long stretch. But there’s something about the opposition to Trump that I find fascinating. Almost every commentator I’ve read, liberal or conservative, dislikes Trump, often intensely. All my friends and co-workers who have expressed an opinion dislike Trump. And yet … he’s winning the primary. Current polls show him losing the general election to Clinton, but he’s within a few points. He’s within fighting distance. So who are all these people who support Trump? They’re not my friends. They’re certainly not the political elties. They’re not the TV or newspaper commentators. But they’re 40+% of America.
As a Fundamentalist Christian, I’ve often found it somewhere between interesting, amusing, and frustrating that polls routinely show that we make up something like 30% of America, and yet the media have no idea who we are or what we stand for. Homosexuals are 2% of America and the media know them well, respect them, and routinely seek out their opinions. But Christians? One day they’ll report that we’re 30% of the population, and then the next day they’ll go back to referring to us as a tiny fringe minority.
Well now I find myself on the other side of the fence. I don’t understand Trump supporters. I don’t know any Trump supporters. And yet they’re apparently 40% of the population. Where are they?
“I absolutely support your right to pay more in taxes, if you believe that is the right thing to do; I just don’t want you to try to make me pay more in taxes!”
Liberals are always saying that America would be better off if we had higher taxes, and that the majority of Americans agree with them. And so they wage massive campaigns to elect politicians who will raise taxes.
But if a majority of Americans agree with them, why are these campaigns necessary? Instead of spending a billion dollars on a political campaign to elect a candidate who will raise taxes by a billion dollars, why not just donate that billion dollars to the Treasury? It would be guaranteed to succeed, while a political campaign might, and often does, fail. Instead of squandering your money on a gamble that you MIGHT succeed in getting more money for all these valuable government programs, you could be guaranteed that the money would go directly to all these valuable government programs.
Okay, maybe your answer is that the amount you spend on the campaign is less than the amount by which you hope to raise taxes. Okay, fine. Why don’t you start paying the higher tax rate that you want to impose anyway? You’ll be paying it if you win. You want to pay it. So why not go ahead and pay it even if you lose? If half of America agrees with you, you’ll collect half the money. Not as good as collecting all of it, of course. Would it be unfair that half of Americans are paying this higher tax and half are paying a lower tax? Sure. But are you going to punish all those poor and oppressed people you say the money will help just because the majority don’t care about them? Surely accomplishing half the good is better than accomplishing no good at all.
If you’re not willing to pay this money, why should I be?
Jay wrote:
The left believe that the majority will support raising other people’s taxes; their own, not so much.
I’m waiting for Jeffrey, who has told us that he is a high earner, and says that he supports raising taxes in his own bracket, to tell us how much he has added voluntarily,