The political re-alignment of our time

[Pointedstick]

Donald Trump is destroying the Republican party and re-making it from within. This much we know. But it goes deeper. It's happening to the Democrats too. And it's going to take both parties in unexpected directions.

First of all, Donald Trump is revealing the fundamental popularity of the progressive economic platform. He bashes big pharma and Wall Street--promising to have Medicare negotiate drug prices and hedge funds taxed at ordinary income tax rates. He trashes "free trade" agreements. He promises to strengthen Medicare and Social Security. He promises tariffs on companies that outsource capital or labor. He speaks fondly of single-payer healthcare. He inveighs about how poor people can't be allowed to die in ditches. It goes on and on.

Bafflingly, most liberals seem to have missed this! They are too busy clutching their pearls and getting cases of the vapors over his blatant nativism. Because that's the other Big Deal that's been revealed: nativism is popular--really popular. Polls showed that a full 47% of the country supported Trump's seemingly hyperbolic, extreme plan to temporarily stop Muslim immigration after he announced it. It was in the 70s for Republicans, if I recall. Nativistic economic positions such as opposition to trade deals are extremely popular. A "Put America First" platform is extremely attractive to a lot of America--imagine that.

For a number of years, we've had a situation where both major parties were ignoring some really big political waves hidden just below the surface: the Democratic party was ignoring nativism, and the Republican party was ignoring both progressive economic policies and nativism. Both have seemed content to agree on a lot and divide people with polarizing wedge issues like abortion, gun control, and gay marriage.

Trump has blown that wide open and is now poised to re-make the Republican party as the party of nativism and progressive economic policies. He's doing it right now. He's not a conservative. He's not a neo-conservative. He's not a social conservative. He is a Buchananite "America first, whatever that means" candidate. And people are loving it. Witness how in this election cycle, no Republican voters care about any of the traditional wedge issues. He's gotten evangelicals to vote for a thrice-married probably-atheist who praises Planned Parenthood. He's gotten gun owners to ignore his support for mild gun control until very recently. It's incredible.

The impact of this should not be understated. When Donald Trump becomes the president, the Republican party is going to be the populist party, full stop. Social conservatives are evidently already on board, but there will be no home for the business elites and neocons in this new party. So where are they going to go?

Straight into the waiting arms of the Democratic party! It's a perfect match. Republican elites are wealthy, cosmopolitan, internationalist, sophisticated, full believers that the USA should be a major player on the world stage. This is already the core of the Democratic party! It's been becoming steadily more urban and cosmopolitan over the past 40 years anyway as the racists dropped out in the 70s. And there is a huge core of middle-income-and-wealthier white urban liberals in the northeast and upper midwest, and dominating every major city. So the Democratic party will double down on cosmopolitanism and shed its few remaining populist positions. This probably includes progressive economic policies as it absorbs fleeing big business Republicans. Again, it's a natural match. Democrats are already wealthier than Republicans on average, and this will exacerbate that trend. Wealthy people like free trade, tax cuts, and the like. They don't like paying for transfer payments that are mostly enjoyed by other people. They already bitch and moan about how blue states subsidize red states in terms of federal spending and welfare programs. And expect the Democratic party to become more aggressive in foreign policy, too. Again, the groundwork is already there, they just need a push from the fleeing Republican neocon elites.

A corollary is that over time, poor minorities will leave the Democratic party. These groups are super populist and not at all cosmopolitan, and usually only into war as a defensive endeavor. It's a natural match for this new GOP. It will start with Hispanics, and African-Americans will follow over the course of a generation. Slowly, the GOP will become a racially diverse party of the poor to middle class, all united in nativist and populist economic solidarity--a new Proletarian party. And the Democratic party will double down as the party of wealthy jet-setting urban-living white liberals who deep down prefer other countries to the USA, and fly to Europe every chance they can get. This party will be competitive despite the loss of blacks and hispanics because of wealthy Asians and Middle-Easterners, and young poor liberals, college educated but with poor prospects. The members of this latter group people may be economically at home in the Republican party, but they feel culturally at home in the Democratic party. These groups will provide enough votes that the Democrats can still win with the right message.

It's happening, guys. We live in an exciting time.

[moda0306]

This is a nice sequel to your analysis on "conservatives" being collectivists and "liberals" being individualists.

I have to say I can't disagree with much here at all.

[jafs]

Well, I don't know about all this.

First, the liberals I know aren't that excited about the US being a "major player on the world stage" if/when that means a lot of military interventions around the world.

Then, liberals don't "bitch and moan" about blue states subsidizing red states, they generally bring that up in response to the anti-welfare, anti-government rhetoric from the right, as a way to point out the conflict in that position from those who benefit from that.

We'll see what happens, of course, but I don't believe it will play out the way you're proposing.

[Maddy]

PS, I really enjoy your mind.

[clacy]

I agree that both parties are re-aligning. However I think Trump is a symptom not the cause. This remaking was in the process since the Bush debacle.

[MediumTex]

There has been a political transition for decades now involving money replacing voters as the preferred political currency.  Think "Singularity", except with campaign contributions rather than technology.

I see Trump as the John Connor figure in the movement of regular people trying to wrestle their government away from Big Money and its elitist minions.

[clacy]

I can definitely see a scenario where you have 3 distinct parties forming:

Socialist Democrats
Conservative Party
Neo-Con/Neo-Lib/Independent party

[moda0306]

PS,

So in this new world, will there be a non-interventionist anti-war party and an expansionist pro-war party like there was in the early 20th century (let's forget about the massive asterisk that is Teddy Roosevelt for a second)?


What makes this all sort of weird is that we have two sides of the welfare state. We have one side that's totally ok with local public education, social security and Medicare, but many of them constantly lament against welfare, free college, universal healthcare, disability, food stamps, etc.

Could there be an age fracture within the welfare statuses? How would that fit into your new world?


Man when you throw the complex history of the US into a two party system it sure is hard to create clean division lines!!!

[moda0306]

Wait, Tenn... Are you telling me that poor white Southernors who have collected a myriad of refundable credits and "welfarish" benefits over their lifetime, now pulling in a healthy SS benefit and getting super cheap healthcare would lose their collective shit if we issued reparations for slavery?

[moda0306]

I don't know if you can truly have a "populist" party in the US.

1) we are more divided than most first world countries. We are an odd mix of cultures and inconsistent economic preferences.

2) We have a two-party system, so both have to at least try to appeal to pretty populist principles, even if it's done very disingenuously or only towards certain parts of our preference spectrum (social vs economic).

[Pointedstick]

PS,

So in this new world, will there be a non-interventionist anti-war party and an expansionist pro-war party like there was in the early 20th century (let's forget about the massive asterisk that is Teddy Roosevelt for a second)?

I don't imagine that there will be an anti-war party. Instead, the new Republican party will embrace only Jacksonian war, while the Democratic party will embrace Wilsonian war.

The Jacksonian view of warfare tends to hold that it should be rare, only invoked defensively, and only when it is clearly in the nation's best interest, but once started, nothing short of total victory and the destruction or unconditional surrender of the foe will suffice. The benefit is that Jacksonians tend to be slower to enter engage in war and prefer clarity about war's start and end, but the danger is that if you can trick Jasckonians into a war, if it morphs into a simmering, long-term conflict, they'll resist pulling out and will demand the kind of total, unconditional victory that is next to impossible.

The Wilsonian view of warfare is that sometimes war is necessary to enforce geopolitical objectives unrelated to national security. The benefit here is that sometimes it works great and everyone loves you for it, like the intervention in Bosnia. The danger is that Wilsonians are very quick to turn to war as a solution, and don't like to cleanly enter and exit, leading them to frequently wind up starting simmering, long-term conflicts that drain resources and morale, while accomplishing little.

What makes this all sort of weird is that we have two sides of the welfare state. We have one side that's totally ok with local public education, social security and Medicare, but many of them constantly lament against welfare, free college, universal healthcare, disability, food stamps, etc.

Could there be an age fracture within the welfare statuses? How would that fit into your new world?

I predict that the new populist Republican party enthusiastically embraces the welfare state and public benefits, but adds conditions to them, such as means testing, drug testing, no benefits if you're not married or not a citizen, etc. Populists like government benefits, but as Tenn mentioned, only if for people (often themselves included) whom they can be convinced have "earned" them. Expect the new Republican party to advocate generous government benefits for people who are citizens, employed, net taxpayers, married, drug-free, etc, and few to none for people not meeting those conditions.

[Pointedstick]

Let me also mention that the current Democratic party has a couple of great opportunities to prevent all of this by simply bending to accommodate the current climate and embracing a certain amount of populist nativism. Here are two ideas:

1. Cut out all the snobbiness about middle America/flyover country/"dumbfuckistan". Coastal Democrats are incredibly elitist and insulting to about 7/8 of the country, geographically. They don't do Democrats struggling to gain traction in these areas any favors by providing a perfect image of most Democrats as haughty, snobby, stuck-up assholes who live in ivory towers and don't like to get their hands dirty. Democrats should be very competitive in Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. They aren't, and this attitude is a big part of the problem.

2. Wholeheartedly embrace unions. I mean seriously. With gusto. Unions are a great, tried-and-true antidote to foreign labor, outsourcing, and stagnant wages, and the most historically union-heavy areas of the country are in the Blue State rust belt. Unions are populist and nativist, too, which could begin to shore up their appeal to independents and conservative Democrats who like those things.

However, I don't expect Democrats to do either of these things because they would contradict the party's relentless shift towards greater cosmopolitanism. It's not in their current DNA.

[Pointedstick]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/t ... ves-220151

Neocons declare war on Trump

Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America’s global role he asks, “Why are we always at the forefront of everything?"

Even more than his economic positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives.

In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons — people who promoted the Iraq war, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable — said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November.

Boy, where's all that loyalty and "staying the course" those guys are always talking about?   They're cutting and running already?

It's just like I said: these people are going to rapidly become Democrats if Trumpism becomes the core of the Republican party.

[MediumTex]

Let me also mention that the current Democratic party has a couple of great opportunities to prevent all of this by simply bending to accommodate the current climate and embracing a certain amount of populist nativism. Here are two ideas:

1. Cut out all the snobbiness about middle America/flyover country/"dumbfuckistan". Coastal Democrats are incredibly elitist and insulting to about 7/8 of the country, geographically. They don't do Democrats struggling to gain traction in these areas any favors by providing a perfect image of most Democrats as haughty, snobby, stuck-up assholes who live in ivory towers and don't like to get their hands dirty. Democrats should be very competitive in Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. They aren't, and this attitude is a big part of the problem.

2. Wholeheartedly embrace unions. I mean seriously. With gusto. Unions are a great, tried-and-true antidote to foreign labor, outsourcing, and stagnant wages, and the most historically union-heavy areas of the country are in the Blue State rust belt. Unions are populist and nativist, too, which could begin to shore up their appeal to independents and conservative Democrats who like those things.

However, I don't expect Democrats to do either of these things because they would contradict the party's relentless shift towards greater cosmopolitanism. It's not in their current DNA.

Yep.

If Elizabeth Warren were the nominee, I think she could easily win.

[MediumTex]

I don't know if you can truly have a "populist" party in the US.

1) we are more divided than most first world countries. We are an odd mix of cultures and inconsistent economic preferences.

2) We have a two-party system, so both have to at least try to appeal to pretty populist principles, even if it's done very disingenuously or only towards certain parts of our preference spectrum (social vs economic).

What are the non-Sanders and non-Trump populist elements in today's Democratic and Republican parties?  I don't really see much.

Elizabeth Warren on the Democratic side and Rand Paul on the Republican side.

[I Shrugged]

People on LewRockwell.com many months ago predicted that the neocons would support Clinton.  They are all about Israel and wars undermining its enemies.

[MediumTex]

People on LewRockwell.com many months ago predicted that the neocons would support Clinton.  They are all about Israel and wars undermining its enemies.

That sounds like a good fit.

Hillary has pretty good neocon credentials too--career establishment hack, shameless about putting money before people, Ivy League background, and experience telling the rest of the world what to do while Secretary of State.

[MediumTex]

What are the non-Sanders and non-Trump populist elements in today's Democratic and Republican parties?  I don't really see much.

Elizabeth Warren on the Democratic side and Rand Paul on the Republican side.

Wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air, compared with what we have now.  Two decent people with very different ideas.  Instead, it appears we will end up with the choice between a raving lunatic and an old lying hag. 

The Romney speech today was near perfect, in my opinion (of course).  He did a great job of clearly and succinctly summarizing all the obvious reasons why Trump shouldn't be president.  I thought he could have included the Hillary/Trump friendship and funding, but in general he covered the key points very well.  It won't have any effect though, because we can all already see Trump's flaws, and some simply choose to ignore or rationalize them.  It's pretty interesting to observe.

Regarding the original topic of this thread, I believe that Trump is a symptom of the self-destruction of the Republican party.  Similar to the "froth" we see in the final stages of a ridiculous bull market, Trump is the signal that irrationality is peaking and the party will soon crumble.  As one pundit said, "The party of Lincoln is on its way to Ford's Theatre."  That in itself doesn't bother me a great deal, because I agree that the flaws of both parties are very concerning.  The thing that does bother me is that the "solution" that the angry horde has chosen will likely cause a lot of harm to this country.  It's not hard to break things, to tear things down.  Like the wise man Colin Powell said to W before he went into Iraq, "If you break it, you own it."  Unfortunately, that's not exactly true, because now W doesn't own it, the American and Iraqi people own it.  Similarly, after Trump augers in (sooner or later), it won't be him that has to foot the cost, it will be Americans, including those of us who have done our best to point out the painfully obvious problems with this candidate. 

But, this will all fall on deaf ears, and I'll be assured that I don't understand the Trump phenomenon, and that I need to back a winner, and that the immigrating horde of raping Mexicans must be stopped, and only Trump can do so.  I already understand all that.  I also understand blind anger and willful blindness to a candidate's fatal flaws.  I understand the free-floating hostility and assaults at the Trump rallies.  It all really does make sense to me. 

We'll look back at this period one day and wonder at the madness of crowds, and our kids will mock us for being so blind.  But we aren't really blind; we just want to win.  We want to get on the winning bus and fight back against the "great other" that is oppressing us.  The Mexicans, the Muslims, the Chinese ... they are responsible for our ills, and only Trump can save us now.  So I'm putting on my red hat (red?  really?), and I'm goin' out to get me some justice.

It won't be that bad.

Congress has been very effective in shutting down Obama.  They can and will do the same thing to President Trump if necessary.

[MediumTex]

We'll look back at this period one day and wonder at the madness of crowds, and our kids will mock us for being so blind.  But we aren't really blind; we just want to win.  We want to get on the winning bus and fight back against the "great other" that is oppressing us.  The Mexicans, the Muslims, the Chinese ... they are responsible for our ills, and only Trump can save us now.  So I'm putting on my red hat (red?  really?), and I'm goin' out to get me some justice.

i don't think the deeper anger is with the The Mexicans, the Muslims, the Chinese . its with the establishment.  the democrats focus their "useful idiots" anger at the rich.. the republicans focus their useful idiots on the "not like us"..... but both parties are just collecting votes from the gullible and uninformed....  the deeper anger coming out now is that there is truly no difference between the two party's Rubio and Hillery.. McCain,  Obama.. Bush, Biden... Romney, Warren  ARE ALL COMPLETELY INTERCHANGEABLE and swapping from one to another CHANGES NOTHING...

Yes!

The anger is with the arrogant idiots who continually campaign on one set of promises and then do something totally different once elected.

Trump may do the same thing, but I think that people are so fed up with traditional politicians lying to them that they are willing to take a chance on a non-traditional politician lying to them.

The fact that Trump isn't beholden to any set of special interests for campaign contributions is a legitimate plus for him. 

[Pointedstick]

The thing that does bother me is that the "solution" that the angry horde has chosen will likely cause a lot of harm to this country.  It's not hard to break things, to tear things down.  Like the wise man Colin Powell said to W before he went into Iraq, "If you break it, you own it."  Unfortunately, that's not exactly true, because now W doesn't own it, the American and Iraqi people own it.  Similarly, after Trump augers in (sooner or later), it won't be him that has to foot the cost, it will be Americans, including those of us who have done our best to point out the painfully obvious problems with this candidate.

I'm curious… what specifically do you fear that Trump is going to do to harm the country? Specifics, please.

[Reub]

Let me answer for Desert. Trump might say something really foul and possibly make him or a close family member cringe or feel uncomfortable. Does that sum it up?

[MediumTex]

Let me answer for Desert. Trump might say something really foul and possibly make him or a close family member cringe or feel uncomfortable. Does that sum it up?

If the people who cringe at some of the things Trump says knew how politics really works in this country, they would be shocked.

I used to work in a congressional office, and when constituents came in there was often a collective eye roll, but when campaign contributors came in everyone was smiling and on their very best behavior.  Everyone knew the people who needed to be kept happy.

Guess what the Member I worked for did when he left Congress?  He became a lobbyist.

[Mountaineer]

The thing that does bother me is that the "solution" that the angry horde has chosen will likely cause a lot of harm to this country.  It's not hard to break things, to tear things down.  Like the wise man Colin Powell said to W before he went into Iraq, "If you break it, you own it."  Unfortunately, that's not exactly true, because now W doesn't own it, the American and Iraqi people own it.  Similarly, after Trump augers in (sooner or later), it won't be him that has to foot the cost, it will be Americans, including those of us who have done our best to point out the painfully obvious problems with this candidate.

I'm curious… what specifically do you fear that Trump is going to do to harm the country? Specifics, please.

Here are a few:
1. Trade wars with China and Mexico, derailing our fragile economy (and the fragile world economy)
2. A policy of torture, perhaps even worse than what we saw under W ("much worse than water boarding")
3. Ban on muslims entering the U.S., which much like gun laws, simply results in only the criminal elements entering.  Steps like these erode religious freedom. Freedom only for religions we like isn't religious freedom.
4. Targeting non-combatants in war, deliberately.
5. Mass deportation and societal upheaval, with resultant police state.
6. Attacks on first amendment, constant retaliation against those who would merely offend him. 
7. National security degradation as a result of mental instability and resultant poor foreign policy decisions. Craziest hand ever near the nuclear button. 

A few more, that are more general in nature:
1. Lowers the national political discussion to a whole new (low) level.
2. Increase of anger and hatred among racial and economic groups within the U.S., due to irresponsible rhetoric and encouragement of anger and violence (see his rallies).  A general force for increased sadism in the country. 
3. Lowers the U.S. reputation in the world (giving a whole new meaning to the term "ugly American"). 

Those are a few.  There are probably many others.  What's worse, I see very little on the plus side to offset the negatives he'd bring.

Some of those sound like FDR policies.  Some sound like obama policies.  You left out womanizing or I would have mentioned LBJ and JFK and WJC.  I'm detecting a pattern here.  Maybe Trump will end up being a composite of the worst qualities of all those I mentioned rolled into one bad ass narciprez. 

... M

[Pointedstick]

1. Trade wars with China and Mexico, derailing our fragile economy (and the fragile world economy)

China and Mexico need us for the strength of their own economies far more than we need them for the strength of ours. Unless their leaders have gotten as dumb as ours, they'll realize this and acquiesce to some of Trump's demands. Besides, spurring domestic industry doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world.

2. A policy of torture, perhaps even worse than what we saw under W ("much worse than water boarding")

And you don't think congress would care to stop it?

3. Ban on muslims entering the U.S., which much like gun laws, simply results in only the criminal elements entering.  Steps like these erode religious freedom. Freedom only for religions we like isn't religious freedom.

Does "Religious freedom" mean "freedom of any foreign adherents of different religions to lawfully enter the United States?" I was under the impression that it means "freedom of any citizen or lawful resident of the United States to practice any religion." There seems to be a big difference between those things.

4. Targeting non-combatants in war, deliberately.

We already do this, and have since, like, forever.

5. Mass deportation and societal upheaval, with resultant police state.

Did this happen when Obama deported more people than any president in recent history? Did it result in a police state? Did anyone even notice? Evidently you didn't.

6. Attacks on first amendment, constant retaliation against those who would merely offend him.

Not really sure what you mean here. Getting mad at journalists and political enemies is attacking the first amendment? I guess Obama shreds the first amendment too, then.

7. National security degradation as a result of mental instability and resultant poor foreign policy decisions. Craziest hand ever near the nuclear button.

You really think Trump is crazy? Does a crazy man get this far? You may not like him, but it should be blindingly obvious that he's a canny, intelligent, clever man with a calculated and sane long-term plan for achieving his goals. Someone who's mentally deranged doesn't infiltrate and conquer a major political party of the most powerful nation on earth at precisely the time when it's weakest and most ripe for conquest.

1. Lowers the national political discussion to a whole new (low) level.

What does that mean? Is it at a particularly high level right now? What does it matter what level it's at? Politics seems like a debate club to people like you and me but for most people it's simply a big clash of group interests. No sense in pretending otherwise, really.

2. Increase of anger and hatred among racial and economic groups within the U.S., due to irresponsible rhetoric and encouragement of anger and violence (see his rallies).  A general force for increased sadism in the country.

I think he has the potential to increase the derangement and cognitive dissonance among liberals and the people who will make up the new Democratic party. I think blacks and hispanics are actually going to flock to him over time.

3. Lowers the U.S. reputation in the world (giving a whole new meaning to the term "ugly American").

You know, some of my relatives were in Ethiopia recently. People couldn't stop asking them about Trump and wondering if he might become the president. They reported that when they expressed their revulsion at the concept, the Ethiopians were generally surprised at their reaction. They had a positive impression of him, despite their repressive state-controlled media.

[moda0306]

Desert,

The plus side:

Four to eight years of "money out of politics."

Another way to take money out of politics is to put an angry monkey in a room with a big red shiny button that'll launch a nuke, and call him president.

Funny thing is, that feels like what a Trump presidency would sort of be like.  "Is he... Is he gonna... No he's just throwing his feces at a passer-by!  Whew!"