After last night's primaries in DE, RI, MD, CT, and PA, it looks increasingly likely that Hillary Clinton will face Donald Trump in the general election. Hillary's strong showing puts her with a hair's breath of the delegate majority needed for the nomination, and will surely only intensify calls for Bernie Sanders to leave the race, and for his supporters to rally behind Clinton. There has been a good deal of vitriolic rhetoric regarding this last point, particularly as many recalcitrant Sanders supporters balk at the idea of supporting Clinton. Here, my own thoughts on the problem.
To begin with, the notion that one candidate is "entitled" to the support of another's voters is highly dubious, and a result mainly of our entrenched two-party system. Too often recently, voters have been asked to vote against a particularly odious candidate, rather than for one about whom they are enthusiastic. With the specter of Trump on the horizon, it seems they'll be asked to do this again. In fact, the main argument of Clinton supporters is not that she actually deserves anybody's support, but that we must do everything in our power to avoid a Trump presidency. A trump presidency is unlikely for several reasons. First, he has won only a plurality of the Republican votes in most states, and the Republican establishment is steadfastly an transparently opposed to him. More people have voted against Donald Trump in his party's own primaries than have voted for him. It is almost inconceivable that he will fare any better in the general election. The most recent poll on favorability (from early April), found that a staggering 70% of the electorate have an unfavorable opinion of Trump. That's a full 16 points higher than Clinton, a historically unpopular politician. In head-to-head polls, Clinton enjoys about a 10-point advantage, and the campaign hasn't even begun yet. Unless some new damaging information emerges on Clinton, she's got this election sewn up with or without the Sanders supporters.
As general elections have increasingly taken on the binary character of a referendum against one or the other party, it's important to realize that many Sanders supporters are not closely aligned with either party, and feel no special loyalty toward impersonal, rigid, corrupt bureaucracies. The idea that they should fall back in line with the party's nominee assumes that they were ever in line to begin with. Clinton has dominated states with closed primaries, while Sanders has won many states that allow independents to vote. The obvious conclusion is that most of Sanders's support is coming from outside the party, and that appealing to a sense of party loyalty is going to be a generally meaningless endeavor. Younger people with less political experience (and political memory) are also less likely to hold strong party loyalties. Much of Sanders's support comes from this demographic.
There have been many comparisons drawn between this election and the 2000 election, where Ralph Nader supposedly "cost" Al Gore the victory. As a reformed Nader-ite, I think that's specious reasoning. First, Sanders has given no indication of running as an independent (unlike Trump!), and will not be "stealing" any votes in November. His supporters may chose to abstain, but that's their right, and, as I mentioned above, it's very difficult to believe that Clinton will be working on such a thin margin that the minority of Sanders voters who don't vote will cost her anything. Secondly, and I know this is a belabored point, Nader didn't "cost" Al Gore the election. Al Gore was the running mate of a very popular two-term president who had presided over nearly 8 years of economic prosperity, and was running against a barely-literate failed businessman with a history of drug and alcohol abuse. There's no way that election should have been remotely close, except that Gore ran one of the single worst campaigns of the 20th century. It was possibly irresponsible for Nader not to withdraw in swing states like Florida and Ohio when it became clear they would be contested, but the bulk of the blame for that debacle has to rest with Gore (and the supreme court). I have no doubt that, should Clinton somehow find herself in a coin-flip situation, that Sanders will urge his supporters to show up for her. But this obscures the fact that it's not his responsibility to get her elected -- it's hers. One of the most common observations of Clinton's campaign by generally non-partisan observers is that she has yet to articulate a coherent, positive, message. It's unclear, in other words, why she's running for president, except that she really wants to be president. There's no mystery with Sanders. He hammers his points home in just about every speech, while Hillary offers generic talking points an piecemeal suggestions. That's not a recipe for success. She's going to have to start convincing people why they should vote for her, as opposed to against Donald Trump.
If you're wondering, I will certainly vote for Clinton in November, but I'm not going to be proud of myself. It will be another hollow victory for cynicism over idealism, disenchantment over civic engagement, and oligarchy over democracy.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Saturday, April 9, 2016
Why I sympathize with Trump Supporters
I'm going to give blogging another go. Once again, I miss writing regularly, and I find that I feel better if I externalize some of the thoughts that swirl in my mind most of the day. I've decided to revive my last attempt rather than starti fresh again because I'm rather proud of some of the older posts. I've removed the ones I find especially embarrassing to maintain the illusion of consistent quality. I'll attempt to not shatter the illusion.
So, why do I sympathize with Trump supporters? I myself am adamantly not a Trump supporter, but I find much of the discussion and coverage of Trump and his followers to be somewhat paternalistic and misleading.
Here's the thing: you simply can't abuse people for decades and expect there to be no backlash. People on the bottom of the economic ladder know they're getting screwed, and they resent being told that they're not. I was shocked that the president had the audacity to say, at last year's Business Roundtable, that "America is winning right now. America is great right now." (1) It's patently false, and people know it's false, and they know he's lying to their faces. The remark was immediately, and justifiably pounced upon by the republican contenders. I used to like President Obama. I voted for him twice (more enthusiastically the 1st time), but I've never liked is rhetorical style. He often takes a condescending tone, and his his bland, faux populism is similar to that of his ignominious predecessor. It only seems more palatable to us because he's a better speaker and has better speech writers. But most people, however uneducated, can tell when they're being patronized, and it only adds to their resolve to support somebody like Trump, who allegedly "tells it like it is."
Things aren't great in education, and we're demonstrably not winning. The Program for International Student Assessment ranks us 35th out of 64 developed countries overall, and 27th in math and science. (2) Our own data, from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, presents and even bleaker picture. (3) No more than 42% of American students are competent or better in any subject, at any grade level, and in most cases are far below. Things seemed to be improving during the 1990s and early 2000s, but have now been stagnant for about a decade. My own experience, while obviously limited and subjective, confirms these numbers. Incoming college freshmen are almost completely ignorant of basic historical facts, and their verbal and written communication skills are, to be polite, meager. Speaking of college, tuition continues to outpace inflation like the tortoise to the hare, thanks to bloated bureaucracies and presidents that are paid like CEO's.
Things aren't great in the realm of health. Children today have shorter life expediencies than their parents' generation, largely due to obesity. (4) Yet, when the World Health Organization tried to revise its dietary guidelines to reflect healthier choices, the sugar industry flexed its financial muscle to convince the government to threaten a financial boycott of WHO. (5) That was during the Bush administration, but the same groups did a similar hatchet job on Michelle Obama's well-intentioned "MyPlate" campaign. Furthermore, despite the United States spending an almost unbelievable amount on healthcare, much more by far than any other developed country, we do not enjoy comparably greater advantages (6). Nor did we before the affordable care act, for those who might be tempted to pin all the blame there. Whether you support free-market insurance, single-payer, or the Obamacare compromise, there is no debate that American healthcare costs are obscene, and that we have almost nothing to show for it. That's losing, not winning.
Perhaps most pertinently, things aren't great in the economy. The ongoing "recovery" may be swelling the Dow Jones average and lining the pockets of America's CEO's, but low and middle-income workers are hardly benefiting at all, nor have they been for almost 40 years. (7) An investigation into the demographics of Trump's supporters reveals that they are, by and large, blue collar workers who did not go to college: precisely the people who bear the brunt of each economic downturn and never seem to experience much during the upturns. (8) They can see how the Clintons' free trade agenda cost the country good manufacturing jobs. They can see that their wages never seem to rise, despite generally higher productivity. (7) They see big political donors in both parties getting ahead while they get ignored. They don't like being told that he blue car sitting right in front of them is actually red, but that they're too simple-minded to understand it.
It's futile to continue to characterize Trump supporters as racist, ignorant yokels who don't have a firm grip on reality. Actually, they have a far better grasp of what's actually happening to the majority of Americans than those in the media. There is real, palpable anger among the underclasses in the middle part of the country and, when misdirected, that anger can be extremely dangerous. Trump has succeeded in channeling it toward immigrants, when the real target should be the corporate and political oligarchy for whom the public/private division is completely permeable, and who are all too often called upon to regulate themselves and their friends. This is what Sanders's supporters understand, and they, too, are generally angry about it.
In order to deflate Trump's campaign, it's necessary to empathize with his supporters, and show them the real sources of their frustrations. It's not "the Mexicans" or "the Muslims," or any other vague stereotype. It's an immensely complex and interrelated political and economic complex that is designed to maintain power and wealth for those who have it, and keep them from those who don't. Telling people they have no reason to be angry is wrong, callous, and frankly, just what Trump is counting on. We need to focus on fixing, rather than whitewashing, the systemic problems that prevent too many people from their pursuit of happiness.
-----
(1) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/16/obama_america_is_winning_right_now_americas_great_right_now.html
(2) http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/u-s-students-improving-slowly-in-math-and-science-but-still-lagging-internationally/
(3) http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/
(4) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/health/childrens-life-expectancy-being-cut-short-by-obesity.html
(5) http://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/apr/21/usnews.food
(6) http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/08/us-health-care-spending-is-high-results-arenot-so-good.html
(7) http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
(8) http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/who-are-donald-trumps-supporters-really/471714/
So, why do I sympathize with Trump supporters? I myself am adamantly not a Trump supporter, but I find much of the discussion and coverage of Trump and his followers to be somewhat paternalistic and misleading.
Here's the thing: you simply can't abuse people for decades and expect there to be no backlash. People on the bottom of the economic ladder know they're getting screwed, and they resent being told that they're not. I was shocked that the president had the audacity to say, at last year's Business Roundtable, that "America is winning right now. America is great right now." (1) It's patently false, and people know it's false, and they know he's lying to their faces. The remark was immediately, and justifiably pounced upon by the republican contenders. I used to like President Obama. I voted for him twice (more enthusiastically the 1st time), but I've never liked is rhetorical style. He often takes a condescending tone, and his his bland, faux populism is similar to that of his ignominious predecessor. It only seems more palatable to us because he's a better speaker and has better speech writers. But most people, however uneducated, can tell when they're being patronized, and it only adds to their resolve to support somebody like Trump, who allegedly "tells it like it is."
Things aren't great in education, and we're demonstrably not winning. The Program for International Student Assessment ranks us 35th out of 64 developed countries overall, and 27th in math and science. (2) Our own data, from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, presents and even bleaker picture. (3) No more than 42% of American students are competent or better in any subject, at any grade level, and in most cases are far below. Things seemed to be improving during the 1990s and early 2000s, but have now been stagnant for about a decade. My own experience, while obviously limited and subjective, confirms these numbers. Incoming college freshmen are almost completely ignorant of basic historical facts, and their verbal and written communication skills are, to be polite, meager. Speaking of college, tuition continues to outpace inflation like the tortoise to the hare, thanks to bloated bureaucracies and presidents that are paid like CEO's.
Things aren't great in the realm of health. Children today have shorter life expediencies than their parents' generation, largely due to obesity. (4) Yet, when the World Health Organization tried to revise its dietary guidelines to reflect healthier choices, the sugar industry flexed its financial muscle to convince the government to threaten a financial boycott of WHO. (5) That was during the Bush administration, but the same groups did a similar hatchet job on Michelle Obama's well-intentioned "MyPlate" campaign. Furthermore, despite the United States spending an almost unbelievable amount on healthcare, much more by far than any other developed country, we do not enjoy comparably greater advantages (6). Nor did we before the affordable care act, for those who might be tempted to pin all the blame there. Whether you support free-market insurance, single-payer, or the Obamacare compromise, there is no debate that American healthcare costs are obscene, and that we have almost nothing to show for it. That's losing, not winning.
Perhaps most pertinently, things aren't great in the economy. The ongoing "recovery" may be swelling the Dow Jones average and lining the pockets of America's CEO's, but low and middle-income workers are hardly benefiting at all, nor have they been for almost 40 years. (7) An investigation into the demographics of Trump's supporters reveals that they are, by and large, blue collar workers who did not go to college: precisely the people who bear the brunt of each economic downturn and never seem to experience much during the upturns. (8) They can see how the Clintons' free trade agenda cost the country good manufacturing jobs. They can see that their wages never seem to rise, despite generally higher productivity. (7) They see big political donors in both parties getting ahead while they get ignored. They don't like being told that he blue car sitting right in front of them is actually red, but that they're too simple-minded to understand it.
It's futile to continue to characterize Trump supporters as racist, ignorant yokels who don't have a firm grip on reality. Actually, they have a far better grasp of what's actually happening to the majority of Americans than those in the media. There is real, palpable anger among the underclasses in the middle part of the country and, when misdirected, that anger can be extremely dangerous. Trump has succeeded in channeling it toward immigrants, when the real target should be the corporate and political oligarchy for whom the public/private division is completely permeable, and who are all too often called upon to regulate themselves and their friends. This is what Sanders's supporters understand, and they, too, are generally angry about it.
In order to deflate Trump's campaign, it's necessary to empathize with his supporters, and show them the real sources of their frustrations. It's not "the Mexicans" or "the Muslims," or any other vague stereotype. It's an immensely complex and interrelated political and economic complex that is designed to maintain power and wealth for those who have it, and keep them from those who don't. Telling people they have no reason to be angry is wrong, callous, and frankly, just what Trump is counting on. We need to focus on fixing, rather than whitewashing, the systemic problems that prevent too many people from their pursuit of happiness.
-----
(1) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/16/obama_america_is_winning_right_now_americas_great_right_now.html
(2) http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/u-s-students-improving-slowly-in-math-and-science-but-still-lagging-internationally/
(3) http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/
(4) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/health/childrens-life-expectancy-being-cut-short-by-obesity.html
(5) http://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/apr/21/usnews.food
(8) http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/who-are-donald-trumps-supporters-really/471714/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)