Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[kenberg]

Frank's May 2005 NY Review of Books essay covers a lot of the same ground as his book and is a fast read.

 

The resentment of which he speaks is real, including with people who are not easily given to resentment. A now deceased friend, let's call him John, would from time to time comment on our more liberal friends. John's kids went to public school, as did he, as did I, as did my kids, as do my grandkids. We had more than one or two liberal friends who had very forceful ideas about how public schools needed to do more to solve social problems. Their kids went to private schools where these problems were not encountered.

 

I have been thinking about "Why do people of modest means vote Republican?" as this thread evolves. I think I have some answers.

 

1. It seems to me I vote my values rather than my personal economic interests. I think I always have done so, even when my economic situation was less secure. It seems reasonable to think that many others do so as well.

 

2. This will be longer. I mentioned above that I was responsible for paying tuition to college. Why was that, since the tuition was $200+ a year. This would not have been petty cash for my parents, but they could have handled it. So why? I believe I can answer that. In the culture I grew up in, when I graduated from high school my parents could be expected to say ":Job done, time for the kid to take care of himself". Both my parents were on their own well before the age of 17. So their job, by the standards I grew up with, was completed.

 

Now let me fantasize a conversation, along the lines of Gerben's fantasy of when a European politician asks for money for his campaign. Here we imagine a politician explaining the need to help people. The response is likely to be along the lines of:

 

These are adults we are speaking of, right? Over 21? Were they just wiped out by a flood? If so I can see they need help. No, no flood? They will need how much help and for how long? A lot? And with no end in sight? They are doing what to help themselves?

Nice talking to you but no, I don't think so.

 

3. On a more positive note: I think many people are willing to listen to why we should support public education, training programs, and probably programs to help people with alcohol or drug related problems. We should help them, but they have a role to play as well. The help should have a beginning and an end.

 

 

If the Dems want these votes, they might be available. They might profitably ask themselves why they are not getting them. Hint: Blaming Fox News is not the way to go.

[billw55]

No offense Ed, but your in a mighty poor position to be judging what is / is not "rational".

 

You seem to base your political philosophy on a poorly constructed mishmash of 50s science fiction and gold-buggery.

At best, your opinions are considered to be a joke.

Apparently they are to you. I don't consider that binding on me http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

[helene_t]

No offense Ed, but [....]

At best, your opinions are considered to be a joke.

Are you sure about this? The "no offense" part, I mean?

[hrothgar]

I specifically chose not to mention race in my previous post and think that the thread will be better if we keep the subject out of the spotlight.

 

Excluding the signal most important explanatory variable rarely leads to good results

[Winstonm]

The resentment of which he speaks is real, including with people who are not easily given to resentment. A now deceased friend, let's call him John, would from time to time comment on our more liberal friends. John's kids went to public school, as did he, as did I, as did my kids, as do my grandkids. We had more than one or two liberal friends who had very forceful ideas about how public schools needed to do more to solve social problems. Their kids went to private schools where these problems were not encountered.

 

I have been thinking about "Why do people of modest means vote Republican?" as this thread evolves. I think I have some answers.

 

1. It seems to me I vote my values rather than my personal economic interests. I think I always have done so, even when my economic situation was less secure. It seems reasonable to think that many others do so as well.

 

2. This will be longer. I mentioned above that I was responsible for paying tuition to college. Why was that, since the tuition was $200+ a year. This would not have been petty cash for my parents, but they could have handled it. So why? I believe I can answer that. In the culture I grew up in, when I graduated from high school my parents could be expected to say ":Job done, time for the kid to take care of himself". Both my parents were on their own well before the age of 17. So their job, by the standards I grew up with, was completed.

 

Now let me fantasize a conversation, along the lines of Gerben's fantasy of when a European politician asks for money for his campaign. Here we imagine a politician explaining the need to help people. The response is likely to be along the lines of:

 

These are adults we are speaking of, right? Over 21? Were they just wiped out by a flood? If so I can see they need help. No, no flood? They will need how much help and for how long? A lot? And with no end in sight? They are doing what to help themselves?

Nice talking to you but no, I don't think so.

 

3. On a more positive note: I think many people are willing to listen to why we should support public education, training programs, and probably programs to help people with alcohol or drug related problems. We should help them, but they have a role to play as well. The help should have a beginning and an end.

 

 

If the Dems want these votes, they might be available. They might profitably ask themselves why they are not getting them. Hint: Blaming Fox News is not the way to go.

 

From living in an area that is strongly Republican but has a large (relative to size) population of low middle class and working poor, I have decided that the main reason for the vote against self-interest is based on psychology, that for people who accept an interventionist supernatural being without question it should not be a surprise when this same group does not look too closely at political and economic claims that require more than a bumper-sticker sized message to refute. The Right has done a remarkably good job in positioning itself with catch-phrase sound bytes that are easy to recall, i.e., the government is the problem, lowering taxes is always good, the poor are porr because they are lazy, if it's good for business it is good for America, and so on.

 

The old adage in marketing is to "sell the sizzle, not the steak". It works, as people who cannot afford steak still vote for the sizzle.

[kenberg]

Why can't we use the word "racism" in this thread? I think it's much easier to be in favour of redistribution if you don't think many of those benefiting are "different" than you.

 

Why do you think Donald Trump is still leading the polls, "despite" many racist statements?

 

We can use the term "racism" if we must.

 

There was an article in the Washington Post a while back (I did not read it) as to how Trump may be hoping to do well with black voters. I read the first few sentences. The idea, I guess, is that black voters are opposed to immigration because benefits that could go to them now go to Latinos.

 

My thoughts? Good grief! It's not exactly that I regard this as impossible, I just hope it isn't so.

 

Much more than in the past we put people into demographic categories.

 

I will say more, a student just arrived looking for help, I must go.

[cherdano]

I specifically chose not to mention race in my previous post and think that the thread will be better if we keep the subject out of the spotlight.

 

You are welcome to be more polite than me, and I respect you for that. But in this case, I do think it leads to an incomplete picture. As an example:

 

There is a long tradition in the Southern states of voting for the GOP. I think it is a combination of doing what the parents did, religion and fear/intolerance of other groups. There is a reason why this part of the country is known as the Bible Belt. Note that one could say similar things about the voting pattern in Bavaria concerning the CSU. This is something that seems to happen in almost every democratic country.

 

Don't you think it would be helpful for the European reader, not so familiar with US history, to explain when and in which context this tradition started?

 

There are many regions in Europe that have a strong tradition of voting guided by religious beliefs and values - anti-abortion, etc. Sometimes these align with anti-immigrant positions. But in the US they also align with being against any anti-poverty measures. Don't you think it would be worthwhile to try to explain that as well?

[hrothgar]

 

Don't you think it would be helpful for the European reader, not so familiar with US history, to explain when and in which context this tradition started?

 

 

This tradition started when the Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, which was precisely the same point in time when all the racist Southern Democrats started transitioning into Racist Southern Republicans. Took a couple decades for the transition to fully work itself out, but by the time Reagan gave his famous states rights speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi things had pretty well sorted themselves out.

[sharon j]

Thanks for the answers it makes at least the first question a bit more logical. As for the second I get that companies want influence on politicians we have that here too. If you want to understand government policies just follow the money. In Germany VW won't get this much trouble over the tests in fact they have probably made sure they are legal here.

 

As for the second question if you would ask Germans (or probably other Europeans) so donate for campaigns the top 5 answers would be:

 

No

Are you nuts?

They don't need money they earn X times what I do

I already pay too much taxes

Hahaha you're funny

 

this made me laugh

[PassedOut]

This tradition started when the Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, which was precisely the same point in time when all the racist Southern Democrats started transitioning into Racist Southern Republicans. Took a couple decades for the transition to fully work itself out, but by the time Reagan gave his famous states rights speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi things had pretty well sorted themselves out.

Yes, there's no doubt that racism switched southern voters from democrat to republican after passage of the Voting Rights Act. Lee Atwater, political strategist for Reagan and H. W. Bush and head of the Republican National Committee, explained the transition:

 

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

 

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

 

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

But the voters understand it.

[Zelandakh]

You are welcome to be more polite than me, and I respect you for that. But in this case, I do think it leads to an incomplete picture.

I agree with you in theory. Unfortunately in practice such subjects have a tendency to end up obfuscating more than they enlighten. But we'll see - as long as the topic stays within certain bounds it should work out ok...

[kenberg]

I guess it comes to this:

 

If Dems accept that the struggling middle class that votes Republican consists of a bunch of racists, then it has to write off their vote. I doubt that a campaign speech along the lines of "You are all a bunch of racists and don't forget to vote for me in the next election" will work well.

 

In my fantasy family I suggested that the FF might have the idea that the Dems consider them to be the enemy. If that is so, then by all means go call them a bunch of racists. It will clarify positions.

[y66]

I don't think it's a good idea to write off low income earners who vote Republican because they happen to be old white men (racists), evangelicals (homophobes and sexists) or morons (people who believe Republicans have their economic interests at heart). But I do think its smart to tailor your outreach efforts accordingly.

 

A friend of mine worked for a company in Alexandria, VA that pioneered the use of Census data for targeting mailings back in the 80s. They didn't have mailing lists that corresponded exactly to the 3 categories above but some were pretty close. No doubt, Republicans were way ahead of Democrats in using this info to their advantage too.

 

Edit: Not saying the psychologically confused people Winston refers to are morons. But they can probably go into that category for communication purposes.

[kenberg]

There is also the possibility, rare in politics, of treating the voters with respect..

 

Growing up I went to a church that carefully explained what good people though and that only sinners thought otherwise. An easy problem to solve, I stopped going to church.

[y66]

There is also the possibility, rare in politics, of treating the voters with respect..

 

Growing up I went to a church that carefully explained what good people though and that only sinners thought otherwise. An easy problem to solve, I stopped going to church.

 

Agree with the importance of treating voters with respect. I work on this. Your posts have been a positive influence. But I still have lapses.

[PassedOut]

I doubt that a campaign speech along the lines of "You are all a bunch of racists and don't forget to vote for me in the next election" will work well.

Yes, although I haven't seen such an example myself, candidates using that approach deserve to lose. Folks won't vote for a candidate unless they decide that the candidate will support their interests, and will do so to an extent that outweighs other considerations.

 

I've mentioned that I lived in Atlanta for 20 years, and I know that there are many, many southern whites who hate the fact that the strategy outlined by Lee Atwater was successful. Jimmy Carter's library was built not far from my home, and he spoke out against racism often, including in his church in Plains, Georgia.

 

Candidates can't get, and don't need, the votes of everyone, and quite a few voters will vote one way or the other no matter what a candidate says. The idea is to sway those who can be persuaded, and insulting them won't do it for sure. If that's ever been an actual strategy, no wonder it's failed.

[kenberg]

Agree with the importance of treating voters with respect. I work on this. Your posts have been a positive influence. But I still have lapses.

 

I have really gotten into the question of why people of the sort I grew up with now vote R. And I am coming to some (possible) answers.

 

Are they racists? Not really. We might all be some sort of racist. But to say that is to obliterate useful meanings of the word. Some folks are rabid, the people I knew were not. My father disapproved of the May Britt marriage to Sammy Davis Jr, but then the parents of a Jewish friend declared him dead when he married a shiksa. The first girl I dated was Jewish, or at least reflecting on it as an adult I think she probably was. As a 14 year old we didn't care. For reasons that I never understood, my mother decided that the next girl I dated was black. She never met her, she just decided that she was black. Maybe her name sounded black. By then I was 15, I had my car, I paid my own way, so nothing more was said.

Anyway, it depends on what the word "racist" means, but if my parents and their friends were racists, the word applies to a very large number of people.

 

Back to my friend John for a moment. He grew up in a small town in Minnesota, near an Indian Reservation. Late in his life (he died a few years back) someone whom he knew from the reservation contacted him to renew their friendship, to his delight. He was a racist? No, it seems his friend did not think so either. At his funeral, his best friend, a self-described "Jew from the tough streets of NY", described John as the best man he ever knew. No one will say that at my funeral.

 

 

Time out: Of course we are hearing old Yogi Berra things but this one was new to me: His wife once asked him where he would like to be buried when he died: "I don't know, surprise me."

 

We need to take it easy on this name calling. People are complicated and they live out their cultural imperatives in various ways.

Mostly I am fairly oblivious to race, religion, sexual orientation etc. Some years back I was ordering coffee in a hotel lobby and started chatting with the guy. Becky came and got me and explained the guy was hitting on me. I thought it was just a friendly chat, but upon reflection she may have been right. The conversation did have some weird features. Becky notices such things, I don't. It's not a difference in attitude toward gays, it's a difference in obliviousness.

But I am still pretty certain that that second girlfriend I mentioned was white. Pretty sure.

[Winstonm]

I believe the question is why do people continually endorse policies that are detrimental to their welfare. I think the answer is quite simple - they do not believe the policies to be detrimental. These, for the most part, are not sophisticates or folks with a high degree of curiosity about economics. What they hear is that Democrats will raise their taxes, and the Republicans will support business owners as job creators.

 

The fault lies primarily with an uncoordinated Democratic response to a well-orchestrated Republican propaganda campaign.

[awm]

I suspect there are quite a lot of people who look at their tax form and say "that's a lot of money" and vote for the party that wants to lower their taxes. There are also people who feel government is annoying -- think about waiting in line at the DMV, or filling out tax forms, or getting parking tickets. So they vote for the party that wants smaller government. There's also some resentment -- the idea that government is "giving stuff" to "other people" -- this could be racist, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.

 

Of course many of these people benefit from government significantly as well, but those benefits are often hidden better than the costs. In some cases you see the signs like "keep government out of my medicare." There are also legitimate gripes that government is often run by the wealthiest and most connected, and this might make reducing the role of government seem appealing (never mind that the people who claim they will do this tend to be even more in the pocket of the wealthy and well-connected).

 

It's also hard for a lot of people to really imagine the degree of wealth inequality in the country; they think the rich make perhaps 10 times what they make, that those people probably earned it, and that they might reach that level of income and be "rich" one day too... not imagining that the CEO of the company they work for probably makes more like 400 times what they make and may well pay a lower tax rate than they do as well!

[Bbradley62]

I've mentioned that I lived in Atlanta for 20 years, and I know that there are many, many southern whites who hate the fact that the strategy outlined by Lee Atwater was successful.

Having lived in Atlanta for 24 years (ending 2.5 years ago), I think there are very few southern whites who routinely vote for Democratshate the fact that the strategy outlined by Lee Atwater was successful, and most of them are gay.

[mike777]

in usa election of 2016 think of it this way:

 

 

1) roughly 40 out of 100 do not vote

2) roughly 24 will vote rep no matter what

3) roughly 24 will vote dem no mstter what

4) remaining 12 will claim to be ind but their votes over decades say no

%) a few will be true ind but most have zero idea and could not find ny state on a map or tell you who fought in rev. war or when.

 

 

so think to win you need 7 out of 12 out of 100 who claim to be ind but really are not and are low information voters

 

keep in mind roughly 40 out of 100 will not bother to vote

[Trinidad]

There is also the possibility, rare in politics, of treating the voters with respect..

 

Growing up I went to a church that carefully explained what good people though and that only sinners thought otherwise. An easy problem to solve, I stopped going to church.

You are beyond salvation... :)

 

Your solution is interestingly simple. I currently live in a very catholic region where the population typically find another, more complicated solution: They keep going to church (or at least some of the time), believe everything that is said there for the time that they are in the church and simply stop believing it as soon as they get out of there...

 

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Of those true swing voters, the vast majority are probably in states that are always red or always blue so their votes are irrelevant. FPTP Elections are actually decided by an unbelievably small set of super-voters and it is the combination of targeting these and persuading your natural supporters to get out and vote that makes the difference. Obama's success appears to hinge almost exclusively on the latter.

[gwnn]

Could we talk about this instead?

 

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

 

I wonder what Biden's "supporters" will do when he drops out. Somehow I think they are more anti-Clinton than pro-Biden so their votes might be predominantly going to Bernie.

 

And Bernie is perhaps leading in the first two states (Iowa and New Hampshire) already.

 

#feelthebern

[PassedOut]

Having lived in Atlanta for 24 years (ending 2.5 years ago), I think there are very few southern whites who routinely vote for Democratshate the fact that the strategy outlined by Lee Atwater was successful, and most of them are gay.

LOL

:P

 

I left at the end of 1998, so your experience is more recent than mine, but I still keep in touch with friends there and visit often. I was there in 1980 when Carter carried Georgia against Reagan, and even today a quarter of the 6 million whites in Georgia routinely vote Democratic, and the percentage is higher inside of I-285. If most of them are gay, that would be quite the anomaly. :rolleyes:

 

One doesn't have to vote democratic routinely to abhor the Lee Atwater strategy either: As an independent, I generally vote in the republican primary here in Michigan. In national elections, of course, I haven't been able to vote republican for decades, but that is because the national republicans are completely irresponsible, both fiscally and militarily.