Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[onoway]

The accusation that Trump may have anything recognizable as a sense of humor is one of the few I never thought I'd hear.

[olegru]

First, you have the right to vote for whomever you wish. It is, after all, your vote. But, if you are voting for a Libertarian candidate instead of the Democrat, it makes me think that political positioning (read that as: right wing politics) underlies your position more than trustworthiness of the person. ;)

 

Well, does not it makes you think that your own political positioning underlies your position towards the Trump more than trustworthiness of the person.

Or you think that only Democrat supporters have a monopoly to be objective? ;)

[kenberg]

The accusation that Trump may have anything recognizable as a sense of humor is one of the few I never thought I'd hear.

 

Yes, "joking" was my term for it, probably not exactly right. "Just shooting off his mouth without any thought to consequences" would be closer.

 

At any rate, I found it worse than his usual string of insults. I have had late night discussions in bars where people give more thought to the consequences of what they are saying. It's just awful. As Passed said, words fail me.

 

A bit ago I speculated that Priebus and others may finally have gotten through to him about the need for him to pretend that he is someone other than who he is. The cure wore off quickly. It is time for self-respecting Rs to face up to what they have done. They really want this guy to win? Really? Some thought is needed.

[Winstonm]

Well, does not it makes you think that your own political positioning underlies your position towards the Trump more than trustworthiness of the person.

Or you think that only Democrat supporters have a monopoly to be objective? ;)

 

I am certain I am biased. :) But I am voting for Clinton because we cannot allow Trump to win or even come close. If there were a sane Republican running, my vote would still be for Clinton, but for different reasons.

[olegru]

I am certain I am biased. :) But I am voting for Clinton because we cannot allow Trump to win or even come close. If there were a sane Republican running, my vote would still be for Clinton, but for different reasons.

I guess we are on the same page. :)

If there were a sane Republican running I would give him my voice. Trump is the only person who made me seriously consider voting for Democrats, but I cannot see Clinton as a trustworthy candidate too.

Who is left for me? :(

 

By the way, when I saw the "republican" candidate Trump the first time I thought that he was hired by team Clinton to destroy the Republicans as the only way for her to be elected. (I am republican, so world only in the last sentence could be gross overstatement)

[kenberg]

I think Clinton can be trusted to attempt to advance the general Democratic agenda. This sort of trust is not "trustworthy character", it's just having a decent idea of where her interests lie. I am something of an old fashioned Dem, just as others my age might be old fashioned Reps. And what does this mean? I can't say I am thoroughly clear about that. But i liked Joe Biden's speech a lot.

 

Partly it means that I am fully aware that I benefited from a decent public school system, I benefited from attending a state supported university, my father and thus I benefited from effective union activity on behalf of blue collar workers, and many other such matters. I am also aware that being white helped a lot in accessing these benefits. I think that it is both good for the country and good for direct beneficiaries for such programs to succeed.

 

I do get tired, very tired, of identity politics. I am male, white and over 65 but I believe that I have views and interests that are not determined by the fact that I am male, white and over 65. If someone insists on my religious views I suppose I am an atheist, I certainly don't believe there is some supernatural power watching over us, but I think a lot of my moral/social views come from western religious traditions. I think we have a responsibility for future generations but I claim no philosophical basis for that. I like to think of it as a campsite mentality, you are supposed to leave the place in a little better shape than you found it.

 

Libertarian views have a live and let live component that attracts me, as does the idea that we are all ultimately responsible for ourselves. But I think society can be organized to make things better, to make it possible for more people do have more successful lives. It seems clear to me that I have benefited from such ideas. There can be crappy ideas and intrusive government, but there can also be good things.

 

Anyway, Go Hillary.

[cherdano]

A bit ago I speculated that Priebus and others may finally have gotten through to him about the need for him to pretend that he is someone other than who he is. The cure wore off quickly. It is time for self-respecting Rs to face up to what they have done. They really want this guy to win? Really? Some thought is needed.

Priebus angrily called Trump's campaign multiple times after Trump didn't endorse Paul Ryan. Subsequently, the GOP establishment strong-arms Trump onto reading out endorsements for Ryan, McCain.

 

Trump threatens Hillary may get killed for appointing the wrong supreme Court justices. The GOP establishmenthe shrugs.

[Winstonm]

I think Clinton can be trusted to attempt to advance the general Democratic agenda. This sort of trust is not "trustworthy character", it's just having a decent idea of where her interests lie. I am something of an old fashioned Dem, just as others my age might be old fashioned Reps. And what does this mean? I can't say I am thoroughly clear about that. But i liked Joe Biden's speech a lot.

 

Partly it means that I am fully aware that I benefited from a decent public school system, I benefited from attending a state supported university, my father and thus I benefited from effective union activity on behalf of blue collar workers, and many other such matters. I am also aware that being white helped a lot in accessing these benefits. I think that it is both good for the country and good for direct beneficiaries for such programs to succeed.

 

I do get tired, very tired, of identity politics. I am male, white and over 65 but I believe that I have views and interests that are not determined by the fact that I am male, white and over 65. If someone insists on my religious views I suppose I am an atheist, I certainly don't believe there is some supernatural power watching over us, but I think a lot of my moral/social views come from western religious traditions. I think we have a responsibility for future generations but I claim no philosophical basis for that. I like to think of it as a campsite mentality, you are supposed to leave the place in a little better shape than you found it.

 

Libertarian views have a live and let live component that attracts me, as does the idea that we are all ultimately responsible for ourselves. But I think society can be organized to make things better, to make it possible for more people do have more successful lives. It seems clear to me that I have benefited from such ideas. There can be crappy ideas and intrusive government, but there can also be good things.

 

Anyway, Go Hillary.

 

I cannot nor do I wish to speak for Ken, but IMO the meaning of "old style Democrat" means moving forward with compromise that favors the middle and lower classes. If these changes happen to negate the changes that have occurred since Reagan took office, so be it.

 

I don't want a nanny state; I would, however, like to have a socially conscious state.

[billw55]

I am certain I am biased. :) But I am voting for Clinton because we cannot allow Trump to win or even come close. If there were a sane Republican running, my vote would still be for Clinton, but for different reasons.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work because of the electoral college. Your state is going 7-0 for Trump no matter what you do. My state is 20-0 for Clinton no matter what I do.

 

When people talk about disenfranchisement, it is usually about voter ID laws or other such things. But in truth the electoral college disenfranchises the most voters by orders of magnitude. It is a relic that should be abolished. National office, national popular vote.

 

/rant

 

 

[Winstonm]

Unfortunately, this doesn't work because of the electoral college. Your state is going 7-0 for Trump no matter what you do. My state is 20-0 for Clinton no matter what I do.

 

When people talk about disenfranchisement, it is usually about voter ID laws or other such things. But in truth the electoral college disenfranchises the most voters by orders of magnitude. It is a relic that should be abolished. National office, national popular vote.

 

/rant

 

More than any electoral college problems, I support a national election day holiday, an end to voter ID laws, and an easing of voting methods. With that accomplished, then we could discuss the problems with the electoral college.

[Winstonm]

So, it looks like racism is the reason for support for Trump, or a form of racism.

 

But Rothwell also found a second factor that correlates highly with Trump support:

 

This analysis provides clear evidence that those who view Trump favorably are disproportionately living in racially and culturally isolated zip codes and commuting zones. Holding other factors constant, support for Trump is highly elevated in areas with few college graduates, far from the Mexican border, and in neighborhoods that stand out within the commuting zone for being white, segregated enclaves, with little exposure to blacks, Asians, and Hispanics.

 

Furthermore, this research lends more credence to the notion that psychological factors are behind the Trump support - quite similar to the "authoritarian" hypothesis I referred to earlier in this thread.

 

The Trump voter, according to this research, is driven not by simple economic self-interest but by something deeper and more psychological. Rothwell’s view is much more in line with the argument that Trump voters are whites who feel that their privileged place in America is threatened by forces they don’t really understand.

[kenberg]

So, it looks like racism is the reason for support for Trump, or a form of racism.

 

 

 

Furthermore, this research lends more credence to the notion that psychological factors are behind the Trump support - quite similar to the "authoritarian" hypothesis I referred to earlier in this thread.

 

 

 

 

I found this part interesting:

 

 

On Friday, a researcher with Gallup brought some much-needed data and clarity to this debate. Jonathan Rothwell, an economist who drew on eighty-seven thousand interviews in the organization’s polling database, expected to find that Trump’s strongest base of support existed in areas of America adversely affected by international free-trade agreements and lax immigration policy. He made a surprising discovery.

 

“The results show mixed evidence that economic distress has motivated Trump support,” he writes. “His supporters are less educated and more likely to work in blue collar occupations, but they earn relative high household incomes, and living in areas more exposed to trade or immigration does not increase Trump support.” Rothwell adds that his results do not present a clear picture of the connection between social and economic hardship and support for Trump. The standard economic measures of income and employment status show that, if anything, more affluent Americans tend to favor Trump, even among white non-Hispanics. Surprisingly, there appears to be no link whatsoever between exposure to trade competition and support for nationalist policies in America, as embodied by the Trump campaign.

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that much of what voters do is not directly determined by economics is not news. The above gets into a little more detail and could suggest further thought. If it is correct that the blue collar support for Trump is particularly strong among those with relatively high household incomes, we might ask why. I can think of a couple of possibilities.

 

Precarious: A blue collar worker making good money probably did not always make good money and he probably knows a lot of people in worse, maybe much worse, shape. He has worked hard to get where he is and he wants things to stay as they are.

 

 

Respect: This same blue collar worker with a steady good paying job is probably respected by family and friends. His (if he is a he) mother-in-law is pleased with her daughter's choice of husband. Friends ask for his advice, maybe his assistance. His kids are proud of him. And then some schmuck like the author of this article denigrates him because his neighbors are white and because the guy doesn't even know people with a college degree. It has an effect.

 

Moving on. Just for amusement, I quote a later part of the article:

 

First, he finds that “more subtle measures” of “longevity and intergenerational mobility” are key to understanding Trump. In other words, Trump voters aren’t living as long as they should be, and they seem to have serious concerns about whether their children will be as prosperous as their own generation is.

 

Trump voters are not living as long as they should be?? Ok, he doesn't mean that the Trump voter has already died prematurely. But what does he mean? A guy's uncle died prematurely, so the nephew decided to vote for Trump? Perhaps what is going on is that Trump voters are not so well off financially, and people who are not so well off financially tend not to live so long. And, for that matter, people who have health problems tend to be not so well off financially.

 

"More subtle measures" are, by their nature, more subtle. Trump voters having a shortened life expectancy definitely qualifies as subtle. I have no idea what to make of it but I am having difficulty seeing any cause-effect relationship between premature death and voting for Trump.

 

 

Anyway, forget about this connection between Trump and early death. I don't think it goes anywhere. But the idea that it is the upper end blue collar worker who is supporting Trump matches well with my thoughts about what is going on. I am hoping the HC folks can understand it and speak to it.

[Winstonm]

I found this part interesting:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that much of what voters do is not directly determined by economics is not news. The above gets into a little more detail and could suggest further thought. If it is correct that the blue collar support for Trump is particularly strong among those with relatively high household incomes, we might ask why. I can think of a couple of possibilities.

 

Precarious: A blue collar worker making good money probably did not always make good money and he probably knows a lot of people in worse, maybe much worse, shape. He has worked hard to get where he is and he wants things to stay as they are.

 

 

Respect: This same blue collar worker with a steady good paying job is probably respected by family and friends. His (if he is a he) mother-in-law is pleased with her daughter's choice of husband. Friends ask for his advice, maybe his assistance. His kids are proud of him. And then some schmuck like the author of this article denigrates him because his neighbors are white and because the guy doesn't even know people with a college degree. It has an effect.

 

Moving on. Just for amusement, I quote a later part of the article:

 

 

 

Trump voters are not living as long as they should be?? Ok, he doesn't mean that the Trump voter has already died prematurely. But what does he mean? A guy's uncle died prematurely, so the nephew decided to vote for Trump? Perhaps what is going on is that Trump voters are not so well off financially, and people who are not so well off financially tend not to live so long. And, for that matter, people who have health problems tend to be not so well off financially.

 

"More subtle measures" are, by their nature, more subtle. Trump voters having a shortened life expectancy definitely qualifies as subtle. I have no idea what to make of it but I am having difficulty seeing any cause-effect relationship between premature death and voting for Trump.

 

 

Anyway, forget about this connection between Trump and early death. I don't think it goes anywhere. But the idea that it is the upper end blue collar worker who is supporting Trump matches well with my thoughts about what is going on. I am hoping the HC folks can understand it and speak to it.

 

While both of these ideas may have a small degree of merit, or be a contributing factor, the evidence points to an isolated white culture as the major cause. This is a form of tribalism, IMO, and these tribal groups look at outsiders or different thinking as enemies.

[kenberg]

While both of these ideas may have a small degree of merit, or be a contributing factor, the evidence points to an isolated white culture as the major cause. This is a form of tribalism, IMO, and these tribal groups look at outsiders or different thinking as enemies.

 

Actually, I am pretty interested in just what is going on and I do not think any one explanation handles it. The part I found interesting is that the Trump support from blue collar workers is more pronounced at the higher income levels. Maybe this can be squeezed into a white isolation argument but I think it would require some severe squeezing.

 

The article refers to a paper, here is part of it.

http://poseidon01.ss...4026072&EXT=pdf

The means and standard deviations of the full database used here, including the CZ level variables, is provided in Table 2. Trump's supporters are older, with higher household incomes, are more likely to be male, white non-Hispanic, less likely to identify as LGBTQ, less likely to hold a bachelor's degree or higher education, more likely to be a veteran or family member of a veteran, more likely to work in a blue-collar occupation, and are more likely to be Christian and report that religion is important to them. Those who view Trump favorably are slightly less likely to be unemployed and more likely to be self-employed. Labor force participation is lower among Trump supporters, but not after adjusting for age. Trump supporters are much more likely to be retired. Trump supporters live in smaller commuting zones with lower college attainment rates, a somewhat higher share of jobs in manufacturing, higher mortality rates for middle-aged whites, and a higher segregation.There is no statistically significant difference between Trump supporters and non-supporters with respect to the median household income of their zip-code, a proxy for neighborhood conditions.

 

 

This covers a lot of ground. It also is a statistical analysis of who but not of why. When I read about what the Trump supporters say, the word condescension frequently comes up. They feel that their lives are disrespected and they are tired of it.

[hrothgar]

When I read about what the Trump supporters say, the word condescension frequently comes up. They feel that their lives are disrespected and they are tired of it.

 

It really sucks when the worm turns...

 

From my perspective, when I look at Trump voters I see a bunch of white trash that was able to console themselves that at least they had it better than the blacks, the Mexicans, and the gays.

Now they're being treated in exactly the same way, and they're finding out that it really sucks.

 

Sadly, rather than trying to elevate things for all those at the bottom of the pyramid, their response is more akin to crabs in a basket...

[kenberg]

It really sucks when the worm turns...

 

From my perspective, when I look at Trump voters I see a bunch of white trash that was able to console themselves that at least they had it better than the blacks, the Mexicans, and the gays.

Now they're being treated in exactly the same way, and they're finding out that it really sucks.

 

Sadly, rather than trying to elevate things for all those at the bottom of the pyramid, their response is more akin to crabs in a basket...

 

Still, the article Winston cited is speaking of relatively well paid blue collar workers. This is your idea of white trash?

 

This seems to support my general view. The well paid blue collar worker feels that his life is disrespected and he is tired of it.

 

Whether he is or is not white trash depends, I suppose, on attitudes and definitions. But if we are seeking to explain support for Trump, as the article presumed to do, I think lumping a well paid blue collar worker supporting a family in with white trash goes a long way to explaining where and how Trump is getting the votes.

[barmar]

Still, the article Winston cited is speaking of relatively well paid blue collar workers. This is your idea of white trash?

Do you remember the program "Roseanne"? I think that family would fit into that description. The Bunkers from "All in the Family" as well. I'm sure Archie would love Trump; Gloria and Mike would feel the Bern, and Edith would favor Hillary, but probably not tell Archie about it.

[Winstonm]

double post.

[Winstonm]

Actually, I am pretty interested in just what is going on and I do not think any one explanation handles it. The part I found interesting is that the Trump support from blue collar workers is more pronounced at the higher income levels. Maybe this can be squeezed into a white isolation argument but I think it would require some severe squeezing.

 

The article refers to a paper, here is part of it.

http://poseidon01.ss...4026072&EXT=pdf

 

 

 

This covers a lot of ground. It also is a statistical analysis of who but not of why. When I read about what the Trump supporters say, the word condescension frequently comes up. They feel that their lives are disrespected and they are tired of it.

[/size][/size]

 

I think this is telling. (my emhphasis)

Trump supporters are much more likely to be retired. Trump supporters live in smaller commuting zones with lower college attainment rates, a somewhat higher share of jobs in manufacturing, higher mortality rates for middle-aged whites, and a higher segregation. There is no statistically significant difference between Trump supporters and non-supporters with respect to the median household income of their zip-code, a proxy for neighborhood conditions.

 

Like Jose Ferrer questioning Bogart (Captain Queeg), I don't think the Navy promotes cowards so there must be another reason. Likewise, I don't think all Trump supporters can be idiots, so there must be another reason, and it must be an irrational one as there is no good rational reason to be in favor of Trump.

 

The best reason I have seen proposed thus far is the authoritarian hypothesis, as data show it to have a high correlation of projection of support to actual votes cast, and it is based on irrational fear of change, etc.

[kenberg]

a partial duplicate. I seem to have pressed a wrong button.

[kenberg]

Do you remember the program "Roseanne"? I think that family would fit into that description. The Bunkers from "All in the Family" as well. I'm sure Archie would love Trump; Gloria and Mike would feel the Bern, and Edith would favor Hillary, but probably not tell Archie about it.

 

It's been a long long time.

Right. Married, house, children, job, not broke.

 

Of course in both cases the families were exaggerated for humor, but the humor worked because they were recognizable. Or were, at the time recognizable.

 

I can remember, I think I am right, that All in the Family was Saturday at 8pm. Roseanne I don't know, but Monday or Tuesday I think.

It is probably correct that this difference in memory reflects my greater enthusiasm for All in the Family. But I generally enjoyed both.

 

I don't know if I am right but it seems to me family life has gone to extremes here. The Post had an interesting article by a local high school graduate reflecting on her challenges applying to college.

https://www.washingt...cation-process/

She looked into many things, thought through what she liked, coped with disappointment, made her choice.

But I know of more than a few other stories where the kids just can't seem to get it together.

Of course it has always been this way, but it seems more extreme today.

Those who can cope have more options than in times past, but for many it isn't working at all.

[Trinidad]

I don't think that there is a causal relation between early death and Trump support. I think there is a correlation between high income blue collar (i.e. hard working blue collar, too hard for health purposes) and early death. Does anybody find it surprising that a factory worker doing extra hours, on average, will die younger than the nurse, teacher or accountant?

 

Rik

[kenberg]

I think this is telling. (my emhphasis)

 

 

Like Jose Ferrer questioning Bogart (Captain Queeg), I don't think the Navy promotes cowards so there must be another reason. Likewise, I don't think all Trump supporters can be idiots, so there must be another reason, and it must be an irrational one as there is no good rational reason to be in favor of Trump.

 

The best reason I have seen proposed thus far is the authoritarian hypothesis, as data show it to have a high correlation of projection of support to actual votes cast, and it is based on irrational fear of change, etc.

 

We can agree on at least some of this. I think personality plays a big role in our political choices, bigger than is sometimes thought. For example, I never needed to hear what Trump's policies were. I don't trust him, I don't like him, I won't vote for him. If someone insists, I can probably supply many rational reasons, but fundamentally I see the guy as an egotistical jerk. This column in the Post takes a similar view. I don't know what took him so long.

 

Authoritarianism is relevant, but I think it needs refinement. Trump seems to be selling belligerence more than ordered structure. This is apt to appeal to the perennially teed off and that's not quite the same as authoritarianism.

 

Anyway, got to run, but we can agree that it has to be something irrational.

[hrothgar]

Still, the article Winston cited is speaking of relatively well paid blue collar workers. This is your idea of white trash?

 

This seems to support my general view. The well paid blue collar worker feels that his life is disrespected and he is tired of it.

 

Whether he is or is not white trash depends, I suppose, on attitudes and definitions. But if we are seeking to explain support for Trump, as the article presumed to do, I think lumping a well paid blue collar worker supporting a family in with white trash goes a long way to explaining where and how Trump is getting the votes.

 

I view "White trash" as primarily an identification of culture rather than income.

 

if you have time, I recommend that you read "Hillbilly Elegy"

[kenberg]

I view "White trash" as primarily an identification of culture rather than income.

 

if you have time, I recommend that you read "Hillbilly Elegy"

 

I just might. My first thought was "Never heard of it" but then I went to a NYT book review and realized that I had heard of it, I forget where, and it sounded interesting.

 

I like the closing of the Review:

Mr. Vance doesn’t have all the answers. But he’s advancing the conversation.

 

I think the issues described are central to our times. I'll quote from the review, which quotes from the book.

 

“Hillbilly Elegy,” in my mind, divides into two components: the family stories Mr. Vance tells — most of which are no doubt better experienced on the page than they were in real life — and the questions he raises. Chief among them: How much should he hold his hillbilly kin responsible for their own misfortunes?

 

In Mr. Vance’s estimation, the answer is: a lot. Economic insecurity, he’s convinced, accounts for only a small part of his community’s problems; the much larger issue is hillbilly culture itself. Though proud of it in many ways, he’s also convinced that it “increasingly encourages social decay instead of counteracting it.”

 

His frustration with the nonworking white poor is especially acute. He recalls being a cashier at a Middletown grocery store and watching resentfully as his neighbors, who had creatively gamed the welfare system, jabbered on their cellphones as they were going through the checkout line.He could not afford a cellphone.

 

 

 

 

 

My own early life was much, much gentler and stabler than his, but still I know something of what he is talking about. No doubt many recognize aspects of his life. We have to somehow get this right. I think "frustration with the nonworking white poor" is the right phrase above, a much better word than "blame". I believe in helping, I also believe some people are very difficult to effectively help. My short summary is that I believe in helping people to need less help in the future. And that is sometimes much easier to say than to do.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Vance finished Yale Law School. Most won't. And they needn't. My father finished eight grade and became self-supporting. Even if it is not as easy now for someone who finishes eighth grade to be self-supporting, it still requires far less than a law degree from Yale. To my mind, self-supporting and the pride and self-determination that goes with it is the border between success and failure. Programs that bring this about are to be supported, whether or not they produce law degrees, or any degrees, from Yale.