well named, bobman, OAFK11:

Good posts, but implicit in all of this (and only with slight pushback from huehue) is the notion that what Trump really won on was "economic populism: take back Washington from the Billionaire class (i.e anti-Citizen's united and etc), tax the wealthy, rein in the banks, expand government services..." and the election results were a commentary on neoliberal capitalism.

I'd propose, but not strongly yet -- that this is projection.

Feel like we have some snarky *******s, myself included, trying to tell a bit of a simpler story here: these people are simply hateful idiots. I realize in the end how deeply unsatisfying simple explanations can be. But they're also unflattering to a large extent of our neighbors, our family, our churches, our communities. Especially if you're white, you're undoubtedly surrounded by tons of Trump voters and I have no doubt we've all struggled how to process the fact these people exist and we love them and we have to work and live with them and stuff and so we want to dismiss the simple explanation because it makes our lives easier in a lot of ways. That there's some opaque worries about their jobs and their money and not that we're surrounded by tons of wretched, miserable haters feels better. And you can point to the snarky simple explanation to make some political points about elitism and put yourself on the other side of it, and that feels good. So you get the right-sympathizer pundit class aided by populist leftists like Michael Moore types saying, oh typical liberals, just race-baiting, not seeing the of real picture.

And then we get some decent people like the three of you seeming to implicitly acknowledge that's true. But why?

We're going to have to look at the data over the next week or two or whatever while this settles but I remain skeptical economic populism is a dispositive explanation fueling the global populist rancor. Why not simply global population displacements? Sure, it's part and parcel of the neoliberal capitalism project to tolerate that if not welcome it. But it seems FAR AND AWAY the principle motivating factor here. I liked bobman's allusion to Trump's Visigothic takeover. Seems apt. Because I look and look for the uprising against global capital and I don't see it. What I see is the hoi polloi welcoming a ****ing billionaire real estate baron as emperor, promising mostly an incredibly business/elite friendly culture with some vague allusions to trade as tribute for the host population. Wither the genuine economic populist outrage? When you talk to Trump voters, they don't know ANYTHING about ANY of that. Not a clue. They knew about the wall and the Muslim immigration ban and the transgressive social un-PC stuff and that was it.

So I'll reitreat that I think you gents might be projecting your concerns with the neoliberal capitalist project onto the masses. Maybe I talk to the wrong Trump voters but they don't know **** about anything except for cultural anxieties about Christmas greetings and pressing 2 for Spanish. I'll need some data to point to their motivating factors being economic. But I'm glib enough I might dismiss it anyway so don't waste too much time here.

https://twitter.com/polotek

Read this. It's important.

Start with this tweet and read up from there

I can only speak for myself, but it is not my belief that Trump won on that message. I think he won on the message that Clinton is a corrupt criminal plutocrat who did the emails to Benghazi and created ISIS, and that we should definitely do the nationalism, and that Obama sold us out to socialism with the healthcare plan that made your rates higher and is also a secret Muslim... In other words, I think Trump's victory is the triumph of right-wing media more than most other factors, aided by the fact that Clinton was a flawed candidate.

In describing Bernie's messaging for Low Key, I wasn't implying that it was Trump's message, nor would I say it's certain that Bernie would have won, nor even that Bernie's advantage over Clinton may have been messaging. I think mostly his advantage would have been the lack of scandal, regardless of how trumped up the Clinton scandals were. It's entirely possible that Trump's brand of nationalism would have beaten Bernie's brand of populism, and I thought d'essin d'enfant made a reasonable point on that, but it's hard to know for sure.

Zimmer - seems like his message is, glibly, "white people need to fix white culture".

He's not wrong, but, uh, where exactly do we start?

But isn't this like, not the farthest causative factor in the chain? What do we say of the population of people who get their information about the world from Fox News and AM radio and Breitbart? I realize you're probably *not* saying this, but I don't think the right-wing media triumphantly scandalized Clinton with mostly fictional nonsense they can't even coherently explain is a contradiction to my point. I mean a huge part of the "Clinton scandals" as the right-wingers themselves trade in it is Huma as secret Muslim Brotherhood agent, Clinton as clandestine (((Soros))) Zionist tool of the globalist Jew agenda, Democrats importing poor Browns for natalist election projects to overrun the political influence of white America. Just because Trump won doesn't change any of the underlying factors that the right-wing hasn't the foggiest clue what they even think was criminal about Clinton's email handling and Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation and whenever pressed, 95% of them pivot to some dark innuendo about pay-to-play and Soros and basically Jew money Clintons globalist agenda meow chow.

Like yeah, right-wing media has huge effects discrediting Clinton, sure, OK. They have so much reach and such a deep resonance because they're fellow travelers in the white nationalism project. "Clinton scandals" is the old "honey, I read Playboy for the articles." The way to tell is easy: precisely almost no one on the right can even correctly explain what is so scandalous about the Clintons without slipping into the whitelash chain mail/Drudge/Fox ecosystem for talking points.

Nobody supported Hillary's choice of private email server and her subsequent lies about it.

She got some cover, but in general MSM covered it sufficiently to expose her as an ethical failure.

I think the thing that resonated with me is that I, like a lot of young white liberals, have basically walled myself in a big city, in an area surrounded by a bunch of other white liberals.

I've stopped discussing political issues, especially those involving racism with my family members because it's supremely uncomfortable. I've done the same with conservative leaning friends.

I think it's incumbent on white liberals who want to be against racism to make an unrelenting effort to make other white people understand the damages of racism.

I think there's some real truth to the idea that white liberals have walled themselves off from other white people with opposing political views, and this does nothing to fix the problem. It just ignores the problem without ever settling it.

Stable households, good education, and opportunities for gainful employment do more to provide equity in the system than any government sponsored social welfare programs.

Dvaut, me citing right-wing media was me broadly agreeing with you, and referring to a major force that shapes and reinforces the hateful idiotic opinions you mentioned. It wasn't an attempt to absolve those voters of responsibility

I think goofy's question is right.

I shouted down my old man for supporting Trump after trying to explain the way of the current world. But how did it help? He refuses to listen to me when I tell him that the economy and other aspects of America are fine. He doesn't understand economic concepts (concepts generally accepted by economists of both sides) like specialization and industries moving overseas and economic changes like our country getting out of manufacturing and into the service industry and revolutions in the economy taking time before situations become better. He thinks minorities are asking for special rights and not just to be treated with the same respect, dignity, and equality us whites have.

How do you reason with that?

well said, IMO

Increasing taxes to fund government the way it functions now probably ranks within the bottom 1% of things that should be done.

I think Dvaut is dismissing a critical lesson in history. People scapegoat minorities because of economic problems. There are a lot of people in the midwest and other places who don't benefit the same way as urban folks do in the economy. I think it is a mixture of both race and economics.

goofyballer on point itt. Berniebros confirmed extra salty, but if the Dems run an actual primary instead of a coronation Bernie gets pummeled in the process. The reason he was successful was because he didn't give a **** about the DNC and was the only alternative to Hilldawg. In a crowded field of Dems he drowns.

Sorry, I didn't spend a few years of my life in an Economic programs to listen to dudes who read Chomsky, listen to bunk economics from politicians, and don't understand economics. Call me arrogant if you will, but I'm sick of the anti-intellectualism of both sides.

it's been addressed but the reason she couldn't beat Trump (in the sense that Trump was very beatable) is that people didn't like her. People viewed the scandals, real or trumped up or imaginary, and her as a package. they didn't like that she decided it was her time to win. hard to blame her for wanting to be president. but at some point, there's a ton of baggage, and people didn't like that a person with that kind of baggage would ignore that fact and push for the presidency. she was the polar opposite of Obama in that effect

I mean you don't. If he doesn't listen to his own kid showing evidence then what will he listen to? I think we need to teach more critical thinking in this country and maybe college education for all is something we all need to think a lot harder about.

I've been trying to get this in on here but you nailed it. When they want to get rid of Mexicans for "stealing jobs" they are scapegoating minorities for economic problems.

That's dynamite.

Dems can no longer win on a platform of war and bank deregulation.

Time to demand single payer and reemploy the South and rust belt in building a post-petroleum energy system. People will vote for jobs.

SOLYNDRA!!!!

Just going to drop this here for like 2028. State Senator Jeff Jackson from NC. This guy gets it and is going to be a star in the party in the near future.

Yeah, I can agree with you on that.

I dunno if the cause and effect are maybe confused. I live in a big liberal city and a big part of the appeal is just that it's a great, vibrant place to live, I guess the liberal politics part is cool too but it's not the whole reason I live here. And I don't think that guy would suggest his solution is that white liberals start moving to Oklahoma City or Jacksonville or something, or invade the rural areas.

Like Paul said, I don't know how much dialogue can accomplish. A year or two ago I sent my parents The Case for Reparations and discussed it with them and my dad was absolutely not buying it. He's a former fiscal Republican-turned-Democrat in the 90s, voted for Hillary, but if I and TNC can't help him see how black people are still suffering from injustices from discrimination...who can? This tweet is a bit of a response to that:



...but I definitely don't know any 18-25 Trump voters and I think they're all too busy posting dank Pepe memes to care what we have to say to them anyway? Like, they're off in an echo chamber at least as large as what conservative posters always tell us 2+2 is. I honestly have no idea who these people are or how to reach them.

truth, and one of the sad ironies of this election was trump using some chart showing productivity rising and wages staying flat that some left-leaning group had created to be deliberately misleading by using two different inflation indexes (iirc).

but i also think it's time to at least acknowledge that neoliberalism, even when it's often right, just doesnt win many fights. it's getting purged everywhere because it cant win elections. i'll miss it and im not sure it's a safe way to go either, but if populist social democracy can win fights against the hard right instead then i can let go of some trade and technocratic fixes.

vox had this article about the left abandoning a perfectly fine carbon tax http://www.vox.com/2016/10/18/130123...tax-washington and my twitter timeline of boring econ nerds obviously ridiculed them, but to me the main takeaway from it seems to be that neoliberal/wonk-y solutions cant win on their own.

I disagree. My belief is Trump won because of economics and the fact that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The solutions from the democrats seem to be to raise the minimum wage and tax the wealthy more, helping the bottom 20%. The view from the working and middle class,imo,( pretty much one and the same these days) is that although noble, this does nothing to help the majority of Americans.

Trump's platform was bringing back jobs and making companies compete for labor.

Lol at " right wing media"

Goofy,

It's not so much dialogue I think as working towards identifiable solutions.

It's going to take a bit, we're going to have to learn about each other and our motivations in life. Speaking for many in this thread, it's the advancement of all people. Assuming many of our conservative neighbors see things as a bit more short-sighted. Benefits for their family and security.

TNC and reparations do not resonate with white, middle-aged parents. While it's not the ideal political topic to broach, just because you were dismissed doesn't halt the conversation.