News Do You Know Why Trump is Popular?

[Rick21383]

Trump versus the Pope:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/pope-francis-trump-christian-wall/

meanwhile at the Vatican...

 

[DavidSnider]

meanwhile at the Vatican...

Pope Francis had nothing to do with building that wall, and anyone who's ever been to the Vatican can tell you that the door to that wall is wide open.

 

[jw6661]

An impressive wall never the less.

To me, seeing Trump through a foreigners lens seems like a martian. Meaning its all foreign to me.

 

[Rick21383]

Pope Francis had nothing to do with building that wall, and anyone who's ever been to the Vatican can tell you that the door to that wall is wide open.

Give me a break. The pope is clueless when it come to US politics and the issues of illegal immigration. He should be dealing with his child molesting priests rather than meddling in our politics.

 

[russ_watters]

Give me a break. The pope is clueless when it come to US politics and the issues of illegal immigration. He should be dealing with his child molesting priests rather than meddling in our politics.

While I don't agree with the rhetoric, I do agree with the point: Trump behaving badly doesn't make it ok for other countries to meddle in our politics and God forbid Trump gets elected, these meddling foreign leaders will have serious problems with relating to the US, of their own cause.

The UK trumped Trump's absurdity by proposing he be banned from the UK. Besides almost certainly violating their own and international laws and treaties, what does that then mean for dealing with their most significant ally if it's President is persona non grata?

 

[Rick21383]

While I don't agree with the rhetoric, I do agree with the point: Trump behaving badly doesn't make it ok for other countries to meddle in our politics and God forbid Trump gets elected, these meddling foreign leaders will have serious problems with relating to the US, of their own cause.

The UK trumped Trump's absurdity by proposing he be banned from the UK. Besides almost certainly violating their own and international laws and treaties, what does that then mean for dealing with their most significant ally if it's President is persona non grata?

I agree with you and, ironically, I really do believe that nonsense like this is what is fueling his popularity.

 

[russ_watters]

Pope Francis had nothing to do with building that wall...

He should probably tear it down then.

...and anyone who's ever been to the Vatican can tell you that the door to that wall is wide open.

...and guarded by a company of machine-gun toting soldiers.

This specific example is besides the point: the Pope is being ridiculous here. Fence, wall, moat, minefield, whatever: many (most?) nations have border fortifications. It is a normal thing. To attack Trump or anyone else for suggesting the existing one be improved, on the grounds that walls are bad/immoral, is just stupid.

Now if you want to argue necessity, effectiveness or cost benefit ratio, that's fine -- but again, that's none of his business.

 

[DavidSnider]

He should probably tear it down then.

...and guarded by a company of machine-gun toting soldiers.

This specific example is besides the point: the Pope is being ridiculous here. Fence, wall, moat, minefield, whatever: many (most?) nations have border fortifications. It is a normal thing. To attack Trump or anyone else for suggesting the existing one be improved, on the grounds that walls are bad/immoral, is just stupid.

Now if you want to argue necessity, effectiveness or cost benefit ratio, that's fine -- but again, that's none of his business.

Do you actually believe that the people who support building a giant wall across the Mexican border want to do it for any other reason than a symbolic showing of xenophobia and racism? Is it just a coincidence that when you poll this group of people that a good 20% openly admit to believing in White Supremacy? You're right, walls by themselves are not a moral issue. The motivations behind building them absolutely are.

 

[p1l0t]

Do you actually believe that the people who support building a giant wall across the Mexican border want to do it for any other reason than a symbolic showing of xenophobia and racism? Is it just a coincidence that when you poll this group of people that a good 20% openly admit to believing in White Supremacy? You're right, walls by themselves are not a moral issue. The motivations behind building them absolutely are.

You might be right, but I do think we should BOTH make it harder to come here illegally but also easier to come here legally. Just my opinion. I don't know how much a physical wall helps or is the best solution though.

 

[mheslep]

Pope Francis had nothing to do with building that wall, and anyone who's ever been to the Vatican can tell you that the door to that wall is wide open.

The Vatican is not "wide open". I was rejected entry for wearing shorts. In any case, if the wall along the US border (aka double fence) is completed by Trump or whoever, the several gates through that wall like the one below will remain in place.

 

[mheslep]

Do you actually believe that the people who support building a giant wall across the Mexican border want to do it for any other reason than a symbolic showing of xenophobia and racism?

This kind of comment, assuming to know the minds of others, is almost the entirely the reason a showman like Trump is leading in the GOP. Trump would love your post, probably locking him up another ten thousand votes.

 

[DavidSnider]

This kind of comment is almost the entirely the reason a showman like Trump is leading in the GOP. Your post probably locked him up another ten thousand votes.

A showman like trump is leading the GOP because it's a showman party.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you actually believe that the people who support building a giant wall across the Mexican border want to do it for any other reason than a symbolic showing of xenophobia and racism?

Yes. *I'm* a supporter of improving our border controls. And I'm a supporter for strictly practical reasons. And what the Pope actually said has nothing to do with any of that. For the record: some of my favorite people are immigrants. In fact, my perception is that on average they are bigger believers in and exploiters of the American Dream - and therefore patriots - than most Americans. I love them for that - and that's not an exaggeration.

And I submit that if you refuse to believe that people are being truthful about their own beliefs, our political system has broken down to the point where rational debate is no longer possible -- and it ain't Trump (or his supporters) who caused that.

Is it just a coincidence that when you poll this group of people that a good 20% openly admit to believing in White Supremacy?

Do you have a reference to such a poll? A quick google comes up with several links implying you are way, way wrong.

Please dial yourself back here and argue about real issues, as they are actually stated, and not what your anger has you imagining.

 

[mheslep]

A showman like trump is leading the GOP because it's a showman party.

Compared to what?

 

[DavidSnider]

Yes. *I'm* a supporter of improving our border controls. And I'm a supporter for strictly practical reasons. And what the Pope actually said has nothing to do with any of that. For the record: some of my favorite people are immigrants. In fact, my perception is that on average they are bigger believers in and exploiters of the American Dream - and therefore patriots - than most Americans. I love them for that - and that's not an exaggeration.

And I submit that if you refuse to believe that people are being truthful about their own beliefs, our political system has broken down to the point where rational debate is no longer possible -- and it ain't Trump who caused that.

Do you have a reference to such a poll? A quick google comes up with several links implying you are way, way wrong.

Please dial yourself back here and argue about real issues, as they are actually stated, and not what your anger has you imagining.

I didn't say people who support "improving border controls". *I'm* a supporter of that. I'm talking about Trumps 1,000 mile long 8 billion dollar wall. I think you need to consider what the real issue is here.

 

[mheslep]

There is good evidence that the wall (double or triple fence) works in the places where its been built. "Works" in this case meaning slowing illegal crossing to a point where the numbers are manageable by local law enforcement or integration into the local community, as it should be.

NPR

Before the fence was built, all that separated that stretch of Mexico from California was a single strand of cable that demarcated the international border.
[...]
"It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year."

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double — and in some places, triple — fencing.

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't say people who support "improving border controls". *I'm* a supporter of that. I'm talking about Trumps 1,000 mile long 8 billion dollar wall. I think you need to consider what the real issue is here.

So your objection is strictly to the word "wall"? If Trump started using the word "fence" you'd be ok with it? I'm pretty sure it is you who needs to check what the real issue is here -- and by the way, you're still describing me. To be clear: *I* read the word "wall" as symbolic/non-specific and as a result *I* support the statement/general proposal because of what *I* believe it actually means. Maybe I am mistaken about what *Trump* is after, but even if that's true, I am still evidence that at least some of "such people" don't believe what you think they do.

To be clear: a wall is better than a fence, but more expensive, but the most expensive piece would probably be the personnel/technology required to adequately man it anyway (though drones are going to make that much cheaper). The specific details of how we improve the border controls are open for debate and I'm open to a variety of suggestions up to and including a wall, depending on the details and cost of a real proposal. All we have at this point is political talking points, and such things are very thin on meaning/details. But regardless of the details, there is nothing inherently different between a fence and a wall and I therefore see no reason to assume the "wall" comes with nasty implications about motivation behind it.

David, we both believe that symbolism is being used in the wording choice, and you are choosing to believe the symbolism points in a really nasty direction, while sitting in front of you is an example of someone who takes it in a perfectly reasonable direction (that you might actually agree with!). I suggest that you should re-evaluate your perception of "such people".

If you haven't read it, here's Trump's website describing his proposal:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

There's nothing in there that implies racism/xenophobia even a little bit. So your attaching racism/xenophobia to it is an unfounded assumption based on some speculation/bias of yours.

And again: I want a reference or retraction of your claim about 20% of "such people" being self-described white supremacists.

 

[DavidSnider]

So your objection is strictly to the word "wall"? If Trump started using the word "fence" you'd be ok with it? I'm pretty sure it is you who needs to check what the real issue is here -- and by the way, you're still describing me. To be clear: *I* read the word "wall" as symbolic/non-specific and as a result *I* support the statement/general proposal because of what *I* believe it actually means. Maybe I am mistaken about what *Trump* is after, but even if that's true, I am still evidence that at least some of "such people" don't believe what you think they do.

To be clear: a wall is better than a fence, but more expensive, but the most expensive piece would probably be the personnel/technology required to adequately man it anyway (though drones are going to make that much cheaper). The specific details of how we improve the border controls are open for debate and I'm open to a variety of suggestions up to and including a wall, depending on the details and cost of a real proposal. All we have at this point is political talking points, and such things are very thin on meaning/details. But regardless of the details, there is nothing inherently different between a fence and a wall and I therefore see no reason to assume the "wall" comes with nasty implications about motivation behind it.

David, we both believe that symbolism is being used in the wording choice, and you are choosing to believe the symbolism points in a really nasty direction, while sitting in front of you is an example of someone who takes it in a perfectly reasonable direction (that you might actually agree with!). I suggest that you should re-evaluate your perception of "such people".

And again: I want a reference or retraction of your claim about 20% of "such people" being self-described white supremacists.

“It’s $8 billion.… And of the 2,000 [miles], we don’t need 2,000, we need 1,000 because we have natural barriers, et cetera, et cetera, and I’m taking it price per square foot and a price per square, you know, per mile, and it’s a very simple calculation. I’m talking about precasts going up probably 35 to 40 feet up in the air. That’s high; that’s a real wall. It will actually look good. It’ll look, you know, as good as a wall is going to look.”

 

[russ_watters]

“It’s $8 billion.… And of the 2,000 [miles], we don’t need 2,000, we need 1,000 because we have natural barriers, et cetera, et cetera, and I’m taking it price per square foot and a price per square, you know, per mile, and it’s a very simple calculation. I’m talking about precasts going up probably 35 to 40 feet up in the air. That’s high; that’s a real wall. It will actually look good. It’ll look, you know, as good as a wall is going to look.”

David, that's non-responsive to my point, but we'll have to set that aside for now: my request for factual back-up of your claim about white supremacists is not going to go away by ignoring it. It isn't optional.

 

[DavidSnider]

David, that's non-responsive to my point, but we'll have to set that aside for now: my request for factual back-up of your claim about white supremacists is not going to go away by ignoring it. It isn't optional.

It's not non-responsive. You questioned what the meaning of 'wall' is. It's clarifying what Trump has said the wall should be.

I can't find where I saw that. Feel free to replace it with page 15 of this:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_21616.pdf

 

[russ_watters]

I can't find where I saw that. Feel free to replace it with page 15 of this:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_21616.pdf

Thank you. So can we at least agree that that's substantially different (I would say way, way off, but there is no need to go that far) from what you claimed in post #158 or do I need to go through all of the differences point by point?

 

[DavidSnider]

Thank you. So can we at least agree that that's substantially different (I would say way, way off, but there is no need to go that far) from what you claimed in post #158 or do I need to go through all of the differences point by point?

16% of Trump SC Primary Supporters openly admitting to being white supremacists is way off from from 20% of people who support the idea of Trump's wall are White Supremacists? I'd say it lends quite a lot of plausibility to the stat.

 

[meBigGuy]

This concept that Trump supporters are somehow symbolically slapping the party by supporting Trump is pure nonsense. They support Trump because they like what he says. They support torture, think illegal immigrants are violent criminals, think we need a wall, etc etc etc.

If you want to assign "symbolic" significance for these people's sincere support for what Trump has to say, feel free to do so. But don't minimalise the fact they they are true supporters, and true believers, fanatics even. I still believe

My country is full of racist bigots who like what Trump says. Simple as that, really. No tolerance for other cultures, other religions, other races, even women.

 

[russ_watters]

16% of Trump SC Primary Supporters openly admitting to being white supremacists is way off from from 20% of people who support the idea of Trump's wall are White Supremacists? I'd say it lends quite a lot of plausibility to the stat.

Yes, they are at least substantially different, and that's not what you actually claimed when you used that as support anyway. So I guess I do need to go through it point by point:

What you actually said was:

Do you actually believe that the people who support building a giant wall across the Mexican border want to do it for any other reason than a symbolic showing of xenophobia and racism? Is it just a coincidence that when you poll this group of people that a good 20% openly admit to believing in White Supremacy?

"...any...".

So your claim is that the only reason to support "a wall" is racism, or from the other direction, everyone who supports the wall is a racist. So:

1. The stat you offered in support of the claim was "a good" (meaning, more than?) 20% of wall supporters admitting to be White Supremacists. 20% is off from "all" by a factor of 5. That's way, way off.
2. The actual poll stat was 16%, not 20%. I won't argue whether that qualifies as "substantial", but it is different and not coincidentally, wrong in the same direction.
3. The poll was Trump supporters, not "wall" supporters.
4. The poll was only South Carolina Trump supporters and I think you should agree that a deep south state's population is "substantially different" on issues like racism from the national average.

The reality is that nationwide and across political lines, 51% of Americans (70% of likely Republican voters) support the idea of a border "wall":
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._build_a_wall_deport_felon_illegal_immigrants

You essentially called half the population of the US racists and defended it with a stat that applies only to a small sliver of Americans and even then doesn't support it in that case! Yes, you are way, way off.

 

[russ_watters]

This concept that Trump supporters are somehow symbolically slapping the party by supporting Trump is pure nonsense. They support Trump because they like what he says. They support torture, think illegal immigrants are violent criminals, think we need a wall, etc etc etc.

If you want to assign "symbolic" significance for these people's sincere support for what Trump has to say, feel free to do so. But don't minimalise the fact they they are true supporters, and true believers, fanatics even. I still believe

So would you like to join DavidSnider's claim that 51% of Americans are racists based on their support for a border wall? Do you have any direct evidence of their racism (such as DavidSnider's poll showing a group who admit to being racists) or do you just consider the idea racist without a direct connection?

 

[DavidSnider]

So would you like to join DavidSnider's claim that 51% of Americans are racists based on their support for a border wall? Do you have any direct evidence of their racism (such as DavidSnider's poll showing a group who admit to being racists) or do you just consider the idea racist without a direct connection?

Let me clarify that I am not talking about any wall. From the context of the thread I thought it would be obvious we were talking about Trumps proposal.

 

[russ_watters]

Let me clarify that I am not talking about any wall. From the context of the thread I thought it would be obvious we were talking about Trumps proposal.

What's the difference?

 

[DavidSnider]

What's the difference?

Between any wall and specifically a 30 foot high concrete 1000 mile long wall? There could be a lot of variation.

 

[russ_watters]

Between any wall and specifically a 30 foot concrete 1000 mile long wall? There could be a lot of variation.

Ok. So at what height or length, specifically, does the proposal for a wall become racist and what is it before that? If I voted for a candidate who voted for a 29 foot, 999 mile wall, would that be inherently racist? If one of Trump's lackeys spent an hour looking at Google Earth and measured the proposed wall to be 965 miles, would we be all good then?

For his part, the Pope was certainly targeting Trump with his speech, but his language was very specifically general - and you and I were both referring to that quote.

 

[DavidSnider]

Ok. So at what height or length, specifically, does the proposal for a wall become racist and what is it before that?

When it becomes a purely ostentatious display to make a country that we have racial tensions with mad rather than a practical solution.

 

[russ_watters]

When it becomes a purely ostentatious display to make a country that we have racial tensions with mad rather than a practical solution.

And how do you determine that? I really want to know because I may need to alter my position to ensure that I'm not a racist.

[And I guess I'm setting aside reconciling it with both your and the Pope's language that were clearly referring to *any* wall...]

 

[DavidSnider]

And how do you determine that? I really want to know because I need to alter my position to ensure that I'm not a racist.

[And I guess I'm setting aside reconciling it with both your and the Pope's language that were clearly referring to *any* wall...]

At what temperature is water "hot"?

 

[russ_watters]

At what temperature is water "hot"?

Exactly. You are not following a defined criteria. And yet you said "...any..." (all).

Look, David - and MeBigGuy - I think by the way you are dodging/goalpost shifting/selectively ignoring parts of this that I'm getting through to you at least a little bit. My point here (as also pointed out by others) is that you guys are being overly judgemental in judging people's beliefs based on their support of a not inherently belief-based issue (as you said, it's just a wall!). I submit that you shouldn't be doing that. You should judge ideas at face value wherever possible and not assume ulterior/nefarious motives behind them when you have no direct evidence of those beliefs.

And in particular, when you find that your perceptions are way, way off from a reality, it should prompt you to re-evaluate how you arrived at that perception.

 

[russ_watters]

This kind of comment, assuming to know the minds of others, is almost the entirely the reason a showman like Trump is leading in the GOP.

...I really do believe that nonsense like this is what is fueling his popularity.

Yes, and based on the current discussion, I'd almost be willing to vote for him just to prove the point!

 

[DavidSnider]

Yes, and based on the current discussion, I'd almost be willing to vote for him just to prove the point!

Admitting that your party votes for people purely out of spite for the opposition is not doing them any favors.

 

[russ_watters]

Admitting that your party votes for people purely out of spite for the opposition is not doing them any favors.

I disagree.

And to add to my previous post, I also suggest that you not use overly broad language when you don't actually mean it.

 

[meBigGuy]

I'm not waffling in any way. Just read what I said. All your hocus-pocus rationalization stuff is off the mark. For the most part Trump's support is clear and simple.
We will just have to disagree on how racist this country really is and how narrow minded Trump supporters are. Do you think they are the "salt of the earth"? They are just all sad disillusioned idealists lashing out in the only way they can? BAH!

You can latch on one narrow interpretation and demand "direct evidence", but that misses the whole point.

 

[TurtleMeister]

Better get this in before the thread gets locked. :)

The idea that better control on our southern border, or "the wall", is a racist issue is insane. Let's suppose that everyone south of that border is white. Everything else being equal, would that then make it a non-issue? Do you think that we would all just say "oh well, they're all white so everything is cool"? I'm sure that there are some racists in Trump supporters. But this is not a race issue.

The best answer to this thread has already been posted. But I'm sure that many of you just turned a blind eye to it. I will post the link again in case you missed it: Trump's America. If nothing else, just read the first sentence. Hopefully that will be enough to make you want to read more. If you are under 50 years old then I can understand how you may not relate to it. But I can tell you that it contains a lot of truths. I know it because I've lived it.

 

[Confusing Happiness]

Trump, Steve Jobs, the Clintons, Cosby, Hitler, Oprah, and Kim Jong Un and many others share something in common - they have a high theory of mind, develop & sell their personality brand, and know how to wield rhetoric like a tool or weapon. Trump's lifestyle is very liberal, but suddenly he's the South's favorite guy. He's pretending to be religious, claims he's a gentleman towards women, and acts nicer towards the Pope. There are psychological classifications for people like this - he's all of them.

 

[russ_watters]

We will just have to disagree on how racist this country really is and how narrow minded Trump supporters are.

You are allowed to believe what you want, but when you say things here that are claims of fact, they have to be substantiated with facts.

 

[Bystander]

Donald Trump? Bull in a China shop --- full of what? I'm beginning to think the inventory's not all that valuable --- leastwise the breakable stuff.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

You are again focusing on Trump rather than his supporters.

Donald Trump is a great guy, we've been friends for a long time, I love him, great guy, huuuuge potential, still... You are definitely right — this is not about good ol' Donald per se. Afaik, in current political climate, one could teach a monkey waving his arms while screaming a few insulting/naughty words, and the political success would be equal — if not even greater.

I found a link to Murray's essay that is not behind a pay wall.

http://www.aei.org/publication/trum...content=AEITHISWEEK&utm_campaign=Weekly021216

Interesting reading, especially since Charles Murray resonate in the right political spectrum (libertarian). Though one passage is a little bit wacky, where Murray partly blame civil rights and feminist movements for breaking up the "American creed", which then alienated the archetypal "Reagan Democrats" of the 1980s white working-class males, whom now are described as the core of support for Mr. Trump.

Hum... this part of the thesis might be problematic in the light of Charles Murray's own infamous Trump(chauvin)ism, with papers titled "Where Are the Female Einsteins?" and books like The Bell Curve, about race and intelligence... (which was repudiated in NYT as "a scabrous piece of racial pornography masquerading as serious scholarship").

Fortunately, a few paragraphs later, Murray get his act together when it comes to the heart of the matter:

[my emphasis]

But the central truth of Trumpism as a phenomenon is that the entire American working class has legitimate reasons to be angry at the ruling class. During the past half-century of economic growth, virtually none of the rewards have gone to the working class. The economists can supply caveats and refinements to that statement, but the bottom line is stark: The real family income of people in the bottom half of the income distribution hasn’t increased since the late 1960s.
[...]
To top it off, the party they have voted for in recent decades, the Republicans, hasn’t done a damn thing to help them. Who wouldn’t be angry?

— This is a quite powerful revelation, coming from the right —So, what do the lefties have to say about the matter? Well...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109
(Disclaimer: If you're a hardcore Republican, easily hurt, thinking Murray was harsh — don't follow the link. Read the following quotes from high-ranking Republicans instead.)

[my emphasis]

"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."
[...]
Tax receipts as a percent of the total economy have fallen to levels not seen since before the Korean War – nearly 20 percent below the historical average. "Taxes are ridiculously low!" says Bruce Bartlett, an architect of Reagan's 1981 tax cut. "And yet the mantra of the Republican Party is 'Tax cuts raise growth.' So – where's the fu**ing growth?"

Republicans talk about job creation, about preserving family farms and defending small businesses, and reforming Medicare and Social Security. But almost without exception, every proposal put forth by GOP lawmakers and presidential candidates is intended to preserve or expand tax privileges for the wealthiest Americans. And most of their plans, which are presented as common-sense measures that will aid all Americans, would actually result in higher taxes for middle-class taxpayers and the poor.

(Oops, if Tim Dickinson is correct, the [new] GOP abbreviation might stand for Grand One Percent... ;)

Seems like these gentlemen fairly agree on what's the problem with today's Republican Party. Charles Murray believe GOP has left 50% of the population behind, while Tim Dickinson think it is as much as 99%, and everything that GOP does nowadays is destined for the 1% wealthiest Americans.

This thread is probably not the right place to discuss the correct number, and it really doesn't matter — 50% is enough for any rambling monkey to win the GOP primaries.

(According to pivit.io Trump right now has a 50% chance to become the 2016 Republican Nominee, which is spot on...)

Finally, a picture that says a lot:

Federal debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP, from 1790 to 2013, projected to 2038

The outcome of the primaries will depend of whether the Republican establishment can convince angry voters that the scary bulge to the right is solely due to Obamacare etc, or if Mr. Trump can convince them that in current legislation there is no jurisdictional difference between donations, funding and bribes, which result in a corrupt system/rigged economy.

And just as Murray's essay started; don’t kid yourself that Trumpism will fade away if Trump fails to win the Republican nomination. There will always be a new barking "Donald Thwomp", lurking around the corner, and next time this creature might possesses the right psychopath/demagogue skills to make it all the way.

This got to be solved the civilized way — there is no choice.

 

[mheslep]

Charles Murray believe GOP has left 50% of the population behind

Murray doesn't lay blame on just the GOP.

By the beginning of the 1980s, Democratic elites overwhelmingly subscribed to an ideology in open conflict with liberty and individualism as traditionally understood. This consolidated the Democratic Party’s longtime popularity with ethnic minorities, single women and low-income women, but it alienated another key Democratic constituency: the white working class.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Murray doesn't lay blame on just the GOP.

True, the world isn't black & white, and I think this isn't a "blame game". However, note that Murray state "the central truth of Trumpism as a phenomenon"...

To back it up somewhat (though not legitimate science), last night in S.C. CNN exit polls asked:

- Do you feel betrayed by the Republican Party?​

53% answered: Yes

(and my guess is this has very little to do with the civil rights movement or women's lib... but of course I could be wrong...)

Last night the Bush clan left the political stage, the last direct link to Ronald Reagan and "trickle-down economics". The same night 53% of the Republican voters said they felt betrayed by the party.

Coincidence?

 

[mheslep]

Last night the Bush clan left the political stage, the last direct link to Ronald Reagan and "trickle-down economics". The same night 53% of the Republican voters said they felt betrayed by the party.

Coincidence?

Bush? Trickle down economics? The year is 2016.

The betrayal answer, among Republican voters, comes overwhelmingly from the perceived opinion, fair or not, that after the voters installed an overwhelming Congressional majority, they were unable to stop Obamacare and did not significantly stop illegal immigration. Also throw in a lousy real unemployment rate for a half dozen years and continuing enormous deficit.

 

[p1l0t]

Bush? Trickle down economics? The year is 2016.

The betrayal answer, among Republican voters, comes overwhelmingly from the perceived opinion, fair or not, that after the voters installed an overwhelming Congressional majority, they were unable to stop Obamacare and did not significantly stop illegal immigration. Also throw in a lousy real unemployment rate for a half dozen years and continuing enormous deficit.

HA http://usdebtclock.org it's fine it's the government it runs on magic it doesn't have to ever cut spending that would hurt the economy. It won't be inefficient and prolong the recession...

 

[jw6661]

Trump is popular because of the media:



watch it and weep it ^_^

 

[jw6661]

Newt Gingrich to Fox News: You ‘Invented’ Donald Trump

 

[mheslep]

I think there's some truth to the notion that the mass media invented Trump. Supposedly he gets something like 3/4 of the free media time among all the candidates. Several of the networks allow Trump to regularly conduct phone interviews. They've not done that with any other candidate in the past.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Bush?

Yes the Bush family, where members of the family has been in the White House in 20 of the last 35 years. I'm sure you recognise one or two:

Trickle down economics? The year is 2016.

If Martin Luther King, Jane Fonda and Reagan Democrats is referred to as a plausible explanation for the 2016 Trump success, I really don't see a problem to account for a (global) paradigm shift like Trickle-down/Reaganomics, that affects billions of people to this day (ask the Greeks).

Short recap:

After WWII, between 1945-1970, the Bretton Woods monetary system (aka Keynesianism) established the rules for financial relations among the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, Australia and Japan, which included fixed exchange rates and the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency. Bretton Woods resulted in high growth, low unemployment, price stability and levelled income inequality — and is known as the Golden Age of Capitalism.

On 15 August 1971 — without consulting IMF or his own State Department — Nixon presented what was soon dubbed the Nixon Shock:



Of course, this 'temporarily' suspension of the convertibility of the US$ to gold was soon permanent (as a direct result of the costly Vietnam War), which led to the collapse of the Bretton Woods monetary system, and then the 1973 oil crisis, and the 1973–1974 stock market crash, led to the full-blown 1970s recession.

In the 1970s recession there was low growth, high unemployment + high inflation, which according to the experts was an 'impossible' combination, and some claimed there was something fundamentally wrong in Keynesian theory.

Now in the early 1980s, this troika entered the political/economical stage:

Milton Friedman, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan ordered the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism (as a remedy to to the 'faulty' Keynesianism), which became know as Neoliberalism aka Thatcherism aka Reaganomics aka Trickle-down economics. However different names, the fundamental pillars where all the same: Extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, reductions in government spending in order to enhance the private sector in the economy — with the promise that it would benefit all.

And the result after 35 years is this:

Source: When a Rising Tide Sinks Most Boats - Trends in US Income Inequality (Levy Economics Institute)

I.e. Charles Murray's central truth of Trumpism refined...If you still think that Trickle-down/Reaganomics is obsolete today, pleas read this 2015 IMF paper:

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42986.0

We find that increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20 percent results in lower growth—that is, when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down.

Or, listen to Marco Rubio on the South Carolina Primary Results:

Ronald Reagan! [Yeaaaaaaah-clap-clap-clap] Ronald Reagan made us believe that it was Morning in America again, and it was. [Yeaah] Well, now the children of the Reagan Revolution are ready assume the mantel of leadership! [Yeaaaaaaah-clap-clap-clap] Now, those of us who grow up when it was Morning in America, and Ronald Reagan was in the White House, are ready to do for our* generation... for ah.. are ready to do for the next generation, what Ronald Reagan did for ours! [Woooooo-Yeaaaaaaah-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap]

*Interesting Freudian slip :)

(Looks like Rubio is going to take Reaganomics 2.0 into the 21st century... poor kid, roaring Thwomp will crush him before he ever gets the chance...)

Trickle-down has failed, and at least in the UK young conservatives has the decency to admit there's a problem:

Trickle-down economics is dead, let’s build prosperity from the middle-out instead | Conservative Home

This is the only way to save the Republican Party — fluff smoke screens like civil rights etc, will only boost Trumpism and other roaring creatures.