Donald Trump wins III

Let’s be careful not to fall into hermeneutic interpretation of simple facts. Or, to put it another way…. let’s not B.S. ourselves. Donald Trump is a bigot. Moreover, and perhaps worse, Mike Pence is a mega-Mega-MEGA bigot.

Given Trump’s vagary, Pence may be the ‘power behind the throne’ like Cheney. Some people have wishfully said, ‘Maybe Trump will get bored and quit?’ That might not be an improvement. In the new congressional majority too there are many people who are, let us say, not so nice.

MANY people looked at Trump and saw a chance to take back their country… to the fifties. That is why so many people, including myself, are deeply frightened at Trump’s win. We have suddenly realized that this particular problem was much bigger than we thought (or, returning to the fist post in this series that it is as big as we disavowed knowing but to some degree knew nonetheless.)

When people chant “Jew-S-A” at Trump rallies and when the KKK and other white-supremacist organizations can hardly contain their glee at his ascension, in these cases no further analysis is necessary or possible.

Again, let’s not B.S. ourselves or try to say things like “they don’t know what they’re saying” or “they’re just burning off steam.” That’s crap. Take them at their revanchist word.

However in other cases there is a reason to be nuanced. I think that there are three basic types of Trump voter. In addition to those ‘a priori’ bigots there are the desperate and the ‘adjunctive’ racists.

Many people said “My and my friends’ standard of living has cratered. Our children’s will surely be lower still or they might drown in a sea of heroin and fentanyl. Our town/city will never recover. I am desperate and I’ve had it with trickle-down economics, political correctness and arrogant elites. How do these things help anyone, let alone our children?”

Also for these people do not miss the importance of Clinton’s closeness to Wall Street.

Another important fact is that in the key “flip” states many of them are actually lifelong Democrats. They voted for Trump, not with malice but out of reckless desperation. “This,”—I am sure many thought—”is our one and only chance.”

In voting for Trump on this basis (or by refraining from voting or by voting third-party which is basically the same thing) did these people act with lack of empathy for and perhaps disregard for minorities? Yes. Is this the U.S.A at its finest? No.

However, in two years there is a midterm and it is of paramount importance that we zero in on the parts of that logic we can work with and ignore the parts we can’t, for now anyway. We must be able to credibly say “We can help you and your children.” We must make the case (and then we must actually do it, ‘natch.) They did not believe that Clinton could help them or would. And I think that they were right. They are wrong that Trump can help them but that must be a part of our case.

Here is a quotation from a November 10 Reuters piece by Peter Eisler. The dateline is Bethlehem, PA.

[Jim] McAndrew, 69, a retired steel worker, voted Democrat in every presidential election for half a century. This year he stayed home… [He] was intrigued by Trump, but decided eventually that “all he does is insult everybody … women, black people, white people, rich, poor. He’s an idiot.” He considered Clinton, but was concerned by the scandal over her handling of classified material on a private email server as secretary of state. “I hated both of them, so I just said, ‘the hell with it,’” McAndrew said. His wife, also a life- long Democrat, went to the polls without him—and voted Republican. “First time ever,” he said.

The title of the article? “How Hillary Clinton’s white voters melted away.” Notice how this man specifically identified disparagement of black people and women as a reason to not vote for Trump. His response to this situation was not perfect, but there is reason for hope. To denounce these people and shout “bigot!” is counterproductive.

The third group voted for Trump because of adjunctive racism. The difference between this and a priori racism is that this racism emanates from something identifiable. It’s basically superstition, an incorrect explanation for something which is real. “Mexicans took my job.” “Blacks come into my town and deal drugs.” You know the drill.

They lashed out in anger because they perceived themselves as victims (and they may have a point about that) but blamed the wrong victimizers. This can be dealt with in basically the same way. If we point to the real facts and make credible promises to ameliorate the social ills, the racism will be abandoned as it will no longer seem attractive.

Deprive racism of an argument and it won’t give even false explanations for anything. We need well-founded, unhostile counter-arguments that focus on the factual inaccuracy of the logical linkage and which leave the valence of the racial disparagement for later.

I use the term “adjunctive racism” not “adjunctive bigotry” because 99% of this is wrapped up in nativism. However to the extent that it applies to other categories of bias then mutatis mutandis the same solution may also apply.

(But obviously, some of Trump’s supporters are dangerous. Violence has entered into our public discourse in a way that is quite scary. Emotions have exploded out of control. So be smart about who you talk to and how.)

Advertisements

Hillary Clinton and guns

Someone recently said that they are considering voting for Donald Trump because they fear that Hillary Clinton will take away their guns*.

I respectfully disagree, here is why that is wrong.

To begin with. I am fine with personal gun ownership. I know that this is liberal heresy but I never claimed to be large-L Liberal. Beside, let us look, clear-eyed, at the candidates; if we accept the common definition that conservatives wish to retain the way things are now, or return to earlier ways and liberals wish to try new ways in no meaningful sense is Trump conservative or Clinton liberal. Trump is a radically disrupting, innovative, even deviant force. Clinton is the ultimate status-quo candidate. “Liberalism” and “conservativism” are now dead.

Hillary Clinton will not take guns away because that is legally impossible.

Not even the most contorted reading can get around the fact that the constitution flatly prohibits a total ban on private gun ownership. Aside from the obvious 2nd amendment dimension, in practice a gun ban would involve the 5th amendment (illegal taking) the 14th amendment (ditto) and, vitiated though it is, the 10th amendment (limits on Federal power vs. State power.)

Hillary Clinton will not take guns away because that is politically impossible.

Forty-three percent of Americans own at least one gun according to a Gallup poll. The same poll showed 72% oppose a handgun ban. 56% said an increase in concealed-carry would make the country safer. 58% had a favorable opinion of the NRA. Remember: those people vote.

However, polls (and not just this one) do show considerable support for expanding background checks. That, however, does not constitute taking guns away.

Even barring the overwhelming legal obstacles, gun confiscation is politically suicidal. In addition: while predicting the future in normal years is a guessing-game and in this political year doubly so, I do not think that the GOP will lose the house. Their majority will surely be diluted but they will not likely lose the house because they have the largest majority in modern history.

Probably, Democrats have a chance of retaking the Senate. (Just as districting (the ‘Electoral College’) currently works FOR Democrats in the presidential election, districting currently works AGAINST them in the House. Democrats are largely and heavily concentrated in blue-leaning urban districts. Many of those districts are leaning so-far to the blue side that they’ve fallen and can’t get up. That means remarkable levels of ‘wasted’ votes. Moreover, the GOP controlled the last gerrymandering–excuse me, ‘re-districting’, and naturally distorted the system heavily to their favor**. Therefore: even though in 2014, Democrats won 47% of the vote, excluding minor parties, they won a mere 43% of seats.)

A significant additional reason why the Dems did so poorly in 2014 was that their core voter didn’t turn up. Now, in an election year, with a fabulously unpopular if not downright toxic candidate at the head of the ticket…. don’t hold your breath, especially if it looks like (and it does) that Trump is hurtling toward inevitable defeat.

So, in order to seriously dent gun rights. Clinton would have to win legislation that cannot pass, that would see root-and-branch resistance among a large percentage of the electorate and that would be shot down by the Supreme court. It is more politically probable that the Eritrea will apply to become the 51st state than that significant gun policy changes will occur.

There are three “live-rails” of American politics: Medicare, Social Security and Gun Rights. Even politicians of singular conviction and moral strength cannot touch these.

Speaking of that…. Hillary Clinton is singularly vacuous and lacking in principals, thus it is foolish to imagine that she will actually blow a huge amount of her already meager political capital on something that cannot occur.

Clinton has flippity-flopped on so many issues that it buggers belief. No politician is more nakedly blown here and there by every wind of doctrine. Only the presence of you-know-who prevents me from describing her as the “dada-candidate.”

Trump is the Dada candidate. It’s silly to assume that a candidate who has no rational or coherent policy agenda, may be insane and does not even bother to try to hide his constant policy gyrations would actually support any thing whatsoever. He is a splintered reed. That goes for gun rights as for anything. At this point, if Donald Trump said he was for three square meals a day I would disbelieve him.

*This was before Trump hinted that his followers should assassinate Clinton. However, in political writing you can pick no more than two of currency, sophistication and style.

** In fairness, oh yes Democrats 100% do that too. They just weren’t in a position to do so at the time.

Why did Bernie Sanders’ campaign fail?

Are you sure it failed? Certainly, Sanders has been precluded from being the nominee for a long time but it prevented the no-challenge Clinton coronation that everyone was afraid of. That is not to be sneezed at.

Beside, by out flanking her ideologically he has forced her into the unfortunate position of having as her best argument “I’m not Trump.”

But let’s examine some things that undermined the campaign.

  1. TOO NICE – Sanders was a remarkably civil, high-concept opponent. Not to sound cynical but that doesn’t really work in presidential politics.
  2. THE WORD SOCIALISM — There are two problems with using the word “socialism.” First is the obvious one. It’s just not true.

    Sanders is no socialist, nowhere near it. Nationalization of industry and abolishment of normal buying and selling are central and inseparable to the definition of socialism and both are conspicuously absent from Sander’s agenda. Sanders is a garden variety social democrat (which is a world of difference from “democratic socialist” a term with no accepted prior definition.) This left the unavoidable impression that Sanders was either uninformed or reaching for shock value. Neither is a good look on a presidential candidate.

    The second problem with “socialism” is that it invites false but hard to rebut comparisons to failed states such as Venezuela. What is happening in Venezuela is the inevitable result of the combination of price controls and artificially fixed currency exchange rates which encourage the normally economically irrational practice of buying things in order to export them out of the country. This has very little to do with socialism and the majority of Venezuelan industry is privately owned.

  3. WRONG PHRASING — I cannot say it enough, “income inequality” is a junk concept. To be sure, it’s a real and existential threat to the stability of our civilization in the long-term and when it entails rigging and economic fakery, which is more commonly than imagined, it is morally wrong but the problem lies in how it is termed. “Income inequality” sounds greedy and entitled. You get nowhere with that. Try talking about “dramatic collapse in upward mobility.”

    When you phrase it that way, many Sanders initiatives such as free at the point of use healthcare and higher education sound less like lazy-bum handouts and more like investments in that thing Donald Trump keeps talking about: Making America Great. The tack that Sanders and the left at large are taking is ideologically immoderate and renders cross-aisle support unlikely.

  4. IMPRACTICALITY — You don’t have to have a degree in politics to determine that there is zero chance in hell of Sanders implementing even a single plank of his platform as long as Republicans control the House and/or Senate. More likely than not they will retain the House and Senate. Sanders never articulated any idea as to how he was going to actually implement this. Rather, he embraced what is sometimes termed “whig history” – the idea of historical inevitability of progress towards certain ideas. That is to say, no action was required other than a vague “political revolution.” We all know what happened to the Whigs.
  5. TACTICAL ERROR — I admire the spirit of the comment about “your damn emails” but that was a mistake. We, voters, are obliged to consider the matter. Not necessarily because of alleged illegality per se but because of what pattern of secrecy, contempt for rules and disregard for appearances of propriety they evince.