Anger at the 'establishment'

[Thyrsis]

That's a recurring trend in the dialogue around Trump's win.

I'm not intending to argue here (or suggesting I'm pro-'establishment'); I'm genuinely curious. What do people think that means? In this particular context, what about the 'establishment' are people so angry about?

 

[Fro]

Not a fan of Michael Moore, but I think he explains it pretty well (he drops some F-Bombs, so warning on that).

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

That's a recurring trend in the dialogue around Trump's win.

I'm not intending to argue here (or suggesting I'm pro-'establishment'); I'm genuinely curious. What do people think that means? In this particular context, what about the 'establishment' are people so angry about?

Well, I will say that I'm pro-establishment. But I'm also critical of what it's become in recent times. I don't want it to be replaced, I want it to be improved.

What it means is that the entrenched political class has a set of agendas and priorities that is largely detached from the people they're elected to serve. I've long thought that immigration and trade policy were primary examples where this was the case. But you could also look at Evan Bayh's situation as a microcosm of this detachment -- he uses his last months in the Senate to block a removal of the tax loophole for hedge funds and private equity firms....and then cashes in to the tune of 10+ million from a private equity firm?

If there's a silver lining in all of this, hopefully it's that it will cause the political establishment to reconsider some of its priorities and approaches.

 

[Thyrsis]

Well, I will say that I'm pro-establishment. But I'm also critical of what it's become in recent times. I don't want it to be replaced, I want it to be improved.

What it means is that the entrenched political class has a set of agendas and priorities that is largely detached from the people they're elected to serve. I've long thought that immigration and trade policy were primary examples where this was the case. But you could also look at Evan Bayh's situation as a microcosm of this detachment -- he uses his last months in the Senate to block a removal of the tax loophole for hedge funds and private equity firms....and then cashes in to the tune of 10+ million from a private equity firm?

If there's a silver lining in all of this, hopefully it's that it will cause the political establishment to reconsider some of its priorities and approaches.

For so much anger, that's pretty vague and non-specific.

 

[Noodle]

That's a recurring trend in the dialogue around Trump's win.

I'm not intending to argue here (or suggesting I'm pro-'establishment'); I'm genuinely curious. What do people think that means? In this particular context, what about the 'establishment' are people so angry about?

I don't know, but whenever I hear people complaining about the "establishment" I am reminded of Bob Knight's famous rant about "putting on your game face."

 

[Marvin the Martian]

If it was anti-establishment, why did virtually every incumbent win?

 

[Noodle]

If it was anti-establishment, why did virtually every incumbent win?

How many anti-establishment options did voters actually have? The continued success of incumbents is largely due to the process rather than the electorate

 

[Marvin the Martian]

How many anti-establishment options did voters actually have? The continued success of incumbents is largely due to the process rather than the electorate

If people's message was to seriously shake up Washington, vote Trump and vote to kick out Ryan (for example). Party loyalty trumped that. It wasn't "let's throw the bastards out", it was "let's keep our establishment Republicans and put some new kid in charge". Maybe it will work. But if you really want to shake things up, some GOP things have to go too. This idea that the speaker won't bring a vote that doesn't have a majority in his party is establishment politics. So 49% of Republicans and 100% of Dems want something, and it can't go forward? You don't get any more establishment than that.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That's a recurring trend in the dialogue around Trump's win.

I'm not intending to argue here (or suggesting I'm pro-'establishment'); I'm genuinely curious. What do people think that means? In this particular context, what about the 'establishment' are people so angry about?

I was going to post about this also. Here is my take.

Think about a bubble. Our politics has created a bubble not unlike the dot-com bubble and not unlike the housing bubble. The bubble was created in the way any bubble is created. It is self-centered. It is an echo chamber. In the final analysis a bubble consumes itself and implodes.

The effects of the political bubble are all over the place and we discussed most of those from time to time here. The single common effect, though, whether we frame the bubble as "the establishment" or "big government" or "wall street" or the various and many flavors of single interests across the political spectrum,* is that nobody pays attention to the millions of people who don't belong to any single interest--who reside and think outside the bubble. Those who reside in the bubble don't know about those people.**

One of my favorite political writers/observers is Salena Zito. As means to understand this campaign, she drove the Lincoln Highway from Appalachia to Cheyenne Wyoming and after a detour to end in Timnath Colorado. She wrote about this here. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out as she travelled and talked to people outside of the bubble that here was something brewing in fly-over country. (see also here, here, and here.)

Trump was the needle that burst the bubble; he began by crashing to the GOP nomination and the job was finished yesterday. The bubble was bound to burst anyway. The disappointment for me is that Trump is the one who did it. I wish it could have been Romney, or Rubio, or Fiorina, or Kasich. But upon reflection, maybe it just takes a big prick to do the job.

*I'm thinking of everything from bathroom use rules to hedge fund gazillionaires here.

**sadly posters on this board already dismiss these people as low information dumbasses.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Not a fan of Michael Moore, but I think he explains it pretty well (he drops some F-Bombs, so warning on that).

View embedded media

Excellent.

It ain't rocket surgery.

Bubba supported the Democrats for years.
Decades.
Got a turd sandwich.
Got told what to think.
Got told what to like.
Got told that if they disagreed or asked questions, they were racist morons.

Paybacks are hell.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

If it was anti-establishment, why did virtually every incumbent win?

That's the million dollar question, Marv. It's because they define the establishment as Obama and Clinton. They hate them, each for different reasons. Some hate them for abominable reasons, but the majority hate them because they've talked themselves into thinking they are genuine threats to our country. Whatever that means.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Excellent.

It ain't rocket surgery.

Bubba supported the Democrats for years.
Decades.
Got a turd sandwich.
Got told what to think.
Got told what to like.
Got told that if they disagreed or asked questions, they were racist morons.

Paybacks are hell.

I do not disagree that the Dems failed to pay enough attention to bubba, and frankly can show a sense of superiority.

But the bigger problem is simple, until the 1970s just being a white male guaranteed a certain Socio-economic status and power. As we leveled the playing field by allowing minorities and women to compete, the rest of the world recovered from wwii and began manufacturing. The result, fewer jobs for more people. SOME bubbas blame their woes on that expanded market of workers, ie women and minorities. I have seen you post here on this board that union working Democrats were some of the most racist people. That was when you wanted to blame Dems for racism. Are those people now more enlightened because they voted Trump.

There is a fine line here. My liberal friends are screaming at how horrible racist bubba are, and yelling at me for trying to suggest a different narrative. At the same point, if 2-3% of the electorate are racist bubbas and we would remove them from the count, how does yesterday look?

We know the KKK endorsed Trump, some racists voted Trump. The problem is that gets heard as Trump voters are racist.

I would be interested overlaying county votes yesterday with that of George Wallace to see if there is a corrolation. It doesn't mean much, just a curiosity.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

That's the million dollar question, Marv. It's because they define the establishment as Obama and Clinton. They hate them, each for different reasons. Some hate them for abominable reasons, but the majority hate them because they've talked themselves into thinking they are genuine threats to our country. Whatever that means.

Probably because of Clinton, establishment morphed into Democrat. Part of it is free trade, the GOP is the original free trade party. But the Dems betrayed them on that issue. Now what does the GOP do? Will the GOP vote tariffs?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Probably because of Clinton, establishment morphed into Democrat. Part of it is free trade, the GOP is the original free trade party. But the Dems betrayed them on that issue. Now what does the GOP do? Will the GOP vote tariffs?

Right. I don't how a tariff or anti-free trade bill even arises on the House floor. Despite the way they position themselves to the masses, I have to think that there are enough GOPers that understand economics to make that idea DOA

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

For so much anger, that's pretty vague and non-specific.

How so?

I gave you several (specific) examples that separate large parts of the electorate from our political establishment. And this isn't only manifested in Trump, either. It was also instrumental in Bernie Sanders' surprisingly strong primary challenge.

I think Sope Creek also made some good observations about this in the election night thread.

So, I have to ask, are you really interested in understanding what's driving this? Or are you asking this flippantly?

 

[Thyrsis]

How so?

I gave you several (specific) examples that separate large parts of the electorate from our political establishment. And this isn't only manifested in Trump, either. It was also instrumental in Bernie Sanders' surprisingly strong primary challenge.

I think Sope Creek also made some good observations about this in the election night thread.

So, I have to ask, are you really interested in understanding what's driving this? Or are you asking this flippantly?

No, I'm very serious.

What agenda points are detached from the people?

What about immigration policy infuriates? Do those immigration policy points personally and immediately impact the angry? How so?

Same with trade.

Did Bayh's blockage of a hedge fund loophole get lots of media attention and traction among the angry?

Is there anything else?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

the GOP is the original free trade party.

Actually, that's not true. In fact, protectionism is one of worst legacies of the Republican Party from the late 19th century through the 1930s. At that time, it was mostly the Democrats who promoted low trade barriers.

Free trade -- loosely defined, and with some caveats -- has been the general position of both parties since the Great Depression.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

No, I'm very serious.

What agenda points are detached from the people?

What about immigration policy infuriates? Do those immigration policy points personally and immediately impact the angry? How so?

This is exactly the right question to ask because it gets to the heart of Trump's victory: the low information voter.

An informed voter knows that Obama has deported more people than any other President and we are in a negative immigration state with Mexico.

But the Trumpers either haven't heard that (no desire to know facts and operate in an echo chamber) or don't want to hear that (i.e., cognitive dissonance).

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

No, I'm very serious.

What agenda points are detached from the people?

What about immigration policy infuriates? Do those immigration policy points personally and immediately impact the angry? How so?

Seriously? I should invite you to some of our construction sites some time.

Immigrants, particularly those here illegally, are getting an increasingly significant share of the work -- and for one reason only: they cost less to employ.

And our policymakers, rather than figuring out ways to combat this wage-depressing trend, have instead busied themselves with how to formally bless it.

Same with trade.

It's basically the same issue with a different locale.

Did Bayh's blockage of a hedge fund loophole get lots of media attention and traction among the angry?

Well, that's right about when his numbers tanked. And Evan Bayh had never lost an election in the state of Indiana. He went pretty quickly from a commanding lead to losing by 10 points to a much lesser-known opponent.

So, yeah...I'd say that story played right into the theme of an uprising against the political establishment.

Is there anything else?

Well, sure. How broadly unpopular has Obamacare been...even before it was passed and signed? But that clearly had no impact on the politicians who were determined to push it through regardless what people thought about it.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Actually, that's not true. In fact, protectionism is one of worst legacies of the Republican Party from the late 19th century through the 1930s. At that time, it was mostly the Democrats who promoted low trade barriers.

Free trade -- loosely defined, and with some caveats -- has been the general position of both parties since the Great Depression.

True, let me amend the statement. The Reagan Republican Party was the free trade party. Democrats were more protectionist, owing to their union support.

It is interesting. The GOP (since Reagan) was free trade and the Dems got beat up over that so became free traders. The GOP was the party to flex American military muscle and the Dems the pacifists (again, since 1976 or so). In both instances, the GOP flipped this election and the Dems ran when the tried and true and were beaten up over it. I didn't like Clinton's hawkishness, but I'm surprised Trump's move to the left of her on that didn't kill his chances. Dems were tarred and feathered for being against American involvement.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

An informed voter knows that Obama has deported more people than any other President and we are in a negative immigration state with Mexico.

With this being the case, how would you explain the political establishment's steadfast unwillingness to do anything about border security? In fact, they were so hellbent on not enacting serious border security measures that they were willing to scuttle a bipartisan immigration reform bill to avoid it.

Moreover, if Obama was so keen on deportation, why did he try to use (unconstitutional) executive actions to defer deportation for millions here unlawfully?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

We may have to figure out this anger narrative. I am starting to think it is BS. Right now, as the votes stand, Trump has fewer votes than Romney received. Not by a lot. Romney had 60,993,504 and Trump is at 59,506,068. Is that an outpouring of anger driving people to the polls? He may well catch Romney, but it isn't like he's blowing Romney out of the water. If there was a huge outpouring of anger, wouldn't there be more voters?

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

That's a recurring trend in the dialogue around Trump's win.

I'm not intending to argue here (or suggesting I'm pro-'establishment'); I'm genuinely curious. What do people think that means? In this particular context, what about the 'establishment' are people so angry about?

See 'Tea Party', 'Occupy Movement', ' Bernie Sanders'.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

With this being the case, how would you explain the political establishment's steadfast unwillingness to do anything about border security? In fact, they were so hellbent on not enacting serious border security measures that they were willing to scuttle a bipartisan immigration reform bill to avoid it.

Maybe because it was a poorly written bill? Why did so many leaders amd former leaders in law enforcement oppose it? How does cutting off funding of sanctuary cities improve border security?

The bill was Draconian and it was wisely scuttled. Denying a shitty bill a vote doesn't mean they're against border security.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

We may have to figure out this anger narrative. I am starting to think it is BS. Right now, as the votes stand, Trump has fewer votes than Romney received. Not by a lot. Romney had 60,993,504 and Trump is at 59,506,068. Is that an outpouring of anger driving people to the polls? He may well catch Romney, but it isn't like he's blowing Romney out of the water. If there was a huge outpouring of anger, wouldn't there be more voters?

You're wasting digital breath. The Trumpers have won and any attempts to show them how irrationally the electorate behaved in this election will only be met by more phooey. We just have to make the best of this situation.

For me, the worst part is that the GOP, which already was a clusterf__k of epic proportions now believes they have the appropriate market position and any hopes I had of them becoming the party of reason again blew up last night.

 

[Lucy01]

You're wasting digital breath. The Trumpers have won and any attempts to show them how irrationally the electorate behaved in this election will only be met by more phooey. We just have to make the best of this situation.

For me, the worst part is that the GOP, which already was a clusterf__k of epic proportions now believes they have the appropriate market position and any hopes I had of them becoming the party of reason again blew up last night.

Does your parents know you're on the internet?

 

[iubud]

That's a recurring trend in the dialogue around Trump's win.

I'm not intending to argue here (or suggesting I'm pro-'establishment'); I'm genuinely curious. What do people think that means? In this particular context, what about the 'establishment' are people so angry about?

On the Dems side, the leadership knew Hillary wasn't a good campaigner or even the best person to run for president. It was her turn and they knew their rank and file members would still vote for her. An old, socialist pushed her pretty hard and should have sent warning signs. They probably saw she was in trouble, but it was too late to recruit someone else.

On the GOP side, their leadership saw Jeb Bush, Rubio, and Cruz as the 3 they wanted to run. It became clear early that Bush wasn't appealing. GOP voters pushed back and looked for the candidate that was less like any of the traditional candidates that did nothing they promised to do.

I don't believe it is anger, but there is a frustration that leaders don't represent or understand what is important to the people. People sent to Washington to do what the people wanted became just like the people they replaced.

There have been people like Trump before, but people weren't fed up enough to throw aside the traditional politician that had worked their way up to run for president. Trump is today's Ross Perot.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You're wasting digital breath. The Trumpers have won and any attempts to show them how irrationally the electorate behaved in this election will only be met by more phooey. We just have to make the best of this situation.

For me, the worst part is that the GOP, which already was a clusterf__k of epic proportions now believes they have the appropriate market position and any hopes I had of them becoming the party of reason again blew up last night.

I am not sure what it means. But it is clear a wave didn't carry Trump. He almost certainly will not catch Bush's count from 2004. I am not sure he'll catch Romney's. Maybe 5 million people didn't turn out at all. More than that since there are more registered voters now than 4 years ago.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

We may have to figure out this anger narrative. I am starting to think it is BS. Right now, as the votes stand, Trump has fewer votes than Romney received. Not by a lot. Romney had 60,993,504 and Trump is at 59,506,068. Is that an outpouring of anger driving people to the polls? He may well catch Romney, but it isn't like he's blowing Romney out of the water. If there was a huge outpouring of anger, wouldn't there be more voters?

Mmm, I don't think this stat proves or disproves much of anything about what fueled Trump's candidacy -- something that was initially received by many as a joke.

Look, instead, at how Trump fared compared to Romney and McCain in those rust belt states -- which are properly regarded as having felt much of the brunt of our trade and immigration policies.

That said, if you have alternative theories on why he overcame the odds (and an unprecedented level of opposition from what we understand as "the establishment" -- business, political elites, newspaper editorial boards, NGO types, etc), let's discuss them.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Mmm, I don't think this stat proves or disproves much of anything about what fueled Trump's candidacy -- something that was initially received by many as a joke.

Look, instead, at how Trump fared compared to Romney and McCain in those rust belt states -- which are properly regarded as having felt much of the brunt of our trade and immigration policies.

That said, if you have alternative theories on why he overcame the odds (and an unprecedented level of opposition from what we understand as "the establishment" -- business, political elites, newspaper editorial boards, NGO types, etc), let's discuss them.

Here are the numbers. Trump outperformed Romney, but only FL looks like it is outside population growth and just random error.

STATE TRUMP ROMNEY

PA 2,844,705 2,680,434
MI 2,279,210 2,115,256
WI 1,409,467 1,407,966
OH 2,771,984 2,661,433
NC 2,339,603 2,270,395
FL 4,605,515 4,163,447

Bush 2004 beat Trump 2016 in Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin (as votes stand this second, Wisconsin is darn close). And I imagine since 2004 the eligible voters has expanded by a decent amount.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Here are the numbers. Trump outperformed Romney, but only FL looks like it is outside population growth and just random error.

STATE TRUMP ROMNEY

PA 2,844,705 2,680,434
MI 2,279,210 2,115,256
WI 1,409,467 1,407,966
OH 2,771,984 2,661,433
NC 2,339,603 2,270,395
FL 4,605,515 4,163,447

Bush 2004 beat Trump 2016 in Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin (as votes stand this second, Wisconsin is darn close). And I imagine since 2004 the eligible voters has expanded by a decent amount.

While I appreciate that info, I was talking more about relative share, not comparisons of the absolute number of votes.

For instance, on Fox last night, one of the number crunchers was analyzing some (presumably blue collarish) counties in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The ones he analyzed had been roughly 65-35 counties for Democrats in 2004, 2008, and 2012. This year, however, Trump either won those counties or came pretty close.

And clearly there were enough similar areas in those states (and Michigan and Wisconsin) to flip the overall result. Something has to explain this change, don't you think?

Beyond that, something also has to explain Trump's victory in the primary. There is absolutely no question that he set his sights squarely on the political establishment (particularly the Republican side of it). He wiped the floor with the likes of Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and others -- and he did it with a sales pitch of taking on the Beltway establishment.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

That's a recurring trend in the dialogue around Trump's win.

I'm not intending to argue here (or suggesting I'm pro-'establishment'); I'm genuinely curious. What do people think that means? In this particular context, what about the 'establishment' are people so angry about?

Angry enough the only thing new is the president?

Are they kidding themselves?

I think people are just trying to justify their Trump votes. They still can't believe they did it. They are so "angry" at the establishment, they left it 99% intact.

 

[UncleMark]

For instance, on Fox last night, one of the number crunchers was analyzing some (presumably blue collarish) counties in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The ones he analyzed had been roughly 65-35 counties for Democrats in 2004, 2008, and 2012. This year, however, Trump either won those counties or came pretty close.

Chuck Todd is pointing out that it's not so much Trump overperforming as it is Clinton underperforming. Said she was getting Kerry numbers. She was such a shitty candidate that the Dems stayed home (or voted for Johnson in protest).

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Of course his share in each state is more, that's why he won . Much of the 5 million can be found in Johnson and Stein. I haven't looked closely at them by state. But in one example, Johnson and Stein combined would put Clinton over in PA. I have no concept what that means. I might suggest part of it is after 25 years of accusations and investigations Clinton's negatives were too high to attract many anti-Trump voters. Anti-Clinton people went to Trump, anti-Trump went 3rd party. Just an initial guess.As a percentage of the total population, both parties suck at turnout.

 

[IUCrazy2]

That's a recurring trend in the dialogue around Trump's win.

I'm not intending to argue here (or suggesting I'm pro-'establishment'); I'm genuinely curious. What do people think that means? In this particular context, what about the 'establishment' are people so angry about?

One bloggers opinion:

http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=366768

Here is why Trump won:

1. People are sick of being bullied. Especially by sanctimonious assholes who offer no achievements or evidence of their moral or intellectual superiority other than mere assertion of it (or, more commonly: by a sort of pussy implication of it).

2. People are sick of being lied to all the time by people -- including the conservative media and establishment -- who clearly have an agenda when they offer allegedly "objective analysis." And that agenda is contrary to the interests of those they're supposedly trying to "help" think "better thoughts."

3. People are sick of the attitude from many that they have some special constitutionally-enshrined duty or #Privilege to "guide the thoughts of the lower orders," to make sure those uneducated "lower orders" do not have access to information that might cause them to "think wrong things and vote the wrong way."

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Chuck Todd is pointing out that it's not so much Trump overperforming as it is Clinton underperforming. Said she was getting Kerry numbers. She was such a shitty candidate that the Dems stayed home (or voted for Johnson in protest).

I think that's right. There was little enthusiasm for Clinton among Democrats. Only one poster here claimed to be enthusiastic about her and proclaimed her an outstanding candidate. The rest were talked about her flaws and how she was at least better than Trump. That just didn't produce enough votes to win.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Chuck Todd is pointing out that it's not so much Trump overperforming as it is Clinton underperforming. Said she was getting Kerry numbers. She was such a shitty candidate that the Dems stayed home (or voted for Johnson in protest).

So....we're talking about voters having disgust for the political establishment, and you're citing underperformance by Hillary Clinton as evidence to the contrary?

Oooo-kay.

 

[UncleMark]

So....we're talking about voters having disgust for the political establishment, and you're citing underperformance by Hillary Clinton as evidence to the contrary?

Not at all. People voting for Trump or not voting for Hillary are different manifestations of the same sentiment.

 

[Thyrsis]

I think that's right. There was little enthusiasm for Clinton among Democrats. Only one poster here claimed to be enthusiastic about her and proclaimed her an outstanding candidate. The rest were talked about her flaws and how she was at least better than Trump. That just didn't produce enough votes to win.

I said elsewhere (and I'm hardly original on this) that Democrats in the actual party establishment are likely going to confront over the coming months what a screw-up this was.

On a somewhat related note, it's not clear to me today (not that I've got my finger on the pulse) who the next leaders are coming out of the party. There are plenty of names, I'm sure, but maybe not that many compelling leaders. Maybe Kamala Harris in a few years? I don't really know anything of substance about her, just that she seems to have the sort of combined experience and appeal that might generate a following?

 

[UncleMark]

On a somewhat related note, it's not clear to me today (not that I've got my finger on the pulse) who the next leaders are coming out of the party. There are plenty of names, I'm sure, but maybe not that many compelling leaders.

I'd like to take another look at O'Malley.