Eve is here. Tom Neuberger examines Obama’s failure to deliver on his promises as a “transformational” president and wonders whether Trump will manage to deliver. Will American politics become increasingly weary of promises of big changes that never materialize?
Mr. Neuberger makes some important observations, but in my personal opinion he misses some important observations. He doubts the Republican Party will do any better at improving the economic conditions of the working class, given that the party is loyal to the super-rich and does better by keeping the poor in check. is holding. However, President Trump has gained some credibility from the fact that he has improved the situation of middle- and low-income people through massive spending related to the coronavirus (no joke, but thanks to that) (Companies benefited considerably from this). Additionally, there are open questions about how far President Trump will go in restricting immigration. If he really cracked down on the border, succeeded in deporting criminals and people cleared for deportation by immigration courts (1.3 million!!!), and did flashy employer raids, then maybe workers You will be appreciated more for helping. more than the impact on pay levels warrants.
In other words, Neuberger assumes that all possible actions by President Trump would be a zero-sum game. I’m not sure.
First, it can become a negative sum game. Trump is obsessed with imposing additional tariffs (just in case you were wondering, Biden was down that path too, but not as intensely). If he goes too far, the costs to Americans will increase in addition to inflation.
But Trump is at the vanguard of the intended class realignment. Trump may not need to deliver improved material benefits to be considered a winner. The professional business class that has rallied behind Hillary and Kamala is clearly obsessed with Trump’s second victory and has greatly fooled Trump enthusiasts. Democratic Party elites are the epitome of competitiveness, making it clear that they continue to loathe Trump supporters (or, more accurately, their entertaining stereotypes of Trump supporters). So let’s join the fight!
Undermining or abandoning DEI initiatives and good-thinking practices at universities, such as cracking down on microaggressions, if it goes anywhere, will result in the employment of those hired by universities and corporate nannies and their consultants. will be reduced. Let me tell you, you’re not really against DEI. Numerous studies have shown that unconscious bias is real and prevalent. However, there seem to be too many cases where it approaches a fetish. RFK Jr.’s threat of mass layoffs of 600 people at the NIH is a statement that it is of little importance to know what (such as how relevant laws and regulations affect grant decisions) It is. Chas Freeman portrayed Trump’s victory as a war over expertise (Freeman laments the diminishing value of diplomacy as a form of expertise, which is true, but Biden The secret war began when he appointed Sullivan and other smooth-talking hacks to his foreign policy team).
This may also explain the bellicosity of many (most?) of President Trump’s nominees thus far. What’s the point in picking Matt Gaetz, who President Trump must know he doesn’t have the votes to kick out of the Senate Judiciary Committee? Who among RFK Jr., who also seems very unlikely to be confirmed? Maybe it’s not actually a display of unchecked ego, but a president not accepting of being constrained. I don’t know. Perhaps what matters is the combat, and unlike Team Dem, he doesn’t talk about “battles” but actually fights, even ones he’s destined to lose.
Written by Thomas Neuberger. It was first published in god’s spy
Stills from the 1936 classic film “The Future”
Like others, I’ve been trying to make sense of the last election. There’s a lot that’s obvious about it, and a lot of people are saying it. But what exactly will it be?
Is this really the era of reshaped coalitions, or of “replacement candidates”, one candidate after another replacing the last one?
Note: The following analysis pertains to the domestic economy. More on Trump’s foreign policy later. looks like pro-imperial atlanticist teeth for the fight. those who promote genocideon the other hand, For a reward.
What does the data show?
Harris supporters were motivated to protect democracy and abortion, while Trump supporters voted to rebuild the economy and curb immigration.
And there were far more votes for Trump and his proposal than for Harris and hers.
(Latest popularity vote count here. )
Additionally, the number of people staying home has increased. More than 150 million votes have been counted so far, but the total number of votes cast in 2020 was even higher. 158 million. Harris lost about 10 million Biden voters. Some people (I don’t know how many) will go with Mr. Trump, while others will go against the grain. Very few votes — Approximately 1.5% — went to a third party.
Mr. Trump’s vote total increased by about 1 million votes, winning over disaffected Democrats. It would be good to know who made the switch, who was in the house and why, but this is currently unknown.
true thing
What can we conclude from this data? Quite a bit, but we must first acknowledge that the following is true:
1. of The Democratic Party has less and less worker representation. Since then bill clinton’s first term — As Jamie Harrison said,”abandoned the working class” – and voters seem to know it.
Thomas Frank in an interview in 2016 National book review Regarding Democratic Party representative change:
Do Democrats have a vested interest in perpetuating income inequality?
…(W)They know that inequality is bad, and it makes them sad, but they are not deeply concerned about it. That’s because, as a party, they are committed to the winners of the inequality sweepstakes: the “creative class,” the innovative professionals of Silicon Valley and Wall Street. People who are doing really well in this new Gilded Age. That is what the Democratic Party is like now.
On the other hand, they are no longer structurally aligned with workers’ organizations and, as a result, are less concerned with workers’ issues.
Most voters aren’t political buffs, but they know when they’re hurting, and most are hurting now.
2. Democratic leaders reject that analysis. Everything they say says so. for example:
Will they come back later? Possibly, but I think it’s unlikely. There’s too much donor money at stake these days, and both parties, including Democrats, have no intention of backing away from it.
Note that it’s not just those involved who go with the flow and get rich. politicians get Personally I’m pretty wealthy Turn that off too. Pelosi, quoted above, is both. personally wealthy from her husband’s stock portfolio And again Fundraising powerhouse For others. from CNN 2020:
By the end of 2019, Pelosi’s office said: She raised $815.5 million Money paid to House Democrats since he became a member of the party’s leadership in 2002 includes $87 million last year alone. Think about it. One person who is not the president of the United States has raised nearly $1 billion over the past 17 years for the broader efforts of his colleagues and party to win or maintain a House majority.
Don’t expect this to change anytime soon.
Coalition changes
If the above is true, then we have what Ryan Grimm calls something new.The coalition of the working class and the super wealthy in the Republican Party”Republicans cannot satisfy both of these constituencies and, like Democrats, are systematically unwilling to do so, at least on economic issues. The super-rich prey on workers. There is a side to choose and the coping strategies are different, but I think both parties are choosing.
The Republican Party’s appeal to workers is ultimately cultural and religious. Look what they did to the courts. When Republican justices are not serving their party’s interests, for example by repealing the Voting Rights Act, they sell out religious control and call it “liberty,” which appeals to the Republican base. It is a move that attracts and pleases many people.
The NDP, on the other hand, appeals to workers by slightly improving the situation (or trying to), while also satisfying predatory donors. This creates a contradiction in them that can never be resolved.
Democrats make Republicans look right
The Republican Party has a secret partner in its recent breakthrough. Their appeal is further strengthened by the NDP themselves and by their often dishonest or ineffectual adherence to purportedly good beliefs. This point should not be overlooked, but it is too often forgotten.
Consider the climate issue. Democrats say they want to stop climate change. Mr. Harris calls it “existential crisis” Both were biden and obama. Still, Barack Obama boasted turn America into the largest oil producer In the world:
Under each of the last three presidents, Republican or Democratic, U.S. oil and gas production was higher at the end of their terms than at the beginning.
Most people still don’t care about the climate. But most people are concerned about the economy, their own safety, and the possibility of living on the streets. By that measure, Democrats are underachieving, and claiming they are is making matters worse. They also spend too much time on money instead of people. The fact that they think otherwise is not a good look.
economic relief
People need relief – that’s one of the messages of this amazing election. Will it come from the Trumpist Republican Party? Not unless they change their stripes, the mark they acquired in the 1800s when they gave up support for black people in exchange for industrial support and wealth inequality. Mr. Trump talks about a good fight, but it seems unlikely that it will materialize.
Will relief come from the modern-day National Democratic Party? Many believe so, but not enough to win, at least not this year.
Will the Democratic Party change after this loss is absorbed? Sorry to be cynical, but I can’t imagine a political party obsessed with money making such a change. Shut off the spigots from Bloomberg, Bezos, Reid Hoffman, Netflix’s Reed Hastings, Starbucks’ Howard Schultz, and all of them. other wonderful souls?They will laugh at the suggestion.? As times get tougher, both sides will be disappointed.
What’s next
Where does this leave us? You have two choices.
• The following are the least likely possibilities: this is a generational change (See Ryan Grim’s thoughts. Union shift above). This means Republicans will keep workers under the tent, at least until climate change drowns out all other arguments.
If that happens, Democrats could be reduced to a permanent minority, as most Republicans were from 1932 to 1968, and Mr. If Democrats had not entered the jungle, they would have remained in the minority.
If that happens, the Democratic Party could be replaced by a party with deep pockets. union-Funding — Third Party. For example, several important progressive labor organizations sarah nelsonIf the International Flight Attendants (CWA) were to switch funding and establish a domestic third-party organization, it would indeed be a game-changer.
“How can you be like the Republicans and still get votes?” It’s a dangerous game if you care about the outcome. The Democratic Party suffered a crushing defeat in the last election, and unless it changes course, it won’t have much of an advantage in the next election.
• The more likely alternative recognizes the following facts.
Since 2008, every presidential election (minus one election) has involved change.
The most transformative election of the post-Reagan era was the election of Barack Obama in 2008. hard neoliberal and own style republican partylet’s sell ourselves as your hope for changerode the wave of hardship in 2008. Check out the popularity vote graph above to see how effective it was.
Romney didn’t have a chance in 2012, but the old party has been toppled in every election since. Trump beat Clinton in 2016 (narrowly), Biden beat Trump in 2020 (by an even larger margin), and Trump won (decisively) in 2024. Notice a pattern?
I fully expect President Trump to once again face difficulties and economic disappointment. If that happens, the Democratic Party could become the next new “party of change.”
Rinse and repeat. If no political party rebuilds the country and stops its decline, Both parties may make a deal with incompetent populists Until something falls apart or a real third party is born.
When this kind of constant switching of roles occurs, it won’t last forever. The climate is right on the cusp. remake the world.
