Out of the economic maelstrom of the last decade, Donald Trump has emerged as the improbable, and self-proclaimed, champion of American workers.
Huey Long had nothing on Trump.
As one white, male voter in coal country said recently when asked why Trump was so popular among voters in W. Virginia, Tenn. and Southern Ohio, "He says we what we want to hear."
When asked if Trump could do what he says he'd do, this gentlemen replied, "Neither Hillary or Trump can bring back the old days."
The time has come to vote every incumbent out of office. Every Democratic incumbent and every Republican incumbent. Because the pandering has to stop.
Insouciant Americans for Trump, 2016!
imo, there is no question that dismissing Trump's supporters as 'angry white racist males' is serious over-simplification. Regarding the 'white' part, a giant issue is over-domination of males in society in general, and that will apply across races. Although I would agree that racism was a major factor in the rise of the right 30-40 yrs ago (southern strategy, etc).
Agree with points in the articles, but another article could mention how continuous exposure to un-answered conservative propaganda in the media results in pro-conservative policies which are damaging to workers, and a tendency to authoritarianism. All you need to know about wealth inequality and unions is shown by the chart linked in the article.
Another article could talk about how corruption, cowardice and complicity on the part of the Dimocrats has turned off so many voters. How the move to the right by the left, bolstered by 'lesser evil' voting, or 'triangulation' (Carter/Clinton/Obomber), has been such a disaster. The headline could be: "How the left's leaders' desire to gain more votes by appealing to the middle, (and the support of it though lesser-evil voting) has disenfranchised their base and opened the door to Trump as the 'Savior' of American Workers.
A meme coming out recently: "I'll vote for Stein if you will"
Trump has been saying that biggest threat to workers is trade deals and immigration but neither is the major threat. The biggest threat is robotics (see link). None of the candidates have actually addressed this but it is an important dialog that the US needs to have. Tens of millions of jobs are threatened yet either candidates don't know about it or are afraid to talk about it.
"Politicians need to begin thinking boldly, now, about a world where driverless vehicles replace most truck drivers' jobs, and where factories are populated by robots, not human beings. The best way to cushion this future is to start planning for how Americans will be able to take care of their families -- and find meaningful work -- in a worldwhere most traditional jobs have vanished."
Replace them with the non-incumbent candidate.
If they are already holding office then they need to be relieved of their duties.
Continuing to vote incumbents back into office is like living the classical definition of insanity.
"To keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is insane."
They, the Trump voters, have no concerns or 'you' have no concerns?
There have been many books written about how to prepare for a "workless society."
Have you read any of them?
Drilling down Thomas Frank's quoting a union official's statement that Trump supporters are "no more racist than other groups", I recall the 2008 primary when many older (over 50) women who had historically voted for Democrats, didn't vote for Obama because they believed a woman should be president before an African American.
The MSM continues to demonstrate their racism by making Trump's second amendment statement bigger than life after having swept Clinton's more overt 2008 something-happening-to-Obama-like-happened-to-RFK statement under the carpet.
While Trump is no friend of labor, the Democratic Party has handed this issue to him on the proverbial silver platter for more than three decades. Corporate Democrats despise labor as they despise liberals, and they have the policies to show for it.
I simply mean that they don't concern themselves with deep thought.
Making them different from most Democratic voters how?
Keeping in mind that Hillary won the primaries with more votes then Bernie.
Partisanship and identity politics are 180 degrees from deep thought.
White women as a sub-group never vote for the Democratic presidential candidate.
Neither do white, college educated men.
Both groups may vote for Hillary in this election because Trump sickens them.
Yes, i logged in to write:
Earth to Richard Trumka: "Everything Clinton / Obama / Third Way Democrats say shows they are desperate to be working ppl’s friend but everything they do proves they are our enemy."
Apparently the wheel needs to be repeatedly reinvented.
Mr. Hogler either is not aware of, or left out the work of George Lakoff. He's laid out very similar paradigmatic qualities associated with strict father oriented families versus the more nurturing family model:
From the article:
“Hierarchical individualists” adhere to traditional social roles, such as marriage between a man and a woman, freedom from government interference with personal liberties belonging to citizens of our nation, and regard for institutions such as the church and the military. This type of person holds deep religious views and respects authority arising from legitimate sources. Trump identifies himself as a billionaire who succeeded through his own talent and who states his views without regard for “political correctness.”
"The contrasting cultural position is “collective egalitarianism,” which values group action to achieve equality of opportunity, opposes race and gender discrimination, and rejects the dead weight of the historical past. This person advocates economic policies to reduce inequality, such as by increasing the minimum wage and eliminating unfair labor practices. Bernie Sanders' economic platform embodies these ideals."
No matter how many ways the pie gets sliced, it's still mostly angry white guys who identify with Trump. Indeed, he is "their brand" and closest "image and likeness."
And too often writers speak of Trump's "success" when in reality, if the man gets 40% of Republican voters who show up TO vote; that's still less than 30% of the nation. Hardly a mandate...
This nation's duopoly chokehold added to the uneven ways that publicity is anointed upon some and withheld from others, added to archaic ballot protocols, added to fixed outcomes and vote counts say a lot more about why any candidate is doing well... than appearances would otherwise suggest.
It's a crime against humanity that the metrics used to prop up lousy candidates are too often ignored only to reinforce the idea that American WANTS a Clinton or a Trump.
The truth is, the old tribal tents are mostly voting against their opposition candidate and not for the one hoisted upon their political clan.
Holy cow, talk about a pro-globalization diversionary tactic. Sure, ignore everything that just happened and instead talk about a straw man.
No explanation required.
I applaud you for looking at a variety of contributing factors. It's refreshing since too many who post here rely on ONE orthodox perspective or dis-information talking point repeated often.