Home | About | Donate

What Trump’s Youngstown Problem Says About Campaign 2016


What Trump’s Youngstown Problem Says About Campaign 2016

John Russo, Sherry Linkon

This post first appeared on BillMoyers.com.

Because of its potential for producing crossover Democratic votes for him in this year’s presidential race, Republican nominee Donald Trump has been paying a lot of attention to Youngstown, Ohio this year. This week, the old mill town gave him the kind of attention he didn’t want.


My take on this news commentary, jackie, is much different, as I read an honest analysis with historical basis for the continuing economic slide downward of many of its citizens.

Centerpiece of this is the recent focus on Trump Campaign Chair, Kathy Miller, openly racist and evidently proud of it.

Like Youngstown, Dubuque has a long history of racism, though during the past 20 years has taken remarkable strides to work on overcoming it. Local citizens and leaders work on improving our diversity in this community, and it isn't always easy. We're working on it.

Different readers take different lessons from this piece, but overall I'll give the authors credit for their assessment and advice.


I actually think this 'open raciscm' expressed by the Trump chair and others, probably as a result of the Trump campaign, may be a good thing. It shows that there is probably an 'education gap', which seems to lead to racial resentment. There probably needs to be much more public dialog, and open discussion, where people are not afraid to voice their hatred, resentment, whatever it is. Let's get it out in the open, discuss, etc. If the focus on what people have in common, while appealing to the spirit of caring and love towards each other, I think it can turn the lemon into lemonade.

btw: is trade policy so hard to explain? Business owners make more money with cheap wage slaves and no regulations overseas, and also the products are lower quality, so even though they sell it cheaper, they make more again when people buy new stuff every 3-5 years when it breaks. It's called selling out - is that hard to explain?


Some of this anti-Trump fever pitch, with no mention of Clinton or Stein, seems to be driven by Trump's comments lately, but I feel it's also driven by fear of Trump in general. I think that fear is escalating now that the 1st debate is days away, and people are realizing it may not go well for Clinton, especially if she shows something related to parkinson's which seems to be the fear - has she been seen much publicly lately?


Trump never said this, but he believes it:

"The great masses of the people.....will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1933.

The same mindset that orchestrated the election of Hitler, is funding and supporting the Trump presidential campaign.


No too long! I agree, not sure how else to describe it, but you have described it better. imo, the more this is out in the open, and discussed broadly, I think the less the oligarchs can use things like race to divide us.


The basis of Trump's support is not easy to describe. Certainly he seems be doing well in places where there are a lot of white evangelical Christians. This is the group that is largely associated with promoting racial segregation in the South. There are northeastern states with few African Americans such a Vermont where Clinton is running strong so it is something more than unfamiliarity with blacks. In the northeast most white Protestants are mainline Protestants and this group has been associated with liberal causes for decades. It is telling that Trump did well with evangelicals even when running against Ted Cruz who mixes his religion with politics and counted on the evangelical vote to win the primary. But Trump who is a mainline Protestant and not religious was able to defeat Cruz by getting Cruz's core supporters. An economic argument will only go so far. Most of Trump's support is not related to economics. It is much more related to white Christian American no longer being able to make the US the country that it wants. Power now must be shared with other groups. The call to make America great again is a call to somehow return white Christian Americans and particularly evangelicals to their former status. It is basically a last attempt to avoid accepting the reality of a multicultural country. Clinton represents multiculturalism. People who believe in multiculturalism should vote for her because she wants to continue down this path which actually reflects the demographics of the country. It also reflects tremendous progress in human rights. To keep that progress going it is critical to stop Trump.


The basis of Trump's support IS EASY to describe.

Since the 1985 formation of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), three decades of the Democratic Party moving rapidly rightward, pushing the GOP even further rightward, putting the wind in Trump's sails..


The reason for Trump's rise was adequately explained by Karl Polanyi in "The Great Transformation."

Simple version: Western societies always have a cyclical tension between the capitalist class and labor. When things have been moving left, there will always be a shift back to the right eventually. However, as rightest policies don't work to improve the lives of most people, they will only take so much for so long. At that point leftist policies should be implemented. But, if that doesn't happen either through disorganization on the left, the elites blocking it, or whatever, people will be prone to accept alternative explanations for their problems and other "solutions." In other words, they will become susceptible to far right demagouges and fascists.


Oh, are we going to be invading non-Muslim countries too?


Progressives demand G O O D stories about Trump! All we hear about is racism, sexism, religious bigotry, fraud, self dealing, anti environment, ignorance. Let's get some of the positive stories on our boy.


So if you really support the Clintons program, elect Trump. Right?


Joe was no plumber at all, so he couldn't have been a plumbing contractor.


He does well with White people. Period.


TRUMP & CLINTON:A True Reflection of the Men and Women of the Oligocrats.

TRUMP A reflection of the Men of the upper elites, the wolves of wall=street, the Yuge Male Ego.....And Clinton a Reflection of the Women of the Elites....so compassionate,well if it deals with her class.....What a Marriage made in well the US of A.... (empire- of course)...... They are the reflection of that Class because well in all regards that is their Client Base..... and the rest of us well, we only count every 4 or so years, well make that 8 or so years.....

We are not taking a turn to the hard right, although it appears that we are, no we are taking a turn downward.....and well maybe that is what this country really needs at this time, a hard turn downward to show us what is really important......Just like after a hurricane strikes, all of the deadwood is cleared out, and people start to rebuild and to see who is really on their side.....
Yep the US of Empire can use a good Queen or King at this time.....for a fresh start ....later..


Apologies for pickiness, but Mein Kampf was written and published in the 20s, not 1933. And of course Hitler was not elected Chancelor, but appointed.


The first printing of the U.S. Dugdale editions (1-8) of Mein Kampf were published in October, 1933.

In 1932 Hitler ran against Hindenberg in the presidential election and came in second with 35% of the vote. His party garnered enough votes to control Parliament which is why he was appointed Chancelor.


The supreme irony is so thick in the air it is almost stifling. Many times over this lengthy political wrestling match the DP had the opportunity to change course, or just by being impartial and forward-thinking, to let the course change by its own natural pent-up volition. Instead they stubbornly insisted on nominating one of the most polarizing political personalities of our lifetime. Many of us said: "If you don't want to lose to the Republicans, don't nominate her." Near the end of the primary process many different polls using various approaches showed that Sanders polled better than Clinton against all the possible Republican contenders. And again: "If you don't want to lose to the Republicans, don't nominate her."

And now as it is becoming increasingly apparent that she may in fact lose to the Republicans, the DP emissaries of doom come here, as I'm sure to other enclaves of contrarianism, and berate us for THEIR fucking mistake.

OK. If irony isn't your bag, let's try on disingenuousness, or outright dishonesty. With increasing frequency now Clinton and her campaign claim to adopt those measures in those amounts that Sanders was campaigning on and she was either pooh-poohing or actively tearing down. But she/they chose not him, but a running mate that most resembles a Republican within the Democrat fold. All of those luminaries that are either shoo-ins or under consideration as her advisors, strategists, or cabinet members views like a rogues gallery of perpetrators of the economic dysfunction and inequality that is burning through the electorate. What am I going to believe, her/them or my lying eyes?

Don't tell me about the Democratic Party of FDR, the New Deal, or Johnson's Great Society - Bill and his gang smothered its withered body with a pillow during the first Clinton Administration. What we have now is the Democratic Wing of the Military Industrial Complex. Even the President, if he steps out of line is countermanded, as in the US airstrike on the Syrian Army to wreck his cooperation deal with Russia. Will those responsible be court-martialed? Was Petraeus court-martialed for gross incompetence, conduct unbecoming, dereliction of duty, or espionage? Hell, it won't even be investigated! Scariest part is, where Obama has shown some hesitation at times, Hillary is completely on-board with military aggression, and always has been.

And lastly, but certainly not least: nobody is going to give a good damn who is on the Supreme Court when it is no longer the highest court in the land.


Progressives want honesty and balance. Clinton is no friend to progressives, but the only negative coverage on CD is about Trump.


With liberals now having taken the label of progressive Clinton is now a progressive. And that is what she says she is. I accept that. If progressives don't want to vote for a progressive who can win they can vote for a progressive who has no chance of winning. That makes no sense to me but politics often doesn't seem to make much sense. If Green Party supporters want to make absurd comments like Clinton is a Republican or there is no real difference between Clinton and Trump it is preaching to the choir (other Green Party supporters) because who else would believe such statements.