I am travelling and have limited access to the Internet. But I have two quick observations regarding the current news on Trump.
The first is that Trump and Sanders are catching a bigger wave than I had understood--the wave of resentment over the failure of current elites to share the benefits of American prosperity. These elites are not simply the one percent. They also include the educated, the people protected by licences or unions, the knowledge workers who enjoy some sort of monopoly power. They are Hillary's limousine liberals, but also the white collar middle class ones, those political liberal newspaper reading and NPR-listening professionals and knowledge workers who have liberal instincts and who are happy to join politically with the black and brown and gender oppressed--bus who do not actually share their instincts and values, or their neighborhoods.
For shorthand, just think of the Volvo and Subaru driving couple whose children always are required to wear bicycle helmets, who support liberal causes but live in a good neighborhood for the sake of the better schools, and who have an alarm system at their home because of crime across town.
The people who remember the thrill of wind blowing through their hair as kids going downhill on bikes resent the busybodies telling kids to wear helmets, the diversity training meetings, the notion of "micro-aggressions" on campus, and the presence of troublemakers in their kids' classroom.
But simultaneously, there is a cross current that runs against Trump. I have observed Trump double down on ethnicity and race on the issue of the "Mexican" judge, and he is getting the 'dosing' wrong. This issue involved him personally--the judge in his Trump University case. This wasn't just political; it was personal and he lost his bearings. My sense is that GOP leaders have played closely with the tone of dog whistle xenophobia since 1963 and 1964 when Republicans took over from Democrats the Dixiecrat voter., and generally it has worked for them. They hint at things, but don't openly offend. Say "urban", not "black." Trump showed that white voters were willing to be a little more overt and open in expressing their resentments.
Recently Trump is sounding more like George Wallace than like Reagan, and he is taking it farther than he had before and much farther than establishment candidates and office holders. It is dangerous territory. Voters may want their resentments voiced, but they don't want to embarrass themselves by saying it too overtly. Paul Ryan's first take on Trump's "ban Muslims" was to say it was an embarrassment and un-American. But that one seemed to have been a net positive for Trump. But Trump saying a judge of Mexican extraction was inherently biased based on ethnicity, and should recuse himself may, again, be too much. We will see what the reaction is from the GOP and the press.
Trump moved the balance point on how hard and direct a politician should say things, but some medicines are dose sensitive. History shows this to be the case here. Nixon did it successfully in 1968. Talk crime, not race. George Wallace said the same things but he went too far. David Duke is too far. Trump mumbled a bit before denouncing him, but eventually distanced himself. At this moment Trump has not backed away from the Mexican judge comment and it was overtly ethnicity based. If a GOP state legislature is going to reduce black votes it must be justified on the basis of suppressing voter fraud and to protect the integrity of the election system, not to say that it is to gain partisan advantage. Some things are to be understood but not voiced.
Voters will see how successfully Trump manages the opportunity provided by the big resentment trend. He has found powerful medicine for voters who want some of it. He needs to be careful with the dose he uses.
The first is that Trump and Sanders are catching a bigger wave than I had understood--the wave of resentment over the failure of current elites to share the benefits of American prosperity. These elites are not simply the one percent. They also include the educated, the people protected by licences or unions, the knowledge workers who enjoy some sort of monopoly power. They are Hillary's limousine liberals, but also the white collar middle class ones, those political liberal newspaper reading and NPR-listening professionals and knowledge workers who have liberal instincts and who are happy to join politically with the black and brown and gender oppressed--bus who do not actually share their instincts and values, or their neighborhoods.
For shorthand, just think of the Volvo and Subaru driving couple whose children always are required to wear bicycle helmets, who support liberal causes but live in a good neighborhood for the sake of the better schools, and who have an alarm system at their home because of crime across town.
The people who remember the thrill of wind blowing through their hair as kids going downhill on bikes resent the busybodies telling kids to wear helmets, the diversity training meetings, the notion of "micro-aggressions" on campus, and the presence of troublemakers in their kids' classroom.
But simultaneously, there is a cross current that runs against Trump. I have observed Trump double down on ethnicity and race on the issue of the "Mexican" judge, and he is getting the 'dosing' wrong. This issue involved him personally--the judge in his Trump University case. This wasn't just political; it was personal and he lost his bearings. My sense is that GOP leaders have played closely with the tone of dog whistle xenophobia since 1963 and 1964 when Republicans took over from Democrats the Dixiecrat voter., and generally it has worked for them. They hint at things, but don't openly offend. Say "urban", not "black." Trump showed that white voters were willing to be a little more overt and open in expressing their resentments.
Recently Trump is sounding more like George Wallace than like Reagan, and he is taking it farther than he had before and much farther than establishment candidates and office holders. It is dangerous territory. Voters may want their resentments voiced, but they don't want to embarrass themselves by saying it too overtly. Paul Ryan's first take on Trump's "ban Muslims" was to say it was an embarrassment and un-American. But that one seemed to have been a net positive for Trump. But Trump saying a judge of Mexican extraction was inherently biased based on ethnicity, and should recuse himself may, again, be too much. We will see what the reaction is from the GOP and the press.
Trump moved the balance point on how hard and direct a politician should say things, but some medicines are dose sensitive. History shows this to be the case here. Nixon did it successfully in 1968. Talk crime, not race. George Wallace said the same things but he went too far. David Duke is too far. Trump mumbled a bit before denouncing him, but eventually distanced himself. At this moment Trump has not backed away from the Mexican judge comment and it was overtly ethnicity based. If a GOP state legislature is going to reduce black votes it must be justified on the basis of suppressing voter fraud and to protect the integrity of the election system, not to say that it is to gain partisan advantage. Some things are to be understood but not voiced.
Voters will see how successfully Trump manages the opportunity provided by the big resentment trend. He has found powerful medicine for voters who want some of it. He needs to be careful with the dose he uses.
No comments:
Post a Comment