We are experiencing a Revolution of Rising Expectations
A theory of political revolutions, voiced by sociologist James Chowning Davies, is that revolutions do not happen when things are miserable and getting worse. They happen when things generally are getting better, then there is a setback:
Davies: "Revolutions are most likely to occur when a prolonged period of objective economic and social development is followed by a short period of sharp reversal. People then subjectively fear that ground gained with great effort will be quite lost; their mood becomes revolutionary."
 |
| Car parked at Tea Party Convention in SC |
There is a political revolution, expressed in the form of voters being ornery. The signs of it are the Tea Party on the Right and Bernie's revolution on the left. Eric Canter was defeated in a primary. Trump won the GOP nomination. Bernie nearly drew Hillary to a draw.
Donald Trump is the agent of change. He was the "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" candidate. Trump had the right message, but he is the wrong messenger now. Lucky for Hillary.
 |
| Tea Party Convention Attendee |
Remember the movie "Network", a movie that came out in 1976. Peter Finch was a television anchor who struck a chord with the public with angry ravings about the state of the world. IMDb describes it this way: "A television network cynically exploits a deranged former anchor's ravings and revelations about the news media for its own profit."
The public loved watching the TV anchor. He was bold and exciting and he unabashedly expressed the frustration many people were feeling. He ranted at the failures and hypocrisy of the period. The TV anchor had a message that resonated, but there was a problem, which is revealed in the brief synopsis of the movie. The ravings and revelations were from a man defined as "deranged." Here is a short clip from the movie: It will sound eerily familiar: "Everyone is out of work and scarred of losing their job. Banks are going bust!"
Donald Trump is not "deranged" and he is not clinically diagnosed as being mentally ill with an official DSM condition. But Trump has long had an acknowledged problem with seeming "un-presidential", and the situation has gotten worse. Critics from the left are predictable. Trump's recent problems, which I argue have caused a bad turn for his campaign, is that he appears to be un-coachable and a major frustration to fellow-Republicans. Criticism from his own team bites him much harder than does criticism from the left or from the media. Newt Gingrich saying Trump needs to change, McConnell and Ryan being critical of him, Mitt Romney withholding his support, former CIA people saying Trump is mentally unfit: these are the charges that hurt. They don't say he is "crazy." But they say he isn't thinking correctly about the campaign.
Trump voices a more timely message than does Hillary. Trump says we can win; Hillary says we need to struggle. Trump says he will fix everything now, cutting through the gridlock; Hillary hopes to move the needle in the direction of progressive change, Congress willing. The pendulum after 8 years of Obama is ready to swing back toward change of some sort. Trump has the right message to address the frustration of rising expectations not being met. But the messenger is not just undisciplined and un-coachable. It goes beyond that. He has a screw loose.
Frequent Guest Post writer Thad Guyer thinks I am wrong and that talk of Trump's being mentally unsuitable to be president is an artifact of the progressive echo chamber. I consider some of Trumps GOP critics, the GOP endorsement holdouts, and voices strictly within the GOP orbit (National Review, RedState.com, and multiple Republican opinion writers) to be well outside the left echo chamber.
But let's hear from Thad Guyer.
Democrats latching on to a “Trump is mentally ill” rant simply demonstrates to me the self-delusional power of the left’s “giant echo chamber”, the term used (as I quoted her in my recent comment) by the New York Times public editor, Liz Spayd. There is no serious discussion of Trump being mentally ill. There is only political hype to that effect. As a litigator I’ve worked regularly with psychologists and psychiatrists, and while a CNN talking head with a Ph.D might use the term “mental illness”, no credible mental health professional would. They clinically discuss very specifically defined “disorders” listed in the Diagnostic Services Manual—there isn’t one called “mental illness” or “crazy”. Such generalization does not exist within the discipline. It exists only in politics and media. The Clinton campaign has been effective with the “crazy” line—for a news cycle or two. But seeing the media buzz as a “serious” discussion of mental illness confuses politics and reality. Democrats latch on to these rhetorical fads as “real”, while establishment Republicans merely fret about down ballot races. Its self-delusion vs. political calculation.
True, I am a data driven lawyer, and I am inordinately fascinated with legal and political data. The data shows that despite a frenzied media and establishment (left and right) assault on Trump, the needle has not moved as we hoped on political perception of him. Today’s LA Times poll shows Clinton and Trump tied, and while a lesser known pollster gives Clinton an anomalous 15 point lead, the Real Clear Politics (RCP) average of polls as of today records 47.4 % support for Clinton, and Trump with 40.7%. (FiveThirtyEight calls the averages as of today at 49.1% for Clinton and 42.6% for Trump). Thus, a week after the DNC convention, $100 million of anti-Trump and pro-Clinton ads (Trump still doesn’t advertise), and a near psychotic media, here’s the result: Clinton struggles to reach even a 50% RCP polling average. Dukakis was up 17 points in the polling average over Bush I in the summer of 1988 before being wiped out in a humiliating landslide in November. It’s that remarkably resistant data that political scientists and the political right are talking about, while the left barely acknowledges it. How is it possible with such a tsunami against Trump, that Clinton shares with him the same statistical tranche—the 40th percentiles? With the three most decisive months to go, here’s what Democrats need to be asking: If rhetorical blows like “insanity”, “bullying grieving parents”, “777s might crash”, and “he hates babies”, combined with a near black-out of negative Clinton news in the mainstream media, then what more is there to throw at Trump between now and the election? Like the inflated confidence of the left in the UK over Brexit, in the last 30 days before the referendum the “stay in the EU” advocates had exhausted their credibility, and two things happened: (1) the British public decided that the Trump-like “buffoon” Boris Johnson was right in tagging the liberal campaign as “Project Fear”; and (2) young voters stayed home, believing the leftist "the majority will never vote for that" hype. If this project fear against Donald Trump continues at the center of our strategy against him, we can expect the same outcome—defeat.
1 comment:
Peter, I like your revolutionary prism. I just disagree with any analysis that the election will be decided by rhetoric. "Trump suborned espionage against the US", was the news cycle when, who can tell me? Earlier this week, last week, 10 days ago? Whenever it was, that linguistic fad is gone now. "Trump can't be trusted with the nuclear button", that too is fading away, since we all know from movies that two keys and a launch code are needed. "He insulted a Muslim father of a dead soldier", that actually had legs for a minute, but everyone knew the father was a politico awarded a coveted speaking slot at a glitzy political convention, so that indignation just couldn't last. So we're down to "he's insane", "kicked a baby out of his rally", and "Republican office holders don't like him". We won't even remember those next week, as our echo chambers are crowded with new hype and calls for panic.
You’re right. Revolution fueled by perceptions of "the economy", "factories moving to Mexico, "cop killers", "Islamic terrorism", and "illegal immigrant invasion", those blood-boiling Trump cards are all impervious to liberal media fads. When is the last time Hillary made your blood boil? Probably it was her email mess, her Wall Street money, or her Bernie "free tuition" mimicry. Probably not a single policy pitch of hers has even quickened your pulse. I agree that the American psyche craves revolution, and anti-Trump rhetoric doesn't satisfy that craving. Voting against Trump may well be our civic duty, but it's passionless. Trump inspires political dread, but not visceral fear. Revolution is about passionate demands for change, and Trump has that market corned while we are left with MSNBC, NPR, and NY Times sensationalism about crying babies, insanity, and Putin hacking for Hillary's 30,000 deleted emails. Turkish President Erdogan—"America’s ally"— vanquishes his liberal media. Our liberal media vanquishes us, stifling the only dialog that matters in revolution: counter-revolution with a competing ideology. For want of journalism, the kingdom was lost.
Post a Comment