Republicans unhappy with Trump are agreeing to support Trump. Many progressive liberals don't support Hillary. Trump wins.
Today, on the morning of the debate, pundits think the debate is all-important. If someone does really terribly, they are right. Otherwise, the election divide is already pretty much decided. Hillary will be unsuccessful in getting enough of the Sanders voters to support her and Trump will win.
I have learned that this is a subject that infuriates Sanders' supporters. They are not infuriated that Trump will win. They are infuriated at the implication that they are at fault. They insist it is not their fault. Hillary does not earn their vote, and that's Hillary's fault.
Message to Sanders voters: I am not blaming you. I am trying to explain why you oppose Hillary. It is you
 |
| Bernie in NH, the day he became a Democrat |
Bernie Sanders was not a Democrat until just before he filed in New Hampshire. To be on the ballot in New Hampshire a candidate need do two things within the two week filing window. 1. Bring $1,000 in cash or a cashier's check. 2. Sign a statement affirming that one is a member of the political party in primary you are running for. I was there in the minutes after Sanders filed and heard his speech, his first as a Democrat. He spoke of the corruption in the system and the way it benefited the "millionaires and billionaires" at the expense of working people, and that college tuition should be free in public universities.
(Later in the campaign he spoke of billionaires only. A lot of barely-millionaires don't feel rich in the least. They are just schoolteachers holding onto a small 3 bedroom house in an area with high real estate prices.)
I am not blaming Never-Hillary progressives. I identify them as the problem but they have a right to cast their vote as they see fit. Sanders revealed a fundamental split in the Democratic Party. Democrats are held together by respect for ethnic and racial diversity, on autonomy for women on reproduction rights, on a secular government-hands-off approach to religion. But they divide on globalism vs. isolation and they divide on whether business and educational elites are acting in the interests of the average American or whether they are acting on behalf of each other against average Americans.  |
| Seattle, 1999 |
The demonstrations 17 years ago against the World Trade Organization were an early warning signal. The Occupy Wall Street demonstrations were another canary chirping distress. Obama's Treasury Department bailed out the financial industry and his Justice Department did not prosecute bank executives for fraud. An idea took widespread root on the left: that government is captured by the financial elites, through the mechanism of political contributions, cronyism, and close association via elite education, elite association in the Hamptons and Martha's Vineyard, and a revolving door between elected office, regulators, K Street, and corporations. There is evidence for this. Hillary neither denies it nor embraces it and sells it as a good thing.
 |
| Early Warning: WTO protests |
Trump argued against the cabal of elites as a Republican. Sanders condemned it as a Socialist-Democrat. Trump settled in on a villain: immigrants and foreigners and weak politicians. Sanders settled in on a villain: those American elites with their cronyism and revolving door. He was describing Hillary.
He cannot retract what he said because it was not a matter of nuance. It was a fundamental disagreement on the source of problems in America. Hillary says the system can be more fair, more just, less racist and she is working to make it so. Sanders says the elite leadership of the system is an enemy at war with the people of America. It is not a matter of degree. Hillary is a successful practitioner of liberal progressive politics and power in America. That doesn't make her good. It makes her guilty.
This is a point lost on many supporters of Hillary who feel frustrated by the prospect of another Nader-loss to a Republican. Sanders' critique of America did not divide it along lines of liberal vs. conservative, or incrementally more social justice and racial tolerance vs. incrementally less equality and tolerance. It was between social classes: comfortable, educated, prosperous elites vs. people disadvantaged by that status quo. Hillary was, therefore, not a "pretty good but not perfect" candidate. She was the enemy.
 |
| Read the article and comments |
The margin of victory or loss is in this election consists of those people who don't like Trump but won't support Hillary either: disaffected Sanders-type people. (They are not balanced by enough Republicans who will not support Trump.) I read their posts in a college alumni forum. They hate Hillary. A college classmate, Katha Pollett, who writes for The Nation, wrote an article this week urging tepid Hillary supporters to recognize the Trump peril and work to elect Hillary. The comments to her article are instructive:
*****"If Hillary loses this election it will be her fault, not mine."
*****"It's time for Hillary to stop playing kissy-face with the Republican neocons and other assorted people who haven't been right in their policies for the past twenty years."
*****"Sorry, Katha. It was Hillary's job to EARN my vote. Any chance HRC had of doing so was lost with Tim Kaine and Ken Salazar."
*****"Another editorial meant to shame progressives who will vote for Jill Stein."
The comments go on and on.
Sanders revealed something. There is an unresolved policy debate within America. In the Democratic Party the majority voted to maintain the status quo but a crucial minority perceives the status quo system run by political, economic, and academic elites to be the problem, so they are never-Hillary. The Republican Party chose an insurgent who says he will change the status quo, but since the establishment does not think Trump really means it or can do it they are supporting him.
There is a canard about the parties which is proving true: Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line. Some Democrats never liked Hillary, or they liked her mate, but broke up with her.
President Trump.
# # # #
# # # #
The podcast is a spirited conversation between me and Thad Guyer, an attorney who represents whistleblowing employees, with an international practice. He watches the election from home base in Saigon. This week we discuss Trump's rise in the polls, and Hillary's having messed up her message on crime. We conclude by talking about the debate and what would be the best strategy for Hillary and for Trump. What would Trump do to blow it, and the election? My own view is for him to look like a bull in a china shop.
No comments:
Post a Comment