Donald Trump surprised people with some bipartisanship. Bad for Republicans. Good for Trump.
Dangerous for Democrats.
Trump abruptly surprised Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell by accepting the Democratic proposal that the country simply raise the debt limit and revisit it in three months. Republicans' legislative strategy had been to kick things down the road until after the mid-term elections. Now Democrats can use the debt limit to extract concessions.
(Remember, here, that Republicans have majorities--but only theoretically. There is a block of Tea Party Republicans who would vote "no" on a debt increase, thus shutting down the government and defaulting on debt payments, on deficit grounds. Add them to the Democrats and there would be a veto block.)
Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi were smiling, congratulating themselves, doing high-fives for the camera. They need to be careful with that.
Oh, it is possible Trump is, in reality and in the fullness of time, a Democrat in disguise, and history will show him to be an updated give-'em-hell Harry Truman New Deal populist, with the trade views of early 20th Century protectionists like those of McKinley through Hoover, and he is ready to work with Democrats to form Democratic majorities on issues of the economy, trade, and taxes. It is possible. But if Democrats are goung to dream they can dream big and hope that Trump really actually meant it when he said he wanted a healthcare system that was simple and included everyone. Most Democratic positions are popular: Social Security, Medicare, Medicare expansion, pay equality, progressive income tax rates, etc.
But not a likely course. Trump is not really an economic populist, and he is most certainly not a cultural liberal, not anymore.
But not a likely course. Trump is not really an economic populist, and he is most certainly not a cultural liberal, not anymore.
The hazard is that Trump is inconsistent and unreliable, and the bargain that is premised--that Democrats can stomach their dislike for Trump personally in order to get progressive legislation passed--comes at the risk that he will pull the rug from out from under them, and smiling at him and enjoying his new found praise is already doing it.
It is more than hazard. There is the known certainty that they will damage their brand by appearing too cooperative with Trump. The Democratic brand is cultural liberalism and inclusion. If Democrats stand for anything--and they do-- it is that there must be opportunity for all. Inclusion. Respect for all races and religions. Toleration. Opportunity for all, breaking through old barriers. It opposes traditional hierarchies and wants to break open barriers.
Hillary Clinton and the coastal elites may have intended to advance this goal in the past decade but they faltered. They betrayed their own brand by failing to communicate that "all" includes white people, clearly and inclusively, along with minorities of all kinds. They ended up communicating race preference and Trump exploited this error. The backlash by whites who resented the implication that they were outside the Democratic tent and had coasted on a tailwind of privilege proved a powerful political force. White women voted like whites, not like women.
Trump's brand now embeds whiteness and cultural traditionalism. This embeds--for a great many Trump supporters-- although not all--a notion of returning to traditional American ethnic relations. We are a white Christian nation. Diversity is ok but shouldn't be overdone and the diversity should lead rapidly to assimilation. Immigrants should Americanize. The Great America of the past was an America that was led--almost entirely --by white people. Barrack Hussein Obama was a bridge too far, especially when he began acting black, as when he defended the black professor and not the white policeman in Cambridge six months into the job.
Conservatives knew what they were doing when they called him Barrack Hussein Obama. Emphasizing his otherness. it was fair. It is his name. It was there to use. What is useful to note is that they used it because it was a message they wanted sent.
Democrats have no choice but to reject Trumpism because Trump-the-person is in the middle of Trumpism, and Trump represents a pushback against inclusion. Trump has shown Americans something important about the power of branding. It is the centerpiece of his skill-set.
The Trump brand is not the Democratic brand. It muddles and contradicts the Democratic brand. Democrats smile and high five over working with Trump at their peril. Democrats are figuring out how they feel about economic populism, but they knew how they felt about white identity politics--they were against it. That is what is left of their brand.
Trump knows both how to create brands and destroy the brands of others. "TrusTED" Cruz became Lying Ted. Hillary became "Crooked Hillary." Trump's embrace can hurt.
It is more than hazard. There is the known certainty that they will damage their brand by appearing too cooperative with Trump. The Democratic brand is cultural liberalism and inclusion. If Democrats stand for anything--and they do-- it is that there must be opportunity for all. Inclusion. Respect for all races and religions. Toleration. Opportunity for all, breaking through old barriers. It opposes traditional hierarchies and wants to break open barriers.
Hillary Clinton and the coastal elites may have intended to advance this goal in the past decade but they faltered. They betrayed their own brand by failing to communicate that "all" includes white people, clearly and inclusively, along with minorities of all kinds. They ended up communicating race preference and Trump exploited this error. The backlash by whites who resented the implication that they were outside the Democratic tent and had coasted on a tailwind of privilege proved a powerful political force. White women voted like whites, not like women.
Trump's brand now embeds whiteness and cultural traditionalism. This embeds--for a great many Trump supporters-- although not all--a notion of returning to traditional American ethnic relations. We are a white Christian nation. Diversity is ok but shouldn't be overdone and the diversity should lead rapidly to assimilation. Immigrants should Americanize. The Great America of the past was an America that was led--almost entirely --by white people. Barrack Hussein Obama was a bridge too far, especially when he began acting black, as when he defended the black professor and not the white policeman in Cambridge six months into the job.
Conservatives knew what they were doing when they called him Barrack Hussein Obama. Emphasizing his otherness. it was fair. It is his name. It was there to use. What is useful to note is that they used it because it was a message they wanted sent.
Democrats have no choice but to reject Trumpism because Trump-the-person is in the middle of Trumpism, and Trump represents a pushback against inclusion. Trump has shown Americans something important about the power of branding. It is the centerpiece of his skill-set.
The Trump brand is not the Democratic brand. It muddles and contradicts the Democratic brand. Democrats smile and high five over working with Trump at their peril. Democrats are figuring out how they feel about economic populism, but they knew how they felt about white identity politics--they were against it. That is what is left of their brand.
Trump knows both how to create brands and destroy the brands of others. "TrusTED" Cruz became Lying Ted. Hillary became "Crooked Hillary." Trump's embrace can hurt.
1 comment:
I agree. As I said before this seems an attempt to bully the GOP into submission. It might work, but it might backfire and make them even more resistant. His cult doesn't care as long as he keeps grooming them with promises and lies. Trump may believe he's bought some loyalty and it will be interesting to how he reacts when they betray him. Won't be pretty.
Post a Comment