Why Trump and Bernie are succeeding

Both Trump and Bernie are shaking things up.   They won in Michigan, a big state and one representative of someplace normal, not needing an explanitory asterisk for being a favorite son.  Part of what they are doing right is what the GOP and Democratic orthodoxy are doing wrong.

Republicans.   The orthodox positions try to stitch together big contradictions.  Mitt Romney and George W. Bush are two examples of party standard bearers who represented the orthodox suite of positions.  Republicans are supposedly the party of small government but are also the party of aggressive national defense and proactive foreign intervention.  Throughout history big wars have meant big centralized states and the means to pay for them by collecting taxes.  It has been true for Chinese emperors, for French Kings, and for the USA beginning with the first big war in 1861.  The GOP is the party that advocates libertarian freedom, low regulations, and personal freedom, especially on guns, yet simultaneously is the party of intrusive government when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, drugs, and non-conforming lifestyles.  It is the party that celebrates the hardworking immigrant narrative but is culturally uncomfortable with immigrants and is contesting over who can best keep them out or at least keep them powerless.  And the establishment orthodoxy attempts to sell a fragile and unappealing product: that people can have small government and low taxes which mean that the wealthy get richer but that money will trickle down even though working people have not observed it to do so, but they should vote GOP because its candidates can be trusted to fight abortion and gays and to be openly Judeo Christian.  It is a tough sell, but orthodox Republicans try to do it.  But not Trump.

Meanwhile the Democratic orthodoxy as shaped by Bill Clinton is exposed as unworkable.  Clintonian Democratic orthodoxy says that free trade causes all boats to rise, that cooperation with international organizations is good, and that the fact that a great majority of people are not thriving is due to the oppression of the traditional power structure which creates barriers holding back women, blacks, immigrants, single mothers, Muslims, Hispanics, and the non college educated.   The solution, as Hillary puts it, is to break the barriers with affirmative programs to even the playing field.    The problem with that is that many people do not want to feel like victims and white males don't want to be told they are oppressors.   Hillary is dissing them, so it is not surprising that so many white males in Michigan abandoned her and that young people everywhere are looking for a candidate that will break through the cycle of oppression rather than one who hopes to manage it.  Plus, since Democrats are the party of inclusion for the oppressed, Democrats cannot acknowledge the xenophobia and discomfort many American have with people with different religions, customs, and cultures.  Indeed, Democratic candidates not only cannot acknowledge it, they have to condemn it when others express it, which creates a body of people unhappy with "political correctness".    Most Americans choose to live in communities of like minded people, something Democrats recognize when they are targeting precincts for GOTV, but which they must ignore--or stigmatize--when talking policy.  So, in a time of Boston Marathon bombings and San Bernardino shootings Democratic candidates cannot acknowledge the nervousness felt by many voters in their own base.

Trump and Sanders are imperfect messagers of change.  Trump is Las Vegas tacky which offends the socially traditional base of the party.  Bernie isn't a protectionist liberal: he calls himself a socialist and has a long consistent history saying things which Republican TV ads will make sound extreme.

But both of them understand something.  The orthodox party positions don't serve the needs of a big part of their bases, especially the people for whom the effects of globalism has been declining incomes and frustration with politics that no longer work for them.

So they are mad as hell and they are voting for someone who promises change.

Rubio Hospice

Marco Rubio spoke to about 300 people in a football stadium in Hialeah.

The event had the feel of a homecoming, a popular local boy come home to loving arms.   Perhaps half the audience spoke some English but I am guessing that 75% of the audience spoke Spanish as their first language.   The event had city council people, county officials, local state representatives, local dignitaries speak or be introduced.   Nearly all the names were Hispanic.

I saw a very different Rubio than I normally see on CNN and MSNBC and FOX and the other English speaking news sources.   In the context of the English speaking press Marco Rubio has switched from his Gang of Eight position in which he attempted to create greater integration of immigrants to America.  He sounds like someone who has essentially adopted the Trump-Cruz anti immigrant position that appears to be the required position for survival in this Republican primary.   

This is a different Rubio.   This is a Rubio who was home, among friends, someone who is not trying to block immigrants and limit their "damage".   He was with his people.    I can see why his Republican opponents question his authenticity as an opponent of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Most of the talk from the stage was in Spanish.   Rubio gave two speeches: a ten minute speech in English, then a second one, which he began, in English, with,  "and now let me talk to you in Spanish."

The three women in front of me spoke utterly no English, but I was able to communicate with my hands that I would be delighted to use their camera to take a photo of them with them in the foreground and Rubio behind them.   Once they understood me they were thrilled as they saw me compose the photos so each of them were in the shot.   As I have learned, selfies are difficult.

The subject of the speech was that he was not giving up, that it was not too late, that everything comes down to Florida, that Florida changes everything, that he can win in Florida, that he is not dropping out, that he is not dead, that he is not even dying, have faith.  Bottom line: it was about survival and hanging on.

Rubio did not talk policy beyond saying that the past 7 years have been miserable and that Obama was a disaster.  Instead, the talk was about identity: the virtue of the immigrant experience of people who came to America to work hard, to improve their own lives and especially the lives of their children.  I am one of you, he said.

It was a valediction speech, and it was televised.   I had a hard time doing an actual count of the TV cameras because a few of them were hand carried and moved around, but there were at least 33 of them on the stage.   The people manning the cameras (yes, they were all men) were dressed scruffy.   There are a few people standing around in full makeup, the people you see on camera on your TVs holding a microphone and telling us what is happening at live events.    There were a half dozen giant media trucks with satellite dishes on 40 foot booms, up high enough to give the dish line of sight to some receiver.

Update on the "loyalty oath"; a Ted Cruz Rally

I will start this description of the Cruz rally by saying that I awaiting a Marco Rubio rally held in a neighborhood of Hialeah in greater Miami.   The rally doesn't start for 90 minutes.   There is plenty of space for parking.  There are some security men putting up little construction barricades to reserve space for media trucks.  The venue is a school in a residential neighborhood of middle class houses done in a classic Miami style.   It is an area of single family houses with grassy front yards, a sidewalk strip, built ranch style on one floor, with stucco siding, tile roofs, and covered front porches.

There is a jogger circling the track.   It could be Medford's Hedrick Junior High School, except for the stucco and the palm trees.

If you have not done it yet, I suggest you look back two posts ago--to this morning--and read Thad Guyer's guest post.   He reviewed some of the media on the subject, the gist of which was that Trump asked people to raise their hands and declare they would vote for him, which apparently reminded some people of something Hitler did.

About 35 cameras now.   He is big time.

This is a much more media friendly news story than a discussion of the candidate's tax plan or exactly what it means to negotiate a better trade deal with Mexico and China.   It has everything the media wants:  controversy, Trump, and a whiff of Hitler.   It is bait for cable news.

The Cruz rally was scheduled for 10 a.m and started at 10:30.  It was held in a big meeting room at Miami-Dade college in downtown Miami.   It was a combination stump speech and victory speech.  Cruz announced that the election on Tuesday, in which he came in second to Trump in three states but won in Idaho was "a tremendous victory" and a great night.  "God bless the great state of Idaho," he said.  His speech included the items I have found to be familiar:

"We will repeal every single word of Obamacare.   We will pass a simple flat tax where every American can fill out his taxes on a postcard and we will eliminate the IRS.  We will rein in the EPA and we will lift the boot off the neck of small business."

Big Cruz Crowd

On citizenship for people here illegally he focused on Trump, not Rubio: "I led the fight against amnesty.  Donald Trump spend 40 years funding 'open border' Democrats."

On the military:  "No longer will our military be governed by political correctness.  We will rebuild our military.  It is shameful that we have a president who sends our fighting men and women into battle with one arm tied behind their backs.  America is a nation reluctant to fight but when we stand up for liberty we go into battle with overwhelming force, we utterly destroy the enemy, and then we come home."


He ended his talk with the usual request for people to be active, to volunteer, to vote, to go to and to bring friends.   The basic idea was for people to commit to some action--something he says every time, as does everyone else.  It is a standard part of every stump speech conclusion.  But he added that Donald Trump (said with a sneering tone), "Donald Trump wants you to raise your hand a swear a loyalty oath."   Trump has it all backward, Cruz said.  The American people don't need to prove their loyalty to Trump.  The candidates for the presidency need to prove their loyalty to the American people.

So now I understand the kerfuffle.   Cruz found a way to draw a distinction between himself and Trump.  Cruz only asks that people do things for him, agree to show up to vote, and to recruit friends: good things.  Cruz is objecting to Trump doing essentially the same thing.   There is a distinction here--Trump asks people to raise their hand while Cruz asks people to bring a friend.  It is a classic example of a "distinction" without any real difference.

Both candidates are doing what every sales person does after explaining the benefits of the product: ask for the order.  

Reliable, Moderate, Boring Hillary

Hillary is the mainstream candidate.

Her policies are essentially a continuation of the broad center of American politics going back to Dwight Eisenhower.   Generally sort of liberal, but moderate.   Generally internationalist, but not too bellicose.

It is easy to think of people on either side of her on important policies:

She is less war-eager than Graham, probably a notch or two less war-eager than Bush-Cheney.   On the other hand, presumably a little more hawkish than Sanders.   She is in a moderate middle.

Middle of the Road

She is more "realistic" on social benefits than Bernie Sanders, who famously seeks free public college and medicare for all, but more generous than the Republican establishment or Tea Party, which want to end Obamacare, cut Food Stamps, privatize Social Security.  She is in the moderate middle.

She is more open to free international trade in her support for NAFTA than Sanders or Trump, but now backing off on the Trans Pacific Partnership than establishment Republicans who supported it in Congress.  She is in the moderate middle.

She is much less hostile in tone to outsiders-immigrants-Muslims than Trump, but taking a position that Establishment Republicans assert is the American principle, sounding like Ryan, Romney, Graham, Jeb Bush, GW Bush in asserting that America must be fair to outsiders and generally inclusive.  She is part of the moderate consensus.

She is the only moderate in the race.   (John Kasich sounds moderate in tone but in fact shares the same policies as Tea Party Rubio and Cruz, spoken in milder words and with a longer resume.)   She is expressing generally a continuation of Obama policies and Obama policies have been--thanks to the relentless Republican resistance--centrist, getting attacked from the political right and from the large Sanders-led left.

Gathering facts in New Hampshii

Voters are rejecting mainstream and they are rejecting her personally.   Black Democrats support Hillary but white progressives prefer Sanders.  But more important, I think, is that turnout is way, way down in last night's Mississippi and Michigan elections.   I sat next to a politically active Democratic psychologist in my flight from Medford to LA, and a politically active former Capitol Hill staffer and Clinton administration employee in the longer flight from LA to Miami.  Both supported Hillary, but with a sense of "settling".    Hillary isn't exciting people.

So I will return to comments I made about Hillary Clinton back in September of this year, when I watched Hillary and Donald Trump in back to back performances in New Hampshire.   Trump projects change.  Hillary projects continuity.   Trump will shake things up.  Hillary is reliable.   Trump is a bull in a china shop.  Hillary is same old-same old.

And the voters are saying they want to take a chance on something new and exciting.   Hillary's challenge will be to project that she is both reliable and new, stable and a change agent both.

Guest Post: Loyalty Pledge

"Do you commit to voting for _______"

Peter Sage Introduction to the Guest Post:   I have just settled in to Florida and have seen Marco Rubio on Florida television.   He looks and sounds desperate.  There is a subtle difference between the intensity of hope and enthusiasm and the intensity of desperation.   It's not too late, he says.   We can still do it, he says.  I will be watching a pre-debate rally mid afternoon, and report on his tone.

In this Guest Post Thad Guyer reports on the media buzz about "loyalty pledges".   So far I have not encountered one, not a single one, in about 40 different events.   There is paperwork involved in nearly every event as the campaign staffers gather phone numbers, zip codes, and email addresses.  My sense is that the media is turning into "news" something that is pretty natural in the days prior to state elections, the campaign's attempt to solidify "leaners" in order to Get Out The Vote.   "Will you commit" is just nicer than asking "Will you bother to show up or will you flake out".   That is the real question.

Still, the fact that there is media buzz on something that in my opinion is a non-event is, itself, the news, and that is what Thad making visible.  The story is not really about loyalty oaths,  The story is that the media is in a desperate attempt to find Hitler authoritarian links between the candidates and a routine and predictable campaign practice.

Thad is an attorney who focuses his practice on representing whistleblower employees.  He pays close attention to messages that persuade judges and juries.

Here is Thad Guyer

Oh no, is Trump stealing the Hitler-like supporter “pledge” from Hillary and Bernie?  

The media is alight today with the news that Trump has been asking supporters to take a pledge supporting him. It is Hitler-like we are warned. Some party poopers tried to tamp down the hysteria, or what some of us call the fun of watching our fellows on the left self-immolate. “Trump: It’s ‘ridiculous’ to compare his pledge to a Nazi salute”, Washington Post https://goo.gl/h77hjS. Yesterday it was Bernie the white racist and his white racist supporters. Yet today, this may be Hillary being cheated out of Hitler credit just like white racist credit. See, “Hillary Demands Loyalty Pledge”, Newsmax, http://goo.gl/XD2lza, reporting her campaign demanded that “attendees at a Cleveland, Ohio, event to sign a loyalty pledge before being allowed to enter, writes Salena Zito at Real Clear Politics”. More coverage followed at “Hillary Clinton Makes Voters Sign Loyalty Pledge Before Entering Event”, Mediaite
http://goo.gl/4F33X5.

Thankfully, Trump and Hillary aren’t the only ones pandering to the pledge vote. See voter pledge coverage at “Don’t Assume Bernie Sanders Supporters Will Back Hillary Clinton If She’s The Nominee”, Huffington Post, http://goo.gl/mfVUYu, and “Bernie supporters: Will you take the Bernie Pledge?”, Daily Kos http://goo.gl/zhfBqz. So if you are at a Clinton or Sanders rally, no matter what, if they ask you to raise your hand for anything, don't do it! Wait, wait, note of caution-- if its the pledge of allegiance you better stand and say it or else--"Hillary Clinton Supporter Refused to Stand for Pledge of Allegiance", Free Beacon, http://goo.gl/rM268u. Maybe Larry David is right on Curb Your Enthusiasm: "You can't even leave your house". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1MneRzGuaE.

Meanwhile, the absurd leftist hype in the media and social media continues to drive Trump to victory after victory. 

Guest Post. Thad Guyer on accusations of white racism

Peter Sage introduction:    My goal is to offer a cold eyed look at the election, describing political craftsmanship and messaging.   I try to be fair, reliable, objective.   Frequent Guest Poster Thad Guyer has a little different intention: to share a "swing for the fences" brutally honest--as he sees it--view of the hypocrisy underlying the posturing of both parties.   He lives overseas currently and perceives the conflicts among cultures mor acutely than do those of us living here in the states.   He calls out racial hypocrisy more sharply than I do, perhaps because he sees it more acutely than I do.  His insights on Trump's appeal, and the difficulty Hillary has had in engaging working and middle income Americans, have been prescient in anticipating Trump's success and her woes.   

I am traveling to Florida and am at a midway stop at LAX, so this post will likely format differently than others.

THAD GUYER GUEST POST

Will Trump Inherit Sanders’ Racist Base, or Will They Join Hillary’s Racist Hordes?

The law of primogeniture holds that Hillary should inherit most of Bernie’s white racist supporters when he is gone. It would be unfair for Hillary to be denied her share of Bernie white racists, since she was Bill’s H.R. Halderman in their white racist war room at the White House. They used the invidious guise of welfare reform (“Clintons’ rise was premised on repudiating black voters”, Salon http://goo.gl/ZVgFEF), and stiff drug sentencing laws. (“The Clintons’ War on Drugs: When Black Lives Didn’t Matter”, New Republic https://goo.gl/EwGplZ) On national tv the milky white Hillary rattled white America with the threat of little Black “super predators”. “Hillary Clinton’s ‘super-predator’ concession”, Washington Post https://goo.gl/BY1zG5.

We all know the rules: He whose base is large white voter blocks is a racist candidate—and so are all his white supporters. This law of Trump will now be applied to Bernie and his supporters. 

Because Hillary can shrug off almost anything, there is no sustained focus on her racist record during the 1990’s. But Bernie and his supporters aren’t used to innuendo against them as white racists. We all know the code: Trump’s rallies are all white, his support base is all white, he has virtually no Black support, so he is a white racist. Democrats have uncritically embraced this as ipso facto truth. Bernie has become a general election threat to Hillary, so now the establishment is slamming down the race card to neutralize him. See, “Sanders still has a non-white voter problem”, Washington Post https://goo.gl/gbB44P, “Bernie’s Revolution Is Too White”, New Republic, https://goo.gl/t8i212, and “All States Sanders Has Won Have This Thing In Common [They’re White]”, http://goo.gl/yMUYFE. Bernie and his supporters got to live in a little white bubble for six months or so, but no more. They are going to be called white racists if they don’t disavow Sanders soon.  

The axiom is that whomever supports a racist is himself a racist. In “An Open Letter to My Friends”, Huffington Post http://goo.gl/I7EjzQ, the author pleads with everyone he loves to accept that if they support Trump, then they are themselves racists. But-- he says if they turn away from Trump now, then they won’t bear the moral responsibility for his candidacy. A more scholarly view of this philosophy is “On Racism and White Privilege”, Southern Poverty Law Center http://goo.gl/tDrOGm. The axiom applies to Sanders and Hillary and Trump supporters alike.

So what keeps the body politic on its feet through the onslaught of white racism indictments? Denial and outrage. Hillary supporters, like their hero, are habituated to denial of everything from her husband’s debauchery to Black child “super predators”. They won’t even watch the “super predators” video of their candidate in the 1996 C-Span program. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0uCrA7ePno. Denial works well for establishment candidates like Hillary and her supporters. But denial won’t likely work for anti-establishment Bernie or his supporters. Like the Trump revolutionaries, they are sure to combust in outrage when the white racism inuendo is reloaded in Clinton superpac artillery and fired at them as as explict racism charges. They got close today as Hillary’s people cried “very distubing” when Bernie stumbled in a briar thicket of politcal correctness on black ghetto life. See, “Clinton Campaign Slams Sanders’ on Racial Blindspots”, http://goo.gl/Me04Zl. Her supporters smashed him to pieces on Facebook. “Sanders Clarifies ‘Ghetto’ Remark that Prompted Social Media Outcry”, WSJ http://goo.gl/j5Kwms.

So when Bernie is done-in as a white racist, I think his supporters will choose outrage over denial. And many of them will, by secret ballot, join the Trump racists in mutual outrage. It’s called the law of unintended consequences. 




Posted by Thad Guyer to  Up Close, with Peter Sage at March 8, 2016 at 5:49 AM

Up Close in Florida

I continue in my effort to see the campaigns up close.  I try to keep my eyes open, to notice details, to observe closely and to record what I see.  Of course, that's not how most people see the events, which is my point.  I don't want just to "get an impression".  I want to see the details that create the impression.

I will be in Florida for a week, being involved in the rallies surrounding the two debates, the Democrats on Wednesday, March 9, and the Republicans on Thursday, March 10.

The debates will be at two different college campuses, both in Miami.  There will be rallies surrounding both events.   Joaquin Castro will lead a Hillary phone bank later in the week and it is widely rumored that he will be Hillary's choice for VP, if she gets the nomination.   And that weekend there will be a million people congregating for a Calle Oche event and there will be lots of political stuff happening as part of that, including some "crowd canvassing."

A Way to Watch a Democratic Debate

It is dead easy to go to the Hillary campaign website and see what activities are available for people interested in her campaign.   Simply plug in a Miami zip code and, bingo!, there are events shown:  a rally prior to the debate, some LGTB canvasing dates and times, the Joaquin Castro phone bank, the canvas of the Calle Oche attendees.

Here is the odd thing: it is much harder to see what the Sanders campaign is doing.   I go to his website, I google Bernie Sanders campaign Miami and a dozen other permutations trying to find rallies or volunteer events, and what I see is one good event, the Sanders rally prior to the Miami debate on Wednesday, a rally that will presumably be simultaneous and adjacent to the Hillary one at the same place and time.

Volunteer Recruitment done right: confirmation of my RSVP

The Republican candidates have astonishing websites--astonishing for what they do not do.   They have each opened campaign offices, and there is an address given in central Miami, but no phones, no website with events posted and opportunities to volunteer.  Really:   No phone listed anywhere.  No "contact the campaign office" button which gets you to an email address staffed by a web receptionist.   Nothing!

Volunteer Sign Up for Rubio:  no response

I am not a total neophyte with the internet and Google searches and after two hours of effort I simply plan on driving to each HQ office and talking with people.   I am baffled.   My goal is to see the candidates and see the campaign volunteers.

I cannot get information from any of them on how to do so.   Possibly the event calendar will fill up with multiple events but at this moment I will do this the oldest of old fashioned ways: I will physically go to a campaign office.  If I end up spending more time looking at Hillary's events than those of other candidates it will be in part because her campaign websites facilitate that.    The news people make comments about the Rubio and Trump ground game, saying they are less organized than Cruz's, which is why Cruz does better in the caucus states.   I can testify to that.  If I wanted to spend a day canvasing for Trump or Rubio I would not know how to do so, short of showing up at their offices.



If