Eve is here. Tom Neuberger examines Obama’s failure to deliver on his promises as a “transformational” president and questions whether Trump will manage to deliver. Will American politics return to increasingly tired promises of big changes that never materialize?
Mr. Neuberger makes some important observations, but in my opinion, misses some important ones. He doubts the Republican Party will do any better at improving the economic conditions of the working class, given that the party is loyal to the super-rich and does better by keeping the poor in check. is holding. However, President Trump has gained some credibility from the fact that he has improved the situation for middle- and low-income people through massive spending during the COVID-19 pandemic. I benefited from that). Additionally, questions remain about how far President Trump will go in restricting immigration. If he really cracked down on the border, succeeded in deporting criminals and people cleared for deportation by immigration courts (1.3 million!!!), and did flashy employer raids, then maybe workers You will be appreciated more for helping. Rather than justifying the impact on pay levels.
In other words, Neuberger assumes that all possible actions by President Trump would be a zero-sum game. I’m not sure.
First, it can become a negative sum game. President Trump is adamant about imposing additional tariffs (just in case you were wondering, Biden was also down that path, but not quite as aggressively). If he goes too far, the costs to Americans will increase in addition to inflation.
But Trump is at the vanguard of the intended class realignment. Trump may not need to deliver improved material benefits to be considered a winner. The professional business class that has rallied behind Hillary and Kamala is clearly obsessed with Trump’s second victory, much to the annoyance of Trump enthusiasts. Democratic elites are the epitome of competitive losers, and it’s clear that they continue to loathe Trump supporters (or, more accurately, their entertainment stereotypes). So let’s join the fight!
Undermining or abandoning DEI initiatives and good-thinking practices at universities, such as cracking down on microaggressions, if it goes anywhere, will result in the employment of those hired by universities and corporate nannies and their consultants. will be reduced. Let me tell you, you’re not really against DEI. Numerous studies have found that unconscious bias is real and prevalent. However, there seem to be too many cases where it approaches a fetish. It’s hardly important to know what led RFK, Jr. to threaten a 600-person salvo at the NIH, including how relevant laws and regulations affect grant decisions. This is a statement that there is no such thing. Chas Freeman portrayed Trump’s victory as a war over expertise (Freeman laments the diminishing value of diplomacy as a form of expertise, which is true, but Biden The secret war began when he appointed Sullivan and other smooth-talking hacks to his foreign policy team).
This may also explain why many (most?) of Trump’s nominees thus far have been controversial. What’s the point in picking Matt Gaetz, who President Trump must know he doesn’t have the votes to kick out of the Senate Judiciary Committee? Who among RFK Jr., who also seems very unlikely to be confirmed? Maybe it’s not actually a display of unchecked ego, but a president not accepting of being constrained. I don’t know. Perhaps what matters is the battle, and unlike Team Dem, he doesn’t talk about “battles” but actually fights, even ones he’s destined to lose.
Written by Thomas Neuberger. Originally published on God’s Spies
Stills from the 1936 classic film “The Future”
Like others, I’ve been trying to make sense of the last election. There’s a lot that’s obvious about it, and a lot of people are saying it. But what exactly will it be?
Is this really the era of reshaped coalitions, or of “replacement candidates”, one candidate after another replacing the last one?
Note: The following analysis pertains to the domestic economy. More on Trump’s foreign policy later. The pro-Imperialist Atlanticists appear to be fighting a battle. Meanwhile, genocide advocates are looking forward.
What does the data show?
Harris supporters were motivated to protect democracy and abortion, while Trump supporters voted to rebuild the economy and curb immigration.
And there were far more votes for Trump and his proposal than for Harris and hers.
(Click here for the latest popularity vote count)
Additionally, the number of people staying home has increased. More than 150 million votes have been counted so far, but the total number of votes cast in 2020 was even higher at 158 million. Harris lost about 10 million Biden voters. Some people (I don’t know how many) will go with Mr. Trump, while others will go against the grain. Only a small number (approximately 1.5%) were voted by a third party.
Mr. Trump’s vote total increased by about 1 million votes, winning over disaffected Democrats. It would be good to know who made the switch, who was in the house and why, but so far it is unknown.
true thing
What can we conclude from this data? Let’s take a step back, but first we must admit that the following statement is true:
1. Since Bill Clinton’s first term, the Democratic Party has become less and less representative of working people and, as Jamie Harrison said, “abandoned the working class,” and voters know it. It seems so.
Thomas Frank told the National Book Review in 2016 about changes in Democratic representation:
Do Democrats have a vested interest in perpetuating income inequality?
…[W]They know that inequality is bad, and although they are sad about it, they are not deeply concerned about it. That’s because, as a party, they are committed to the winners of the inequality sweepstakes: the “creative class,” the innovative professionals of Silicon Valley and Wall Street. People who are doing really well in this new Gilded Age. That is what the Democratic Party is like now.
On the other hand, they are no longer structurally aligned with workers’ organizations and, as a result, are less concerned with workers’ issues.
Most voters aren’t political buffs, but they know when they’re hurting, and most are hurting now.
2. Democratic leaders reject that analysis. Everything they say says so. for example:
Will they come back later? Possibly, but I think it’s unlikely. There’s too much donor money at stake these days, and both parties, including Democrats, have no intention of backing away from it.
Note that it’s not just those involved who go with the flow and get rich. Politicians are also personally enriched by it. Pelosi, quoted above, is both personally wealthy from her husband’s stock portfolio and a powerful source of financing for others. From CNN in 2020:
Pelosi’s office says she has raised $815.5 million for House Democrats through the end of 2019 since she became a member of the party’s leadership in 2002, including last year. That alone includes $87 million. Think about it. A single person who is not the president of the United States has raised nearly $1 billion over the past 17 years for the broader efforts of his colleagues and party to win or maintain a House majority.
Don’t expect this situation to change anytime soon.
change of coalition
If the above is true, we have created what Ryan Grimm calls a “working-class and ultra-wealthy coalition within the Republican Party.” Republicans cannot satisfy both of these constitutional requirements, and like Democrats, they are institutionally unwilling to do so, at least on economic issues. The super-rich prey on workers. There is a side to choose and the coping strategies are different, but I think both parties are choosing.
The Republican Party’s appeal to workers is ultimately cultural and religious. Look what they did to the courts. When Republican justices are not serving their party’s interests, for example by repealing the Voting Rights Act, they sell out religious control and call it “liberty,” which appeals to the Republican base. It is a move that attracts and pleases many people.
The NDP, on the other hand, appeals to workers by making (or trying to) make things slightly better while satisfying predatory donors. This creates a contradiction in them that can never be resolved.
Democrats make Republicans look right
The Republican Party has a secret partner in its recent breakthrough. Their appeal is further strengthened by the NDP themselves and by their often dishonest or ineffectual adherence to purportedly good beliefs. This point should not be overlooked, but it is too often forgotten.
Consider the climate issue. Democrats say they want to stop climate change. Harris, like both Biden and Obama, called it an “existential threat.” But Barack Obama brought up making America the world’s largest oil producer.
And Biden is no exception.
Under each of the last three presidents, Republican or Democratic, U.S. oil and gas production was higher at the end of their terms than at the beginning.
Most people still don’t care about the climate. But most people are concerned about the economy, their own safety, and the possibility of living on the streets. By that measure, Democrats are underachieving, and claiming they are is making matters worse. They also spend too much time on money instead of people. The fact that they think otherwise is not a good look.
economic relief
People need relief – that’s one of the messages of this amazing election. Is it from the Trumpist Republicans? Not unless they change their stripes, the mark they acquired in the 1800s when they gave up support for black people in exchange for industrial support and wealth inequality. Mr. Trump talks about a good fight, but it seems unlikely that it will materialize.
Will relief come from the modern-day National Democratic Party? Many believe so, but not enough to win, at least not this year.
Will the Democratic Party change after this loss is absorbed? Sorry to be cynical, but I can’t imagine a political party obsessed with money making such a change. Will we turn off the taps from Bloomberg, Bezos, Reid Hoffman, Netflix’s Reed Hastings, Starbucks’ Howard Schultz, and other great souls? They will laugh at the suggestion. As times get tougher, both sides will be disappointed.
something to eat
Where does this leave us? You have two choices.
• The least likely, but likely, possibility is that this is a generational shift (see Ryan Grimm’s thoughts on coalition shifts above). This means Republicans will keep workers under the tent, at least until climate change drowns out all other arguments.
If that happens, Democrats could be reduced to a permanent minority, as most Republicans were from 1932 to 1968, and Mr. If Democrats had not entered the jungle, they would have remained in the minority.
If that happens, the Democratic Party could be replaced by a third party with deep pockets, i.e., funded by labor unions. If a small number of important progressive labor groups, like Sarah Nelson’s Flight Attendants International (CWA), switched funding and established a Third Country Party, it would actually make a big difference.
“How can you be like the Republicans and still get votes?” It’s a dangerous game if you care about the outcome. The Democratic Party suffered a crushing defeat in the last election, and unless it changes course, it won’t have much of an advantage in the next election.
• The most likely alternative recognizes the following facts.
Since 2008, every presidential election (minus one election) has involved change.
The most transformative election after the fall of the Reagan administration was the election of President Barack Obama in 2008. A staunch neoliberal and self-proclaimed Republican, he rode out the troubled waters of 2008 and pitched himself as a hope for change. Check out the popularity vote graph above to see how effective it was.
Romney didn’t have a chance in 2012, but the old party has been toppled in every election since. Trump beat Clinton in 2016 (narrowly), Biden beat Trump in 2020 (by an even larger margin), and Trump won (decisively) in 2024. Notice a pattern?
I fully expect President Trump to once again face difficulties and economic disappointment. If that happens, the Democratic Party could become the next new “party of change.”
Rinse and repeat. If neither party rebuilds the country or halts its decline, they may end up with helpless populists until something collapses or a real third party emerges.
When this kind of constant switching of roles occurs, it won’t last forever. The climate is really reshaping the world.
