Well, yeah, but then he eff’ed over the very people who believed his “Trump the populist” lies by totally aligning himself with the toxic GOP Congress and the 1%. So, economic insecurity gave him an edge, but he squandered it.
Unless his “base” is too stupid to see this, which is a possibility for some, for sure–MAGA and white nationalism trumps food on the table and all that.
There are people who still refuse to believe this.
And probably some who believe it even less when it comes from a Professor of Political Science and Director of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University.
In 2013, the majority of households (55 percent) did not have enough liquid savings to replace a single month of their income.
This is, to put it mildly, no way to run a railroad.
Thanks for your hard work, Jake.
There are a number of studies that indicate that economic insecurity was not a significant factor in driving votes for Donald Trump. He was the first major party Presidential candidate who waged a campaign predicated on racism and natavism. Those who voted for Trump were less likely to feel economic insecurity than those voters who supported his opponent.
Trump’s supporters were motivated by their fear of the “other”, specifically people of color. That’s just a fact and those that seek to downplay that fact are ignorant of the reality that helped to elect a proto-fascist.
The folks who urge Democrats to focus predominantly on economic insecurity are those who have always urged us to concentrate on the elusive white, working class male voter, the result being lost elections. That is a fool’s errand. The base of the Democratic Party is comprised of women and people of color. To ignore them and the issues that impact them, their daily lives, and their very existence while pandering to voters who most likely will never vote Democratic is madness.
These same folks are the ones who tell us to move away from “identity politics” while somehow ignoring that Republicans have won by embracing that same strategy for decades. Their identity just happens to be white and primarily male. Some progressives and the well-known candidate(s) they support are of the mind that “identity politics” is performed by those who are not white, male, or heterosexual.
Economic inequality is a corrosive and festering problem in America. But racism, sexism, and natavism will still exist despite efforts in resolving economic disparities. I fear that ignoring the inherent racism, misogyny, and natavism of Trump’s base will cause Democrats to be left chasing unicorns and to continue to lose elections.
I broadly accept that there is some connection between the economic injustice and suffering experienced by white Americans and the rise of Trump, but the economic anxieties thesis is highly problematic and potentially dangerous. A strange feature of the rise of American fascism is precisely the absence of catastrophic economic and social breakdown that characterized Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. A much more meaningful explanation for Trumpism would involve another sociological concept—cultural capital.
Cultural capital—social prestige and dignity and privilege—for provincial uneducated American whites is very strongly connected to their race, Christianity, and their longstanding belief that they the are true soul of America. This demographic is extremely alarmed by the liberal transfer of prestige to black people, gay people etc—and there’s no denying that such a transfer has occurred. You could give every Trumpist a million dollars and they’d still be Trumpists, because they’d still feel they weren’t getting the respect they deserved. In fact they consistently vote against their economic interests even in the knowledge that they’re doing so.
This economically self defeating behavior at the ballot box is, if you think about it, precisely what enables the economic inequality to persist and worsen. And of course the economic deterioration is experienced as cultural defeat.
In other words, focusing on the economic aspects is in any case necessary as a matter of ordinary social justice, but It won’t fix Trumpism. That would require something to be done about the information community that Trumpists inhabit, a community that constantly reinforces their cultural grievances and their belief that Trump will solve them— which he will, if he stays in power and succeeds in transforming the USA into a nativist country dominated by white men. Trumpists are not suffering from false consciousness. They accurately understand that Trump is a white nationalist authoritarian and they consciously embrace him.
Look. By instinct, because I am a natural pessimist, I spent the two months leading up to the 2016 election reading Shirer: Berlin Diaries, and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. When everyone else was pretty sure Hillary was going to win, my gut told me it wasn’t that easy: and so I read.
It was psychological preparation for what I guess I sensed was coming: I was looking for some way to explain to myself how it was my nice neighbors and in-laws were about to send my country scuttering down a gutter full of dirty water, into what would ultimately become a form of full-on fascism.
My instincts have had me spending the last two months reading Donald Woods’ biography of the great South African leader and martyr Steve Biko, and also Iris Origo’s war diaries, which describe daily life in fascist Italy during the waning months of WWII, with all the attendant horrors and deprivations, but also the great and enduring courage of individuals even under the savage rule of the fascists.
My instinct, this election cycle, seems to be telling me to prepare for life in an increasingly openly fascist country.
This is not a sudden decline and fall into fascism: our democracy has been slipping away since the Gingrich ascendancy of 1994, and has for all intents and purposes been gone since the Republican Supreme Court stole the presidency in 2000 in order to pack the federal judiciary with right-wing apparatchiks.
But this is the year we seem to be about ready to acknowledge what has happened…
At this point, we vote, not because of a “blue wave,” which may or may not be receding—the national corporate press is certainly doing whatever it can to make sure it dies–but because we are moral beings, and the only real, non-violent way we have to express our loathing for what is happening to our country is to vote against it.
But the Republicans have been laying track for this moment for more than four decades, while the Democrats have slept, or “triangulated,” or implored the GOP to be nice and play bipartisan games with them.
The Republicans have the entire apparatus of government at their disposal, plus most of the press, plus a clear strategy to eradicate opposition and tilt the playing field permanently in their favor.
This horror—this full on fascism, probably, once the dust settles, in the form of a kind of apartheid not unlike the South African model----is what we need to learn to live with and continue to struggle against. One nice, neat little election isn’t going to restore a democracy that’s already pretty well and truly lost.
But as bad as it’s been, and as bad as it’s going to be no matter what, it gets right ugly if the Republicans do well in November.
So vote, vote, vote, vote, vote. It matters. At the very least, don’t give these SOBs your consent. Vote against them. Vote.
I also wanted to make clear that the Great Risk Shift wasn’t a natural occurrence — a financial hurricane beyond human control. It was the result of deliberate policy choices by political and corporate leaders, beginning in the late 1970s and accelerating in the 1980s and 1990s. These choices shredded America’s unique social contract, with its unparalleled reliance on private workplace benefits. They also left existing programs of economic protection more and more threadbare, penurious and outdated — and hence increasingly incapable of filling the resulting void.
Amen!
Well said. Yes. Fascism is obviously rampant in our country now. But far too many refuse to see it.
The “Great Risk Shift” was in fact first of all a “naturally” occurring result of the workings of capitalism, specifically the outcome of WWII and the nadir of U.S. capitalism economically in the late 1960’s. Germany and Japan rebuilt with the latest technologies, while U.S. major businesses rested on their laurels. To compete profitably, U.S. business leaders had to start making drastic decisions, such as to move production south and then abroad, to put their money in oil vs. rebuilding plants (US Steel), and eventually to change certain aspects of compensation, such as pensions (which borrowed from a plan designed for executives). Basically, manufacturing in the US was gutted by the early 1980s and incomes have stagnated or dropped, with occasional blips up, since the early 1970s.
Wish I’d written that.
[quote=“redemptionsong, post:4, topic:79435”]
There are a number of studies that indicate that economic insecurity was not a significant factor in driving votes for Donald Trump.[/quote]
“Not a significant factor” is probably inaccurate. More likely it was one factor among a number of mutually reinforcing factors.
I agree with [1] and [2]. And as for [3], I don’t recommend ignoring racism or misogyny or nativism, either.
[quote=“nemo, post:5, topic:79435”]
Cultural capital—social prestige and dignity and privilege—for provincial uneducated American whites is very strongly connected to their race, Christianity, and their longstanding belief that they the are true soul of America. This demographic is extremely alarmed by the liberal transfer of prestige to black people, gay people etc—and there’s no denying that such a transfer has occurred.[/quote]
Well stated, thanks.
You’ll likely find something to agree with in the following (I’ve posted it before):
To date, the dominant narrative explaining the outcome of the 2016 presidential election has been that working class voters rose up in opposition to being left behind economically (2). Those who lost jobs or experienced stagnant wages purportedly punished the incumbent party. These claims were made on the basis of aggregate demographic patterns tied to voters’ education levels, patterns that could occur for a multitude of reasons.
This study evaluates the “left behind” thesis as well as dominant group status threat as an alternative narrative explaining Trump’s popular appeal and ultimate election to the presidency. Evidence points overwhelmingly to perceived status threat among high-status groups as the key motivation underlying Trump support. White Americans’ declining numerical dominance in the United States together with the rising status of African Americans and American insecurity about whether the United States is still the dominant global economic superpower combined to prompt a classic defensive reaction among members of dominant groups.
The author of the study is Diana Mutz (now at Penn).
What’s driving Trump is the erosion of the power of the straight white christian male. What excites Trumps base? Whenever he insults and harasses ethnic and religious minorities, women or homosexuals.
Economic insecurity has nothing to do, as many of Trump fiercest supporters are pretty well off. It’s the power, #MAGA is just White Supremacy by another name, academics who fail to understand that are fooling themselves, and of course Trumpers would not admit in a questionnaire, that they are guided by animosity to others .
For males the loss of status is like the loss of hair, it drives otherwise smart and reasonable people to behave like complete idiots. I had a neighbor that was a really smart guy but when he started to loose his hair he fell for each and every scam directed to baldies, things that anyone could see from miles away it was a fraud(like you just can’t buy a single bar of hair growing soap, you need to buy the whole 20lbs box) he fell for them.
The same way with Trump believers, his lies are so transparent and they swallow them whole because they have faith that he will deliver them from the scourge of immigrants, blacks, jews, muslims, homosexuals and feminists, and restore the Great American White Male to it’s god-ordained place at the top of the society.
You can not separate racism from a perceived Economic Security/Insecurity.
So yes, it is a component on which some people voted and most certainly was enough of a margin to elect trump. This is a implicit point that the author is making.
In other words, how much different would voting results be if there wasn’t such a latent and increasing insecurity? Obviously we can’t definitively know that answer. But the results seem to strongly correlate to a more Authoritarian attempt to control for something that is becoming less controllable.
You are seeing a B F Skinner Variable Reinforcement outcome at work. Which is anathema to even a modicum operation of how best to operate a stable and long running Economy. You are removing an ability to have a Cause and Effect outcome.
It’s a very easy question to contemplate: what would be your immediate Economic choices that you make if you are confronted with a increasing concern about your ability to provide for your needs both in the medium and long-term?
In fact, our Economy is completely dependent on that a huge majority of it’s citizens have a sufficiently large belief in the assurance of some ability to provide for their future needs. It literally cannot operate without that belief.
You continue to erode that belief - which is becoming that much more apparent - without the entire edifice of what makes our Economy operate, come crashing down.
Great article (even with the caveats). Fear makes people so much more vulnerable to hate.
But I would like to caution against the use of the word “insurance” because so many of the things sold under that name are just additional components of the risk-shifting business. We saw this most boldly with the old versions of health insurance – pre-existing conditions, rescission, caps, high deductibles. But many other kinds of insurance also shift risk based on asymmetrical information – flood insurance where policies are based on lot-by-lot simulations of water flow, earthquake insurance that won’t be sold at decent prices to people actually at risk, and so forth.
I think it was a combination of things; economic insecurity, bigotry and resentment and the fact that Secretary Clinton was ultimately a flawed candidate. Don’t get me wrong, I voted for her and would do so again, but with so much baggage (real and/or imagined) she had a lot of weaknesses that the GOP and Trump were eager to attack. That, along with Comey’s spectacular bad timing all contributed to her “loss.” (Not to mention Russian interference, gerrymandering, and potential electoral hijinks.) The important thing now is not how Trump won, but how we hamstring his next two years in office and ensure that he is not re-elected in 2020. It all starts next month, and for goodness sake, get out and vote. It goes without saying, vote and vote BLUE.
Anecdotally, I know there’s something to “anybody but Mrs. Clinton.” I know at least a couple of students whose lives have not turned out well for them–they could not find good jobs, they’ve had severe financial struggles and things have generally not gone well. Both of them tend conservative, but have told me repeatedly that they would’ve voted for Bernie Sanders if he had been the candidate. They just would not vote for Mrs. Clinton, who was “corrupt,” and of course–this was unstated–female.
I believe, as most people here do, that the driver behind the election of 45 was culture/perceived loss of status/unhappiness with some big changes, e.g. marriage equality. But I’ve long thought that no one has engaged the American people in a conversation about globalization and its discontents…why income inequality has soared, why people’s jobs are insecure, why risk is being shifted. As Thomas Friedman says in his new book, this is an “it’s all on you” world now. We know from the New Deal and Great Society that government can provide ports for people against economic storms. Why can’t someone on our side–we’ll never hear anything from Darwinian GOPers-- propose a Workers’ Bill of Rights in a globalizing world, that would provide for portable pensions, affordable health care, stipends for moving where the jobs are, etc., etc., etc.? Maybe this will be distilled down and defined by the GOP as “higher taxes,” and I’m no political scientist, but all the same, would it not be worth a try?!
Absolutely, and there were a lot of people in that position. Not that I think Bernie would have done any better…[ducks to avoid projectiles]…and she did win the primary fair and square. It’s so pointless to continue re-litigating 2016, yet so many wish to do so. Let’s get the House back, first, focus on what’s right in front of us.
All for that!
To me, this analysis is crying out for statistics on the top one percent: How they are benefiting to the tune of over $1 trillion per year from the stagnant wages we have endured for the past 40+ years.
Technology and off-shoring will continue to undermine workers’ wage bargaining power.
Government intervention is called for to return the benefits of increased productivity to the workers - and to society at large.