
The end of the establishment? - l33tbro
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-the-end-of-the-establishment-20160223-story.html
======
mike_hearn
This sort of analysis is helpful and needed. Explanations like "everyone is
stupid" don't get you anywhere.

The article doesn't say it explicitly, choosing to hint at it instead, but I
think a big part of the popular revolt against big, remote establishments
everywhere (also see: Brexit referendum polling) is that these institutions
have normally made little or no effort to self police, or demonstrate any kind
of ability to self discipline or self reform. The past 15 years especially
have seen a more or less constant stream of scandals where people at the top
of societies power structures very clearly acted badly or even broke laws, yet
nobody was ever held to account ... except those who tried to reveal the
wrongdoing. The track record of the elite enforcing the same rules against
themselves that they enforce against everyone else is utterly miserable.

This is not a US specific thing. It can be seen to a lesser extent in other
parts of the world too. One of the biggest arguments for the UK leaving the EU
is that the EU has become a vast bureaucracy that is remote, bloated,
undemocratic, disconnected from the people etc. The tone-deafness was made
clear when the EU demanded yet another budget rise despite the fact that the
member states were _all_ trying to cut their own deficits, often by freezing
public sector wages or simply laying people off.

Now mix this in with the partitioning of American society into ever more
clearly distinct political tribes and it's not surprising that people who have
a message of "We are outsiders just like you who won't hesitate to really
shake things up" are getting so much traction. A big part of Obama's original
appeal was his entirely unrealised promise to try and reform Washington.
Unfortunately he lost interest in that once elected. Not that he could really
have fixed anything anyway: the mismatch between emphasis on the US President
and how much power they actually have is kind of ridiculous.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
>The past 15 years especially have seen a more or less constant stream of
scandals where people at the top of societies power structures very clearly
acted badly or even broke laws, yet nobody was ever held to account ... except
those who tried to reveal the wrongdoing.

I find this argument baffling when applied to the EU.

Most of the scandals were in the banking and finance industries, not - say -
the EU parliament.

The Greek debacle, which was probably the biggest failure of the EU since its
creation, was _created_ by the EU's banking and finance industries.

Perhaps it's the industry that's the problem, and not Europe itself?

Not that the EU isn't remote, but it's not so remote that it has no interest
in promoting standards of human rights legislation.

By a remarkable coincidence, a key foundation of Brexit is the dismissal of
the EU's requirement to treat workers in a civilised manner as "Brussels red
tape".

As for Trump - the idea that you can dethrone an Establishment run by and for
narcissistic billionaires by electing another narcissistic billionaire seems
entirely fantastic.

If Trump is elected, the US establishment will be happy to do business with
him, as usual.

Sanders may be a tougher nut to crack, which is why he can't be allowed to win
- and why the idea that these candidates "challenge the Establishment" is
nonsense, when no Establishment policy is under any serious threat in this
election. (Or any other.)

~~~
tomp
> The Greek debacle was created by the EU's banking and finance industries.

No, it was created by the EU who bailed out the banks, paying them money and
forcing the loss on the taxpayers.

> Most of the scandals were in the banking and finance industries, not - say -
> the EU parliament.

The EU parliament is a scandal in and of itself - "let's waste some money and
have _two_ parliament buildings in _two_ cities!"

~~~
tonyedgecombe
>No, it was created by the EU who bailed out the banks

No, it was caused by the Greeks living beyond their means.

~~~
justinhj
You can't live beyond your means without help from a complicit financial body
enabling you to do it

~~~
madaxe_again
Of course you can. This is what sovereign bonds are for.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
In which case the financial body is whoever is buying the bonds.

------
mc32
The rise of outsiders likely has been helped by the rise in inequality not so
much between whites and non whites but between poor and the non poor combined
with the tonedeafness of major candidates who tend to lump poor whites with
"rich white men" and an emphasis on men.

White police officers are the devil and by extension poor whites are the devil
[but we see that non white officers engage in similar behavior] The notion
that all Hispanics have Mexican ancestry and all want to be addressed in
Spanish or that all blacks identify with Sharpton politics.

People call Trump a populist and at times racist, they have said the same
thing of Sanders not so much for what he says but because of who follows his
candidacy [the demographics].

It looks like there are people who are rebelling against some of the
divisiveness of identify politics and misguidedly people are labeling these
people pejoratively as being a certain kind of people [racists, misogynists,
xenophobes, uneducated, poor, etc.] when most likely they are simply rebelling
against traditional politics where they have been simply useful but not tended
to.

For establishment candidates it'll be tough to balance efforts to underscore
minorities in a major way without excluding or at the expense of browbeating
majorities because unfortunately they are assuming a zero sum game even while
saying otherwise.

~~~
generic_user
Ask yourself, when was the last time you heard a politician or business leader
mention the problems of European American "white" communities?

When was the last time you watched a story on Television about the European
American poverty and economic dislocation in the US?

When was the last time the President or an elected official campaigning for
European American Scholarships, loan assistance programs or European American
organizations?

They use to call the middle class the silent majority. There was an unspoken
agreement between the Politicians the Media and the Middle Class that everyone
was working for the good of the people, all the people including European
Americans.

But I think the last 15 years have shown conclusively in the eyes of the
silent majority that agreement has been torn up and thrown in the bin. And the
Media the Politicians and there Billionaire pay masters have turned quite
dramatically against the good of the European Americans working and middle
classes.

So they will not be silent anymore. They will make there demands and organise
and vote according to who best serves there interests. There is no amount of
Media spinning demonization and appeals to white guilt that is going to put
European Americans back in there nice little box. The Billionaires killed that
golden goose that was the silent majority now they will have to deal with the
consequences.

~~~
cvwright
> Ask yourself, when was the last time you heard a politician or business
> leader mention the problems of European American "white" communities?

Hillary Clinton, in one of the early Democratic primary debates.

It was an amazing display of skill. Clinton was asked by a black member of the
audience how she, as a white woman president, would improve the lives of black
Americans. She somehow turned the question around, and by the end of her
answer, she was talking about a recent study on the declining health of poor
whites and how she would help them.

And the audience actually applauded! Nobody there -- either black or white --
seemed to notice how artfully she dodged the question and presented one of her
limitations as an apparent strength. I was floored.

~~~
generic_user
It just goes to show that they will play any side of the fence in order to de-
legitimize organic attempt at self representation as selfish, frivolous and
not needed.

Its along the lines of, oh you think your poor? Well, theses people over here
are much poorer then you. You should not complain and be happy with what you
have because it can be much worse!

------
venomsnake
If watched trough historical prism - if 2007 was 1929 - we are at 32-33 now
probably.

If you looked into the world back then - there was great revolting against
establishment too - no matter the ideology (or actions) in any country during
the great depression - they were exchanged for someone else.

The ruling class has 2 responsibilities - economic growth and redistribution
and security. They must keep reasonably safe and deliver enough to the people
to not starve.[1]

The post 9/11 media frenzy made people feeling permanently insecure - this is
something no government can win now. The US now has 2 economies that are
lumped together for statistical purposes. The one of them is doing just fine.
But its recovery masks the plight of the great unwashed that all the rest of
us are.

The people feel the desire to burn the system. Nothing strange with that.
Anyway - if the presidential election is Bernie vs Not Trump or Hilary vs
Trump - you can completely write off the establishment candidate. Since the
voters behind Bernie and Trump seems to hate the current order more than they
are loyal to their own party.

The bullying against BS supporters to vote for Hilary in case of her winning
the nomination is telling.

[1] Safety and not starving have different meanings depending on society,
culture and past experience.

~~~
bsaunder
I like the assertion that the US has 2 economies that are lumped together for
statistical purposes.

I would imagine there should be some supporting artifacts of this in various
reports. Where would one look to see data to support this (two clustered
groups experience the world significantly differently).

I would imagine that publicizing this data would help people validate their
concerns that no, things aren't going as well as I've been told.

~~~
maxerickson
I don't think it's the dividing line used in the parent comment to yours, but
one interesting dividing line is people employed full time with benefits vs
everyone else.

Maybe a slightly better line would be based on US GDP. Per capita it is
~$53,000, capturing a share of the economy larger than that can reasonably be
described as doing ok (of course the line would be different for a household
than an individual).

~~~
chrstphrhrt
I think a lot of full time workers can still be wage slaves.

Maybe a living wage is a better benchmark. The minimum required to "thrive"
with a normal list of opportunities/choices that people can be expected to
encounter. E.g., car required if not living in high-density urban environment,
raising children, having pets, buying simple furniture, healthy food, internet
access, life and house/rental insurance etc. It's all about access to
thriving, not access to luxury, and in each place and circumstance that access
is different, but living wages can be indexed to all these factors. The more
factors included to counter the various axes of oppression the better.

For example, in Canada we have the Canadian Centre for Policy alternatives
which publishes living wage data/indexes every year for a number of cities.

A few years back I helped cofound a programming and design worker co-op with a
handful of other people and we discussed using such an index to determine
salaries for members in different cities. E.g. if the Montreal team gets 4x
the local living wage, then the Vancouver team also gets 4x their local living
wage, even if the absolute amount appears higher.

~~~
maxerickson
I think that is another interesting earning level to look at, but what if the
living wage exceeds the per capita GDP (or GDP/work force if you want to
better account for children)?

------
VLM
There is a major error in the linked article which is claiming its the end of
the establishment rather than just another turn of the cyclical wheel. Also it
carefully avoids recent history.

On the R side I'm one of the guys who was kicked out by the neocons for not
being a bond villain warmonger or televangelist wannabe. The neos were the
establishment for a couple decades, and now the wheel turns and we're going
back to "real" republicans again and kicking out the neos. I'm pretty happy
Trump voter, but I'm really an anti-Jeb voter or anti-Rubio voter. Is Trump
the best real republican out there? Probably not, but he's the first in the
limelight of this new cycle.

On the D side their party kicked out all the hippies and replaced them with
Wall Street shills. At least in leadership positions. The R purged their
entire party whereas the D has always had hippies, just no longer in
leadership. Again they're not eliminating the concept of an establishment,
they're just kicking the wall street shills out and putting the hippies back
in charge. Again, is Sanders the best hippie out there? Probably not, but he's
the first in the limelight of this new cycle.

If I can't vote for Trump I'll vote for Sanders. I trust an honest enemy more
than I trust my own parties former leaders. I don't think this is an unusual
outlook, either. If, oh who am I kidding, when, Hillary screws Sanders out of
the nomination, Trump should pick Sanders as veep, that would be epic.

The interesting part is the synchronization across party lines. Both parties
having a coup at the same time? Well, the rank and file have more in common
with each other than they do with their former leadership, so...

Other than those minor issues its a very good article.

~~~
cmrdporcupine
Naturally Sanders would not accept veep, they're class enemies.

I also don't accept that Sander's left populism is in the same category as
Trumps' fake right populism. As another commenter stated quite well above,
Trump is establishment. You can't get more establishment than a real estate
tycoon who got rich from daddy's money. It's the same thing as the Bush
family, just more crude.

------
rrggrr
Trump = Establishment. He built his business working with and as part of a
business and political system that is very much pay to play, and he
acknowledges this. People are confusing political rhetoric with cold hard
reality. The three likely outcomes of a Trump Presidency:

(1) He plays along - most likely. (2) Continued gridlock. (3) He spends four
years trying to steamroll Congress by vilifying his opponents, scapegoating
and executive order abuse - causing a political and constitutional crisis with
vague similarities to 1938 Germany.

I'm ambivalent about all the candidates, just mainly concerned about
demagoguery at time of economic and social upheaval.

~~~
protomyth
> (1) He plays along - most likely. (2) Continued gridlock. (3) He spends four
> years trying to steamroll Congress by vilifying his opponents, scapegoating
> and executive order abuse

And how would that be any different from the last 7 years? The only real
difference I can see is the side the press will be on.

The thought process that this is a new thing is ignoring the last couple of
election cycles.

~~~
rrggrr
Correct. Just as the founders intended... slow, gradual changes.

------
golergka
I read the article, all the comments, and I don't think that everybody really
discusses elephant in the room here.

US politics is no longer country politics — it's more of an important part of
world politics than an isolated thing. Just the same, US economy is more of a
part of world economy. The article quotes "taxes on the rich" going down, but
it omits the main reason: "taxes on the rich" are really taxes on capital
(which includes not only billionaires, but individual investments of hundreds
of millions people), and the capital is mobile now. If the US wouldn't lower
capital taxes, the capital would just flow away. Same principle works for US
blue-collar workers: sorry guys, but you're competing with workers from India
and China now. And, to be honest, on a humanity level, it feels completely
fair that your wages going a little down while theirs go up, tremendously.
Same is true for financial elite: US financial elite is no longer financial
elite of one country, but financial elite of the entire world.

And, of course, same is also true for US presidential elections. Of course,
only US citizens can vote in it. But the political establishment itself is
already slowly morphing to being a part of international political class
rather then being tied to a specific country: it's especially apparent when
you look at various NGOs, think tanks, funds and other similar organizations.
And both Sanders and Trump are perfectly logical candidates in this context.
They may be radicals on US political arena, but in a broader, worldwide
political spectrum they don't feel out of place one bit. (Which is pretty
ironic when you consider how isolationist both of them are).

So, the whole world is looking at this US election cycle, but if you're part
of US, the whole thing will make much more sense if you take a break from the
spectacle and look around.

~~~
csense
> on a humanity level, it feels completely fair that your wages going a little
> down while theirs go up, tremendously

It's not just "wages going a little down," it's more like the entire economic
fabric of large areas of the country has been disrupted by globalization and
has been slow to recover.

------
thedevil
Scott Adams, maker of Dilbert, wrote something similar. He was calling it the
"second American revolution". He threw out some radical, somewhat silly, but
interesting ideas about it.

[http://blog.dilbert.com/post/138023808851/the-second-
america...](http://blog.dilbert.com/post/138023808851/the-second-american-
revolution-what-then)

~~~
HillRat
Arguably, the Jacksonian era was the "second American revolution," and the
Confederate rebellion the third, retrograde and thankfully failed one.

I think today's political climate is more similar to the 1930s, when
widespread disaffection led to adherence to all sorts of populist movements
and figures, from the Grange to the Wobblies, Huey Long (Trump's closest
antecedent) to Father Coughlin (whose modern echo is perhaps Ted Cruz), and
into dangerous fringe groups like the Klan and the Bund.

What is concerning now is that the centrifugal tendencies are accelerating in
our government, leading to self-sustaining structural dysfunctions that will
prompt further contempt for the government and lead to a greater desire for a
"man on horseback" figure to set things right. Trump, I fear, is just the
beginning.

------
Animats
What "end of the establishment?". The US's Gini coefficient, a measure of
economic inequality, is near its highest level since 1929. When it drops below
the all-time low of 1973, we'll talk about the "end of the establishment." In
the 1960s, there were about 60 lobbyists in Washington. Now, there are over
20,000.

All that's happened so far is that, at last, the "establishment" message isn't
selling. Occupy won the battle for the message, by focusing attention on "the
1%". That hasn't translated into action. We're not seeing pro-labor
legislation getting through Congress. We're not even seeing aggressive
enforcement of existing minimum wage and overtime laws. We're not seeing
employers going to jail on a regular basis for wage theft or violating
immigration law.

All that's happened is that the GOP has managed to shoot itself in the foot.
Again. Face it, all the Republican presidential candidates are worse than Bush
Sr, or Eisenhower, or Reagan. It's embarrassing. This is the legacy of being
"the party of No" in Congress - there's nobody with a track record of
accomplishing much.

Not sure what to make of Trump. He's the first national level demagogue the US
has had in many decades.

~~~
StillBored
My take on Trump is that he _IS_ the face of nearly 1/2 of the GOP's
supporters at this time. He isn't saying anything other candidates haven't
said, or at least winked about. AKA years of angry incoherent propaganda means
the candidate with the most angry incoherent message will win. If the reasoned
intelligent members of the party refused to refute the garbage from Faux new's
(and other) pundits then they shouldn't be surprised at the outcome.

------
hwstar
The establishment won't give up power without a fight. There may be a second
"Business Plot":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot)

------
rogersmith
How incredibly naive is it to believe that both Sanders and Trump aren't just
as part of the "establishment" as the others. They are bones thrown at the
increasingly discontent left and right fringes.

On the off-chance either of them would be elected, nothing would change as far
as the "establishment" is concerned.

Remember how Obama was the candidate of "hope and change"?

~~~
mc32
One big difference is that neither is beholden to donors or "the party"
machinery. They are more viable because other candidates are choosing to do
retail politics in that they campaign by polls whereas these alternatives are
irreverent of polls and have platform of addressing what they believe are
ignored swaths of the public.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Until Sanders' retail politics gets him a majority of Congress, he's not going
to do much of anything as president.

