They were not, no. My Dad and I spoke on the phone today. They live in a depressed town in rural Ohio. He said, "I can see 9 Trump flags from the front porch." _Those_ people cannot afford to fly to D.C. They are desperate and they do feel abandoned. I have a hard time not saying here that they are justified in that feeling. It really does look like they've been abandoned. This is how we ended up with Trump in the first place...
i am sure that represents a segment of america... that was what people were told to come to grips w/ in 2016, that we had abandoned rural america and how we "got" trump because of it. i don't buy that narrative now. i've felt i've bent over backwards to try to listen and in the end we've just moved further over.
but looking at my small window in the midwest, it's not about economic desperation. most have actually voted against their own ideals economically. it's a perceived cultural war on "conservative" ideals from the "evil" liberal machine. i don't know what the solution is to bridge that divide.
That narrative was 20 years in the making, at least. My father stopped working in 2002, at 52. He was essentially force retired, as the glass plant he was a technician at moved to India, but he had no retirement planning that accounted for starting retirement at 52. And, for the record, they're okay today, but it was in no small part to my own sacrifice, in my 20s, to help them keep their home and get back on their feet. The fact remains, he was simply unable to find work. And he had a health condition, to make matters worse. His story isn't unique, at least not to the places I am speaking about.
I've heard this "voting against their own interests" rhetoric my entire life. It's misguided. These people have voted their entire lives and where did it get them? Broke and unemployed, forced to scrape by however they could.
Trump won specifically because he was a vote AGAINST the status quo, which had stopped working for these people decades ago... Nothing more, nothing less.
Yeah but now it is too late for effective policies that could have helped these people. Simple government stimulus in labor intensive industries would be enough. It's not like there is a shortage of "pointless busy work" like upgrading internet connections. Just build fiber everywhere. Get people with low qualifications back to work.
> Trump won specifically because he was a vote AGAINST the status quo, which had stopped working for these people decades ago... Nothing more, nothing less.
But as it turned out, a vote for Trump was not a vote against the status quo after all. He got elected, had a cooperative congress, and then... what policies did he enact to help rural Americans like your father? Nothing! All he managed to achieve were (surprise,surprise) tax cuts for the wealthy.
Maybe he could have done much for rural America economically, but he didn’t. And then they still voted for him! I don’t buy the narrative either. Nobody is voting for trump in 2020 because they really think he is going to help rural America economically. His actions have never matched his rhetoric.
scruple is exactly right. We “educated professionals” and coders, etc. have to understand that economic changes have stripped the very dignity from millions of people.
then your father might be that segment i'm talking about, and i'm sorry that he was let down after working so faithfully for those years.
i know fb isn't representative of a person's total views, but like the majority of my circle that leans conservative (i grew up smaller city, church goer blah blah, moved to coasts) just share the same stuff over and over. evil democrats doing xyz and we'll have socialism/communism, attack on "christian" ideals, all wrapped up in some religious/nationalistic garb.
some might be economically struggling but it doesn't come out that way, or at least that doesn't appear to be their main thought. i feel perhaps in 2016 people did vote that way to have Trump shake things up, but after 4 years of seeing how he is... that they would do it again, actually, even MORE people would? not sure how to reconcile that.
Considering that before the bronze plan, Republicans offered no plan, I don’t see why not. Additionally, it was Republicans who handicapped the ACA and a public option by pretty much every one of them being ideologically against improvements since any huge increase in healthcare for the people at the bottom would mean huge tax increases.
Republicans did have a plan: Obamacare is essentially the conservative-lite version of healthcare. Take a look at some of the differences between obamacare and a Heritage Foundation conservative dream plan: https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/12/the-aca-v-the-h...
While examining the important differences between the plans in the chart towards the middle of the page, it is important to remember that this is the difference democrats bring to the table in terms of actual lived experiences for working people. The table highlights wonky specifics and continuations of the current system that all look the same in the wash. For working Americans, it is very difficult to see any substantial difference between the two parties. However, there are very large culture differences between the two which conveniently keeps the working class divided.
What I meant was the Republicans had control of the legislative and executive branches when Bush was president, but they were not able to pass any legislation that would help people get access to healthcare.
In fact, the only big legislation I recall Republicans passing in my lifetime is lowering taxes for some people and the Patriot Act/Homeland Security nonsense.
That's fair. I mean, democrats were right in there with the state security stuff, with nafta, etc etc. But if people like you and me who low key pay attention to what both parties do can't think of anything substantial about the parties from our lived perspective, then how do you think other people who spend more time paying attention to their own lives feel about the parties?
I do think the parties are good at delivering cultural signals. Neither of us can readily point to substantial policy differences, but we know deeply the cultural difference between truck nuts and vegan lattes, for example. We also know, without being told, the difference between welfare queens and cis white males. I think the parties offer this kind of "satisfaction" for their voters.
I agree, but I also take cue from state governments, where Democrats have been able to advance policies I support such as assisted suicide, higher minimum wages, sick leave and parental leave, legal marijuana, etc.
I'm not deep into American politics but from what I have seen from Trump's policies specifically they are basically massively increasing wealth inequality. It's like he knows what's the worst for the majority and good for the few.
Democrats are at least not outright denying climate change. Investments in green technology could bootstrap an industry for unskilled workers that cannot be offshored to foreign countries. Even if you are not employed by these industries you would still see the general benefits of hitting 2% inflation targets which decreases inequality in the long run.
After the 2016 election I was really curious as to how Trump could be elected. Most of my peers brushed it off as dumb, racist white people, but I really wanted to understand. Especially since I had family who had voted for him who I don't consider to be dumb or racist.
I'm from the coast and live in the city. When taking a road trip through the Midwest, it hit me that people from the rust belt and rural areas had to vote for his message. Honestly it was depressing to see the decaying factories and poverty stricken areas. He was giving them hope and was going to fight for them. Anyway, I may be wrong but that's just my perspective.
Someone posted this video here yesterday with Steve Bannon explaining the populist movement and how Trump came to be president. There are multiple parts and this video is over two hours long but worth the watch. I'm not normally one to watch a video over half an hour and especially not Steve Bannon, but it's quite fascinating to hear this story and perspective.
I don't know enough about the UK to comment on Brexit.
I am familiar with rural, depressed regions of America, in particular in the Rust Belt (and the South). We need to figure out a way to address the lack of upward mobility, the lack of a social safety net, etc... People want some pretty basic things here. Like healthcare, affordable housing, decent schools, and jobs that pay a living wage. Nothing crazy. These things were the bedrock of the Sanders campaign, both times.
From their perspective (and from mine, too, though today I live in a place where _most_ of these things are being met)... If the Government won't ensure these needs can be met than what purpose does the Government serve?
Because they want government assistance for them, but not for everyone (re:minorities). Descendants of slaves and other poor minorities have been in the bottom rungs of society for a long time, but they didn’t have the voting power to affect change.
The white people who can no longer consider themselves middle class (and above the bottom rungs) are now seeking change. But still not change for everyone, just enough change to help them maintain “class” superiority”.
President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
Edit: This probably doesn’t have anything specifically to do with white people, but it’s a tribal mechanic that exists everywhere, especially when the relative positions of power are changing. No one likes losing power.
You don’t see this though when the whole pie is increasing in size, and everyone’s share is increasing, and relative positions are maintained. But I would say automation and outsourcing are, at the least, reconfiguring the relative positions of various tribes.
> Like healthcare, affordable housing, decent schools, and jobs that pay a living wage. Nothing crazy. These things were the bedrock of the Sanders campaign, both times.
The hard one is jobs, it seems like acceptance that jobs aren't coming back might be the only solution. The worldwide trend for many decades has been people moving from rural to large urban areas with less and less people involved with primary production. It's really hard to see an end to that trend anytime soon.
I don't know what form that acceptance will take, but I doubt Trump voters will be keen on UBI.
Yes. And isn't that what we've been striving for? That we can eventually get technology to a point where we can magnify human productivity to the point that people barely need to work at all?
Yes, living wage aside (a different if related problem) I really don't think there will be jobs, at least enough of them to support rural areas. If there are no jobs their then the only options are welfare in some form, relocation or just leaving them behind. I said UBI specifically because unemployment and most non-pension welfare implies there is a prospect of future employment.
What hope do those people have then? Especially for future generations? This is radical, right? We're saying that some generation that is alive today has to be the bridge between these two states. Nevermind that they're also reading about the obscene gains in wealth that Musk and Bezos, etc... are supposedly seeing in the meantime, which pushes them further in some direction that likely isn't healthy.
To these folks, you're telling them that their kids are forbidden from earning a living the way that they did. That's not a tough sell, it's a non starter. They believe that their way of life is being attacked and has been taken from them. And a lot of them understand just enough to know that it's been / is being driven by politicians. So, essentially, it's being done by the same people who they would also be told to trust with their futures.
> What hope do those people have then? Especially for future generations?
None, that's what I'm getting at. These areas are in a long term terminal decline and there is no fixing it. It's an international economic trend, nothing US politicians do will make a difference.
> That's not a tough sell, it's a non starter.
The best you can do is manage the decline, anyone promising anything more is lying. All the last 4 years have done is squander the power they have as a political block, this is also waning.
Yeah but Trump isn't doing anything for them. Remember he is just a rich business man looking out for himself. Tax cuts for businesses don't help the poor, especially when those businesses don't have to employ American labor. He's also against some of the few labor intensive industries that are still growing.
If you look at statistics, poor people in America tilt democrats. Lower middle class, middle class and higher tilt Trump. Granted race is even better predictor. But, it is simply not true that poor and low income people would be more likely to vote for Trump or constituted his base.
That does not mean no poor person ever vote for Trump.
> If you look at statistics, poor people in America tilt democrats. Lower middle class, middle class and higher tilt Trump.
If you look at 2020 exit polls, people making under $50k and $50k up to $100k lean Biden, people making $100k and up lean Trump.
“Class” is more complicated, because within a socioeconomic class, income varies considerably by age. And Biden won younger voters (depending on the categories mused, up through 30-44 or 40-49), while Trump won older voters.
If you look at education, (which also varies a bit by age, but is tied to class and less age variable than income), Biden won every education level except No college degree (and if you combine white/non-white with education level, he won every combination except whites with no college degree.)
