Thank you all for a vigorous and many sided debate responding to the article I linked to posted on The Daily Kos. I should like to respond to some of your comments and also call attention to an aspect of the essay that did not receive much attention in those comments but which struck me very powerfully. Before I begin, a word about the term “deplorables.” I entirely agree that it is not a useful analytical term, besides being politically toxic. Mind you, I find a great many people in American politics deplorable. I find Rand Paul deplorable, I find Bill Clinton deplorable, Lord knows I deplore Susan Collins, indeed I think it is fair to say that I find the entire Republican senatorial and congressional delegation deplorable and in addition find large chunks of the Democratic senatorial and congressional delegation deplorable. I bow to no one in the depths of my deploring, but that is not much use in trying to understand the world. Some of the very greatest social theory of the second half of the 20th century was written by émigré German theorists desperately trying to understand Hitler’s appeal to the German people, but although out of that grew the concept of the Authoritarian Personality and also the concepts of repressive toleration and the banality of evil, I do not recall Adorno or Horkheimer or Marcuse or Arendt calling anyone deplorable. So let us agree to set that term aside.
I think what Molitsos was most struck by, and what has
impressed me so powerfully, was the sheer size of the turnout. In 2016,
rounding off the numbers a bit, Clinton got 66 million votes and Trump got 63
million votes. In 2020, at least so far as the counting has gone thus far,
Trump got 10 million more votes than he did four years ago and this is in the
midst of a pandemic. This leads Molitsos to say “Trump is likely the single
greatest campaigner in modern presidential history.”
He neglects to point out that Biden got 13 million more
votes than Clinton did in 2016! Now no matter how much you like old Joe, no one
can say that he ran a dynamic campaign from his basement, appropriately masked
and distanced. Everything I have read suggests that Trump not only was capable
of pulling out 10 million extra supporters, he also succeeded in pulling out 13
million extra opponents. I think he really does have a claim on being “the
single greatest campaigner in modern presidential history,” although not
quite in the fashion he might have desired.
The string of failures of Republican candidates in the bye elections of 2017 and 2019 and in the midterm elections of 2020, in all of
which Trump campaigned vigorously for candidates other than himself, holds out
some measure of hope, most immediately for the runoff elections in Georgia in
early January. But the dramatic swing of traditionally Republican women against
Trump is ominous, because it suggests that when he is not on the ballot they
will revert to the Republican Party, leaving Democrats gasping for air.
Far and away the most faithful supporters of the Democratic
Party, demographically speaking, are of course black women, who have good
reason to claim that they carried the party to victory on their backs. Since
black Americans are far more economically disadvantaged than white Americans, and since they are less likely to be college graduates than white Americans, it is
difficult to explain the electoral choices of white Americans as governed
primarily by economic desire or resentment of college educated elites. Surely, fear of losing the
cultural, structural, and economic advantages of being white is playing a large
role in political choices. This is an old story in America, going back to
before the Civil War and continuing on to the present day.
Lest I end this post on a down note, let me say that the
appearance of two extremely promising vaccine candidates encourages me to
believe that I shall be able to travel back to Paris by next summer. Gather ye
rosebuds where ye may, as someone once said.
24 comments:
Re resentment as potential driver of some white voters: I think your logic is a bit strained here (using "logic" in its somewhat loose everyday sense, since I never took a course in formal logic, much less with Quine). That is to say, that black women are very faithful Dem supporters and are as a group more disadvantaged than whites as a group does not preclude that some white Trump supporters were motivated at least partly by resentment against "elites". All that is required to sustain this conjecture is to imagine voter X in rural county Y (let's say somewhere in southwest Virginia to make it concrete) voting for Trump b.c he associates Democrats with his nephew, who, let us say, is a sociology professor at Duke (to pick a university at semi-random) who, despite efforts to be friendly at family gatherings, is perceived by voter X as condescending and snobbish. When X goes into the voting booth, he's thinking not about Biden's black women supporters, but about his nephew who also is a Biden supporter. Admittedly a little hypothetical story, but I suggest it may have an occasional analogue in reality. If one looks, which I haven't, at Arlie Hochschild's account of the time she spent w Republican voters in the south, I'd be surprised if resentment did not appear as one motivator among several of their voting behavior.
P.s. Of course this allows for fear of losing the advantages of whiteness (perceived and/or actual) to also be a motivator of some or much support for Trump.
While it is true that turnout in this Presidential election broke records, the voting-eligible population (VEP) turnout only rose, according to the United States Election Project, to the convenient percentage of 66.6%. Thus, Trump received about 1/3 of the vote, Biden received about 1/3, and 1/3 didn't vote at all.
In the run-up to the election, there were numerous stories that the Republicans had been more successful in registering new voters. This should have been a warning sign. These same stories often downplayed Republican success by pointing out that there were even more independents who had newly registered to vote. The assumption was, given the polls, that these independents would break for Biden. In retrospect, that may not have been the case.
Both Republicans and Democrats had a well-populated sea to fish for new voters. Markos Moulitsas, in his article, speculated on what these new Trump voters might have been like; yet, he offered little or no empirical evidence for his characterization. I would suggest we don't know nearly enough about the 1/3 of the United States that are eligible to vote but don't. Who are they?
Who are 45% in Oklahoma who didn't vote? For that matter, who are the 34.1% in Arizona, the 31.9% in Georgia, the 34.3% in Nevada, the 31.1% in Ohio, and the 39.8% in Texas who didn't vote?
Or, to put this another way, why is it surprising that Trump would have attracted a sizable cut of the pool of previous non-voters? Why would we assume that an overwhelming majority of the new voters would vote Democratic?
Four years ago, when Trump beat Clinton, I realized that I didn't understand this country. I had been mistaken about who we were or who we'd become. Four years later, I perhaps understand it a little more, but I don't understand it enough.
Not sure how widely read the British journal, the New Statesman, is here. So I’m passing on this
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2020/11/struggle-america-s-soul
It touches, I think, on many of the points that have been made in this blog in recent times, but it does so from an unusual angle since it is an outsider’s view of this American moment. For the author, the always controversial John Gray, his wikipedia entry is informative:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gray_(philosopher)
PS Wrt the increase in the Republican and Democrat votes between 2016 and 2020 there’s another of those amazing on-line NYT graphics which shows in detail where and by how much:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/16/us/politics/election-turnout.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
LFC As I read Arlie Hochschield’s book, my sense was that she didn’t encounter resentment. Rather, she discovered, to her Berkeley-born surprise, that those southerners she encountered were just other human beings struggling awfully hard to survive in a place where the contradictions had piled up very high. Her book is, in other words—again as I read it—an account of her overcoming her own prejudices regarding those some still want to refer to en masse as “deplorables.”
But it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve misread a book.
I couldn't agree more with what David said above.
I think we should be more willing to admit our ignorance of how groups of people think when we lack empirical evidence or a significant amount of personal experience with the groups in question.
R McD
Well, you've read the book and I haven't, so I must defer to your takeaway from it.
It would not be a contradiction, however, for the book to be both an account of her overcoming her own prejudices and an uncovering, in an empirical sociological sense, of the existence and/or roots of some resentment (justified or otherwise) among those she is writing about. But again, I have not read it and I must defer to your view of it.
P.s. Just to make clear that I do not read only bloggy stuff, I *am* reading a book at the moment, just not Hochschild's.
David,
While we cannot determine with certainty why 1/3 of those eligible to vote did not vote, there are certain inferences of probability regarding why they likely did not vote. Some are working several jobs just to make ends meet and cannot afford to take off from work on a Tuesday in order to vote. Some (many? most?) have become disaffected from voting altogether, because no matter who gets elected, they do not see a significant change in their lives – this, in part, I believe is because they fail to appreciate how something such as the composition of the Supreme Court can have a direct, significantly adverse or favorable effect on their lives, if for example, their daughter gets pregnant and want to have an abortion.
Regarding those who did vote, surely one can make reasonably accurate evaluations of why certain voters voted for one candidate over another based on the policies the respective candidates espoused and the character of the candidate. In the Eisenhower vs. Stevenson elections, those who voted for Eisenhower preferred his history as a successful military commander over Stevenson’s intellectualism, and those who voted for Stevenson preferred his intellectualism over Eisenhower’s leadership credentials. We can go through each of the elections and identify factors which made voters prefer one candidate over the other.
With regard to Biden vs. Trump, can we not make the same rational, probabilistic inferences based on their respective policies proposals and character traits? Judging from the people attending Trump’s rallies and shouting, regarding Gov. Whittmer face mask policy, for exmaple, “Lock her up,” that a significant segment of his supporters – including the new voters he was enable to bring into his fold – are attracted to him by virtue of his penchant for bullying? And can we not make moral judgments about people who are attracted to bullies? That people who are willing to vote for a person whose immigration policy included forcibly separating infant and young children from their parents is somewhat inhumane, and that it is not a stretch to conclude that they, too, are willing to rationalize their inhumanity to immigrants? So, while we cannot predict with regard to any single Trump supporter why s/he voted for him, we can make fairly accurate probabilistic assessments of why his supporters, as a group, voted for him, including the new voters who chose him over Biden.
First comment, in re deplorables:
In fairness to HRC, her comment about deplorables was ripped out of its context:
I know there are only 60 days left to make our case – and don't get complacent; don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, "Well, he's done this time." We are living in a volatile political environment.
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.
But the "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
This is much of a piece with Obama's 2008 remark about guns and religion. While both were impolitic, I have difficulty finding a whole lot substantively to object to in either. In particular, HRC was saying that there is no reason to dismiss much less despise all of Trumps supporters just because a large portion of them hold despicable views. Is Steve Bannon or Peter Theil deplorable? I think so. Sheldon Adelman? Stephen Miller? The Proud Boys and Charlottesville nazis? Kellyanne Conway? Absolutely.
Second comment: re But the dramatic swing of traditionally Republican women against Trump is ominous, because it suggests that when he is not on the ballot they will revert to the Republican Party, leaving Democrats gasping for air.
I have heard an alternative explanation of the difference between 2018 and 2020. When Trump is not on the ballot, as in 2018, the only way to vote against him is to vote against all Republican candidates. When he is on the ballot (2020), one can distinguish between opposition to Trump and opposition to Republicans more generally. Thus, if Trump stays around and Republican politicians remain wary of crossing him in 2022, Republican voters who want to register opposition to Trump will have to vote Democratic.
I don't have the expertise to pass informed judgment on this hypothesis. But it does appeal to me at the moment.
I am coming to this a day late, regrettably. Having read the article, the author was taking about the “rage” that fueled their support. That rage has it roots in the reality they have experienced over the past decades. Resentment, that is bitterness and indignation over being treated unfairly, is not quite rage. The caravan of Trumpistas/proud boys that drove into the BLM demonstration in Portland were not resentful. They were angry, enraged and wanted to hurt people. The tactical use of vehicles to attack protesters rose dramatically over this past year. (a tactic that was first used in Europe by Islamic terrorists)
There is an important element of nihilism in the far right that the author notes when he talks about the Trump voter wanting to destroy the system. Various republicans in the House evidenced their willingness to cause the system to fail to function. For instance, Rep. Gohmert pounding his desk so a witness he didn’t like could not be heard which, in comparison to McConnell’s abuse power, is very minor. The regular order of House and Senate procedures has been demolished.
Another key element of all this is a heavy dose of sado-masochism. As the author says, “ He offers them hope that, if he can’t improve their lives, that at least he’ll hurt all those others.” In other words, Trump voters will be ok with no economic improvement because it is more than offset by Trump’s willingness to send in federal forces to beat up on Black Lives Matter protesters, and imaginary left-wing groups. Wilhelm Reich used the theme of sado-masochism in his book on fascism. In his view Trump supporters are like army sergeants - they have to take crap from officers, but they can take their anger out on corporal and privates.
One of the losses in the House was Torres Small who represented for one term the southern of NM’s three house seats. Almost half of Trump additional 43,580 overestimate Trump received over his 2016 total came from that district. Her opponent ran non-stop ads that focused on Torres Small not being one of them, rather she was tied to Pelosi (San Francisco values, short hand for tolerance on LGBTQ’s and gay marriage) and being linked to Occasio-Cortez and the Gang of Four. (Short hand for leftist, socialist radicals who will destroy the country). Nazi’s, don’t forget, went after homosexuals.
MS,
By way of a response, I'd like to recommend Marisa Franco's opinion piece in the New York Times. Those folks who knocked on doors in "Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia" understood people in those Latino neighborhoods in a way that I do not. I know that. I recommend the whole article, but this point particularly struck me:
"When we knocked on doors in Latino neighborhoods, people told us over and over that they’d never been contacted before. They often lacked basic information about the primary election process and how to vote by mail. Organizations tried to fill the gaps, stave off voter suppression efforts and influence policy. It was a lot of ground to cover, and we were largely doing it on our own.
"Meanwhile, the Republican Party was looking to peel off voters in traditionally Democratic areas. This brings us to Texas and Florida. Latinos have reliably voted Democratic in the Rio Grande Valley and Miami-Dade County. So what happened in this election?
"Republicans invested early, tailored their message and enlisted local residents as ambassadors of the party. This level of engagement and outreach was also a big part of the Bernie Sanders campaign during the Democratic primaries."
I apologize for the long quote, but it relates to a larger point I want to make. The ground-level, door-to-door activists of Mijente were working on their own, presumably without the resources of a large campaign. Meanwhile, the Biden-Harris campaign and Senatorial campaigns were spending enormous sums on television commercials. How effective were these expenditures in reaching those people who "lacked basic information" about voting?
Why is it surprising that down-ballot Democratic campaigns were so often unsuccessful? As a Party, the Democrats don't seem to understand who lives in this country.
Perhaps you ought to have taken that vacation after all.
This interesting take on political affiliation is from Kevin Drum, blogger at Mother Jones:
<Here’s a little story. I had lunch a few days ago with a Republican friend. Not a tea party crank, just a normal, moderate Republican. We were talking about Donald Trump and he said, “Well, at least you have to give him credit for Warp Speed. No Democrat would ever have done that.”
I just looked at him. I barely knew what to say. “Why wouldn’t a Democrat have done it?”
“Oh come on.”
“But Warp Speed was mainly about spending money. Democrats love to spend money. You’re always complaining about it.”
“Hmmm.”
“Any president would have done it.”
This is an example of how we inhabit different sets of realities. Aside from the admittedly catchy name, which I give Trump credit for, Warp Speed was a program that Bill Gates and others had been talking about for months. It was funded by the CARES Act, which passed with unanimous Democratic support. Of course a Democratic president would have pushed for something like Warp Speed.
So what had convinced my friend that a Democrat never would have come up with something like that? It’s a mystery.
POSTSCRIPT: Why did I share this story? Because it struck me as different from, the usual sort of thing: Benghazi, Hillary’s email, Trump won the election, etc. It’s not a dumb conspiracy theory, just a routine assumption about an opposition party that came out of nowhere and seems (to those of us in in the opposition party) to be completely off base. How much more baggage like this is out there never gets reported because it’s not crazytown stuff?
The Postscript above is not from me, but from Drum.
RE: Kevin Drum via David Palmeter
I think the proper form of the argument is, "What would a replacement level president have done?" As many of you may already know, in assessing the performance of professional athletes, there is a metric called "value over replacement" which is a comparison of the performance of that player compared to an average player in that position. This provides us with a framework for assessing presidential performance in something approaching objectivity.
So what would a "replacement level" president have done? Any president in recent memory, including all major-party candidates for president, would have deferred to the medical experts and funded vaccine development. The only "value above replacement" (using the term "value" advisedly) we can assign to Trump is to sell the effort politically with used-car salesman tenacity. But that adds no value above replacement as to when the vaccine actually is produced. Additionally, a replacement level president would have deferred to the experts on setting up plans for distribution and, of course, any replacement level president would have conceded by now and begun the presidential transition, the lack of which can on hamper the vaccination effort.
I share this argument primarily as a talking point for use in discussion with those who are on the red side of the isle, as interest in professional sports is one of those rare domains that crosses political boundaries.
Wikipedia: Value over replacement player
I seem to have added nothing of value over the replacement commenter (it may be negative)--I was joking about the abrupt turn to empirical evidence..
Enam el Brux, don't be too hard on yourself- if I was your replacement commenter it would have been worse.
Mp3 juice official mod Mp3 juice official mod apk website for downloading free mp3 songs. mp3juice is a free music downloader and converter with a large number of songs from all over the world. The application also features a powerful search engine to search for any song or artist in seconds.
https://apkchew.com/ Download and Install the Apk file on your android device. · Once done, open up the app.
https://apkmodule.com/acmarket-mod-apk/
ACMarket Mod Apk
Post a Comment