Trumps Win: Americas Failures of Representation and Prospects for Democracy

[portlander23]

Trump’s Win: America’s Failures of Representation and Prospects for Democracy
Robert Johnson
Naked Capitalism

Trump won by challenging the credibility of both the political and academic establishments, relentlessly highlighting discrepancies between their depiction of the United States’ political economy and the reality that many voters experienced. Like Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary, he started drawing large crowds by breaking ranks with his party’s mainstream. While Hillary Clinton and Republican rivals such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio tried to build coalitions based on cultural issues and partisan traditions, Trump and Sanders set their sights squarely on what mattered most to voters: a political economy in which elected officials strongly promoted a broad-based prosperity that included them.

How did the other candidates miss this central theme? My sense is that they didn’t; rather, their efforts to attract a broad spectrum of voters were constrained by a system that makes it extremely difficult to fund a credible political campaign without catering slavishly to the wealthiest sliver of American society. That system invited rebellion, and Trump and Sanders – by self-financing and grassroots fundraising, respectively – were ideally positioned to lead one.

The other candidates were also constrained by party orthodoxy, which has long kept Democrats and Republicans alike from willingly addressing the structural inequities in the American economy head-on. Doing so would require candor about such hard issues as technological disruption and globalization. It would also require confronting the legacy of decades of lobbyist-written free-trade agreements, regulations, bailouts, and tax policies that have been funneling economic gains up the income ladder, while imposing budget austerity in response to the needs of most Americans. The story Trump told of a “rigged” system resonated with voters more than anything they had heard from their political leaders in quite some time.

But, eventually, something has to give. As wealth becomes ever more concentrated, a body politic suffering from widespread economic insecurity will begin to search for scapegoats – and the experts and pundits themselves were an ideal target this time around.

[delisen]

1. Presenting Trump and Sanders as 2 sides of same coin

White male identity politics presented by Johnson-along with his hope that Trump may yet rise to the role of Savior.

[JCanete]

2. Self funding and grassroots funding are so not the same thing. Granted, the

rich "outsider" narrative is something that people buy into over and over. Trump won because his imbecility was not pointed out by the media. Gore was made into a buffoon for saying he had a part in advancing the internet, and Dean for screaming on stage...but Trump was entirely untouched.

So yeah, he did just Tourettes his way into the Presidency by saying whatever it was he thought people wanted to hear, but most of what he said was actually pro-establishment...everything he wants is pro-establishment. The media would have elevated itself to mediocre had it just pointed that obvious fact out for people, but then, as part of the establishment, why would it?

[Blue_Tires]

3. I've set a new rule for myself which is certain to lower my blood pressure

If I read anything along the lines of "challenging the establishment", "maligned white working class", "hopelessly flawed candidate" or "identity politics" in the opening paragraph, I stop reading and move on...