Dealing with Trump

So Trump has been President for about a week and has basically acted like himself. He has gone with a "take-the-bull-by-the-horns" approach with executive orders, said some goofy things, and pissed off many in the opposition. Personally, I think he has done some good things and some bad things, as I expected he would.

Nevertheless, I don't think Democrats and especially the media are handling him very well if they want to regain power. Trump won the election because he was able to bust apart the blue wall by attracting middle class white voters in industrial states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan), who had historically voted heavily Democratic. Trump didn't start their exodus to the GOP. It started decades ago as Democrats decided to put more emphasis on being the party of elite urban social liberals and the party that mocks Middle America, but Trump finished it. Some Democrats take solace in the fact that Hillary won the popular vote, but it was only because she was able to run up the score in California, which hasn't been seriously contested in 20 years.

So how are Democrats and the media handling their defeat? They're taking a two-pronged approach. First, they're basically adopting an "everything is the apocalypse" approach to Trump's actions and words. Every move he makes is evil, racist, heartless, unprecedented, and destructive. Truth doesn't matter. Wanting to avoid hyperbole doesn't matter. The problem with this is that if you predict the apocalypse over and over again and it doesn't come, people will tune you out, and I think that's happening. Furthermore, the Left no longer has a monopoly on political information and commentary like it used to have. If they freak out and say things that are false or just wildly hyperbolic, somebody can publicly discredit them. (Many in the GOP did the same thing with Obama and didn't help themselves.)

Second, they're doubling down on identity politics. We had the "***** hat marches" where a bunch of whiny, vulgar liberal women like Ashley Judd and Madonna acted like lunatics in a very public forum. Not everybody who participated in these marches acted like that or condoned it, but they let the crackpots take center stage and seize the narrative. Now we're having protests about Muslim access to the United States being restricted by Trump's recent executive order. Both sets of protests seem to be dominated by belligerent and coarse rhetoric.

I'm not quite sure which Trump voters Democrats are trying to attract with these strategies. If the goal is to keep running up the score in California, I get it. These approaches rally the troops and appeal to the base. If you're a hardcore liberal, I'm sure they make you feel good and proud of the fact that you opposed Trump. However, if you're a middle class voter in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania who was a longtime Democrat but voted for Trump for cultural reasons (as many probably did), these aren't going to help. If anything, they're going to reinforce your decision, because rabid cultural liberalism and identity politics were at least part of what turned you off from the Democratic Party in the first place.

Here's what's sad. I disagree with some of Trump's actions and agree with some of them, but they're all debatable. There's a sensible, measured, and intelligent case to be made against them on the merits, but instead of making that case, we're getting vulgar hysteria and nuttiness from the opposition. It empowers and legitimizes Trump and discredits his critics. Furthermore, it confirms all the negative things Trump has said about his critics in the media and the Democratic Party. If you're a Trump supporter, you're loving this. If you aren't, then it's an ugly scene.

 

Good assessment (I expect nothing less from you Deez) of the growing chasm that has developed in the Democratic party. I would add that reminiscent of the the Tea Party tactics, the fringe left also rejects any hint of his acceptance by more moderate democratic leaders as "normalization", which may correspondingly lead being "primaried from the left." I wonder though just as the Tea party was in many ways a reaction to Obama, are we seeing the beginnings of the same reaction to Trump.

I suspect that the challenges facing the Democrats are greater, especially given that Trump has a much better starting domestic situation than his predecessor no matter how dire a picture Trump tried to paint in his inaugural address. I doubt the Democrats will adopt full obstruction like the Republicans did with Obama as they are the party of government.

However, I would caution that "dealing with Trump" is not just a problem of the Democrats. With his many populist promises of not cutting social security and medicare, strange promise of health coverage for all, not to mention foreign policy issues (Russia, Refugee ban, Mexico and China) it will be interesting to how supportive the traditional conservative Republicans which hold the legislative purse strings will be.

The smart play would be to focus on the core economic issues of jobs and not rock the boat on everything else. But his ego will likely lead him to over-extension. For the sake of the country let's hope not.

 

Isn't this the recipe for how Trump won the Whitehouse? At the very least, it helped gin up his base. Heck, look no further than Pamela Gellar's twitter feed you you'll find 125k followers that still believe Obama is a Kenyan Muslim. Look to all the attempts to discredit the MSM for another example. Winning the WhiteHouse is now more about misinformation than information and ideas.

The question is, with Democrats return to their populism roots, rather that the faux populism they use now? They clearly answer to the extremes of the liberal wing. Will that work for 2018 and/or 2020? I tend to think there are only extremes left as the population gets more and more polarized.

I will be surprised if this Trump support is sustainable over the long haul too.

 

It is somewhat the recipe for how he won, but it won't work both ways. It worked for Trump for a few reasons. First, most of the crap he said resonated because most of it had an element of truth to it - enough for people to think, "yeah, that makes sense." I'm not saying it was right. I called BS on him routinely during the campaign and took all kinds of flack around here for doing so, but to many it "seemed right."

Second, those who tried to counter Trump didn't have clean hands and therefore didn't have any credibility. For example, many of the people who are ripping Trump for overreaching on his executive orders were silent or even supportive of the Obama Administration essentially granting amnesty to many people through executive orders. Those critics don't have any credibility. They're hacks with a partisan agenda. Well, that example played itself out countless times during the campaign, so people tuned his critics out.

Think about the wall. We both think the wall is a dumb idea, but we aren't unprincipled hacks. If you're a liberal Democratic politician or a business-oriented Republican politician, where is your credibility to attack him? Both parties had presided over lawlessness on the border for decades, so who are they to say he's wrong? It would be like George W. Bush ripping his successor over the handling of the Iraq War.

Third, the people that Trump's rap resonated with were in ideal locations to make a political impact. They were in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania - states that Democrats had won in recent elections but not by blowout margins, so he didn't need big swings to flip those states.

The people Democrats are currently appealing to with these current tactics are overwhelmingly in coastal areas that are already in Democratic hands and among people who are already voting. How many "*****-hat" chicks were Trump voters with buyer's remorse? Probably not many. How many weren't already reliable Democratic voters? Probably not many. At the same time, what are the odds that their actions and rhetoric are going to motivate Trump voters to question their choice? Very slim. It is far more likely to confirm to them that they made the right call.

The problem is that selling out their populist roots gave them a lot, which they'd have to forfeit. Democrats used to be at a big money disadvantage back in the day. They're not anymore, because they have a corporate donor base, and that base supports them precisely because they sold out their populist base, especially on trade and immigration and softening a bit on organized labor. Many of those business interests will back the GOP if they try to go back. Furthermore, they'd have to soften on social issues. They don't have to become pro-life or anti-gay marriage, but many economic populists are pro-life Catholics in industrial states. They're not going to vote Democratic again if they're made to feel like sexists and haters.

It may not be, but it is sustainable if nobody's even trying to erode it.

 

Deez, your analysis points out the Democrats reaction to Trump is hurting their chances to regain power in the next election cycle and suggests their rhetoric, protests, blocking appointments, etc. is a tactical mistake. If the goal is a long term one - changing minds and winning elections - your argument is correct. But here is what you might be missing.

For much of the left, they have stopped planning for the long term. Using the right to free speech and peaceably assemble is generally the means used by losers of an election to share their dissent. I think this time is different. Many of these people aren't going to draw the line there. They want Trump out and they aren't going to wait for the next election. Expect violence, destruction of property, and blockage of transportation (highways, streets) as their efforts ramp up.

Hope I'm not right, but Trump is going to do things his way and the opposition isn't going to accept that. No compromise.

 

Well, I have avoided almost all political discussion lately but since this is actually a reasonable thread, you sucked me in.

I agree that the actions of the left are counterproductive politically but I also agree that I'm not sure that's their goal, but instead to assert themselves with anger-and perhaps eventually violence--to make conservatives afraid to implement policy.

Even on a personal level, one to one, a lot of liberals are communicating that they will break friendships if any contradiction to their anger is raised. Not sure where this is headed.

The surprise to me is that the left has no awareness that Barack Obama was as far from acceptable to Repubicans as Donald Trump is to Democrats. Conservatives have been boiling over for 8 years; just in private. The current set of feelings is not really different; it's just being experienced by the other half of the US and their public (and personal) reactions are quite different.

 

In this discussion it seems that we'd agree that the Democrats and current version of Trump's Republican party have switched places. As Democrats have betrayed their base in the pursuit of evening the money disadvantage they've adopted policies that aren't always in their base' best interests. That's the genius of Trump in that he noticed that the D's and R's were courting the same big monied power brokers. Sure, the D's played the LGBT and Minority cards to try and keep the left but that simply made them seem more extreme. In the end, they appeared extremely liberal while pushing policies that were traditionally Republican in nature.

Unions have been deteriorating for decades so that base was literally evaporating. Global trade initiatives were always in direct opposition to this base although I think that was unavoidable. We often talk about the demographic seachange that is occurring but an economic seachange is happening concurrently. Though our countries economic wealth continues to increase, the gains are concentrated in the top 10% or higher. Those people unfortunate enough to be below that threshold are getting left behind.

So, what to do if you are Democrat? Clearly, they need to mobilize themselves to play more in the Rust Belt. Obama was right about that. Liberals are coastal, haven't been as impacted by the economic shifts thus their focus is on issues that don't matter to middle-America.

Every protest from the left is emboldening Trump's base. That doesn't mean they shouldn't still fight for what they believe in though. You can't win elections by mollifying your base. The left needs to work on their messaging though. I still feel the left is much less adept at speaking with a single voice than their counterparts on the right. They have less discipline. Is there some groupthink? Absolutely but the focus on the narrative for issues is too scattered. For example, for immigration is the issue the 7 countries that were picked, is the EO constitutional, we need to help these refugees or that the EO doesn't make us safer? Which is it because you'll see the left hammer these issues and more as if they are hoping 1 finally sticks.

My thoughts are that the Democrats need a leader to emerge. You can see Elizabeth Warren, Schumer and Booker trying to galvanize support to be the leader. Outside of DC you have governors like Jerry Brown and Jay Inslee. Regardless, someone needs to become the mouthpiece for this movement. It doesn't have to be permanent but like the Tea Party finally congregating around Palin they need a leader.

I wouldn't tell these protesters to stop. Energy in a movement is the hardest thing to replicate. The liberals have that in spades. keep that going and devise a way direct it towards a singular simple message.

 

Seattle, I actually agree with most of your post. Like the Republican Party, the Democrat Party is now owned by the corporatocracy and Wall Street and has abandoned the working class and tried to fill that void by pandering to identity politics (social justice warriors).

Regarding the refugee issue, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats spend time addressing the root cause which of course is war, funded primarily by America. Under Bush, the rationale was "spreading democracy." Under Obama it was "protecting human rights" (accomplished by destroying infrastructure, go figure). In each case, it leaves millions of homeless and broken families.

It appears Trump is going to continue the wars, supposedly without focusing on regime change. Whatever the new strategy, there are still going to be homeless refugees looking to migrate. Seems to me the better strategy would be to stop selling arms to the Middle East countries and punish countries that do. But that's never been a strategy on anyone's radar. Too much invested in arms sales and infrastructure rebuilding projects that take place after the carnage to consider that approach. Can't let that profit opportunity get passed by.

 

Dems will be in the wilderness for 40 years if they continue to act like this. This is like FDR after Hoover.

 

Winona has her own unique way of dealing

 

You're not saying anything that's wrong. Every political movement needs an energized base, but they need that base to be more disciplined. All the energy in the world isn't going to help if it's in the wrong states and if it's weakening their standing in the key states.

As for leaders for the future, I'd go with governors. Brown is too old and too weird. Inslee would be pretty good - not overly liberal and pretty likable.

 

I have a friend who does mission work in Kenya. He's taken a picture by the sign that says "Birthplace of Barak Obama" and talked with his grandmother. I'm not saying there's truth in it, but the reality is he brought a lot of this on himself. His author blurb on earlier copies of some of his books used to refer to him as a Kenyan. He loved the idea of having the cache of being from some other locale right up until it started to interfere with his plans. Point is, because some people continue to believe the stuff that he's largely responsible for cultivating, doesn't mean those people are automatically fringers and idiots.

When did he say that? He had eight years to do that and refused. Maybe now that someone else has to do it and he doesn't have to soil his hands with those red state people, he feels free to say it? It could also be that he simply doesn't know how, and the past years was actually what it looks like when Obama plays to the rust belt.

Which of those do you think will reach out across the aisle? Which will go moderate? I don't know anything about Jay Inslee, but I know the other ones, and it ain't happening with any of them. This is the problem that the Dems have: their moderates are generally told to toe the line or get out, and so there aren't any more (or at least very few) vocal or high-profile moderates that gain any national traction. The Democrats value the people who can be the loudest, most shrill and angriest. Booker attacking a fellow senator and accusing of unsubstantiated racism made him a hero with the left but it's not going to help win over people that are getting tired of the act.

 

bad word warning

Spoiler

 

may have to click the link to hear/see this one