The Big Picture on Trumpism and Brexit Isn't What You Think - Josh Marshall

[DonViejo]

We are told we are entering a period of economic nationalism and right wing populism. We see it in the UK with Brexit, in the USA with Trumpism and in other nations and regions with their own unique inflections. From others we hear this is simply a tantrum or irrationality, perhaps a generalized breakdown of trust in elites. These are each true to a degree. But I think they are each also quite misleading. I see a very different or much more specific pattern in the country whose politics I know best, the USA, and the demographics and the voting parallels seem evident enough in Britain as well.

Put simply, Trumpism and the greater arc of rightist politics in the US in recent years seems to follow this pattern. A declining but still very large fraction of the population which feels that it is losing power, wealth and something between ethnic familiarity and dominance to rising segments of the society. To map this on to the specifics of US society this pits a one group that is both older and whiter against another that is generally younger and less white.

Two points are worth recognizing about this deep social and political cleavage. First, this rebellion on the right is based not on strength but on weakness, the loss of power, control, demographic dominance, privilege. Second, in key respects it is an accurate perception of the change overtaking America.

Often you'll hear febrile talk about the "our culture" being overrun, whites becoming the most 'oppressed' minority in the country and various other nonsense. But in relative terms whites are becoming less powerful. This is obvious. It is nothing more than a restatement, from another vantage point, of the erosion of white privilege. It is accentuated by and to a major degree driven by the relative decline of the white population vis a vis Hispanics, Blacks, East Asians, South Asians and various other groups. This is not a fantasy. It is a reality. And a lot of people don't like it.

-snip-

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-big-picture-on-trumpism-and-brexit-is-not-what-you-think

[ymetca]

1. Just a quibble...

...but I believe white folks generally are losing power. It is not a "feeling".

That being said it seems rather disingenuous to imagine most so-called "white" people ever had that much power to begin with.

Perhaps we should more precisely say that the primacy of the northern nations is being challenged by the rising power of the more equatorial nations.

And the East is once again rising from Humanity's circumlocution of our global sphere.

This is all part of our species' attempt at achieving escape velocity from our womb planet.

[George Eliot]

2. Josh sees it as a youth vs. seniort issue. So?

The Clinton/Sanders campaign is characterized using a seniors vs. youth template and Josh supported the seniors' candidate in US. So just what is Josh saying really? His analysis sort of describes a scenario we already know without adding much to the discussion.

Personally, I see it as an outcry from people who know how their standard of living has declined and they are powerless to stop it. Can you blame them?

[trumad]

3. Really

You see Trump supporters that way? Ha ha

[George Eliot]

4. Yes, many younger Republicans would have voted Sanders.

Trump's appeal is also targeting decline in standard of living which he blames immigrants and globalism for to appeal for votes. Haha.

[trumad]

7. Oh my

The insult to Bernie supporters is hilarious.

[George Eliot]

11. No insult but in your mind. Interpret as you will.

[randome]

5. "The Clinton/Sanders campaign is characterized using a seniors vs. youth template..."

Where does that come from? And if Sanders had the 'youth', why didn't they get out and vote for him?

[Exilednight]

13. They did vote for him. The two demographics that both candidates

Won was Bernie winning the under 30 vote and Hillary consistently won the over 65 demographic. It was the ages in between that decided the election.

Two things standout from this election, and hopefully Obama can fix one of them. The fastest vote to not show up, per state by state exit polling, was the Obama coalition. First time voters in 2008 and 2012 that voted for Obama did not bother to vote in this primary by any significant number. Hopefully Obama energizes his coalition and can increase turnout in the GE.

Second, Hillary received less votes in this primary than she did in 2008.

This will be one of the lowest turnouts, per capita, in the GE.

[frazzled]

12. But he kind of missed the main point

that differentiates the senior/youth division between the two countries, I believe. People over a certain age in the UK have a clear memory of when Britain was not a part of a larger union, when it was entirely self-governed. They actually lived it. And because there are difficult issues at the moment, many (though not all) envision the solution as a return to that pre-union state, when the country ran itself without interference. Younger people have grown up with nothing but an international, European outlook, and most (though not all), while they realize there are issues, do not wish to "secede" but rather to improve the situation. They embrace globalism and its benefits in general, while the older generation can not accept it.

No one in the US, no matter the state in which they live, has ever known anything but a republic--a union of states with a central government. It is a given—the very definition of our country, at least since before and then after the Civil War. Secession is not an option. So when discontent arises on the right, the appeal is simply to a different, and mythical, past: the "make America great" again bromide.

On the left, the terms are really different, and perhaps inverted. It is the youth (mostly) who have fallen to the appeal of another mythical past, one they never knew: the times of FDR (which, of course, were not at all great for many segments of society), the 1920s slogans of Eugene Debs, the 60s counterculture of their parents or grandparents. It too is a reaction against a changing world that is moving, inexorably, toward globalization. The British youth are embracing a globalized society while their parents and grandparents have trouble accepting it. Here, on the left, the parents and grandparents appear to be the ones accepting it, with all its imperfections—wanting to make changes that are necessary, but knowing that we can no more end it than the Luddites of the late 19th century could stop the Industrial Revolution. It's the younger generations that are resisting moving forward, at least in terms of a more globalized and interconnected world. It is a large part of the reason we saw a huge racial split in the Democratic primary, with Sanders voters representing a predominantly white profile, whether young or middle-American white working class.

It is strange. To me, the main thing that binds these two national moods is that anger, whether left or right, old or young, tends to look to restore promises of the past. They have given up on present realities.

Racial and ethnic identity, however, in both countries, seems to be a driver for improving the present for the future. Among the few friends I have in England, they are all either black (Caribbean or African) and/or gay, and very much on the left. They were passionately for "remain," of course. Even as they acknowledge issues in the EU. Here, racial minorities too want to stay the course and move forward with discretion and caution into the future. Both hope that that is the way they will improve their lot. None want to go back to the days of segregation (here) or the Raj mentality (there).

[treestar]

6. Well put

It is like their desperate last stand. They know that white will be a minority in the US at some point in this century.

[glennward]

8. Folks need to stop being so anti-intellectual and lazy. Learn another language, learn about culture

learn about what is common among people's. Get off the drugs (legal and illegal) and open your minds and hearts. Your children and grandchildren will be fine because they are not so bigoted, xenophobic and racist. They will adjust, adapt and make their own way in a changing environment around them...actual, just as we did.
It is not the end of the world to lose privilege is you gain security and peace. Spend more time on figuring out how to make it all work instead of all the time thinking about you can stop the unstoppable.

[TheFarseer]

9. What a lazy piece of garbage article

Yes, all the leave voters are just racist. I'm sure there were no other issues involved.

[HereSince1628]

10. The core argument here has been floated for decades in the US and fits Dem strategic orientation

which is built around an argument that 'changing' ethnic demographics should guide management and expansion of the party's targeted electoral base.

While that strategy defines 'us' it by default must explain 'them'. This of course presents the difficulty of including in 'us' a group that is a big component in 'them', white males. And as it turns out, the composition of the party's targeted dem base finds it easy to see within 'them' a common opponent, an oppressive domineering class, that is easily painted into explanations which present "them" as a class of consciously self-serving obstructionists to social and economic equality. We all like confirmation that 'us' has identified the source of our problems and it is 'them'.

Marshall's argument draws on a well-worn argument that fits the party establishment's view and base-building mission. It flows familiar and easy to adopt, and it moves without reference to objects it encounters in its flow, which is to say without too much critical thinking.

Even if we accept that there is anxiety about loss of social standing among white men, we have to be open to the notion that such anxiety can be caused by a variety of events, not just by a rubric that only scores changing demographics. We really have to ask if the changing demographics is allowing 'non-white male' groups to advance their social standing in a manner that really is threatening to white men. Which is to say narrows potential interpretation of evidence in a way that would preclude Marshall's claim being a matter of facile rhetoric.

Like most people, my perspective of is greatly influenced by events and circumstance close to me. And looking at what's going on around me, I'm really not at all sure that in SE Wisconsin 'non-white male' groups are making much of any sort of headway. Yes, the growth rate, especially for Hispanics is higher than for whites, and yes, immigration is increasing diversity, particularly for southern and east Asians.

Nonetheless racial segregation remains, lack of educational achievement remains (even as student college debt soars), unemployment remains, lives aren't a whole lot better and frankly don't seem to be mattering any more than they did two generations ago. Indeed the features of impoverished society including drug abuse and addiction, crime rates, gun violence remain very high and policing seems to be profiling the usual underclass.

What's different is that the middleclass really is shrinking and by middle class, I mean to say, the avg earning working class in WI. Communities across SE WI that were built around manufacturing and agricultural processing are losing out. Jobs that attracted Blacks from the south in the great migration are largely gone. Small towns have more poverty and more of the attributes of poverty including drug us and addiction and it's sequelae. The middle class, of all colors of skin but mostly white, because that's our demographics, is shrinking for everyone.

Yes, the competition for good jobs is up and the quality of life is challenged. But thats not necessarily so much because minorities are rising as it is because good jobs have been declining. Small town and suburban mainstreets are still shuttering, small town industries are still closing and infra-structure attention is more about building highway by-passes around small towns as it is their reinforcement.

If Marshall's racialized reasoning seems to be so 'right on' you really should ask yourself if that's because his argument is really so right, or whether it is because it's an old accepted argument wall-papered into our shared belief system. And consequently, you may have believed it even before he made it. Because, it's an argument whose ingredient list includes as an important ingredient the Dem establishments dominant view of 'us' vs 'them' its popular among dems that accept establishment views. If it's right, it's right, but whether it is really right or just a reassuring construction about 'us' seems unchallenged.