Trump-Sanders Signal an Oligarchy on the Brink of Collapse
evonomics.com
evonomics.com
Trump and Sanders are manifestations of a long-term trend that has been building at least since the 2008 Financial Crisis. People are dissatisfied with the options they are presented politically, and economic participation is at historically low levels. We have never been more prosperous, but at the same time that prosperity and wealth gains are not only not very evenly distributed(they never really were), but large swaths of society are completely left out of them. In the early half of the century, it was a democratizing effect that everyone was drinking a 10c glass of Coke. This is just one example, you can also see it with iPhoneistas vs cheap Android phones, etc. etc. Now the hip drinks are craft beers and fine wines, and a former factory worker forced to work menial part time jobs is looked down upon for drinking what he can afford, Bud lite and coke. There are major class shiftings and reorganizations going on, and people living in and near large prosperous cities have largely been immune and isolated from it.
We dismiss and ignore their rise at our own peril.
Two related articles that may inform your discussions of this topic:
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberali...
http://www.stirjournal.com/2016/04/01/i-know-why-poor-whites...
For context, and lest anyone think I'm taking a cheap shot at liberalism or progressivism, I definitely see myself in the first article. Particularly in my teens and early twenties, I was about as smug as they came. Then I went meta-smug by posing as an angry libertarian, and was utterly insufferable. These days, I think and feel much the same, I just don't go out of my way to socially advertise it (or I put more effort into not making others feel small?).
>There are major class shiftings and reorganizations going on, and people living in and near large prosperous cities have largely been immune and isolated from it.
One place a prosperous urbanite might bump into this shift is when a city winds up with a commuter police force due in part to high rent.
It feels like a reflection of the mood of our general political discussion, where people are pissed off with the echo chamber and not getting the empathy that's needed from either direction to make livable decisions. This feels like one of those situations where human nature hasn't changed, but the internet has fundamentally altered social dynamics.
A good chunk of Trump voters didn't really benefit from the "90s boom" either. As a small army of dot-com millionaires were being minted, the Rust Belt continued to rust.
That's exactly the problem. For the 1st time in recorded history of democratic societies, the sons will live in worst conditions than their parents. This didn't happen even when after major armed conflicts.
1st world has increasing economic output but most people of the new generation also in the 1st world are starting to live and will live their life in worst conditions than their parents.
These are the most favorable grounds possible for revolution.
This lie needs to stop being told.
The Greatest Generation was born in the 1915 era, grew up in the "Roaring Twenties", the largest economic boom in the US to that date. When they became of age ~18 (1933), the USA was hit with twin economic disasters:
* The Great Dust Bowl eradicated entire farms across entire states. Forcing many farmers to move to the city to look for labor. When the farmers got to the cities, they found...
* The Great Depression. `nuff said
The "Greatest Generation" wandered around with 20%+ unemployment level for YEARS while "old money" sat comfortably enjoying the benefits of new-fangled technology like air conditioning and ice machines.
When the economy was finally doing well, the USA joins World War 2 and virtually every working male is drafted into the military. If you didn't die in the war period in the 1940s, you came back to 90% tax rates so that the US could pay off their debt. It wasn't until 1950 or so, when the post-war economic boom started to positively affect this generation, when they were well into the age of 35 or older.
-----------------
Yes, the "Greatest Generation" had a crappier life than their parents. And then the "Greatest Generation" set up huge amounts of programs (invented Social Security, Medicare, started paying incredibly for education) to ensure that their children would have better lives than they did.
Come on, basic history people. THINK when these politicians shout words to you. Don't just parrot out their lies.
I mean, cripes. Just look at the literature that was written in the 1930s by the Greatest Generation. "Of Mice and Men" is about vagabonds looking for farm-work. While "Their Eyes were Watching God" is about a woman who was beaten by multiple suitors before being forced to kill the man she loves because a hurricane wiped out a region and a rabid dog have him rabies.
Common in both stories? Hard, hands-on work, and vagabond living. "Casual Homelessness", as these people travel from town-to-town on foot looking for a way of life. Everyone is a nomad and homeless, and not a big deal is given to it.
In contrast, the "Great Gatsby", written one generation earlier in the 1920s is about rich people doing rich things, and is literally about a new rich person not being respected by older richer people. While the main character gets a new house "modestly" and watches across his Long Island lake property at the "actual rich people" and moral bankruptcy of the parties they hold.
A revolution doesn't need to be an armed revolution.
> For the 1st time in recorded history of democratic societies, the sons will live in worst conditions than their parents
Can people PLEASE stop saying this line? The article notes a cycle, which is closer to my understanding of history. But none of this "first time ever" crap. I swear, every time Marco Rubio said this line I wanted to punch him in the face.
That's because either your understanding of history, your written comprehension, or both are quite bad actually.
The article notes a cycle that is always corrected with some kind of revolution, armed or not.
The article also notes that in open societies sons never end up living worts than their parents (in general, not with your naive example of a particular case where a son ends up living a worst life than his parents because of some hurricane) because either society functions properly and that is not a issue, or if it doesn't revolution takes place.
> in general, not with your naive example of a particular case where a son ends up living a worst life than his parents because of some hurricane
You know you're dissing "Their Eyes were Watching God", right? This isn't exactly an unpopular novel.
---------
My point is that the article is actually good on history (although I disagree with how the author interprets history). You however, are nowhere close to historically accurate.
That was the working class shouting out loud, hey, we're losing our jobs in the name of globalization, but we're not seeing benefits only turmoil (and in retrospect cheap consumerization of goods).
So, by and large, the blue collar working class have shouldered the repercussions from the gains enjoyed by the upper middle class and the wealthy -gains made possible through globalization.
In addition to that working class whites feel that they have shouldered most of the cost of equalization of justice and economics. That's to say when society addresses past injustices its remedy is not equally shared by the upper middle class and the wealthy. In other words when the seriously aggrieved are given a chance at success it's not at the cost to upper middle classers or the wealthy but mostly the working class.
It's not that they are bigots and are racists and begrudge success of classes historically disadvantaged, it's that the upper middle class and wealthy never contribute to the cost of justice.
I think after decades of pandering from Repubs and Dems who just patronize them they have had it and are asking for their money back. I think this is what you see.
8 years is a long-term trend now?
My impression over the past 30+ years being in US (and reading up on history) is that there is a clear downward trend in terms of 'quality' across the board, whether in 'establishment', or 'fringe'. For example, for black radicals we had people like Malcolm X, and then we ended up with Sharpton. Out goes JFK, in comes Billy from Arkansas. Out with Nixon, in with Reagan. If this is a collective bottom-up phenomena, then clearly 'we' are giving ourselves the collective finger.
For instance, the New Deal left racism intact in the South, there was the Vietnam war, the "Spirit of '68", high inflation, a huge expansion of regulations leading to more problems (for instance the 1974 model year of automobiles were awful because they had to satisfy stricter emission standards without a perfected catalytic converter, etc.) There was the cult boom and the strange fact that "The Greening of America" sold millions of copies.
In 1979 Merril Lynch was a penny stock, in many ways capitalism seemed to be on the ropes. If you don't believe me look at "Legitimation Crisis" by Habermas.
One contemporary diagnosis of the condition was that there was "too much democracy" and if you look at what happened, all of a sudden the door got slammed on people like Ralph Nader and the range of what you could ask Washington for diminished over the 1980s, with the 1990s sealing the deal -- at that point the lobbying system became almost entirely focuses around tax breaks for special interests with an occasional scam like "Medicare Advantage".
For instance in the 1980s you still saw environmental legislation being passed, but once Clinton got in the Republicans ran fanatical resistance until getting solid control of the House and since then there has been gridlock.
People like the Koch brothers threw unlimited money at promoting right wing ideas, Fox News has a 24 hours hate whenever there is a democrat in the White House, etc.
This has led to a new condition of ungovernability which is as much a riot of the rich (who funded 17 losers to run for the Republican party because Conservatism makes them feel warm and fuzzy) as a riot of the middle class.
"Boaty McBoatface" sealed the deal for Brexit because it symbolizes what "democracy" is about these days. They ask your opinion, because they want to look legitimate, but they don't honor it.
What does that even mean? I hope you don't honestly think that that poll had any effect on the brexit situation?
I tend to side with the bookies over listening to polls, and the bookies odds are on staying[1]. Apart from recent football mishaps they seem to be on the ball, they saw Khan coming a mile off for example.
1. http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/eu-refe...
Tell me that doesn't feed into the Trump candidacy.
Anyway, your point about judicial review is well taken -- whether you're the type of person to get riled up about Prop 8 or about Citizens United it's basically anti-democratic.
This comes from a series of disappointments: that the formation itself of the EU in the first place was rejected democratically, that the establishment of a mostly pro-forma EU parliament was rejected, that a lot of projects were rejected, that the outlawing of free plastic bags at supermarkets (for the environment) was rejected ... the list goes on. These democratic decisions were overridden and many see them as great accomplishments. They certainly make life easier, but one might criticize that they only make the life of the rich easier : people who get more advantage from being mobile in Europe and don't get destroyed by the mobility of cheap labour (e.g. from Poland). Without this antidemocratic behavior there would never have been a Euro, or open borders.
I personally just can't bring myself to believe that the people who have advanced things have anything but their own best interests at heart ... And there are other major criticism of these "accomplishments" of the antidemocratic measures. Frankly the EU state can rightfully be called undemocratic and it is true that, to put things mildly, it is pro-business and anti-working class. I would agree with the assessment that people who think that placing an undemocratic super-state above the country governments in Europe is going to help them are deluding themselves, to put it mildly. I feel like this state could very easily either fall apart, or worse, turn into tyranny. Technically it already is tyranny, but it is not felt like that by those part of the upper middle class (ie. "skilled labour"). It is most definitely felt by manufacturing workers, or tradesmen, shopkeepers or shop assistants and the like. Since more and more people are feeling the unpleasant side of Europe, this seems likely to get worse over time.
Or to put it simply the hawks in power manufactured our own crisis to stop us from focusing on domestic and social improvements.
Revolutions are not as they once were...
We might see a more diverse background in revolution leaders if people take it one step further and ignore the democratic process.
Sorry, who are those?
There is a level of endogamy in american politics which is spectacular, even by european standards.
Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0322/America-s-to...
The campaign raised much of its cash in small donations over the internet, with about half of its intake coming in increments of less than $200.[53] Both major party campaigns screened regularly for patterns of abuse and returned or rejected donations in excess of legal limits, from overseas, from untraceable addresses, or from fraudulent names
and his second campaign had 3 times larger user base.
You must not be very well versed in history then. That's pretty much where it always comes from.
Certainly many so-called "revolutions" are really just one group of elites fighting another, but "always" is just wrong. Do you think ISIS was formed by elites?
Not really, the Jacobins that were the main leaders of the French Revolution were elite politicians both from the formal aristocracy and the high ranks of the mercantile/intellectual class.
I have absolutely no idea. But I'd venture a wild guess and say there are probably a lot of Ba'ath Party people and ex-Saddam Hussein cronies running ISIS behind the scenes. Those people used to be "elites" back when Saddam ruled.
He's taken his fair share in corporate and special interest money e.g. agriculture, has a notable record of pork barreling for his home state, is one of the few candidates in recent history not to release a reasonable number of tax returns and his campaign has a very concerning amount of illegal donations.
Every candidate is incredibly weak and flawed this election including Bernie.
For example: free healthcare and college — great, that's what a civilized country should have... but while that reduces an economic burden on the poor, it also keeps dollars in the pockets of the rich and our tax system is so broken that it doesn't necessarily mean you can recover that money.
While much less appealing, Clinton's criticisms of Sanders for giving free college to the rich seems fundamentally rooted in the reality that while yes, eventually al“l of these things should be public services — but in the immediacy it's not really helpful to help everyone out the same amount because that's keeping everyone in the same place.
We're approaching a tipping point where one of these groups is bigger than all the others . . .
Hillary's Nomination Signal an Oligarchy Doing Fine
(Hillary is all but nominated, I know)
Yes every underclass represents a threat of revolt. But describing this oligarchy as rich stealing from the poor is not completely accurate.
The mesopotamians had a 'palace economy' where a large portion of the wealth (i.e. grain) was brought to a central city to be redistributed to non-farmers by the priests. (hence the word 'hierarchy'). The current global economy is to some extent a palace economy (explains the higher salaries and prices in cities) but our economies are no longer 70% agricultural, 30% stonework and a small slice 'prayer services'. More of the economic work than ever is concentrated at the 'top' -- maybe not in the top slice but certainly in the top fifth. If the bottom half of mesopotamian society disappeared the priests would starve. If that happened in, say, switzerland their economic metrics would blip up.
Not saying that's a good or a bad thing but it defies the article's definition of oligarchy.
TIL Rush Limbaugh will cause the end of the world. Hilarious.
In context.
Then Limbaugh came along, never referencing anything he said or wrote, constantly contradicting himself and making offensive cracks like calling a 12-year-old Chelsea Clinton the White House dog. My young Republican friends loved him, chanted slogans like "Rush is Right!" and labeled themselves "dittoheads." Anyone who pointed out Limbaugh's contradictory logic or took issue with his offensive statements was dismissed as being "politically correct."
Flash forward 25 years and Limbaugh is now considered tame in comparison to Coulter, Savage, and some of the other voices that have followed in his footsteps. I was sad to hear that William Buckley, who I still admire intellectually even if many of his positions are anathema to me, was largely forgotten and ignored in his final years. Trump's nomination would not be possible without Limbaugh laying the groundwork for him two and a half decades ago.
Some on the left are gloating about it, but it frightens me. America needs a plurality of voices debating issues and policy logically in order to thrive. We can't let it become one party of power on the left and an easily demonized opposition party on the right, but with the Republican party falling apart... that's the way it seems to be going.
*Edited for grammar.
Later (when Clinton won the Whitehouse in '92), he became bitter and hateful ... I stopped listening to him when I realized that hearing that content for three hours a day (while at work) was making me bitter and hateful too.
As an aside, the eight years of the Clinton presidency look pretty good compared to the last 16 years.
[1] https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_and_legislative_party_...
From what I've observed in this election cycle I can't disagree with your assessment, though I am deeply saddened at this realization.
The ideology that drives the oligarchy (and arguably modern libertarianism) is descended from that which informed the founding of the Carolina and West Indian slave colonies.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/American-Character-History-Struggle-In...
Colin Woodard's previous book, American Nations was the most interesting book I read last year.
If any 3rd party candidate gets over 5% of the vote, they must by law be included in the debates next time around. We know that a 3rd party will not win the presidential election this time around, so coordinating our votes to get one over 5% in order to inject a new voice into the process seems like a win, even if the party is one I am generally opposed to.