Half of America is not doing well and has been overlooked. The better educated amongst us are blinded by their own progress and weren’t looking inward.
We will see more focus on nativist policies in our lifetime as automation continues to eat jobs.
I don't really understand why a low end house costs something like $100,000 but a top of the line phone costs $1,000. The education, infrastructure, and materials required to make a house are all generally speaking a lot easier to come by than all of what's required for a phone. I know you can factory build phones and you need labor for a house, but you can factory build most of what a home is made of, too, and it's not like there isn't a lot of labor involved in all kinds of parts of a phone's journey (design, marketing, manufacturing, transportation, sales). I guess most of it has to do with land being finite and all the parts that make up a house? But something about that argument doesn't sit quite right with me either. It's very weird that a basic shelter, which is something people have been building themselves for thousands of years without any of the sophisticated tools we have now, is 100x more expensive than buying one of the most sophisticated, hard to design and manufacture things yet devised by man. I know houses have heating, cooling, plumbing, electricity, etc and aren't as simple as they used to be, but the price difference still seems wonky.
For a while I fantasized about building an obscenely simple house and living like a monk to save money and see how minimal I could get. I've done some camping and feel like I'd be happy living in a tent with a YMCA membership. But that's really not an option. There's no where to put up a tent or even a very modest little shack without paying tens of thousands of dollars for a strip of land to put it on, and you're never going to find much other than apartment buildings close to most of the places the work is. So even without the social stigma of living in a tent, you can't really do it.
I'm not saying life for the average person in Africa is better, and I generally agree with the sentiment that most Americans under-appreciate all the comforts of modern life.
But what's frustrating about the whole thing is there's not really a way to opt-out, and the entry price here for "being a normal part of society" seems to require most middle or lower class people to go into debt. It's a wonky, unnatural set up.
Despite this desire being co-opted and twisted by Trump's campaign and Fox News, the underlying feelings are valid for a lot of people across the USA.
The Democratic party should have realized this back during Obama's "Hope" campaign. A message of change, of saying "what's happening right now isn't right and we need to fix that", that message really resonates with a lot of people.
Of course, as Obama found out when he became president, "the swamp" has its own interests at heart. All that good energy and hope broke like a wave against that huge political cliff, and had far less impact than everyone needed.
If you ask a lot of people to articulate this sort of feeling, they'll have difficulty. Hence the easier to understand populist rhetoric coming from Trump. He steered that behemoth of public opinion towards xenophobia and other negative feelings. It's easier to blame the other than to look deeply at your own life.
The Democratic party has to understand this or Trump will easily win his second term. Back when Trump got the Republican nomination, I had a deeply unsettling gut feeling about the election. Trump was entertaining, Clinton was not. In the same way, Obama was entertaining, McCain was not. Bush was entertaining, Kerry was not. Gore was not. I unfortunately don't really see any entertaining people on the Democratic side.
As for the automation question, I think Trump, or his Republican successor, could pivot very easily to saying that robots are going to take Good Old-Fashioned American Jobs(tm) and a lot of people will follow that message.
I think this is interesting, because there's a Democratic candidate, Andrew Yang, gaining popularity because of this (relatively, considering he's coming out of nowhere). Though taking it with a different attitude. But I think this kinda goes to show that the message resonates across party lines (like with what you said about Obama and Trump).
He seemed happy enough with the party-line vote in the Senate on the first major bill of his presidency:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvest...
And he wasn't too concerned about bipartisanship when it came to passing the ACA only a year later, arguably the biggest bill of the decade. There were several forms of procedural hardball happening in the process of passing that. It was certainly passed narrowly and along party lines. And, partly because of the lack of bipartisan agreement, not all of it survived court challenges.
If it's true that Obama was genuinely optimistic and down on cynicism during his 2008 campaign, he must have wised up quickly. Otherwise, maybe people read some things into the "Hope" message that weren't actually there. He came from the Chicago school of politics, though, so I'm skeptical that the narrative of broken good energy really fits.
And I think this sort of thing feeds into the Trump narrative of a "swamp" that needs draining. Obama certainly didn't come up with Washington partisanship, but the hard landing after all the Hope posters probably increased cynicism on the whole and gave Trump a chance. Remember, he didn't exactly win his election by a landslide.
Also. Talking point or not, it pretty much showcases that policymaking today is not a deliberate good faith iterative process what it should be. It's just a front in the culture wars.
Kind of. One version passed the House, another the Senate (), and a questionable reconciliation process created a unified bill.
My point is that I don't find the "Obama nobly lost to the Swamp" narrative all that convincing. He could have required, say, 10 republican senators agree before (unsuccessfully) overhauling one of the largest parts of the economy. That* failing is what losing to the Swamp might look like.
Maybe that wouldn't have worked, to be fair. But preemptively deciding to play hardball doesn't fit the "The Swamp was too swampy for Obama" narrative.
(*) Including a vote from Arlen Specter, who switched parties mid-term and a vote in exchange for the infamous "Cornhusker Kickback".
Arlen Specter, who switched parties mid-term
He did so twice (1965 and 2009). It received just enough to pass,
Only Democrat votes. Republicans and rank-and-file Democrats were not allowed to even see the final bill before the vote.Hm, I looked it up, this is pretty funny, that one Republican voted with the Dems, but 39 Dems voted against.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml
Probably some voted against because it did not go far enough?
The Senate vote is (exactly?) split on party lines: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...
60-to-39, so they probably had the magic 60 to pass despite filibuster.
one Republican voted with the Dems
No, you're looking at the wrong bill. This[0] is the vote on the actual, final ACA.I think I agree with you on all of this, especially the Chicago comment.
I like your theory on the entertainment value of Presidential hopefuls.
You mean exploited?
It's true that in part we're a bit spoiled by the ease of movement inside the EU, but the general experience of entering the US (including airport security) is unwelcoming to the point of being humiliating - very different to the way the American people treats foreigners once inside, since they're generally welcoming and open. It's more of an structural/institutional problem.
It may be bad policy or intrusive, but calling it inhumane is hyperbole.
Of course then could go the next step and ask for a password (which I would argue goes too far).
That this may be an optimal move should suggest an inherent weakness or ineffeciency in the process.
The problem starts when the powerful countries mess up the lives of people outside their borders, all the while complaining that those people shouldn't be allowed to come here.
If you're traveling on a non-EU passport, I don't know if entering the EU is much better. IIRC flying through Frankfurt once the customs people rifled through my carry-on for no apparent reason.
The EU person typically looks at me for a second or two and then stamps. Maybe they ask me how long I'm staying, I say "a week" or whatever, and they stamp.
The US people (EWR or JFK, maybe it varies) have an attitude that suggests that they think someone who visited Switzerland or Denmark is likely to be coming back from a vacation training with ISIS. They also really can't decide if my girlfriend is supposed to come to the booth with me, all of the rules suggest no since we are not a family, but then they tend to get upset after they ask me if I was traveling alone and I say no.
That isn't too surprising, is it? That would be true for almost every democratic country.
As an EU citizen, I found entering China less scary than the USA. The Chinese officers were almost painfully polite and matter of fact, whereas the TSA officers were borderline rude and threatening. I'd really lover to go for holidays in the USA again, but not anytime soon. Since I don't have a FB, Twitter or IG acc't, I'd probably be denied anyways.
Yep, this happened. In Airport. International Berlin airport.
I didn't say anything because I did not wanted to be detained for longer and miss my connection flight. But WTF.
These three words are incompatible with each other.
That being said, Berlin pretty much is Germany's asshole, and they are rather proud of it, too (see: "Berliner Schnauze")
You might think Europe is cool because you are inside Europe. But Europe is as hostile as it can get. The US is an order of magnitude better in the immigration department. Europe happens to get a lot of immigrants because of land proximity.
Another problem with your argument is that the relationship between more thorough screening of immigration applicants and a country's "level of isolationism" is lacking evidence. Perhaps a country's capabilities in screening applicants is simply correlated to how many people are trying to immigrate there? Just a hypothesis based on the data linked above.
But if I may counter your anecdote with my own: I am an immigrant in the US (Bay Area) and so are all my friends. Actually I think I interact with less than a handful of Americans regularly, everyone else is Mexican, Chinese, Slovenian, Indian, Ukranian, etc. I'm happy to have had the opportunity to find a home and work here, and I think so are they.
[0] https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/...
Inequality, wage stagnation, slowing growth, things like that. When life gets tough, us vs them rhetoric and isolationism starts going up.
It’s pretty predictable when you look at history. First the economy has a few bumps, then the lower classes start clamoring for reform, then the various isms start taking hold of politics as people vote for anyone who promises them a better life.
Post ww2 up to the early 2000’s was a period of unprecedented growth in most of the west as we caught up to pre-war status (think 1910’s, not 1930’s). That growth has tapped out and we are now on a more natural growth trajectory.
But compared to what was before, organic growth looks slow and scary.
I don't want to sound nativist, but there are hard limits on how many people a country can accept at once, especially one with an increasingly small pool of jobs to fill.
because so few people were willing to come
That hasn't been true for the past 250 years.But the change described in the article is, in fact, compatible with the view that we should hive more immigrants and more diversity while at the same time screening immigrants more thoroughly to eliminate specific undesirable elements.
So I wouldn't say that isolationism runs deep. It is definitely there, I would definitely say that it is a escarpment but that doesn't mean it is the Grand Canyon or the Marianas Trench.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-intervention...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Doctrine_of_Unstabl...