Hacker News Reader

Comment by timschmidt | Hacker News Reader

> Unfortunately a majority of American voters saw what happened in the first Trump term and decided that they wanted more of it, with even fewer controls and restrictions.

I'm not sure this accurately conveys the situation. American voters have been dissatisfied with the lesser of two evils choice foisted upon them every 4 years for decades. We're 75 years into endless wars. Massive numbers of union high paying jobs have been shipped overseas since the 80s hollowing out the middle and working class.

One could easily see the votes as being more anti-establishment than anything else.

edit: I love how people downvote comments they don't like in political discussions, even when they're just attempting to foster understanding by sharing a perspective, and not prescriptive or pejorative in any way.

View on HN

That's what a lot of it was. In 2016, the establishment was offering us a choice between another Bush and another Clinton, with Cruz being set up as the Buchanan, the conservative who would be allowed to win a state or two before gracefully stepping aside for the real nominee. So voters said screw this, we'll take a shot on the guy who might be crazy, rather than just another one of the same gang.

Surprisingly to many of them, he wasn't crazy, and actually tried to do a lot of the things they were hoping a non-establishment president would do. But then the bureaucracy dragged its feet, ignored his orders, and generally did its best to spoil his first term, giving a middle finger to the voters and saying, "Screw you, we're doing things our way." So in 2024 the voters said, "No, screw you," and here we are.

I've spent most of my life voting green. I don't see myself as closely affiliated with either dems or republicans. I find that there are policies each of them engage in that I agree and disagree with. I really appreciate substantive discussion of policy. Which there seems to be less and less of every year, and more and more each side seems to be arguing and fighting against their own boogey-man version of the other side. Skewed, stretched, and exaggerated to extremes in a meme-laden propaganda war against each other.

I find that this does little to help either side understand the (often legitimate!) concerns of the other. It seems like there is an inexorable wedge being driven between both sides, by both sides. I'm not sure how we address that. And I'm not sure how to reconcile the factors which drive each side without addressing it.

> Surprisingly to many of them, he wasn't crazy, and actually tried to do a lot of the things they were hoping a non-establishment president would do.

Incorrect. Stop lying.

I'm sorry, but that sounds like an excuse.

Yes, when you have to vote between the lesser of two evils, but one of them is blatantly more evil and incompetent than the other, you're responsible for choosing the more evil and incompetent option and the damage that results.

No system is perfect, and few countries provide morally and politically pure options to vote for in national elections. So an informed and engaged population often needs to vote tactically, understanding that establishments change slowly, and work to elect more effective candidates at local & state level who can work their way up to the national stage.

Voting in the anti-establishment choice just because voters are upset that progress is slow and politics is hard is the stuff of tantrums, and voting adults are supposed to be beyond that.

It seems like you're trying to argue and assign blame.

I'm not here for that. Just explaining what I understand of what the blue collar folks I know are thinking.

Not trying to argue, though blame is deserved for those who voted for Trump this time around.

I'm not saying that out of anger, that's just the nature of democracy and that the corollary of a voting public being able to choose their leaders means they're responsible when they make bad choices. That, in turn should trigger national debates, reflection, and reform hopefully, else the US will continue to head down an ever-increasingly authoritarian and populist path.

I certainly don't want the US to go down that path, nor do I enjoy seeing the damage being done now. I just believe that if we coddle voters who made terrible political choices they're just going to keep making those bad choices election after election.

I think it's worthwhile to consider that what you said here:

> Not trying to argue, though blame is deserved for those who voted for Trump this time around.

> I'm not saying that out of anger, that's just the nature of democracy and that the corollary of a voting public being able to choose their leaders means they're responsible when they make bad choices. That, in turn should trigger national debates, reflection, and reform hopefully, else the US will continue to head down an ever-increasingly authoritarian and populist path.

Is almost to a word how the Right feels about the Left as well. We're watching that play out. Conflict escalation is even less fun on the societal scale.

This isn't a right or left issue, and I'm not even an American. I have no political affiliation here except seeing a country I've long admired facing a profound challenge. This is about significant portions of American voters turning away from established institutions—the scientific community, professional civil service, and constitutional checks and balances that have been foundational to American strength.

I could maybe understand why people voted for the anti-establishment candidate the first time around. Legitimate frustrations exist with a system many felt wasn't working for them. But the second time around, with clear evidence of the consequences, is not defensible and shouldn't be excused.

This is a form of reactionary populism and it's deeply dangerous for the US's power, prosperity, and political freedoms. Ask Argentinians what Peronism, as another form of anti-establishment populism, did for them. There are countless other examples to learn from too.

I am American. Most of the people I know are also American. I'm trying to tell you why lots of my fellow Americans voted this way. aaronbaugher's comment in this thread is also insightful.

I understand why many Americans voted that way, I’m just saying that they are responsible for the inevitable consequences.

Regardless of motivation, electoral choices have consequences that voters collectively own.

Again, it’s not like we haven’t seen this before in other countries that have voted in populists. It’s always the same cycle: Widespread dissatisfaction promotes populists who correctly identify legitimate problems but offer implausibly simple solutions to solve them. Voters choose the populists out of anger & frustration, only to find that they can’t solve the problems but create the kind of institutional damage that reduces the ability of any successors to solve those problems.

Trump is a populist and we’re already seeing that institutional damage merely 100 days in. There’s no indication that the outcome will be any better than all the other historical parallels.

> only to find that they can’t solve the problems but create the kind of institutional damage that reduces the ability of any successors to solve those problems.

I watch all sorts of news. Ultra-liberal Democracy Now!, CNN, ABC, NBC, podcasts on the left and right, right-leaning Fox, etc.

I can say that the right is cheering perceived win after win. From their perspective, tariffs are bringing manufacturing jobs back, what they see as corruption is being rooted out, government is being made leaner, more efficient, and more local. Law is being enforced.

The left seems to be focused on publicizing what they see as losses, assuming that the right will inevitably see the self-evident error of their ways. I don't think this is likely to happen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com