Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What’s the Plan for the Sanders’ Voters?
We’ve had a lot of debate on Ricochet about people who don’t think Donald Trump’s much of a conservative, but who nonetheless hope to see the GOP win the presidency. Victor Davis Hanson — and many here on Ricochet — have pointed out that Trump’s supporters are hardly apt to vote for a candidate or a party that evinces utter contempt for them, nor is “contempt” a particularly attractive sentiment to express toward a large number of one’s fellow Americans.
“Far better than ridiculing Trump as a showboat,” Hanson writes,
would be to show more constructive passion than does Trump and to discover what makes sane citizens see him as their last resort. Rather than dismissing his empty populism, it would be wiser to fill it in. Respect and listen to and learn from Trump voters — and they will not vote for Trump.
Ross Douhat makes what’s to my mind an even more important argument:
He’s right, isn’t he? It’s a bedrock principle of representative democracy that people be represented. This seems like common sense, doesn’t it?
But here’s what troubles me: If that’s true, doesn’t it also stand to reason that you can’t hope to govern the country by ignoring the Sanders constituency? Yes, it does.
If the results we saw in Iowa are replicated throughout the country, it means the Sanders constituency is even larger than the Trump constituency. Would a president who ignores the Sanders constituency be politically stupid and actually wicked?
The Sanders voters are no more apt to go away than the Trump voters. What makes sane citizens see him as a last resort? What should we learn from them? How will we make them feel respected?
Who, realistically, do you think best equipped to govern a country so divided, and why do you think so?
Published in Elections
But is an astonishingly good argument for mixing federalism with true Republicanism and a stronger separation of powers. They never learn from their mistakes, but they can’t enforce them on the rest of us, and at the absolute worst, we could pull back into our own states and prevent them following.
And if that fails, I have nice things to say about inviting someone to be the king. It worked for William III.
This needs to be the name of a political organization.
Wow.
I love this idea.
I agree with you and this is precisely why polls that show high disapproval of Obama are misinterpreted. Many on the left don’t think he went far enough, we agree.
That doesn’t mean those on the left give up. They never, ever, under any circumstances except starvation or impending death give up. Unlike those on the center right calling for moderation and compromise. The biggest expenditure in the Republican party isn’t ads or bumper stickers; it is white flags.
Just because Obama didn’t go far enough doesn’t dissuade them. They are back for more and Bernie is their man. The ratchet always turns left and those of us on the right bless it and fund it in the name of compassion and moderation.
So the left has Bernie marching to the left and we have Trump marching noisily in circles because the center right is more worried about process than results.
Sanders’ having a mostly white following makes perfect sense to me and my man-on-the-street anecdotal observations. The Democratic Party, especially the liberal education establishment, has been running a massive and successful guilt trip on white males for a long time. Socialism as taking care of the poor, the poor being their fault anyway, is a noble cause.
If you are a kid in school for the last twenty-five years and you are a girl, black, Hispanic, Asian, disabled, anything other than a white male, you are blameless for the terrible, evil condition of the world, the country, and the environment. Teachers who are bored and unhappy with their lives preach that (a) these horrible unjust conditions exist and (b) white males are responsible for them.
Granted, there is a backlash against this over-the-top message, and most people tuned it out anyway. But there are many white-male believers. Those white audiences supporting Sanders are atoning for their sins.
Keep in mind Sanders’ age here–some of wrongs–certainly segregation–did exist in his lifetime. I don’t doubt his intelligence or sincerity.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?400753-1/senator-bernie-sanders-campaign-rally-cleveland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ITKheQsrOk
The mass media–of which I am a part–and educational establishment made a massive overcorrection thirty years ago, and it has created a conflict in America.
Any family psychologist will say that if there is sibling rivalry, there is a favored child. That is always the cause of it.
This has been a massive manipulation, and it appears to be failing in some quarters, but it has been successful in others.
The rest of Sanders’ supporters would be those who feel totally dependent on the largess of the government. They don’t see the centrally managed, overregulated economy as the major impediment to their achieving self-sufficiency. All they know is that that they are dependent on whatever socialist programs exist in the United States.
Chavez was a sociological lesson. His rise happened so fast that we could see how a society can be taken over by a dictator in fast-forward, time-lapse photography speed.
He vilified certain groups, and then he took their possessions and gave whatever he didn’t keep for himself and his friends to the have-nots. He disabled the middle class with his guilt trip on them, and he empowered the poorer classes to rise up against the middle class.
Venezuela is now near collapse.
And Jimmy Carter, Obama, and John Kerry think Chavez was a hero.
If I could run a media campaign for a Republican right now, I would plaster everywhere I could “A rising tide lifts all boats.” I would focus everything I said on the Republicans’ ability to raise prosperity across the board.
If Sanders’ crowds are shown as being mostly white, however, there is another plausible explanation. Most of his media productions come out of Burlington, Vermont. My daughter and her husband live in Burlington, and my other daughter went to the University of Vermont (UVM). It’s relatively white-looking up there.
A funny story: UVM needed to diversify its student body when my daughter was there, and because so few black students actually applied to the school, the administration created a little committee to adopt a racially mixed group of inner city high school students in New York to help them apply to UVM.
Bernie Sanders’ inner circle of support arises from Burlington. I’m sure his media advisers have noticed by now that they need to include in their photographs a better ethnic and racial mix.
I think that there is a world of difference between Sanders and Trump voters.
Most Trump voters are disaffected Republicans, or Republican-leaning independents. We want them in the GOP coalition. So I agree with Douthat that it is unwise to ignore or dismiss them.
Most Sanders voters are Socialists or are otherwise on the far left. They are the core of the opposition to the GOP. We want to form a GOP coalition to defeat them, not to include them. We don’t want them in the GOP coalition, unless they change their minds, but then they wouldn’t be Sanders voters any longer.
Are these not also commonalities shared with most conservatives?
Does this not suggest an opening to resolution of Claire’s OP concern? (and stated diectly in #14)
As far as convincing them to change their minds, my main thought is “wait until they become older and wiser.” I think of the quote attributed to Bismarck (and sometimes erroneously to Churchill):
I must have been heartless at 19.
Seriously, Sanders support seems overwhelmingly concentrated among the young. The Iowa entrance polls show that Sanders:
Voters get more conservative as they age. I attribute this to wisdom, though I acknowledge that this is a self-serving explanation.
Younger voters like new, blank slates. Sanders isn’t new to the earth but he is new to them and they make him what they want him to be.
Older voters prefer the familiar.
That’s a kind of conservatism but not political conservatism.
Right, so these young voters can probably be reached with sufficient effort.
I know, I know! I know what the plan is!
It’s the underpants pants gnomes theory of how to make socialism work.
Step one: Elect Bernie.
Step Two: ?????????????????????????????????????????
Step Three: Endless free stuff! Woohoo! FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
I’m pessimistic. Socialism and other left-wing ideas sound good in theory, but fail in practice. A substantial majority of young people never seem to believe this. They have to see it for themselves.
Now maybe if schools and universities did a better job teaching history, things would be different. But the schools and universities tend to be dominated by the left.
If we had something like the History and Moral Philosophy class of Heinlein’s Starship Troopers, we could make progress. But Starship Troopers is conservative fantasy.
That’s probably true in a general sense. But there’s no reason to believe that it is universally true. Many of these slates are still blank enough that there may be room to inscribe ideas that vary from the orthodoxy. Many can be saved if they can be reached.
I’m not sure of your point – I agree there is overlap, hence my Venn diagram comment. But what I’ve noticed too is the adamant and rigged sentiment.
I, as a conservative, think we are dominated unfairly by coastal elites, but not in a smoke filled, they’re keeping us down by tricks and setting up the desolation of abomination kind of way – many of the Trump/Sanders crowd really thinks they are…maybe they are, but I don’t see the evidence of it, and I don’t think most conservatives think they are. It is true, they have power and outlets and wealth and can broadcast and project what they want and most people end up going along with it. They are elites for a reason and will seek to perpetuate their power.
So how does one persuade if you think any establishment candidate is part of the problem – how do you move them away from that kind of thinking. Obviously some will not move, but some will – how do you convince them, I don’t know. I think Guruforhire has some very intriguing ideas, I’m just not sure if he is correct about them all, and even if he is, it makes any difference then.
St.Salieri- I agree that the distinctions you make in #77 are valid. I think that once a commonality is acknowledged, then we have their ear. We can offer an alternative explanation. Some percentage will consider our arguments and some percentage of those will begin to see things our way. I’m assuming that many Sanders followers (and Trump followers to a lesser extent) are simply new to politics, and that these people are simply latching on to the most outrageous and simplistic explanations that they hear. If the preposterous notion that “the top 1%” are repressing everyone else cannot be countered with a better explanation of reality then were not trying hard enough.
I will believe the government cares about the incomes of the poor when they implement a Proportional or better yet regressive tax scheme.
Every dollar of incomes that goes to the poor hurts federal revenues. As such they have every incentive to make sure that the rich get richer and that the distribution of income is biased towards the wealthy.
The 30-44 year olds were taught by the first generation of the Left’s Long March through the education establishment. By the time the younger cohort was in school, the takeover of teacher training was complete. 17-44 year olds tend to oppose capitalism unless it is tamed by the state without realizing that this is the crony capitalism which they so oppose.
They have also been educated to – viscerally, as a matter of faith – support the entitlement state. Unfortunately, their financial future is pledged to fund their elders’ entitlements, and they have also been indoctrinated in a “compassion” that demands open borders.
Also unfortunately, the only way to meet their financial expectations is more open markets domestically – and they have been indoctrinated against that solution. For example, they tend to support subsidized boondoggles like “green” energy and tend to oppose nuclear power.
This creates a cognitive dissonance and resentment which Sanders is capitalizing on. In this, Sanders is Obama’s heir. As Occupy and Black Lives Matter show, violence is an implicit threat from Democrat voters in this age group, and they are a prime audience for demagogues.
All true. Fortunately, many high school and college students (especially the brighter ones) are capable of thinking independently. They see much of the dysfunction in our society and are capable of tracing it back to its source.
Trump is on all sides of that issue, but puts across the message that he wants America to win, which Obama does not. For example, when a President’s actions on a symbolic day of national prayer support the Muslim Brotherhood, which is pledged to destroy the USA, Trump’s rise – beginning with his opposition to importing criminals and our enemies – is understandable.
On immigration, Trump’s position is the only one that, if enacted, would actually stop Ted Kennedy’s so far successful efforts to demographically ensure a permanent Democrat majority. If Trump fails or betrays his supporters in the end, it’s game over for the middle class.
Speaking of Cruz, while it may be true in politics that if you’re not cheating you’re not trying, one would hope for a president competent enough not to get caught. Plus that neighbor shaming thing in Iowa… yuck.
The answer to Claire’s question:
Sanders is capitalizing on an infection has endemic among these age cohorts, and is pandemic among younger Democrat voters. They have a virulent form of the illness and may become violent under its influence, particularly when in crowds.
It is endemic in the population as a whole and even some “conservatives” exhibit signs. There is no sure cure, though symptoms are milder and some victims even experience spontaneous remission when placed in healthier environments. We should encourage such environments, but the best policy is to contain it.
To do so, we must eliminate the source of contagion; Glen Reynolds has long predicted the collapse of the higher education establishment, which is the main reservoir and incubator of the contagion. It would also help to separate the disease vectors from the susceptible population.
There will be stiff opposition: Victor Davis Hanson has described the medieval stratification of American society; a trend that is rapidly solidifying in California and which the coastal elites are understandably fine with. The schools are major contributors to this developing problem.
Reynolds has proposed alternative ways to educate the next generation. His ideas should be put into action.
The Progressives have been at it for over a century. They’ve had control over the organs of culture for about half of that.
It will be a long struggle. The actively ill must be treated kindly and respectfully, but “respect” does not mean implementing their favored policies – which stem from their pathology.
Yes, but I thought we were talking about Sanders’ voters, not about dissidents and nonconformists.
I’m guessing that many of Sanders’ young supporters today fall into the category I described, and that they would be susceptible to an alternative viewpoint. Perhaps today’s support for Sanders is the result of a binary choice (Sanders vs. HRC). Perhaps a well-spoken GOP nominee can present that alternative vision of America but right now they’re hearing mostly noise from the Republicans.
Based on what I see in California, I’m not sure that’s correct. I hope it is, but while the older Sanders supporters I see are VDH’s feudal aristocracy, its younger ones (including the aristos) are true believing potential shock troops. They consider Obama to have been too moderate and willing to compromise, and look to Sanders to carry the work much farther forward.
I don’t thing they will be peeled off from their statist views in large enough numbers to matter electorally, at least in this election. The larger question is whether a President (R) would be able to undo Obama’s damage without Occupy, BLM & Co. returning to the streets with so much more violence that the repression they seek is unleashed.
The best strategy long term is to prevent as many as we can from going so far down the brownshirt road that they lose more face by walking away than by putting on the jackboots.
If President (R) feeds the Democrat demographic plan while doing so, the Republic’s days are probably numbered anyway.
Just to add my thoughts to #86…
The past seven years provide ample evidence that presidential leadership is hugely influential on the political attitudes of young people. This president has done everything he can to encourage radicalism. That radicalism won’t end with a new president, but perhaps President (R) can begin to steer attitudes in a more productive direction. If we have a President (D) radicalism will become increasingly entrenched.
Step #1 is to elect a President (R) that can have a positive impact on young Americans who believe in America. I believe that those young Americans, while less visible, are still more numerous than those infected by subversive educators and destructive aspects of popular culture. But that’s only my belief. And hope. Our futures are dependent on it.