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.
Why the Upper Midwest Hates Trump
The next big primary contest is Wisconsin. According to the Marquette Law School poll, Cruz is leading Trump by 10 points, a number confirmed in the latest Fox Business poll. In fact, Trump’s Wisconsin unfavorability rating is at a whopping 70 percent. Trump is leading nationally, so why is the Badger State so opposed to him?
One reason is the unique experience of Wisconsin Republicans. They’ve been through the political wringer with the thuggish protests of Scott Walker’s reforms, bitter recall elections, and unethical investigations of his supporters. The voters are in no mood for another round of political unrest, and are well briefed on the ideological underpinnings of conservative policies. When Trump repeated progressive lies about Walker’s record and tangled with popular local radio hosts, voters were not amused.
But there is something deeper at work. Find Wisconsin on a map and look to the left. In neighboring Minnesota, Marco Rubio beat Trump by 15; Cruz beat Trump by 8. Next door to Minnesota and Wisconsin is Iowa, where Cruz won and Rubio nearly came in second. While Trump can win in most parts of the country, the Upper Midwest is not buying what he’s selling. The only exception to this is Michigan, where the lion’s share of voters reside in the rust-belt southeast corner.
Most of us have heard of “Minnesota Nice” — the friendly, reserved, play-by-the-rules behavior favored by that state’s residents. But Wisconsin has a similar Scandinavian (though more German) culture, as do North and South Dakota. When the Upper Midwest of Europe relocated to the Upper Midwest of the United States, they brought their politeness, understatement, and emotional restraint with them.
All of these characteristics are diametrically opposed to the Trump ethos of baseless braggadocio, histrionic complaint, and conflict as first resort. Critics of Minnesota Nice cast it as barely masked passive-aggressiveness, but active-aggressiveness is considered not only unseemly, but unmanly.
Scandis find virtue in stoicism. When you’re shoveling a sidewalk buried in three feet of snow, your neighbor doesn’t want to hear your complaints — especially since she’s 68, has a bum leg, and cleared her driveway before the sun rose. Just do what needs to be done, and would it kill you to put a smile on your face?
I grew up in a Finnish family originally from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, so my four-foot-ten grandma (who lived to 100) instructed me in all the cultural norms, often punctuated by some choice cuss words from the old country:
- Don’t draw attention to yourself.
- Don’t use 100 words when zero will do.
- Don’t exhaust people with your problems; they have enough of their own.
- Deal with it.
There’s no room for boasting, tough talk, or threats — speak through your actions instead. If you have more than others, hide it so people don’t think you’re a [Finnish expletive]. Mrs. Gunderson is 68 years old and has a bum leg; shovel her driveway before you take care of your own.
Granted, these Upper Midwestern traits have faded as the residents are Americanized and job seekers from the rest of the country move in. But unspoken social contracts are a tenacious thing, especially when the brutal climes of the American steppe reinforce them each year.
New York values are not Iowa values. And they sure as paska aren’t Minnesota or Wisconsin values.
Published in General
Seems to me that the “genteel South”, at least ante-bellum, is a myth. The population was heavily Celtic, drawn from the entire Celtic fringe of the British Isles – not just the Scotts-Irish, celebrated for their violent ways by folks as varied as Thomas Sowell and Jim Webb, but the Welsh, Cornish, north English borderers, and Irish and Scotts generally. A population of pastoralists, as opposed to the agriculturalists from the English Anglo Saxon lowlands.
Dirt farming promotes unceasing toil, but does not much reward stealing from ones neighbors: how many of his rutabagas can one carry home? Herding cattle, on the other hand, involves long days of snoozing, while the dog guards the herd, punctuated by moments of extreme violence when the wolf appears. No work ethic encouraged, but certainly violence. You can, however, do quite well as a rustler; the cattle will transport themselves to your digs, and you can steal enough of them to see you through a long winter.
Now, to protect your herd from the potential rustler next door, you need develop a reputation as the most irrational, violent, kill on slightest provocation, SOB in the area. Hence a touchy “code of honor”, blood feuds, and so on. Someone lays a slight insult on you, you “destroy” him. Trump plays well.
The English started civilizing their Celtic fringe sometime in the 1700’s, but by then many Celts had washed up in America. And we’re still working on the civilizing part.
A good read; Forrest McDonald penned the introduction, from which I drew much of the above:
Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South
May 30, 1989
by Dr. Grady McWhiney and Forrest McDonald
Yah, we Lootherans like political jokes just fine – just not enough ta go vote for one.
I concur on the absolute concept of “genteel South” being a myth but it probably rose up because the aristocracy of said states were primarily of English nobility which had been transplanted to those southern states during the colonial period.
They would have been your large estate slave holding class that would have had such a “gentlemen” manner about them. They of course also gave those Celts the nick name of being crackers and said Celts would have made up the bulk of the Southern population. Hence the disappointment of some in hoping that the South would have been hard ground for Drumpf because of its genteel character.
So much for the legacy of Tail-Gunner Joe.
Two observations, from having lived both places:
First, driving. Southerners are, like Wisconsinites, personally among the nicest, most gracious people you’ll meet anywhere: until they get behind the wheel of a car. Then it’s cutthroat. Now Wisconsin drivers can be plenty aggressive too. But if you want to merge, they will let you merge. Even if they have to hit the break to let you in. Here — just be ready to fight for it.
Second, politics. I think this is related to the first one somehow. Southerners are gracious, but there’s a fierce stubborn streak in the political culture — not just now but historically. Sometimes that flames into a self-defeating fire-breathing defiance, and I think we’re seeing that aspect of it right now — Trump figured out how to tap into that. But it’s not always that way; sometimes that Southern independent stubbornness has been a healthy thing to the good of the Republic.
Another reason that Trump is being rejected here that some of the other posters alluded to is that Gov. Walker and the State GOP have been very effective in turning things around here and promoting an effective reform agenda that continues to pay dividends. The examples of neighboring Minnesota celebrity politicos Al Frankin and Jesse Ventura probably factor somewhat in to realty star Trump’s fortunes.
Interesting that the ‘Old Guard’ GOP in the State led by Tommy Thompson is backing Kasich (big gov’t, kick the can, issue more bonds type of guys) who has done similar in Ohio with the Medicare expansion.
I feel pretty optimistic about the state and it’s future. There’s a path for the ‘Rust Belt’ and Indiana & Wisconsin are blazing it.
Months ago, BrentB67 posted an interesting thread coming at it from the other direction–how people might not get Trump because of his New York gregariousness. I can’t find it at the moment.
Could have been permanently deleted from the digital Ricochet files…especially if it wasn’t completely, brutally, viciously, and even hatefully negative concerning Trump.
Naw. Here it is.
It was just on the third page of Brent’s “posts” because he’s such a prolific poster.
For those of you curious about how to find a fellow member’s old articles on a topic when our internal search doesn’t work too good, here are two ways to do it:
Go to Google, and type in the search bar “site:ricochet.com” followed by either (a) just the member’s handle or (b) the member’s handle plus a keyword or two. Option (a) should bring up the member’s profile as a top hit, after which you can browse (perhaps with the help of CTRL+F) the member’s old OPs. With any luck in your choice of keywords, option (b) should have the OP you want among the top hits.
Thank you MFR, but I believe it was Grosseteste that was looking for Brent’s post. I was, of course, being facetious about the digital deletion.
I know this is a “Why I hate Trump” thread, but here’s the problem:
Trump 736
Cruz 463
Kasich 143
Cruz will probably win Wisconsin and its 42 delegates, but what about New York, Pennsylvania, and California? There are 338 delegates in those three states alone. Currently Trump is ahead in New York by enough to make it a winner take all, as are Pennsylvania and California (kinda).
My point is Trump has odds on best chance to win. So what are you folks gonna do if he does…vote for Hillary?
Snooks says that America and the GOP are in big trouble when she is thinking of not voting at the top of the ticket, rather than vote for reprehensible Trump.
I keep trying to tell her that Hillary would do much more damage to American finances, culture, and world standing, but she cannot get past the awfulness of Trump.
We’re toast.
California does not look like any sure thing for Trump, NY and Pennsylvania do. I disagree that Trump is sure to get the needed delegate count going in to the convention (his best shot at getting nomination). From the second ballot on, his chances of getting it go down hill. Hopefully, those voting or advocating for rule changes won’t be foolish enough to settle on what’s perceived as an Establishment Candidate and nominate someone that has best chance of uniting factions together: Cruz, Perry, Walker, Jindal, Fiorina and disappointed supporters have the wisdom and grace to unite behind that person. Power must be shared and positions accommodated.
Trump’s enough of a turn-off to the majority of GOP voters that they will stay home or vote for 3rd party, we will all lose under that scenario. The #NeverTrump thing is real, the hatred for the GOPe is real. I realize people have real issues with Cruz – I would argue that he is one of the more unifying candidates possible.
I think the cultural difference is a pretty good explanation. Trump’s a fairly typical New Yawker, I’ve known a lot who aren’t dissimilar. And New York, while there are lots of nice New Yorkers, is far more aggressive than Milwaukee, based on my limited experience.
I was running in Milwaukee, and came to a car at a stop sign in the pedestrian crosswalk. It backed up. Like a good New Yorker, I figured he was getting ready to run me down, but he was in fact getting out of the crosswalk so I could pass. This happened a few more times.
Most disconcerting to a New Yorker!
On the other hand, in New York as a pedestrian you can cross a road without looking either way, and the cars will stop, regardless of the road markings. Don’t try that outside the city, though!
And meeting highly educated New Yorkers who speak like they’ve never put foot inside a school is not unusual at all.
Vote libertarian (hopefully Gary Johnson this time around), which I also did when McCain was running against Obama. I cannot pull the lever for either Trump or Clinton, obviously. How anyone could vote for Trump is an utter mystery to me. He is philosophically unmoored, has no record to help one discern his likely future actions, changes his mind mercurially, lies incessantly, and is downright rude to boot. I’m no fan of political correctness, but making fun of the disabled or someone’s appearance isn’t politically incorrect, it’s boorish. Period.
I’m #NeverTrumpNeverClinton
No, you’re #Hillary2016. That’s how the electoral system works in this country, regardless of how we feel about it.
No, you’re #Hillary2016. That’s how the electoral system works in this country, regardless of how we feel about it
–No. You are. The idea that voting third party in a country where 40 percent of the populace doesn’t vote is voting for the democrats is patently nonsense.
–Its this kind of self centered sneering condescension that has led to the likes of Trump doing so well.
–If you don’t earn a vote, you don’t deserve it. Don’t blame the voter because you failed to seal the deal.
WHAT?
I’m going to let the Trump voters go ahead and take the blame should Hillary manage to win the W.H. in 2016. They chose this candidate who is utterly unacceptable to so many reliable voters. No, my principles are not to blame. The idiocy of the electorate is.
See how two can play that game?
#NeverHillaryNeverTrump
I am blaming SuperNurse and Torywarwriter for Obama.
Because that is how the game of electoral politics works. If you are playing the wrong game, we all get hurt together.
Reasonable people do in fact disagree on what the “right game” is. Moreover, which is the “right game” for an individual Ricochet member may well depend on where in the country that member lives:
People living in deep-blue or deep-red areas, whose votes are even less likely than average to decide an election, may decide that using their vote expressively – to shift the Overton window, for example – is a better use of their vote than betting on the eensy-beensy probability that their vote could in any way be decisive.
Perhaps “If you are playing the wrong game, we all get hurt together” is a stone-cold fact even truer than God, but when people do not agree on what the “wrong game” is, it’s not surprising when arguments that amount to “I’m playing the right game, you’re playing the wrong one, therefore I blame you” aren’t terribly persuasive.
What slays me is that there are people who go #NeverTrump but still have time for Karl Rove. It’s as if they don’t want to take responsibility.
#NeverRove
Let me suggest another reason why Wisconsin might be different. When the Republicans took the governorship and the legislature, they did something courageous, and they fought through hell and high water to consolidate their victory.
Here, in Michigan (which Trump won), the Republicans took over in 2010, shifted taxes from corporations to retired people, tried to increase the gas tax and were defeated in a referendum 4-to-1, and then imposed a “user tax” on items bought on the internet. And they also cooperated with the feds on Obamacare and Medicaid. True: they did make Michigan a right-t0-work state but only when the unions refused to play ball with Governor Rick Snyder and he got angry. Except for that bit of serendipity, we might as well have had the Democrats in office.
Where the Republicans actually stand for something, the Donald stands little chance.
When you’re healthy, you’re less tempted by quackery.
Charlie Sykes has said more than once (and it’s true) that Wisconsin doesn’t have the same level of grassroots/Tea Party vs. Establishment split. Oh, you’ll find disillusioned and unhappy Republicans, but it’s just not the same thing at all.
Lots of credit to Walker and his legislative allies for that, but it’s not just them. Much, much credit is due to local conservative media — to people like Charlie Sykes, who have really made it possible and who have ensured that the debate among conservatives in Wisconsin is about practical conservative ideas and getting the ball rolling. Or the MacIver Institute, which analyzes state policy at a level I simply can’t find here in VA. And so on. It’s a healthier political culture (on the Republican side, that is), which makes it more likely to produce candidates like Scott Walker, and more resistant to cheap demagoguery like Donald Trump’s.
I just now signed up for their newsletter. Thanks.
How so? I live in Illinois, so when I vote for a third party candidate, it doesn’t matter to the overall result. It stinks to live here, but there is a freedom that comes with being able to vote your conscience without consequence.
In regards to Trump, still no dice. If the [people] in this party (and apparently non-affiliated, independents, and democrats) nominate a morally bankrupt imbecile, I am under no obligation to vote for him or for the criminally corrupt socialist offered by the other side. I have no idea why anyone thinks Trump is better than Clinton. There is quite simply no evidence to support that opinion. You know what they say about opinions…
The south’s culture is an honor one, someone sticking up for themself is understandable, even when the person is a real piece of work.
My answer though is that the south is now full of displaced yankees.
As to the above argument that the #neverTrump crowd equals Hillary2016 I would say this: Knowing that so much of your party will not unite behind a candidate, shouldn’t you find a different candidate?
This is a unique year, few republicans are left with their first, or for that matter, second or third choice. No one is saying it’s my guy or no one -except the Trumpkins. Many of those calling to unite behind Cruz, are people who have united behind Cruz after their guy or gal got out. Their candidate withdrawing, they are looking for a remaining candidate that the party can unite behind and who can win. It’s not Trump. Thus Trump2016=Hillary2016.
Just to be clear, they analyze Wisconsin state policy — I hope I didn’t leave you thinking they’d have info on your state.
But they’re good. If I want to learn about any major bill winding through the Wisconsin legislature, I can be pretty sure of finding more than one conservative viewpoint in short order, and on forming an informed opinion. No such thing here in Virginia.