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
The Trump and Sanders voters are reacting to the same thing: crony capitalism. The elites on the two coasts are facing a revolt. Trump may restore a better form of capitalism (it is never perfect, mind you). Sanders would replace it with socialism. A face-off between the two would probably be a Trump landslide.
I’ve seen several articles by lefties celebrating the far left slant of Sanders. They think our country has finally moved in that direction. Apparently they haven’t noticed that Europe isn’t doing so well, nor that the Soviet Union collapsed awhile ago, nor that China sure has a lot of Marxism related woes. One thing you can say for Sanders, however, is that he is honest in his socialist stupidity and silly idealism. I think a lot of voters respond to that–which is why he attracts a lot of young voters. Young voters have a lot to learn. You can’t always pander to them in their stupider notions.
It is not contempt for Trump or Sander’s voters, it’s a sincere belief that they are both wrong. Folks in both camps are bothered by crony capitalism, but neither really seem to understand that it is a product of big powerful intrusive government and the weak economy isn’t caused by China or Mexico but by burdens government places on the economy. The conservative candidates hit this theme, but only Carly hits it consistently and well. This is basic common sense and the folks can come to understand it unless they are among those who benefit from the rents. There is also a phenomena that Republicans are missing that Trump supporter are not. We have suffered decades of growing political correctness which is a form of bullying. In the last seven years pc has expanded into actual mob agitation along ethnic, racial and cultural lines with every tragedy turned into an opportunity to sow divisions. Did we not expect that this exacerbation of racial, ethnic and cultural divisions would not lead to white blow back? Look at who is supporting Trump. Fortunately they have avoided naming the thing and have used immigration as the symbol but this is a reaction to diversity politics gone wild.
Marion is exactly right. Sanders has an ad that says the system is rigged by Wall Street. That’s the 99% stuff. His supporters blame Wall Street and Trump’s Washington.
How do we know? I do feel that I understand them both, and I do feel both phenomena are closely related. But I don’t know to what degree that’s projection. There’s part of me that absolutely gets the impulse to take Sanders and Trump and shove them down the throats of every American in Washington who never listened to me: “Here are the pitchforks I warned you about, you idiots.”
But in reality, that’s about me. I just can’t say that I really know what “they” are reacting to. I know I have a great sense of frustration, and I know it’s easy to project one’s own emotions on other people.
Putting these things in the same basket isn’t right. The collapse of the Soviet Union was certainly proof that Soviet communism couldn’t provide an enviable or a desirable life. China has authoritarian woes, but it long ago abandoned any kind of doctrinal Marxism — and abandoning central planning led to the largest and fastest economic expansion in human history. (The latter point is really the one to stress, although it certainly didn’t lead to liberty as we conceive it.) Europe is doing very well on some indicators and less well on others, and an American who said, “I want us to be more like Europe” wouldn’t be expressing an insane sentiment the way an American who said, “I want us to be more like the Soviet Union” would be. He’d be, in my view, expressing a desire for something that it makes no sense for Americans to want, given that so many different cultures and political systems are part of “Europe,” but to say, “I want us to figure out why life expectancy in Europe is longer and do what they’re doing” isn’t off-the-Richter-scale insane.
Are Trump voters actually sane citizens? I guess that is what I haven’t decided on yet. Should I feel anything other than contempt for those young collage students that propelled Sanders to a tie with Hillary? Why? Through their willful ignorance, and self serving ideology they threaten to elect a man whose political views are antithetical to the very framework upon which our country is built. While the populism of Trump is not as divergent from the American model as Sanders socialism it isn’t that close either, and historically has always led to poor national policies. But, because these people “feel” Trump gets them I have to respect them? I’ll respect them when they make to me an argument I find good, and it isn’t that I haven’t found good arguments for their position though that makes me not take their side it is that the counter arguments I find better.
Well, Trump doesn’t criticize business but he does criticize Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers who make huge fortunes for no clear reason. And Sanders says Wall Street’s business model is fraud. That’s funny coming from a proponent of socialism, the favored ideology of elitist fraudsters.
Claire,
Those are definitely three different versions of leftism. Every culture has its own version. I don’t think any of these versions of leftism work for Americans, however. The European case is closest to ours, of course, but the thing that leftists like Sanders want that Europe has–and we are already far down that road–is the welfare state. Dennis Prager says, and I think he is correct–that welfare states are about personal security. This kind of desire for security actually detracts from national security because money that would be spent on defense (guns) is spent on butter, and it detracts from economic dynamism. Europe has greatly benefited from our military strength and spending heretofore, making us less able to have a welfare state, but that has made us a more dynamic culture in my view. And what do dynamic cultures have that welfare states don’t? Growth–both fiscal and demographic.
That’s the very thing. They don’t know either exactly.
It’s a gut level response. Sanders says “They” are sticking it to us. And people go “yeah!”
In Trump’s case, he has also reintroduced us to controversy. It isn’t that people like what he says. It’s that he is saying anything. “They can’t stop him!” And then “They can’t stop us!” What do these people want to say? They don’t really know but they know for some reason we can’t say lots of things.
But when one understands the data it is childishly stupid, and yet they still refuse to accept the explanation. They want the answer to be universal healthcare, when it is in fact really driven by lifestyle choices and to a far lesser degree genetics.
I think you have a 2 orders of magnitude error in difference between the 2 constituencies with regards to Iowa, but your point is still ultimately sound.
About China–thanks to allowing some market freedom, they have had economic growth, no question. Of course, there was a lot of central planning too, which appears to have contributed to the recent collapse. But the real story there is the demographic collapse and the disaster of 30 million young men who will never have wives. Methinks that is going to lead to a powerful military or maybe polyandry. Either way, it’s ugly.
But they’re nonetheless our fellow citizens. What’s the strategy for convincing them to change their minds and work constructively with a GOP administration?
But what’s the plan to deal with that? You don’t have to persuade me that they’re wrong. But ignoring a large constituency of American voters is, as Douthat points out, politically stupid and actually wicked. We’re so focused on getting to the presidency that we tend to forget that’s not the finish line: It’s the beginning of the real challenge, which is governing for the next eight years.
I have thought long and hard about this. This is the root of the failure of multi-cultural no culturalism ideology that has dominated liberal conservative thought post war. Common institutions cannot serve wildly disparate cultural and social norms.
The available options is:
I think divorce is the best available option in terms of net total human happiness.
The whole thing about splitting the baby is that it was an intolerable credible threat, and not a workable solution to a problem. Trying to split the baby only ever results in dead babies. Behold the world of unhappy people that it has produced.
You mean, actual physical separation; literally becoming two countries? The red and blue states aren’t geographically contiguous, so how does that work? What if people don’t want to move — would there be forcible transfers of population?
Consider the alternatives. Someone is going to get pushed into the ocean and there is a ~50% likelihood that it will be you. People aren’t exactly going to take that lying down either. What will be left after those fires stop burning?
Are you asking this about Trump supporters or Sanders supporters?
We used to have a system to accommodate incompatible worldviews: Federalism. It was made illegal incrementally.
Both. I think the argument applies to both. One applies more immediately, in that the GOP would be much better off co-opting them than alienating them; but the other applies even more down the road — we’d be much better off with government that can persuade the Sanders’ constituency that it’s their government, too, and that it’s committed to serving them and respecting what their vote suggests. I don’t happen to respect what their vote suggests, personally. But I don’t think that’s to my credit: I think it’s arrogant.
I think a much better politician than I am should be thinking very deeply about how to reintegrate the Sanders constituency. Because it seems a very significant number of Americans want a socialist revolution, or think they do. And that could make it quite hard for a president to get much done.
You aren’t going to convince them. Just like Obama didn’t convince most of us here about his agenda. But as he stated, “elections have consequences”. He went about it largely outside the Constitution with his “phone and pen”, except for Obamacare which was passed on a trick ( and by yoga like contortions by the SCOTUS) without any bipartisan support, a first in US history.
When Reagan won, he didn’t convince the hard left at all, and they didn’t work constructively with him. But setting the stage for an economic boom and reestablishing America’s role in the world convinced lots of sane people to cooperate.
We push for policies and programs that will improve our economic, security and social situation. If it works, the sane will respond , the blind and dogmatic will be holding rallies with puppets and banging drums around the White House like the Nuclear Freeze Movement was still doing in the mid 1990’s, long after the USSR was dead and buried.
The Trump supporters are an easier question, so I’ll address the Sanders question:
What we will do? Probably nothing. After 8 years of marginalization by Obama, conservatives are hostile to the idea that we’ve got to be the ones, yet again, who compromise to be inclusive with the other side. We’re out for blood and revenge. Most of our side would love it if we cut so many government bureaucracies that all the Sanders supporters moved to Europe.
“What we SHOULD do” coming next
Since Sanders supporters are overwhelmingly young, I think there is some hope of bringing them around over time, particularly since their economic interests are best served by a dynamic economy. Right now, however, our nations is in the grip of a sort of madness–hence the success of candidates like Trump and Sanders. It is simply impossible to supply all the free stuff Sanders is promising. Still, Douthat is correct that we can’t ignore the concerns of such voters. One answer might be to dig a bit deeper to understand the source of their concerns. Young people are worried about student debt and getting jobs. We’ve long needed better info for those starting career training about what sorts of workers are needed. Online education is going to help with some of these concerns. Getting government out of the student loan business while perhaps finding some ways to provide some debt relief for young people trapped by student loan debt. A lot of people flock to people like Sanders or Trump for personal reasons, usually economic ones. A dynamic economy is going to deal with many of their concerns.
I do see this as a mirror situation. Three days ago an aging liberal family member on FB had a conversation I could see in which he (a Berning man) and a Hillary supporter went hammer-n-tongs. What struck me was that if you swapped out Dems/Repubs and Hillary/Sanders – conservative of choice/Trump. It was almost word for word discussions I’ve heard or read among the Ricochetti. ALL of it.
We have a at least three major groups in the country, and I think as much as we’d like to think there are differences there are not. The I don’t care about politics, but I’m mad as hell crowd, the Establishment supporters (not what you think), and the ideologues.
If I could make a Venn diagram, I’d overlay them with limited government conservatives/libertarians, big-government conservatives/reformicons, populists, big-government pro-business democrats/leftists and SJW/socialists. I think it would be telling.
My FB feed is about 1/3rd Trump supporters (an accident of birth and geography), I’m from the rust belt, most of my family and school chums are lower middle/working class. Many of my friends from the arts and Mrs. Salieri’s family are middle/upper class hard left. My close family and friends, hard right/religious. Now it’s a small sample, but I think it is interesting how things overlap between the Trump / Sanders crowd and why, and even in other areas. 1/2
Were they anywhere near as numerous as they are now? Admittedly, it’s early days, and we don’t know how firm Sanders’ support really is. We also don’t know whether it’s really support for his proposals, or whether support for him is a protest vote from Democrats who look at Hillary and want to barf. But I suspect that about 30 percent of the American population finds Sanders entirely reasonable.
Take a look at a red/blue county map. The red and blue areas possess a modest degree of contiguity
As Mark Steyn has said (I paraphrase) at what point does it become not worth it to keep 50 stars on the flag?
While I would predict our most likely course (95% likelihood) is continuing our current leftward slide into socialism, with generous carveouts for elite apparatchiks who support the regime. This is certainly where we will be headed if the voters hand the keys to the White House to the Clinton Crime Family™.
But other possibilities are imaginable. One being splitting into three countries: Atlantica (Eastern seaboard with a finger extending along the great lakes to take in the rust belt, Chicago, Madison, and Minneapolis); Pacifica (the Left coast and Hawaii), and Centralia (everything else). I doubt the blue counties would have the stones to force the red ones back in. People would stay and get with the new program, or leave (if the other countries would have them). 0.99% likelihood
I think this is more likely than a successful Article V Convention of the States. 0.01% likelihood.
The remainder (4% if you’re keeping score at home) is the country coming to its senses and getting itself in order (which I have no idea how that would happen, but my keyboard to God’s inbox and all that).
Meanwhile it’s been nice to see some Main Feed recognition that incontinent rage against Trump and (by proxy) his supporters may not be the smartest strategy long term. Maybe Trump’s 2nd place showing in Iowa has cooled Trump Derangement Syndrome’s fever somewhat.
What we “should do”, assuming we listen to the better angels of our nature.
Dietlbomb is exactly right: federalism is the long-term solution. Let California be California, and Texas be Texas. Hack the federal government down to size, until it only does a very few things, and does those things well. Leave the vast majority of what’s currently handled by the feds (welfare, regulating business) to the states.
In the short run, notice the difference between the “movement” socialists/communists of the hard left, and the less-ideological sympathizers. We’re never going to “make peace” with the former, since they do seek to completely change how our government functions, and “move beyond” the Constitution. But for the sympathizers, we could co-opt a few of their issues, mostly by doing exactly the opposite of what they propose:
Campaign Finance: the lefties want government funding only. We need a President that highlights the mutually-reinforcing relationship between money and power in politics. For policy, remove all campaign donation limits to candidates, but make donations over >$1k to candidates not anonymous. Most Super-Pacs exist because donors can’t give as much to candidates as they’d like.
Wall Street Corruption: Left wants more rules. We should force a radical decrease in rules, and a much more aggressive enforcement of the few rules we leave. Bring back Giuliani’s “perp walks” for the few who are obviously corrupt, while making it easier for honest firms to stay legal.
Oh, absolutely. It’s a mirror-image conversation.
2/2
The commonalities I see in posts by real people breaks down like this:
The Trump supporters and the Sanders supporters are both adamant that the system is rigged by coastal elites, corporations, banks, and the vested political parties. Only their man is able to stand up, because he knows the skivvy from the inside (NY business/Senate floor). He speaks truth to power. He is unafraid. He is bold. He is not for the status quo, but he will return us to a better past and at the same time a better future. He is not the establishment shill. He will protect American workers and families. He will support the weak by being strong. He won’t sell us out like we’ve been sold out before. He may not be like me, but because he listens and cares about what I care about, I don’t care, I’ll follow him to the gates of hell. He will do what it takes, and if “they” won’t work with him, he’ll find a way anyways, because he realizes what’s really at stake in our country today. I supported Bush/Obama and what did I get for it. I never was interested in politics before, but now, there is someone who will actually DO something this time to help me and the people like me.