Best article EVER on Trump win

[RhodaBull]

Just read this and it really hits the nail on the head. And I am "blue" fwiw...

www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

Mickle I tried to make a similar point the other day when everyone was in a flap. I think it's a good dose of reality to remember that there are people in such incredibly dire situations in the world (poverty stricken, underdeveloped countries etc) that they wouldn't even be aware that this election has happened. That's truly devastating. While we sit here and rant and rave (whichever side you're on!) about the opposition/their followers, there are people who are truly without hope in the world.

Thanks for posting the Jonathan Pie video. Very interesting and thought provoking and many of the things he said could equally apply to Brexit. I didn't vote to leave but was horrified at the insults hurled at those who did.

There was a good article in the Independent yesterday: "No, David Cameron's EU referendum wasn't a mistake - and Brexit didn't come from a campaign of lies either"

www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-david-cameron-didn-t-make-a-mistake-in-promising-an-eu-referendum-a7409006.html

The thing is, I've heard this argument articulated in Brexit debates as well and I get it - people who are poor, ridiculed, excluded and losing their way of life are angry at the wealthy elite and the establishment who not only don't understand them but are barely aware of their existence - hence the shock and horror at these votes which seem to come from nowhere, because these people are left out of all the political analysis so no one sees the result coming. I get that.

But what no one can explain to me is why, oh why, do people wanting to tear down the elite then put their faith in this phenomenally rich, old men who absolutely EXEMPLIFY the elite establishment and who are precisely NOTHING about the communities who are voting for them, who care only about furthering their own power and ambition and will grind the poor further and further into misery i.e. Trump and Farage? Men who are absolutely bloated with privilege, who have reaped the rewards of a society which exploits and demeans the poor, men who will do nothing to address inequality of wealth distribution but are working to push the billionaires further into the stratosphere of fabulous, unimaginable wealth and prosperity diverting all of it upwards. How on earth does a billionaire like Trump manage to position himself as anti-establishment? He is not going to act in the interests of these people and their communities and I think that's where my frustration lies.

Hear, hear Brickbeard

Ha I meant non white not Jon whites!

Just watched the Pie video and it raises valid points. I am a leftie who has probably taken a sticking-my-finger-in-my-ears approach to some things people on the "other side" have been saying and that has been incredibly arrogorant of me. I probably would've stuck my fingers in my ears about what you were saying pluto30 and been quite dismissive

He is not going to act in the interests of these people and their communities

He might, and I hope he does. Why do you assume that a wealthy individual is unable to make good decisions for the benefit of their country?

Rousette, that Huffpo article is indeed interesting. I'm not sure however how one goes about separating causes and effects. For instance, back in the 90s when John Major (along with other leaders in the EU) was pushing for an expansion and wider membership, I remember thinking that I wondered whether the resulting entity would be stable. The original EU consisted of economically powerful, politically stable countries with a long history of democracy and fairly liberal, secularist instincts. This animation from wikipedia shows the growth process. It's now far wider and includes countries with a very strong religious bias in politics (Poland - see for example their recent proposals to criminalise pretty much all abortion), populist nationalist governments (Orban in Hungary), countries struggling economically while they try to stay in the Euro (Greece), just to give examples. I suspect that it was always going to be a struggle keeping the lid on that degree of disparity, and welding an overarching consensus politics. I think that of the many Remain arguments the strongest (for me, anyway) was that the potential benefits in terms of a peaceful Europe made the EU the only game in town, and worth struggling through the difficulties of glueing such a wildly different collection of political and economic systems together. But I think a lot of more idealistic Remainers didn't think through just how tenuous the political stability created by the EU was. I suspect if it hadn't been Brexit, some time in the next few years it would have been something else. Just as, with the first world war, the underlying problem was the nexus of treaties referred to in the HuffPo article, not the proximate cause of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. If it hadn't been that it would have been something else because the system was so unstable anything was capable of bringing the dominos down. And sadly, I think that the same is true of current Europe. I think viewed with the hindsight of history, it will be seen as a grand and noble project but one which became unstable, such that something was going to topple the first domino. It happens to have been Brexit, but it could have been Grexit, or the refugee crisis, or the failure of one of the big retail banks (Santander, Deutschebank, any of the Italian banks spring to mind for that one).

I would love to be wrong about this analysis. I hope Merkel can hold Europe together and stop the whole thing going under, because I do think Putin annexing one of the Baltic states is the next step in the whole nightmare. But I think Brexit was a symptom, not a cause. The whole expansion in the early 90s, to my mind, created a setup that was inherently unstable. (I did wonder at the time whether Major pushed for this entirely cynically, hoping to bring the whole pack of cards down).

And the point about Mickle makes about wars outside Europe is very well made indeed. (Or indeed wars inside Europe - how quickly we seem to have forgotten about genocide in the former Yugoslavia).

BTW, also agree with him about the dangers of the fragmentation of the left. That's why, much as I distrust Corbyn and think he's a disaster as a leader, I've just joined the Labour party. The Labour party needs to continue to represent the moderate lefties like me, not just the far left.

Mickle It happens to the best of us! I've certainly been unreasonably critical of the left at times. Conversation on this issue seems to be taking a more civil and respectful turn though, which is always good. Nothing positive comes from shouting one another down!

fourmummy, he is a right wing capitalist; he's not going to make life better for the poor. He doesn't care about them. He'd pay his taxes if he felt any kind of social responsibility. I can completely understand why the communities described in the article wouldn't feel that Clinton represents them either - I just don't get how someone like Trump can present as anti-establishment when he IS the establishment. So is Clinton, I can see that. But what does Trump care about fairness, social welfare, equality? Nothing. He wants to set people against each other so they don't notice the tax-dodging, elitist, venal, avaricious billionaires who are profiting and winning no matter what.

Seems pretty consistent to me. He was on the money with NATO, on the money with the financial crisis, mentions that people within the US are not living as they should be etc.

Yes MostlyHet agree that Brexit was a symptom not a cause.. it was a symptom of the EU's failures and yes its expansion was surely never going to be viable longterm. I'm afraid to say I think the EU will stagnate over possibly twenty years.

And also... what about NATO, will DT downgrade its importance in the US. Hopefully he will realise he needs to be deeply engaged with Europe in the future, he will need to face the world with allies surely...

To me.. in that article.. this is what we should all note..

"We need to harness a different fear. Fear of another World War nearly stopped World War 2, but didn’t. We need to avoid our own echo chambers. Trump and Putin supporters don’t read the Guardian, so writing there is just reassuring our friends. We need to find a way to bridge from our closed groups to other closed groups, try to cross the ever widening social divides"

I wonder if any Trump supporters (Claig?) have seen this documentary? I don't understand how you can watch this and feel he represents normal people, he is a vile greedy capitalist who gives a shit about no one but himself.

Basically I think there is a clear problem with disenchantment with the "elite" and those in charge, but Donald Trump and Nigel Farage have exploited that. And that's what's the most depressing thing. You think this result is the start of a new world order? It is anything but.

Brickbeard
I understand why you question that. I don't think that they think that Trump will necessary fix things but he will do SOMETHING and really at this point it doesn't matter what it is because it will spark something. They know that a vote for Clinton is a vote for the same as previous presidents. Pandering to corporations and ignoring the needs of the people in favour of the corporations the millionaires and more money in her and her cronies pockets.

The electorate want change they voted for Obama because he promised change... But nothing really changed. So this time they have said Fuck It. And they chose not to vote for the same shit, promises that never materialise, regardless of what it brings. It is in the hope that it will bring change. And at this point anything is better than the crap they are getting.

The people are not happy. The people want a Revolution and the left, with all their talk, have delivered sweet fuck all.

People voted for Brexit for the same reason.

That is a wonderful article OP.
I am a city dwelling, rural raised, "blue" and I think he has hit the nail on the head.

" You've never rooted for somebody like that? Someone powerful who gives your enemies the insults they deserve? Somebody with big fun appetites who screws up just enough to make them relatable?.. Who only get shit done because they don't care about the rules? "

DT's election is about power..... while I (the voter) might not agree with everything the guy says at least he gets stuff done.

When people feel scared, and powerless, they will look to a strong leader.
If they don't have a voice in government or the media, the only way they can express themselves (thankfully, in a democracy) is in the ballot box.

I'm really glad to see this thread....DC came home from school talking about how all the other children are trading insults about Trump.

I have friends on Facebook laughing about how "we haven't had an assassination for a while".

Don't forget
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
That's democracy .

The challenge for me it to really hear what pro-Trump, pre-Brexit voters are really saying.
Because I sure as hell can't browbeat anyone into agreeing with me.

If someone poor or wealthy, privileged or unprivileged, etc. is elevated to top office, they become the elite. The types of decisions they make in that position may or may not be influenced by their background factors. We have no idea what he is thinking or feeling, and what he will do in the future. The one certainty is that Hillary greatly abused her position resulting in self-serving and incompetent outcomes. This is a known. Trump may well make competent decisions despite his wealth and privilege, and while this is an unknown, it's a big opportunity for improvement on the previous. People know that wealth does not automatically mean self-serving.

But what no one can explain to me is why, oh why, do people wanting to tear down the elite then put their faith in this phenomenally rich, old men who absolutely EXEMPLIFY the elite establishment and who are precisely NOTHING about the communities who are voting for them, who care only about furthering their own power and ambition and will grind the poor further and further into misery i.e. Trump and Farage?

Cos that's the figure that stepped forward.

I've read it explained as ...when you feel like your head is being pushed under water you don't turn your nose up at a somebody coming to pull you back up cos they don't fit with your personal preferences as per what you would like your champion to look like, sound like and say.

You just want somebody to haul you back up to where the reliable access to oxygen is in the now. The future is a "I'll worry about that later" thing when you feel like you are drowning in the present.

I think younger (than my age group 45-55) people often lean towards a different vision though. Like him, or loathe him, I think Milo is bang on the money when he describes the appeal of people like Trump, Farage etc. to a good chunk of the younger (than me) supporters.

I don't think there is a dark area of No Explaination Available. But there is a shortage of people willing to answer questions like the one you posed. Specifically when they are in a minority in the place where the question is asked. Cos if they try to answer, they'll get vigerously dogpiled before they've even got to their point. Since they don't owe people an explanation AND more often than not the questioners have proven to be questioning more to create the opportunity to give a verbal kicking than to get any answers... it's not really surprising an info gap has bloomed, with some people left scratching their heads.

If you go to their space and listen however, all the information, from the many, many perspectives on the other side, is there for the hearing.

A "soft" entry point for left leaners is Dave Rubin on twitter and youtube. A liberal in constant conversation with right leaners and "deplorables". Anybody who is interested can start there, looking at who follows him, and the people he talks to, leads you to the actual bog standard people talking for themselves, about themselves and why they think/vote the way they do.

Wealth doesn't automatically mean self serving, no. But Trump is nothing but self serving.

Captain - only time will tell. Let's wait and see.

But is Clinton any different?

Always choose Iron Man. Very perceptive article but where is the author's answer to Trump?

Also the similarities to Brexit and the UK are there too. The City of London may generate disproportionate wealth but it also sucks out piles in public sector spending and benefits. In contrast the Home Counties are crumbling and are only supported by the disproportionate capacity of relatively high percentages of their residents to fend for themselves. Get beyond the Home Counties and you have lower percentages of self supporters and permanent squeezes on public spending and benefits. The UK's problems are perpetuated by government policy not an unintended unfortunate consequence and to a lesser extent this is true of the US.

The other thing I think is problematic has been an increasing insistence on the part of the liberal left (among whom I would count myself) to insist that their views are bought as a complete package, otherwise you are somehow outside the fold of the righteous. For instance, this BBC analysis piece has the following quote from Donald Tusk, about 90% of which I wholeheartedly agree with (and I hope most people from either side of the political spectrum would agree with).

Last month the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, said the West's political values were in danger of breaking down.

What does he think those values are? "Human rights, civil liberties, including the freedom of speech and religion, free market and a competitive economy based on private property, reasonable and fair redistribution of goods, restrictions on power resulting from rules and tradition, tolerance and political pluralism."

Now, the thing is much as I agree to most of this, I wouldn't buy into the whole package unthinkingly - for instance, for me as a lefty, I'd be asking "What exactly does Tusk mean by free market? Does he mean monetarist, neo-liberal free market economics? If he does I don't go along with that." Similarly, a moderate right winger might be asking "What exactly does Tusk mean by redistribution of wealth? The imposition of a supertax on the wealthy, driving them and their job-creating companies off-shore? If he does, I don't go along with that."

I think we have seen a very polarised, and increasingly polarised political landscape over the last few years where to count yourself as part of a particular political tribe, you were meant to agree with everything they said. And this both acted against moderation and consensus politics, and also created a climate where because people couldn't express concerns, they festered under the surface and have now bubbled over explosively.