I have found this article on Mauldin Economics. It can be found here.

Donald Trump appears likely to be the Republican candidate for president. This does not mean that he will become president, but it does mean that he might. It also means that the basic dynamic of the American political system has shifted, suggesting the behavior of the United States might change. And that makes Trump a matter of geopolitical interest.
These geopolitical consequences cannot be considered until we have looked at how and why Trump differs from other candidates and why he has emerged as a political power.
Let’s begin with a criticism that has generally been made of him. His supporters tend to be less educated, less well-off, and white. This has become a central, disaffected class in the United States, and while focus has been on other groups, Trump has spoken to this one. He has addressed their economic and cultural interests, and no candidate has done that in a long time.
This strategy is what has made him effective. Yet it also poses a challenge, as this class by itself isn’t large enough to give him the presidency. And it generates an almost unanswerable question: Did Trump plan this strategy or did it just happen? But let’s begin with why poorer, less educated white voters have flocked to him.

The Invisible Man—The White Lower-Middle Class

In the United States, the median household income is about $51,000. In California, a state with high taxes, the take-home pay would be about $39,000 a year. That translates into about $3,250 a month in take-home pay for living expenses. If we assume that a home in an inexpensive suburb, a car, and some limited annual vacation is what we mean by middle class life, it is hard to see how the middle class affords that life today.
The fourth quintile, the heart of lower-middle class, earns about $31,000 a year before taxes per household. I grew up in a lower-middle class household (my father was a printer, my mother a homemaker, and there were two children). We owned a house and a car and took a vacation.
Today, people in the lower-middle class are bringing home, at best, $2,000 a month, and they will not own a house but instead pay $1,200 a month to rent an apartment, with the rest going to food and other basics. The lower-middle class can no longer afford what used to be a lower-middle class life.
The Democrats have made a huge case about inequality, assuming that the problem is that the rich own too much. American political culture has rarely been triggered by inequality, but by the inability to acquire the basics of American life. The problem with the Republicans is that they have not noticed that the defining issue of this generation is the collapse in the standard of living of the middle and lower-middle classes. This is part of what brought Trump to where he is today, but only part.
The deeper problem was the perception of the white segment of the lower-middle class that their problems were invisible. They heard talk about African-Americans or Hispanics and the need to integrate them into society. However, from the white lower-middle class perspective, there appeared to be little interest in the challenges facing their demographic. Indeed, there was a perception that the upper strata and the media not only didn’t care about them, but had contempt for their beliefs.
The white lower-middle class is divided into two parts. One part has already been shattered by economic pressures, family fragmentation, drugs, and other forces. Another part is under equal economic pressure but has not yet fragmented. It retains values such as religiosity, traditional sexual mores, intense work ethic, and so on.
This is the class that has been deemed pathological by the media and the upper classes. Its opposition to homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion, promiscuity, and the rest (which was the social norm a generation ago) is now treated as a problem that needs to be overcome, rather than the core of a decent society. The speed of the shift in the values of dominant classes has left this class in a position where those values taught at home and at church are now regarded by the broader society as despicable. Repercussions are bound to happen.
The simultaneous economic disaster and delegitimation of their values marginalized this class. When Mitt Romney referred to the 47% who were parasites in our society, he was referring to these people. When Barack Obama was elected, this group felt that the focus had shifted to the black community and saw itself as invisible (and to the extent seen, contemptible). Economic, social, and cultural evolutions had bypassed them.
Their perception of the political system has become intensely cynical. They see the political elite, bankers, lawyers, and lobbyists as a near criminal and entirely incompetent class. We speak of unemployment after the 2008 recession in terms of numbers. These are the people who were unemployed. They view this elite as claiming rights they haven’t earned. The lower-middle class can tolerate earned wealth, and even respect it, but cannot accept what they see as manipulated wealth and power.
They also see politicians as being dishonest in other ways: saying whatever they need to say in order to be elected. This is not a new view of politics. However, in this case, what the politicians have said is neither in the language of the white lower-middle class, nor does it address any of their issues. It is not only indifference to the economic problems of the white middle and lower-middle class, but obeisance to a political correctness that delegitimized their values. The politicians are implicitly and explicitly rejecting lower-middle class values.

The Champion of the White Lower-Middle Class

Enter Trump. He is rich, but he is perceived, rightly or wrongly, to have earned his wealth—not stolen it through financial trickery. That was one of Trump’s first assertions. The fact that he is a billionaire has helped, not hurt him. The Democratic fantasy of class jealousy doesn’t work where Trump is concerned. The lower-middle class admires his wealth.
Trump spoke against Mexican immigrants (and implicitly a broader grouping of Hispanics). He is not seen as having his statements vetted by marketing people. And he says things the way his supporters would say things. Trump made it clear that he heard their cultural concerns. Even his debating style—pugnacious, insulting, unapologetic and frequently preposterously wrong—is not fundamentally different from the lower-middle class style of arguing.
It is the very lack of polish that endears him to his followers (and makes him seem like a man from outer space to the upper-middle class). His occasional cursing and threats are part of the entire package. Trump maneuvered himself into the position of a man who, though he may be rich, thinks and feels like the lower-middle class. More important, he shows that they are not invisible to him—not because he speaks to them, but because he speaks like them.
The fact that Trump had never run for office is also a powerful factor in his favor. To this group, the political class is the problem, not the solution. The Republican establishment did not grasp that a career politician groomed to run for president has become anathema to this class.
That Trump was successful as a builder also helped him. The claim that he built things is essential to a class who sees construction as real business… and hedge funds as legalized fraud. The bottom half of society is hurting, and Trump is not seen as one of those who helped bring the pain, as Romney of Bain Capital was seen.
And Trump is perceived as a tough guy, who is willing to lie, insult, or threaten to get his way. From the lower-middle class point of view, nothing else will get them the solutions they need. The very idea that he might get the Mexicans to pay for a wall or tell the Chinese a thing or two might not be practical. But the thought that he would deal this way with the two nations they see as responsible for their misery is overwhelmingly seductive.
Finally, and in some ways most important, he says the things they all think but are no longer permitted to say. When he accused Fox News anchorwoman Megyn Kelly, implicitly, of being offensive because she was having her period, observers thought the world would end. For the white lower-middle class, this was a common assertion.
When Trump claimed that John McCain was not a hero just because he had been taken prisoner, he was speaking to the class who has served in the military going back to Vietnam… and never been called a hero for it. Observers thought Trump had destroyed himself. To many of these voters, McCain had carried his burden, but many knew men who had chosen to die for their buddies. Nothing taken away from McCain, they’d say, but let me tell you about a real hero. For the lower-middle class, McCain had done his duty and endured great hardship… but their definition of a hero was more demanding. They were not appalled by what Trump had said.
This is Trump’s strength. It is also his weakness.

Can Trump Win?

The Republican Party is complex. It is more than a party of the wealthy. It is also the party of lower-middle class whites who reject the current cultural tendencies that have marginalized them. Trump got the marginalized white lower-middle and middle class out over cultural issues. But it is difficult to see how this translates into the presidency. This class is not large enough to give him a victory, and his running will energize his opponents to go to the polls.
The culture wars have been won in the Democratic Party, so there are few voters to win over on that basis. Any Democratic candidate will counter Trump on the economic issue. And those in the Republican upper-middle class are no friends of the Republican lower-middle class. It is not clear how he bridges the gap.
I don’t think Trump can win the presidency. But he has revealed a serious structural weakness in the American polity. As Americans who earn below the median income are increasingly unable to live the life they could have expected a generation ago, they will join in with resentment against the upper classes. That resentment will be built around cultural issues, as well as economic ones.
The issue is not the gap between rich and poor, but the fact that the lower-middle class is becoming part of the poor, and the middle class is moving that way as well. As in Europe, the inability of the political and financial elite to see that they are presiding over a social and political volcano will produce more and more exotic alternatives.
When those people who have skills and are prepared to work can’t get a job that will allow their families to live reasonably well, this is a problem. When statistics show that vast numbers of people are entering this condition, this is a crisis. When there is a crisis, these people will turn to politicians who speak to them and give them hope. What else should they do?
Whether Donald Trump planned this brilliantly or was simply extraordinarily lucky doesn’t matter. He has found the third rail in American society. The lower-middle class doesn’t make enough to live a decent American life, and the middle class is only a little better off. Whether supporting or opposing Trump, it is essential to understand the foundations of his power and its limits. Trump makes no sense until his appeal to the lower-income white demographic is understood.

What do you think?

Personally, I think that if Trump is only able to appeal to the white lower-middle class, then the white lower-middle class will be marginalized even further if and when Trump loses.

The decline of outcomes for the middle class is a lagging indicator of US industrial decline. Which is a leading indicator of Great War instigated by hostile powers who conclude we are a paper tiger.

Unlike Trump, however, I think it unwise to reject Internationalism wholesale. I also deem it utterly unwise to have a bromance with Putin.

Somehow, there needs to be, simultaneously, a reconstitution of US industry, some fine tuning of our engagement with Internationalism, and, preparation for Great War.

Trump is the worst possible person to inspire this. He's a real estate scamming liar. The absolute worst.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

The decline of outcomes for the middle class is a lagging indicator of US industrial decline. Which is a leading indicator of Great War instigated by hostile powers who conclude we are a paper tiger.

Unlike Trump, however, I think it unwise to reject Internationalism wholesale. I also deem it utterly unwise to have a bromance with Putin.

Somehow, there needs to be, simultaneously, a reconstitution of US industry, some fine tuning of our engagement with Internationalism, and, preparation for Great War.

Trump is the worst possible person to inspire this. He's a real estate scamming liar. The absolute worst.

Well, like him or not, trust him or not, he could bring in highly talented negotiators from the private sector to renegotiate trade deals more in our favor that were written more in favor of others in order to get our business's into foreign markets. We have a much stronger position to renegotiate now because our business's are in and have been in their economies for years and are contributing to their economies and their tax revenues and their pockets. Trump does business all over the world. He's not opposed to international trade. He's opposed to unfair trade deals that have seriously impacted the United States.

Originally Posted by naf140230

Personally, I think that if Trump is only able to appeal to the white lower-middle class, then the white lower-middle class will be marginalized even further if and when Trump loses.

Not as long as the white lower-middle continues to vote in mass and continues to impact elections that it has been doing. The way I see it, why vote through the Democrats when you have the power to vote to get what you want (hopefully jobs and a shot at a better future for your area) from the Republicans directly.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Not as long as the white lower-middle continues to vote in mass and continues to impact elections that it has been doing. The way I see it, why vote through the Democrats when you have the power to vote to get what you want (hopefully jobs and a shot at a better future for your area) from the Republicans directly.

As George Friedman says in the article, the white lower-middle class is not large enough to give him a victory in the general election, but it might help him win the nomination. Who knows? There might be more candidates like Trump in the future although a lot less racist as Friedman says.

Originally Posted by naf140230

I have found this article on Mauldin Economics. It can be found here.



What do you think?

As a person of color who grew up working class, I've long said that white working class people should be on the same page as the rest of us in the 99% in asserting our political power and making sure the wealthy don't screw the rest of us. The problem is that poor whites constantly vote against their own economic interests in favor of politicians who tell them that the problem is black people, Mexicans, Muslims, etc. so frankly I've stopped feeling sorry for them whenever people make a point about how "invisible" poor whites are. If they stop subscribing to bigotry and quit voting against their own interests, maybe I'll feel more empathy for them. Until then, they can go to hell.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Not as long as the white lower-middle continues to vote in mass and continues to impact elections that it has been doing. The way I see it, why vote through the Democrats when you have the power to vote to get what you want (hopefully jobs and a shot at a better future for your area) from the Republicans directly.

Republicans directly will take your jobs and your future away, every time.

Originally Posted by naf140230

As George Friedman says in the article, the white lower-middle class is not large enough to give him a victory in the general election, but it might help him win the nomination. Who knows? There might be more candidates like Trump in the future although a lot less racist as Friedman says.

Oh yes, George Friedman. The founder and CEO of Stratfor. whose product is neo-conservatism, geopolitics and political prognostication for paying investors. Friedman has a brand and a business to protect. So Friedman says what his clients expect to hear.

Actually, if we read this article: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/14/1122421...llies-violence and this article: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424...thoritarianism we see some fascinating political psychology discussion of authoritarianism as a trait that cuts across class lines as a common denominator for Trump's support. And authoritarianism is a lot more widely based in American society than we like to admit and there is a great deal of latent authoritarianism in US society that comes out in times of great insecurity (4T). The reason that this was not an issue in the past was that until about 2000, authoritarians (and authoritarian wings) could be found in both major parties as an artifact of sectionalism (remember the Dixiecrats and rural Republicans?) that went all the way back to before the Civil War. Civil Rights started the process of authoritarians concentrating within the Republican Party (except for authoritarians who are African-Americans) making it feasible for authoritarians alone to win the White House. While Democrats have been concentrating on a "coalition of the emergent" (Millennials, African-Americans, Latinos, gays ect.) that may not have emerged yet.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Republicans directly will take your jobs and your future away, every time.

Democrats raise taxes that loose jobs. The Democrats increase regulations of business that loose jobs. The Democrats vote for higher wages that loose jobs. The Democrats support free trade agreements that loose jobs. The Democrats take your job away and your future away and blame it on Republicans. Unfortunately, most Democrats are either foolish or dumb enough to believe it.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Democrats raise taxes that loose jobs. The Democrats increase regulations of business that loose jobs. The Democrats vote for higher wages that loose jobs. The Democrats support free trade agreements that loose jobs. The Democrats take your job away and your future away and blame it on Republicans. Unfortunately, most Democrats are either foolish or dumb enough to believe it.

Good paying manufacturing jobs left the country en masse during the Reagan years and continued under Clinton, who embraced many Reagan-esque policies such as NAFTA. It is big business, and the party that is most closely aligned with them (the GOP) that is responsible for sending your jobs overseas. Frankly that's one of the most annoying things about your generation - you still worship Reagan as some kind of god. I don't understand it - Xers arguably got screwed over the most by Reagan and his disciples (including Bill Clinton), and yet you are the generation most likely to support politicians who continue to pull from his playbook, like Paul Ryan. It's been 35 years and you still haven't figured out that this shit doesn't work???

Originally Posted by Normal

Good paying manufacturing jobs left the country en masse during the Reagan years and continued under Clinton, who embraced many Reagan-esque policies such as NAFTA. It is big business, and the party that is most closely aligned with them (the GOP) that is responsible for sending your jobs overseas. Frankly that's one of the most annoying things about your generation - you still worship Reagan as some kind of god. I don't understand it - Xers arguably got screwed over the most by Reagan and his disciples (including Bill Clinton), and yet you are the generation most likely to support politicians who continue to pull from his playbook, like Paul Ryan. It's been 35 years and you still haven't figured out that this shit doesn't work???

The bulk of the manufacturing jobs relocated to right to work states in the south and else where during the 80's. I was around during the 80's. My father in law was a union president at the time. This may comes across as sympathetic, most people my age had no desire to enter manufacturing. So, we didn't care that it packed up and moved else where during the Reagan years.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Democrats raise taxes that lose jobs. The Democrats increase regulations of business that lose jobs. The Democrats vote for higher wages that lose jobs. The Democrats support free trade agreements that lose jobs. The Democrats take your job away and your future away and blame it on Republicans. Unfortunately, most Democrats are either foolish or dumb enough to believe it.

Republicans enable business to take your jobs away. Republicans lower taxes on the wealthy; Democrats raise them. By lowering taxes, Republicans take away money from vital social programs that lift people out of poverty, educate them, provide infrastructure that business needs, and keep people safe from pollution and poor working conditions. Raising people out of poverty, of all races, provides more customers to business. Providing regulations and support to help people out of work or who have low incomes provides more business to customers.

It's easy to fool people into thinking that giving breaks to business provides jobs. That is the trickle down theory. It might be true in countries that are under communist rule, that regulations and state control makes most people poor. But in capitalist countries, letting the free market off the hook is what makes people poor. The rich and the "job creators" do not create jobs or raise wages to their workers because of benefits given them by Republicans. Instead, they pocket the dough. They speculate and gamble with that money, and ruin the economy. They close factories and send jobs overseas. They buyout other companies and fire workers. They replace workers with machines and computers. They lobby the government and buy elections. They send our boys abroad to die in wars for oil.

We've had trickle-down economics in power for 35 years. That includes the Republican and New Democrat free trade policies. As a result, the Middle Class is shrinking and poverty is increasing. The debt is growing. The figures are clear and agreed upon. Wealth and power is concentrating, and people are losing their voice. Scapegoating immigrants might work politically in the Republican Party, but will do nothing to change the trend.

Originally Posted by naf140230

I have found this article on Mauldin Economics. It can be found here.



What do you think?

It's a long editorial, and I have no desire to repeat it.

1. If comparing the campaign of Donald Trump to fascist movements borders on hysteria, then denying the similarities in content and in appeals to demographic groups trivializes the legitimate concern that many have for his appeal. I see contradictory promises that cannot be achieved together, the use of deliberately-shaded language, an appeal to a mythic past of a nation with such a slogan as "Make America Great Again", scapegoating of pariahs, and the unprecedented tolerance of violence toward opponents.

Because all fascist movements are pure pathology, any cause that adopts salient features of fascism deserves our watchfulness and opposition. Communism at the least offers (in theory) an equitable order that can outpace capitalism in achieving an economic paradise because it cuts out the tycoons and financiers who take huge cuts as profits that go into meretricious splendor; Communist parties as a rule are anti-racist and for gender equity... two traits characteristic of liberalism. Fascism invariably gives industrialists, financiers, and big landowners even more dominion over the worker who gets less in an overheated economy.

2. George Friedman recognizes that much of the appeal of Donald Trump lies with the white "lower middle class". To be sure, "lower middle-class" is obsolete because there no longer is a class of people somewhat above 'mere' laborers distinguishable by having a 'solid high-school education' yet clearly below the true middle class of degreed professionals and somewhat-successful small-business owners. The person with nothing more than a high-school degree (barring a formal apprenticeship that takes about as much time and effort to complete, becoming a skilled worker who may even have an above-average income) is either an unskilled laborer or a semi-skilled laborer. Semi-skilled laborers typically have machine-paced or customer-paced jobs that offer no autonomy but often rigorous supervision. Their work is often of the type for which the song "Take This Job And Shove It" fits. Such work typically pays near-average remuneration when one has the job... but such work is terribly insecure. Layoffs are commonplace; if layoffs don't get one, then burn-out will.

Friedman doesn't make much of the Trump supporters being heavily white -- but I give much significance to the paucity of support by the non-white and non-Anglo part of the working class. The difference between white working-class support for Donald Trump and his rejection by Hispanic and black people with similar jobs likely reflects a difference in their economic heritage as groups. For poor black and Hispanic workers, machine-paced and customer-paced jobs may be a clear improvement over what they know from the oral histories of their parents and grandparents and may be cause for optimism. Such jobs might be a step up and a cause for optimism. Not so long ago whites had huge economic advantages over blacks and Hispanics with similar levels of skill. That is over. For the white working class, the machine-based job is rarely progress from the lives of parents or grandparents. Real pay has likely shrunk, so instead of the dreary job being a step up, the job may better seem to have a sinking floor beneath it; such a reality is cause for pessimism. Some optimism among semi-skilled workers might cause such people to be more liberal in politics; pessimism might cause people to tend to political reaction. Donald Trump plays to angry pessimism.

3. Much of the American economy consists of economic rent -- payments to economic elites for the privilege of sharing a world with them. I can remember when keypunch operators and electronic assemblers could afford to live in the San Francisco Bay Area. That is over. The cheap places to live are either rotting hulks of the old industrial America or rural areas best described as suburbs of nothing. So what can one do in a cheap place to live when one gets home from work? TV, of course. Going on the Internet. Shopping at box stores. Church, maybe, if one is so inclined. The community that Americans took for granted as late as the 1970s has all but disappeared. The buildings may remain, but the social support that people used to have no longer exists.

So what is on TV? Quite possibly (for white working people) FoX News, the guide to joining the world of right-wing thought. It's slick in its brainwashing. It turns pessimism into anger and finds targets for angry, fear-laden people: anyone easily distinguished from themselves. So send those non-Americans back to where they came from. Don't let the reality that those people were born here get in the way of deporting them.

4. People seem to have very low expectations of the morals of economic elites. Maybe working-class white people can identify with some plutocrat who talks much like a someone who does oil and lube jobs for some big business instead of some blue-blood elitist who uses the precise, correct English of some upper-crust snob (like the elder Bush) or, even worse, some un-American usurper who has a non-Irish surname beginning with the letter "O". But Donald Trump gets away with multiple failed marriages, mostly to trophy wives. (I have a long discussion about authoritarianism and the tolerance that right-wing authoritarian types have for those right-wing pols who tell the right-wingers exactly what they want to hear.

5. Donald Trump can lose this election, but that hardly changes a basic reality: America has rifted severely along lines of class and ethnicity. If he should fail this time, then someone else will offer much the same in 2020... and 2024... and maybe 2028 as well should Donald Trump not lose in a landslide. America needs to go through the harsh ordeal of a Crisis that compels Americans of all classes, religions, and ethnic origins to find themselves in a shared danger that they can meet successfully but only if working for a shared purpose.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Well, like him or not, trust him or not, he could bring in highly talented negotiators from the private sector to renegotiate trade deals more in our favor that were written more in favor of others in order to get our business's into foreign markets.

Not after he insults our current trade partners!

We have a much stronger position to renegotiate now because our business's are in and have been in their economies for years and are contributing to their economies and their tax revenues and their pockets.

We had more equity and opportunity when small business was more the norm.

Trump does business all over the world. He's not opposed to international trade. He's opposed to unfair trade deals that have seriously impacted the United States.

Trump says whatever is convenient at the time and place. He is for international trade when it serves him or his buddies and against it when it compromises the gain and indulgence of his cronies. Such has no connection to 'fairness'.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It's a long editorial, and I have no desire to repeat it.

1. If comparing the campaign of Donald Trump to fascist movements borders on hysteria, then denying the similarities in content and in appeals to demographic groups trivializes the legitimate concern that many have for his appeal. I see contradictory promises that cannot be achieved together, the use of deliberately-shaded language, an appeal to a mythic past of a nation with such a slogan as "Make America Great Again", scapegoating of pariahs, and the unprecedented tolerance of violence toward opponents.

Because all fascist movements are pure pathology, any cause that adopts salient features of fascism deserves our watchfulness and opposition. Communism at the least offers (in theory) an equitable order that can outpace capitalism in achieving an economic paradise because it cuts out the tycoons and financiers who take huge cuts as profits that go into meretricious splendor; Communist parties as a rule are anti-racist and for gender equity... two traits characteristic of liberalism. Fascism invariably gives industrialists, financiers, and big landowners even more dominion over the worker who gets less in an overheated economy.

2. George Friedman recognizes that much of the appeal of Donald Trump lies with the white "lower middle class". To be sure, "lower middle-class" is obsolete because there no longer is a class of people somewhat above 'mere' laborers distinguishable by having a 'solid high-school education' yet clearly below the true middle class of degreed professionals and somewhat-successful small-business owners. The person with nothing more than a high-school degree (barring a formal apprenticeship that takes about as much time and effort to complete, becoming a skilled worker who may even have an above-average income) is either an unskilled laborer or a semi-skilled laborer. Semi-skilled laborers typically have machine-paced or customer-paced jobs that offer no autonomy but often rigorous supervision. Their work is often of the type for which the song "Take This Job And Shove It" fits. Such work typically pays near-average remuneration when one has the job... but such work is terribly insecure. Layoffs are commonplace; if layoffs don't get one, then burn-out will.

Friedman doesn't make much of the Trump supporters being heavily white -- but I give much significance to the paucity of support by the non-white and non-Anglo part of the working class. The difference between white working-class support for Donald Trump and his rejection by Hispanic and black people with similar jobs likely reflects a difference in their economic heritage as groups. For poor black and Hispanic workers, machine-paced and customer-paced jobs may be a clear improvement over what they know from the oral histories of their parents and grandparents and may be cause for optimism. Such jobs might be a step up and a cause for optimism. Not so long ago whites had huge economic advantages over blacks and Hispanics with similar levels of skill. That is over. For the white working class, the machine-based job is rarely progress from the lives of parents or grandparents. Real pay has likely shrunk, so instead of the dreary job being a step up, the job may better seem to have a sinking floor beneath it; such a reality is cause for pessimism. Some optimism among semi-skilled workers might cause such people to be more liberal in politics; pessimism might cause people to tend to political reaction. Donald Trump plays to angry pessimism.

3. Much of the American economy consists of economic rent -- payments to economic elites for the privilege of sharing a world with them. I can remember when keypunch operators and electronic assemblers could afford to live in the San Francisco Bay Area. That is over. The cheap places to live are either rotting hulks of the old industrial America or rural areas best described as suburbs of nothing. So what can one do in a cheap place to live when one gets home from work? TV, of course. Going on the Internet. Shopping at box stores. Church, maybe, if one is so inclined. The community that Americans took for granted as late as the 1970s has all but disappeared. The buildings may remain, but the social support that people used to have no longer exists.

So what is on TV? Quite possibly (for white working people) FoX News, the guide to joining the world of right-wing thought. It's slick in its brainwashing. It turns pessimism into anger and finds targets for angry, fear-laden people: anyone easily distinguished from themselves. So send those non-Americans back to where they came from. Don't let the reality that those people were born here get in the way of deporting them.

4. People seem to have very low expectations of the morals of economic elites. Maybe working-class white people can identify with some plutocrat who talks much like a someone who does oil and lube jobs for some big business instead of some blue-blood elitist who uses the precise, correct English of some upper-crust snob (like the elder Bush) or, even worse, some un-American usurper who has a non-Irish surname beginning with the letter "O". But Donald Trump gets away with multiple failed marriages, mostly to trophy wives. (I have a long discussion about authoritarianism and the tolerance that right-wing authoritarian types have for those right-wing pols who tell the right-wingers exactly what they want to hear.

5. Donald Trump can lose this election, but that hardly changes a basic reality: America has rifted severely along lines of class and ethnicity. If he should fail this time, then someone else will offer much the same in 2020... and 2024... and maybe 2028 as well should Donald Trump not lose in a landslide. America needs to go through the harsh ordeal of a Crisis that compels Americans of all classes, religions, and ethnic origins to find themselves in a shared danger that they can meet successfully but only if working for a shared purpose.

It's starting to look as if, if Trump wins, he will face an undercurrent of rebellion all through his Administration. Then again, so may Hillary or Bernie if either one of them wins.

So far, what Friedman, who is now president of Geopolitical Futures and has left Stratfor months ago, is saying has come true. That's why I believe him.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

5. Donald Trump can lose this election, but that hardly changes a basic reality: America has rifted severely along lines of class and ethnicity. If he should fail this time, then someone else will offer much the same in 2020... and 2024... and maybe 2028 as well should Donald Trump not lose in a landslide. America needs to go through the harsh ordeal of a Crisis that compels Americans of all classes, religions, and ethnic origins to find themselves in a shared danger that they can meet successfully but only if working for a shared purpose.

The Republican Party will die before that happens.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

It's starting to look as if, if Trump wins, he will face an undercurrent of rebellion all through his Administration. Then again, so may Hillary or Bernie if either one of them wins.

I see him likely to well serve those closest to him and neglect everyone else. So long as things go smoothly he will be OK. But there will be some nasty incidents, and when he dismisses the unfortunate victims of some personal or collective calamity he will inspire demonstrations, if not riots. If you thought that the Long Hot Summers of the 1960s were bad, wait 'til you see the Long Hot Summers of the latter part of this decade -- and not only in climatic measures.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

.... America needs to go through the harsh ordeal of a Crisis that compels Americans of all classes, religions, and ethnic origins to find themselves in a shared danger that they can meet successfully but only if working for a shared purpose.

Unfortunately, that may require a major war like WWII.

Originally Posted by Normal

As a person of color who grew up working class, I've long said that white working class people should be on the same page as the rest of us in the 99% in asserting our political power and making sure the wealthy don't screw the rest of us. The problem is that poor whites constantly vote against their own economic interests in favor of politicians who tell them that the problem is black people, Mexicans, Muslims, etc. so frankly I've stopped feeling sorry for them whenever people make a point about how "invisible" poor whites are. If they stop subscribing to bigotry and quit voting against their own interests, maybe I'll feel more empathy for them. Until then, they can go to hell.

Very well said; captures the essence of the suck-up-punch-down crowd - the descendents, in spirit if not in blood, of the fools that went to their slaughter in 1860 to protect the plantation elites' evil institution that kept themselves miserably poor.

Corey Robin has a good piece -

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/13/this...ee_the_danger/

This is why the right hates Donald Trump: He doesn’t question their core beliefs, but they still see the danger
Conservatives call him an extremist, a populist, even a liberal. Anything but one of their own. So what if he wins?

- that includes this excerpt of how little that crowd has changed -

Since the 19th century, nativism, nationalism and racism have been been ideal recruitment devices. “With us the two great divisions of society are not the rich and the poor, but white and black” declared the slaveholder statesman John C. Calhoun; “and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals.” Men and women at the near bottom of society have little money and even less power. But no matter how low they are, they always can lord their status and standing over those even lower than they. As John Adams so brilliantly recognized in his “Discourses on Davila”: “Not only the poorest mechanic, but the man who lives upon common charity, nay the common beggars in the streets…plume themselves on that superiority which they have, or fancy they have, over some others.”

For Nixon and Reagan, these others were blacks (sometimes coded as criminals or welfare cheats). For Trump, they’re Muslims and Mexicans.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Democrats raise taxes that loose jobs. The Democrats increase regulations of business that loose jobs. The Democrats vote for higher wages that loose jobs. The Democrats support free trade agreements that loose jobs. The Democrats take your job away and your future away and blame it on Republicans. Unfortunately, most Democrats are either foolish or dumb enough to believe it.

And there it is.

Reduce the taxes on the elites (maybe throw a few pennies to the Classic Xers), and it will trickle down.

In the 1800s, this was known as the horse-and-sparrow theory - feed the horse oats and some will pass through to the road to feed the sparrows.

Obviously, the spiritual if not blood descendants of the 19th Century suck-up-punch-down crowd are still buying it.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

It's starting to look as if, if Trump wins, he will face an undercurrent of rebellion all through his Administration. Then again, so may Hillary or Bernie if either one of them wins.

Ah, have you been in a coma the last seven years?

If so, there's this guy named Obama, and there are these guys name McConnell, Ryan and the Freedom Caucus - you should look into it.

538 has perhaps the best insight of Trump supporters based on a longitudinal study of 2700 US adult voters and tracing back the opinions of Trump supporters before there was Trump the candidate -

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-before-trump/

What Trump Supporters Were Doing Before Trump

Some 'highlights' -

- they are often white, male and without college degrees. They are disproportionately drawn from the ranks of registered Democrats who vote like Republicans.

- much less conservative than Ted Cruz’s supporters, generally

- Trump supporters were only slightly more supportive of government spending generally,

- a touch less likely to support repealing the Affordable Care Act,

- on raising taxes on the rich, they were opposed and basically indistinguishable from backers of other GOP candidates

- On social issues, the differences are more noteworthy. Trump backers were far more pro-choice than Cruz or Rubio supporters,

- Trump supporters were also a bit more supportive of gay marriage than Cruz supporters, although the difference isn’t nearly as pronounced.

- less favorable toward the Iraq War than Cruz supporters (0.81) and closer to Rubio supporters (0.67). But when asked in late 2008, the future Trump supporters were slightly more likely to call themselves “hawks” than Cruz backers (0.68 versus 0.67), and markedly more likely than Rubio backers (0.52).

- That brings us to a pair of issues that have defined Trump’s candidacy: trade and immigration.

- - Trump supporters were far less sanguine about NAFTA in late 2007 than Cruz or Rubio backers. They score an 0.40 on NAFTA support, a far cry from the 0.50 among Cruz’s supporters or the 0.52 among Rubio’s.

- - Trump backers are markedly less likely to have favored a pathway to citizenship in 2012 — 0.21 compared to 0.29 for Cruz backers or 0.37 for Rubio supporters.

- white Trump supporters’ levels of prejudice: They are higher than those of Cruz or Rubio supporters.

- At 0.70, Trump supporters were notably more likely to say in 2012 that “at present I feel very critical of our political system” than were future Cruz or Rubio backers (0.64 and 0.62).

But take heart folks, bottom line -

if you take the 40 percent of the GOP electorate that backs Trump and multiply it by the 30 percent or so of the electorate that identifies as Republican, you get around 12 percent of the U.S. population whose first choice is Trump.

And for beyond 2016, this is one of the key sub-groups of the demographic that is shrinking as part of the total electorate.

After the 2016 election, we do need to start looking for more permanent solutions for them. Greenland?