4 ms·

The primary explanation for the success of Trump is that he is a competent representative of a section of the population, that is currently unrepresented in the

The primary explanation for the success of Trump is that he is a competent representative of a section of the population, that is currently unrepresented in the party spectrum. "Competent" means he has an organisation, is seen as potentially electable, and accurately reflects the concerns of his own voters. This is also the primary explanation for the rise of right-wing European nationalists, and the Brexit vote. Their success is a restructuring of the party landscape, to conform more closely with the attitudes and aspirations of the electorate. Two-party systems tend to exclude new parties, but if enough voters are dissatisfied, then sooner or later there will be a shift in the political spectrum. Trump has clear policies, which certainly on immigration correspond to the positions of populist parties in Europe. He does not have a full policy platform, but that is not necessary for a populist party to be successful. It only needs to address the issues which anger its electorate. And that is the reality which needs to be considered: a section of the population is angry at the political class for ignoring their concerns and fears. Simply disparaging Trump and his voters does not offer an alternative explanation for his success, or for comparable populist success in other countries.

jomamaxx 10y ago
To be clear, the 'realignment' in Europe and to some extent the US is a function of the dissolution of the classical left. 'Left Wing' used to be a 'labour movement', i.e. workers rights, unions, social welfare etc.. In the UK the left is called 'the labour party'. But modern left wing parties are 'intellectually left' or 'socially progressive'. They are interested in gender issues, abortion, identity etc.. The 'academic left' wants gay marriage, abortion, to promote ideas such as 'white privilege', they are often not 'pro law enforcement' or 'nationalist' (in the classical sense), they are 'anti Christian' - or rather secular when it comes to Christianity, but are actually supportive of almost all other forms of religious expression (i.e. Islamic head coverings etc.), going even so far as to create another religion: 'Kwanza'. But 'regular lower-middle class white folk' are usually 'somewhat religious', they have varying opinions on abortion but are generally weary of it, are somewhat tolerant of gay culture but weary of gay marriage, are generally 'pro police', and somewhat nationalist. Ok with immigration but are very weary of illegal immigration, whereas the new left tries to equate 'illegal' and 'legal' immigration as the same thing. They generally support more classical values. Boy/Girl Scouts. Joining the service as an act of duty. Valuing family. Christmas. Etc.. The leadership of left-wing parties around the world is utterly disconnected from their voters, which is changing the landscape. In the UK particularly. In America - this effect is dampened by newcomers. Almost all African Americans and most Latinos vote 'default Democrat' and those two groups are growing quite a lot along with most other new immigrants, especially those who are visible minorities. 'Working class' America is shifting rightwards due to the lack of representation among classical Democrats. Combine the fact that you have 'big corporate' Republicans as well as Dems in the centre, you have remaining the 'gun toters' and 'tea partiers' which can have a nastier element on the fringe, and you get Donald Trump. There basically is no party to represent regular, working-class-ish white people, which is a huge demographic. It's a crazy time.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "The leadership of left-wing parties around the world is utterly disconnected from their voters," I should say 'some of their voters'. There are large swaths of younger, urban voters who are supportive of 'new left'. As we learned with Brexit, it's not as big as one would think. 'New Left' has more in common with the Green Party than it does regular, lower middle class voters, which is he ideological shift I'm trying to articulate.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    I'm obviously not from the UK, but I was listening to something about Wales and their vote. Is that part of what your talking about? I don't think I get UK politics particularly since I don't understand the whole Labor leader dynamic.
    - jomamaxx 10y ago
      UK is mostly similar to the US, but without a gun-rights, anti-abortion or evangelical vote. Old left = unions, basic social services, getting women into education in the workplace - but still ok with religion. New left = environmentalism, gender feminism/'white privilege'/'male privilege', all migrants are legal, free university, gay marriage, very weary of Christianity Old left = working class, factory workers etc. New left = urbanites, minorities, young people in or just out of school Obviously they are not entirely different things. But the 'new left' is not 'class based' as it used to be.
- xbmcuser 10y ago
  In the US at least the social left has gained momentum and power because society was changing but Republicans despite the loss in 08 and 12 kept pandering to the religious/social right instead of moving to the center on those issues so kept loosing support.
protomyth 10y ago
> Simply disparaging Trump and his voters does not offer an alternative explanation for his success, or for comparable populist success in other countries. I cannot speak for other countries. I think trying to link trends across countries always generalizes over local cultural differences. I think that you are missing the history and treating Trump as just another pick. This is an accumulation with some very specific disappointments from the elation of the 2010 (primarily) and 2014 elections with the national party putting the hammer to many of the elected representatives. This is a personality vote, not a policy vote. He is actually more liberal than many of his supporters and the whole eminent domain thing is problematic. The wall offends the media, but its not the sum of it all.

jomamaxx 10y ago

To be clear, the 'realignment' in Europe and to some extent the US is a function of the dissolution of the classical left. 'Left Wing' used to be a 'labour movement', i.e. workers rights, unions, social welfare etc.. In the UK the left is called 'the labour party'. But modern left wing parties are 'intellectually left' or 'socially progressive'. They are interested in gender issues, abortion, identity etc.. The 'academic left' wants gay marriage, abortion, to promote ideas such as 'white privilege', they are often not 'pro law enforcement' or 'nationalist' (in the classical sense), they are 'anti Christian' - or rather secular when it comes to Christianity, but are actually supportive of almost all other forms of religious expression (i.e. Islamic head coverings etc.), going even so far as to create another religion: 'Kwanza'. But 'regular lower-middle class white folk' are usually 'somewhat religious', they have varying opinions on abortion but are generally weary of it, are somewhat tolerant of gay culture but weary of gay marriage, are generally 'pro police', and somewhat nationalist. Ok with immigration but are very weary of illegal immigration, whereas the new left tries to equate 'illegal' and 'legal' immigration as the same thing. They generally support more classical values. Boy/Girl Scouts. Joining the service as an act of duty. Valuing family. Christmas. Etc.. The leadership of left-wing parties around the world is utterly disconnected from their voters, which is changing the landscape. In the UK particularly. In America - this effect is dampened by newcomers. Almost all African Americans and most Latinos vote 'default Democrat' and those two groups are growing quite a lot along with most other new immigrants, especially those who are visible minorities. 'Working class' America is shifting rightwards due to the lack of representation among classical Democrats. Combine the fact that you have 'big corporate' Republicans as well as Dems in the centre, you have remaining the 'gun toters' and 'tea partiers' which can have a nastier element on the fringe, and you get Donald Trump. There basically is no party to represent regular, working-class-ish white people, which is a huge demographic. It's a crazy time.

jomamaxx 10y ago
"The leadership of left-wing parties around the world is utterly disconnected from their voters," I should say 'some of their voters'. There are large swaths of younger, urban voters who are supportive of 'new left'. As we learned with Brexit, it's not as big as one would think. 'New Left' has more in common with the Green Party than it does regular, lower middle class voters, which is he ideological shift I'm trying to articulate.
- protomyth 10y ago
  I'm obviously not from the UK, but I was listening to something about Wales and their vote. Is that part of what your talking about? I don't think I get UK politics particularly since I don't understand the whole Labor leader dynamic.
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    UK is mostly similar to the US, but without a gun-rights, anti-abortion or evangelical vote. Old left = unions, basic social services, getting women into education in the workplace - but still ok with religion. New left = environmentalism, gender feminism/'white privilege'/'male privilege', all migrants are legal, free university, gay marriage, very weary of Christianity Old left = working class, factory workers etc. New left = urbanites, minorities, young people in or just out of school Obviously they are not entirely different things. But the 'new left' is not 'class based' as it used to be.
xbmcuser 10y ago
In the US at least the social left has gained momentum and power because society was changing but Republicans despite the loss in 08 and 12 kept pandering to the religious/social right instead of moving to the center on those issues so kept loosing support.

protomyth 10y ago

> Simply disparaging Trump and his voters does not offer an alternative explanation for his success, or for comparable populist success in other countries. I cannot speak for other countries. I think trying to link trends across countries always generalizes over local cultural differences. I think that you are missing the history and treating Trump as just another pick. This is an accumulation with some very specific disappointments from the elation of the 2010 (primarily) and 2014 elections with the national party putting the hammer to many of the elected representatives. This is a personality vote, not a policy vote. He is actually more liberal than many of his supporters and the whole eminent domain thing is problematic. The wall offends the media, but its not the sum of it all.