orgtheory.net

the gop after 2016

The Democratic Party is pretty much the Democratic Party we’ve had since 1992. A member of the Clinton network is at the top of the ticket and HRC very likely to win. The coalition behind the ticket is stable, educated urban voters and minorities. In contrast, the GOP has serious issues no matter who wins:

  • If Trump wins, it shows that the GOP establishment has been completely over ruled by the xenophobic populists.
  • If Trump loses, probably by only about 2% or so, it might be interpreted by xenophobes that they can win the presidency if only they had a better candidate or the economy was a little worse. And they would be right.
  • If Trump loses, it will almost certainly mean that the Senate will approve Merrick Garland and thus secure abortion rights  for a generation. Thus, electing a weak candidate who appeals to xenophobes probably cost the GOP their core issue.
  • No matter if Trump wins or loses, he pulled a “Pete Wilson” and ruined the GOP for Latino voters. Wilson ran for governor on a strong anti immigrant platform in California. He won the governorship but made California into a “No Republican” zone. This will now happen on the national level and it will probably push Texas into the Democratic column.

Bottom line: You can appeal to prejudice, but you have to pay the bill.

50+ chapters of grad skool advice goodness: Grad Skool Rulz ($2!!!!)/From Black Power/Party in the Street 

Written by fabiorojas

November 8, 2016 at 12:11 am

Posted in uncategorized

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I know we are bad at this as intellectuals, but we really really need to think bigger. I know it is cathartic to point and say racist, xenophobic, misogynist, and (substitute here other forms of negation by attribution), but how about actually proposing institutional reforms. I know we usually leave that stuff to the economists (that has gone well).

    I keep saying this, but finger wagging just doesn’t meet my expectations for intellectualizing this election and this legitimacy crisis. Is cultural elitism all we have left in our toolkit?

    1) We need far left judges, especially on the supreme court; 2) we need to find creative ways to legally challenge gerrymandering at every level of the State, 3) we need to find creative challenges that will tighten campaign finance laws. The courts and domestic affairs has to be the focus, because I am not hopeful about Clinton foreign policy.

    So, anybody with legal training/sociology of law that could speak to how you get to 2) and 3)?

    Liked by 1 person

    Gordon Gauchat

    November 8, 2016 at 12:35 am

  2. The Republican appeal to the worst in us is only personified by Donald Trump. He is their creation going back to President Reagan and then ramped up by the likes of Newt and the contract for America advanced further by the right wing corporate creation, the so called tea party. I hope the outcome on Tuesday reflects the good that does exist in our country dispite the disgusting performance of the main stream media and the absolutely dispicable performance of Mr. Trump. Hillary Clinton is an absolutely qualified person for the Presidency. The email and Benghazi nonsense is just that created by the Republicans for their own self interest at the expense of our country. It is time that Americans recognize the good and honorable person that she is. If the Republican Party is soundly divided and defeated, it will be a suicide. Likewise if the main stream media, which I consider essential in any Democracy, continues to decline then that will also be at their own hands. It is time to recognize this has not been the worst election to my knowledge. It has been the most horrific campaign by the Republicans ever. It is time to fix the blame no matter who wins.

    Like

  3. I actually think that the Dems will be confronting some problems if Trump loses tomorrow as well, but those are getting less play. I wrote out what I think they are here: Problems I hope I’m facing on November 9th.

    Like

    mike_bader

    November 8, 2016 at 5:41 am

  4. The rise of Donald Trump is as much a consequence of behaviors of the Democrats as the behaviors of Republicans. And yes, much of the outcome has to do with who “is at the top of the ticket”. Remember that eight years ago the Democrats repudiated Hillary Clinton in favor of an unknown black senator from Illinois. Her “negatives” in 2008 were astonishingly high. They are worse in 2016, but the DNC helped overcome this by marginalizing the Democrat progressives in favor of her. Many of us that eagerly supported Barack Obama are holding our nose while we support Her Supreme Majesty today.

    Like

    Randy

    November 8, 2016 at 2:00 pm

  5. Trumpism and the Social Identity Threat Effect:

    Near the end of Distinction, Bourdieu applied field theory to politics and the field of power. The “new culture war” in the US coheres well with this account. The argument proceeded in two moves: 1) Publics are divided based on a horizontal and vertical dimension of status. In the field of politics, cultural elites have the right to claim symbolic superiority over other groups, meaning the ability to articulate an abstract and coherent set of principles (i.e., ideology) and recognize how those abstract tastes/aesthetics might justify policy positions . Yet, these ideological principles, and the policy positions, were simply means for making identity distinctions. 2) low educated individuals tend toward a cultural conservatism, that manifests from a resent toward secular cultural elites, bureaucrats, professionals, whose status came from their having “superior knowledge.” Oddly, Bourdieu claimed that the cultural elites were the proximate political adversaries in the field, not economic elites, because working class folks saw the former as establishing the status at their expense–a moral/cultural figure pointing at their ignorance, poor aesthetic, incoherent political ideas/positions, and nonrecognition of the field (e.g., not knowing the economic elites are the real enemy). So, imagine a white-uneducated voter who does not actually perceive a difference between Trump and Clinton (they didn’t like either one). And, who are being told that this “misrecognition” was evidence of their racism, sexism, xenophobia, ignorance, lack of culture etc. Given that Hilary and her supporters personify the condescension class, and the uneducated white voter said, F*%# you. Certainly, some segment of Trump supporters are White Nationalists, but moralizing against Trump’s populism by reducing it to its most profane core, was clearly a poor strategy. It produced a large-scale social identity threat.

    Liked by 1 person

    Gordon Gauchat

    November 9, 2016 at 8:42 am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: