Trump has re-forged the old Democratic alliance of FDR, and he’s done it in the ruins of the Republican party

evolutiontheorist Neuropolitics, Metapolitics, , , , , , , ,

Those of you who remember history may recall that the South used to vote solidly Democrat. FDR and his ilk represented an alliance of poor southern farmers and norther factory workers against rich capitalists. This was the triumph of American socialism, the proletariat united against the bourgeois.

This worked until LBJ, with the Civil Rights act and Immigration Act. After LBJ, southern whites began voting Republican. Democrats haven’t gotten a majority of the white vote since LBJ. Republicans became an alliance of rural, poor, morally-oriented Christians and rich, war-mongering assholes like George W. Bush. Dems have often questioned this coalition.

Dems have been an alliance of working-class unions, college-educated, and minorities.

Trump captured the Dem’s working-class whites, who have felt increasingly alienated in a party that has been focusing on “white privilege” to the exclusion of “poor people’s economic problems.”

Whites are a steadily decreasing % of the population, and they’ll be a minority first in the Democratic party. Traditional white union concerns, exemplified by Sanders, lost out to racial politics, exemplified by Hillary’s “If we took down the banks, it still wouldn’t end systemic racism,” speech.

Trump didn’t capture a significantly larger share of the white vote than Romney did, and Romeny lost. He did snag disaffected white-collar voters in swing states who had previously voted for Obama. He simultaneously lost well-off whites, like the entire neocon establishment.

Hillary couldn’t drive turnout the way Obama did because she isn’t black or POC, and her party’s strength is now dependent on getting out the non-white vote. The Dems are increasingly, like South Africa, a party where the leaders are an ethnic minority with little legitimacy in the eyes of their base. Dems need candidates who energize their base to get the turnout they need.

(Funny that when Christian whites vote in favor of Christianity and we end up destroying Iraq, that’s sort of okay, but when poor whites vote in favor of their economic interests, that’s suddenly “racist” and people are protesting in the streets.)

Hillary lost twice now (to Obama in ’08 and Trump in ’16,) not because Americans are sexist, but because she is white.

Trump has re-forged the old Democratic alliance of FDR, and he’s done it in the ruins of the Republican party.

10 thoughts on “Trump has re-forged the old Democratic alliance of FDR, and he’s done it in the ruins of the Republican party”

  1. By a funny coincidence I quoted FDR in my victory speech yesterday:

    “My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

    To be honest I think you are looking backwards too much here, this is time for a new STYLE of politics, where ordinary people get actively involved in shaping policies, shouting IMMEDIATELY at the policy makers even while bad decisions are being made and BEFORE those bad decisions are implemented. Its time to stop moaning about the people we elected, and start helping them make good decisions instead.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  4. I’ve been thinking about the calls for getting rid of the electoral college, and besides the obvious, that the same people would be quiet if the situation were reversed*, I was thinking how you can’t even assume that the popular vote would be similar if the rules had been different from the beginning; Trump, in particular, seems like someone who plays strategically. His percentage total in Utah was unusually low for a Republican, but it was more than enough, but it’s been years since a Republican won places like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. If the rules had involved a nationwide popular vote, he almost certainly would’ve worked on getting more votes in places like Upstate NY and Central Mass, not to mention probably toning it down just enough so as not to bleed so many votes in Utah. And, of course, a lot of people in places like California and other blue states might have voted who didn’t bother… Presumably Clinton might have campaigned differently, too, but it’s already kind of clear that strategy isn’t her forte…

    *The graphs going around showing total popular votes for recent elections got me thinking of a counterfactual where, say, Jeb got the nomination as was expected in early 2015, and in Bush v Clinton, Bush wins the expected red states, plus maybe Florida, loses the rust belt, but due to higher turnout in Texas and Utah plus lackluster but sufficient turnout for Clinton in blue states, Clinton wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote (since Romney 2012 got more votes than Hillary 2016, this seems reasonable enough…) Anyhow, aside from a few die-hard principled anti-electoral college people (there are always a few for any issue, right?) I don’t see the same calls for abolishment… Just having some counterfactual fun…

    Like

    Reply

    • I was thinking how you can’t even assume that the popular vote would be similar if the rules had been different from the beginning;
      Yes, exactly. I agree completely. Both candidates knew the rules and were strategizing within them. I don’t really care if they want to change the rules in the future, but calling foul after you’ve lost isn’t fair play.

      Like

      Reply

  5. Yes you have it exactly. If the fools in the Republican party would recognize this they could make big bank on it. Attack the banks but promote the manufactures.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment