A question that begs for answers after Super Tuesday III is why does such a gulf in anger exist between the Left and the Right? Also, did it lead to Clinton's rout over Sanders last night? We accept that both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are outside their respective establishments, and running highly unorthodox campaigns. Trump's is fueled by his outrageous tweets and anger on the Right - driven by distrust of immigration policy and rigged trade deals. Sanders's campaign is driven by anger on the Left in reaction to gross economic inequality and social injustice of which a rigged campaign donation system plays a huge part. Of course, rigged trade deals also enter into the latter, which is why - if the anger was proportionate to that on the Right - Bernie ought to have secured wins in all the Rust Belt states up for grabs, including Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri.
As of 11: 45 p.m. EDT, it appeared the only state Sanders had a minute lead in was Missouri, e.g.
But this a.m. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is saying Clinton "eked out a win"
Indeed, the string of Clinton victories (OH, NC, FLA, IL, MO) had one of her Super Pacs (Wall Street- based, like the others) asserting her victories “effectively ended the Democratic nomination for president” . Well, ok, maybe mathematically - and as I noted before, given the Dem's rigged system has most of the superdelegates in her pocket - this is not surprising. But Bernie would be a fool to drop out now given he still has plenty of cash on hand, and can thus continue to inject his views and voice into the race - keeping Hillary honest if nothing else.
But again, IF the Left anger had matched the Right's against the system, he ought to have taken at least the three northern states Tuesday, so what happened? Entering even more into this question is that there is little or no enthusiasm for Clinton, who is an awfully unappealing candidate who lacks charisma, and also has a tendency to screech like a banshee at her audience. (Even HRC supporter Joe Klein commented that politicians "only had to yell in the past" at their audiences.)
The attitude of most Clinton voters is downright morose, in stark contrast to Bernie supporters. A typical example cited in one Denver Post article ('Where's Enthusiasm for Clinton?', Mar. 13, p. 15A) quotes Lee Apple, 68, from Shaker Heights, OH, who expressed disappointment she had "no choices to get more excited about" but described Clinton has the "best option", adding:
"She's kind of old news. She's been around for years. She's not fresh and she's not young."
Other voters quoted sounded the same notes, but most comparing her to "an old friend" you've come to know, and the "best bet" to unite Dems, with a "great skill set". The tenor according to one observer was that there was an "eat your peas" attitude adopted by most Clinton voters. Still, many other D-voters (and independents) aren't convinced, which means although she's basking in the glow of a 5 -state sweep she has a lot of work ahead, especially to win younger voters. (Some of whom have actually said they would either vote Trump or stay home if HRC gets the nomination).
A lot of this reactionary anger is fueled by Hillary's getting most Dem establishment super delegates, effectively rigging the scales in her favor from the outset, see e.g.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/66066/have-the-democratic-superdelegates-been-compromised
So in order to make peace Hillary will have to work out a colossally creative excuse for the existence of that shadow system, and why it might not have mattered anyway to Bernie's failure or success.
This still leaves us groping for an explanation for the gulf in anger between Trump supporters and those for the Dems, and especially Sanders. If I had to put a finger on one major difference it would be the typical Trumpie harbors an exceptional sense of grievance and being fucked over by the system which the Dem supporters don't. Perhaps the most succinct explanation was delivered in a recent (Dec. 5th) article in The Economist (p. 30):
"The anxiety Trump supporters betray by looking for scapegoats says most, of course, about themselves. Typically members of the white lower middle class, they are at once jealous of the small privileges that distinguish them from the toilers below, and bitterly resentful of the faraway government that provides their Social Security, VA care and Medicare.
Remonstrating in hard times, they are the "radical centre" in academic jargon, who turned out before for George Wallace, a populist southern Democrat who ran for President four times in the 1960s and 70s."
Thus, we see the Right has been "looking for scapegoats" which the Left isn't and also the Right is "jealous of small privileges" they used to have, but now must share with minorities. A grievance which isn't shared by the Left, since we believe if a guy moves up in the world he deserves the same 'toys' we have. In other words, the Right features bigger crybabies. These crybabies have even gone on record whining about a "Bernie supporter" rushing their Hitlerite hero at one gathering. Then they whine and screech: "Why doesn't he control them or at least condemn them?" But in an interview last Sunday on CNN Bernie explicitly stated he disavowed violence coming from any of his millions of supporters. He added they might protect violently in his name, and but ultimately his campaign has no control over what any given person or group will do in a given state. Also, he is not running Moveon.org which operates a separate Pac from his campaign.
He also added that Trump should still be given the right to speak at his rallies. Funny, the pro-Trump whiners missed all that but if they only watch FOX it's understandable.
Most telling about the Trumpies, their "hero" was quoted in a recent FT piece by Gordon Rachman asserting he always "feeds people fantasies to sell them on the deal". And "they can believe what they want". If any real crying should be done the Trump -babies should do it if he manages to get elected and never delivers on any of his inflated promises.
Meanwhile, Sanders has kept his promises more down to Earth and explained exactly how they'd be paid for, i.e. by changing the tax code or taxing speculative trades on Wall Street While the media has often gone after him for offering "pie in the sky" to supporters it is somewhat incredible they've turned a blind eye to Trump's economic plans - including imposing massive tariffs on any and all goods entering from Mexico and China, sending 11 million Mexicans back at a cost of over $200b and constructing a gigantic wall along the Tex-Mex border (at a cost of $3 trillion) and "getting Mexico to pay". These are the stuff of true phantasmagoria.
Bottom line: Trump is taking state after state (exception OH) because his kool aid guzzling supporters believe he can deliver on his vapid promises when anyone with an IQ over room temperature knows he can't. They also love the potential for violent behavior which Trump actually advertises as "entertainment". The Dems, by contrast, would rather tolerate at least 4 more years of Neoliberalism than risk four years of 'Der Fuehrer'. Trump (aka Drumpf) being in charge.
Hillary's showing on Super Tuesday round III was one indicator that the Dems don't match the anger at the establishment the Republicans have by channeling Trump as their angry Id. No, the Dems are more grown up and would rather win the 2016 election than pitch a nine month hissy fit and soil their collective nappies.
Hillary's showing on Super Tuesday round III was one indicator that the Dems don't match the anger at the establishment the Republicans have by channeling Trump as their angry Id. No, the Dems are more grown up and would rather win the 2016 election than pitch a nine month hissy fit and soil their collective nappies.
And so it goes.
No comments:
Post a Comment