The bizarre and the unpredictable continue. A big one is the emergence of a controversial New York real estate magnate who has never held elective office as the presumptive Republican nominee for the U.S. presidency.
From this, the dominoes continue to fall. Prominent Republicans, such as the Bush family and Mitt Romney, refuse to endorse Mr. Trump. The nation's most powerful high-ranking Republican, Paul Ryan, endorses his party's nominee, but only reluctantly as he openly criticizes and disagrees with the nominee on major issues. Such a deep chasm at this stage of a presidential election is unheard of in modern politics.
Now we awake to find the pedantic conservative columnist George Will abandoning the Republican Party, declaring himself "unaffiliated." George Will, not a Republican? That's pretty wild.
And former President George W. Bush's Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, actually endorsing Hillary Clinton? That may not help her, but it's hard to believe.
The second big event is the Brexit vote by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. Although predicted to be a close vote, most observers didn't believe it would happen. It was met by drastic devaluation of the British pound, crashing world financial markets, speculation that it would be followed by other European dropouts and even talk that it could presage the breakup of the UK.
The nomination of Donald Trump and the vote by people of the UK to exit the EU did not happen in a vacuum, or as random events from out of the blue. They have similarities relating to disaffection of large numbers of people and distrust of institutions.
Let's go back a few years. A few dissident Democrats brought up issues of income inequality, growing disparity of wealth and hollowing out of America's middle class. This was dismissed by Republicans, with the aid of the out-of-touch mainstream media, as "waging class warfare." Tin Ear Romney dismissed it as mere jealousy of ordinary folk of the rich and successful.
Today, even Republicans - most of 'em anyway - agree that, yes, America's middle class is endangered and in trouble. Never mind that they blame the Democrats and pose no solution other than getting rid of the Affordable Health Care Act, promoting more tax cuts for the wealthy and more trickledown economic snake oil. You don't hear the term "class warfare" any more.
The Republicans welcomed working-class social conservatives into the fold, counting on them for electoral victories but doing nothing for them economically. In an earlier era, this would have moved them to the Democratic Party. But this didn't happen for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that the Democrats did little to bring them back into the fold. Instead of recognizing the problem and proposing solutions, they were tepid and ineffective. Of course the Republicans opposed every Democratic proposal that would have helped, but that's not a valid excuse. You have to have some spine and be at least articulate enough to convince the Tin Man in out of the rain.
So there is plenty of blame to go around. Republicans continued to favor corporate America and Wall Street, remaining obstinate and obstructionist regarding anything that would help the working classes. Democrats were myopic and ineffective. With its characteristic ignorance, the profit-oriented mainstream media brushed off the plight of the working classes.
Enter Donald Trump, capitalizing on widespread discontent, especially of white working-class males left behind, and anger and distrust of globalization and institutions, including the Republican establishment.
Across the Atlantic, similar anger and discontent was long occurring among people feeling politically disenfranchised and economically left behind. A majority in industrial northern England voted to leave the EU. The more internationally-oriented Londoners favored staying in.
On both sides of the pond, immigration was a factor. It is tempting for a politician to demagogue an issue, connecting immigration to unemployment, terrorism and crime. That said, there is enough of a connection between globalization and loss of domestic manufacturing jobs to make it a serious issue, one that has not received the attention it deserves.
By ignoring the disaffected and those left behind for way too long, the way is paved for a rough talking charlatan to pose simple "solutions" that upon scrutiny are no solution. And the way is paved for a nation to withdraw from an international alliance that is seen to favor some, while ignoring those left behind.
But as the old adage goes, "be careful what you wish for."
The Republican nominee, though capitalizing on the justifiable discontent of those left behind, poses no credible solutions either to international issues or for economic progress of those losing manufacturing jobs. The "dump Trump" movement is probably an exercise in futility. But its mere existence shows buyers' remorse.
And in the UK, there appears to be considerable buyer's remorse and reexamination of Brexit. Some voters claim that theirs was merely a "protest vote," believing that the "stays" would win.
The Brexit referendum is not binding, and we're told that the Parliament can overrule it. This would be politically risky. Many Brits would like the trade advantages of the EU, but without the free movement of labor.
The EU itself is in a dilemma. It says "you're either in or you're out. If you're out, let's get the painful process started now." To keep other EU nations from opting out, it has to make the UK pay a price, but not such a stiff price that it brings the entire continent into economic recession.
Is it likely, or even possible, that the UK can or will reconsider? Can, or will, the EU make some modifications?
At this point, we don't know. But the broader lesson is that no institution or nation can long ignore the plight of large numbers of disaffected people left behind while others prosper.
Ignoring those left behind leads to the likes of the Trump and Brexit fiascoes.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
From this, the dominoes continue to fall. Prominent Republicans, such as the Bush family and Mitt Romney, refuse to endorse Mr. Trump. The nation's most powerful high-ranking Republican, Paul Ryan, endorses his party's nominee, but only reluctantly as he openly criticizes and disagrees with the nominee on major issues. Such a deep chasm at this stage of a presidential election is unheard of in modern politics.
Now we awake to find the pedantic conservative columnist George Will abandoning the Republican Party, declaring himself "unaffiliated." George Will, not a Republican? That's pretty wild.
And former President George W. Bush's Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, actually endorsing Hillary Clinton? That may not help her, but it's hard to believe.
The second big event is the Brexit vote by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. Although predicted to be a close vote, most observers didn't believe it would happen. It was met by drastic devaluation of the British pound, crashing world financial markets, speculation that it would be followed by other European dropouts and even talk that it could presage the breakup of the UK.
The nomination of Donald Trump and the vote by people of the UK to exit the EU did not happen in a vacuum, or as random events from out of the blue. They have similarities relating to disaffection of large numbers of people and distrust of institutions.
Let's go back a few years. A few dissident Democrats brought up issues of income inequality, growing disparity of wealth and hollowing out of America's middle class. This was dismissed by Republicans, with the aid of the out-of-touch mainstream media, as "waging class warfare." Tin Ear Romney dismissed it as mere jealousy of ordinary folk of the rich and successful.
Today, even Republicans - most of 'em anyway - agree that, yes, America's middle class is endangered and in trouble. Never mind that they blame the Democrats and pose no solution other than getting rid of the Affordable Health Care Act, promoting more tax cuts for the wealthy and more trickledown economic snake oil. You don't hear the term "class warfare" any more.
The Republicans welcomed working-class social conservatives into the fold, counting on them for electoral victories but doing nothing for them economically. In an earlier era, this would have moved them to the Democratic Party. But this didn't happen for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that the Democrats did little to bring them back into the fold. Instead of recognizing the problem and proposing solutions, they were tepid and ineffective. Of course the Republicans opposed every Democratic proposal that would have helped, but that's not a valid excuse. You have to have some spine and be at least articulate enough to convince the Tin Man in out of the rain.
So there is plenty of blame to go around. Republicans continued to favor corporate America and Wall Street, remaining obstinate and obstructionist regarding anything that would help the working classes. Democrats were myopic and ineffective. With its characteristic ignorance, the profit-oriented mainstream media brushed off the plight of the working classes.
Enter Donald Trump, capitalizing on widespread discontent, especially of white working-class males left behind, and anger and distrust of globalization and institutions, including the Republican establishment.
Across the Atlantic, similar anger and discontent was long occurring among people feeling politically disenfranchised and economically left behind. A majority in industrial northern England voted to leave the EU. The more internationally-oriented Londoners favored staying in.
On both sides of the pond, immigration was a factor. It is tempting for a politician to demagogue an issue, connecting immigration to unemployment, terrorism and crime. That said, there is enough of a connection between globalization and loss of domestic manufacturing jobs to make it a serious issue, one that has not received the attention it deserves.
By ignoring the disaffected and those left behind for way too long, the way is paved for a rough talking charlatan to pose simple "solutions" that upon scrutiny are no solution. And the way is paved for a nation to withdraw from an international alliance that is seen to favor some, while ignoring those left behind.
But as the old adage goes, "be careful what you wish for."
The Republican nominee, though capitalizing on the justifiable discontent of those left behind, poses no credible solutions either to international issues or for economic progress of those losing manufacturing jobs. The "dump Trump" movement is probably an exercise in futility. But its mere existence shows buyers' remorse.
And in the UK, there appears to be considerable buyer's remorse and reexamination of Brexit. Some voters claim that theirs was merely a "protest vote," believing that the "stays" would win.
The Brexit referendum is not binding, and we're told that the Parliament can overrule it. This would be politically risky. Many Brits would like the trade advantages of the EU, but without the free movement of labor.
The EU itself is in a dilemma. It says "you're either in or you're out. If you're out, let's get the painful process started now." To keep other EU nations from opting out, it has to make the UK pay a price, but not such a stiff price that it brings the entire continent into economic recession.
Is it likely, or even possible, that the UK can or will reconsider? Can, or will, the EU make some modifications?
At this point, we don't know. But the broader lesson is that no institution or nation can long ignore the plight of large numbers of disaffected people left behind while others prosper.
Ignoring those left behind leads to the likes of the Trump and Brexit fiascoes.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
