The late John Ford who directed those famous John Wayne westerns was once asked whether those movies portrayed the Old West as it really was. His reply: "Well, if that's not the way it was, that's the way it shoulda been."
That response could well reflect that of political party officials and the pompous, out-of-touch nitwits of the mainstream media. Sure, we are all surprised by the unpredictable turns of events in this political campaign. But according to the media moguls and party leaders, it's not the way it shoulda been, and surely not according to standard script.
The media clones are confused, dismayed, even shocked, by the comportment of the Republican candidates - the boys' locker room language, juvenile name-calling, and all the rest of it. The media and the party leaders are dumbfounded, can't understand it, even as they are responsible for having created this imbroglio.
"It's the Trump phenomenon," they mindlessly bray, reinforcing each others' ignorance. Nonsense. Trump is not the cause, but the inevitable result. The root cause, as opposed to symptom, is political disenfranchisement and anger of much of the American population, on both left and right. While the media superstars claim to recognize it, they cannot possibly understand it. Media superstars that are handsomely paid to analyze this stuff function in a bubble, dealing exclusively with the rich, famous and powerful. They are not of the working classes and cannot identify with them.
At the same time, the networks and cable communications outfits are in it for profits. They love the viewership that this idiocy brings, even as they claim dismay over the level to which competition for the U.S. Presidency has sunk.
Yes, it's very entertaining - a glib media-savvy billionaire slugging it out with a mean-spirited, widely disliked champion right wing debater. Except for more civil language, the classic Abbot and Costello "Who's on First?" routine has nothing over the comical Trump-Cruz exchanges.
The junior Florida senator pleads to join the fray - "Hey, I can call the big boys nasty names too."
Then there's Gov. Kasich, believing himself to be above the brouhaha, taking full credit for federal government surpluses accumulated under the Clinton Administration, laboring under the illusion that people care about what he has done in Ohio, and wondering why nobody pays attention to him or it.
And there's the retired neurosurgeon, predictably whining that he gets no time. So moderators courteously and dutifully give the good doctor a few minutes to voice his inane banalities. After a few vapid platitudes followed by indecipherable gibberish, focus shifts back to the mayhem of Trump and Cruz, with Rubio, masquerading as a tough guy, still pleading to enter the fray.
CNN's bespectacled moderator, Wolf Blitzer, dazed and out-maneuvered, pretends to be in charge, even as it's evident that the whole fiasco resembles a bunch of unruly school children totally out of control.
The food fight ends with CNN personnel congratulating each other on what a fine, spirited debate they managed, candidates really getting at the issues. Yeah, right.
So this is how we winnow the field for the world's most powerful position.
What about the ubiquitous anger that has media stars in shock and Republican Party leaders in sheer panic? Let's go back a few years.
As we came out of the Great Recession of 2008, employment slowly increased, but wages and incomes did not. A few economists remarked upon it, but that seldom cuts much ice. Politicians ignored it, save for a then-obscure senator practically unknown outside of Vermont.
Republicans denied outright that income inequality was a problem. With total cooperation of the mainstream media, they dismissed it as "class warfare." Sure, nice sound bite. During the 2012 campaign, Mr. Romney callously dismissed income inequality as "jealously," mere envy of the rich and successful.
It wasn't just campaign rhetoric; the Romney cabal truly believed they had the election in the bag.
The income inequality phenomenon has multiple aspects.
Foreign observers are often dismayed that lower income people, whether in the Great Plains, Appalachia, the Deep South, or the "Rust Belt," who would be considered natural Democratic constituency, vote Republican. Thomas Frank in his book, "What's the Matter With Kansas" explains that the Republican party has been extremely successful in building a coalition including the business community, Wall Street and corporate interests, and white socially conservative voters who are anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro gun rights, and more religious and less secular than the population at large. Republican leadership has counted on these social conservatives to win elections.
Let's go back a bit further. When Lydon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he observed that although it was the right thing to do, by signing that act he was conceding the once-solid Democratic South to Republicans for generations to come. That proved to be a prescient conclusion.
Then we have the so-called "Reagan Democrats," manufacturing belt workers and union members, once traditional Democrats, who for various reasons went with Reagan and the Republicans. Subsequently, our international trade agreements have been accompanied by mass movement of manufacturing jobs abroad. With loss of good paying manufacturing jobs and dramatic decline in membership and power of labor unions, incomes of working people tanked. Democrats have not got these blue collar workers back.
The so-called "Republican establishment" has waxed fat on the reliable support of social conservatives described above. Major problem, however: Many, probably most, of these once-dependable Republican voters in the Rust Belt, the Great Plains, Appalachia and the Deep South, have been left behind economically. Republican trickle-down economics and false metaphors such as "a rising tide raises all boats" have failed those left behind.
Economic disenfranchisement and uncertain economic futures, a changing face of America, immigration issues, convenient scapegoats, and, guess what.
The way is paved for a strong man, a savior, an outsider beholden to neither party.
Next week: Fracture of the illogical Republican coalition.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
That response could well reflect that of political party officials and the pompous, out-of-touch nitwits of the mainstream media. Sure, we are all surprised by the unpredictable turns of events in this political campaign. But according to the media moguls and party leaders, it's not the way it shoulda been, and surely not according to standard script.
The media clones are confused, dismayed, even shocked, by the comportment of the Republican candidates - the boys' locker room language, juvenile name-calling, and all the rest of it. The media and the party leaders are dumbfounded, can't understand it, even as they are responsible for having created this imbroglio.
"It's the Trump phenomenon," they mindlessly bray, reinforcing each others' ignorance. Nonsense. Trump is not the cause, but the inevitable result. The root cause, as opposed to symptom, is political disenfranchisement and anger of much of the American population, on both left and right. While the media superstars claim to recognize it, they cannot possibly understand it. Media superstars that are handsomely paid to analyze this stuff function in a bubble, dealing exclusively with the rich, famous and powerful. They are not of the working classes and cannot identify with them.
At the same time, the networks and cable communications outfits are in it for profits. They love the viewership that this idiocy brings, even as they claim dismay over the level to which competition for the U.S. Presidency has sunk.
Yes, it's very entertaining - a glib media-savvy billionaire slugging it out with a mean-spirited, widely disliked champion right wing debater. Except for more civil language, the classic Abbot and Costello "Who's on First?" routine has nothing over the comical Trump-Cruz exchanges.
The junior Florida senator pleads to join the fray - "Hey, I can call the big boys nasty names too."
Then there's Gov. Kasich, believing himself to be above the brouhaha, taking full credit for federal government surpluses accumulated under the Clinton Administration, laboring under the illusion that people care about what he has done in Ohio, and wondering why nobody pays attention to him or it.
And there's the retired neurosurgeon, predictably whining that he gets no time. So moderators courteously and dutifully give the good doctor a few minutes to voice his inane banalities. After a few vapid platitudes followed by indecipherable gibberish, focus shifts back to the mayhem of Trump and Cruz, with Rubio, masquerading as a tough guy, still pleading to enter the fray.
CNN's bespectacled moderator, Wolf Blitzer, dazed and out-maneuvered, pretends to be in charge, even as it's evident that the whole fiasco resembles a bunch of unruly school children totally out of control.
The food fight ends with CNN personnel congratulating each other on what a fine, spirited debate they managed, candidates really getting at the issues. Yeah, right.
So this is how we winnow the field for the world's most powerful position.
What about the ubiquitous anger that has media stars in shock and Republican Party leaders in sheer panic? Let's go back a few years.
As we came out of the Great Recession of 2008, employment slowly increased, but wages and incomes did not. A few economists remarked upon it, but that seldom cuts much ice. Politicians ignored it, save for a then-obscure senator practically unknown outside of Vermont.
Republicans denied outright that income inequality was a problem. With total cooperation of the mainstream media, they dismissed it as "class warfare." Sure, nice sound bite. During the 2012 campaign, Mr. Romney callously dismissed income inequality as "jealously," mere envy of the rich and successful.
It wasn't just campaign rhetoric; the Romney cabal truly believed they had the election in the bag.
The income inequality phenomenon has multiple aspects.
Foreign observers are often dismayed that lower income people, whether in the Great Plains, Appalachia, the Deep South, or the "Rust Belt," who would be considered natural Democratic constituency, vote Republican. Thomas Frank in his book, "What's the Matter With Kansas" explains that the Republican party has been extremely successful in building a coalition including the business community, Wall Street and corporate interests, and white socially conservative voters who are anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro gun rights, and more religious and less secular than the population at large. Republican leadership has counted on these social conservatives to win elections.
Let's go back a bit further. When Lydon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he observed that although it was the right thing to do, by signing that act he was conceding the once-solid Democratic South to Republicans for generations to come. That proved to be a prescient conclusion.
Then we have the so-called "Reagan Democrats," manufacturing belt workers and union members, once traditional Democrats, who for various reasons went with Reagan and the Republicans. Subsequently, our international trade agreements have been accompanied by mass movement of manufacturing jobs abroad. With loss of good paying manufacturing jobs and dramatic decline in membership and power of labor unions, incomes of working people tanked. Democrats have not got these blue collar workers back.
The so-called "Republican establishment" has waxed fat on the reliable support of social conservatives described above. Major problem, however: Many, probably most, of these once-dependable Republican voters in the Rust Belt, the Great Plains, Appalachia and the Deep South, have been left behind economically. Republican trickle-down economics and false metaphors such as "a rising tide raises all boats" have failed those left behind.
Economic disenfranchisement and uncertain economic futures, a changing face of America, immigration issues, convenient scapegoats, and, guess what.
The way is paved for a strong man, a savior, an outsider beholden to neither party.
Next week: Fracture of the illogical Republican coalition.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
