Presidential campaigns typically involve some drama and surprises. But to assert that this 2016 race is in a class by itself is an understatement.
I am opposed to Donald Trump, and don't want to be associated with the vast majority of his statements and positions. Government-sponsored torture runs counter to values America purportedly represents. His opposition to the agreement with Iran is inconsistent with his status as a pragmatic businessman. He has gained support by disavowing "political correctness," language that might more accurately be seen as respectful.
That said, Trump's very success has laid bare some deep-seated failures of the Republican Party he represents, and some failures of Democrats as well. He has laid bare the myopia of the out-of-touch, obtuse corporate-owned and controlled mainstream media.
OK, maybe I overstated it to make a point. The chattering pundits and superstars of the mainstream media are not totally stupid and brain-dead. As individuals, they are glib, articulate if we want to be nice about it, have IQs well above room temperature, and would make pleasant dinner companions.
I'm sure that they see themselves as keen observers of the political scene and strive to serve their employers and the public, in that order, of course. They doubtlessly operate within their constraints. Their chief constraint is being cognizant of the ratings and profits of their particular broadcast medium. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
The broadcast media superstars are as celebrated and well-rewarded as most of the big time politicians and celebrities they cover. As such, they strive to retain star status. Those not yet there strive to get there. They therefore avoid risk and remain well within the accepted conventional wisdom.
Avoidance of risk leads to a "herd-mentality" mode of operation. If you are in general agreement with the rest of the herd, but wrong, well, so was everybody else. But if you deviate from the herd and are wrong, that just reaffirms that you are some sort of out-of-the mainstream nut case. But even if you are right when the herd was wrong, there is no reward. The incentive is to avoid risk. The result is lack of original thought.
I see the mainstream media gurus as out-of-touch with everyday Americans, as demonstrated by the success of Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders. Reiterating my opposition to Trump, I confess to some satisfaction in his exposing the cluelessness of the mainstream media gurus. I suspect that I'm not the only observer somewhere to the left of Rush Limbaugh who feels that way.
As I have argued in previous columns, if the vast majority of Americans were experiencing rising incomes, however modest, and saw brighter economic futures for themselves and their children, neither Trump nor Sanders would be where they are today.
Sure, even if the economy were humming along, issues of abortion, gay rights, gun control, immigration, etc., would still be on the table. The so-called "culture wars" would still be on. But if the economy were working for everybody, the hard edges would be off.
When politicians like Sanders early on pointed out income inequality and hollowing of the Middle Class, Republicans and the media were quick to label it "class warfare." This, according to the Republicans and the media, surely must be a disingenuous political ploy of the Democrats. And the protesters demonstrating against the upper one percent must be just rabble rousers.
Whaddaya know - rising income inequality and hollowing out of the Middle Class is fact - borne out statistically, which by itself doesn't cut much ice. But with the success of Trump and Sanders, it is manifested in harsh political reality that should be evident even to the media nitwits. Sure, Sanders and Trump tap into somewhat different demographics - Sanders to the young, many of them college educated, and Trump to blue collar workers who have been left behind, many of them not college-educated. But it is nevertheless the same phenomenon, anxiety over their economic futures. And, of course, the media gurus are shocked, shocked, as this is outside of the conventional wisdom that they help create and affirm.
Thomas Frank in his book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" explains the phenomenon of socially conservative, low-income voters aligning with corporate interests and Wall Street, and voting Republican. Republicans welcomed and counted on these voters to win elections. Republican politicians obliged by pressing a socially conservative agenda. But with their perennial supply-side, trickle-down economic snake oil, haven't done a thing for the lower income, conservative voters that they counted on so heavily.
But the Democrats are not blameless. Frank nailed it again in his latest book, "Listen, Liberal." He observes that Franklin Roosevelt-type liberals are long gone. Too many Democratic politicians have joined Republicans in supporting trade policies that result in permanent loss of manufacturing jobs that were routes to middle-class status.
Apologists of either party, again with cooperation of the vapid mainstream media, cite technological change and need for education as reason for loss of manufacturing jobs. But blue collar workers see their plants closing and moving jobs south of the border to take advantage of low wages. That has absolutely nothing to do with technology or lack of education. It's a matter of increased corporate profits, paying near slave-labor rates, at the expense of American workers. Trump and Sanders understand this.
If the Republicans never gave a hoot for the ordinary working man, the Democrats, rightly or wrongly, are seen as having abandoned them as well. If this were not so, Democrats would have recaptured the "Reagan Democrats" that they lost during the 1960s. But they haven't.
Politicians of all stripes, and the accommodating out-of-touch mainstream media gurus, have to come up with something more convincing than the usual bromides such as, "Well, overall, free trade benefits the broader economy."
That just doesn't cut it.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
I am opposed to Donald Trump, and don't want to be associated with the vast majority of his statements and positions. Government-sponsored torture runs counter to values America purportedly represents. His opposition to the agreement with Iran is inconsistent with his status as a pragmatic businessman. He has gained support by disavowing "political correctness," language that might more accurately be seen as respectful.
That said, Trump's very success has laid bare some deep-seated failures of the Republican Party he represents, and some failures of Democrats as well. He has laid bare the myopia of the out-of-touch, obtuse corporate-owned and controlled mainstream media.
OK, maybe I overstated it to make a point. The chattering pundits and superstars of the mainstream media are not totally stupid and brain-dead. As individuals, they are glib, articulate if we want to be nice about it, have IQs well above room temperature, and would make pleasant dinner companions.
I'm sure that they see themselves as keen observers of the political scene and strive to serve their employers and the public, in that order, of course. They doubtlessly operate within their constraints. Their chief constraint is being cognizant of the ratings and profits of their particular broadcast medium. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
The broadcast media superstars are as celebrated and well-rewarded as most of the big time politicians and celebrities they cover. As such, they strive to retain star status. Those not yet there strive to get there. They therefore avoid risk and remain well within the accepted conventional wisdom.
Avoidance of risk leads to a "herd-mentality" mode of operation. If you are in general agreement with the rest of the herd, but wrong, well, so was everybody else. But if you deviate from the herd and are wrong, that just reaffirms that you are some sort of out-of-the mainstream nut case. But even if you are right when the herd was wrong, there is no reward. The incentive is to avoid risk. The result is lack of original thought.
I see the mainstream media gurus as out-of-touch with everyday Americans, as demonstrated by the success of Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders. Reiterating my opposition to Trump, I confess to some satisfaction in his exposing the cluelessness of the mainstream media gurus. I suspect that I'm not the only observer somewhere to the left of Rush Limbaugh who feels that way.
As I have argued in previous columns, if the vast majority of Americans were experiencing rising incomes, however modest, and saw brighter economic futures for themselves and their children, neither Trump nor Sanders would be where they are today.
Sure, even if the economy were humming along, issues of abortion, gay rights, gun control, immigration, etc., would still be on the table. The so-called "culture wars" would still be on. But if the economy were working for everybody, the hard edges would be off.
When politicians like Sanders early on pointed out income inequality and hollowing of the Middle Class, Republicans and the media were quick to label it "class warfare." This, according to the Republicans and the media, surely must be a disingenuous political ploy of the Democrats. And the protesters demonstrating against the upper one percent must be just rabble rousers.
Whaddaya know - rising income inequality and hollowing out of the Middle Class is fact - borne out statistically, which by itself doesn't cut much ice. But with the success of Trump and Sanders, it is manifested in harsh political reality that should be evident even to the media nitwits. Sure, Sanders and Trump tap into somewhat different demographics - Sanders to the young, many of them college educated, and Trump to blue collar workers who have been left behind, many of them not college-educated. But it is nevertheless the same phenomenon, anxiety over their economic futures. And, of course, the media gurus are shocked, shocked, as this is outside of the conventional wisdom that they help create and affirm.
Thomas Frank in his book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" explains the phenomenon of socially conservative, low-income voters aligning with corporate interests and Wall Street, and voting Republican. Republicans welcomed and counted on these voters to win elections. Republican politicians obliged by pressing a socially conservative agenda. But with their perennial supply-side, trickle-down economic snake oil, haven't done a thing for the lower income, conservative voters that they counted on so heavily.
But the Democrats are not blameless. Frank nailed it again in his latest book, "Listen, Liberal." He observes that Franklin Roosevelt-type liberals are long gone. Too many Democratic politicians have joined Republicans in supporting trade policies that result in permanent loss of manufacturing jobs that were routes to middle-class status.
Apologists of either party, again with cooperation of the vapid mainstream media, cite technological change and need for education as reason for loss of manufacturing jobs. But blue collar workers see their plants closing and moving jobs south of the border to take advantage of low wages. That has absolutely nothing to do with technology or lack of education. It's a matter of increased corporate profits, paying near slave-labor rates, at the expense of American workers. Trump and Sanders understand this.
If the Republicans never gave a hoot for the ordinary working man, the Democrats, rightly or wrongly, are seen as having abandoned them as well. If this were not so, Democrats would have recaptured the "Reagan Democrats" that they lost during the 1960s. But they haven't.
Politicians of all stripes, and the accommodating out-of-touch mainstream media gurus, have to come up with something more convincing than the usual bromides such as, "Well, overall, free trade benefits the broader economy."
That just doesn't cut it.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
