Unbelievable; even the media chatterboxes now confess inability to forecast the future. Nevertheless they continue to babble on, exchanging ignorance. That's what they are paid a king's ransom to do.
Two guys, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, are largely responsible for exposing the disconnect between the media gurus and concerns of real people. Trump and Sanders are not following the script laid out by party leaders and the media.
These two interlopers were supposed to make a splash, provide some drama and good theater, enriching the media before gracefully dropping out and endorsing one of their party's "legitimate" candidates. Instead, one is driving toward his party's nomination and the other remains in the race, making his opponent a better, tougher candidate.
Some years ago a few Democrats, less timid than the rest of them, raised the issue of income inequality. There is always income inequality, but the divergence between the upper 1 percent, and especially the top one-tenth of 1 percent, and everybody else, was increasing at an alarming rate. The American Middle Class was declining, jobs leading to middle class status rapidly disappearing.
Republican apologists pounced on this as "class warfare." This sound bite was too juicy for the media to pass up. Just echo the Republicans and chastise Democrats for waging "class warfare."
During the election of 2012, Tin Ear Romney dismissed income inequality as mere envy of the rich and successful. Protesters calling attention to this issue were dismissed as rabble rousers.
So for the 2016 presidential election, a senator known only to voters from the state where they wear funny shoes comes out of the blue, addressing income inequality and the corrupting role of money in politics. Instead of being dismissed as a frizzy-haired septuagenarian wearing the hammer and sickle, he rockets to fame, taking the nation by storm. Whaddaya know - maybe there is something to economic anxiety of real people, voters who do honest work but have experienced income stagnation for decades, and no route up.
On the Republican side, concern over economic stagnation and decline of the middle class takes the unlikely form of a billionaire suede shoe artist known for making lots of money and firing people. As with Sen. Sanders, the script called for Mr. Trump to build excitement for the race while he jacked up ratings and profits for the media - of course followed by bowing out, if not imploding, and endorsing another candidate. Chief question was which of the "legitimate" candidates would reap the benefits of Trump's millions of fans.
So Mr. Trump makes his initial splash with controversial statements regarding immigration and a wall. He deviates from standard Republican orthodoxy on several counts, but goes along with enough of their standard dogma - less gun control, anti-abortion, seal the borders, stronger military - to initially be one of them. It matters not that he didn't fall totally in line; his role was to attract interest and give the media something to babble about before exiting.
To the sheer panic of the Republican Party and its elected hierarchy, and shock of the media nitwits, a funny thing happens. Instead of exiting and recommending his fans and delegates to a "real Republican," he leaves the field littered with his opponents and marches toward his party's nomination. The wide-open "stop Trump" internecine warfare was never part of the script.
Once again, however, the central issue responsible for the Trump phenomenon is neglected by the Republican establishment and media clones that are incapable of thought deeper than the Platte River in dry season. Current opposition to Mr. Trump centers on stuff that is great theater for the media: Xenophobia, racial and religious issues, and problems with women. Fair enough, but they miss the real issue.
OK, chalk it up to my economist's way of looking at things. But my major point is that if the vast majority of Americans was doing well economically, and saw brighter economic futures for themselves and their children, neither Mr. Trump, nor Sen. Sanders for that matter, would be where they are now.
Suppose a magic wand could be waved: No illegal immigration, the ACA disappears, Roe vs. Wade is overturned, relaxed firearms laws, terrorism is no longer a threat and we increase military spending. None of this would do anything to improve the lot of the working poor, for blue collar workers who see their jobs out-sourced and off-shored or for ordinary Americans who work hard and obey the laws but struggle to achieve middle-class status.
The one thing that media nitwits seem to comprehend is that Mr. Trump does well among disenfranchised blue collar men like those who have lost good manufacturing jobs. Yet neither the media, nor the obtuse, panicked Republican leadership, have recognized that the candidate they are trying to stop has capitalized on what the Republican Party has long dismissed as irrelevant, the people left behind.
Have Democrats learned anything from all this? Arguably, thanks to Sen. Sanders, they have. His participation and success beyond any reasonable expectation has made Mrs. Clinton a better, tougher candidate. During a recent speech in Seattle, she advised her fans to listen to and pay attention to those citizens who have lost manufacturing jobs and traditional access to the middle class.
Mrs. Clinton still struggles for white male working class votes. But she is astute enough to recognize drastic, effective measures to expand America's middle class as our most urgent economic priority - and compassionate enough, savvy enough, and tough enough to make it happen. Surely a better bet than Republicans with their supply-side, trickle-down economic snake oil.
During the presidential election of 1992, Gov. Clinton's strategist, James Carville, placed a sign on the door of Clinton's campaign headquarters. Its intent was to keep staffers focused on the issues. The sign read, "The Economy, stupid." It was, indeed.
In 2016, it still is.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
Two guys, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, are largely responsible for exposing the disconnect between the media gurus and concerns of real people. Trump and Sanders are not following the script laid out by party leaders and the media.
These two interlopers were supposed to make a splash, provide some drama and good theater, enriching the media before gracefully dropping out and endorsing one of their party's "legitimate" candidates. Instead, one is driving toward his party's nomination and the other remains in the race, making his opponent a better, tougher candidate.
Some years ago a few Democrats, less timid than the rest of them, raised the issue of income inequality. There is always income inequality, but the divergence between the upper 1 percent, and especially the top one-tenth of 1 percent, and everybody else, was increasing at an alarming rate. The American Middle Class was declining, jobs leading to middle class status rapidly disappearing.
Republican apologists pounced on this as "class warfare." This sound bite was too juicy for the media to pass up. Just echo the Republicans and chastise Democrats for waging "class warfare."
During the election of 2012, Tin Ear Romney dismissed income inequality as mere envy of the rich and successful. Protesters calling attention to this issue were dismissed as rabble rousers.
So for the 2016 presidential election, a senator known only to voters from the state where they wear funny shoes comes out of the blue, addressing income inequality and the corrupting role of money in politics. Instead of being dismissed as a frizzy-haired septuagenarian wearing the hammer and sickle, he rockets to fame, taking the nation by storm. Whaddaya know - maybe there is something to economic anxiety of real people, voters who do honest work but have experienced income stagnation for decades, and no route up.
On the Republican side, concern over economic stagnation and decline of the middle class takes the unlikely form of a billionaire suede shoe artist known for making lots of money and firing people. As with Sen. Sanders, the script called for Mr. Trump to build excitement for the race while he jacked up ratings and profits for the media - of course followed by bowing out, if not imploding, and endorsing another candidate. Chief question was which of the "legitimate" candidates would reap the benefits of Trump's millions of fans.
So Mr. Trump makes his initial splash with controversial statements regarding immigration and a wall. He deviates from standard Republican orthodoxy on several counts, but goes along with enough of their standard dogma - less gun control, anti-abortion, seal the borders, stronger military - to initially be one of them. It matters not that he didn't fall totally in line; his role was to attract interest and give the media something to babble about before exiting.
To the sheer panic of the Republican Party and its elected hierarchy, and shock of the media nitwits, a funny thing happens. Instead of exiting and recommending his fans and delegates to a "real Republican," he leaves the field littered with his opponents and marches toward his party's nomination. The wide-open "stop Trump" internecine warfare was never part of the script.
Once again, however, the central issue responsible for the Trump phenomenon is neglected by the Republican establishment and media clones that are incapable of thought deeper than the Platte River in dry season. Current opposition to Mr. Trump centers on stuff that is great theater for the media: Xenophobia, racial and religious issues, and problems with women. Fair enough, but they miss the real issue.
OK, chalk it up to my economist's way of looking at things. But my major point is that if the vast majority of Americans was doing well economically, and saw brighter economic futures for themselves and their children, neither Mr. Trump, nor Sen. Sanders for that matter, would be where they are now.
Suppose a magic wand could be waved: No illegal immigration, the ACA disappears, Roe vs. Wade is overturned, relaxed firearms laws, terrorism is no longer a threat and we increase military spending. None of this would do anything to improve the lot of the working poor, for blue collar workers who see their jobs out-sourced and off-shored or for ordinary Americans who work hard and obey the laws but struggle to achieve middle-class status.
The one thing that media nitwits seem to comprehend is that Mr. Trump does well among disenfranchised blue collar men like those who have lost good manufacturing jobs. Yet neither the media, nor the obtuse, panicked Republican leadership, have recognized that the candidate they are trying to stop has capitalized on what the Republican Party has long dismissed as irrelevant, the people left behind.
Have Democrats learned anything from all this? Arguably, thanks to Sen. Sanders, they have. His participation and success beyond any reasonable expectation has made Mrs. Clinton a better, tougher candidate. During a recent speech in Seattle, she advised her fans to listen to and pay attention to those citizens who have lost manufacturing jobs and traditional access to the middle class.
Mrs. Clinton still struggles for white male working class votes. But she is astute enough to recognize drastic, effective measures to expand America's middle class as our most urgent economic priority - and compassionate enough, savvy enough, and tough enough to make it happen. Surely a better bet than Republicans with their supply-side, trickle-down economic snake oil.
During the presidential election of 1992, Gov. Clinton's strategist, James Carville, placed a sign on the door of Clinton's campaign headquarters. Its intent was to keep staffers focused on the issues. The sign read, "The Economy, stupid." It was, indeed.
In 2016, it still is.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
