Written as a response to an excerpt from an otherwise excellent essay on Quillette entitled Truth, Polarization, and the Nature of Our Beliefs. This was a great essay. Well argued and well thought out right up until the closing straight, and then this:
"Many Americans have been upset by events over the last few decades: The United States has turned out to be less white, less Christian, less prosperous, more promiscuous, and less the world-leader than they had anticipated. Candidate Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” capitalized on these thwarted expectations.
Many who had looked forward to a more comforting country didn’t just feel that their future had been lost: Rather, they believed it had been stolen by a sinister cabal. Assuming psychological explanations for uncoordinated and distressing events left many people feeling betrayed and receptive to conspiracy theories."
It’s simply not true. Otherwise, why did so many Americans who voted for Obama then swing to Trump (and were also more closely aligned with Bernie, with the swing votes that mattered)- whilst in areas like finance, professional management and the corporations all swung strongly towards Hilary? I take your point about globalisation in general- it has been an absolute boon for the Developing World, raising over a billion people out of absolute poverty.
But if you are in one of the post industrial societies of the West, and happen to be in the bottom 60% of the economic spectrum, then it has been an absolute disaster. Cheaper goods don’t do you much good if your wages are shit, your job is precarious or you have difficulty even finding one. And rather than doing anything to reverse the ever more precarious straits of the blue collar class, the duopoly of corporate Democrats and the GOP have not only done nothing to reverse it, but have, in many cases, been its paid agents.
Trump was not the disease, he was the symptom of the fact that vast swathes of the Midwest, the Rustbelt and other parts of non-coastal America have become hollowed out wastelands, in terms of economic opportunity. And if you have the ingroup wiring which is a function of family environment (particularly parental education) and socio-economics, then it’s not so much that you don’t want to move to one of the 20 American cities which have captured 50% of all new American jobs- it’s that you can’t, because leaving your community, your sick mother and your dad’s grave is tantamount to asking a fish to walk on land.
It’s why illegal immigration is such a hot button issue. In many areas, people have seen the communities they loved displaced- and unlike cosmopolitan liberals like you and I, their nurture-driven brain wiring is such that no amount of education or experience will ever make them comforting with their culturally overwritten world. It’s only a matter of race at the extreme- as Steven Pinker would claim the 5% to 10% of Americans who are still racist in terms of implicit bias and Google searches- two-thirds of whom are over 65.
For the rest of the ingrained socially conservative (many of whom used to vote Democrat) it’s all about culture. This is why my fellow countrymen wanted to stop the influx of white Eastern Europeans- despite the fact that Brits and Eastern Europeans have always got along (it’s the heavy drinking). Above all, its about the desire to preserve the culture they knew in their youth, although in some areas- such as gay marriage- all but the evangelicals few and the elderly have shifted their views to a kinder and more compassionate ethos.
When Trump was elected, Niall Ferguson gave a talk for Google Zeitgeist on the topic of America’s history of populism. It had happened three times before. Each time two factors were necessary. The first was a rate of foreign-born citizens higher than 14%. The second was a major economic downturn. It’s economic scarcity which wakes the populist giant from its slumber, and in the past more conventional politicians were only able to defang the populist demagogue by curtailing immigration.
Of course, we now know that it doesn’t have to be so binary. Australia proves that very high immigration is possible provided we protect the blue collar jobs and trade professional occupations which many Americans (who didn’t have the advantages to do well at school) are forced to rely upon. The Australian rate of foreign-born citizenship is around 30% and they don’t experience anywhere near the level of friction found in most of the rest of the Anglosphere. Why? Because even if we send around 50% of our population to university, we know that their will always be a huge number of high knowledge or highly technical occupations which our children don’t want to get trained in. And the great thing about higher income, market dominant migration is that it tends to integrate into existing wealthy communities- instead of self-segregating and displacing existing communities as the incoming poor are always wont to do.
It was desperation pure and simple, which drove so many into the arms of Trump. Culture played a role, but race was far less of factor- which was why we saw white older males shift towards Biden and Latinos, African American younger men and Muslims all shift towards Trump. At a surface level, there was always the occasional nasty slur for the media to report upon- but the real reason why no one guessed that is was all so much more to do with economics and basic needs is because most forty-plus men are not going to admit that they feel economically threatened by oncoming waves of twentysomething kids, even to themselves…
“Australia proves that very high immigration is possible provided we protect the blue collar jobs and trade professional occupations which many Americans (who didn’t have the advantages to do well at school) are forced to rely upon.”
This is an important point that most of my tech and finance friends simply don’t seem to get.
If an average person can blue collar their way into the middle class, they won’t be out knocking over statues, or committing financial suicide with student loans and a worthless degree.
But if you are in one of the post industrial societies of the West, and happen to be in the bottom 60% of the economic spectrum, then it has been an absolute disaster. Cheaper goods don’t do you much good if your wages are shit, your job is precarious or you have difficulty even finding one. And rather than doing anything to reverse the ever more precarious straights of the blue collar class, the duopoly of corporate Democrats and the GOP have not only done nothing to reverse it, but have, in many cases, been its paid agents.
and happen to be in the bottom 60% of the economic spectrum, then it has been an absolute disaster.
There’s something particularly salient within just that emboldened text. A gulf; a divide that is ever increasing. Not something you’d think anybody in society would truly wish for and it would be understandable to conclude that the “have’s” that fortunate 40% especially need give consideration to. I mean it’s all about personal effort right? We’re a competitive species us humans, so why ought I care for the bums? Fuck em. Yet the 60% of “have not’s” are men created equal, are they not? It’s a democracy right? We can effect change with our vote.
What if that globalist cabal doesn’t ever wish for those lower down the food chain to get their chance? That might go a long way toward explaining their attitude and indifference and in the slip “deplorables.” A contemptuous faux pas by an elitist Hillary that quite possibly was intended with all its mockery and derision. A power play and a taunt in that there would be more to come. She was cock sure she was going to win, that’s an understated arrogant surety. Who can say for sure what the globalists agenda is, but Davos looks ominous and perhaps some rough draughts have been drawn up for those 60%. Sounds like conspiracy talk and yet there is a Davos and there is a disenfranchised majority, there is an ever increasing chasm between have’s and nots. There is a great reset and all manner of plans cooking and there are a whole lot of people becoming increasingly concerned.
Trump exposed the deep state. He showed the workings of the machinery in action and in doing so he further legitimised just how correct the common man’s concern was gathering fruit. Trump didn’t create the worry, it was there before he ever ran for office. They said the country would be ruined if he became President, yet he built the strongest economy ever. They said he colluded with Russian’s, that he wasn’t a legitimate President. They said so much more and in doing so, further exposed the whole rigged game. The MSM exposed the players and that very much included themselves.
Yet Trump said “What have you got to lose.” Wow. You’d elect a President on such frivolity? No you would not, but you would amass around half your countries patriotic populations vote once you’d inspired them enough that you meant business and many of these votes simply because you represented the true side of what being a constitutional President was about. You’d collect a whole lot of votes simply because so many folks just wanted the deep state out of important powerplay decision making.
The 2nd election proved legitimacy to the 1st. “Flukery” was out and Trump picked up millions more votes than his first attempt. I shall not express my opinion on the vote count and subsequent fiasco, it will go down as a cementing of the partisanship divide that begun before Trump decided to try and save something special.
Instead I’d like to opine that unity is what Trump wished to achieve. It was division that he inherited and instead it was sold that he caused it. Really? So why all the 2016 votes for an unknown that promised change? Put another way, many Democratic party voters, voted to maintain their nice cosy existence and yet it wasn’t the case that this would be under threat.
Whilst the pre-existing Dem party was and is not unifying at all, the Trump administration offered a solution that suited every man. He wasn’t extolling communism, he was putting together the grass roots conditions that would give opportunity to all people and not just the fortunate that already had it. Until Covid he was winning big style and that despite having the neocon machinery; inclusive of the MSM working constantly against him and real patriotic Americans. With all the traps the Obama administration had laid to hobble any Trump progress, what he achieved was truly quite incredible and unshackled and with a fresh term in office, the globalists just could not allow him to succeed. No matter what.
As usual, a great column. However, because I have so admired your reasoning (and writing), I wanted to set you "straight" on one thing: The phrase you want is "the ever more precarious STRAITS of the blue collar class."
“Australia proves that very high immigration is possible provided we protect the blue collar jobs and trade professional occupations which many Americans (who didn’t have the advantages to do well at school) are forced to rely upon.”
This is an important point that most of my tech and finance friends simply don’t seem to get.
If an average person can blue collar their way into the middle class, they won’t be out knocking over statues, or committing financial suicide with student loans and a worthless degree.
Great post man
But if you are in one of the post industrial societies of the West, and happen to be in the bottom 60% of the economic spectrum, then it has been an absolute disaster. Cheaper goods don’t do you much good if your wages are shit, your job is precarious or you have difficulty even finding one. And rather than doing anything to reverse the ever more precarious straights of the blue collar class, the duopoly of corporate Democrats and the GOP have not only done nothing to reverse it, but have, in many cases, been its paid agents.
and happen to be in the bottom 60% of the economic spectrum, then it has been an absolute disaster.
There’s something particularly salient within just that emboldened text. A gulf; a divide that is ever increasing. Not something you’d think anybody in society would truly wish for and it would be understandable to conclude that the “have’s” that fortunate 40% especially need give consideration to. I mean it’s all about personal effort right? We’re a competitive species us humans, so why ought I care for the bums? Fuck em. Yet the 60% of “have not’s” are men created equal, are they not? It’s a democracy right? We can effect change with our vote.
What if that globalist cabal doesn’t ever wish for those lower down the food chain to get their chance? That might go a long way toward explaining their attitude and indifference and in the slip “deplorables.” A contemptuous faux pas by an elitist Hillary that quite possibly was intended with all its mockery and derision. A power play and a taunt in that there would be more to come. She was cock sure she was going to win, that’s an understated arrogant surety. Who can say for sure what the globalists agenda is, but Davos looks ominous and perhaps some rough draughts have been drawn up for those 60%. Sounds like conspiracy talk and yet there is a Davos and there is a disenfranchised majority, there is an ever increasing chasm between have’s and nots. There is a great reset and all manner of plans cooking and there are a whole lot of people becoming increasingly concerned.
Trump exposed the deep state. He showed the workings of the machinery in action and in doing so he further legitimised just how correct the common man’s concern was gathering fruit. Trump didn’t create the worry, it was there before he ever ran for office. They said the country would be ruined if he became President, yet he built the strongest economy ever. They said he colluded with Russian’s, that he wasn’t a legitimate President. They said so much more and in doing so, further exposed the whole rigged game. The MSM exposed the players and that very much included themselves.
Yet Trump said “What have you got to lose.” Wow. You’d elect a President on such frivolity? No you would not, but you would amass around half your countries patriotic populations vote once you’d inspired them enough that you meant business and many of these votes simply because you represented the true side of what being a constitutional President was about. You’d collect a whole lot of votes simply because so many folks just wanted the deep state out of important powerplay decision making.
The 2nd election proved legitimacy to the 1st. “Flukery” was out and Trump picked up millions more votes than his first attempt. I shall not express my opinion on the vote count and subsequent fiasco, it will go down as a cementing of the partisanship divide that begun before Trump decided to try and save something special.
Instead I’d like to opine that unity is what Trump wished to achieve. It was division that he inherited and instead it was sold that he caused it. Really? So why all the 2016 votes for an unknown that promised change? Put another way, many Democratic party voters, voted to maintain their nice cosy existence and yet it wasn’t the case that this would be under threat.
Whilst the pre-existing Dem party was and is not unifying at all, the Trump administration offered a solution that suited every man. He wasn’t extolling communism, he was putting together the grass roots conditions that would give opportunity to all people and not just the fortunate that already had it. Until Covid he was winning big style and that despite having the neocon machinery; inclusive of the MSM working constantly against him and real patriotic Americans. With all the traps the Obama administration had laid to hobble any Trump progress, what he achieved was truly quite incredible and unshackled and with a fresh term in office, the globalists just could not allow him to succeed. No matter what.
As usual, a great column. However, because I have so admired your reasoning (and writing), I wanted to set you "straight" on one thing: The phrase you want is "the ever more precarious STRAITS of the blue collar class."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strait
"Cheaper goods don’t do you much good if your wages are shit"
No worries, looks like we'll get higher wages for fewer people and goods will be more expensive.